Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 27/10/2011, 19.30

If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Wendy Merry, Telephone 020 8583 2061, e-mail wendy.merry@hounslow.gov.uk.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee will be held in the Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Thursday, 27 October 2011 at 7:30 pm

MEMBERSHIP

Mohinder Gill- Chair Mindu Bains, Felicity Barwood, Tom Bruce, Ruth Cadbury, Steve Curran, Samantha Davies, Gopal Dhillon, Bradley Fisher, Darshan Grewal, Elizabeth Hughes, Paul Jabbal, Sheila O'Reilly, Sohan Sangha and Allan Wilson.

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declarations of interest under the Town Planning Code of Practice or any other communications from Members

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2011 (Pages 1 - 13)

Protocol for Speakers

Members of the public or applicants should contact the Committee Administrator, Wendy Merry on 020 8583 2061 with details of the proposed submission no later than 5pm, on 20 October 2011. Notification will be given of the Chair’s decision with regard to the request to speak.

For planning applications, the applicants will only be allowed to speak if there is an objector who wishes to address the Committee. In exceptional circumstances the Chair may agree that an applicant who would significantly add to the information already available will be allowed to speak at the Committee in the absence of an objector.

Where both parties address the Committee, the order of speaking will be the applicant, followed by the objector.

Each party will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak.

Planning Applications for Decision

4. Addendum Report (Pages 14 - 22)

An Addendum report will be published shortly before the meeting with any additional information relating to agenda items not available at the time of publication of the main agenda.

5. West Thames College, Isleworth (Pages 23 - 39)

6. Land at Chiswick Roundabout, junction of Gunnersbury Avenue and (Pages 40 - 117) Great West Road

7. Tara House Montessori School, Wilson Walk, Prebend Gardens, (Pages 118 - Chiswick - adjourned 126) This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

8. Dukes Meadows Golf Club, Dukes Meadow, Dan Mason Drive, (Pages 127 - Chiswick 167)

9. Boston Playing Fields, Boston Gardens, Brentford (Pages 168 - 183)

10. 13 Bridge Wharf Road, Isleworth - adjourned (Pages 184 - 207) This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

11. 29 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick (Pages 208 - 247)

12. 137 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick (Pages 248 - 268)

13. Gunnersbury Station, Station Approach, Chiswick High Road, (Pages 269 - Chiswick - adjourned 284) This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

14. 5 Hardwicke Avenue, Hounslow - adjourned (Pages 285 - 296) This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

15. 111 Power Road, Chiswick - adjourned (Pages 297 - 333) This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

Other Planning Matters

16. Guidance on national planning policies (Pages 334 - 336) The following note is intended to supplement individual committee reports and provides guidance to Members on National Planning Policy for consideration in reaching decisions and/or providing comments on planning applications.

17. Any other business, which the Chair considers urgent.

18. The date of the next scheduled meeting is 24 November 2011

DECLARING INTERESTS

Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.

R A Gruet LLB - Assistant Director Corporate Governance London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN

27 October 2011 At a meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee held onAgenda Thursday, Item 29 September 3 2011 at 7:30 pm at Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. Present: Councillor Mohinder Gill (Chair) Councillors Felicity Barwood, Tom Bruce, Ruth Cadbury, Steve Curran, Gopal Dhillon, Bradley Fisher, Darshan Grewal, Paul Jabbal, Sheila O'Reilly and Sohan Sangha Apologies for Absence Councillors Mindu Bains, Samantha Davies and Elizabeth Hughes.

39. Declarations of interest under the Town Planning Code of Practice or any other communications from Members

Item 5: 33 South Street, Isleworth

All Members had received a communication in connection with this item.

Item 10: Manor Lane Estate, Manor Lane, Feltham

Councillor Jabbal declared that the item had been previously presented to West Area Committee.

40. Minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2011

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2011 (agenda item 3) were agreed.

41. Addendum Report - published 28 September 2011

The report was noted.

42. 33 South Street, Isleworth

See report by Nikolas Smith, Planning Officer (agenda item 5) and the Addendum Report.

With the permission of the Chair, Mark Pender addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:

• Planning permission had been granted for flats at the site. • Planning permission was only needed for the extensions and the pub itself could be converted without planning permission. • The building was designed to ensure that privacy was protected. • Sainsburys could successfully co-exist with local traders. • 20-25 jobs would be created and there was a commitment from the applicant to employ people from the local area. • The proposals complied with planning policy. • There would be six parking spaces available for residents within the site, which was compliant with the Council’s maximum parking standards. • It was normal practice for deliveries to take place from on-street loading bays and there were other businesses in South Street serviced by deliveries, which relied on on-street loading bays. • The officer’s report showed that two of the units were below the space standards, but Mr Pender believed that adjustments could be made if necessary. • Changes had been made to the proposals in response to comments made by the Area Committee. 1 • Mr Pender believed that the proposals would be a positive addition to the area.

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Pender advised it was difficult to predict how many customers were likely to use the store, but an assessment using Government data had shown that there was likely to be sufficient expenditure in the area until 2014 to accommodate both the new store and local shops.

Mr Pender described the design as contemporary with a traditional twist, which he felt maintained the appearance and character of the area although he acknowledged that the design was subjective.

With the permission of the Chair, Rosemary Bunce spoke in objection to the proposals. She stated that she represented the Isleworth Society and had also liaised with shopkeepers and local residents. She supported the residential part of the proposals, but had concerns about the retail outlet and made the following points:

• There would be an unacceptable impact on traffic flow, particularly when deliveries were being made and parked delivery vehicles would block the view for motorists and pedestrians. • The operational times of the loading bay were from 8-9 am, which was the busiest time in South Street and the loading bay would be installed where the school crossing patrol was. There was no reason to believe that there would be only one delivery vehicle in the loading bay at a time. • There was no parking provision for the retail outlet. • Parking on the adjacent roads was already at a premium although the applicant was assuming that no further parking spaces were needed. • There were no details provided about recycling other than to say that it would be stored in the unit. • There would be a detrimental impact from the proposals on residents. • The Area Committee had recommended refusal. • The officer’s responses had been negative to the resident’s objections.

Cathy Gallagher, Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) highlighted the main points in the report and summarised that, in most respects, the proposals met the Council’s requirements and that it was for Members to decide whether they liked the modern approach to the design.

In response to Members’ questions, Ms Gallagher confirmed that the applicant could change from A4 (pub) to A1 (retail) use without permission. Planning permission was required because extensions were being proposed at the same time as the change of use. There were two extensions being proposed, which would not be seen from the public domain. She also confirmed that there would be an increase in floor space.

With regard to the density, Ms Gallagher advised that flats would be built above the pub and there would be a new building at the front of the site. There would be an increase in the floor area covered by approximately two thirds. Most of the site was currently empty because it was a car park and the proposals would mean that area would be built on.

Ms Gallagher advised that a full impact assessment was not needed because the site was in a town centre, where it was established that shops should be retained. A retail study had been provided and it was the officers’ view that the type of retail proposed would be appropriate because there was capacity to enhance provision and provide a range of facilities.

Chris Calvi-Freeman, Head of Transport, advised that there was a 25m pay & display area to 2 the east of the site, which would be converted to a loading bay and the four pay & display spaces would be relocated. There were conditions in the delivery and servicing plan, which was part of the application. Enforcement could be carried out randomly, if required, or monitored by CCTV camera.

Councillor Brad Fisher raised concerns that the loading bay was opposite the entrance to a school and the school crossing patrol. Mr Calvi-Freeman advised that there was a light controlled crossing to the west and felt that it was unsafe to have a school crossing patrol in that area because it would mean crossing between parked cars. The light controlled crossing was protected by double yellow lines and those would be converted to four pairs of zig-zags. Mr Calvi-Freeman also felt that there may be scope to extend the kerb line out. With regard to vehicle movement from the new flats, Mr Calvi-Freeman did not feel that the number of vehicles was significant enough to cause a hazard.

Councillor Brad Fisher felt that new residents would either gain access to parking permits or park on the local roads. He felt that the new retail unit would ruin business for shops in the local area and there would not be enough business to sustain the new retail unit.

Councillor Curran noted that the retail unit did not require planning permission and advised that he had no objections. He had concerns, however, about the dormer windows on the flats, which he did not feel fitted into the surrounding area. He did not like the white walls and was not in favour of the design.

Councillor O’Reilly did not object to the units but had concerns about he shop, which she felt would be double the size of the existing building. She felt that it would attract people to shop in the area, where there was not enough parking space and moved refusal.

Councillor Brad Fisher advised that 650 people had objected to the proposals and seconded Councillor O’Reilly’s motion for refusal.

Councillor Cadbury advised that she was aware of the level of objections but was also listening to what officers had said. She felt that local people would use the proposed shop and that the new retail outlet may encourage people to use the other shops in the area too. The retail study had shown that mini supermarkets boosted the surrounding area rather than caused a decline and Councillor Cadbury used an example of a mini supermarket where she lived, which she felt had been a gain to the area.

Councillor Cadbury also felt that the grounds were weak for refusal on the retail outlet or the design. More housing was needed and small towns needed rejuvenating and Councillor Cadbury advised that she would be supporting the proposals, provided that all of the conditions were strong and enforced.

Councillor Dhillon acknowledged that there had been a significant number of people objecting to the proposals, but felt that officers had addressed those objections. He felt that the planning policy supported the proposals and seconded Councillor Cadbury’s motion for approval.

Councillor Bruce felt that it was difficult to find planning reasons to support refusal. He agreed that an additional retail outlet should be provided but was not keen on the design of the properties. On balance, however, he agreed with the proposal.

Councillor O’Reilly felt that overdevelopment of a listed building by the retail facility was a reason to refuse the application. Councillor Brad Fisher referred to another case, which had been upheld on appeal because of the lack of parking. Benita Edwards, Legal Officer, advised that the neither she nor the planning authority had been given the opportunity to look into the case mentioned by Councillor Fisher or compare3 the case to the proposed application and the Committee should, therefore, give little weight to the information.

Members voted against Councillor O’Reilly’s motion to refuse the application as follows:

For - Councillors Barwood, Fisher, Jabbal and O’Reilly Against - Councillors Bruce, Cadbury, Dhillon, Gill and Sangha Abstain - Councillors Curran and Grewal

Members then voted in favour of Councillor Cadbury’s motion to approve the application as follows:

For - Councillors Bruce, Cadbury, Dhillon, Gill and Sangha Against - Councillors Barwood, Fisher, Jabbal and O’Reilly Abstain - Councillors Curran and Grewal

Resolved:

a) That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 01031/33/P8 for the refurbishment of and extension to the existing public house to the front and side and the erection of a linked three-storey building facing South Street providing: a shop and ancillary residential floor space at ground floor; two self- contained flats on the first floor of the public house and five self-contained flats in the upper floors of the new building, together with associated parking and landscaping at 33 South Street, Isleworth be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of the following planning obligations, by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Borough Solicitor:

i) Residents’ parking permits restricted for future occupiers of the flats.

ii) A sum of £3500 to meet the costs of carrying out the highway works associated with converting existing ‘pay and display’ car parking spaces to a loading bay.

iii) A sum of £4200 to meet the cost of improvement and/or provision of off-site amenity space.

iv) A contribution to meet the costs of the Council’s legal and monitoring costs.

b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 29 September 2011, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or the Borough Solicitor’s office.

c) That, if the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above or any agreed extended period, authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory and Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in Section 8 of the report, be approved. 4

d) That, if planning permission is refused for the reasons set out above, authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager, in consultation with the Chair of the Sustainable Development Committee to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it duplicates the planning application, there has not been any material changes in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations and provided a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time, be approved.

43. Utell House, 2 Kew Bridge Road, Brentford

See report by Nikolas Smith, Planning Officer (agenda item 6)

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Gin spoke in support of the application.

He advised that there were significantly more balconies in the current application and all but two met the Council’s requirements. Planting was proposed and there would be screening around the communal amenity area, which would include a children’s play area. There was a car park on site.

Mr Gin felt that the officers had provided a good report and was happy to endorse the contents.

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Gin advised that there were 36 covered cycle stands for the commercial building, which were all secured and lockable and that he was willing to have the security of cycle stands included as a condition.

With the permission of the Chair, Denis Browne spoke on behalf of Brentford Community Council in objection to the proposals. He noted that previous proposals had been turned down by the Planning Inspector because there was not enough communal amenity space and there was still a shortfall of 67 sqm.

Mr Browne felt that, in turning down the proposal, the Inspector had been tacitly saying that there was too much development on site and that the developer should bring the size down. The developer had brought back virtually the same scheme, but with bigger balconies. Most of the balconies were long, narrow extended passages and difficult to use. He did not feel that they could be called the missing play space because children could not play there.

Mr Browne noted that there were four storeys in the current application rather than the original three and concluded his presentation by asking officers why the report was being recommended approval.

Cathy Gallagher advised that the applicant had lodged an appeal against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory time period and although the Committee could not determine the application, the Council was required to tell the Planning Inspectorate what their decision would have been if an appeal had not been lodged.

In response to Members’ questions, Ms Gallagher advised that the communal amenity space had a children’s play area and the overall quantum had increased because of the balconies. The other main issue, apart from the amenity space had been the design changes.

Councillor Barwood felt that the addition of balconies did not equate to additional amenity space and did not feel that the proposals would5 preserve the conservation area. She also had concerns about the reduction in parking spaces from 48 to 28, particularly as the commercial part of the development was only using 20 out of 48 spaces; the history in the area; archaeology at the site and the view of the local residents, who did not want the development to go ahead.

Councillor Brad Fisher agreed that the balconies were not appropriate amenity space for children.

Councillor Curran advised that, although he was sympathetic, he did not feel that it was appropriate for the Committee to determine whether the balconies should be used for children and moved approval.

Members voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval as follows:

For - Councillors Bruce, Cadbury, Curran, Dhillon, Gill, Grewal and Sangha Against - Councillors Barwood, Fisher and O’Reilly Abstain - Councillor Jabbal

Resolved:

That, had an appeal not been lodged, planning permission for planning application 00657/2/P4 for the retention of an existing commercial building and the construction of a new residential building over the existing car park to provide 9 no. units consisting of 1 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed flats, the retention of 28 car parking spaces and 36 new cycle stands at 2 Kew Bridge Road, Chiswick be approved, subject to the suggested conditions and proposed legal agreement set out in the report.

44. Melbourne Works, Inverness Road, Hounslow

See report by Tim Joll, Planning Officer (agenda item 7)

Tim Joll, Deputy Area Planning Manager, highlighted the main points in the report. In response to Members’ questions, he explained the ‘claw back’ mechanism for the affordable housing element in the S.106 agreement and that it would mean that the Council would gain more affordable housing in the long-term. Ms Gallagher added that the cost of relocating the employment business required a specific land value and that the scheme would be reappraised when sold. It would not be possible to commence work on the housing proposals until the commercial element had been built.

In response to further questions, Mr Joll advised that there was access to the site through Inverness and Grove Road and that permeability was possible by foot in other directions. In terms of the noise contour, the site was within ‘C’ area, which was the case for most of the Borough.

Councillor Brad Fisher raised concerns about overlooking onto Orchard School. Mr Joll advised that the applicant was in discussions with the School and that Members would have the opportunity to consider the detailed design at a later stage, when the reserved matters were submitted.

Councillor Cadbury felt that more affordable housing and more permeability should be achieved, if possible.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Resolved: 6 a) That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant outline planning permission for planning application M00637/21/P38 for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 67 dwellings comprising of a mixture of houses and flats with associated access roads, car and cycle parking, children’s play area and landscaping works at Melbourne Works, Inverness Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of the following planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

(i) Affordable Housing units

The provision of a minimum of 6 affordable houses on the site. These should include Blocks F, G & H and would incorporate at least the following units:

- Block F - 2no. 4bed 6 person houses with private gardens - Block G - 3no. 2bed 4 person houses with private gardens - Block H - 1no. 2 bed 4 person house with private garden

(ii) Registered Social Landlord

A Registered Social Landlord shall manage the affordable housing component of the development.

(iii) Employment Agreement that the residential scheme would not commence until such time as the existing employees on the site have moved to, and are operating from, other premises within Hounslow Borough

(iv) Education A financial contribution of £100,000 towards the provision of Primary and Secondary educational facilities in the locality. (v) Health A financial contribution of £55,000 towards the provision of health facilities in the locality.

(vi) Highway Improvements Payment of a financial contribution of £25,000 towards highway improvements including investigating and if necessary implementing a one way system along Inverness Road

vii) Open Space Improvements Payment of a financial contribution of £20,000 towards public space improvements

viii) Deferred Payment The S106 agreement will incorporate provisions for a review of viability and a deferred payment under which the7 Council will receive up to a 50% proportion of any increase in profitability of the development above agreed baselines should this occur in the future. This is based on the agreed EUV of the site and that 50% of any price paid over this benchmark will be ignored for the purpose of any reassessment.

ix) Travel Plan

x) Considerate Contractors Scheme

b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 26 October 2011, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or within Legal Services.

(Councillor Grewal left the meeting at this point).

45. Kershaw House, 447 Great Wes t Road, Hounslow

See report by Sunny Desai, Planning Officer (agenda item 8)

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation, for approval.

Resolved:

a) That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 00505/447/P9 for the conversion and extensions to the existing office building on the site to provide a 115 bed hotel, car parking, alterations to vehicular access and hard and soft landscaping at Kershaw House, 447 Great West Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of the following planning obligations by the prior completion of a 8 satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

(i) Travel Plan

Preparation and implementation of a plan to reduce the number of car trips made by employees or other users of the development. This document includes, as noted above, details of the dedicated taxi service for the proposed hotel and a coach management plan as well as specified targets to reduce car trips to the site.

(ii) Construction Training

Participation in a programme to provide employment training places during construction for local people.

(iii) Employment Initiatives

Payment of a financial contribution of £31,920 to facilitate elements such as job brokerage and skills training, apprenticeships and child care provision to develop the career path and skills of local people. This would ensure that local people could benefit from the site being redeveloped and employment returned to a currently vacant location.

(iv) Public Transport

Payment of a financial contribution of £36,000 to enhance local public transport services has been requested. This figure has been calculated, using the SPD Planning Obligations. Again this would serve to improve the local public transport network for the local community and encourage the use of public transport rather than the private vehicle.

(v) Air Quality Monitoring

If planning permission is granted a s106 obligation towards air quality would be appropriate. A formula based on the number of car parking spaces determines figure. Therefore a contribution of £10,000 is requested towards the continuance of monitoring at the HS6 Heston site and air quality action plan projects in this area.

(vi) Considerate Contractors scheme

It is appropriate that the developer registers to the Considerate Contractors Scheme. All sites registered with the Scheme are monitored by an experienced industry professional to assess their performance against the eight point Code of Considerate Practice which includes the categories Considerate, Environment, Cleanliness, Good Neighbour, Respectful, Safe, Responsible and Accountable.

(Vii) Traffic Management Plan

Preparation and implementation of a plan to manage the vehicles arriving and departing from the site. b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 29 November 2011, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or within Legal Services. 9 c) That, if the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above or any agreed extended period, authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory and Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in Section 10 of the report, be approved.

46. Hounslow House, 714 -746 London Road, Hounslow

See report by Sunny Desai, Planning Officer (agenda item 9) and the Addendum Report

Ms Gallagher advised that there would be a car park management plan under the S.106 agreement, which would ensure that the setting of fees and charges would be operated properly.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Resolved:

a) That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 00707/714-746/P19 for the redevelopment to provide retail store and ancillary uses (Class A1), retail unit(s) (Class A1/A2/A3), car and cycle parking, servicing, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, public realm and associated works at Hounslow House, 714-746 London Road, Isleworth be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the Addendum Report and the securing of the following planning obligations heads of term (details set out in the report and the Addendum Report) by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

(i) Townscape

(ii) Green Travel Plan

(iii) Construction Training

(iv) Job Brokerage and Skills Training (v) Public Transport 10 (vi) Connection to the Town Centre CCTV Scheme (vii) Combined Heat and Power Unit (viii) Town Centre (ix) Car Park Management Plan

b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 3 October 2011, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or within Legal Services. c) That, if the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above or any agreed extended period, authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory and Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in Section 7.143–7.146 of the report, be approved.

47. Manor Lane Estate, Manor Lane, Feltham

See report by Sam Collins, Planning Officer (agenda item 10) and the Addendum Report

Councillors Cadbury and Curran declared that, as Cabinet Members, they had been involved in putting forward proposals relating to the site. Ms Edwards, Legal Officer, advised that the fact that they had taken part in the decision-making process about the use of the site did not mean that they could not take part in making a decision about the planning proposals.

Tim Joll highlighted the main points in the report and proposed additional conditions in relation to construction, a considerate contractor’s scheme and hours of working, which the Committee agreed.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Resolved:

a) That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 00733/F/P1 for the demolition of the existing residential blocks on the site and the construction of 68 new residential units, parking, children’s playground, amenity space and landscaping at Manor Lane Estate, Manor Lane, Feltham be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the Addendum Report and the securing of the 11 following planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

(i) Green Travel Plan

(ii) Car and Cycle Club

(iii) Contribution towards Education Provision

(iv) Contribution towards Health Care Services

(v) An additional condition about construction and hours of working.

(vi) An additional condition about the Considerate Contractor’s Scheme.

b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 29 December 2011, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or within Legal Services.

48. 319 -327 Chiswick High Road

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 11)

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Resolved:

a) That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application M00248/319-327/P8 for the erection of a new mixed use building (4-storeys plus 12 penthouse level) comprising of A1 retail use on the ground floor and 16 residential units to the upper floors with basement level car parking and associated landscaping on the pavement/highway (Amended description) at 319-327 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of the following planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

(i) Public realm improvements in the sum of £11,025 (ii) Public open space/play area enhancements in the sum of £5,200 (iii) Education places in the sum of £48,266 (iv) Public transport improvements in the sum of £24,550 (v) Construction training opportunities (skills enhancement) in the sum of £15,000 (vi) Affordable housing – 2 ‘intermediate’ units on-site plus deferred contribution should viability increase

b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 20 December 2011, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or within Legal Services.

49. Guidance on national planning policies

The report was noted.

50. Any other business, which the Ch air considers urgent.

Cathy Gallagher informed Members that it was Tim Joll’s last meeting as he was leaving the Council to go back to New Zealand. The Members wished Tim well.

The meeting finished at 9:55 pm.

13 Agenda Item 4

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

27.10.11

ADDENDUM REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

This report contains additional information relating to agenda items not available at the time of publication of the main agenda.

The following text should replace that listed in the relevant items for the paragraphs listed:

Agenda Item 5 (page 14) – West Thames College, Children’s Nursery Ref: 00570/A/P23

Section 5.0

A further response from the adjoining neighbours has been received following publication of the officer’s report. Additional comments are made in respect of the recommended conditions of section 9.0 as detailed below:

• Condition 2 – it is important that the bamboo offers effective screening. The samples provided are an acceptable colour – but are not currently dense enough to offer adequate screening. This could be because they are still in pots and once planted they will flourish and provide effective screening – or that they are separated more so now than will be the case when planted. Regardless – effective and enduring screening to 3m is required.

Officer response : Conditions 3 and 4 require provision and maintenance of continuous bamboo screening planting along the neighbours’ boundary.

• Condition 6 – our Consultation Response suggested that use between 6pm and 9pm would be reasonable on two weekdays per month – not four. We would like SDC to consider whether this is reasonable, given the intrusion on the enjoyment of our gardens already compromised by the weekday daytime use of the centre.

Officer response : Use of the building for other appropriate community uses for up to 4 weekday evenings (until 9PM) per month, and subject to restrictive conditions in respect of noise and use of outdoor areas is considered reasonable. There are no windows directly facing the neighbours meaning there would be likely to be minimal disturbance.

• Condition 8 – this condition should preclude any activity likely to result in noise levels that impede the enjoyment of our gardens – such as singing (including in worship) and entertainment / performances.

14 Officer response : Condition 6 prohibits use of the building as a place of worship, whilst conditions 7 and 8 prohibit use of outdoor space in the playing of music or amplified sounds in the evenings.

• Condition 10 – the noise from the air source heat pumps should not impede the enjoyment of our gardens. The current condition measures this 1m from the nearest habitable room. This measurement should be taken from within the garden – and 2m from the boundary fence is suggested. In addition, the background noise levels should exclude aircraft noise – which is a long accepted downside of living in the area.

Officer response : The condition would ensure noise is controlled, and is able to be monitored, in accordance with the relevant British Standard.

• Condition 11 – we would welcome input into the colour chosen for the rear of the centre.

Officer response : Noted.

The neighbours have also requested further conditions as follows:

• No smoking in the vicinity of the Centre.

Officer response : There is no smoking permitted in the building or on the grounds of the site. A planning condition in this regard would not be enforceable. However a condition has been recommended as follows to address this concern:

12. There shall be no smoking within the building or on the site.

Reason: To minimise potential disturbance of neighbours’ amenity.

• No alcohol to be consumed in the Centre or vicinity.

Officer response : There is no drinking of alcohol permitted in the building or on the grounds of the site. Although a planning condition in this regard would difficult to enforce, an additional condition has been recommended as follows to address this concern:

13. No alcohol shall be consumed within the building or on the site.

Reason: To minimise potential disturbance of neighbours’ amenity.

• A limit on the number of people using the Centre at any one time of: those number provided in section 4.7 during the daytime; 20 people during the evenings (to prevent excessive crowds and so as not to create car parking issues).

Officer response : A condition restricting the number of people at the premises is considered unnecessary given the physical limitations of the building, and

15 such a condition would be unsatisfactory in enforcement terms since it would be difficult to monitor and require an intolerable degree of supervision.

• No congregating in the vicinity of the Centre during evenings (to prevent noise).

Officer response : This condition is not considered necessary as access is well away from the neighbours’ concerned. Additionally, such a condition is not enforceable.

• Consultation and SDC being required to approve any changes to the Conditions (to prevent these Conditions being changed without residents having the opportunity to comment; and to prevent changes being pushed though subordinate committees after SDC has taken the time to consider the initial set carefully).

Officer response : This requested is noted. If approved, any changes to the conditions shall be subject to consultation of neighbours prior to any decision being made.

• I also note that the Case Officers’ Report does not provide a full explanation to SDC of the issues associated with the planning approval granted last November. This should be drawn to SDC’s attention – as detailed in our Consultation Response attachment.

Officer response : Reference is made to the planning history and to errors in the previous assessment, however this application must be considered on its own merits.

Agenda Item 6 (page 31) - Land at Chiswick Roundabout, Junction of Gunnersbury Avenue and Great West Road Ref: 00505/EY/P14

Air Quality

Following the completion and publication of the committee report, comments have been received from the applicant, Mr Kim Gottlieb.

Mr Gottlieb has requested that the third reason for refusal, relating to the proposed nitrogen dioxide emissions and the efficiency of lighting an entire building, be withdrawn.

The Council’s Sustainability Officer has reviewed the application in regards to the carbon emissions and in regards to the proposal complying with Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions), Policy 5.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction) and Policy 5.7 (Renewable Energy). Paragraph 7.225 therefore concludes that the application would comply with these standards.

In regards to Air Quality, the Head of Environmental Strategy has reviewed the application. This is separate to the Council’s Sustainability Officer review

16 of the application, and includes a review of Policy 7.14 (Improving Air Quality) of the London Plan.

The applicant has stated that the committee report provides conflicting advice to the committee. However, the report includes technical advice from all of the relevant officers in their specialist areas. It is not considered that the report conflicts in regards to air quality and sustainability.

It is noted that the applicant has stated that they are not wedded to the bio- fuel energy generating system, and that all other efficient and sustainable methods of energy provision will be investigated.

Accordingly, Council officers have reviewed the report and consider that the third reason for refusal remains relevant.

Lighting

Following the publication of the committee report, an email has been received from the planning agent for the application. This recognises the condition that has been suggested within the committee report which would require the lighting and advertising to be switched off between 11pm and 6am.

It is considered that this is a fair and reasonable condition in regards to reducing overall light pollution and energy usage.

However, the applicant’s agent has suggested that instead of a condition, that a ‘Lighting Management Plan’ is prepared by the application and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

The provision of a Lighting Management Plan would allow for further consideration to be given to the proposed lighting and times. It is noted that this would need to be reviewed by a Lighting Consultant and it would be expected that the Council’s costs are recuperated from the applicant.

If approved, it is recommended that a Lighting Management Plan be prepared as a planning obligation of a Section 106 agreement.

Agenda Item 8 (Page 118) – Dukes Meadows Golf Club – Tennis Centre Ref: 00503/B/P28

Paragraph 7.70

The applicant has submitted further details of the proposed access to the facility by local schoolchildren. This additional detail is given below.

Priority booking

Since the facility opened in 2008, Dukes Meadows Tennis has been actively working with local schools to encourage participation by children and search for talent in the community. School bookings are taken ahead of the public

17 booking system to ensure they take priority, alongside other children's programmes. Booking times are customised to suit the individual requirements of particular schools, taking into account factors such as their curriculum, weekly timetable and distance from the site.

Officer response : Noted.

Court usage

All schools have the option of using the indoor or outdoor courts at Dukes Meadows, although the indoor courts tend to be in much greater demand due to inclement weather and what is considered to be a world class indoor facility.

In addition the centre runs an outreach programme, which involves qualified coaches running regular sessions at local schools.

Officer response : To ensure the justification for the dome is maintained, when it is erected, schoolchildren should be given priority to use the indoor courts.

Standard of coaching

Dukes Meadows coaching team are qualified LTA coaches. Headed by James Lenton, Director of Tennis, along with Jo Durie and Alan Jones, our coaches success record speaks for itself, having produced 27 Wimbledon players. 3 of our coaches have been in the top 10 players in their country and the whole team are considered to give really serious tennis lessons at all levels. We feel that it should also be noted, in terms of contribution to the local community, that when my client purchased Dukes Meadows in 2008 there were less than 30 staff on site. Currently there are between 80 and 110 Staff , which fluctuates seasonally. Staff includes full and part time employees together with self employed.

Officer response : Noted.

Talented children

Dukes Meadows Tennis runs an extremely successful academy, which seeks to unearth raw local talent and turn it into the champions of tomorrow. The academy already contains children from Hounslow and the most talented children from the agreed schools program would progress on to the academy. Any children from underprivileged backgrounds would receive a scholarship to fund their future coaching as required. Dukes Meadows are very proud to have produced the current National U10 Boys Champion and local boy, Oliver Golding, who has just won the US Open Boys Championships, trains at Dukes Meadows.

Officer response : Noted.

Transport provision

Dukes Meadows Tennis are offering to provide one vehicle, which could transport up to 32 children to and from the centre. This provision alongside existing transport arrangements, would ensure that any local school or club wishing to use the facility would not be prevented from doing so by transport considerations.

School visits are generally booked one at a time and require the use of 2 courts for 32 children. These sessions occur during the school day. School sessions do not generally run concurrently and therefore it is not envisaged that the transport offer will be insufficient.

Officer response : Such transport would be necessary, as the site has a low level of accessibility using public transport and schools have limited resources to transport students to the site. Details of transport measures would need to be secured via a planning obligation.

Free courts offer

Dukes Meadows are offering 30 hours a week of court time to local schools within the London Borough of Hounslow, with full use of equipment and associated facilities during this period. The centre is also offering 15 hours of free coaching a week. This offer is the equivalent of £480.00 of court time and £1695.00 of coaching per week, the cost of transport, equipment and administration is also offered and should also be taken into consideration. From current experience it is strongly anticipated that there will be a full take- up of this offer by local schools, but in the event that any surplus time remains, Dukes Meadows are prepared to make-up any shortfall through the coaching out reach programme or by way of an extended offer of court time/coaching to other equivalent local children's groups.

Officer response : The proposed offer of free court time, coaching and transport to the facility of schoolchildren has an annual value of approximately £105,750.

The applicant is confident there would be 100% take up of the court time offered, however if this was not the case, the benefit to the local community would be reduced. Accordingly, any obligation in respect of the access for schools should also include provision for a financial contribution to be made for any shortfall in take up, with this contribution to be used to fund other sporting schemes and provision in the borough.

In respect of this obligation the applicant has advised that:

In principle my client would be willing to agree to obligate to a financial contribution with an agreed cap.

We would suggest and prefer a formation of a charitable trust fund, with both Hounslow and Dukes Meadows represented as trustees. Any financial contribution could be transferred to the trust and used for talented or

19 underprivileged children to benefit from sport at Dukes Meadows, which is not limited to tennis. The added value of this route is the involvement of Stephen Marks and his Dukes Meadows professional sports team, who have valuable experience in the delivery of sports, both high level and in general.

The benefit to sport in the Borough from this offer has been further considered with consultation of the Council’s Head of Leisure Services and the Schools Sports Partnerships Co-ordinator. Their comments are given below:

Head of Leisure Services :

As far as I am aware Dukes Meadow is the only indoor public pay and play tennis facility in the Borough. Whilst being a public play and pay venue it is also a LTA High Performance Centre and as such provides for both the general public and talented players alike. The facility is one of many sports clubs and organisations on the Dukes Meadow Grounds and the facility has the ability/potential to make a significant contribution to the sports and recreational offer for local residents and schools alike. To deliver this potential all year round they do require indoor facilities.

Their offer of court time would allow 15 schools/classes of up to 32 children to benefit from free coaching every week. This would allow up to 480 children to benefit from high quality free coaching every. On top of the free coaching their offer also allows a further 15 one hours session a week to be used free by our schools. To help make this more accessible they have also offered free transport to and from the venue for our schools.

Furthermore the Council has a long term legacy ambition to develop Dukes Meadows Recreation Grounds as a sporting centre of excellence. This facility would fit within this ambition. The Boat Race finishes here and last year the London Cup for hockey was based next door on the pitches at Westminster University so there is already a basis to make this happen.

Finally one of the key aims of the emerging Sports and Physical Activity Strategy we are currently consulting on is to increase participation rates in sports and physical activity. The offer made here as would fit within this aim and would expand the opportunity for children within the Boroughs schools to learn to play tennis and benefit from high quality free coaching on a sustainable basis.

School Sport Partnership Co-ordinator

The School Sport Partnerships have worked with Dukes Meadows who have offered free coaching and court time during the school day. This has been relatively successful with a number of schools taking advantage of this. The major stumbling block for school has been transport to the site which is difficult to access by public transport. Dukes Meadows have offered to supply transport but this was logistically problematic during the summer term. This is not insurmountable if the substantial financial resource needed is available.

20 Dukes Meadows is a tennis high performance centre and coaches there are highly qualified. I am very confident that these coaches are able to adapt sessions to meet the needs of all levels of ability and that they utilise an appropriate multi skills approach to coaching youngsters who do not have adequate basic skills to be coached in a more formal way.

For those youngsters with an aptitude for tennis this represents a fantastic, potentially life changing opportunity. A major benefit of the partnership to gifted youngsters is access to a very impressive talent support programme. The partnership fully supports the new national School Games programme. St Mary’s Chiswick year 3 and 4 are pan London champions and there are significant opportunities to build on this success.

Were the schools able to fully utilise the offer from Dukes Meadows the weekly benefit to school sport in Hounslow could be costed as follows.

Court Hire £22.50 per Two courts x £1,350 court 30 sessions Coaching 15 sessions 15 x £25 (min) £375 Transport 30 schools 30 x £60 £1800 £3,525

Realistically, schools usage would be limited to approximately 30 weeks in the year. If transport issues and take up were fully utilised the benefit to school sport could be totalled at £105,750 per annum. However, it is unlikely that this capacity would be fully taken up as schools would be unlikely to commit that level of curriculum time. Administration of this is also a big task and has proved a stumbling block to schools being able to make the most of this generous offer. In order for schools that are unable to access the site Dukes Meadows have offered outreach work with coaches visiting the schools. Dukes Meadows have also supported the partnership with an offer of access to their golf facilities which have been taken up by a number of schools.

This is a fledgling partnership but the opportunities it offers to Hounslow’s young people are compelling and very exciting. To fully reap the benefits of this for sport in Hounslow it would require commitment, creative planning and significant administrative support.

Officer response : The improved offer from the applicant has provided more detail regarding the benefits that would result from the development in providing access to a new sporting facility for local schoolchildren. The case for very special circumstances is now considered more balanced, however the conclusion that these benefits do not outweigh the harm from the inappropriateness of the development and its visual impact remains unchanged.

21 Agenda Item 12 (Page 239) – 137 Chiswick High Road Ref: 00248/137/P1

Page 255: Amend condition 8 to read:

The submitted microgeneration equipment shall be installed in accordance with the information contained within drawing 110222 E700 TDv1, Infinite Energy Report Ref C120, BRUKL Output Document and drawing A6.

Reason: To ensure the fullest contribution towards minimisation of carbon dioxide emissions is achieved in accordance with London Plan policy 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions).

Page 256: Amend condition 11 to read:

The use hereby permitted for A2 purposes shall not be carried on outside the following times 8am – 8pm Monday – Friday, 8am – 6pm on Saturdays and 11am – 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays and shall not be carried out on Christmas Day, New Years Day, Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

(Reason. In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality in accordance with policies ENV.B.1.1 New development and ENV.P.1.5 Noise pollution).

Page 256: Delete condition 16.

Page 258: Add condition.

The air conditioning units and other plant contained on the roof shall be turned off outside the following times 8am – 8pm Monday – Friday, 8am – 6pm on Saturdays and 11am – 5pm on Sundays and bank holidays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality in accordance with policies ENV.B.1.1 New development and ENV.P.1.5 Noise pollution).

22 Agenda Item 5

Sustainable Development Committee 27 th October 2011 [email protected]

References: P/2011/2210 00570/A/P23

Address: West Thames College, Isleworth

Ward: Osterley and Spring Grove

Proposal: Retention of a detached single storey building for use as a Children's centre

Drawing numbers: Design and Access Statement, 1052/01 revision A, 1052/11, 1052/10, 1052/02 revision A, 1052/202 revision C, 1052/110 revision J, 1052/03 revision D

Application received: 26/08/2011

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The application seeks consent for the retention of a new children’s centre building which has not been built in full accordance with the original permission. The construction of the building is largely completed; with the main variation from the approved drawings being that it is taller on the side nearest to the adjoining residential properties on The Grove. The building is to accommodate the North Isleworth Children’s Centre presently located nearby on London Road, as that building is to be vacated.

1.2 Mitigation of the impacts resulting from the changes to the building’s design are also proposed, with new fencing and landscape planting to be provided along the boundary with neighbours to help screen the building.

1.3 The measures proposed to mitigate the unauthorised changes to the building are considered acceptable, and so approval is recommended subject to conditions confirming details of those measures and to protect the amenity of the surrounding residents.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The site is located on land that is part of West Thames College, between the rear of Block B and the western boundary of the College, adjoining the rear gardens of residential properties on The Grove. The Children’s Centre is a single storey building and associated play area located adjacent to the rear boundary of Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 19 The Grove.

2.2 The College itself has recently undergone redevelopment, which is continuing. Part of this development was for a new children’s nursery on land that fronted The Grove. This nursery caters for students and staff with children. The nursery building is located between Nos. 19 and 31 The Grove. A gated pedestrian path from the Grove extends along the northern side of the nursery giving restricted access to the College and also pedestrian access to the new Children’s Centre.

23 2.3 The rear gardens of houses on the east side of The Grove back on to the West Thames College site. Tall trees screen the boundary between the site and the rear of many of these gardens. The same level of screening does not exist between the rear gardens of Nos. 13 and 15 The Grove as does elsewhere along this boundary.

2.4 The site is in the Spring Grove Conservation Area.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Relevant planning history is given below.

3.2 00570/A/P16 Redevelopment of West Thames College to provide 14,902m 2 (14,462 gross internal floor area) of education and related floor space comprising of: Three main blocks linked by a central atrium, providing academic and vocational teaching space, administration, catering, social and ancillary uses. A revised car parking layout with 225 car parking spaces including 14 disabled spaces, 170 cycle spaces and 12 spaces for motorcycle parking. Creation of an all weather sports pitch and cricket nets. Improvements to existing access arrangements. Alterations to internal road, pedestrian and circulation routes. New and replacement hard and soft landscaping. Temporary buildings totalling 1,900m 2 and associated service, infrastructure, enabling and accommodation works to site

Approved 13/02/2008

3.3 00570/A/L2 Listed Building consent for the alterations to Spring Grove House including the provision of a new glass enclosed stair and lift core, a ramp and stair access to north elevation, reinstatement of basement window in east elevation, internal alterations including the removal of redundant external cabling, consolidation of remaining cabling installation for IT services and accommodation works to Spring Grove House

Approved 11/02/2008

3.4 00570/A/CA2 Demolition of 1960s and 1980s buildings on the campus, comprising of blocks A, B, C and D, the nursery business centre and No. 21 The Grove (former caretaker’s house)

Approved 11/02/2008

3.5 00570/A/P17 Erection of 506m 2 single storey building to provide dedicated nursery facilities for West Thames College, including provision of 3 car parking spaces for staff use, fence to enclose the site the sides and rear, new replacement hard and soft landscaping and associated service, infrastructure, enabling and accommodation works to site

Approved 13/02/2008

24 3.6 00570/A/P20 Erection of a single storey building for use as a children’s centre along the boundary between the site and Nos. 11-19 The Grove

Approved 08/12/2010

3.7 00570/A/P20(5) Details submitted pursuant to Condition 5 (tree works) for erection of a single storey building for use as a children’s centre along the boundary between the site and Nos. 11-19 The Grove dated 18.12.10

Approved 16/05/2011

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The application seeks permission for the retention of the new Children’s Centre building that has not been built fully in accordance with the proposal approved in 2010. Minor alterations from the approved design are also proposed as are measures to mitigate the building’s impact on the adjacent residential properties.

4.2 The building is single storey and is 17 m long parallel to the boundary with properties on The Grove and 8.065 m wide, with an additional 2.9 m wide canopy (which is yet to be built) on the south side of the building, 6.8 metres away from the boundary with the houses on The Grove and 2.3 metres high. Previously the building was to have a canopy across the full width of the building (therefore only about one metre away from the boundary) at the same height as the rest of the Centre.

4.3 It has a part mono-pitched and part flat roof and is 3.6 m high from ground level to the top of the eaves adjacent to the neighbouring gardens, with the maximum height of the building being 4.11 m (towards the centre of the building). It is set in by 1.2 m from the boundaries of the houses to the west. There are no windows facing houses on The Grove.

4.4 There are air source heat pumps at low level at the front and rear of the building, including three alongside the boundary with properties on The Grove.

4.5 New bamboo plants (3m tall) are proposed to be planted along the western side of the building provide landscape screening of the building together with an acoustic screening fence and trellis above it reaching 2.6 m high.

4.6 There is a landscaped area to the south of the building to be used for outdoor play space.

4.7 Access for pedestrians is provided by the path to the north of the nursery building. Children’s centre users would approach the College nursery down the existing front path from The Grove, and then follow the line of the building to the left where there will be an electronically controlled door and buzzer intercom system to contact the children’s centre reception. CCTV would aid identification of centre users and they would then be allowed access onto the College land. 25 4.7 The primary use of the centre is the provision of community activities and health services for children aged five years and under and their families/carers. It would deliver community activities and health services, and has a crèche, a consulting room, kitchen, a reception, a waiting room, toilets, disabled toilet, a plant room and a buggy store. The occupancy of the children’s centre is estimated to be 16 children and their parents/carers, one full time employee and two part time employees.

4.8 The building is to re-house the existing services provided at the North Isleworth Children’s Centre, which presently operates at Heath House (on London Road), as those premises are soon to be vacated.

4.9 The proposed hours of opening are listed in the application form as 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. However the applicant has subsequently advised that they would intend that the centre be used occasionally in the evenings for other community uses such as adult classes or groups, on average once a week. These other uses are within the same Use Class as a Children’s Centre and would be ancillary to the children’s centre’s operation, though this would differ from the original approval where the use was restricted to only a children’s centre.

Differences from approved scheme

4.10 The general building layout and design is consistent with the original approval, however the height of the building from ground level has increased and the pitch of the main section of roof is not as steep.

4.11 The variations from the approved drawings are:

(i) The maximum height of the building is 0.05m higher and the main roof has a lower pitch. (ii) The height from ground level (when re-established) to the underside of the eaves at the western side of the building is 0.65m higher (iii) The height from ground level (when re-established) and the top of the eaves at the western side of the building is 0.69m higher (iv) There is a coloured, textured render finish to the western elevation instead of painted blockwork with some timber cladding. (v) A roofed enclosure that was 4.06m high and projected 3.728m from the southern end of the building has been omitted, reducing the overall length of the building by 3.728m. (vi) A buggy enclosure attached to the front (north side) of the building has been omitted and a detached pre-fabricated enclosure provided to the north of the building and to the east of the substation. (vii) The building setback an additional 0.2m from the western boundary.

4.12 The building is connected to the new drainage system of West Thames College, which is a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS).

4.13 Air source heat pumps have been installed to meet the on-site renewable energy target of the original permission, providing heating for the building. 26 5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Seven residents and the Spring Grove Resident’s Association were consulted by letter on 2 September 2011. A press notice appeared in the local newspaper on 16 September 2011 and a site notice posted on 21 September 2011.

5.2 One response of behalf of two adjoining residents listing objections and recommended conditions to address concerns was received. A summary of the objections and a response is given below.

Comment Response

The size, height and proximity of The proposed new 2m high boundary the building to the boundary fence with trellis above and 3m tall greatly increases the imposing bamboo plantings would screen much of nature of the building and are a the elevation of the building facing the significant factor in the harm neighbours, minimising any adverse being caused to the enjoyment visual impact and reducing its of my garden, kitchen and dining overbearing effect. areas.

The ugly “hearing aid beige” See above comment and Condition 11. Artex finish on the visible face – bearing resemblance to a public toilet block.

Privacy impacts – with any Access to the site is from The Grove adults entering the Centre or in with the entrance to the building from the Centre’s garden area the northern side, which is not visible unavoidably overlooking our from the neighbours’ gardens. The new gardens; boundary fence, at 2m high, will prevent undue overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Noise from children playing in The outdoor play area is unchanged by the garden and entering and the application from the approved exiting the Centre – directly scheme. The proposed replacement behind the boundary fence. fence would be higher than the existing fence and this will act as an enhanced sound barrier as it would be formed from specialist acoustic fencing made of closely joined timber panels that eliminate gaps where noise may pass and also deflect noise.

27 Noise from the air source heat See above comment in respect of new pumps – particularly after they fencing. A condition (10) controlling have been used for some time noise is proposed and subjected to the elements – and uncertainty about their hours of operation.

Unsuitable restrictions in both There are conditions (5, 6, 7, 8) the time of use and the types of proposed in respect of controlling the use of the Centre. hours of opening and types of uses permitted to ensure disturbance of neighbours is minimised.

No more on-site car parking No additional parking is proposed and spaces are being created as there was no parking in the approved part of this application. I assume scheme. this is because the Centre will The centre is aimed to be within pram- not create additional demand for pushing distance from its users, and so parking, or that the three spaces no parking is required. It is noted that no available for shared use with the car parking spaces are used at Heath adjacent Nursery will be House, from where the centre is to be sufficient. Local residents do not relocated from by the Children’s Centre. want an increase in street The existing nursery spaces on The parking so, if this assumption is Grove are underused and will be made incorrect, additional on-site available if necessary. parking is required.

5.3 In addition to the objections listed above, the neighbours (at Nos. 13 and 15) have suggested the items listed below are the minimum conditions for any planning permission granted. An officer response is also given.

(i) A 3m high mature bamboo continuous screening (of a suitable species) between the Centre and the fence at the boundary between West Thames College and my garden.

Response : The applicant proposes a 3m high bamboo screening as requested.

(ii) Ongoing maintenance of this bamboo screening – so that it continues to provide effective and appropriate screening.

Response : The recommendation includes a condition (3, 4) requiring a landscape maintenance programme for the bamboo screening, and it is noted that the applicant advises that this planting is to be irrigated.

28 (iii) 2m high robust acoustic fencing with a 60cm trellis - to replace the ageing fence at the boundary between West Thames College and our gardens;

Response : The applicant proposes a 2m high acoustic fence with 0.6m trellis to replace the existing rear boundary fences of 11-15 The Grove.

(iv) Provision of a suitable range of plants / climbers to be planted on the house side of this new fence.

Response : The applicant has indicated they are willing to provide plants as requested for the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties, though this area is outside of the application site and would be negotiated as a separate agreement.

(v) A more tasteful finish of the Centre on its visible face;

Response : The applicant has indicated they are willing to repaint the elevation facing the neighbours, but owing to the nature of the construction, re-cladding is not proposed. A condition is recommended (11)

(vi) Restrictions in the maximum noise levels and hours of use of the air source heat pumps – at levels that will provide for the enjoyment of my home and garden (including, for example, relaxing in my garden in the summer months); and periodic maintenance of these heat pumps so that they continue to comply with these noise limits;

Response : The applicant has advised that these units normally operate during hours of use. The recommendation includes conditions in respect of limiting noise and for maintenance of the units.

(vii) Restrictions in the hours of use of the Centre – as follows: a) 9am-5pm weekdays (as in the planning application); b) occasional, indoor only, weekday evening use to no later than 9pm; c) no use during weekends or public or bank holidays.

Response : The applicant advises that these restrictions are acceptable. The recommendation includes conditions (6, 7) restricting the hours of use.

(viii) Restrictions on the type of use of the Centre – limiting it to the core functions of a children’s centre and specifically precluding: a) Use of music or other amplified sounds; and b) lighting of outdoor space after 6pm.

Response : The applicant has advised that in addition to the primary use of the building as children’s centre, they would like to utilise the building for occasional adult classes and the like, subject to the usage restrictions set out above, and that they agree to no music or amplified sound after 5pm (noting there was no restriction on the original consent and music/ dancing is an activity often provided at children’s centres. 29 Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee -15 September 2011

5.12 The application reported to the committee for comment. Members made the following comments:

• Members regretted the situation which has arisen with the application and the errors which had occurred. • Members recognised the need to mitigate the situation and reach a solution which was acceptable to all parties. • Members had received a letter from one of the residents objecting to the application which proposed a series of conditions in mitigation. Members supported the conditions proposed in the letter. • Members supported maximising mitigation. • There were concerns about whether the proposed screening by a bamboo screen was the most suitable as bamboo was a hardy species which could be invasive. • If there were to be screening by planting, members considered that a maintenance plan should be a condition. • However, members noted that in respect of another application, it had been suggested that a physical screen was required and a plant screen was treated as not sufficient. • Members suggested that alternative screening with a wall and the cladding of the building might be more appropriate.

6.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

6.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

6.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Employment Development Plan Document, Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

The emerging Core Strategy

6.3 On 12 July 2011, the Council's Cabinet approved that the Core Strategy "Preferred Strategy" should go out to consultation. As emerging policy, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that the emerging Core Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. Given that the emerging Core Strategy is still in the consultation stages, the LPA considers that very limited weight can be given to it at this stage.

The draft National Planning Policy Framework 30

6.4 The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published for consultation on 25 July 2011. The NPPF is a consultation document and, therefore, potentially subject to amendment. Nonetheless, as emerging policy, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that the NPPF is capable of being a material consideration. As the Planning Policy Statements, Guidance notes and Circulars remain in place until cancelled and given that the NPPF is still in the consultation stages, the LPA considers that very limited weight can be given to the NPPF at this stage.

6.5 Unitary Development Plan

ENV-B.1.1 New Development ENV-B.2.2 Conservation Areas ENV-B.1.9 Safety and Security C.1.4 New Social and Community Facilities T.1.4 Car & Cycle parking & Servicing Facilities for Developments.

6.6 London Plan

3.16 Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure 3.17 Health and Social Care Facilities

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 Planning permission has been granted for a children’s centre on the site, establishing the acceptability of the use and also a new building. The application seeks permission for retention of the children’s centre building that has not been built fully in accordance with the approved plans as well as for minor alterations to the building design and mitigation of the impacts on neighbours through additional landscaping screening and new fencing.

7.2 No changes to the approved use (D1 use class – children’s nursery), numbers of employees or children’s places, or access and parking arrangements were originally proposed. However, subsequently the applicant has requested that the permitted hours of use be varied to allow for ancillary activities, within the same use class (e.g. adult classes, community group meetings) to be accommodated in the building on occasionally weeknights, up until 9pm.

7.3 Therefore the main planning issues to consider relate to the potential impacts resulting from the changes from the approved scheme and proposed mitigation, in respect of:

• The appearance of the building and the character and appearance of the conservation area

• The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties 31 The appearance of the building and the character and appearance of the conservation area

7.4 Policy ENV-B.1.1 of the UDP states that the proposals must relate well to the site and the scale, nature, height, massing, character and use of the adjacent townscape. Policy ENV-B.2.2 states that development should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.5 The building erected on site is consistent with the architectural style and form of the approved building. The application seeks permission for amendments that have been made to the design and for the increased height of the building. The changes to the design have a minor impact on the building’s appearance, and have included modification of the roof form to include a flatter roof pitch, deletion of a projecting canopy (which comprised a roofed enclosure that was 4.06m high and projected 3.728m from the southern end of the building) to reduce the overall length of the building facing the neighbouring gardens, and for textured render applied to the western elevation in place of painted blockwork and some timber cladding. A buggy store that was at the front of the building will also be relocated to a space to the north of the building entrance.

7.6 There is a very limited view of the building from the streetscene of The Grove owing to screening by the large semi-detached houses of that road. It is apparent from within the College grounds and the rear of houses on The Grove. The single storey building erected has a simple, contemporary form, which is consistent with the original design, and which complements the other recently erected buildings of the redeveloped College. As such it has not harmed the appearance of the site or adversely affected the character of the Conservation Area.

Impact on the Amenity of Nearby Residents

Outlook

7.7 The building to be retained is marginally taller than the maximum height of the approved building (by 0.05m), and it is setback an additional 0.2m from the boundary with the neighbouring properties on The Grove, but it is appreciably taller adjacent to the boundary with those properties as the wall and eaves height has been increased, so that the building is up to 0.69m higher alongside the rear gardens of the properties on The Grove. The elevation directly facing these neighbouring gardens (of Nos. 15, 17 and 19), has also been altered to a textured render finish instead of painted blockwork with some timber cladding. There are angled views from the rear of No. 13.

7.8 These changes have made the building more obvious from the rear windows and gardens of the neighbouring properties on The Grove. In particular the increased height of the building makes it prominent from the garden and rear windows of Nos. 13 and 15, where unlike Nos.17 and 19, which have a row of tall, evergreen conifers along the boundary with the site

32 giving a relatively dense screen of vegetation; there are only smaller trees and shrubs, which are deciduous, leaving only limited screening.

7.9 From these neighbouring properties the elevation of the building is seen against the backdrop of the taller College building to the east, which is a substantial four-storey block. However the proximity of the building to the boundary (1.2m), and the lack of articulation, does make it a relatively bulky structure, especially from No. 15, as it extends across almost the full width the rear garden of that property. It should be noted that the building is now not as long as approved, as it has been reduced in length by 3.728m and so unlike the original approval it does not extend fully across the width of No. 15’s garden, which is a positive improvement to the neighbour’s outlook, especially to No. 13, as the building no longer extends to the rear of their garden, though this by itself does not outweigh the impact of the additional height of the remainder of the building.

7.10 In considering the impact on neighbours, account should be given to the history of the preceding application, as when the building was originally approved, the officer assessment erroneously considered the visual impact of the new building would be minimal and therefore acceptable, owing to an extensive tree screen along the boundary between the building and neighbouring gardens. However as noted in paragraph 7.8, the vegetation along the rear boundary of Nos. 13 and 15 does not provide an effective landscape screen. Second, the siting if the proposed building was amended during the assessment but re-consultation of neighbours was not carried out. Although planning permission has been granted to a building in the same position on the site, albeit 0.2m closer to the boundary than has been built and 3.728m shorter in length, changes that accentuate the height and bulk of the building are especially sensitive noting the history of the previous application.

7.11 The applicant has proposed new boundary fencing and planting of evergreen shrubs to mitigate the visual impact of the building when seen from the neighbouring properties on The Grove.

7.12 The existing timber paling fence along the rear of Nos. 13 and 15 is approximately 1.65m to 1.7m high. The applicant proposes to replace this fence, with the agreement of the neighbours, with 2m tall timber fence topped with a 0.6m high trellis. The fence will also act as an acoustic barrier. This taller fence will reduce the area of wall visible from the neighbouring gardens, and is to be provided across the rear of No. 11, as that property adjoins the outdoor play area. The total fence height of 2.6m (8’ 8”) would screen the majority of the elevation facing the neighbours. The submission from the neighbours requests a 2m high fence with a 0.6m high trellis.

7.13 The applicant also proposes to plant rows of 3m tall bamboo plants in the space between the western side of the building and the boundary. The proposed bamboo would provide a landscape screen, with the plants forming a dense evergreen screen comprised of canes and leaves that also would soften the outlook from the neighbouring properties. The applicant has confirmed that the bamboo species selected would be evergreen, shade and cool-weather tolerant, and non-invasive, and therefore suitable 33 for the narrow space between the new fence and the building. To ensure the effectiveness of the proposed planting and its longevity, conditions (2, 3, 4) requiring details of a programme of regular maintenance and replacement of any dead, diseased or dying plants with new plants are recommended. The plants would be watered by a permanent irrigation system. This planting would improve the outlook for the adjacent neighbours at Nos. 13 and 15.

7.14 Re-cladding and/ or repainting of the exterior wall facing the neighbours has also been requested by the neighbours but the existing external finish (textured render) is not considered to be unsatisfactory in appearance or out of keeping with surrounding buildings where similar rendered finishes exist. Therefore, noting this context and considering the new fencing and screen plantings proposed, re-cladding is not considered necessary but a condition (11) is recommended to require the application of an alternative colour to the outside of the building.

7.15 Although not part of the application, the applicant has indicated they would agree to pay for new plants to be provided to the neighbours to plant in their own gardens, however as these gardens are outside of the application site this would be subject to a separate arrangement with the neighbours.

7.16 The combination of the mitigation proposed would satisfactorily reduce the harmful impact on the outlook of the neighbours that has resulted from the changes to the approved building, and would also help compensate for the previous error in assessment. The higher fence requested by the neighbour would provide even more screening but the suggested height from the applicant is considered satisfactory and also more effective in providing both screening as well as allowing for the growth of the bamboo screen, which may be less effective with a higher fence that limits access to light.

Daylight and Sunlight

7.17 Given the building is single storey and is located due west of the neighbouring residential properties, with a setback from the boundary of 1.2m, the increased height of the building is not considered likely to have resulted in any significant increase in overshadowing, with the impact also being partly offset by the reduction in length of the building by 3.728m. The neighbouring gardens would continue to receive satisfactory sunlight throughout the day.

Privacy and Noise Disturbance

7.18 In respect of privacy, the approved and as built building has no windows facing the adjoining residential properties, so there would be no overlooking from the development.

7.19 Concern has been raised by the neighbours in respect of noise from air source heat pumps that provide energy for heating of the building, and from the hours and nature of the use of the building.

7.20 The air source heat pumps are located around the perimeter of the building near to ground level, with three units attached to the wall adjacent to the western boundary adjoining properties on The Grove. These provide on-site 34 renewable energy and have been installed to satisfy a condition of the original permission requiring a proportion of the energy needs of the building to be met from on-site generation to reduce the overall carbon dioxide emissions from the scheme. The units will normally only operate when the building is occupied, limiting noise impacts. To ensure there is minimal impact on the neighbours from these units, a condition (10) specifying that when operating they should have a noise output that is 10dB below the background noise level as measured at the nearest dwelling has been recommended (in accordance with BS 4142). The condition also requires proper maintenance of the units is recommended to ensure they continue to perform as specified.

7.21 In regards to use, there are no windows or doors in the side of the building facing the neighbouring residential properties. The building was approved as a children’s centre (Use Class D1) with an outdoor play area. The applicant has advised that in addition to this children’s centre use, the use of the building for up to one evening a week for other uses with Use Class D1 for other community and adult uses is desired, and so consideration has been given to the impact of extended hours of use of the centre (beyond the 9am to 5pm weekdays). Noting access is on the opposite side of the building and there are no windows or doors facing the neighbours, limited evening use is unlikely to result in any unreasonable disturbance of neighbours from noise, provided activity is restricted to the building itself and not the outdoor space and there is no playing of music. Conditions (5, 6, 7, 8) that limit the additional ancillary use to adult education only, no more than four weeknights a month, up until 9pm, and prohibit use of the outdoor space after 5pm and the playing of music are recommended.

7.22 It is also noted the proposed replacement fence would be higher than the existing fence and this will act as an enhanced sound barrier as it would be formed from specialist acoustic fencing made of closely joined timber panels that eliminate gaps where noise may pass and the timber also absorbs some noise.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The retention of the building, which has variations from the original approval, is acceptable subject to the mitigation proposed, as those measures would improve the outlook for the neighbours by screening and adding greenery to site along the boundary with neighbouring gardens. Additionally, other conditions in respect of use, noise, maintenance and hours of opening, would ensure that the living conditions of neighbours are adequately protected.

8.2 Therefore approval is recommended subject to conditions confirming details of those measures and to protect the amenity of the surrounding residents.

35 9.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Reason:

The development would provide a building for community use, allowing for the relocation of an existing Children’s Centre, thereby maintaining an existing community facility. Subject to the measures of mitigation proposed and safeguarding conditions recommended, the character and appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area would be preserved and thee amenity of neighbouring properties satisfactory protected. Therefore the development would accord with policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas), ENV-B.1.9 (Safety and Security), C.1.4 (New Social And Community Facilities) and T.1.4 (Car And Cycle Parking And Servicing Facilities For Developments) of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan and policies 3.16 (Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure) and 3.17 (Health and Social Care Facilities) of the London Plan 2011.

Conditions and Reasons

1. The proposed development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and the plans submitted therewith (Design and Access Statement, 1052/01 revision A, 1052/11, 1052/10, 1052/02 revision A, 1052/202 revision C, 1052/110 revision J, 1052/03 revision D) and approved by the Local Planning Authority, or as shall have been otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission.

2. Before the first occupation of the building hereby permitted, a continuous landscape screen formed by evergreen bamboo plants with a minimum height of 3 metres and of a non-invasive species shall be provided between the western side boundary of the site and the building hereby permitted, alongside the rear boundary of the adjacent property at No. 15 The Grove.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory outlook for the adjoining neighbours.

3. If any part of the continuous bamboo plant screen required by condition 2 of this planning permission dies, then replacement bamboo plant(s) of the same size and species shall be planted in its place and permanently retained so long as the building remains in place.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory outlook for the adjoining neighbours.

36 4. Within one month of the date of the first occupation of the building hereby permitted, details of a programme of ongoing maintenance for the bamboo landscape screen required by condition 2 of this planning permission shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, and the programme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory outlook for the adjoining neighbours.

5. The premises shall be only be used for a Children's Centre, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), with the following exceptions that are permitted only between 5pm and 9pm, on no more than a total of four weekdays per month:

(i) Meeting hall for community groups

(ii) Non-residential education and training