APPENDIX 12 – ALBANY RIVERSIDE PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Agenda Item 7

PLANNING COMMITTEE [email protected]

References: P/2016/3371 00607/T/P1

Address: 40 and 40a High Street, Brentford TW8 0DS

Proposal: Demolition of existing office building and Arts Centre to provide 193 new dwellings within buildings of part 6, part 7 storeys (Class C3), with ancillary ground floor retail/cafe, hard and soft landscaping, revised vehicular access and all necessary enabling and ancillary works.

Ward: Brentford

This application is a Major development with a S106 agreement on Council owned land

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal is for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and its redevelopment to provide 193 new private dwellings alongside basement car parking, landscaping and provision of a new riverside public walkway and retail/café unit.

1.2 The scheme is considered to be a of a high design quality, providing high quality residential accommodation with limited impact on existing residents’ amenity or the local transport network. It is considered that the scheme would have less than substantial harm on nearby heritage assets, including Kew World Heritage Site and the Grade I Listed Kew Palace located on the opposite side of the River Thames. The significant public benefits of the scheme, when taken in conjunction with the delivery of a re-provided arts centre in the centre of Brentford, outweigh any perceived harm.

1.3 This application would be delivered in conjunction with the proposals for the Brentford Police Station site on Half Acre (application ref 00540/A/P6), which proposes the redevelopment of the site to facilitate the provision of a new Arts Centre and 105 new dwellings, including 60 affordable homes. The two applications would be linked through a common Section 106 agreement, ensuring the continuity of provision of an arts centre within the Brentford area and the delivery of 20% affordable housing across the two sites.

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The subject site, which comprises approximately 0.63 hectares in size, is located on the southern side of Brentford High Street, between Smith Hill and Waterman’s Park and bordered by the River Thames to the south.

2.2 The site is occupied by the vacant two-storey Max Factor office building and the Waterman’s Arts Centre. Car Parking is provided at basement level, 166 shared between the two buildings and accessed from the forecourt of the arts centre. The buildings are generally low-rise, predominantly of red brick with minimal formal landscape planting, although there is poorly maintained hedging along the High Street frontage. There is currently a riverside path that connects Waterman’s Park and Smith Hill alongside the arts centre and office building, although this is poorly maintained, presents a convoluted route and requires stepped access. The office building has been vacant for a number of years, but the arts centre is currently occupied. The Council own the freehold to the arts centre building and lease this to the Hounslow Arts Trust for the delivery of the Waterman’s Arts Centre. The Max Factor office building is in separate ownership.

2.3 The surrounding area is mixed in terms of scale, height, use and materiality, although red brick is a typical feature for both recent and older developments. Opposite the site is a low-rise McDonald’s restaurant and car park with open areas of public landscaping/amenity space to the east, and beyond a residential area with buildings ranging between two and four storeys. Immediately to the east of the site is Waterman’s Park with its child’s playground and riverside walkway. Vehicular access to the park for maintenance vehicles is taken from the corner adjacent to the application site. Whilst the site directly borders the River Thames, at this point Brentford Ait and Lots Ait split the flow of the river with the main waterway to the south of these islands. Whilst Brentford Ait is uninhabited and is a site of importance for nature conservation, there are a number of residential moorings and businesses on Lots Ait, which is accessed via a footbridge to the northern bank of the river. To the west of the site are the recent developments of Lighterage Court, Knowing Court and Malthouse Court, with the Ferry Quays development beyond. These buildings range in height from six to seven storeys along the High Street frontage with typically an additional storey at the river frontage owing to the fall in levels away from the High Street. Other notable buildings in the vicinity include Charlton House, at up to nine storeys (north-west of the site) and the Travelodge, Holland Gardens and Music Museum between five and eight storeys (north-east of the site).

2.4 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3, on a scale of 0-6b, and is described as ‘Moderate’. Approximately 800m to the east is Kew Bridge Station, which provides services to and from London Waterloo. There are five bus routes accessible within 120m of the site that run along Brentford High Street and Ealing Road. There are double yellow line parking restrictions on Brentford High Street and Ealing Road. Vehicular access to the site is currently towards the eastern end of the site, away from the traffic light controlled junction with Ealing Road. A right-turn filter allows access for the eastbound traffic on the High Street with a central refuge between the junction and start of the filter lane. There is an on-highway cycle lane on both sides of the High Street for the length of the site and beyond in both directions. Smith Hill, which forms the western boundary of the site, is adopted footway and provides direct access to the river.

2.5 The site is not located within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings on or immediately adjacent to the site, although the Word Heritage Site of Kew Gardens is located on the opposite side of the river and the site is visible from a number of conservation areas. Kew Palace, a Grade I Listed Building is approximately 280m south of the site, located within the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which is also a conservation area within the London Borough of Richmond.

167

2.6 There are no notable trees on the site, although there are several street trees around the entrance to Waterman’s Park from the High Street.

2.7 The Council’s Local Plan (adopted September 2015) allocates the Albany Riverside site (under Site Reference 11) for mixed use development with a ratio of 50:50 residential to non-residential uses subject to the re-provision of the arts centre either on the site or closer to Brentford Town Centre. The site is also an Archaeological Priority Area, an area of Industrial History/Contamination and within the Thames Policy Area, for which the site is designated as an area suitable for mixed use development. Waterman’s Park is an area of Local Open Space. The site lies partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3a, although it is noted that there is an existing flood defence wall along the length of the application site.

2.8 Waterman’s Park is designated as local open space whilst the riverbank tidal area of the Thames is designated as Metropolitan Open Land.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 The following history is relevant to the Max Factor office building:

3.2 00607/M/PA1 Prior notification of change of use from B1a office use to C3 residential (22 units) Approved 24/06/2014 3.3 00607/M/PA2 Prior notification of change of use from B1a office use to C3 residential (22 units)

168 Approved 06/09/2017

3.4 There is no recent planning history for the Waterman’s Arts Centre that is relevant to this application.

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The application proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide 193 flats with 272sqm (GIA) retail (A1, A3 and A4) space at ground floor alongside new landscaping including provision of a new riverside walkway.

4.2 The development would be arranged over five blocks with a maximum height of eight storeys over a basement/lower ground floor level. The five blocks would be set back from the High Street to allow for additional landscaping and the widening of the existing footpath along the frontage of the site. They would be positioned in a staggered arrangement such that some blocks step forward of others to create a varied building line which is reflected on the riverside frontage. The two end blocks would be seven storeys in height on the High Street frontage with the three blocks in the middle being eight storeys. From the river these would appear as eight and nine storey buildings given the change in levels across the site from the High Street to the river frontage. Each of the five blocks would have its own entrance and core fronting onto the High Street. At basement/lower ground floor level would be the car park with cycle and refuse/recycling stores and other plant with the retail space which would front onto the river and Waterman’s Park, as well as private landscaped gardens for residents which would be raised above the new public riverside walk.

Ground floor site plan

169 4.3 The development would have a multi-faceted design to provide each residential unit with a multi-aspect outlook. It would be finished in brick with precast concrete detailing to break up the massing. The two end blocks are proposed to have a light red/pink hue with the middle block being a lighter peach brick and the intervening blocks being of a light buff colour.

4.4 A breakdown of the proposed residential accommodation is set out below:

Market Total

1 Bed 67 (35%) 67 (35%)

2 Bed/3 Person 41 (21%) 41 (21%)

2 Bed/4 Person 49 (25%) 49 (25%)

3 Bed 36 (19%) 36 (19%)

Total 193 193

4.5 Ten per cent of the accommodation has been designed to meet Part M4(3) ‘wheelchair accessible dwellings’ of the Building Regulations and would be located at podium level, with the remainder designed in accordance with Part M4(2).

4.6 Each new unit would have its own private amenity space in the form of either a balcony or terrace. The landscaped gardens at lower ground level fronting the river would provide the communal amenity space for residents, which would be accessible directly from each block as well as via steps from the riverside walk through a controlled point of access. Children’s play space would be incorporated into this amenity space.

4.7 The basement would provide 44 car parking spaces including 10 Blue Badge bays and 20% ‘active’/20% ‘passive’ electric vehicle charging points. A total of 319 cycle spaces would be provided within a number of secure stores at this level, accessed from each block. Five short stay cycle spaces would be provided at ground level adjacent to residential entrances and a further four short stay spaces would be provided at ground level for the retail unit with one additional long-term space dedicated to the retail unit.

4.8 The basement would be accessed via a one-directional signalised ramp which would have a 1:10 gradient and be 5m wide from a new forecourt area towards the centre of the site. This would result in the vehicle access moving from its current position approximately 25m further west. As a result of this, the central refuge would need to be shorted to increase the length of the existing right-turn filter. The forecourt area would be of sufficient size to accommodate servicing by a refuse truck and 10m rigid lorry. The commercial unit would be serviced by a dedicated loading bay adjacent to this unit on the highway.

4.9 The proposals would include the provision of a new public riverside walkway from Waterman’s Park to Smith Hill. This would be re-graded to achieve level access and have a minimum width of approximately 2.5m.

4.10 Residential waste and recycling stores would be located at basement/lower ground floor level and accessible from the individual blocks with the management company responsible for bringing bins to ground level for collection. 170 Environmental Impact Assessment

4.11 Owing to the nature of the proposal development, an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. Before determining the application the Council must consider the environmental information contained in the Environmental Statement (“ES”), including the further information submitted, as well as representations from consultees about the environmental effects of the development.

4.12 The ES assesses likely environmental impacts from the development including its construction and operation, including cumulative impacts from other on-going developments. The ES identifies the existing (baseline) environmental conditions, and the likely environmental impacts (including magnitude, duration, and significance) and also identifies measures to mitigate any adverse impacts. A summary of potential positive and negative residual effects remaining after mitigation measures is also given.

4.13 The ES itself does not necessarily consider compliance with planning policies and so planning permission does not have to be granted or refused based on its findings, but these are material considerations. Where significant adverse effects are found, consideration will need to be given to mitigation proposed and then ultimately to whether the remaining impact warrants refusal or if such harm is outweighed by other benefits.

4.14 The ES contains analysis of impacts for the following topics:

 Daylight & Sunlight  Ground Conditions  Water Environment  Below Ground Archaeology  Noise & Vibration  Air Quality  Socio-Economics  Cumulative Effects

4.15 Officers are satisfied the ES (taken together with the other application documents) has adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the development.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 245 neighbour notification letters were sent on the 10/08/2017 including to the Brentford Community Council and the ward councillors for Syon and Brentford Wards. The Brentford High Street Steering Group was notified on the 21/08/2017. 145 further neighbour notification letters were sent on the 24/08/2017. Two site notices were displayed on the 20/08/2017 and a press notice was published on the 18/08/2017. Fifty-one objections have been received which have been summarised as follows:

Comment Response

The overall scale of the Whilst the scale of the development 171 development is too large, in is such that it would be highly visible particular when seen from and a significant increase from the Waterman’s Park and from the existing buildings, it has been direction of Kew Bridge. sympathetically designed with significant set-backs from the High Street and riverside to improve the public realm around the site and will help to maximise the value on the site to help cross-subsidise the delivery of a new, purpose-built, self- sufficient arts centre and affordable housing and is necessary to achieve these public benefits.

The proposal would appear massive Through architectural detailing the and would not act as a sympathetic massing of the building has sought entrance to Brentford High Street. to be broken down. The proposal would help mark the entrance to Brentford High Street in a way that the existing building fails to do so, and this would be enhanced with improvements to the public realm along the High Street frontage.

The scale of development would The proposal creates two views create a wall of development along through the development where the High Street with inadequate currently there are no views across views through to the river. the site to the riverside from the High Street and provides a much more accessible and spacious public space along the riverfront. Good building setbacks and articulation help to break up the massing of the long buildings along the street frontage, and overall the relationship of the site to the river is improvement on the existing situation.

The scale of development would be The elevation facing the park has detrimental to the ambiance and been enhanced with additional character of Waterman’s Park. balconies, windows and architectural detailing to give more animation and help break up the mass of this otherwise imposing façade. The inclusion of a café at park level and the improvements to the public realm around the site are also significant.

The height is inappropriate for this A building of height in this location riverside location and next to the would help mark the entrance to lower buildings it neighbours. It Brentford High Street in a way that would be higher than any the existing building fails to do so. surrounding buildings. Whilst it would be taller than would generally be expected, it has been 172 sympathetically designed with significant set-backs from the High Street and riverside to improve the public realm around the site and will help to maximise the value on the site to help cross-subsidise the delivery of a new, purpose-built, self- sufficient arts centre and affordable housing.

The design of the buildings is There is no dominant building unattractive and monolithic, and has typology in the locality with the local the appearance of high-rise towers context showing considerable variety that are dull and dreary. It is not in building styles. The proposal sympathetic to this riverside setting would be of a high design quality, and more suited to a central, urban with a high quality finish that uses area. architectural features to help break up the massing of the buildings whilst the staggered building lines help create more generous landscaped spaces around each block, helping to soften the transition between the riverside and the development. The multifaceted design would maximise views across the river which would help to maximise value on the site to cross- subsidise the delivery of a new, purpose-built, self-sufficient arts centre and affordable housing.

The proposal is an ‘eye-sore’ that It is considered that the proposal greatly impacts on Kew Gardens as would have less than substantial a World Heritage Site and the Grade harm on these heritage assets and I Listed Kew Palace. that the public benefits of the scheme, notably the re-provision of the arts centre in the town centre, provision of 20% affordable housing across both sites and the improvements to the public realm including a new, fully accessible riverside path would outweigh such harm.

The proposals will result in the arts The re-provision of the Waterman’s centre losing its unique and Arts Centre towards the centre of distinctive riverside and park-side Brentford is a key policy objective location which is adequately served throughout the Local Plan and is by public transport and with ample highlighted in the site allocation for car parking. An arts centre should this site. The town centre site will be incorporated into the design to assist with the wider regeneration of retain this facility on site. Brentford and help to revitalise and support the economic development 173 of the town centre.

There are too many residential units The socio-economic impact of the which will put pressure on existing proposal has been assessed and infrastructure (e.g. medical, identifies potential capacity within educational, etc.). health and educational facilities in close proximity to the site.

The riverside landscape will be non- The site is already developed and existent as most of it has already represents an under-developed been built upon and this is the last brownfield site. The adjacent undeveloped stretch. Waterman’s Park would remain undeveloped and retained as open space with the proposal greatly enhancing the accessibility of the river walkway (Thames Path) along the river frontage of the site.

The proposals will block out light. The daylight and sunlight assessment indicates that there will be a loss of light to some rooms but this impact is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on residents’ amenity and the public benefits of the scheme would outweigh any harm.

The proposals will lead to a loss of It is considered that through privacy for neighbouring residents appropriate safeguarding conditions, with windows and balconies the impact of balconies and positioned close to existing habitable room windows on existing windows. properties could be minimised to ensure residents’ retain adequate privacy.

The proposed flats will not be for There is significant demand for new local people (too expensive) who housing across tenure types within work and contribute to the local the Borough (822 new homes per economy and social community of year) to which these proposals will Brentford. contribute significantly (36% of total annual target across the two sites).

Insufficient car parking is provided The level of car parking is for the new residents. considered appropriate for this site with ‘moderate’ accessibility to public transport and would be within the London Plan standards.

The existing arts centre is in a good The re-provision of the Waterman’s location for small-scale theatre Arts Centre towards the centre of productions – the replacement on Brentford is a key policy objective the police station site without car throughout the Local Plan and is parking will compromise the viability highlighted in the site allocation for of the arts centre and its this site. The town centre site will 174 attractiveness for visitors. assist with the wider regeneration of Brentford and help to revitalise and support the economic development of the town centre.

The applicant has not followed the Pre-application engagement by the correct process and undertaken developer is not a statutory meaningful public consultation. requirement of any planning application. It is noted that a number of exhibitions were held by the developer prior to the submission of the application.

The riverside will be obliterated from The proposals will open up two view and access for the enjoyment views through the site from the High of the community. Street which the current buildings prevent. There will be significant improvements to the public realm around the site, include the provision of a new, fully accessible riverside walk which will be publicly accessible and secured in the S106 agreement.

The excessive levels of car parking The level of vehicle movements will increase traffic on already busy associated with the development roads. would not be significant and would be unlikely to affect traffic levels in the vicinity of the site.

There are no guarantees the new A restriction will be included in the arts centre will be built. S106 agreement preventing the demolition of the existing arts centre building until the completion and occupation of the new arts centre on the Half Acre site.

Lighting along the walkway should These details would be secured by be low-level to minimise ‘light spill’ condition. on the river and moorings opposite.

There is the opportunity to maximise These details would be secured by the southerly orientation of the site condition. with PVs to reduce the carbon footprint or contribute to the community.

Sufficient measures with ‘teeth’ are The details would be secured by required to protect existing residents condition. during the construction phase.

No affordable housing would be Up to 20% affordable housing (60 provided on this site. units) would be provided across the two sites with early and out-turn 175 viability review mechanisms to capture any uplift in viability to contribute towards further affordable housing delivery in the Borough.

5.2 Three comments have been received to this application supporting the principle of relocating the Waterman’s Arts Centre to the police station site in Brentford as well as support from the Hounslow Chamber of Commerce and the Theatres Trust.

5.3 Greater London Authority (GLA): This application is referable under the following categories:  1A 1. “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”;

 1B 1. “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings… outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000sqm”; and,

 1C 1.(a) “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of… more than 25m high and is adjacent to the River Thames”.

The following comments have been received in respect of these two applications:

Principle of development: the proposed mixed use redevelopment of this largely derelict town centre site is strongly supported, but it must be verified that the former Brentford police station site is not required to meet local need for education or any alternative form of social infrastructure. An appropriate phasing strategy must be secured in order to ensure continuity of operation for the Waterman’s Arts Centre.

Housing: the proposed 10% affordable housing provision is wholly unacceptable. The applicant must pursue all possible avenues to financially optimise the scheme in order to deliver a significantly enhanced affordable housing offer. Late and early stage viability reviews must be secured.

Urban design: the architectural approach is supported, but the applicant must provide an increased quantum of development at the former Brentford police station site.

Historic environment: the Albany Riverside scheme would result in some less than substantial harm to Kew Palace and Kew World Heritage Site. The applicant must make a significantly enhanced affordable housing offer in order to support the public benefits justification to outweigh this harm.

Transport: the applicant must address issues with: vehicle parking; transport network impact; walking and cycling; and, servicing, construction and travel planning.

5.4 Transport for London (TfL) has provided the following initial comments:

Vehicle parking – TfL welcome the quantum of car parking but would request that this be lowered to the 33 spaces plus 10 blue badge spaces indicated at pre- application stage or sufficient justification submitted for additional spaces. The parking layout should be revised to ensure all blue badge spaces are located as 176 close to the building entrances/cores as possible. These spaces do not currently meet London Plan specifications. The level of Electric Vehicle Charging Point provision is welcomed.

Trip generation – The trip generation exercise has not been conducted in accordance with TfL Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance. However, from sense-checking the trip rates, mode share and subsequent trip numbers reasonably represent the predicted trip generation of the proposed development. The likely use of buses for certain trips, in particular linked trips to Kew Bridge train station should be reconsidered. In regard to bus journeys, the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the highway network. The proposed quantum of additional bus journey trips as a result of the development (and the development at the police station site) appears quite high and whilst there is enough spare capacity to accommodate the increase in the existing high frequency services in the area, a contribution may be requested from one of both developments to mitigate the impact on the local bus network and ensure there is enough capacity to meet the demand. This will be confirmed in due course. The Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) should contain measures to prevent any peak hour delivery and servicing trips.

Walking & Cycling – A PERS audit was conducted which identified no significant improvements to the local pedestrian network. Access to the new riverside walkway should be secured to allow 24/7 for the public. A CLoS assessment has not been undertaken and whilst the Transport Assessment did assess nearby cycle routes, it did not identified any improvements. TfL query the findings of this assessment where it also demonstrated that there is no formal cycle provision nearby. Cycle Superhighway Route 9 (CS9) is proposed to run along Brentford High Street immediately to the north of the site. Given the emphasis on the role of sustainable transport options in supporting the development in the application documents, a contribution of £50,000 from this development to help facilitate the implementation of CS9 is sought. Cycle parking is in accordance with the London Plan and the design of stores should meet the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS). This should also extend to how cyclists enter the building and the LCDS recommends the use of push-button controls to assist with door opening. It is recommended that the largest of the cycle stores in the basement be reduced in size further.

Servicing & Construction – the submission of an outline DSP is welcomed and the final version should be secured by condition. The outline Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) is welcomed and the final version should be secured by condition.

Travel Plan – the submitted Travel Plan does not clearly explain how the Plan and the measures within it will be funded or secured. A final version should include this information and be secured by Section 106 agreement.

5.5 Port of London Authority (PLA) has no objection in principle but makes the following comments:

River Walk – References are made to temporary works in the river channel in the application documents; it is likely that this will also require a river works licence. A condition securing the provision of riparian lifesaving equipment along the river edge should be included.

Lighting – Given the sites location, consideration should be given to any changes to the external lighting proposed as part of the development, to 177 ensure it does not cause a hazard to river uses or have a detrimental impact on river ecology. The details of the proposed lighting should be secured by condition.

Other – It is considered that there could be scope, given the sites location to maximise use of the river through the supply chain and source materials from a nearby wharf facility, ensuring that water transport is used at least in part during the construction phase and to help take lorry trips off local roads. Such consideration should be secured by condition.

5.6 Historic England (historic buildings) raise the following objections:  The encroachment of urban, modern construction such as the large blocks of flats proposed will fundamentally undermine the existing quality of the setting of Kew Palace, including in views currently untouched by modern development, and will set an uncontrollable precedent for further new buildings within the hinterland of the World Heritable Site.  There is no objection to the redevelopment of the existing buildings in principle.  Kew Gardens and Kew Palace benefit from the highest possible levels of heritage protection as a combination of World Heritage Site, Grade I listed building, Scheduled Monument, Grade I Registered Park and Garden and a conservation area.  The visibility of the proposal is considered to be harmful to the setting of Kew Palace, Kew Gardens and the Arcadian Thames.  As a result of the size of the proposed buildings there will be a degree of visibility in the setting of the Palace and Gardens that ultimately compromises the quality of the environment around the WHS. This is a very serious degree of harm that will be apparent on a world stage. The necessary delivery of public benefits required to justify this harm in terms of the NPPF would need to be clear, convincing and very great.  Question whether the extent of harm proposed is necessary in order to achieve the aims of delivering new retail and residential accommodation and the relocation of the Waterman’s Arts Centre, and whether their desirability is sufficient to outweigh the substantial public interest in the preservation of the WHS at Kew.  The proposals cause serious harm to the significance of heritage assets of the highest possible designations. The severity of this impact is a departure from the principles and policies of the NPPF and cannot be considered to be sustainable development.  Unconvinced that such harm is necessary to regenerate the site successfully and bring about wider public benefits, though the pursuit of those aims is supported.  The proposals are contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which required Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting (Section 66) and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area (Section 72).

5.7 Historic England (Archaeology) 178recommended safeguarding condition for further archaeological investigation.

5.8 Environment Agency (EA) raises the following objections:  The submitted FRA does not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development.  The proposal fails to improve the ecological value of the watercourse.

Following submission of additional information in respect of the first objection, the EA no longer object on flood risk grounds.

5.9 Brentford Community Council raises the following objections:  The concept of moving the Waterman’s Arts Centre from its unique riverside location offers a very special experience which is accessible for Brentford residents and wider clientele throughout west London with an exceptional position. It should be redeveloped in its current location, utilising the un-used part of the site to improve and enlarge the arts centre with housing above that did not compromise the setting of the WHS or Grade I listed Kew Palace.  The promotion of a single approach to the provision of an arts centre in Brentford without demonstrating the Council’s analysis of alternative scenarios, having regard to legal precedent which requires “in particular that the Local Authority must credibly document that there has been and continues to be, publication by the Local Planning Authority at this formative stage of all reasonable and proportionate alternatives, not just options which happen to be favoured by the authority”.  A detailed planning consent should not be granted when no details of the proposed Arts Centre are provided. There are no definitive plans to support the statement that the new arts centre at the Half Acre site would be the same size and that the facilities would be better arranged.  At least 100 affordable flats should be secured.  The proposals create a high wall of development, excluding the Thames and open views to Kew for all other Brentford residents. The close proximity of the five blocks to one another would mean that only occasional diagonal open views from the High Street would be possible.  This is an area of open space deficiency and rising densities, any measure which reduces the enjoyment of open spaces and the river should be resisted.

5.10 Historic Royal Palaces raise the following objections:  The proposed development would have a substantially harmful effect on the setting of Kew Palace and the Kew WHS and on the attributed of the site’s Outstanding Universal Value.  Key views of Kew Palace within the WHS, particularly from the north end of the Broad Walk and the lawns in front of the building, would be seriously compromised by the proposed development rising above the existing tree line and filling the important sky space to the west of the palace. The development would appear as a solid mass, dramatically altering the historic backdrop of the palace and the WHS forever. The outlook across the Thames from the formal gardens to the north-west front of the palace would be seriously affected by the visible and solid presence of the development on the opposite bank of the river. 179  The documentation provided with the application is inadequate and that the severity of the impact has been significantly under-estimated. Further assessment should be made which follows GLA and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) guidance.

5.11 The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames raises the following objection:  The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk, massing and location would result in an excessively extensive and prominent projection above the skyline which would appear visually intrusive in views across the river from the Royal Botanic Gardens World Heritage Site, which is also a Grade I listed park and garden, from the Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew) and Kew Green Conservation Areas and from the River Thames riverside Metropolitan Open Land. Additionally it would be detrimental to the setting of a number of statutory listed building and Buildings of Townscape Merit.

5.12 The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew raise the following objections:  The proposal would represent a major change to the setting of the World Heritage Site and would cause substantial harm to attributes of OUV [Outstanding Universal Value]. Attributes of OUV affected by the proposed application include the rich and diverse historic cultural landscape and the iconic architectural legacy discussed at 3.8 and 3.9 of the World Heritage Site Management Plan.  The World Heritage Site Management Plan sets out significant of the site and policies for its protection. The proposal would affect several character zones of the WHS particularly the Entrance Zone and the Riverside Zone described at 3.5 of the Management Plan.  It is clear that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the setting of Kew Gardens and Kew Palace and to the attributes of OUV of the World Heritage Site.  The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment contained within the application documents refers to the GLA Supplementary Planning Guidance on settings of World Heritage Sites in London but does not then make use of it in assessing the impact of the application. This assessment should be undertaken in accordance with GLA guidance.

5.13 The Kew Society raises the following objections:  The overall size, height and position of the proposed development is excessive and contrary to the Local Plan given that the extent and prominence of the projections above the skyline would appear visually intrusive in views across the river northwards from Kew, the Arcadian Thames and the Royal Botanic Gardens World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and the setting.  The development would impact materially and adversely upon the setting of the Grade I listed Kew Palace.  The proposals for the relocated Waterman’s Arts Centre should include the establishment of an independent, charitable endowment fund from the redevelopment proceeds to substitute for the Council annual financial subsidy (which is to be withdrawn) and ensure the sustainability of the relocated arts centre. The loss, subsequent to relocation, of a cultural site of community use and value because of inadequate on-going annual financial provision would 180 be a loss to the community beyond Brentford itself.

 No consent should be granted unless and until the joint venture agreement between the developer and the Council has been executed and made available for public review.

5.14 The proposals were presented to the Planning Committee Presentation Forum on the 20th July 2017 prior to submission. The following comments were made:  One of the main concerns is the loss of view of the river from the High Street.  What comments have been received from Kew?  Concern that the massing adjacent to the Waterman’s Park is too great and should be reduced by at least two storeys and redistributed.  What is the affordable housing offer? And the housing mix for both sites?  What is the cost of providing the new arts centre?  Will public art be incorporated into the proposal?  Will access be provided across the site?  What is the parking provision?  What comments have the Waterman’s Arts Centre given on the proposals?

5.15 Since the proposal is for a major development, the application has been drawn to Members' attention on the weekly pending decision list dated 1st – 8th September 2017 (Week 35). There was no request for the application to be presented to the Area Forum.

5.16 The application will be referred back to the GLA (Stage 2) once a resolution has been made by Members. Under the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor, upon re-consultation by the local planning authority, may direct the Council to refuse the application or issue a direction that he is to act at the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application.

5.17 Since the application was submitted, and originally referred to the Mayor, the Council has received further information in support of both applications. This includes an increased affordable housing offer which would deliver 20% affordable housing total across the two sites on the former Brentford police station site, as well as other information in relation to the matters raised by TfL and on energy and sustainability. This information will be submitted to the GLA/TfL as part of the Stage 2 consultation.

6.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

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

The National Planning Policy Framework

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012, and from April 2014 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in the form 181 of an online guidance resource to support the NPPF came into effect. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where pertinent, the NPPF and NPPG are material considerations and as such, will be taken into account in decision-making as appropriate.

The Development Plan

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

6.4 The draft New London Plan was published on 29 November 2017, for consultation from 1 December 2017 to 2 March 2018. The policies of the draft Plan are capable of being a material consideration in planning decisions. Its policies will gain more weight as it moves through the examination process to adoption; however the weight given to it is a matter for the decision maker. At this stage only limited weight is to be given to the draft Plan due to it being only in the initial stages of consultation.

6.5 The Council are currently undertaking two Local Plan Reviews; the West of Borough Local Plan review and the Great West Corridor Local Plan review. Consultation on the ‘Preferred Options Consultation’ document for both these reviews, and amendments to the adopted Local Plan, was undertaken between 23 October 2017 and 10 December 2017. The policies of these draft Plans are capable of being a material consideration in planning decisions. Their policies will gain more weight as it moves through the examination process to adoption; however the weight given to them is a matter for the decision maker. At this stage only limited weight is to be given to these draft Plans due to them being only in the initial stages of consultation.

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

7.0 ASSESSMENT

The principle of the proposed development

7.1 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking (Para 14).

7.2 The NPPF emphasises meeting local needs through providing high quality community services and good design, while protecting the local environment. It seeks to protect open space, with reference to specific local need and taking account of replacement or mitigation measures.

7.3 Policy IMP1 (Sustainable development) of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council “will take a plan-led approach to all growth and development within the Borough that is considered to be in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, with a balance of social, environmental and economic dimensions”. This policy re-iterates the presumption in favour of sustainable development established in the NPPF.

7.4 The adopted Local Plan sets out the Borough’s approach to Sustainable Development and how it will be achieved (IMP1 – Sustainable Development), and 182 includes: IMP2 (Delivering Site Allocations): We will ensure that site allocations contribute to the delivery of sustainable growth and supporting infrastructure, which will be achieved by: a. Supporting in principle the proposals that accord with the identified site allocation and the proposed use of the site and which have regard to the context constraints and other provisions of the respective site allocations; b. Preparing non-statutory planning briefs, masterplans and promoting housing zone designations where appropriate to support the development of individual site allocations and the spatial integration of related development sites; and c. Considering the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to support wider regeneration objectives and the delivery of critical or necessary infrastructure.

IMP3 (Implementing and Monitoring the Local Plan): We will implement the Local Plan, working with strategic partners and the local community and committing to monitoring the progress made year by year. We will ensure that new development in the Borough contributes towards the provision of infrastructure needed to support growth.

7.5 Policy IMP2 (Delivering site allocations) of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council “will ensure that site allocations contribute to the delivery of sustainable growth and supporting infrastructure”.

Re-provision of cultural use

7.6 The potential to relocate the Waterman’s Arts Centre to Brentford Town Centre is identified as one of the aims of the spatial strategy for Brentford within the Local Plan to assist with the regeneration of Brentford as a vibrant District Centre.

7.7 Local Plan Policy TC2 (Ensuring the Future Vitality of Town Centres) seeks to promote the regeneration of the Borough’s town centres, with a particular emphasis on Hounslow and Brentford. The Council will support the vitality and viability of centres, and promote them as places that provide a diverse retail, service, business, cultural and leisure offer. This policy actively promotes the relocation of Waterman’s Arts Centre into Brentford town centre and promotes the opportunities for sustainable movement, particular from north to south, from the river through the town centre to Brentford station and the Great West Road. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is not within the Brentford Town Centre boundary, it is immediately adjacent and is located on the main north-south connection between Brentford station and the High Street.

7.8 Policy TC4 (Managing Uses in Town Centres) builds on this and identifies that the leisure, cultural and entertainment offer is limited and dispersed, with its greatest asset, Waterman’s Arts Centre, being located outside the town centre boundary.

7.9 Local Plan Policy CI4 (Culture and Leisure Facilities) states that the Council will plan for, invest in, and facilitate development of a network of culture and leisure offers which cater for the increased population and the identified needs and demands of the borough. As such, proposals for leisure and cultural facilities must be located in accessible places and ensure they are designed to enable access to all potential users. The site has an excellent public transport accessibility level and is located close to a range of transport modes as well as other services, being located on the edge of Brentford Town Centre, and as such is an 183 appropriate location for a new culture and leisure facility, in accordance with Policy CI4.

7.10 Local Plan Policy CI1 (Providing and Protecting Community Facilities) requires new community facilities, which can consist of C2, D1 and D2 and potentially Sui Generis use classes, to be located in new community facilities within or at the edge of town centres, unless the new facility is local in nature and scale and where a local need for the facility can be demonstrated. The site sits on the edge of Brentford Town Centre and as such is an appropriate location for a new community facility, in accordance with Policy CI1.

7.11 In the adopted Local Plan, the application site is allocated (Site Reference 11) for ‘Residential and re-provision of the Arts Centre either on-site or within Brentford town centre’. The allocation goes on to state that the site should be developed comprehensively in order to optimise the residential capacity of the site as a whole as this would help achieve regeneration of the overall area and avoid the sterilisation of individual elements of the site. The mixed use allocation is based on a floorspace ratio of 50:50 residential to non-residential. Educational, health and water-related uses, particularly those that support greater use of the river and canal for education and recreational purposes, could also form part of a mixed use scheme in order to contribute to the overall goal of regenerating the area. Any scheme should enable public access to the riverside.

7.12 The proposed redevelopment of this site would be linked through a S106 legal agreement with the proposed delivery of a new, purpose-built, self-sufficient arts centre on the site of the former Brentford police station on Half Acre, alongside 105 new dwellings. A restriction would be including in the S106 to ensure that commencement of the redevelopment of this site could not commence until the new arts centre was completed and ready for occupation. This would ensure continuity of provision of an arts centre for the local area and satisfy the requirements of the site allocation.

7.13 As set out in the report for the proposals at the former Brentford police station site, there is strong policy support for the re-location of the Waterman’s Arts Centre to Brentford Town Centre, and the wider regeneration benefits of such a move, with that site being suitable given its location immediately adjacent to the town centre, on a prominent site linking the station and High Street, with visible, active frontage onto the public highway. This position is supported by the GLA who confirm that the proposal would “help to support the vibrancy and diversity of the district town centre core, and is likely to be a significantly more sustainable location for this cultural use given the higher level of footfall and public transport accessibility of the area”.

7.14 Furthermore, it is noted that the new facility on Half Acre has been designed in consultation with the Hounslow Arts Trust and would provide c.555sqm (25%) uplift in floorspace compared to the existing building. It would provide a theatre, cinema, café, bar and restaurant, as well as studio and gallery space, in a purpose-designed facility (as opposed to the existing 1980s conference centre at Albany Riverside) which would also allow the new space to operate significantly more efficiently. It has also been designed to be financially self-sufficient such that if funding from the local Council was no longer available, the arts centre would be able to continue to operate.

New residential use 184 7.15 The London Plan identifies that ‘at least’ an annual average of 42,389 net additional homes should be provided across London. This clearly means that the Mayor supports the provision of housing over and above this level. For the London Borough of Hounslow, the minimum ten year target is set within Policy SC1 of the Local Plan (Housing Growth) at 12,330 dwellings over a 15 year time period, or 822 dwellings per annum (2015-2030).

7.16 London Plan Policy 3.3 (Increasing London’s Housing Supply) recognises the need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford. Policy 3.4 (Optimising Housing Potential) states that taking into account local context and character, the design principles outlined in Chapter 7 of the Plan, and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location.

7.17 Local Plan Policy SC1 (Housing Growth) states that the Council will seek to maximise the supply of housing in the Borough to meet housing need in a manner consistent with sustainable development principles and built at a rate that will exceed the London Plan annualised completion targets to and achieve at least 12,330 new homes between 2015 and 2030. The Council will achieve this by supporting proposals for new development and conversions on other sites, including small sites. It will do this in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, encouraging the effective use of land by reusing previously developed land provided that it is not of high environmental value or in a use otherwise protected in the Local Plan and recognising that an important contribution to housing supply will come from small infill sites. The policy requires the design of these to respond to and reflect local context and character and to have regard to design standards of the development plan and other supplementary planning documents.

7.18 The Borough’s town centres and other key growth areas, including site allocations, are critical to achieving the housing targets identified in Policy SC1. The site is located close to Brentford Town Centre (less than 500m), is partly allocated for residential and is a brownfield site, a portion of which has been vacant for a number of years. The proposals across the two sites would deliver 298 new dwellings which represents 36% of the Council’s annual housing target. Consequently it is considered that the principle of new residential development, in this highly sustainable location, would be entirely appropriate, helping to meet the housing need for the Borough.

Summary

7.19 In light of the consideration above, the proposed residential-led, mixed-use redevelopment of this brownfield site in a highly sustainable location would deliver much needed housing, whilst simultaneously supporting sustainable intensification and enhanced vibrancy and vitality of this District Centre and the wider regeneration objections for the area. This would accord with the objectives of the NPPF, the London Plan and adopted Local Plan policies, noting in particular the site allocation and the aspirations for the development of this site. The proposal would therefore be acceptable in principle, notwithstanding the other planning issues that will be discussed in turn.

7.20 The other main planning issues to consider are: 185 . Urban Design; . Heritage Impact . Residential Quality: Density, Mix, Tenure, Standards & Amenity Space . The impact on neighbouring land uses; . Highways, Transport and Access; . Energy and Sustainability; and . Other environmental considerations

Urban Design

Context

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

7.22 However it makes clear that planning permission should not be refused for buildings and infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concern about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).

7.23 The degree to which new development reflects and responds to the character and history of its surrounds is a key element of good design as defined within the NPPF. This relationship should be considered throughout the design process, and should inform the positioning, massing, height, and materiality of development proposals. Developing a design solution that works with its surrounding context should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation.

7.24 The London Plan requires all large scale proposals to be of the highest quality design especially in terms of impact on views, the wider and local townscape context and local environmental impact. The achievement of high quality urban design is also highlighted as a key factor in achieving a more attractive and green city.

7.25 London Plan Policy 7.4 (Local Character) sets out that buildings should provide a high quality design response to the urban grain, street pattern, natural features, human scale and the historic environment and is supported by Policy 7.6 (Architecture) which seeks to promote high architectural and design quality appropriate to its context.

7.26 Policy 7.7 of the London Plan (Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings) 186 does not explicitly define such buildings in the policy, nor is there specific definition in the CABE Guidance on Tall Buildings on which the policy draws, but given the height of the proposal it may be argued that it would constitute a tall building (being substantially taller than its surroundings).

7.27 The policy does not seek to resist tall and large buildings in appropriate locations and notes that their location should be part of a plan-led approach with boroughs working with the Mayor to consider which areas are appropriate for such buildings and identify them through local policy. The following criteria are listed within the policy:  “generally be limited to sites in the Central Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport;  only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass and bulk of a tall or large building;  relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm (including landscape features), particularly at street level;  individually or as a group, improve the legibility of an area, by emphasising a point of civic or visual significance where appropriate, and enhance the skyline and image of London;  incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials, including sustainable design and construction practices;  have ground floor activities that provide a positive relationship to the surrounding streets;  contribute to improving the permeability of the site and wider areas, where possible;  incorporate publicly accessible areas on the upper floors, where appropriate;  make a significant contribution to local regeneration.”

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

7.29 The Urban Context and Character Study identifies and analyses the urban character of the Borough. By assessing the character of those areas of the Borough likely to undergo significant growth over the Local Plan period, the Context and Character Study can help new development to add to local character in ways which enhance positive qualities and address negative issues.

7.30 The Urban Context and Character Study defines a tall building in the borough as any building or structure which is over 20m in height and/or which is significantly taller than the surrounding townscape and/ or which recognisably changes the skyline. As the height of the tallest part of the development is over 21m it would constitute a tall building in terms of the Study and Local Plan.

187 7.31 Local Plan policy CC3 (Tall Buildings) outlines the Council’s approach to tall buildings:

“To contribute to regeneration and growth, we will support high quality tall buildings in identified locations which accord with the principles of sustainable development.”

7.32 It goes on to state that tall buildings will be supported in Hounslow Town Centre and lists 12 criteria against which the Council would expect proposals for tall buildings to comply. These are:  “Be sensitively located and be of a height and scale that is in proportion to its location and setting, and carefully relate and respond to the character of the surrounding area;  Be of the highest architectural design and standards; be attractive, robust and sustainable;  Be of a scale that reflects their relevance and hierarchical importance when located within a grouping/cluster of tall buildings;  Be designed to give full consideration to its form, massing and silhouette including any cumulative impacts and the potential impact of this on the immediate and wider context;  Relate heights to widths of spaces to achieve comfortable proportions, and provide a positive edge to the public realm and a human scale through the careful treatment of ground floors and lower levels;  Provide for a comfortable and pleasant microclimate which minimises wind vortices and over-shadowing;  Provide for biodiversity within the building form and be sensitive to surrounding open spaces including waterways to ensure minimal impact;  Take opportunities to enhance the setting of surrounding heritage assets, the overall skyline and views;  Carefully consider the façade and overall detailing to ensure visual interest, vertical and horizontal rhythms, an indication of how the building is inhabited, internal thermal comfort and the visual break-up of the building visually at varying scales;  Use materials and finishes that are robust, durable and of the highest quality, with facades providing innate interest, variety and function;  Incorporate innovative approaches to providing high quality, usable, private and communal amenity space where residential uses are proposed; and  Comply with the requirements of the Public Safety Zone for London Heathrow Airport, where appropriate.”

7.33 The supporting text of Policy CC3 states that, “Way-marking can come from distinctiveness rather than size, so tall buildings should be placed in suitable locations where access to public transport is good and they provide a relevant marker and focal point”. It goes on to state that “Located in the right place and designed sensitively, tall buildings can add to an area’s townscape and image, assist in regeneration, mark a town centre/public transport node or assist in way- finding”. 188 7.34 The Context and Character Study describes the area in which the site is located as being of ‘Medium’ design quality, ‘Medium’ sensitivity to change, ‘Low’ permanence and ‘Some’ for tall buildings. It is described as “a bewildering and incoherent mix of old and new, from Victorian houses and large-scale industrial buildings to mid-rise 1980s office and high-rise 2010s urban renaissance mixed- use developments”.

7.35 At the western end of this character area the unimposing building housing the Waterman’s Arts Centre, together with a drive-through McDonalds, heralds Brentford town centre. Further to the west of the site, the urban form becomes much denser with modern developments fronting right up to the High Street with little relief at street level, whilst to the east the open expanse of Waterman’s Park provides views of, and direct access to, the riverside. Despite ground floor retail and commercial units along this stretch, there is a lack of activity due to the physical, visual and perceptual disconnection from the town centre. Generally buildings follow an ‘urban renaissance’ typology which provides a degree of homogeneity although variation is evident through differing materials and colours of bricks (red brick gives way to buff/light-coloured brick towards Brentford town centre). The existing building contributes nothing to the activity along the High Street with the car parking at lower level acting as a moat-like barrier whilst the horizontal expanse of the building prevents any views of the river frontage through the site. The forecourt entrance to the existing building is dominated by the vehicular access to the car park.

Layout, height and massing

7.36 The key urban design objectives for the site are to create a development that responds to the High Street, riverside and park edge setting, which allows views through the site and provides relief at street level with enhanced public realm, to have the overall effect of marking the entrance to Brentford town centre.

7.37 The proposals comprise five residential blocks of seven to eight storeys conjoined and staggered along this linear site. This allows for views through the site and good natural light and a multi-aspect outlook for all future residents. The scale of development reflects its dominant location at the entrance to Brentford town centre and at this key junction with Ealing Road. It will read as a massive building in the street scene, in particular when compared with the existing building, given the long frontage and scale of the building, although this will be partly offset by the faceted nature of the building form and the separations between the blocks.

189

View down Ealing Road

7.38 The height has largely been influenced by the impact of the proposal on Kew Gardens on the opposing side of the river rather than through the townscape immediately adjoining the site. This has resulted in a significant step in height from the open expanse of Waterman’s Park to the seven storeys at the eastern end of the site with only the enhanced form of balconies and windows and other architectural treatment to ‘soften’ the impact and give greater articulation to this extremely prominent end elevation. Furthermore, it is considered that the step down in height from the proposal to the adjoining development immediately to the west would appear a little disjointed and at odds with the general decrease in height away from the town centre one might expect, although the set-back from the front at this corner goes some way to alleviate this awkward relationship.

7.39 When viewed in the streetscape, the additional height of the proposal in comparison to other developments on this side of the High Street appears at odds with the generally consistent approach to building heights and there appears to be little justification for a taller element in this location, away from the town centre. It is considered that a more appropriate relationship would be to continue the height of adjoining developments through this site with a step down to Waterman’s Park. This would create a more sympathetic relationship with the park and highlight the undeveloped nature of this area adjacent to the riverside. However, it is recognised that in order to achieve the level of accommodation required to generate the necessary revenue to deliver the new arts centre building on the former police station site, additional height would be required.

7.40 The massing of the proposal is such that it would present a strong frontage to the street edge, allowing for glimpses of the riverside setting between blocks (less than 10m), but with a multi-faceted design helping to break up the overall mass and add interest. This would be further reinforced through the horizontality introduced through the materiality and use of reconstituted stonework to define balconies etc. The expression of entrances onto the High Street is welcomed and the landscaped treatment to link these with the High190 Street will be very important, ensuring the differentiation of public and private spaces is clear. These elements will help relieve the wall-like intensity of the development up close, although from further afield, and when viewed from the some angles, they will be imperceptible, giving the impression of a solid frontage along the length of the site.

7.41 As with other developments along this section of the riverside, the proposal would not step-down to the riverside, however in the case of nearby development, clear views between the blocks are possible, even at oblique angles, to help distinguish and break up the mass of these buildings. The proposals lack such separation with limited glimpses through and from only specific angles, and this relationship contributes to its significantly greater scale when compared to neighbouring developments.

7.42 The applicant, in their Design & Access Statement highlights the London mansion block as being a key driver for the building typology and approach, identifying the omni-directionality of the mansion block as being a key component that is appropriate for this site. Whilst officers do not see this running through the design, or being a particularly appropriate form for this riverside setting, it is accepted that the multi-faceted design approach maximises the riverside setting and views thereby creating high quality residential units which will be of benefit for end values to help cross-subsidise the delivery of the arts centre and affordable housing.

7.43 The positioning of the café use on the corner of the site by the park will help bring activity and vibrancy, drawing people along the new publicly accessible riverside walk. This feature represents a significant improvement beyond the current, convoluted and unpleasant route along the river. It will create level access along the entire riverside frontage of the site, as well as opening up wider views of the river where presently these are neglected and restricted by the poor access arrangements. This feature of the development is strongly supported and will result in a significant public benefit.

7.44 It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal would not be typically reflective of this riverside setting, it would be of a high design quality nonetheless, and would contribute significantly to the improvement of the public realm around the site, most notably through the provision of a fully accessible public riverside walkway. The area has a wider variety of building styles with no single style being dominant. Whilst it is considered that the height of the development is inappropriate to this location, being at the very fringes of the town centre and adjacent to an expanse of open space, it is recognised that this quantum of development will help to subsidise the delivery of a new, purpose-built and self-sufficient arts centre in the centre of Brentford. There are elements within the design which have attempted to reduce the apparent mass and wall-like appearance of the development, providing glimpses through and soften the edges, and generally these are well considered.

Materiality & External Treatment

7.45 A contemporary and robust palette of materials has been proposed for the façade treatment of the building which would provide a homogenous finish from ground floor through to the upper floors. Three brick types of the same ‘family’ are proposed which would help to accentuate the different blocks and blend with the setting of Kew Palace on the opposing side of the river.

7.46 The fenestration at upper levels would have a uniform arrangement with full brick 191 reveals, responding to internal layouts, but also helping to tone down the individual façade treatments and ensure they would not become overly fussy where otherwise the stepped building form and changes in building plane could become overbearing. Balconies would be enclosed within the horizontal banding feature around the external façade of the building to ensure that these appear as integral features rather than ‘stuck-on’ additions.

7.47 It is considered that such an approach is appropriate for this development, with a simple palette of robust materials, but with detailing that helps provide interest and mark important elements of the building (e.g. the main entrances).

7.48 It is therefore considered that the architectural approach across the development would ensure a high quality finish that worked to break up the scale and mass of the new building but also gives a sense of identity and legibility. The proposed materiality ensures consistency of appearance and uniformity that responds to the local vernacular. The success of this approach will be dependent upon the final design detail and materials, which will be secured by condition to ensure a high standard of finish.

Landscaping

7.49 The proposals make use of significant opportunities to maximise new landscaping, most notably along the High Street frontage where at present whilst there is planting along the site edge, this is poorly maintained and only serves to screen the existing building without contributing to its setting. The proposed landscaping would help to define the spaces to the front of the buildings, creating routes to entrances and helping to delineate between public and private spaces through difference surface treatments. There are significant opportunities for tree planting along the High Street frontage which would significantly contribute to the street scene, reflecting the level of greenery on the opposing side of the road and helping to soften the appearance of the development. Such details should be secured by condition.

7.50 The landscaping of the communal gardens on the river-side of the development would help to soften the appearance of the development, in particular when viewed from the public footpath along the riverside. In addition, these areas would provide an attractive and accessible space for residents with an open, southerly aspect. This area has been designed to include defensible planting and terraces around the ground floor flats with various planting and tree species.

7.51 It is considered that the proposed landscaping across the development will help to soften the architectural form of the development to a degree. As such is it considered the proposed landscaping would ensure a high quality finish to the development, albeit the details of the finished arrangements would need to be secured by condition. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with the adopted Local Plan and London Plan.

Summary

7.52 It is considered that the proposals would deliver a high quality, contemporary residential development in this highly prominent location. It would be of significantly greater height and mass than the existing building, and those adjoining the site, and whilst in places this would mean the buildings would appear out of scale with the surroundings, most notably in respect of the setting of Waterman’s Park 192 immediately to the east, the significant contributions towards public realm that the proposals make would go some way to mitigating this dominating built-form. Furthermore, through architectural expression and significant landscaping, the wall-like scale of the development would be softened, whilst the creation of views through the site, albeit limited in size and field of view, would represent a significant improvement over the existing situation. Whilst it is not considered that this building typology is ideally suited to this location, it would represent an improvement from the existing, unimposing and uninspiring building that currently marks this approach to Brentford town centre, as well as helping to maximise the value of the new properties through the multi-aspect nature of the building design to help cross-subsidise the delivery of the new arts centre and provision of affordable housing on the former Brentford police station site.

Heritage Impact

Context

7.53 The Council has statutory obligations in respect of heritage assets. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 72(1) of that Act states that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

7.54 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF sets out that “…in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”

7.55 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF says that:

“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, Grade I and II* listed buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.”

7.56 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF says that: “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of 193 significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and  no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and  conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and  the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”

7.57 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF says: “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

7.58 The NPPF also says consideration should be given to the significance of a non- designated heritage asset with a balanced judgment to be made in respect of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

7.59 The London Plan also has policies in respect of heritage assets (7.8) and World Heritage Sites (7.10) with development that affect heritage assets and their settings to conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail and in respect of a World Heritage Site, not to not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), integrity, authenticity or significance. In considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans.

7.60 Local Plan policy CC4 states that the Council will identify, conserve and take opportunities to enhance the significance of the borough’s heritage assets as a positive means of supporting an area’s distinctive character and sense of history. It is expected development proposals will:  Conserve and take opportunities to enhance any heritage asset and its setting in a manner appropriate to its significance;  Retain, conserve and reuse a heritage asset in a manner appropriate to its value and significance;  Demonstrate that substantial harm to or loss of a heritage asset is avoided, unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, consistent with the NPPF;  Demonstrate that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (see Glossary), this harm will be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use; or  Have regard to any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, including from both direct and indirect effects. Non- designated heritage assets include locally listed buildings, Archaeological Priority Areas and areas of special local character. 194 7.61 Historic England has also published a range of guidance to inform planning decisions relating to heritage, including Advice Note 3 - The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015) and Advice Note 4 – Tall Buildings (2015). The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has published a range of guidance to inform planning decisions relating to heritage, including the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2011) and the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value. The Council has published a suite of Conservation Area Appraisals and these are relevant to the assessment of this proposed development where it would be in the setting of a conservation area.

7.62 The Thames Landscape Strategy (‘Hampton to Kew’ and ‘Kew to Chelsea’) is also relevant. This is guidance covering the environment of the Thames, which aims to conserve and enhance the riverside landscape. The relevant section highlights the contrast between the Surrey and Middlesex banks for the nearby stretch of the Thames, with Brentford having an industrial past as opposed to the green spaces of Kew and the Botanic Gardens, and further downstream the high quality townscape of the riverside development along Strand on the Green. Its objectives correspond with policies protecting the character of the area as they relate to the riverside environment and its heritage and views.

7.63 The site is not located within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings (statutory or locally) on or immediately adjacent to the site. However the site is close to a number of conservation areas, including Kew Gardens Conservation Area (on the opposing side of the river within the London Borough of Richmond), Kew Bridge Conservation Area (c.400m to the east), Kew Green Conservation Area (to the south-east of the site on the opposing side of the river within the London Borough of Richmond), St Paul’s Conservation Area (c.200m to the north- west) and the Boston Manor & Grand Union Canal Conservation Area (c. 250m to the south-west).

7.64 The nearest listed buildings to the site are; Grade II Sarah Trimmer Hall (c.175m to the east), Grade I & II Kew Bridge Pumping Station buildings (c.575m to the east), Grade II Kew Bridge (c. 720m to the east) and Grade I Kew Palace (c.275m to the south on the opposing side of the river).

7.65 The nearest Registered Parks and Gardens are; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, on the opposing side of the river and Syon Park (c. 780m to the south-west).

7.66 The Kew World Heritage Site Buffer Zone lies to the south of the site.

Assessment of impact

7.67 The applicant’s Design & Access Statement provides information about the evolution of the design and the factors taken into consideration when preparing the scheme, which includes the above polices and heritage designations. It has identified the site constraints and opportunities and details how the applicant believes the scheme meets the development requirements and aims to maximise the quality of the design and minimise its negative impacts.

7.68 A separate Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment was been submitted as part of the ES with this providing an assessment of the impacts of the proposal on the heritage significance of the local area, including the World Heritage Site, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

195 7.69 The ES assesses potential townscape impacts from agreed viewpoints that were selected in consultation with officers. Verified views provided in accurate visual representations showing how the proposal would look from different locations, accurately merging the scheme into photos of the townscape were submitted. The ES considers the visual implications of the changes from these viewpoints, taking into account their sensitivity and the magnitude of impact, before concluding what the extent and significance of the impact is for both the construction and operation phases of the development. Officers concur that all key views have been considered, though it is noted that such representations are static and how the development would be perceived would vary when moving around the site. It is also not possible to evaluate every single point from where the development may be seen, but the views selected are considered to be the most sensitive.

7.70 As the policy framework discussed above sets out, the development cannot be considered in isolation. Despite the site itself not being sensitive, the height and siting of the buildings will mean they are very visible from surrounding areas, some of which are very sensitive and of the highest heritage significance. However, simply being able to see it does not make the design poor or its effect on the townscape harmful.

7.71 Given the mixed nature of the surrounds, including differences in building heights and street patterns, the impacts on surrounding areas and their sensitivity to change also varies. The impacts of the proposed buildings on views from 42 viewpoints points were considered with AVRs produced. This assessment took account of designations such as conservation areas, listed buildings and gardens including their significance, and protected viewpoints and landmarks. Officers have considered these views as well as assessing impacts more generally throughout the surrounds.

7.72 The applicant’s assessment of the impacts found that with the exception of the impact on Kew Palace and the World Heritage Site, RBG Kew, the impacts on all the other heritage assets were assessed as either beneficial, ranging from moderate to minor, or neutral, and that overall the development sustains the significance of the heritage assets. It notes that the proposal would have a minor, adverse impact in one view (View 19) of Kew Palace (out of six tested), and describes this as a ‘kinetic, fleeting view’ behind the Palace, with visibility a given of the site’s location and is similar to the visibility of other neighbouring buildings (e.g. Lighterage Court/Kew Reach). It goes onto note that there is negligible visibility on the primary, axial view of Kew Palace (View 17) and neutral impacts in all other views of Kew Palace. The assessment highlights that the material treatment (‘soft, muted bricks’) and the recessive effect of distance mitigate this impact and that how the Palace is experienced in its setting is maintained. In respect of the WHS RBG Kew, the assessment indicates that the proposal would impact on 2 out of the 20 attributes of the ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ (OUV) of the WHS, and these impacts range from minor, beneficial to negligible, and as such do not cause adverse impact to the WHS or its setting and that the proposal would not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate the OUV, integrity, authenticity and significance of the WHS.

7.73 The degree of impact and significance of the effects on the setting of the various heritage assets and surrounding townscape from proposed development is described below taking into account the significance of the heritage items.

196 7.74 Kew Bridge Conservation Area inclusive of other designated heritage assets –This area is to the east of the site. It is focussed on the convergence of a number of important transport routes, and includes the grade II listed Kew Bridge and grade I and II listed Kew Bridge Pumping Station buildings. It recognises the industrial character created by the pumping station and its associations, and their high quality of architectural style. The bridge and standpipe are architectural landmarks, and Kew Bridge station and its locally listed neighbours, forms with them an architecturally attractive group. The conservation area’s setting does not contribute greatly to its significance with the surrounding area of mixed character with some tall buildings.

7.75 The proposed development would be visible from Kew Bridge Road, as part of the wider High Street context, as well as being partially visible above the tree line of the aits from Kew Bridge itself. The setting of the heritage assets that form the significance of this conservation area is partially compromised by existing buildings, outside and within the conservation area, but affecting it through bulk and mass: notably the six Brentford Towers at 23 storeys, as well as the more recent development immediately adjacent to Kew Bridge.

7.76 Owing to the effect of distance and the presence of the tree line on the aits, the visibility of the proposed development is not significant and forms part of the wider context of existing buildings along the riverside and at the centre of Brentford more generally. Consequently it is not considered that the proposed development would make an appreciable difference to the composition of views from buildings of significance within the conservation area or affect the wider setting of the conservation area.

7.77 Kew Green Conservation Area inclusive of other designated heritage assets – This area is across the Thames to the south and south-east of the site. Its value is as a historic open space (village green), along with associated high quality 18th and 19th century buildings to the east of the green. There are many listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character. The riverside acts as a foil to the green and is stated as being a ‘peaceful semi-rural’ area; it includes the Brentford Aits, Ferry Lane and the Thames River walk, extending pass the rear of Kew Palace and the service entrance, but stops before the RBG Kew car park. This area is in the Kew Gardens World Heritage Site buffer zone.

7.78 The Conservation Area Appraisal states that one of the ‘Problems and Pressures’ is ‘development pressures which may harm the balance of the river and landscape-dominated setting, and the obstruction or spoiling of views, skylines and landmarks’.

7.79 The proposed development would not be appreciable from within the open green space of the conservation area. However, being the first in this series of buildings along the High Street that stretch to the west, it would be more visible than its neighbours in views from the riverside. Generally it would sit comfortably within the tree zone, which during summer would provide significant screening from the southern bank of the river, even directly opposite the site (View 13) where only the upper floors of the buildings would be visible. In winter the impact would be more appreciable given the deciduous nature of the trees on the aits. However, it is considered that the hardening of the view as a result of the development would be similar in intensity to the existing buildings along the northern edge of the river, including those immediately to the west, as well as existing buildings on Kew 197 Bridge Road, the Brentford Towers and the Kew Eye tower (at the Great West Quarter development), all of which represent significant intrusions into views from the Thames Path. For the conservation area, where there are views of the proposed building either through or above the existing tree zone, this would introduce a further discordant feature at a scale which would be similar to existing developments, albeit where distance diminishes the impact of these, and would result in some harm to this aspect of the conservation area’s setting but the overall character and appearance of the conservation area would not be substantially altered and there would be less than substantial harm to its significance as a whole.

View 13: proposed winter

7.80 Grand Union Canal & Boston Manor Conservation Area – To the south-west of the site, upstream of the river. The conservation area follows the route of the Grand Union Canal/River Brent from the open (formerly) agricultural hinterland to the north to the (former) port of Brentford and the River Thames. The character of the canal changes along its length according to what is adjacent to it, from allotments and playing fields, to the infrastructure dominance of the M4 and Piccadilly Underground Line, to active warehouses and regenerated residential areas around Brentford, both north and south of the High Street. The application site is partially visible from the mouth of the canal, at the junction with the Thames. The character of this view changes considerably with seasonal and tidal conditions, but is generally dominated by the residential development around Ferry Quays and with residential moorings around the mouth of the canal.

7.81 The proposed development would be readily visible from the mouth of the canal, but would otherwise not affect the setting or significance of this conservation area. At this point it would be seen in the context of other residential developments along the High Street, notably Malthouse Court and Lighterage Court/Kew Reach to the west. Whilst it would be appreciably taller than these adjacent developments, despite the effect of distance, the Brentford Towers would still be seen over the top, and as such it is not seen as a significant intrusion into these views. The proposals would result in a continuation of the built form along the river’s edge, reading as one of a street building, as opposed to isolated towers (like the Brentford Towers), and as such would generally be characteristic of other developments within the immediate vicinity of the conservation area. Consequently, whilst the proposal would result in an appreciably more prominent and distinctive built form when compared with the existing building and immediately adjacent developments, it is not considered that this would give rise to 198 harm to the setting and significance of this conservation area.

7.82 St Paul’s Conservation Area – To the north and north-west of the site. The significance of this conservation area lies in the variety of Victorian housing and development types, and the original layouts of tree-lined streets. Much of the character of the conservation area is bound up in the buildings and their distribution.

7.83 The proposed development would generally not be visible from within the open spaces of the conservation area (St Paul’s Recreation Ground) owing to distance and the existing roofscape. Towards the extremities of the conservation area, around Brook Road and the High Street, the proposal would become more prominent, and in the case of the former the upper storeys would be visible over the existing two-storey terraced housing, whilst in the case of the latter, it would be seen as a continuation of development eastwards away from the town centre with the shoulder of the westernmost building prominent over the adjoining Lighterage Court/Kew Reach building. Given the limited impact of the proposal on the significant character of the conservation area, as well as the sensitive use of materiality and form, it is considered that the proposal would not harm the setting and significance of this conservation area.

7.84 Royal Botanic Gardens Conservation Area – To the south of the site, across the Thames, (corresponding with the World Heritage site). Kew Gardens was made a World Heritage Site in 2003 in recognition of its contributions to botanical and environmental science, plant collections and influence landscape and garden design. The area is also designated Grade I on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. It also has many listed buildings including the Temperate House, the Palm House, Queen Charlotte’s Cottage, and the Japanese Gateway as well as Kew Palace, which is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

7.85 World Heritage Site Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is a World Heritage Site (WHS) and is of international importance. Policy 7.10 of the London Plan states that development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), integrity, authenticity or significance.

7.86 In considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to the provisions of World Heritage Management Plans. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.”

7.87 The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew WHS Management Plan 2011, although a draft, provides an update to the original management plan from 2002. It highlights the WHS buffer zone and important sightlines and views within, to and from Kew Gardens. The plan discusses the importance of vistas and visual envelopes extending outside the WHS buffer zone to the site’s OUV and the need for additional planning protection, as well as covering proposed improvements to the gardens. The adopted Local Plan recognises the sensitivity of the WHS and possible impacts from development tall buildings. 199 7.88 The OUV of a WHS indicates its importance as a key material consideration to be taken into account by the relevant authorities in determining applications. The OUV of Kew Gardens comprises:

 a rich and diverse historic cultural landscape providing a palimpsest of landscape design;  an iconic architectural legacy;  globally important preserved and living plant collections;  a horticultural heritage of keynote species and collections; and  key contributions to developments in plant science and plant taxonomy

7.89 The London Plan World Heritage Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012 also recognises that as well as visual impacts of the proposal there are other physical and experimental impacts that also affect the setting of the WHS and contributes to its significance, such as public realm, routes and accessibility. The setting of a WHS is the area around it, including any buffer zone, in which change or development is capable of having an adverse impact, including an impact on views to or from the site. The sensitivity of Kew Gardens is high with even minor impacts possibly being of significance. The proposed development will have an indirect effect on Kew Gardens as the site is outside of the designated WHS and its buffer zone.

7.90 The proposed development would not be visible from any of the key views and visits within RBG Kew that have been identified in the RBG Kew Draft Conservation Management Plan. Consequently there would be no impact on views and vistas of the WHS.

7.91 The proposed development would have an impact on the relationship with the Thames, given that it would be either wholly or partially visible from Kew Bridge and the Thames Path. However, as discussed above, this would be largely seen in the context of existing developments which represent intrusions into this setting, noting that the character of the Thames changes constantly between Syon Park and Kew Bridge, from the planning Arcadian ideal at Syon Park to the urban developments at Kew Bridge. The riverside experience is also kinetic, experienced on the move, rather than from a static point, whilst the character experiences seasonal and tidal changes.

7.92 It is considered that despite the intrusion of the proposed development in the relationship of the WHS to the River Thames, and its OUV, this would generally be experienced in the context of existing developments (notably the Brentford Towers, the Kew Eye tower and other developments along the High Street that front onto the river), and the river and associated tree zone would remain the dominant feature that one would appreciate.

7.93 In respect of Kew Palace, a Grade I Listed Scheduled Monument, given the application site’s proximity to the site (300m to the north), the proposal would significantly impact upon the setting and significance of this heritage asset. Historically the Palace had a strong relationship with the Thames, but this has subsequently been lost, whilst the architectural qualities of the Palace and its landscape setting are best seen from axial views across the Great Lawn to the south and south-east.

7.94 The visual analysis demonstrates that the proposal would preserve the clear-sky 200 backdrop of the Palace in a key axial view from the sundial on the Palace lawn (Views 16 and 17). It is also clear that the proposed building would not appear in isolation, with other buildings clearly visible in these views, including the Kew Eye Tower at the Great West Quarter development (in the case of View 16), whilst the significant planting and tree screen around the Palace would prevent views at closer quarters in both summer and winter months (as seen in View 17). However, the proposed development would be visible in isolation from other existing buildings from a kinetic viewpoint looking diagonally towards Kew Palace from the Great Lawn (View 19), but noting that it would not be visible the closer to the Orangery one travels on this path. This view has been identified by Historic England as being of significant concern.

View 16: proposed winter

201 View 17: proposed winter

7.95 In View 19, the proposal would feature on the left-hand side of the view, between Kew Palace and Kew Cottages (Grade II Listed themselves), at and above the deciduous tree line. Whilst the upper levels would be visible in summer, the impact is more appreciable in winter where the development would be visible through the tree line that sits between the Palace and the Cottages. As a result, this would introduce a built form where currently there is none, and would not be visible within the context of any other wider development, thereby introducing harm where currently there is none. The proposed building mass would be below the gable line of Kew Palace and step down to the Cottages. The fully rendered visualisation indicates that the material palette would go some way to minimise the impact on the significance and setting of the Palace, with softer, neutral tones in the background to the brighter brickwork of the Palace, ensuring that this remained the dominant element of the view. However, the introduction of even a recessive background townscape element in an area which is currently clear-sky backdrop would harm the setting and significance of this important heritage asset.

View 19: proposed winter

7.96 The impact on the river setting of Kew Palace is less significant given the prominence of the existing townscape elements associated with Brentford in these views, as well as the screening provided by the tree coverage of the aits, in particular in summer. Whilst the proposal would present a more massive, wall of development along the rivers’ edge, as opposed to the isolated Brentford Towers, or the smaller scale of Lighterage Court/Kew Reach, this would be seen in conjunction with these other townscape elements and as such the impact is much reduced than if no existing development existed.

7.97 Overall, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would be readily visible in the context and setting of Kew Palace, it would not affect the perceived prominence of Kew Palace and Kew Cottages, in particular how the Palace is experienced in its landscape, and the axial views, which would be remain uninterrupted, or seen in the context of existing townscape elements. The impact 202 on the setting and significance of Kew Palace is therefore seen to result in less than substantial harm, noting in particular the kinetic nature of views around the Palace and the setting within which it is experienced, as well as the sensitive approach to materiality.

Summary

7.98 World Heritage Site status is a key material consideration in the consideration of planning applications, and local planning policy seeks to prevent harm either to the special qualities which justify the inscription of the site or to the setting of the site.

7.99 The requirements of the NPPF are clear, and loss of anything that contributes to Outstanding Universal Value, including a view from within a World Heritage Site would need to be very well justified in relation to very substantial public benefits.

7.100 It is considered that there is some limited harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Kew Gardens WHS. Whilst this could be ameliorated through the use of materials, such harm can only be justified in wholly exceptional circumstances.

7.101 Proposals causing harm to significance of heritage assets, views towards them and their overall Outstanding Universal Value will be weighed against the substantial public, not private, benefits of the proposal and whether it has been demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset in line with national policy.

7.102 In this instance the harm identified to various heritage assets is considered to be demonstrably outweighed by the material considerations that the delivery of at least 20% affordable housing across the two sites (with the potential to increase delivery through the review mechanisms and profit-share incorporated into the joint-venture agreement), the provision of a new, purpose-built arts centre in the heart of Brentford which would help the wider regeneration of the town centre and secure the long term sustainability of a regional community and cultural asset, as well as, the significant enhancements to the public realm around both sites, including the provision of a fully accessible, public riverside walk to allow level access from Brentford to Kew Bridge.

7.103 The designation for the WHS is as follows: DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: Excerpt from the Report of the 27th Session of the World Heritage Committee Criterion ii: Since the 18th century, the Botanic Gardens of Kew have been closely associated with scientific and economic exchanges established throughout the world in the field of botany, and this is reflected in the richness of its collections. The landscape features and architectural features of the gardens reflect considerable artistic influences both with regard to the European continent and to more distant regions. Criterion iii: Kew Gardens have largely contributed to advances in many scientific disciplines, particularly botany and ecology. Criterion iv: The landscape gardens and the edifices created by celebrated artists such as Charles Bridgeman, William Kent, Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown and William Chambers reflect the beginning of movements which were to have international influence.

7.104 The harm identified to the Outstanding Universal Value of the site only affects Criterion ii (in part) and iv and this harm is limited to the view from Kew Palace and its impact on the garden design. The scientific and botanical heritage will 203 remain unchanged and preserved. It is considered that the public benefit arising from the affordable housing and the profit sharing which can be reinvested in much needed additional affordable housing, as well as the delivery of a new, purpose-built arts centre represents a greater benefit to London than the harm to the Outstanding Universal Value to the Kew WHS and would serve to outweigh the harm resulting from the development in respect of the setting of the Grade I Listed Kew Palace.

7.105 The GLA note that, having regard to the existing character and composition of the kinetic views [along the Thames Path at the northern boundary of the WHS] (which include a variety of existing townscape elements currently visible above and behind the deciduous tree line), the impact of the proposed development would not cause harm. In respect of the setting of Kew Palace, the GLA state that in the majority of cases, where the proposed development would be visible in the background of views, it would be seen in the context of other existing townscape elements of a similar or greater perceived scale, and would always appear subordinate to the Grade I Listed building. They conclude that, “having regard to the characteristics of the scheme, officers are of the view that the proposed contribution to housing supply; delivery of an enhanced section of Thames Path; and, delivery of an enhanced arts centre for community use could help to form the foundation of an appropriate public benefits case”. The increased affordable housing offer (subsequent to the GLA Stage 1 response) is seen to ‘tip the balance’ of this public benefits case.

7.106 With regards to all other heritage assets, it is considered that the proposal would not harm the setting or significance of other nearby conservation areas or listed buildings, with the exception of the Kew Green Conservation Area where it is considered that the proposal would introduce harm, but that this would be less than substantial owing to the presence of existing development which has a significant effect on the setting and significance of this conservation area. As such, and giving consideration to the requirement to give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of designated heritage assets and noting the significance of those assets, it is considered, on balance, the significant public benefits of the proposal, as set out above, would outweigh the harmful effects of the proposal.

Residential Quality: Density, Mix, Tenure, Standards & Amenity Space

Density

7.107 London Plan policy 3.4 (Optimising Housing Potential) sets out a density matrix at Table 3.2. Within this, the application site falls between the definitions of an ‘Urban’ and ‘Central’ area, with terraced housing and buildings of medium footprint prominent but noting its location close to the edge of Brentford Town Centre. As such a density in the ‘Urban’ range is considered most appropriate for this site, responding to the local context, and as such densities of 45-170 units per hectare, or 200-450 habitable rooms per hectare, are appropriate for sites with a PTAL (public Transport Accessibility Level) of 2 to 3.

7.108 Adopted Local Plan policy SC4 (Scale and Design of New Housing Development) seeks new development to balance the need to make efficient use of land and achieve high quality design and accessibility, whilst respecting and responding to local context and character, and protecting existing residents’ amenity. It states that the density ranges contained within London Plan policy 3.4 will be used to 204 help guide the design and scale of new housing developments, but that the Council would expect developments to adopt a more sophisticated approach that is responsive to the context and character of the site and its setting.

7.109 The proposed density is 306 units/hectare or 870 habitable rooms/hectare. This would be within the optimal range identified above and as such would be acceptable. It should be further noted that the draft London Plan, which is at the consultation stage, removes the density matrix, and whilst limited weight can be given to this policy due to the early stages of its adoption, it is clear that less emphasis should be placed on density as a reason for acceptability, or otherwise, of a proposed development.

Mix & internal space standards

7.110 The proposed accommodation mix is set out as follows:

Market Total

1 Bed 67 (35%) 67 (35%)

2 Bed/3 Person 41 (21%) 41 (21%)

2 Bed/4 Person 49 (25%) 49 (25%)

3 Bed 36 (19%) 36 (19%)

Total 193 193

7.111 The NPPF and the London Plan encourage new residential developments to provide a choice of housing with a mix of family and non-family housing needed to meet different community requirements. London Plan Policy 3.5, together with the Mayor’s Housing SPG, seeks to promote housing choice and a balanced mix of unit sizes in new development, with particular focus on affordable family homes. Table 3.3 sets minimum space standards for dwellings of different sizes. This is based on the minimum gross internal floor area (GIA) required for new homes relative to the number of occupants, whilst also taking account of commonly required furniture and spaces needed for different activities and moving around. These standards are reflected in Local Plan Policy SC5 which requires development proposals to demonstrate compliance with the Nationally Described Space Standards. All units have been designed to meet or exceed these minimum space standards.

7.112 Over half of the new accommodation (65%) would have at least two bedrooms, which are considered to be family-sized units in the Local Plan, with nearly one- fifth having 3+ bedrooms (19%). The housing mix is supported as it will help contribute towards an identified Borough shortage and result in a balanced, sustainable community, which would be in keeping with its context where there is already a range of accommodation in the area, but also reflect the site’s location on the periphery of the town centre where larger houses are considered less appropriate given the constraints on amenity space, parking etc.

Daylight and sunlight

7.113 A daylight and sunlight report has been submitted in support of the proposed

205 accommodation to demonstrate compliance with the BRE 20111 guidance for daylight and sunlight in new developments. Failure does not necessarily mean the impact would be unacceptable and the BRE requirements are advisory, and as they are used for urban and suburban areas they should be applied flexibly to take account of varying densities. The BRE guide also clearly states that it “is not mandatory and the guide should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy” and that numerical guidelines should be interpreted flexibly since natural lighting is only one of many factors in site layout design. This is reflected in adopted Local Plan policy SC4 which expect development proposals to demonstrate compliance with prevailing daylighting standards (BRE Guidance 2011).

7.114 This assessment concludes that in respect of daylight, 99% of habitable rooms will have an ADF (Average Daylight Factor) above that recommended by the BRE Guidance or a good level of daylight distribution. In terms of sunlight, the APSH (Annual Probable Sunlight Hours) results show that 34% of the rooms will receive total levels of sunlight throughout the year in accordance with the BRE Guidelines. These results are significantly affected by the positioning of balconies to the degree that when incorporating the sunlight that will be enjoyed on the balcony area, approximately 66% of the flats will have access to good levels of sunlight to the living/kitchen/dining area. These results are also affected by the east-west orientation of the site and the long north-facing elevation. Overshadowing results show that very good levels of sunlight will be enjoyed to the main amenity spaces in accordance with the BRE Guidance.

7.115 There would be no single-aspect, north-facing dwellings. All of the units would be at least dual-aspect, with many being triple-aspect. It is considered that, on the basis of the information submitted and taking into consideration the need to provide private amenity space in the form of externally projected balconies, and the layout and form of the proposed development, a satisfactory level of daylight and sunlight would generally be received by a significant majority of the new dwellings and would be broadly compliant with the BRE guidance.

Privacy and outlook

7.116 The London Plan Housing SPG recognises that older planning guidance for privacy sought to achieve visual separation between dwellings by setting minimum distances of between 18-21m between habitable rooms, with these distances being useful yardsticks for privacy. This requires each dwelling to be provided with an adequate level of privacy in relation to neighbouring property, the street and other public spaces.

7.117 The scheme has been designed to try to maximise the outlook from these properties and provide multiple views out of individual units. However, there are a few instances where there would be habitable room windows facing other habitable room windows with a separation of under 9m between. This is a poor relationship and would not afford future residents an acceptable level of privacy. It is recommended that a condition requiring details of how this relationship can be addressed to mitigate the effect of such a close habitable room to habitable room relationship (e.g. through the use of obscure glazing etc.) as generally these are not primary windows and there are other windows within these rooms that provide daylight/sunlight and an open outlook.

1 Building Research Establishment (BRE) Report “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice (2011) 206 7.118 Generally all rooms would have an open aspect, where windows are enclosed or face brick walls, these are secondary windows and there are other windows within these rooms which provide a more open aspect.

Amenity & play space

7.119 The provision of good quality, useable amenity space and children’s play areas is fundamental to good planning. Particular emphasis on the quality and quantity of the amenity space in developments of this size is needed to ensure adequate provision and accessibility for all residents. Such spaces should be private and secure with safe and convenient access. For flatted developments, communal areas are generally acceptable, although areas immediately adjoining flats should have private gardens/terraces for sole use of those flats.

7.120 The London Plan Housing SPG advises that a minimum of 5sqm of private amenity space should be provided for one-two person dwellings, with an extra 1sqm provided for each additional occupant. The minimum depth and width of all balconies and other private external spaces should be 1.5m. The London Plan Housing SPG seek 10sqm of dedicated play space per child, whilst also recognising that appropriate and accessible facilities within 400m for 5-11 year olds and within 800m for 12 plus age groups may be acceptable alternatives. Based on the Mayor’s ‘Assessing child occupancy and play space requirements’, the child yield expected for this proposal is 21.6.

7.121 Local Plan Policy SC5 (Ensuring Suitable Internal and External Space) reflects the standards contained in the London Plan Housing SPG in respect of provision of private amenity space for flatted developments, but factors in a requirement to provide communal external amenity space for such developments, with the following benchmarks: 25sqm per flat with up to 3 habitable rooms; 30sqm per flat with 4 habitable rooms; and 40sqm per flat with over 5 habitable rooms (less a reduction for the area of private space provided for each flat). The quantitative space requirements will be applied with regard to exceptional design considerations.

7.122 The proposal includes a mix of amenity spaces for the residents, comprising a communal garden area overlooking the river and private balconies and terraces. It would include 1,809sqm of private amenity space and 1,089sqm of communal amenity space

7.123 Door step play space (under 5’s) would be incorporated into the landscaped courtyard, which would be accessible for all residents. This would equate to approximately 220sqm of grassed play area with equipment, although it is noted that this would be incorporated into the wider landscaping strategy. The details of the exact provision, including layout and facilities would be secured by condition, however, the principle of the quantum of play space is considered acceptable and in accordance with the London Plan Housing SPG.

7.124 The table below provides details of the amenity space proposed across the site:

Amenity space type Policy requirement Proposed

Private/semi-private 1,192sqm 1,809sqm (+617sqm) terraces/balconies

207 Communal Amenity 3,809sqm 1,089sqm (-2,720sqm)

Play space 220sqm 220sqm

7.125 As can be seen from the table above, there would be significant under-provision of communal amenity space across the site, albeit partially off-set by the over- provision of private amenity areas. The proposed communal amenity space would be centrally located within the development and accessible to all residents, providing an attractive, usable space for residents that they would receive good amounts of daylight with high levels of overlooking to ensure these would be safe and attractive places to use. Details of the finished arrangements would be secured by condition, ensuring there would be a range of landscaped features (seating, planting, play areas, grass, etc.). It is also noted that the site is adjacent to Waterman’s Park, which contains equipped play areas.

7.126 Generally it is considered that the landscaping scheme would provide an attractive setting to the development and a pleasant environment for future residents to relax in and enjoy. Whilst the provision would be below the benchmarks contained within the adopted Local Plan for communal amenity areas, given the location of the development on the fringe of the town centre and the high quality spaces being provided, such an under-provision is not considered to be unacceptable in this instance. It should also be noted that this standard is a borough-wide benchmark and as such it would be reasonable to expect greater flexibility in town centre locations where it can be impractical to make a higher provision on site (e.g. greater levels of overshadowing, exposure to noise, etc.).

Internal noise environment

7.127 The NPPF replaced the Planning Policy Guidance that previously covered planning and pollution control and new development in England. This removed the categorisation of sites within Noise Exposure Categories, with reference directed towards the Noise Policy Statement for England2 and for decisions to aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development and to mitigate and minimise other adverse impacts, including by use of conditions.

7.128 London Plan policy 7.15 (reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes), along with adopted Local Plan Policy EQ5 (Noise) seek to ensure that the location and design of new development has considered the impact of noise, and mitigation of these impacts, on new uses and surrounding uses according to their sensitivity.

7.129 Alongside this, BS:8233 (Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice) has a number of design criteria and limits for intrusive external noise. The most relevant of these for residential environments are reproduced below: Daytime (07:00- Night-time (23:00- Activities Location 23:00) 07:00) Resting Living rooms 35dB -

2 Developed by DEFRA and published in March 2010208 Dining Dining room/area 40dB -

Sleeping Bedroom 35dB 30dB (daytime resting) - Outdoor amenity 55dB spaces

7.130 BS:8233 acknowledges that these guidelines may not be achievable in higher noise areas such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network and that in such situations developments should aim to achieve the lowest practicable noise levels in outdoor amenity areas.

7.131 The Environment Statement includes a chapter on noise and vibration. It identifies the main source of noise affecting the site is from road traffic on Brentford High Street. This assessment concludes that the site would not be unsuitable for residential development based on noise and that the noise predictions indicate that suitable internal noise levels could be achieved through the implementation of appropriate glazing and integrated ventilation systems. It further notes that the building design would ensure that the communal garden would be adequately screened such that further mitigation would not be required, but that open balconies or terraces on the High Street frontage would like be exposed to levels of noise above the criteria identified above.

7.132 It is considered that the details for acoustic protection for internal areas should be secured by condition to ensure that the relevant standards can be achieved at the detailed design/construction stage. It is noted that open balconies on the High Street frontage are likely to be exposed to high levels of noise, but the provision of private amenity space must be offset against this, and when taken into account the level of communal gardens to the rear of the building which would be sufficiently screened, it is considered that futures residents would be able to enjoy external areas without being exposed to unacceptable levels of noise.

Accessibility

7.133 The London Plan strongly supports the principles of Lifetime Homes and views them as fundamental to delivery of the Government’s objectives of social inclusion, sustainability, equality and valuing diversity and identifies that the increased independent living they can bring will reduce pressure on hospital beds and residential care homes. It states that 90% of new housing should meet Building Regulations requirements M4(2) ‘accessible adaptable dwellings’ with 10% meeting M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ and should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable. This replaces Lifetime Homes Standards.

7.134 Local Plan Policy CC2 states that developments should be designed to be fully accessible to people with disabilities or impaired mobility.

7.135 Plans have been provided to indicate that 10 of the proposed dwellings (10%) would be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable. It is intended that the wheelchair adaptable private units will be marketed ‘off-plan’ for an agreed period with the Council and that if any remain unsold, they will be released to the open market and sold as wheelchair units or standard layout units.

209 7.136 Provision of these standards within the initial design is welcomed and can be secured by condition, with the tenure split and reversion standards secured in the legal agreement.

Waste and recycling

7.137 The London Plan outlines the Mayor’s commitment to making better use of waste and its management. It emphasises the importance of four policies in relation to waste management: 5.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction), 5.16 (Waste self- sufficiency), 5.17 (Waste capacity) and 5.18 (Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste).

7.138 Adopted Local Plan policy EQ7 (Sustainable Waste Management) states that the Council will be working with the West London Waste Authority boroughs to meet its waste apportionment, whilst promoting the prevention, re-use, recycling and recovery of waste, consistent with the waste hierarchy.

7.139 The residential waste generated by the development would be managed by the Council’s existing waste management contracts and use the standard containers. The proposals include integrated storage areas for refuse/recycling waste at basement/lower ground floor level accessible directly from the main circulation cores with a management company responsible for transferring the bins to the ground floor for collection. These would be secure, segregated stores with level access. The details of this provision would be secured by condition but it is considered that the principle of the waste and recycling strategy for the development is acceptable and in accordance with the relevant Development Plan policies.

Affordable housing supply

7.140 Government policy in the NPPF, supported by the London Plan, requires all housing developments in the Borough capable of providing ten or more dwellings to provide on-site affordable housing. The current demand for affordable housing is spread over a variety of types. The London Plan Housing SPG (2015) defines affordable housing as including social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. This is also reflected in Local Plan Policy SC2.

7.141 In April 2011 the Government introduced a new affordable rent product, intended to meet the same housing need as social rent. It is intended to allow affordable homes to be made available to tenants at up to a maximum of 80% of the gross market rent (taking account of the service charge for that property, where applicable) and allocated in the same way as social housing.

7.142 London Plan Policy 3.12 also states that, in negotiating affordable housing in private schemes, Boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing having regard to their affordable housing targets, the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual site circumstances.

7.143 The Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (2017) introduces a threshold approach, whereby schemes meeting or exceeding 35% affordable housing without public subsidy are not required to submit a viability assessment or have a late stage review (referred to as the ‘Fast Track Route’), or 50% for development of public land. The SPG also sets out a preferred tenure split of at least 30% low cost 210 rent (social or affordable rent significantly less than 80% of market rent), at least 30% intermediate (with London Living Rent and shared ownership being the default tenures), and the remaining 40% to be determined by the Local Planning Authority.

7.144 Local Plan Policy SC2 sets a target for 40% of on-site delivery of affordable housing at a tenure split of 60% affordable/social rent and 40% intermediate, as reflected in London Plan policy 3.11. This policy also states that when financial viability assessments demonstrate that current market conditions will support less than 40% affordable housing, a review mechanism upon partial or full completion of a development will be employed.

7.145 No affordable housing would be provided on this site.

7.146 The development of this site would be linked through a Section 106 agreement with the development at the former Brentford police station site on Half Acre. The proposals for that site would provide 60 dwellings defined as affordable homes. This equates to 20% of the accommodation across the two sites. This tenure split is shown below:

Market Affordable Total (intermediate)

1 Bed/1 Person 10 4 14 (13%)

1 Bed/2 Person 17 23 40 (38%)

2 Bed/3 Person 1 10 11 (10%)

2 Bed/4 Person 12 17 29 (28%)

3 Bed/4 Person 1 1 2 (2%)

3 Bed/5 Person 4 5 9 (9%)

Total 45 (43%) 60 (57%) 105

7.147 Since the proposed affordable housing is substantially below any bespoke threshold for these sites, the proposal has been subject to rigorous viability testing in line with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG, London Plan Policy 3.12 and Local Plan Policy SC2. The applications at the former Brentford police station (this application) and at Albany Riverside (ref 00607/T/P1) are financially linked and effectively form a single scheme for the purposes of financial viability.

7.148 It has been proposed that, in order to maximise the higher sales values that can be achieved at the riverside site, the Albany Riverside scheme would be delivered as 100% private marketing housing to cross-subsidise the delivery of affordable housing on the former Brentford police station site, and give a combined provision across the two sites.

7.149 Through the rigorous independent review of the submitted viability assessment by both the GLA and the Council’s independent viability consultant (BPS Surveyors), it was established that the most significant influence on scheme viability is the considerable cost of re-providing the Watermans Arts Centre. Sensitivity testing indicates that the cost of delivering the new arts centre (approx. £18 million) is equivalent to an on-site affordable housing provision of 25%. However, given that the re-provision of the arts centre is a key policy requirement of the Local Plan for 211 the redevelopment of the Albany Riverside site, the cost of providing this facility must be factored into the land value. Originally a land value of £1.5 million for the Albany Riverside site was proposed in the financial viability appraisal, but following negotiations with the GLA and applicant, and through further sensitivity testing, the appraisal was amended to give the existing arts centre a nominal value of £1. However, the effect of this is negligible in terms of overall scheme viability.

7.150 Added to the need for the re-provision of the arts centre in the Local Plan site allocation for the Albany Riverside site is the need to provide continuity of service for the Watermans Arts Centre. Such a requirement for the delayed phasing generates abnormal interest costs broadly equivalent to an on-site affordable housing provision of 10%.

7.151 As a consequence of this, the Council’s independent viability review found that the proposed 10% affordable housing provision was the maximum level that the scheme could achieve in current market conditions. The use of a late stage review mechanism, which is set out in Local Plan Policy SC2 where proposals are unable to deliver the Council’s strategic affordable housing target of 40% on-site, is highlighted as being of great importance in this case, in particular since the most valuable part of the scheme (the private housing on the Albany Riverside site) is only set to be delivered towards the end of the development programme.

7.152 In order to address the GLA’s concerns that the provision of 10% affordable housing was ‘wholly unacceptable’, the applicant undertook further appraisal to establish if a higher quantum could be provided on site, including:  Other cultural funding to support delivery of the Watermans Arts Centre;  The Mayor’s affordable housing funding;  Reinvestment from the Council’s land receipt;  Borough CIL discount/exemption in lieu of social infrastructure delivery in kind (new arts centre);  Rebalancing of affordable housing tenures;  Temporary off-site provision for Watermans Arts Centre and/or partial early build out of Albany Riverside site (to improve cashflow and reduce interest costs)

7.153 As a consequence of this, the proposed affordable housing offer has been increased to 20%, on the basis of the following changes:  All affordable housing is delivered as intermediate tenure  Full relief from Borough CIL will be sought  Provision of full GLA grant funding for all affordable units  Adjusted benchmark land value (i.e. arts centre value reduced to £1)

7.154 In addition to this, the Section 106 agreement will include an early viability (intended to incentivise swift housing delivery) and late review mechanisms (in order to upwardly reappraise the maximum level of affordable housing based on actual costs and values). This would be in accordance with the Council’s Local Plan Policy SC2 and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG.

Summary 212 7.155 It is considered that the proposal would have an appropriate density and housing mix for this site towards the fringe of Brentford Town Centre, and which, when assessed with the proposals for the former Brentford police station site, would make a significant contribution towards affordable housing delivery in the Borough. The accommodation has been designed to a high standard, with all units being at least dual-aspect units and all having access to private amenity space. Although this has resulted in deficiencies in terms of sunlight receipt for some of the accommodation, given the importance of private amenity space and the multi- aspect outlook from individual units this is not considered to be unacceptable. There would be a significant shortfall in amenity space provision from the Council’s benchmark, although this would be offset by the proximity of the site to Waterman’s Park. It is therefore considered that on balance the proposals would be acceptable and in accordance with the Local Plan and London Plan policies identified above.

Impact on neighbouring land uses

7.156 The NPPF requires sustainable development, and as part of this development should aim tom minimise adverse effects on the local environment, which includes neighbouring properties.

7.157 London Plan policies 7.6 and 7.7 require buildings to not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate, with this being particularly important for tall buildings. In respect of daylight and sunlight, policy 7.6 says an appropriate degree of flexibility needs to be applied when using BRE guidelines to assess the daylight and sunlight impacts of new development on surrounding properties, as well as within new developments themselves, with relevant guidelines being applied sensitively to higher density development, especially in opportunity areas, town centres, large sites and accessible locations, where BRE advice suggests considering the use of alternative targets.

Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing

7.158 Local Plan Policy SC4 states that development proposals should demonstrate compliance with prevailing day-lighting standards (BRE Guidance 2011). Policy CC2 seeks to protect existing residents’ amenity.

7.159 The ES assess the likely impact of the development in relation to the daylight and sunlight amenity within the surrounding residential properties and the overshadowing to the surrounding gardens, amenity areas and open spaces. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the BRE Guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ 2011. Failure does not necessarily mean the impact would be unacceptable and the BRE requirements are advisory, and as they are used for urban and suburban areas they should be applied flexibly to take account of varying densities.

Daylight

7.160 The assessment considers the ‘Vertical Sky Component’ (VSC) and ‘No Sky Line’ (NSL) method to assess daylight to surrounding properties.

7.161 VSC considers the potential for daylight by calculating the angle of vertical sky at the centre of the window (with 40% being the maximum value for an unobstructed window). The BRE target figure for VSC is 27% or greater to maintain good levels 213 of daylight. If the 27% VSC target is not achieved, then a comparison of existing and proposed VSC levels with the new development in place is calculated. The BRE advises that acceptable levels of daylight can still be achieved if VSC levels are not less than 0.8 (20%) times its former value. If the loss is greater, then the reduction in daylight would be noticeable with rooms likely to become darker, though the closer to the target the less noticeable the impact will be.

7.162 NSL is a measure of the distribution of daylight at the ‘working plane’ within a room. In houses, the ‘working plane’ means a horizontal ‘desktop’ plane of 0.85m in height. If a significant area of the working plane lies beyond the NSL (i.e. it receives no direct sky light), then the distribution of daylight in the room would be poor and supplementary electric lighting may be required. The BRE Guidelines criterion for determining if a room would be adversely affected is if the daylight distribution is reduced beyond 0.8 times its existing area.

7.163 Consequently, whilst any window may fail the VSC test, should a room benefit from more than one window, it may receive adequate daylight, which would be indicated through the NSL result.

7.164 The assessment covered 161 windows serving 74 residential rooms for VSC and NSL. The results for VSC indicate that 59 of these windows (36%) would be below the BRE Guidance with 33 windows (20% of the total) showing a reduction of more than 40% (all within Lighterage Court/Kew Reach). The results for NSL indicate that 20 rooms (27%) would be below the BRE Guidance with six rooms (8% of the total) showing a reduction of more than 40% (all within Lighterage Court/Kew Reach). Whilst there would be a reduction in NSL to rooms at Osier Court, 318 High Street, individual windows would retain VSC values in accordance with the BRE Guidance. Consequently the impact on residents’ amenity is considered to be negligible. However, given the more substantial impact on Lighterage Court/Kew Reach where windows and rooms would see a reduction in VSC and NSL, this is considered in more detail below:

Lighterage Court/Kew Reach

7.165 The assessment considers the impact on 118 windows that serve 39 habitable rooms. Of the 39 rooms, nine (23%) will experience VSC and NSL reductions which are within the accepted levels in the BRE Guidance. Of the remaining 30 rooms, 16 would experience NSL reductions that are within the accepted levels in the BRE Guidance (despite VSC reductions being beyond the Guidance levels). Out of the remaining 14 rooms, six would retain a VSC over 20% and all but one would retain a NSL of 50-72% and a further four would retain a NSL to at least 50% of the room area. Such thresholds are considered good for an urban area and whilst the impact on daylight would be noticeable, it would not result in a significant impact on residents’ amenity. The remaining four rooms (10%) are identified as being bedrooms, which are considered less important in the BRE Guidance.

7.166 It should be highlighted that Lighterage Court/Kew Reach is a recent development that has been built on the eastern boundary of the site with habitable room windows on the boundary. The BRE Guidance refers to such buildings as being ‘bad neighbours’ that would place a disproportionate burden on any new development on adjacent sites. The BRE Guidance state:

“Another important issue is whether the existing building is itself a good neighbour, 214 standing a reasonable distance from the boundary and taking no more than its fair share of light”

7.167 The BRE Guidance suggests that a ‘mirror massing assessment’ should be made in such circumstances to derive what levels of daylight Lighterage Court/Kew Reach could reasonably expect. The existing baseline against this ‘mirror massing’ analysis highlights that similar, if not slightly greater, reductions would occur to the rooms of Lighterage Court/Kew Reach than shown by the proposed development.

7.168 Consequently, whilst it is apparent that certain windows/rooms would be impacted by the proposed development in terms of daylight, for the majority of cases (66% for VSC and 87% for NSL) this would be an acceptable impact in terms of the BRE Guidance given the urban context of the surroundings. Furthermore, it should be highlighted that the Lighterage Court/Kew Reach building is a ‘bad neighbour’ by the BRE Guidance and that through ‘mirror massing’ analysis the impact of the proposed development is marginally less. Therefore it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring residents’ amenity in terms of daylight and any harm would be balanced by the benefits of the proposed development.

Sunlight

7.169 The BRE Guidance states that ‘all main living rooms of dwellings…should be checked if they have a window facing within 90 degrees of due south, kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much sun’.

7.170 The assessment considers the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) method to assess sunlight to surrounding properties.

7.171 APSH is assessed by taking the point at the centre of the window on the outside face, with the BRE Guidance stating that ‘if the window can received at least one quarter of APSH, including at least 5% of APSH in the winter months between 21 September and 21 March, then the room should still receive enough sunlight.’ The Guidelines go on to state that a dwelling will be adversely affected where this criterion is not met and a window receives less than 0.8 times its former value of total APSH or winter APSH, and if it has a total reduction of more than 4%.

7.172 All windows facing within 90 degrees of due south and serving habitable rooms (54) within surrounding properties of the site have been assessed for both total and winter APSH. The 29 rooms serving Osier Court, 318 High Street would continue to meet the BRE Guidance for total and winter APSH. The impact on Lighterage Court/Kew Reach is more significant and is assessed in more detail below:

Lighterage Court/Kew Reach

7.173 A total of 45 of the 54 rooms (83%) with one or more Site-facing window would be fully compliant in terms of reductions to APSH levels. Occupants of these rooms are unlikely to notice any alteration to levels of sunlight in these rooms as a consequence of the proposed development. The remaining nine rooms will experience reductions beyond the BRE Guidance (greater than 40%). These rooms are identified as being bedrooms where the BRE Guidance states that sunlight is less important. 215 7.174 Consequently, whilst the proposal will impact the sunlight receipt to a small proportion of rooms (16% of the total assessed), these are identified as bedrooms where sunlight is less important and therefore it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on residents’ amenity in terms of sunlight and any harm would be balanced by the benefits of the proposed development.

Overshadowing

7.175 The BRE Guidance suggests that the Spring Equinox (21st March) is a suitable date for the assessment of ‘sun on the ground’ or overshadowing analysis of amenity areas. The Guidance suggests that for an area to be adequately sunlit throughout the year, no more than half of the area should be prevented by buildings from receiving two hours of sunlight on the 21st March. If levels are already below this criterion, it is suggested that if the proposed value is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the additional overshadowing is likely to be noticeable.

7.176 The assessment covered the internal courtyard of Lighterage Court/Kew Reach. The results indicated that this area will experience a reduction of 0.1% Sun on the Ground compared to the existing situation. The transient overshadowing analysis indicates that whilst the proposed development casts larger shadows upon the surrounding area than the existing building, the additional shadows do not fall on any amenity spaces. Consequently the impact in terms of overshadowing of adjacent amenity areas is negligible.

Summary

7.177 The assessment concludes that the key effects would be:  A negligible to minor effect on daylight to surrounding properties;  A negligible to minor effect on sunlight to surrounding properties; and  A negligible effect on overshadowing to surrounding gardens/open spaces.

7.178 The BRE guidance has regard to locations where dense urban development exists or is expected, and acknowledges circumstances where light levels may already be reduced such as to windows located below balconies or other overhangs such as eave protrusions and that where existing buildings may be ‘bad neighbours’ and take more than their fair share of daylight/sunlight through their positioning within a site. Further, it is noted that this measurement is applied to suburban environments as well urban and city locations and that the Housing SPG states that: “Quantitative standards on daylight and sunlight should not be applied rigidly, without carefully considering the location and context and standards experienced in broadly comparable housing typologies in London”.3

7.179 For this urban area, where there is relatively dense development in the surrounding locality, some flexibility from the recommendations of the BRE guidance is reasonable, and account must be given to the nature of the nearby blocks that area affected, with their design and location contributing to the restricted levels of daylight to some windows. Therefore, it is acknowledged that whilst there would be some noticeable impact in terms of daylight and sunlight receipt to neighbouring properties, given the urban context of this site and the scale of surrounding development, the impact is not considered to be excessive

3 Section 2.3.47 of the Housing SPG 216 and should be weigh against the overall public benefit of the proposed development.

Overlooking

7.180 The London Plan recommends distances of between 18-21 metres as a normal benchmark between windows which directly face those of other premises, where these give light and outlook to rooms normally occupied during the day.

7.181 The neighbouring building, Lighterage Court/Kew Reach, has been built on the site boundary with habitable room windows directly overlooking the application site. On each floor there are two bedroom windows, a bathroom window and secondary window to the living/kitchen/dining area of a flat in the southern block overlooking the river, which are positioned in the flank elevation of the building and directly face towards the application site. It is noted that the position of this building was previously found acceptable by the Planning Inspectorate, although the issue of creating a ‘bad neighbour’ by this relationship with the adjacent site was not considered in detail.

7.182 The separation distance from the windows on the flank wall of the westernmost block with the eastern flank of the southern block of Lighterage Court/Kew Reach is approximately 8.5-9m. This situation repeats itself throughout the building from ground to fourth floor where two bedroom windows and a secondary window/door to a living/kitchen/dining area would face towards the eastern flank of the southern block of Lighterage Court/Kew Reach. Balconies would also be located on this elevation at these levels.

7.183 Such a relationship, where bedroom windows would face towards other bedroom windows, would likely give rise to a sense of overlooking for existing residents. Whilst screening to the balconies would help minimise the overlooking from these areas, further design consideration needs to be given to the positioning of the bedroom windows to units 4 and 5 in Block A in order to minimise overlooking. It is considered that this could be achieved through an oriel window design (similar to what has been used for the northern block of Lighterage Court/Kew Reach on this flank). Such details should be secured by condition.

7.184 The design and external appearance of the proposed development has been assessed in detail in the preceding section on Urban Design and was considered to be acceptable and would not harm existing residents’ outlook. Furthermore, given the nature of the existing building, it is considered that the proposal would represent a significant improvement, despite it appearing as a more bulky presence when viewed from certain neighbouring properties.

7.185 Consequently, whilst it is noted that the proposed development would, in its current design, give rise to privacy issues with existing residents. However, this is contained to just a small number of flats where habitable room windows have been positioned on the site boundary facing the application site (an ‘unneighbourly’ relationship in itself) and it is considered that this could be mitigated through an alternative fenestration design on this flank which would not affect the general appearance and cohesion of the development as a whole.

Noise and general disturbance

7.186 Policy 7.15 of the London Plan states that development proposals should seek to reduce noise maximising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, 217 from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals.

7.187 Policy EQ5 of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council will require new development to have considered the impact of noise.

7.188 Demolition and construction activity will be on-going for a considerable period owing to the scale of the development. These works would potentially adversely affect living conditions of neighbours owing to disturbances from construction work such as noise, lighting, dust and air pollution, and traffic.

7.189 The ES identifies that impacts from these potential sources of pollution and disruption are not significant, and subject to appropriate management, their impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. In this regard conditions to secure a Construction Logistics Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan would control activity to minimise residual impacts with practical measures such as routeing of vehicles, work hours and practices, dust suppression, site hoardings, lighting, wheel washing, workers parking and access, and health and safety procedures. In addition, new nearby residential units are designed to reflect the proximity next to railway lines and the station, with windows including acoustic enhancements which would limit noise impacts.

7.190 It is not anticipated that the proposed change to residential use of the site, despite the significant quantum of development proposed, would have a significant impact on neighbouring residents in terms of noise and disturbance. It is noted that the number of vehicle movements associated with the site would likely fall given the reduction in the size of the car park, whilst the number of visitors will likely be reduced and comings and goings to/from the site would be of a more residential nature, as opposed to the current situation with the arts centre attracting more visitors at evenings and weekends. The café use would be located at the opposing end of the site to the neighbouring residents and as such would not impact upon their amenity. The improvements to the riverside walkway would likely increase footfall along the river frontage, and thereby around the adjacent developments, but this is considered to be a significant benefit of the scheme and will likely increase surveillance. Further details on the building fabric and plant would be secured by condition in order to protect existing residents’ amenity.

Summary

7.191 Whilst the proposal would impact neighbouring residential properties in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight, and without appropriate safeguarding conditions to protect residents’ privacy and to minimise noise and disturbance, it is not considered that these impacts would result in significant adverse harm that would sufficiently outweigh the benefits of this proposal in terms of the key objectives for the re-provision of the Waterman’s Arts Centre in the town centre and the delivery of much needed housing, and the regeneration of this site within the wider Brentford area and the potential increased vitality and viability it would bring. As such, it is considered that the proposal would broadly be in accordance with the NPPF, London Plan and adopted Local Plan policies SC4, CC2 and EQ5 as identified above.

Highways, Transport, and Access

7.192 The NPPF requires all developments that generate significant amounts of movement to be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment (TA). Decisions should take account of whether: 218  The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;  Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and  Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be presented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

7.193 The London Plan recognises that transport plays a fundamental role in addressing the whole range of his spatial planning, environmental, economic and social policy priorities. It is critical to the efficient functioning and quality of life of London and its inhabitants. It also has major effects - positive and negative - on places, especially around interchanges and in town centres and on the environment, both within the city itself and more widely.  Policy 6.1 emphasises the importance of closer integration of transport and development and seeks to achieve this by (inter alia):  Encouraging patterns of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car;  Seeking to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling, particularly in areas of greatest demand;  Supporting development that generates high levels of trips only at locations with high levels of public transport accessibility, either currently or via committed, funded improvements;  Improving interchange between different forms of transport, particularly around major rail and Underground stations, especially where this will enhance connectivity in outer London;  Facilitating the efficient distribution of freight whilst minimising its effects on the transport network;  Supporting measures that encourage shifts to more sustainable modes and appropriate demand management;  Promoting greater use of low carbon technology so that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other contributors to global warming are reduced;  Promoting walking by ensuring an improved urban realm; and  Seeking to ensure that all parts of the public transport network can be used safely, easily and with dignity by all Londoners, including by securing step- free access where this is appropriate and practicable.

7.194 Policy 6.3, regarding the effects of development on transport capacity, highlights that new developments that will give rise to significant numbers of new trips should be located where there is already good public transport accessibility with capacity adequate to support the additional demand.

7.195 Policy 6.7 sets out a number of requirements for new developments in respect of cycling, as follows:  provide secure, integrated and accessible cycle parking facilities in line with the minimum standards set out in Table 6.3, 219  provide on-site changing facilities and showers for cyclists,  facilitate the Cycle Super Highways shown on Map 6.2,  facilitate the central London cycle hire scheme.

7.196 Regarding parking, Policy 6.13 states that an appropriate balance must be struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use. New developments should not only adhere to the maximum car parking standards set out in Table 6.2 of the London Plan, but also meet the minimum disabled and cycle parking standards specified. In addition, new developments should ensure that 1 in 5 parking spaces provide an electrical charging point to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, with a further 10% to be provided in the future.

7.197 Policy EC2 (Developing a Sustainable Local Transport Network) of the adopted Local Plan has regard to transportation and seeks to secure a more sustainable local travel network that maximises opportunities for walking, cycling and using public transport, reduces congestion, improves the public realm and improves health and well-being. It echoes the London Plan in terms of standards established for car parking, cycle parking, motorcycle parking, coach parking, and electric vehicle charging, along with any additional standards set out in supplementary guidance.

7.198 As described previously, the site has a moderate PTAL rating reflecting its location just outside Brentford Town Centre and proximity to a number of high frequency bus routes with short connections to a wider range of public transport nodes. As a consequence, the scheme should seek to maximise the use of sustainable modes of transport (i.e. cycling, walking, bus, underground) but also make provision for some car parking.

Highway Status & Accessibility

7.199 The site fronts Brentford High Street which is classified as the A315 and is part of TfL’s Strategic Road Network. To the west of the site is a traffic signal junction with Ealing Road. The site is not in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), but the Haverfields/Brentford Towers CPZ which operates 10-11am and 7-8pm Mon-Fri and 2.30-3.30pm match day Saturdays is located to the north of the site. Also in close proximity is the Brook Road South CPZ which operates the same hours.

7.200 The site is located within a moderate area of public transport accessibility and has a PTAL score of 3 on a scale of 1-6 where 6b is the highest. There are bus stops located outside the site for routes 65, 237, 267 and N9. These connect the site to Brentford, Chiswick and Ealing town centres and provide onward links via Kew Bridge, Gunnersbury, South Ealing and Ealing Broadway stations amongst others. There is an eastbound bus lane on the High Street.

7.201 There is an existing westbound cycle lane on the A315 and there has recently been a consultation regarding introducing a cycle superhighway (CS9) linking Brentford to Hammersmith.

Existing & Proposed Vehicular and Pedestrian Access

7.202 There is an existing vehicular access to the site that includes a right-turn filter lane. This provides space for vehicles to queue to get into the existing arts centre car park. The ‘in’ and ‘out’ lanes are separated by a central island which makes 220 this a very wide access.

7.203 The existing main pedestrian access is to the east of the vehicular access.

7.204 It is proposed to retain the access and relocate it slightly to the west of its current location and to reduce it in width. Two-way access would still be retained. It is proposed to retain the right-turn filter lane and gap in the central reservation but this will need to be shortened due to the relocation of the access and will require a reduction of the central reservation to the west of the access and extension to it to the east. The right-turn filter lane will subsequently be shorter but would still accommodate 4-5 cars and this is considered to be acceptable bearing in mind the predicted reduction in traffic. Changes to the access and central reservation will be secured in the S106 agreement and delivered under a S278 Highways agreement.

7.205 Pedestrian access to each block will be separate to the vehicular access, with each block having a main entrance fronting the High Street with clear, delineated pedestrian access. The public footway along the frontage of the site will also be widened to a minimum of 2m and this will be secured in the S106 and S278 Highways agreement.

7.206 Pedestrian access will also be provided along the river and will extend the Thames Path. Unrestricted public access will be secured in the S106 agreement and the path dedicated as a public right of way.

Parking Provision

7.207 It is proposed to provide 44 parking spaces in the basement car park, a ratio of 0.23 spaces per dwelling. This is in accordance with London Plan parking standards and therefore is acceptable. Ten of these spaces would be designated as Blue Badge parking spaces and these would be leased to residents as necessary. Requirement for lease rather than sale will be secured in the S106 agreement and included in a Car Parking Management Plan (CPMP) the aim of which is to maximise use of the car park. This Plan must also ensure that the disabled parking spaces all have Electric Vehicle charging points (EVCP) and that EVCPs in general are provided in accordance with London Plan standards.

7.208 All parking spaces in the car should be leased rather than sold with individual flats to ensure maximum use of the car park with details to be secured in the CPMP.

7.209 The CPMP will need to include full details of the traffic light access to the car park including how cyclists are detected and what happens if it breaks down.

7.210 There are two car club parking bays in close proximity to the site at Albany Parade and Pumphouse Crescent. In order to ensure that residents have the opportunity to access a car club car if required the S106 agreement should include a commitment to provide free car club membership to each property to the maximum value of £100 per flat. This is in lieu of a £100 Sustainability voucher. In order to discharge this obligation the developer should provide evidence that an agreement has been signed with a car club operator. Should agreement be reached with an operator who does not have a car within 800m of the site, an on- site parking bay should be reserved for a car club. These obligations will be secured in the S106.

7.211 These measures combined would help promote sustainable modes of transport, 221 which, when considered in conjunction with the low parking ratio, would help reduce the reliance on private car use, a key objective throughout the planning framework. Such an approach is supported and welcomed for a site that has good connections to public transport and other local services.

Parking Impact

7.212 The developer is proposing a ratio of 0.23 parking spaces per flat. It must be made clear in all literature that residents are not guaranteed a parking space in the car park. The site is currently not in a CPZ but is opposite the Haverfields/Brentford Towers CPZ which operates 10-11am and 7-8pm Mon-Fri and 2.30-3.30pm match day Saturdays. Also in close proximity is the Brook Road South CPZ which operates the same hours. Residents of the site would not be eligible for permits in these CPZs because they would not have a qualifying address. However, to ensure that they would not be eligible if either CPZ were to be extended a restriction will be included in the S106 agreement to prevent residents from obtaining a parking permit.

7.213 Given the above, the parking impact is considered to be acceptable and would not have a significant impact on the availability of on-street car parking in the surrounding area or result in significant parking stress for existing residents.

Trip Generation

7.214 The applicant has undertaken a trip generation assessment. This compares the proposed trip generation to the existing use of the site as an arts centre.

7.215 The applicant states that existing traffic generation varies depending on the activities but it could be expected that on an average day there would be 9 traffic movements in the morning peak hour and 47 in the afternoon peak.

7.216 The number of person trips generated by the development has been predicted using standard methods, with modal share predicted using local census data. This is considered to be reasonable and the approach is accepted. It is predicted that there would be 9 traffic movements in the morning peak and 9 in the afternoon peak. It can be seen, therefore, that there is no predicted increase in peak hour traffic movements over the existing use. Consequently, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any increases in traffic in the vicinity of the site.

Walking & Cycling

7.217 A total of 320 cycle parking spaces are to be provided in the basement car park. These would be accessed by over-sized lifts (with one in each core) or using the basement ramp. Consequently, the traffic-light access to the car park must be able to detect cyclists and these design details will be secured in the CPMP, as outlined above.

7.218 The number of cycle parking spaces accords with London Plan parking standards and is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. The location of the cycle stores has been amended in accordance with officer’s requests. However, there remains a cycle store that would contain in excess of the recommended number of cycle stands. In addition, full manufacturers’ details of the stands have not been provided and officers would also like to see a number of Sheffield stands provided within these cycle stores. For this reason, a condition requiring full details of the cycle parking to be submitted is required, noting in particular the unacceptability of 222 the overly large cycle store.

7.219 A total of nine short-stay cycle stands are proposed in accordance with the London Plan. It is recommended that this is maximised and that these details are secured by condition, within the wider landscaping strategy, ensuring they are in accessible, highly visible locations to make sure they are as attractive as possible for users.

7.220 The submitted Transport Assessment places great weight on the role of sustainable travel in supporting the operation of the development. The scheme would benefit directly from the planned delivery of Cycle Superhighway 9 along Brentford High Street and consequently a contribution towards the delivery of this within the Brentford area will be secured in the S106.

7.221 A contribution to enhancing wayfinding in and around the town centre (such as updated ‘Legible London’ signage) will be secured in the S106.

7.222 As set out above, the proposal would include the provision of a new section of riverside walk to link with the existing Thames Path to the east and west of the site. Presently the public footpath follows a convoluted path along the rivers’ edge and includes a series of steps and blind corners, making it an unattractive and unusable route for many people. The proposed walkway would provide level access linking Smith Hill and Waterman’s Park. This would allow for a continuous, level route from Brentford to Kew Bridge along the Thames. The path has been generously designed, being 2.5m wide at its narrowest point to allow a wide range of users’ access to the riverside. Seating is also proposed along the path. The provision of a café on the corner of the development adjacent to the Waterman’s Park would help to animate and activate this space, helping to draw people along the river and to the park. This would ensure that the path would be an attractive and safe route, with passive surveillance provided from the flats above and through the commercial use on the corner. Such a provision is welcomed and considered to be a significant benefit of the scheme, allowing level access along this stretch of the river where currently the existing site presents a barrier to access. These details will be secured in the S106, ensuring that the path would remain open to the public and dedicated as a public right of way.

Deliveries & Servicing

7.223 It is proposed to provide two on-site delivery spaces in front of the building. These will need to be marked out as ‘for deliveries only’ and actively enforced by the management company. A concierge will be on site and will be able to do this. There will be limited inter-visibility for drivers of delivery vehicles and drivers entering and exiting the car park. Appropriate signage will need to be provided so that drivers are aware of this, and if appropriate the concierge or Facilities Management will need to provide assistance.

7.224 A further delivery/maintenance vehicle space is provided in the basement car park.

7.225 The applicant considers that adequate provision is made for deliveries but concern is raised over the increasing number of home deliveries in recent years. It is important, therefore, to minimise dwell times in these bays and for this reason storage space is required to be provided close to the concierge so that they can receive and store deliveries for all residents. This space should include a cold store so that food deliveries can also be taken by the concierge. The applicant 223 has stated that this is not currently proposed but officers recommend that this is either secured or safeguarded in a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) which itself is to be secured in the S106 agreement. This will help to ensure that the two delivery spaces can accommodate current and future demands for home deliveries. The DSP will also need to commit to monitoring of the level of use with appropriate measures to be introduced if significant issues are raised.

7.226 An outline DSP has been submitted but it is expected that the full details will be secured in a revised document that will be submitted and approved prior to first occupation.

Travel Plan

7.227 An outline Travel Plan has been submitted with the Transport Assessment but it does not contain the full details expected in the Council’s 10 Point Guide to Development Travel Plans. Consequently, there will need to be a S106 obligation for a full travel plan to be submitted and approved prior to occupation. This will include a commitment for at least 5 years of monitoring, longer if targets are not met at that time.

Construction

7.228 TfL has produced guidance for Construction Logistics Plans and it is recommended that a condition requiring submission of a CLP is secured. An outline CLP has been submitted with the Transport Assessment but this does not include all required details. Therefore the condition must require full details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of construction.

Summary

7.229 The proposal would include significant benefits in terms of the promotion of more sustainable modes of transport as well as enhanced public realm around the site, most notably the provision of a full accessible riverside walkway which would link Waterman’s Park and Smith Hill, thereby connecting Brentford and Kew Bridge along the Thames. The site has moderate accessibility to public transport, reflecting its site just outside of Brentford Town Centre, but with a number of public transport nodes a short connection away, and as such it is considered that a low parking ratio is appropriate which seeks to maximise the potential for modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport without impacting on parking availability in the surrounding area. It is noted that more details are required in respect of the cycle parking, delivery and servicing strategy and car park management, but the principle of these arrangements is considered acceptable, subject to the submission of further details which would be secured through the S106 or by condition.

7.230 Subject to further details and highway works, to be secured by condition and in the accompanying S106, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable in highway safety terms and would not prejudice the safety of pedestrians or other road users and would not result in a severe impact on the local road network. The proposals include significant improvements to the public realm, and the importance of providing a fully accessible riverside walkway should not be understated, being a key objective of the planning framework to improve accessibility to and along the River Thames, and significant weight should be placed on the benefit of this provision. It is therefore considered that the scheme would be in compliance with the objectives and policies of the NPPF, the London Plan and the adopted Local 224 Plan.

Energy and Sustainability

7.231 The broad aim of sustainable development is to ensure that the quality of social, economic and ecological environments are improved and maintained for future generations. The London Plan and adopted Local Plan encourage sustainable development through many policies including promoting the use of energy efficient building design and materials, re-use of previously developed land and existing buildings, and location of development in or close to town centres and areas with good public transport. Sustainability is also a clear thread running through the NPPF.

7.232 London Plan Policy 5.3 relates to sustainable design and construction and says planning proposals should demonstrate sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal.

7.233 London Plan Policy 5.5 relates how the Mayor expects 25% of the heat and power used in London to be generated through the use of localised decentralised energy systems by 2025, with the development of decentralised heating and cooling networks at the development and area wide levels, including larger scale heat transmission networks, to be prioritised. Policy 5.6 expects developments to evaluate the feasibility of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, and where a new CHP system is appropriate also examine opportunities to extend the system beyond the site boundary to adjacent sites.

7.234 Many other policies of the London Plan such as 5.7 (renewable energy), 5.9 (heating and cooling) and 5.10 (urban greening) look to maximise the sustainability of development, with on-site renewable energy required where feasible and energy efficient building and environmentally sustainable practices to be incorporated in designs.

7.235 London Plan policy 5.2 sets out a minimum target reduction for carbon dioxide emissions in buildings. For the non-domestic part of the scheme a reduction of 35% against a Building Regulations Part L (2013) compliant baseline is achieved. For the residential parts of the scheme the Policy requires the development to be ‘zero carbon’. The emissions reduction target should be achieved in accordance with the “be lean, be clean, be green” hierarchy:

 Be Lean: The reduction of energy demand and CO2 emissions from using less energy, in particular by adopting sustainable and passive design and construction measures;

 Be Clean: Proposals for the reduction of energy demand and CO2 emissions through supplying energy efficiently;  Be Green: Renewable energy technologies to be incorporated.

7.236 Policy 5.2 goes on to note that major development proposals should include a detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction outlined above are to be met within the framework of the energy hierarchy and that where it is clearly demonstrated that the specific targets cannot be fully achieved on-site, any shortfall may be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution to the relevant borough to be ring fenced to secure the delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. 225 7.237 Policy EQ1 of the Hounslow Local Plan seeks to minimise the demand for energy and promote renewable and low carbon technologies and Policy EQ2 aims to promote the highest standards of sustainable design and construction in development. It goes on to state that where appropriate developments should make a financial contribution to an agreed borough-wide programme for carbon reductions where required reductions cannot be achieved on-site.

7.238 As a comprehensive new development, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognises and adopts sustainable development principles.

7.239 An Energy and Sustainability Statement has been submitted which sets out how the proposed development will achieve the reductions in CO2 emissions required by the above policies and meet the other sustainability criteria set out in these policies.

7.240 It has been demonstrated that through the energy hierarchy the residential elements of the proposal will achieve a 35% CO2 emissions reduction over Part L Building Regs (2013) and the non-residential elements will achieve a 39% reduction. This would be achieved through the delivery of a high standard of passive design, fabric performance and energy efficiency and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery to reduce energy demands, the provision of a communal heating scheme with combined heat and power (CHP) technology capable of wider district connection and the installation of PV across the roof to provide on-site renewable energy generation.

7.241 For the residential element of the development, in order to achieve ‘Zero Carbon’ standard, the development will need to offset emissions through an in lieu payment towards the Council’s Carbon Offset Fund. This cost has been calculated at £265,250 (subject to confirmation from as-built calculations).

7.242 The GLA have raised a number of technical points of clarification regarding the submitted energy strategy, although it is noted that the principle of this are supported. These issues will be addressed as part of the Stage 2 referral.

7.243 The Council’s Sustainability consultants (Low Carbon Europe) have reviewed the submitted information and have confirmed that this strategy is acceptable and represents the best approach to CO2 emissions reductions. In addition, it is noted that the applicant has opted to pursue the voluntary Home Quality Mark for the residential units. Consequently, safeguarding conditions would ensure that the measures proposed are implemented and that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved Energy Statement. It is therefore considered that the proposed energy strategy is acceptable and would comply with the policies of the London Plan and adopted Local Plan.

Other environmental considerations

Archaeology

7.244 The National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12) and the London Plan (Policy 7.8) emphasise that the conservation of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF says that applicants should submit desk-based assessments, and where appropriate undertake field evaluation, to describe the significance of heritage assets and how they would be affected by the proposed 226 development. This information should be supplied to inform the planning decision. If planning consent is granted paragraph 141 of the NPPF says that applicants should be required to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) and to make this evidence publicly available.

7.245 The objective of Local Plan Policy CC4 (Heritage) is to conserve, protect and enhance the archaeological heritage.

7.246 The site lies in an area of archaeological interest (Archaeological Priority Area) identified in the Local Plan.

7.247 The ES includes a chapter assessing the below-ground archaeology of the site and the likely impact of the proposed development on this. This indicates that the site is likely to have a low archaeological potential for the prehistoric and Roman periods.

7.248 The submission has been reviewed by Historic England’s archaeology adviser (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service). They have confirmed that the previous phases of development are likely to have had an impact on any archaeological remains resulting in varying levels of archaeological survival across the site. Consequently, the archaeological impact could be mitigated through the implementation of an appropriate mitigation strategy as part of an archaeology condition. An initial programme of archaeological evaluation is recommended in order to fully ascertain the scale of previous impacts. The scope of this phase of works should first comprise geoarchaeological/archaeological monitoring of any proposed geotechnical investigation. If a geotechnical investigation is not proposed then archaeological/geoarchaeological boreholes should be carried out. This will then help to identify any areas for targeted evaluation trenches or inform the scope for any mitigation depending on the initial results.

7.249 Consequently, based on this advice, it is considered that with this safeguarding condition, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on archaeology and would be in accordance with the Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF.

Flooding & drainage

7.250 London Plan Policy 5.12 covers flood risk management and risk, and this is also covered in the NPPF.

7.251 Local Plan Policy EQ3 on flood risk and surface water management states that development should ensure that flood risk is reduced by enduring that developments are located appropriately and incorporate any necessary flood resistance and resilience.

7.252 The Environment Agency (EA) Flood Map for Planning shows that the southern part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3 ‘High Probability’ which represents land assessed as having greater than 1 in 100 (1%) annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea. The central and northern part of the site is shown in Flood Zone 1 ‘Low Probability’, which is assessed as having less than 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea.

7.253 The area is defended by the River Thames Tidal Defences, an extensive flood defence network across London, of which the Thames Barrier is an integral part. Flood defences are maintained to the existing Statutory Defence Level (SDL) of 227 5.94m AOD.

7.254 The EA Surface Water Flood Map indicates that the majority of the site is at ‘Very Low’ (less than 1 in 1000 or 0.1%) risk of flooding from surface water sources.

7.255 In light of the above, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted which includes a Surface Water Drainage Strategy. A chapter within the ES considers hydrology, flood risk and surface water drainage associated with the proposed development.

7.256 The new proposed residential development platform (i.e. the flats and communal gardens) will be set at a level of 7.0m AOD, which is significantly above all reference flood levels and above the recommended future defence levels to 2100. The lower ground floor car parking area is at 5.50m AOD, resulting in the need to manage flood risk to these areas by suitable waterproof sealing during and after construction and appropriate drainage.

7.257 The EA have reviewed the submitted and additional information and confirmed that there are no objections to the proposal on flood risk safety grounds subject to further details which would be secured by condition where necessary, noting that the development does not preclude future defence raising, with the proposed riverside walkway and less vulnerable development set at a lower elevation and providing a betterment in terms of riparian access for maintenance and future erection of defences.

7.258 Responsibility for managing surface water flooding and other flood events has recently passed from the Environment Agency to Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). The Council’s Flood Risk Management Consultant has reviewed the submitted information and is satisfied with the principles of the drainage strategy. Safeguarding conditions are recommended to secure the detailed design of the proposed drainage strategy to ensure the agreed surface water flows can be achieved and that an appropriate maintenance plan is in place. Based on this advice it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant Local Plan and London Plan policies regarding flooding and surface water management.

Contaminated land

7.259 Owing to the history of uses, there may be some contamination. The NPPF advises where there is suspicion, or where evidence suggests there may be some contamination, planning permission may be granted subject to condition that development may not start before site investigation and assessment have been done and that the development itself will incorporate any remedial measures necessary. Policy 5.21 (Contaminated Land) of the London Plan and adopted Local Plan Policy EQ8 (Contamination) provide a policy context for this matter. A condition is proposed to ensure that, provided the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented, there would be no risk of contamination.

Air Quality

7.260 The NPPF states that (para 109) “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…. preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.” 228 7.261 London Plan Policy 7.14 (Improving Air Quality) states that development proposals should: Promote sustainable design and construction to reduce emissions from the demolition and construction of buildings following the best practice guidance in the GLA and London Councils’ ‘The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition’; Where biomass boilers are included, set out a detailed air quality assessment that should forecast pollutant concentrations. Permission should only be granted if no adverse impacts from biomass are identified; and aim to be ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality (such as areas designated as AQMAs).

7.262 The Borough has undertaken a review and assessment of air quality as required by the Environment Act 1995. This has concluded that the level of pollution (the air quality objective for 2005 for nitrogen dioxide) will not be met and led to the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

7.263 The application site is within the AQMA that covers the whole Borough and by definition suffers from poor air quality. Thus, careful consideration needs to be given to granting planning permission for residential accommodation, particularly to the type of accommodation where people may have very little choice in the location. However, AQMAs do not differentiate levels of pollution between different areas and, in reality there may well be differences on the ground. Whilst the designation of an AQMA is indicative of a certain level of air quality, this in itself does not prevent development in such areas.

7.264 Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ4 (Air Quality) states that the Council’s objective is to seek to reduce the potential air quality impact of development, in line with the Air Quality Action Plan, and that development proposals are expected to carry out air quality assessments for major developments and consider the potential impacts of air pollution from the development on the site and neighbouring areas and incorporate mitigation measures where air quality assessments show that developments could cause or exacerbate air pollution, or where end users could be exposed to air pollution.

7.265 The ES chapter on Air Quality describes the existing air quality within the site area, considers the suitability of the site for mixed-use development and assesses the impact of construction activities on air quality in the surrounding area. It highlights that although there will be car parking retained on the site, this will not lead to a significant increase in traffic on local roads and consequently would not affect the local air quality. Whilst the proposal would include an energy centre to be installed and details are not presently available to undertake an assessment of this, the plant required will be compliant with the London Plan SPG on ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ and with an appropriate stack height and location, emissions will not lead to a significant impact on local air quality.

7.266 The assessment goes on to state that the site is appropriate for new residential development and residents would not be exposed to unacceptable levels of NO2.

7.267 The Council’s Environmental Strategy officer has reviewed the Air Quality information and advises that an Air Quality Neutral Assessment would be required prior to the installation of the energy centre to ensure accordance with the ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ SPG, noting that the SPG contains benchmark values and requires that any boilers installed are Ultra Low Emission.

7.268 It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in 229 respect of potential impacts on air quality and would be in broad compliance with the NPPF, the London Plan and local policies, subject to safeguarding conditions.

Noise and Vibration

7.269 The NPPF addresses noise pollution with the aim of preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise. London Plan Policy 7.15 states that development proposals should seek to reduce and manage noise and Local Plan policy EQ5 requires submission of a noise assessment where major schemes or a change to a more noise sensitive use are proposed.

7.270 The site is affected by road traffic noise. The residential and non-residential noise sensitive receptors fall outside of the 57 dB LAeq Heathrow Noise Contours. Additional noise sources such as servicing and deliveries for residential and the commercial unit and the operation of the CHP.

7.271 The ES considers noise and vibration from construction and the completed development, assessing whether the site is suitable for residential use and the adequacy of the internal and external environment. No sources of vibration, such as rail tracks, are near the site and therefore vibration impacts during the operational phase of the development were not considered further.

7.272 The assessment highlights that construction noise could potentially increase the ambient noise levels at existing noise-sensitive receptors. However, it is considered that these could be appropriately managed through best-practice construction management and controlled through a condition restricting the hours of construction and requiring submission of a Constriction Environmental Management Plan in order to minimise the impact on local residents.

7.273 As outlined above, there would be an overall reduction in the level of car parking on site and consequently vehicle movements from the site will be reduced. Therefore, additional noise from traffic associated with the development is likely to be negligible given the existing background noise environment.

7.274 There is the potential for additional noise sources from external plant associated with both the residential and commercial element of the new development. Local Plan Policy EQ5 requires that any fixed plant should be restricted to 10dB below background noise levels. These details could be secured by condition in order to minimise the impact on the wider environment.

Ecology

7.275 At a national level, the NPPF sates that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the “natural and local environment by:  Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;  Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;  Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;”

230 7.276 London Plan Policy 7.19 (Biodiversity and access to nature) states that “development proposals should wherever possible make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity”.

7.277 Local Plan Policy GB5 (Blue Ribbon Network) requires developments to restore waterbodies to their natural state in line with the action of the Thames River Basin Management Plan and ensure developments are set back to provide a minimum 16m to the Thames Tidal Defence.

7.278 The Environment Agency (EA) note that the proposals do not include any measures to restore the River Thames, such as ecological enhancement of the flood defence or the adjacent buffer stop, despite a significant stretch of riverside frontage.

7.279 Given that this stretch of the riverside contributes to the overall flood defences in this location and the proposed development seeks to retain these, the opportunity for enhancement is limited, in particular noting that the proposal would include a significant enhancement to the Thames Path in this location, providing a minimum 2.5m wide, level footway along the length of the frontage.

7.280 Adopted Local Plan Policy GB7 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect and enhance the Borough’s natural environment and seeks to increase the quantity and quality of the Borough’s biodiversity.

7.281 An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the application. This identifies that the site was found to support little or no resources of ecological value with vegetation being dominated by low diversity habitats and introduced shrubs. However, a number of designated areas have been identified within the vicinity of the site, the closest being the River Thames Site of Metropolitan Importance which is immediately adjacent to the site. The assessment indicates that no impacts on these designated areas are likely provided appropriate safeguarding conditions are in place during construction (i.e. Construction Environmental Management Plan) and the proposed lighting scheme includes measures to retain the adjacent River Thames as a dark corridor.

7.282 The ecological surveys also identified the presence of invasive, non-native plants within the site (particularly Japanese knotweed) as well as vegetation which would have the potential to support common nesting birds. However, these issues can be adequately addressed through eradication by specialist contractors and sensitive timing of works/ecological supervision.

7.283 The existing building was identified as having potential to support common nesting birds or roosting bats. However, an emergency survey observed no bats emerging from the building and no bat activity in the area.

7.284 A number of general recommendations for ecological enhancement of the site are outlined within the Ecology Assessment such as planting of new, native species on terraces, including trees, shrubs and grasses, the planting of flowering species to provide sources of pollen and nectar for a range of invertebrate species, provision of “bug hotels” and the provision of bat and bird boxes.

7.285 The Council’s Environmental Strategy officer agrees with the findings of the Ecological Appraisal and recommends that appropriate conditions are included to secure the recommendations of the appraisal and that the lighting strategy retains the adjacent river area as a dark corridor. 231 7.286 The spread of Japanese knotweed is covered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, while any contaminated soil that is removed from a site is classified as “controlled waste” and is covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A condition is recommended which requires that all Japanese knotweed on the site is eradicated before any development takes place. This would not override any other obligations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act or the Environmental Protection Act.

Trees

7.287 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application. This identified 15 trees around the existing site, proposing the removal of four (one Category C and three Category U trees) in order to facilitate the new development. To mitigate the loss of these trees, it is proposed that replacement trees within new landscaping and the public realm will be provided. It is recommended that all tree works are conditioned and that the proposed replacement tree strategy is set out in a wider landscaping condition.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 Local Plan Policy IMP3 seeks to ensure that development proposals fully mitigate the impacts of the development on the area through a Section 106 agreement, where necessary or appropriate, having regard to supplementary planning document and provide the CIL payments required by any charging scheduled, including the Mayor of London’s CIL. A payment or other benefit offered in a Section 106 agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission and cannot be required unless it complies with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulation 122), which provide that the planning obligation must be: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.2 The Section 106 agreement will not address all the impacts since some of these will be addressed by CIL, in order to satisfy the Regulation 122 tests above.

8.3 The NPPG provides guidance on use of planning obligations, which may impose a restriction or requirement, or provide for payment to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise not be acceptable in planning terms. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations (adopted March 2008) contains guidance on imposition of planning obligations in compliance with such guidance. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate a development’s impacts.

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

8.5 The following draft Heads of Terms are likely to form the basis of the Section 106 agreement, all of which are considered to satisfy the three Regulation 122 tests referred to above: (a) Link with the proposed development at the former Brentford Police Station site with a restriction preventing commencement of development until the 232 new arts centre is completed and first occupied; (b) Delivery of Affordable Housing (60 units at intermediate tenure) on the former Brentford Police Station site; (c) Pre-commencement and out-turn viability review mechanisms; (d) Funding contribution by the developer for the arts centre fit-out, which should be placed within an Escrow Agreement (or otherwise agreed); and require all funding for the arts centre to be transferred to the Waterman’s Arts Centre prior to the existing arts centre land being transferred to the developer; (e) Details of who is responsible for providing and paying for the base build and the later fit out works to be provided to the Council prior to commencement; (f) Financial contribution towards the delivery of the Cycle Superhighway 9 in the Brentford Ward of £50,000 prior to commencement (requested by TfL); (g) Financial contribution towards new/upgraded Legible London signage (h) Construction training – in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations & CIL SPG (£2,750 for every £1m construction costs); (i) Carbon offset fund contribution (£265,250); (j) Car Park Management Plan (including details of the traffic-light controlled basement access ramp, details for the lease of parking spaces, details of EVCPs and monitoring arrangements); (k) Delivery and Servicing Plan (including details for storage of home deliveries within the concierge area and monitoring of the level of usage with appropriate measures to increase capacity if necessary, details of appropriate signage for delivery bays) (l) Restriction on residents’ eligibility for parking permits; (m) Residential Travel Plan (to include £100 sustainability travel voucher for all new residents); (n) S.278 works associated with the new development (including new vehicular access, minimum 2m footway along the site frontage on the High Street, revised right-turn lane arrangements, changes to the central reservation etc.) agreed prior to commencement with works completed prior to occupation of the development; (o) Unrestricted public access to the river walkway (Thames Path) with details to be agreed prior to commencement and works completed prior to occupation of the development; and (p) Considerate Contractors Scheme.

9.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The public sector equality duty applies to all council decisions. A public authority or any person who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the need to: a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by or under the Act; b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant 233 protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 9.2 Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity, this involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to: a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

9.3 This shall include, in particular, but is not limited to steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.

9.4 The exercise of public functions must have due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not, in particular, to the need to: a) tackle prejudice; and b) promote understanding.

9.5 Compliance with these duties may involve treating some persons more favourably than others. This is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under the Act.

9.6 The relevant protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; marriage and civil partnership; and sexual orientation.

9.7 Due regard needs to be demonstrated in the decision making process and requires an analysis of the material with the specific statutory considerations in mind. It does not follow that the considerations raised will be decisive in a particular case the weight given to them will be for the decision maker. The equalities duty is not a duty to achieve a particular result. Some equalities considerations are covered under other legislation such as building control matters. Officers have in considering this application and preparing this report had regard to the public sector equality duty and have concluded that due regard has been given to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties”.

10.0 LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

10.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must have regard to a local finance consideration as far as it is material. A local finance consideration means: a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or 234 b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 10.2 The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter for the decision maker. The Mayor of London's CIL and Hounslow CIL are therefore material considerations. 10.3 Most new development which creates net additional floor space of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new dwelling, is potentially liable to pay the CIL to Hounslow and the Mayor of London. 10.4 CIL is payable on m2 of new floor space or where a new dwelling is created or the net floor area increase exceeds 100m2.

Mayors £35 per m2

Hounslow Housing Supermarkets, Health care, education All other uses £20 m2 East £200 m2 superstores and retail and emergency 2 services facilities £0 Central £110 m2 warehousing £155 m

West £70 m2

10.5 The estimated MCIL payable for this development is £395,150 and the estimated BCIL payable is £983,690.

10.6 The applicant has requested that the Council’s CIL be exempt due to ‘exceptional circumstances’ with the provision of the new arts centre considered as a ‘payment in kind’ and the specific circumstances whereby the existing floorspace of the existing building cannot be counted against the proposed floorspace owing to its Sui Generis use and its specific internal layouts bespoke to a police station section house. The application documents indicate that the cost of provided the arts centre would be approximately £18million with abnormal costs of some £7.3million generated due to the need to phase the linked developments to ensure continuity of provision.

10.7 Such an exemption is permitted in principle at the Council’s discretion in accordance with Regulation 55 of the CIL Regulations (as amended), which states that a charging authority may grant ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief’ in respect of chargeable development it: a) It appears to the charging authority that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it doing so; and b) The charging authority considers it expedient to do so.

10.8 Regulation 55(3), set out below, sets out when a charging authority may grant ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief’: a) The charging authority has made relief for exceptional circumstances in its area b) A planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been entered into in respect of the planning permission which permits the chargeable development c) The charging authority considers that to requirement payment of the CIL charged by it in respect of the chargeable development would have an unacceptable impact on the economic viability of the chargeable development d) The charging authority is satisfied that to grant relief would not constitute a 235 state aid which is required to be notified to and approved by the European Commission.

10.9 The Council is yet to make ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief’ available and as such, should the Planning Committee resolve to grant permission for this development, in accordance with Regulation 55(3) above, ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief’ could not be granted until the above criteria had been satisfied. The Planning Committee would be given the opportunity to determine whether or not, ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief’ should be applied to this development at a later date once the Council has made this available through an adopted ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief Policy’.

10.10 However, at this stage, it is considered that exceptional circumstances can be justified in this case given the significant public benefit that the scheme would generate through the delivery of 20% affordable housing, the delivery of a new, purpose-built, self-sufficient arts centre at the heart of the community of Brentford as well as the inability of the scheme to take account of the existing floorspace of the police station building given its vacant status, bespoke internal configuration (which has made re-letting difficult) and the planning restrictions on the use of the building (the Sui Generis use means any change of use requires prior planning approval). The submitted financial viability appraisal indicates that without the exceptional circumstances relief, the proposal would be unviable.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 The proposal would result in the re-development of this prominent, riverside site that is located at the entrance to Brentford High Street, just outside the town centre for the delivery of new housing in order to cross-subsidise the delivery of a new, purpose-built arts centre at the former Brentford Police Station site on Half Acre and the provision of affordable housing on that site. The proposal would be in accordance with the site allocation, with the S106 agreement securing a restriction that would prevent the re-development of this site until the new arts centre had been completed and occupied, allowing for continuation of the arts centre provision in the local area. This would be supported by a community use agreement to build on the work the Waterman’s Arts Centre undertakes within the wider community and promote the use of the arts centre to local schools. The development across the two sites, would contribute a significant quantum of new housing, which would go towards meeting the Borough’s housing targets.

11.2 The scheme is considered to be of a high design quality that would see the replacement of the existing, uninspiring and unimposing building that fails to take account of its riverside setting at the entrance to Brentford High Street. The replacement building would be of a significantly greater height and scale, both compared to the existing building and adjacent developments. Whilst this would, in some views, result in an awkward, somewhat overbearing relationship in the townscape, in particular when viewed from Waterman’s Park and from Ealing Road, the proposal would include substantial improvements to the public realm around the site, both on the High Street frontage and along the riverside, which would help to mitigate this bulk and mass. The effects of this massing would be further mitigated through architectural detailing, the multi-faceted building design, sensitive materiality, and, despite their limited extent, the introduction of views through the site from the High Street to the riverside which are currently non- existent.

236 11.3 The proposal would help promote the use of sustainable transport, which together with a low parking ratio, would help reduce the reliance on private car use, a key objective throughout the planning framework, without putting undue stress on parking availability in the local area or affecting traffic levels on the local highway network. With appropriate safeguarding conditions and obligations secured by S106 legal agreement, the proposal would not give rise to severe impacts on the local highway or public transport network.

11.4 Determining whether there is substantial harm to either a heritage asset or its setting is a matter of judgement, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy of the NPPF with this consideration to consider the significance of the asset as well as the effects on it. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. Government guidance from the NPPG confirms significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. It is also the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. Additionally, the guidance is clear that harm may arise from works to the asset itself or from development within its setting. Officers do not consider that the proposal would result in any substantial harm to the significance of any heritage assets.

11.5 As detailed in this report, there are some harmful effects on the settings of various heritage assets, with the harm being considered less than substantial. Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The NPPG advises that: “…public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework. Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits”.

11.6 In applying this balancing exercise, where it is considered that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, or the Outstanding Universal Value of a World Heritage Site, as is the case here, the harm identified, even if ‘less than substantial harm’ must be given considerable importance and weight. Finding such harm therefore gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted and this can only be outweighed by material planning considerations powerful enough to do so.

11.7 For this application the most significant public benefits are from the strategic objective, set out in the adopted Local Plan, for the re-provision of the Waterman’s Arts Centre in the centre of Brentford, securing the long-term sustainability of this regional community and cultural asset within a purpose-built facility, as well as the provision of 20% affordable housing delivered across the two sites, the delivery of an enhanced section of Thames Path which would allow for a fully accessible route from Brentford to Kew Bridge, wider public realm improvements at both sites and the significant contribution to housing supply. There are also other indirect benefits to be considered from regeneration of these underdeveloped sites that will help with the wider vitality and vibrancy of the area and promote economic activity. 237 11.8 As such, it is considered that the proposal represents an appropriate response to the planning framework for the site and will bring substantial benefits to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the area, notably those arising from the delivery of a new arts centre in the centre of Brentford and the contribution to housing supply, as well as the regeneration this scheme will bring to the wider town centre through new employment opportunities and increased economic activity with limited amenity impacts to nearby residential properties. Overall, the proposal would, on balance, be in accordance with the objectives and policies of the NPPF, the London Plan and the Local Plan.

12.0 RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement(s) or unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers in the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment on the Borough Solicitor’s advice.

The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 30th April 2018 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Head of Governance’s Office.

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

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

If planning permission is refused, the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Director of Economy, Enforcement and Environment or the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission or listed building consent validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of either application, provided that it (a) duplicates the 238 earlier application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and (c) that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the report is completed within any specified period of time.

Conditions:

1 Time limit The Development hereby approved, shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. Reason. To accord with the provisions of Section 92(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 Accordance with approved plans The proposed development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and the plans submitted (see schedule) therewith and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission and to ensure that any development that is carried out is that which has been assessed. 3 Construction Management Plan/Construction Logistics Plan No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The CLP shall cover as a minimum:  a site plan (showing the areas set out below)  confirmation that a pre-start record of site conditions on the adjoining public highway will be undertaken with Hounslow Highways and a commitment to repair any damage caused  provision for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors  provisions for loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials within the site  details of access to the site, including means to control and manage access and egress of vehicles to and from the site for the duration of construction including phasing arrangements  details of vehicle routeing from the site to the wider strategic road network  the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate  provision of wheel washing facilities at the site exit and a commitment to sweep adjacent roads when required and at the reasonable request of the council 239  a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works  measures to ensure the safety of all users of the public highway especially cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site and especially at the access  commitment to liaise with other contractors in the vicinity of the site to maximise the potential for consolidation and to minimise traffic impacts  avoidance of network and school peak hours for deliveries and details of a booking system to avoid vehicles waiting on the public highway  all necessary traffic orders and other permissions required to allow safe access to the site to be secured and implemented prior to commencement of construction  details of the construction programme and a schedule of traffic movements All construction and demolition works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved CMP and CLP. Reason. In order to protect the environmental quality of the surrounding area and to ensure that deliveries to the site during construction are managed effectively so as to minimise impact upon the road network and to safeguard the amenities of residential properties in the locality and in the interest of road safety, in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2, EQ5, EQ4, EQ6 and EC2 of the adopted Local Plan Policy and Policies 7.15, 7.14 and 5.3 of the London Plan. 4 Hours of demolition/construction No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm on Mondays to Friday and 8am to 4pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents and the amenities of the locality in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2 and EQ5 and Policies 7.15 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) and 5.3 (Sustainable design and construction) of the London Plan. 5 Construction Travel Plan Prior to the commencement of development, a construction travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in order to minimise reliance on private car use by all contractors and construction staff. Such a plan shall include details of measures to encourage sustainable travel to the site and to minimise site workers parking on nearby sites. Reason. In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties in the locality and in the interest of road safety in accordance policies CC1, CC2, EQ5, EQ4, EQ6, EC2 and EC2 of the adopted Local Plan Policy. 6 Materials/Details No development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other 240 enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising) shall take place until details and samples of all facing materials are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The samples and details shall include: - brick/stonework (including brick/stone and mortar on-site sample panel min. 2m x 2m); - cladding materials (including system specifications/details and on- site samples) (where relevant); - window treatment (including sections/reveals and on-site sample); - all privacy measures, (including obscure glazing details, privacy screens etc.); and - balustrading treatment (including details/sections/materials); - any other materials/details to be used. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter. Reason. In order to safeguard the visual amenity of the area and buildings in particular and to satisfy the requirements of policies CC1, CC2, CC3 and SC4 of the Local Plan and London Plan Policy 7.6. 7 Privacy measures Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising), details to ensure privacy (e.g. through balcony screens, obscure glazing or alternative fenestration treatment to flats 4 and 5 in Block A) to neighbouring residential units at Lighterage Court/Kew Reach (southern block) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring and nearby residents’ and to satisfy the requirements of policies CC1, CC2, CC3 and SC4 of the Local Plan and London Plan Policy 7.6. 8 Landscaping Prior to the commencement of the development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising), details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall then be carried out as approved. The detailed landscaping scheme shall include: - soft planting: including any grass and turf areas, trees, planters, shrub and herbaceous areas including details of species, sizes, 241 numbers/densities and sections of landscaped areas; - a ‘Tree Planting Statement’ providing full details, locations, specifications and construction methods for all purpose-built tree pits and associated above ground features, including specifications for tree protection and a stated volume of suitable growing medium to facilitate and promote the healthy development of the proposed trees, ensuring each tree has a soil volume equivalent of 0.6 times its canopy area at maturity; - hard landscaping: including ground surfaces, kerbs, edges, ridge and flexible paving, furniture, steps, refuse disposal points and if applicable synthetic surfaces for both ground level and roof terrace level (where relevant); - fences and walls and any other boundary treatments; - a minimum of 9 visitor cycle parking spaces (in the form of Sheffield stands) located around the site in accessible locations; - any play spaces and play equipment (equivalent to the provision of 220sqm); - any signage (Legible London) and information boards; - brown (biodiversity) roofs/green walls (where relevant); - any CCTV equipment; - an external lighting strategy (with measures to retain the ‘dark corridor’ of the River Thames; and - any other landscaping feature(s) forming part of the scheme. The submission shall include a management programme for the lifetime of the development, which shall include: long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscape areas, and details of any temporary landscaping (including boundary treatment) to be provided and management thereof. All landscaping comprised in the approved details shall be carried out during the first planting and seeding seasons following completion of construction works. Any trees or shrubs planted (including any such replacements) which die within three years from the date of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with the same species, and of comparable maturity. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved management programme. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the site and the adjacent the area, that the development will be accessible to all and in order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that there will be ecological enhancements and as to the management of minor artefacts and structures, in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2 and GB7 and Policies 7.19, 5.3, 7.8 and 7.2 of the London Plan. 9 Acoustic Protection (residential) (A). No development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising) shall take place until a scheme of acoustic insulation and 242 any other necessary means of ventilation provided, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Noise and Vibration chapter in the Environmental Statement, is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of measures to ensure the residential accommodation does not exceed the ‘good’ limits contained in BS8233. The details shall include material specification and predicted performance of the materials proposed. Any works that form part of such a scheme shall be completed as approved before any part of the development within the relevant phase is first occupied. (B). Prior to the development being occupied, sound insulation test reports demonstrating compliance with the scheme approved under Part A of this condition, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory environmental conditions for the occupiers of the proposed building in accordance with Local Plan Policy EQ5. 10 Accessible Housing Each residential unit shall meet M4(2) Building Regulations as shown on the hereby approved plans. Reason: To ensure a socially inclusive and sustainable development in accordance with Local Plan Policy SC5 and policies 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments) and 7.2 (Creating an inclusive environment) of the London Plan. 11 Wheelchair User Dwellings A minimum 10% ‘Wheelchair User Dwellings’ built to Building Regulations M4(3) standard shall be provided as identified on the approved plans. Reason: To ensure a socially inclusive and sustainable development in accordance with Local Plan Policy SC3 and policies 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments) and 7.2 (creating an inclusive environment) of the London Plan. 12 Waste & Recycling Storage (residential) No part of the development shall be occupied until the waste and recycling facilities for the residential element of the development, as shown on the approved plans, have been provided and made available for use by residents. Such facilities shall remain throughout the lifetime of the development and shall be used for no other purposes. Reason: To ensure that refuse can be properly stored and removed from the site as soon as the building is occupied in accordance with Local Plan Policies CC1, CC2 and EQ7. 13 Waste & Recycling Storage (commercial) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other 243 adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising), details of the waste and recycling storage facilities for the commercial use at ground floor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the waste and recycling facilities for the commercial use at ground floor thereby approved have been provided and thereafter such facilities shall be retained throughout the lifetime of the development and shall be used for no other purposed. No refuse or recycling waste bins shall be stored on the public highway. Reason: To ensure that refuse can be properly stored and removed from the site as soon as the building is occupied in accordance with Local Plan Policies CC1, CC2 and EQ7. 14 External Plant Any fixed external plant shall be designed and installed to ensure that noise emanating from such plant is at least 10dB below the background noise levels when measures from the nearest sensitive receptors. Plant shall be set in from the roof boundaries by a minimum of 2m. No further fans, louvres, ducts or other external plant shall be installed without the written prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents and ensure that the development provides a high quality design in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2 and EQ5. 15 Cycle Storage Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising), full details (including manufacturers’ specifications) of cycle parking facilities (with the provision of Sheffield stands and the reduction of individual cycle stores to include no more than 50 cycles) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including the provision of dedicated staff cycle parking within the new arts centre building. The approved facilities shall conform to current guidance such as the TfL London Cycling Design Standards in design and layout and be fully implemented and made available for use before the first occupation of the development and thereafter retained for use at all times without obstruction. Reason: To support sustainable transport objectives in accordance with adopted local plan policy EC2 16 Parking, loading, turning spaces Prior to the first occupation of the development, the parking, loading and turning spaces as set out in the approved plans that relate to that phase, shall be constructed and made available for use. This shall include a minimum 20% ‘active’ Electric Vehicle Charging spaces and 20% ‘passive’ Electric Vehicle Charging spaces. The parking, loading 244 and turning spaces shall then be retained as such and shall not be used for any other purposes thereafter. No loading or unloading shall occur on the public highway. Reason: In order to prevent obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjacent highway and the premises, in the interests of road safety and in order to promote sustainable transport modes in accordance with policies CC1, CC2 and EC2 of the adopted Local Plan and London Plan Policy 6.13.

245 17 Pedestrian visibility splays Pedestrian visibility splays as shown on the approved plans either side of the vehicular access on the High Street shall be provided prior to first occupation of the relevant Phase of the development and maintained as such thereafter with nothing over 600mm in these regions. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policies CC1, CC2 and EC2 of the adopted Local Plan. 18 Energy Statement Compliance A. The development hereby permitted shall not commence (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising) until a finalised roof plan showing the proposed location of the solar PV panels has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority to show that the development will be constructed in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy, and any subsequent approved revisions.

B. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy and shall not commence above ground until full Design Stage calculations under the Standard Assessment Procedure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority to show that the development will be constructed in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy, and any subsequent approved revisions, and achieves a minimum 35% reduction in emissions on Part L Building Regulations.

C. Prior to first occupation of the building(s) evidence (e.g. photographs, installation contracts and As-Built certificates under the Standard Assessment Procedure should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy, and any subsequent approved revisions, and achieves a 35% reduction in emissions on Part L Building Regulations.

D. Upon final commencement of operation of the solar PV panels, suitable devices for the monitoring of the solar PV panels shall have been installed, and the monitored data shall be submitted automatically to a monitoring web-platform at daily intervals for a period of three years from the point of full operation.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ1. 19 District Heating Network Prior to first occupation of the building(s), evidence should be 246 submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that the development has made sufficient provisions to enable the connection to a feasible district heating network in the future. Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.2 and 5.5 and the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ1. 20 Water Efficiency (residential) A. Prior to commencement of works above ground level, evidence shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to demonstrate that the internal water consumption of the development will not exceed 105 litres/person/day in line with The Water Efficiency Calculator for new dwellings from the Department of Communities and Local Government. B. Prior to first occupation of the building(s) evidence (schedule of fittings and manufactures literature) should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved internal water use calculations. Reason: in order to protect and conserve water supplies and resources in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.15 and the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ2. 21 Sustainable Sourcing of Materials (residential) A. No development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising) shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority that:

- At least three of the key elements of the building envelope (external walls, windows roof, upper floor slabs, internal walls, floor

finishes/coverings) are to achieve a rating of A+ to D in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) The Green Guide of specification.

- At least 50% of timber and timber products are to be sourced from accredited Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme for the Endorsement of Forestry Certification (PEFC) scheme.

- No construction or insulation materials are to be used which will release toxins into the internal and external environment, including those that deplete stratospheric ozone.

B. The development shall not be occupied until evidence (e.g. photographs and copies of installation contracts) have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the development has been carried out in accordance with the approved details under Part A of this condition.

247 Reason: in order to ensure the sustainable sourcing of materials in accordance with the London Plan Policy 5.3 and the Mayor of London’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. 22 Drainage Strategy Prior to commencement of works (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising), final detailed drainage designs (including drawings) of the proposed drainage scheme (taking into consideration the information in the approved documents and the following correspondence emails 14th December 2017) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall specifically provide evidence of the connection to the Thames Water Sewer Network and confirmation that the Environment Agency accepts the discharge in the River Thames at an uncontrolled rate. Reason: To prevent the risk of flooding to and from the site in accordance with relevant policy requirements including but not limited to London Plan Policy 5.13, the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems and Hounslow Council's Local Plan Policy EQ3 23 Drainage Strategy (implementation) Prior to occupation, evidence that the drainage system has been built as per the final detailed drainage designs (approved in condition 21) through the submission of photographs and copies of installation contracts, and written confirmation that the drainage features will be managed as per the detailed maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the methods to mitigate the risk of surface water flooding have been constructed as agreed and that the drainage system is suitably managed. 24 Land Contamination Before the development hereby permitted commences: a. Details of an intrusive site investigation are required in addition to the phase 1 desk study previously submitted. These details shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be investigated by a competent person to identify the extent and nature of contamination. The report should include a tiered risk assessment of the contamination based on the proposed end use of the site. Additional investigation may be required where it is deemed necessary. b. If required, a scheme for decontamination of the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, for written approval. The scheme shall account for any comments made by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. 248 During the course of the development: c. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately if additional contamination is discovered during the course of the development. A competent person shall assess the additional contamination, and shall submit appropriate amendments to the scheme for decontamination in writing to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any work on that aspect of development continues. Before the development is first brought into use: d. The agreed scheme for decontamination referred to in clauses b) and c) above, including amendments, shall be fully implemented and a written validation (closure) report submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Reason: Contamination is known or suspected on the site due to a former land use. The Local Planning Authority therefore wishes to ensure that the development can be implemented and occupied with adequate regard for public and environmental safety, and to satisfy the requirements of policy EQ8 of the adopted Local Plan. 25 Air Quality Neutral Assessment Prior to the installation of the CHP plant, an Air Quality Neutral Assessments for the building, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such assessments shall be undertaken against the benchmarks established in the Air Quality chapter in the Environmental Statement and the Sustainable Design & Construction SPG, ensuring that any boilers installed are Ultra Low Emission (<40mgNOx/kWh). Reason: To ensure the development achieves air quality neutral status in accordance with Local Plan Policy EQ4 and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. 26 Biodiversity Prior to the commencement of the development (except demolition, archaeological investigations, ground condition investigations and intrusive site surveys and other enabling works: site clearance; soil storage; remedial works in respect of any contamination or any other adverse ground conditions; erection of any temporary means of enclosure and land raising), a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy, incorporating the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment Report by Peter Brett Associates dated July 2017 and the incorporation of at least 2 bird boxes, 2 bat boxes and 1 log pile, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall be implemented prior to any building within that phase being first occupied. Any enhancement measures shall be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development or in accordance with the strategy set out in the Landscape Management Plan. Reason: To promote biodiversity and ecological enhancements to the site and surrounding area in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2 and GB7 and Policy 7.19 of the London Plan. 249 27 Tree Protection Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the protection of the retained trees, in accordance with BS5837:2012 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: a) A plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal that shows the position, crown spread and Root Protection Area of every tree on site in relation to the approved plans and particulars. The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on this plan. b) A schedule of tree works for all the retained trees, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All the tree work shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998:2010 – Tree Work – Recommendations. c) The details and positions (shown on plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers, identified separately where required for different phases of construction work. The Tree Protection Barriers must be erected prior to each phase of construction commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase. d) The details and positions of any underground service runs shall be shown on the plan required at paragraph (a). The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree or hedge shall be carried out in complete accordance with BS5837:2012, before any equipment, machinery, or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of development or other operations. The fencing shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development until all equipment, materials and surplus materials have been removed from the site. If the fencing is damaged all operations shall cease until it is repaired in accordance with the approved details. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavations be made without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees on the site and their protection from damage, in the interests of biodiversity and visual amenity area and to accord with policies CC1, CC2 and GB7 of the adopted Local Plan. 28 Archaeology No demolition or development shall take place until a stage 1 written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, and the programme and methodology of site evaluation and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works. If heritage 250 assets of archaeological interest are identified by stage 1 then for those parts of the site which have archaeological interest a stage 2 WSI shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the stage 2 WSI, no demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed stage 2 WSI which shall include: A. The statement of significance and research objectives, the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works B. The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication & dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the stage 2 WSI. Reason: Heritage assets of archaeological interest may survive on the site. The planning authority wishes to secure the provision of appropriate archaeological investigation, including the publication of results, in accordance with adopted Local Plan Policy CC4.

251