Item No 3 Applic No P/13062/000 Registration Date 01-Dec-2004 Ward -and- Ref: Mr Smyth

Applicant Travelodge Hotels Ltd

Agent Nathaniel Lichfield And Partners Ltd 14, REGENTS WHARF, ALL SAINTS STREET, , N1 9RL

Location The Fulcrum Building, Horton Road, Colnbrook, SL3 OAT

Proposal DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND ERECTION OF A 297 BEDROOM, SIX STOREY HOTEL, ASSOCIATED WORKS AND LANDSCAPING

Recommendation: Refuse

12th May 2005 1 Reason(s)

1. The development fails to comply with Policies T2 and T3 of the Adopted Local Plan for 2004 in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development will provide car parking in accordance with adopted Parking Standards 1998, both in terms of the levels of provision and the layout of the car parking. The development if permitted is therefore likely to lead to additional demand for on street parking in an area which currently experiences significant problems with on street parking thereby adding to existing congestion problems to the detriment of general highway safety and convenience.

2. A holding objection is raised on the grounds that the developer has not entered into a legal agreement with the Council for: the carrying out of essential off site highway works in the form of improved signage and road markings;, the provision of a shuttle bus service between the site and the 4 Terminals at ; the mechanisms to be put in place for managing and operating the shuttle bus service and on site car parking, including any scale of charges to be imposed; and preparation of a Green Travel Plan for staff and guests.

12th May 2005 2 BACKGROUND PAPERS: P/13062/000

LOCAL PLAN: Not a Proposal Site in the Adopted Local Plan. Within the Recognised lakeside Road Estate, Galleymead Road and Poyle Business Area. The following Local Plan Policies apply: PPG2 (Green Belts) PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) PPG13 (Transport) PPG21 (Tourism) EMP1 (The Sequential Test) EMP2 (Criteria for Business Developments) EN1 (Standards of Design) EN3 (Landscaping Requirements) EN24 (Protection of Water Courses) EN28 (Contaminated Land) EN33 (Floodplain protection) T1 (Integrated Transport Strategy) T2 (Parking Restraint) T3 (Safety of Road Users)

CONSULTATIONS: Poyle Place Lodge, Horton Road, Steelcase Strafor, Newlands Drive, Syncronised Systems Installations Ltd. Horton Road, Burmuda Forwarders UK Ltd. Horton Road, Hawke Computer Systems 14 Unit 1 Newlands Drive, Kinnards Ltd Comfort House Newlands Drive, Yamato Transport (Uk) Ltd Units 5 – 6 14 Newlands Drive, International Catering Ltd Meadow Horton Road, Circle Express Ltd A1 Skyway 12 Calder Way, Ashley range Way A1 Skyway 14 Calder way, David Turner Air Cargo Ltd A1 Skyway 14 Calder Way.

Objection received from CRGL on behalf of Davies Air Cargo Ltd.

1) The proposal for a hotel development is incompatible with the general industrial use of the area characterised by B8 storage and distribution. 2) Client operates a 24-hour use and notwithstanding any acoustic measures which might be introduced into the construction of the hotel there could be noise conflict. 3) Access is from Calder Way, which is a private road. Hotel traffic would mix with commercial traffic. The road is already at capacity and there would be further congestion and conflict between users. This cannot be designed out with a Traffic Impact Assessment study. 4) In conjunction with other occupiers the client is negotiating possible physical restrictions in Calder Way such as width restrictions CCTV monitoring and

12th May 2005 3 possible electronic barrier. This would be incompatible with the proposed hotel use. 5) Questions whether the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use, particularly whether there is sufficient parking to serve the proposed hotel. Overspill parking from the previous use created difficulties for other occupiers 6) The hotel is not consistent with the definitions of employment in respect of the area’s designation as a recognised business area in the Local Plan. Notice published in local press advertising the application as a major development.

No further objections received.

Colnbrook With Poyle Parish Council: No objections received.

British Airports Authority (Safeguarding Department): The proposals could conflict with the safeguarding criteria unless conditions are attached covering: lighting; landscaping; flat roof construction to allow access to all areas to permit dispersal of birds; cranes and construction.

Berkshire Archaeology: The site is located within an area of high archaeological potential. Recommends a condition requiring a phased investigation including evaluation, where necessary mitigation to ensure preservation by record of any remains surviving on site.

Spelthorne Borough Council: “That Slough Borough Council be informed that this Council OBJECT to the proposal since the proposed development by virtue of its height and lack of space for adequate landscaping would appear visually intrusive and would be visually detrimental to the Green belt land in this Borough to the south of the application site, which is also designated as an Area of Special Landscape Character in the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan”.

London Borough of Hillingdon: No objection subject to: “The securing of a Travel Plan for the site, including a shuttle bus service, providing a direct link to Heathrow Airport’s terminals, to be operated at a regular frequency, from approximately 0600 to 2300 hours daily, together with effective measures to ensure monitoring and review of the Travel Plan”.

Thames Water: Waste: Increased flow from the

12th May 2005 4 proposed development may lead to sewage flooding. Developer to fund a impact study. Surface Water Drainage: No disposal to be permitted via the public sewer network Water Supply: Insufficient capacity to meet additional demands of the proposed development. Impact study to be funded by the developer.

Environment Agency: Original objection raised on grounds of flood risk withdrawn on the basis that an acceptable flood risk assessment has been made. Further objection raised to development within the 8 metre ecological buffer zone. Amendments have been made to the scheme and whilst there would continue to be a minor infringement of this ecological zone the Environment Agency has confirmed verbally that it would not be sufficient to sustain an objection.

Highways Agency: A holding objection was originally raised on the grounds that there was insufficient information submitted on traffic impact to properly assess the proposals. Following submission of the information required the Highways Agency has withdrawn their objection.

Land Contamination Officer: Detailed investigation of the site required to establish whether or not there is land contamination on the site. Landfill Monitoring required and possibly a Landfill Gas Risk Assessment.

Environmental Protection: No comments received to date. However, conditions likely to cover internal noise levels.

Highway Engineers: A number of detailed comments have been raised. Most of the points have been satisfactorily addressed. The only outstanding issues relate to traffic calming on the approaches to the bridge; the inability of two service vehicles being able to pass on the bend within the site because of restricted width; the restricted width of the footway in Calder Way which provides pedestrian access to the site; concerns about the valeting parking area and the need to restrict the size of the hopper bus.

Traffic Engineers: There has been considerable discussion and exchange of information on the issue of trip generation, parking and potential off site highway works. Highway and traffic issues are discussed in the main report.

12th May 2005 5

PETITION(S): None received

RELEVANT SITE None HISTORY:

CONSIDERATIONS 1.0 The Site and Its Surroundings

1.1 This site of 0.633 hectares is located adjacent to Junction 14 of the off Horton Road, just within the southern extremities of Slough Borough Council’s borough boundaries. The site is accessed from a private road, Calder Way with its junction to Horton Road. Horton Road in turn is the main route from the M25 junction west to Poyle and Colnbrook .

1.2 The site is located approximately 1 kilometre to the west of the site of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 which is under construction, with the proposed slip road to Terminal 5, passing adjacent to the site and linking to junction 14 of the M25.

1.3 The site is currently occupied by a large industrial warehouse (approximately 3,200 sq. metres) with ancillary offices and parking for 79 cars and 7 lorries. The warehouse is approximately 17 metres high at its highest point. At its closest point it is approximately 3.5 metres from the bank of the Wraysbury River.

1.4 The site is located in the southwestern corner of the Poyle industrial estate which contains a mix of light industrial, general industrial and warehousing uses. Industrial buildings adjoin the site to the west and north. To the east is junction 14 of the M25 motorway and slip road, but physically separated from the site by a disused railway line. To the south is Green Belt land in the neighbouring authority of Spelthorne.

1.5 Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport approximately. 1 kilometre east of the application site was granted planning permission in November 2004 and is to become operational and handling its first passengers by 2008, with a final completion date of 2015. It is proposed to create a new coach terminal that will link into local bus services. There will also be two railway stations, one for Heathrow Express services to central London and the other for the London Underground’s Piccadilly line.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This is an application for full planning permission for demolition of the existing warehouse building and erection of a 297 bedroom, six-storey hotel, associated works and landscaping. The application includes full plans showing existing and proposed site layout floor plans, elevations,

12th May 2005 6 tree survey and landscaping proposals. A number of supporting documents have been submitted including a Planning Statement, Stage One Travel Plan, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment and Visual Impact Assessment.

2.2 The building is designed in an “L” shape with two wings linked by a central service core, containing the reception area, offices, restaurant and bar. On the ground floor there are also two small conference rooms, for use by guests and local businesses. The building is designed with a flat roof with external finishes comprising a mix of blue and white render with small areas of panel cladding around window openings. The building scales 20 metres high at its highest point. The building has a gross floor area of 9,259 sq. metres.

2.3 Vehicular access is via Calder Way, which forms a priority junction with Horton Road and is approximately 300m to the west of Junction 14 of the M25. Calder Way is not a public highway but is within the control of the applicant. The carriageway width is 6.5m reducing down to 6 m for a 100 metre section prior to entering the site. A footway is located from the site on the southern/eastern side of Calder Way, this footway varies from around 1.5m to 0.9m in width. Access into the site from Calder Way is afforded by a bridge over the Wrasbury River. Calder Way also serves a number of surrounding industrial/commercial uses.

2.4 A total of 117 car-parking spaces and 36 bicycle parking spaces are provided on site including 28 valet car parking spaces and 5 no. disabled car parking spaces. The level of parking equates to 0.39 spaces per bedroom. In their submitted planning statement , the applicant refers to this level of provision being similar to the level of parking being provided at Travelodge’s . However, according to the applicants further submitted information, the Gatwick Travelodge has 0.63 spaces per bedroom and does not have any conference facilities.

2.5 Particular emphasis is placed upon the proximity of the proposed hotel with Terminal 5, Heathrow Airport and the creation of a new major transport interchange there, which will be served by train, underground and bus services. The applicants advise that the main mode of travel between the hotel and the airport will be a dedicated shuttle bus operating between 6.00am and 23.00pm daily, which will provide a convenient, frequent service for guests, staff and occupiers of the Trident Industrial Park. The cost of travelling on the shuttle bus will be subsidised for staff. If the shuttle bus were to be available for “public use” to persons within the wider industrial estate, with or without charge, this would allow opportunities for persons to park free of charge within the industrial estate, and travel to Heathrow airport. This could benefit not only travellers, but also persons working at the airport and others looking for convenient travel links to London and other destinations from Heathrow’s bus and underground terminals.

12th May 2005 7 2.6 An area of some 38 parking spaces are proposed as the valet parking area, providing parking for 38 of the 117 cars. These spaces are shown “doubled up and in places “quadrupled”. The applicants describe the valet parking system to work as follows: • Upon arrival at the hotel, guests will leave their car keys with hotel staff and inform them of their anticipated check out time, or when they are next likely to require use of their vehicle. • Hotel staff will park guest’s vehicles in the valet parking area • Parking will be prioritised according to the guest’s departure time to ensure that the need to move other vehicles when retrieving a guest’s car is minimised. • Guest’s will report to reception to collect their vehicle upon departure.

2.7 With respect to staff travel patterns these matters are addressed in the submitted Travel Plan. The Travel plan refers to a maximum of 65 part time and full time staff. On part 2 of the planning application an approximate total of 78 staff is referred to. Due to shift patterns not all these staff would be on the site at the same time. In addition to staff being able to benefit from subsidised transport to and from Heathrow Airport on the dedicated shuttle bus a number of other initiatives are proposed: • Car sharing and setting up of a car sharing data base • Cycling parking, showers and changing facilities on site • Taxi

2.8 A visual impact assessment is submitted which assesses the proposals in terms of the visual impact of the development on the wider Green Belt to the south. The proposals are assessed on the basis of: short range views (within the immediate vicinity, less than 500m from the edge of the application site) Medium distance views (between 500m and up to 1 kilometre from the edge of the application site) Long range views (over 1 kilometre from the application site).

The visual impact is assessed on the basis of photo montages which indicate the extent to which the building will be visible from surrounding public vantage points from within the Green Belt. The magnitude of change is assessed in terms of impact from the selected vantage points.

2.9 Following requests from officers, a landscaping scheme is submitted which shows tree and shrub planting around the perimeter of the site with tree planting being principally confined to the southern and western boundaries. The tree planting includes a mix of deciduous and evergreen pine trees, including a number of semi mature trees along the southern boundary, designed to further reduce the impact of the development on the wider Green belt land to the south.

3.0 Planning Background

12th May 2005 8 3.1 Pre- application discussions were held with respect to the proposals for a Travelodge on the application site. The applicant submitted a scheme showing a 288 bedroom hotel with 139 car parking space, but without a valet parking area. In their accompanying information, the applicants provided information to demonstrate that a Sequential Test was not required in this instance. The arguments put forward were accepted in principle. The proposals did not include any leisure facilities, but did include dining facilities for hotel guests and modest conferencing facilities again for hotel guests. This was also agreed in principle subject to appropriate planning conditions being imposed. The supporting information proposed parking at not more than 50% provision in view of the proximity of the hotel to Terminal 5 and the introduction of a hopper bus. The applicants were advised that this particular element of the proposals required a more detailed consideration when the information was available. Details of staff travel were also required bearing in mind that the site is not well served by public transport.

3.2 Prior to the submission of this application and on the basis of the pre application submission, the Applicant’s sought a screening opinion as to whether or not an Enivironmental Impact Assessment was required under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) ( and Wales) Regulations 1999. An Assessment was carried out with the conclusion reached that an EIA was not required. The potential impacts were identified as: • Impact on the adjoining Green belt and Coln Valley Park • Traffic Impact • Within 8 metres of the centre line of the Wraysbury River • Within 2 Kilometres of the Designated Wraysbury Reservoir SSSI

It was concluded that conditions could be used to tackle the main issues identified including, additional tree planting to soften the impact on the Green Belt; conditions/legal agreements for any off site highway works identified and conditions relating to flood protection if required.

Additional information on potential groundwater contamination was identified as a requirement.

4.0 Planning Assessment Policy EMP1 (Sequential Test) 4.1 Government advice contained in PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) states that the Sequential Test should also apply to all key town centre uses which attract a lot of people, and should be encouraged to locate in city, town and district centres. The objectives as set out in PPG13 (Transport) does not include any specific reference to hotels but includes a requirement to ensure that development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services offers a realistic choice of access by pubic transport, walking and cycling. Annex A to PPG21 (Tourism) states that major hotels such as those with conferencing and banqueting facilities are generally more appropriate in areas allocated in plans for commercial or leisure purposes.

12th May 2005 9

4.2 Policy EMP1 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004, reflects advice given in PPG6 and requires that the Sequential Test be applied to all major employment generating uses, which would include the current hotel use. All such uses should be directed to the Town Centre in the first instance. If no suitable sites exist then the Sequential Test will be applied requiring such uses to be directed to edge of Town sites or failing that, in business areas well served by transport. This Policy also needs to be read in conjunction with Policy OSC14 which states that proposals for leisure and other key complimentary town centre uses will be expected to comply with the Sequential Test. In the pre-amble to that Policy, Hotel (and conference centres) are considered to be key complimentary town centre uses.

4.3 The applicant has put forward a case as to why the Sequential Test should not apply in this instance. This is based upon interpretation of Government policy; the lack of additional hotel related facilities such as leisure or public house uses, which would tend to encourage larger numbers of visitors; site access being well served by public transport at Heathrow Airport and appeal precedent citing that budget hotels by their very nature do not add to the variety and vitality of a city centre.

4.4 Whilst not all of the arguments put forward can be accepted, it is considered that given the presence of an existing Travelodge hotel within Slough Town Centre and a further Travelodge hotel being proposed for the centre of Windsor, that in commercial terms the current hotel would be seeking a different market, which in this case would be predominantly Terminal 5 passengers at Heathrow airport. In practical terms it is not envisaged that persons flying out from Heathrow Airport, but seeking overnight hotel accommodation, would consider travelling into the centre of Slough. Therefore, it is concluded that a town centre or edge of town centre location would not be a practical proposition in this instance. Nonetheless, given its location with a high profile motorway siting it is not considered that the market would be wholly confined to airport custom and that whilst accepting that the current proposals should not be subject to the Sequential Test, it is nonetheless concluded, that the location must work in terms of accessibility, public transport and parking.

4.5 There are no objections raised in relation to Policy EMP1 of the Local Plan and the Sequential Test.

Policy EMP3 (Loss of Employment Land)

4.6 There is a general presumption against the loss of employment land within any of the recognised business areas. However, in the supporting text to that policy it states that in addition to B1 Business and B2 Industrial distribution and warehousing uses, other forms of activity such as retail, leisure and some sui generis uses are considered employment generating for the purposes of the policy. The Planning Statement submitted in support of the planning application refers to 50 full time equivalent jobs

12th May 2005 10 (33 full time and 45 part time jobs) across a broad range of skills, including management, catering, cleaning, administration and security.

4.7 There are no objections in relation to Policy EMP3 of the Local Plan relating to a loss of Employment land.

Policy EMP9 (Lakeside Road Estate, Galleymead Road and the Poyle Estate) 4.8 Under the terms of this policy, B1(b) research and development, B1(c) light industrial, B2 general industrial and B8 warehousing and distribution would normally be permitted, but independent B1(a) offices will be resisted. As established in paragraph 4.6 above hotel development is considered to be an employment generating use and Policy EMP9 does not specifically preclude such development within the Poyle industrial estate. However, in the supporting text it states that provision for parking and servicing arrangements is limited and in many cases does not meet current standards, resulting in congestion. An increase in parking over and above the current requirements set out in the Council’s approved guidelines may be required to overcome localised operational or road safety problems.

4.9 There are no objections in relation to Policy EMP9 subject to, the applicant demonstrating that there is sufficient on site parking and servicing to serve the proposed development without causing overspill parking onto surrounding roads and thereby adding to existing problems of congestion.

Policy EN1 (Standard of Design) 4.10 The proposed development by virtue of its height, scale, bulk, massing and siting will have a more significant impact on its surroundings than the current vacant warehouse. Nonetheless, given the site’s context being essentially an industrial area, with the current warehouse building being empty, it is considered that the proposals will help to uplift this part of the Poyle industrial site and may help in the area’s longer term regeneration. The scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of its architectural style, materials, form and relationship with other properties and trees. The relationship of the proposed development to existing water courses and the visual impact of the proposed development on the Green Belt land to the south of the site is considered in paragraphs 4.14 – 4.15 & 4.22 – 4.26 below.

4.11 Having regard to design considerations, the height, bulk, massing, siting, external appearance and architectural style of the building, the choice of materials, its architectural style and its landscaped setting there are no objections raised in relation to Policy EN1.

Policy EN3 (Landscaping Requirements) 4.12 As referred to elsewhere in this report, the applicants have submitted a visual impact assessment. The assessment relies heavily upon the existing tree and landscaping cover in Horton Road, which for the most

12th May 2005 11 part lies outside of the application site on what is thought to be Highway Agency land. Whilst, no localised widening schemes have been identified concerns were expressed that the natural screening afforded by this landscape could not be guaranteed in the future as the land is not within the control of the applicant. Indeed neither is it within the boundaries of Slough. Without such guarantees the proposed development could have an adverse impact on the wider Green belt land to the south of the site within the neighbouring Spelthorne Borough Council. To mitigate against this the applicant has submitted a landscaping scheme for the site, which includes tree planting along the more sensitive boundary to the Green Belt land beyond. Tree planting which will include a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees will include a number of semi mature trees. Over 5 – 10 years it is expected that this planting will supplement the existing vegetation to provide substantial screening and a visual softening o the building on the Green Belt to the south. Along the western boundary planting is of native species only and is proposed to be compatible with the requirements of the Environment Agency in terms of the retained 8 metre wide ecological zone alongside the River Wraysbury.

4.13 There are no objections in relation to Policy EN3 subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency in relation to the ecological zone and the BAA in relation the species mix and the potential for bird hazards.

Policy EN24 (Protection of Water Courses) 4.14 Policy EN24 requires that developments should have a detrimental effect on water quality or the ecological, amenity or the historical value of a watercourse. Water courses and their neighbouring vegetation often provide ecologically diverse plant and animal communities. Their wildlife value is dependent upon water quality, levels and flow, and maintenance of natural habitat on banks and margins.

4.15 The Environment Agency originally raised an objection on the grounds that the development encroached into the 8 metre vegetated buffer zone on the east side of the River Wraysbury required both for flood defence access purposes and to maintain the character of the watercourse as a wildlife river habitat corridor. Revised proposals have been put to the Environment Agency and despite there still being some minor infringement, the Environment Agency has indicated verbally at this stage that they are prepared to withdraw their objection. As outlined in paragraph 4.12 above landscaping scheme for the ecological buffer zone has been submitted to the Environment Agency for their consideration.

4.16 There are no objections in relation to Policy EN24 subject to written confirmation form the Environment Agency confirming their agreement to the amended scheme.

Policy EN25 (Noise sensitive Development) 4.17 Although the thrust of this policy is aimed at residential developments, it is considered that the principles of noise insulation to the bedrooms should be a fundamental requirement. In the submitted planning statement it

12th May 2005 12 states that triple glazing is proposed to insulate rooms from road and aircraft noise.

4.18 There are no objections in relation to Policy EN25 of the Local Plan subject to the submission of a noise study and proposals for noise insulation.

Policy EN33 (Floodplain Protection) 4.19 Under the requirements of Policy EN33 proposals which increase the risks of flooding will not normally be permitted. The applicant has carried out a Flood Risk Assessment for the site, which has been considered by the Environment Agency, who comment that: “The 1 in 100 year (+20 %) flood level is 19.90m (AOD) and the topographical survey indicates that the site would not be affected by an event of this magnitude. We are satisfied that you wish to raise the finished floor levels of the new building to 20.50m”.

4.20 There are no objections raised in relation to Policy EN33 subject to the finished floor levels of the new building being 20.50m (AOD).

Policy OSC14 (Key Complimentary Town Centre Uses) 4.21 Under the terms of this Policy hotels are considered to be key complimentary town centre uses and as such should be subject to the Sequential Test. The issues relating to matters of the Sequential Test are set out in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 above and as such there no objections raised in relation to Policy OSC14.

PPG3 (Green Belts) 4.22 Paragraph 3.15 of PPG3 under Visual Amenity, states that: “The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt, which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design”.

4.23 The Visual Impact Assessment has tested the visual impact of the development from various short, medium and long distance viewing points. The effects on visual amenity are evaluated on the basis of nil impact to significant impact. In all cases the impacts remain within the range of nil impact to slight/moderate. The study concludes that:

“The proposed development will have a relatively limited visual role in the surrounding area as a result of the screening provided by existing trees and the site being lower than Horton Road and the junction 14 roundabout.

Filtered views of the new building would be obtained in Winter approaching the site for around 400 – 500m along Horton Road, and along the Colne Valley Way footpath between the roundabout and Horton Road. The proposed building would be largely screened by foliage during

12th May 2005 13 the summer months.

The amenities of the Colne Valley Way recreational footpath route in the vicinity of the site are already significantly compromised by the existing industrial estate and effects of traffic along Horton Road. The replacement of the existing factory building in available views will enhance visual interest. The composition and nature of the views will not however change significantly and there will be no material impact on the visual amenities of the adjoining Green Belt.

There will be clear views of the proposed hotel from the M25 approaching Junction 14 from the north and from the new T5 link road. Partial views of the hotel will be obtained from the south. The availability of these views will not have a significant impact on visual amenity”.

4.24 In response to concerns raised by officers and objections raised by Spelthorne Borough Council on the grounds that “the proposed development by virtue of its height and lack of space for adequate landscaping would appear visually obtrusive and would be visually detrimental to the Green Belt to the south of the application site which is also designated as an Area of Special Landscape Character in the Spelthorne Local Plan”, the applicants have prepared a landscaping scheme for the site together with a landscaping design statement. That statement concludes that: “Over 5 – 10 years it is expected that this planting will supplement the existing vegetation to provide substantial screening and visual softening to the proposed building.

4.25 Whilst it is concluded that the proposed development being higher than the existing industrial building will have some visual impact on the Green Belt land to the south, the additional proposed tree planting along the southern boundary of the application site which includes a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, some of which are semi mature specimens, will help to mitigate against such impact in the medium to longer term.

4.26 Subject to implementation of the landscaping scheme as shown on submitted plans 01, Revision B and 02 Revision B, both dated April 2005 and received by the Council on 5th April 2005, there are no objections raised in relation to PPG2 and the visual impact of the development on the Green Belt land to the south.

Policy T1 (Integrated Transport Strategy) 4.27 Under the terms of this Policy all new development proposals will be expected to comply with the principles of the Integrated Transport Strategy which seeks to reduce the use of the private car, particularly at peak hours and to promote alternative modes of transport such as walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

4.28 The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment . That document includes both a traffic impact assessment and a review of the sustainable

12th May 2005 14 transport options to access the site.

Impact on the Strategic Highway 4.29 The Highways Agency originally raised a holding objection to the proposals concerned about the impact of the proposed development in terms of potential additional traffic impact upon the operation and safety of the junction with the M25. Additional information was requested on trip rate comparison with the current approved use for the site; a comparison of occupancy rates with other airport hotels rather than other Travelodge hotels within the Area; the impact of the shuttle bus on car trip reduction; and future impact of the development on the trunk road network (15 years).

4.30 The additional information requested has been submitted to and approved by the Highways Agency and which has enabled them to withdraw their holding objection.

Impact on the Local Road Network 4.31 There have been protracted negotiations between the applicant and the Council’s traffic engineers over the issues of traffic generation and parking. Updated information submitted to the Council’s traffic engineers on trip generation has been based upon comparative survey work undertaken at the Gatwick Airport Travelodge, which has similar characteristics to the current proposal in terms of its size, location and airport customer base. The Council’s traffic engineers are satisfied that even with the addition of traffic movements associated with the proposed conference facility, the development given the change in directional split of traffic movements during peak hours, will be beneficial to the operation of the Calder Way junction with Horton Road. Capacity assessments during the peak hours have demonstrated that the operation of this junction will be improved when compared to the existing situation with the existing industrial use of the site. Over a 12 hour period, the proposal does however, have the potential to lead to an increase of approximately 76 vehicular movements (two way). A comparison over a 24-hour period is likely to indicate a slightly greater intensification.

4.32 The applicants state that the site will be linked to Heathrow Airport and particularly T5. It is also in close proximity to the M25 Motorway and on this basis it is anticipated that the majority of traffic movements will approach and exit the site from the east. The Borough boundary lies only a short distance to the east of the Calder Way junction and as such the traffic engineers consider that the implications of this proposal on roads within the Borough is unlikely to be material. To this end an objection or financial contribution based upon offsite traffic impact would be difficult to substantiate in this case. However, given the development does have the potential to increase traffic movements at this junction over the day, then it is considered that it would be appropriate for the applicant to replace the existing road markings at this junction under the terms of a Section 106 Planning Agreement. The traffic figures are also reliant on the provision of a dedicated shuttle bus facility between the site and airport to run on a

12th May 2005 15 half hourly basis during peak periods and hourly during off peak times. This together with a travel plan should be also be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

4.33 Although exiting public transport provision to the site is limited, the proposed shuttle bus will provide a direct link for users of the hotel to all of Heathrow’s four terminals with a view to extending this to Terminal 5 when it is fully operational. The shuttle bus is key to the Green travel Plan for the site and will allow both staff and guests to use a more sustainable form of transport. Upon completion of the new transport hub at Terminal 5, the proposed hotel will benefit from a greatly enhanced range of public transport services for both staff and guests.

4.34 There are no objections in relation to Policy T1 on grounds of trip generation, road and junction capacity and sustainability subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreement securing a regular shuttle bus service to all the Heathrow Terminals with subsidised travel for staff and improvements to white lining at the junction of Calder Way and Horton Road and new and replacement signage in and around the site. It would also need to be made a condition of any planning permission that secure bicycle be provided together with showers and changing facilities for staff.

Policy T2 (Parking Restraint) 4.35 On the Poyle Industrial Estate, provision for parking and servicing arrangements is limited, and in many cases does not meet current standards. Redevelopments are expected to improve vehicular access and overcome road safety problems. The frequency and destinations of buses to the Poyle Industrial Estate are very limited. There is no local train station which could serve the Poyle Estate. As public transport is limited, access is mainly by car. This is one of the few areas of Slough whereby parking provision in excess of the minimum parking standards approved by the Council may be sought, because of acute parking shortages and congestion caused by excessive on street parking.

4.36 As stated elsewhere in this report the applicant is proposing to provide 117 car parking spaces but including 38 no. paces within a valet parking area. These spaces are “doubled- up” and in places “quadrupled”. The level of parking is based upon a comparative exercise with the Travelodge hotel in Gatwick. A 24-hour parking demand survey at that hotel, was carried out from 00.00 on Friday to 00.00 on Saturday on 4th February 2005 by K & M an independent survey company. That period was chosen as having the busiest demand of the week and so the calculations were to show the worst case scenario, and unknown at the time the survey was carried out during a period when the hotel shuttle bus was out of operation. The applicant’s have confirmed that the Gatwick Travelodge hotel was at 97.3% room occupancy on the day of the survey.

4.37 By establishing parking demand per bedroom at the Gatwick hotel it has been possible to project parking demand at the proposed hotel in Poyle.

12th May 2005 16 From the results it is clear that at peak times that is between 00.00 and 05.00 on a Saturday morning and between 21.00 and 00.00 on a Saturday night the proposed development would not be able to cater fully for parking demand.

4.38 For a variety of reasons it is considered that the Gatwick Travelodge may not be the best hotel for comparative reasons: • The ratio of car parking spaces at the Gatwick Travelodge equates to 0.63 parking spaces per bedroom. If this standard was to be applied to the Poyle site it would require the provision of 187 car-parking spaces. • It is not clear whether or not at the time of the survey the Travelodge at Gatwick was offering long term parking deals, whereby parking is moved off site. According to the Hotel’s Web Site, it was a service which until recently was being offered. Clearly, if this service was being provided, then the parking demand survey would have been flawed. • In locational terms the Gatwick site is located on an A class road with local bus routes other than just a shuttle bus operating along the A23 at Lowfield close to Travelodge at Gatwick. These other bus services would provide an additional means of accessing the hotel, particularly for staff. Clearly, this could only be verified by undertaking a site visit to the Gatwick hotel. At the Poyle site there are no bus services directly serving the site and access for staff and guests would be wholly reliant on the shuttle bus service or travelling by car. • The Gatwick hotel is located approximately 1.25 miles from junction 10 of the M23 motorway. The Poyle site is located next to the motorway and will have a high visibility from the M25 motorway and with such ease of motorway access will pick up a proportion of motorway trade. This may not only be opportunist trade but also pre-booked as the hotel would be ideal for overnight stay for persons visiting attractions in the local area, without the need to drive into an existing Town Centre. • It is understood that there is no valet parking area operating at the Gatwick site.

4.39 The applicant’s have undertaken a further car parking survey at the Quality Hotel on the A4 Bath Road. This survey was carried out over a 4- week period. What the results of that survey show are that, on average between 32% and 35% travelled to the hotel by private car. However, at all times the ratio of parking spaces to rooms occupied exceeds that being proposed at the Poyle site. It should be recognised that between 17% and 24% of guests arrived at the Quality Hotel by coach, with between 37% and 41% arriving by shuttle bus, thereby implying that part of their trade at least is targeted at a different market to that of the proposed Travelodge Hotel. In locational terms the Quality Hotel is located on a good bus route which links Slough with Heathrow Airport. This provides good public transport links for staff, particularly those who may live within the local area. Further, given its location there is potential access to a local pool of staff, who would be able to travel to work by means other than car. The Poyle site does not benefit from these

12th May 2005 17 locational advantages.

4.40 A strict application of the Council’s approved parking standards for a hotel in a Business Area would require a minimum of 1 car parking space per bedroom plus 1 additional car parking space per 5 square metres for bars, etc. If applied in the case of the current application the requirement would be as follows:

297 bedrooms………………………………………………….297 car parking spaces 125 sq. metres………………………………………………… 25 car parking spaces Total parking required 322 car parking spaces

4.41 Turning to the proposed parking requirement of 117 spaces, the Council does have concerns about the practicalities of operating a car valet area. The Council does not normally support development schemes which rely on tandem parking. If this area of parking was revised, it would result in the loss of a further 17 car parking spaces. This reduces the actual level of fully usable car parking spaces to 100 car parking spaces in total. There would an anticipated shortfall of 222 spaces meeting only 30% of the Council’s approved parking standards.

4.42 It is considered that a relaxation of the parking element relating to the bar would be justified as that facility is only likely to serve existing hotel occupiers. This would reduce the requirement by approximately 7 spaces. However, turning to the conference facilities, whilst the applicant has indicated that the use of these facilities be restricted to hotel customers only, this is considered to be unrealistic and if restricted by condition probably not enforceable.

4.43 At the pre-application stage the level of parking being proposed was 138 car parking spaces serving a hotel containing 288 bedrooms and which did not include a car valet area. That parking layout resulted in part of the car park encroaching onto the 8 metre wide ecological buffer area and was unacceptable to the Environment Agency. It would appear that the parking scheme now being proposed reflects what can be physically accommodated on the site. It is further clear that there are a number of the parking spaces which do not provide the full 6 metre maneuvering isle and it has been necessary for the applicants to demonstrate by tracking that such parking spaces are fully usable.

4.44 Even accepting that a relaxation of the Council’s parking standards for hotel developments would be appropriate in this case, give the proximity of the site to Heathrow Airport and the proposals to run a shuttle bus between the proposed hotel and all terminals, on the basis of the information provided there will be times when car parking demand will outstrip supply on site. The concern is that the proposals will lead to

12th May 2005 18 parking overspill onto surrounding roads. The surrounding roads are a mix of private and adopted highways. As has already been stated in this report parking and congestion are significant problems in and around this area. The situation could be made worse if, as proposed, the shuttle bus would also serve the wider trident Industrial estate. As stated in paragraph 2.5 if the shuttle bus is to be available for “public use” to persons within the wider industrial estate, with or without charge, this would allow opportunities for persons to park free of charge within the industrial estate, and travel to Heathrow airport. This could benefit not only travellers , but also persons working at the airport and others looking for convenient travel links to London and other destinations from Heathrow’s bus and underground terminals. The applicants control the access to the site, that is Calder way, which is a private road and have proposed parking restrictions be enforced by means of car clamping. The applicants have also agreed to undertake a parking survey of the immediately surrounding roads and to fund any necessary traffic orders to restrict parking on neighbouring public highways such as Horton Road. A further parking survey at the Gatwick Travelodge is proposed, now that a shuttle bus is up and running again and long terms stay car parking is not being provided. However, it should be noted that according to the official Web Site the shuttle bus has been started up again, but there is a charge to use this service. It should also be noted that there is also now a charge for guest to use the Travelodge hotel car park. Both these measures will have the effect of reducing down demand to park on site at the Gatwick Travelodge and may provide a distorted picture. It is essential that for a scheme to work at the Poyle site, the operation of Shuttle bus must be under the control of the hotel operators and parking for guests and staff must be available free of charge. advertises the shuttle bus which serves the Gatwick Travelodge Hotel

4.45 The applicants have not had sufficient time to carry out this additional survey work in time for writing this report, however, the results of this additional survey work will be reported on the Amendment Sheet. Of particular concern is that the applicants have not provided information on anticipated staff travel patterns. All submissions to date seem to assume that the majority of staff will travel to the site from the Heathrow direction using the proposed shuttle bus. There is no indication of the numbers who may be travelling to the site from the Slough direction.

4.46 As a matter of policy principle it is considered that the Council cannot support a development in what is clearly an unsustainable location in public transport terms at the current time, which is unable to provide sufficient parking to meet its anticipated demand. Such a policy could not be sustained throughout the Poyle Industrial area, where there are already significant on street parking problems and resulting congestion on local roads. On other redevelopment schemes within the Poyle Industrial estate, the Council has always insisted on the minimum parking requirements being met and exceeded in cases to overcome localised congestion problems. Whilst clearly, there are differences between such redevelopments and the current proposals for a hotel, the applicant

12th May 2005 19 should be required to satisfy the Council beyond all reasonable doubt that a relaxation of its approved parking standards to the levels of parking being proposed are workable in practice. On the basis of the information provided to date it is considered that the applicant has failed to do that.

4.47 Objections are raised on grounds that the proposals fail to provide sufficient car parking to serve the development contrary to Policy T2

Section 106 Requirements 4.48 The applicant has indicated a willingness to improve signage within the vicinity of the site, as set out in their submission. Any such Agreement would also need to include proposals to improve road markings the junction of Calder Way and Horton Road, the provision of a Shuttle bus service between the hotel and all terminals at Heathrow Airport, and requirements for a Green Travel Plan for staff and guests. To be regularly monitored and updated. The size of the shuttle bus would need to be restricted to ensure that it able to manoeuvre easily and safely around the site.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 This application has been considered in the context of relevant Government guidance and the policy context of the Adopted Local Plan. In all areas other than car parking it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated reasonableness in the submissions made. However, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposals can provide sufficient on site car parking to serve the development. It relation to this aspect of the application there are a number of concerns identified: • The car parks chosen for assessing trip generation and parking demands may not provide for like for like comparison • The proposals do not satisfactorily address parking demand arising form non airport related custom • The proposals do not satisfactorily address the issue of overspill parking from the site • The proposals do not satisfactorily address the travel patterns of staff • The proposals rely on a valet parking system for part of the site as a means of seeking to increase parking levels on the site, a form of parking provision which relies upon an efficient management system being operated on a 24 hour basis • There is no existing public transport network available to serve the site, the development being wholly reliant upon the operation of a private shuttle bus service between the site and the airport.

5.2 On the basis of the above the application is not being supported in planning terms. Should the further information submitted between now and the date of the meeting lead to a different conclusion then this will be reported on the Amendment Sheet. Whilst the applicant has agreed to certain provisions being made under the terms of a section 106 Agreement, in the absence of such an Agreement being signed it is

12th May 2005 20 further recommended that the reasons for refusal should include a holding objection be raised. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused on the following grounds:

a) The development fails to comply with Policies T2 and T3 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004 in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development will provide car parking in accordance with adopted Slough Borough Council Parking Standards 1998, both in terms of the levels of provision and the layout of the car parking. The development if permitted is therefore likely to lead to additional demand for on street parking in an area which currently experiences significant problems with on street parking thereby adding to existing congestion problems to the detriment of general highway safety and convenience.

b) A holding objection is raised on the grounds that the developer has not entered into a legal agreement with the Council for: the carrying out of essential off site highway works in the form of improved signage and road markings;, the provision of a shuttle bus service between the site and the 4 Terminals at Heathrow Airport; the mechanisms to be put in place for managing and operating the shuttle bus service and on site car parking, including any scale of charges to be imposed; and preparation of a Green Travel Plan for staff and guests.

12th May 2005 21