London Borough of Hillingdon
North Planning Committee
Meeting date: TUESDAY 8TH AUGUST 2006 Time: 7.30PM Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 5, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE
To Members on the Planning Committee
Councillors Conservation Area Advisory Panel Members Bruce Baker (Chairman) Michael Platts (Eastcote) Michael White (Vice-Chairman) Clive Pigram (Ruislip) Shirley Harper O’Neill David Allam John Ross (Harefield) Michael Markham Norman Nunn- Michael Hirst (Canal Locks) Ian Oakley Price Pamela Jeffreys (Ickenham)
Substitute Councillors Ann Banks Allan Kauffman Sid Garg Josephine Barrett Elizabeth Kemp Janet Gardner David Bishop David Payne Paul Harmsworth George Cooper David Allam Mo Khursheed Brian Crowe Peter Curling Robin Sansarpuri
Further information
For information about the planning applications please telephone 01895 250401.
This agenda was published on Monday 31st July 2006. If you would like further information about the meeting please call Nadia Williams in Hillingdon’s Cabinet Office on 01895 277655 [email protected] or visit our website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
Involving the Public in the way we do business…
The Public have a right to petition and speak at this committee, but must notify the Cabinet Office beforehand on 01895 665617.
Members of the Public and Press are very welcome to attend this meeting. Free parking is available via the entrance to the Civic Centre in the High Street. Bus routes 472, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away.
Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will This agenda be directed to the Council Chamber. Please switch off your is available in mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council large print operates a no-smoking policy in its offices.
Agenda
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting
3. To sign and receive the minutes of the meeting held on 18th July 2006 (to follow).
4. Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent.
5. To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private.
6. Consideration of the reports from the Head of Planning & Transportation
Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press
Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. Reports are split into ‘major’ and ‘minor’ applications. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned.
Major Applications With Petition
Item Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 1. Highview Farm Harefield Construction of 16 vessel clamps to 1 New Years Green the rear of existing waste reception Lane building and extension and Harefield reconfiguration of the existing farm building for use as am overflow waste reception building.
Recommendation: A) Approval Pylon Farm New Years Green Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Lane Permission ref: 2579/M/99/20048 Harefield dated 13/9/2002, to allow continued use of the land as an organic composting site.
Recommendation: B) Approval
Land adjacent to Change of use from low grade Compost Maturation agricultural land to allow the Site Northern geographical extension of Pylon Farm the existing compost maturation New Years Green facility. Lane Harefield Recommendation: C) Refer application to the Secretary of state as a departure from Development Plan Major Applications Without Petition
Item Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 2. 41-55 Windmill Hill Manor Erection of a four storey building for 41 Ruislip a mixed use comprising uses within Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial & Professional), Class A3 (Restaurant & Cafes), Class B1 (Business) or Class D1 (Non-residential institutions) on ground floor and 24 residential apartments above with associated parking, utilities and amenity space (Involving demolition of existing building).
Recommendation: Refusal
Non-Major Applications With Petition
Item Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 3. Abbeyfield Northwood Erection of a two-storey rear 63 Residential Care extension (Involving the demolition Home of an existing rear outbuilding). 64-66 Hallowell Road Northwood Recommendation: Refusal 4. 45 Copse Wood Way Northwood Erection of a four-bedroom detached 73 Northwood dwelling house, with integral double garage and accommodation in the roof-space and basement (Involving demolition of existing dwelling house garage and car port).
Recommendation: Approval 5. 14 Copse Wood Way Northwood Erection of a six-bedroom detached 83 Northwood dwelling house, with single-storey recreation building at the rear, integral double garage, and accommodation in the roof-space (Involving demolition of existing dwelling house, garage and car port).
Recommendation: Refusal
Non-Major Applications Without Petition
Item Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 6. Corner of Cheney Eastcote & Installation of an 11.8m high 98 Street East Ruislip monopole mobile phone mast and & Bridle Road ancillary equipment cabinets Pinner (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended).
Recommendation: A) Prior approval of siting & design is required B) Details of siting & design are refused 7. Ickenham Hall Ickenham A) External works to provide 105 Compass theatre improved access to include external Arts Centre ramps together with handrails, new Glebe Avenue pedestrian/wheelchair access paths, Ickenham ramped and level crossings, car park resurfacing, an additional entrance to the foyer, illustrated, collapsible and non-illuminated bollards to car park and access paths, the automation of existing entrance doors.
B) External works to provide improved access to include external ramps together with handrails, new pedestrian/wheelchair access paths, ramped and level crossings, car park resurfacing, an additional entrance to the foyer, illustrated, collapsible and non-illuminated bollards to car park and access paths, the automation of existing entrance doors and the reconfiguration of the area within the building (Application for Listed Building Consent).
Recommendation: A) Approval B) Listed Building Consent 8. 79 Dulverton road Manor Erection of a first floor side and part 121 Ruislip rear extension.
Recommendation: Approval 9. 4 Burlington Close Northwood Erection of a part single, part two- 127 Pinner storey rear/side extension.
Recommendation: Approval 10. 88 Pinner Road Northwood Erection of part side ground and first 133 Northwood Hills floor, and single-storey rear extension including new rear dormer window.
Recommendation: Approval 11. 22 The Greenway West Ruislip Erection of a single-storey building 139 Ickenham for use for childminding for 3 children (Class D1) (Involving demolition of existing garage). Recommendation: Approval Item Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 12. Weybeards Farm Harefield Continued use of yard for storage of 146 Hill End Road caravans (Renewal of Planning Harefield Permission 42197/APP/20060/2711,dated 22- 06-2001).
Recommendation: Refusal
13. New Appeals and Appeal Decisions Received from 1st June to 30th June 154 2006
14. S106/278 Planning Agreements – Quarterly Financial Monitoring Report 160
Other Business
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 AUGUST 2006 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (NORTH) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
A Item No. 1 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: (A) HIGHVIEW FARM NEW YEARS GREEN LANE, HAREFIELD
Development (A): CONSTRUCTION OF 16 VESSEL CLAMPS TO THE REAR OF EXISTING WASTE RECEPTION BUILDING AND EXTENSION AND RECONFIGURATION OF THE EXISTING FARM BUILDING FOR USE AS AN OVERFLOW WASTE RECEPTION BUILDING
LBH Ref Nos: 39755/APP/2006/1446
Drawing Nos : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, supporting Statement, received 18/5/2006 2, 4a, received14/7/2006.
Date of receipt: 18/5/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 14/7/2006
Address: (B) PYLON FARM NEW YEARS GREEN LANE, HAREFIELD
Development (B): VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF 2579/M/99/20048 DATED 13/9/2002, TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF THE LAND AS AN ORGANIC COMPOSTING SITE.
LBH Ref Nos: 12579/APP/2006/673
Drawing Nos :1, Supporting Statement received 6/3/2006
Date of receipt: 6/3/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
Address: (C) LAND ADJACENT TO COMPOST MATURATION SITE PYLON FARM NEW YEARS GREEN LANE, HAREFIELD
Development (C): CHANGE OF USE FROM LOW GRADE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO ALLOW THE NORTHERN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING COMPOST MATURATION FACILITY
LBH Ref Nos: 12579/APP/2006/1524
Drawing Nos : 1 -General site layout, Environmental Statement, received 18/5/2006
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 1
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Date of receipt: 18/5/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
1.0 SUMMARY (A, B & C)
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the continued use of land at Pylon Farm as an organic composting site and for the change of use from low grade agricultural land to the north of this site, to allow the extension of the existing compost maturation facility. In addition, planning permission is sought at the adjoining Highview Farm for the construction of 16 vessel clamps to the rear of existing waste reception building and the extension and reconfiguration of an existing farm building for use as an overflow waste reception building.
1.2 The extension of the open compost maturation facility at Pylon Farm and the additional facilities at High View Farm form part of a package of measures to improve the operations at the composting facility, in order to mitigate the air quality (odour) issue, following a number of complaints by local residents to the Council and the Environment Agency. Objections have been received to the continued use of the site for composting activity for this reason. The extension of the compost maturation site will facilitate the improved management of the facility and reduce the potential for creating offsite odours, by allowing material to mature and stabilise for a longer period of time. The proposed development to increase the number of in-vessel units at High View Farm will give the applicant the opportunity to hold the compost in a controlled environment for a longer period of time than they currently do.
1.3 Composting is a form of industrial use which is not normally considered appropriate in a Green Belt location. However, as Council policy aims to increase green waste recycling in line with the Government’s Waste Strategy, it is considered that these are special circumstances to justify the continued use, geographical extension and improved facilities at this location, to the extent that the harm on the openness of the Green Belt has been outweighed. Therefore, even though the applications are contrary to Policy OL1, approval is recommended. The buildings, associated structures and activities would not be visually intrusive, increase the built up nature of the sites to a detrimental degree, or harm the openness of the area, while the proposal is considered acceptable on highway safety and ecology grounds. Therefore approval is recommended.
2.0 RECOMMENDATION A: APPROVAL, subject to the following:-
1. That the application be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan.
2. That the application be referred to the Greater London Authority.
3. That should the Secretary of State not call in the application and subject to no direction being received to refuse planning permission from the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 2
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Greater London Authority, the application be deferred for determination by the Director of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers.
4. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:
1. (T8) Time Limit 1. (T8) Standard 2. (M1) Details of materials 2. (M1) Standard 3. The construction of the surface 3. To prevent pollution of the and foul drainage system shall water environment and be carried out in accordance prevent the increased risk with details submitted to and of flooding. approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. 4. (TL1) Existing Trees-Survey 4. (TL1) Standard 5. (TL2) Trees Retained 5. (TL2) Standard 6. (TL3) Fencing to Protect Root 6. (TL3) Standard Areas 7. (TL5) New Planting 7. (TL5) Standard 8. (TL6) Landscaping scheme - 8. (TL6) Standard implementation 9. (TL7) Maintenance of 9. (TL7) Standard Landscaped Areas 10. No development shall take place 10. (TL5) Standard until a method statement incorporating details of the order of construction works and associated work; including the provision of fencing to protect retained trees and hedgerow, the layout of storage areas and temporary site buildings/works compounds; has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement. 11. All delivery and collection 11. (H3) Standard vehicles servicing the development hereby approved shall enter and depart the site using the eastern section of New Years Green Lane, via Breakspear Road. 12. Provisions shall be made within 12. To ensure that the the site to ensure that all development does not vehicles associated with the cause danger and construction of the development inconvenience to users of
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 3
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS hereby approved are properly the adjoining pavement washed and cleaned to prevent and highway. the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 13. The composting facility hereby 13. To safeguard the approved shall be used only for residential amenity of the the processing of organic occupiers of adjoining and biodegradable waste (excluding nearby properties in commercial food waste) and accordance with Policy shall not be used for the OE3 of the Hillingdon processing or disposal of Unitary Development Plan. hazardous or toxic materials. 14. Unless previously agreed in 14. To safeguard the writing with the Local Planning residential amenity of the Authority, there shall be no occupiers of adjoining and more than 52 HGV movements nearby properties, to (26 in, 26 out) at the facility safeguard the amenity of approved under planning the Green Belt and to permissions ensure that pedestrian and 39755/APP/2006/1446, vehicular safety is not 12579/APP/2006/673, prejudiced, in compliance 12579/APP/2006/1524 and with policies OE1, OL1 and 39755/APP/2002/3026 in any one AM7. working day, involving a cumulative total (including the existing facilities) not exceeding a maximum 50,000 tonnes of waste input each year. Any temporary modification of the current restriction in HGV movements must be preceded by a written application to the Council providing information on: the source and volume of the material the route between the source and the site the maximum number of trips per day sought for that particular material the planned duration of the extra number of trips 15. A Travel Plan shall be submitted 15. To safeguard the amenity to and be approved by the Local of the Green Belt and to Planning Authority within 3 ensure that pedestrian and months of the date of this vehicular safety is not permission and shall be prejudiced. retained for a minimum of 5 years. The Travel Plan shall outline the means and methods of: (i) recording the numbers of
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 4
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS deliveries and collections to the site and provision of this information to the Local Planning Authority every 6 months. (ii) providing information to all operators of the preferred route via Breakspear Road for all vehicles entering and exiting the site (iii) transfer of in-vessel composted material from the site to the windrows, located on the adjoining land, north of New Years Green Lane. The Travel Plan shall be continually reviewed by the Local Planning Authority on a yearly basis. 16. No machinery shall be operated, 16. To safeguard the no process shall be carried out residential amenity of the and no deliveries taken at or occupiers of adjoining and dispatched from the site nearby properties in between 07:30 hours and 18:00 accordance with Policy hours Mondays to Fridays, OE3 of the Hillingdon between 07:30 hours and hours Unitary Development Plan. 13:00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 17. No development shall begin 17. To safeguard the until a scheme for protecting residential amenity of the surrounding dwellings and occupiers of adjoining and sensitive areas from dust nearby properties in emitted from construction accordance with Policy works has been submitted to OE6 of the Hillingdon and approved by the local Unitary Development Plan. planning authority. 18. No development shall 18. To ensure that adequate commence until a scheme that measures are put in place will control and minimise to minimise the emission emissions of pollutants from of pollutants in the local and attributable to the area as a result of the development has been development, in submitted and approved in compliance with policy writing by the Local Planning OE1 of the Unitary Authority. Development Plan. 19. The composting facility hereby 19. To prevent unacceptable approved shall accept waste levels of traffic generation input from local authority and to the site. commercial sources only and shall not accept material directly
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 5
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS delivered by members of the public. 20. The vessels hereby approved 20. 20. To safeguard the shall be sealed units with bio- residential amenity of the filters, details of which shall be occupiers of adjoining and submitted to and approved by nearby properties in the Local Planning Authority. accordance with Policies The use shall not commence OE1 and OE6 of the until the bio filters have been Hillingdon Unitary installed in accordance with the Development Plan. approved details. Thereafter the filters shall be permanently retained and maintained in good working order for so long as the use continues. 21. Before any part of this 21. To ensure that the users of development is commenced a the site and the site survey to assess the land environment are not contamination levels shall be subjected to any risks from carried out to the satisfaction of land contamination the Council and if contamination associated with the tipped is found in the site survey or ground in accordance with during development a Policy OE6 of the remediation scheme for Hillingdon Unitary removing or rendering Development Plan. inoccuous all contaminates from the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation scheme shall include an assessment of the extent of site contamination and provide in detail the remedial measures to be taken to avoid risk to the future site users and the environment when the site is developed. All works which form part of this remediation scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is used (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). 22. Before the development hereby 22. In order to enable greater permitted is commenced, a public access to the scheme shall be submitted to, countryside in compliance and approved in writing by, the with policies Pt1.3, R17 Local Planning Authority and OL17 of the UDP. detailing measures for the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 6
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS diversion of footpaths U39 and U40. This shall include measures to ensure that the diverted footpaths are suitably sign-posted and surfaced and a timescale for implementation. The approved means and timescale shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. 23. The facilities hereby permitted 23. To enable the Local shall be used only for purposes Planning Authority to ancillary to the existing retain control over the use composting operations in terms of HGV movements and waste input, so as to ensure that it complies with policies OL1 and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 24. OM7 Refuse and Open-Air 24. (OM7) Standard. Storage
INFORMATIVES:
1. (36) Property Right/Rights of Light 2. (14) Compliance with Legislation Administered by Public Protection Services 3. You are advised that the proposed development may require a Waste Management Licence in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental protection Act 1990 4. You are reminded that registered public footpaths U39 and U40 cross the site. These footpaths constitute a highway which the public have a right to pass and re-pass, without interruption. These footpaths have not yet been formally diverted and as such should be kept clear of any buildings, plant or machinery. Contact Hazel Corden- Highways Maintenance on 01895277528. 5. (34) Asbestos Removal 6. (7) Legislation Administered by Building Control 7. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 8. (23) Installation of Plant and Machinery. 9. (1) Building to Approved Drawings 10. (2) Encroachment 11. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 12. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 7
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 13. The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 14. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc. 15. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 16. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies in the Unitary Development Plan, namely Policies OL1, OE1, OE3, OE6, BE38 and AM7, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. 17. To promote the development of sustainable building design, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, such as solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems. 18. You are reminded that the requirements of condition 15 (Travel Plan) are also required by condition 15 of planning permission ref: 39755/APP/2002/3026, for which no details have been received by the Local Planning Authority to discharge this condition. 19. Your attention is drawn to condition(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17,18, ,21 and 22, which must be discharged prior to the commencement of works. You will be in breach of planning control should you commence these works prior to the discharge of this/these condition(s). The Council may consider taking Enforcement action to rectify the breach of this condition(s). For further information and advice contact - Planning and Transportation Group, Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Tel: 01895 250400). 20. For the avoidance of doubt, HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) referred to in condition 14 means any goods vehicle with an operating weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes.
RECOMMENDATION B – Approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use hereby permitted shall 1. It is not considered be discontinued and the land appropriate to grant a restored to its former condition permanent permission for the on or before five years from the use until its effect on the date of this permission, in amenities of the locality has accordance with a scheme of been assessed. work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 2. (TL2) Trees Retained 2. (TL2) Standard 3. (TL3) Fencing to Protect Root 3. (TL3) Standard Areas 4. Before any part of the 4. (TL5) Standard proposed development is
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 8
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS commenced, a landscaping scheme, to include replacement and additional planting shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should include planting plans, plant schedules and hard/ soft landscaping specifications. 5. (TL6) New Planting 5. (TL6) Standard 6. (TL7) Maintenance of 6. (TL7) Standard Landscaped Areas 7. Unless previously agreed in 7. To safeguard the residential writing with the Local Planning amenity of the occupiers of Authority, there shall be no adjoining and nearby more than 52 HGV movements properties, to safeguard the (26 in, 26 out) at the facility amenity of the Green Belt and approved under planning to ensure that pedestrian and permissions vehicular safety is not 39755/APP/2006/1446, prejudiced, in compliance 12579/APP/2006/673, with policies OE1, OL1 and 12579/APP/2006/1524 and AM7. 39755/APP/2002/3026 in any one working day, involving a cumulative total (including the existing facilities) not exceeding a maximum 50,000 tonnes of waste input each year. Any temporary modification of the current restriction in HGV movements must be preceded by a written application to the Council providing information on: the source and volume of the material the route between the source and the site the maximum number of trips per day sought for that particular material the planned duration of the extra number of trips 8. The windrows shall not exceed 8. To protect the visual 2.0 metres in height. amenities of the Green Belt. 9. The stockpiles shall not exceed 9. To protect the visual 3.0 metres in height. amenities of the Green Belt 10. No machinery shall be 10. To safeguard the residential operated, no process shall be amenity of the occupiers of carried out and no deliveries adjoining and nearby taken at or dispatched from the properties in accordance with
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 9
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS site between 07:30 hours and Policy OE3 of the Hillingdon 18:00 hours Mondays to Unitary Development Plan. Fridays, between 07:30 hours and hours 13:00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 11. All delivery and collection 11. 12. (H3) Standard vehicles servicing the development hereby approved shall enter and depart the site using the eastern section of New Years Green Lane, via Breakspear Road. 12. An odour suppression system 12. 13. To mitigate odour shall be installed and emanating from the windrows maintained around the in compliance with Policy maturation site to mitigate OE6 of the Hillingdon Unitary odour emanating from the Development Plan windrows 13. The composting facility hereby 13. To safeguard the residential approved shall be used only amenity of the occupiers of for the processing of organic adjoining and nearby biodegradable waste properties in accordance with (excluding commercial food Policy OE3 of the Hillingdon waste) and shall not be used Unitary Development Plan. for the processing or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials. 14. Details of the proposed works 14. To protect the visual to the existing barn shall be amenities of the Green Belt. submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
INFORMATIVES:
1. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 3. The existing conservation value of the adjacent nature reserve, especially with regards to Great Crested Newts, should be safeguarded through measures in consultation with environmental organisations such as English Nature and the Country Wildlife Trust. 4. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies in the Unitary Development Plan, namely Policies OL1, OE1, OE3, OE6, BE38 and AM7, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 10
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 5. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 5. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 7.. The decision to GRANT/REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
RECOMMENDATION C:
1. That the application be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan.
2. That should the Secretary of State not call in the application, the application be deferred for determination by the Director of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers
3. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:
1. (T8) Time Limit 1. (T8) Standard 2. The use hereby permitted shall 2. It is not considered be discontinued and the land appropriate to grant a restored to its former condition permanent permission for on or before five years from the the use until its effect on the date of this permission, in amenities of the locality has accordance with a scheme of been assessed. work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 3. The construction of the site 3. To prevent pollution of the drainage system shall be water environment and carried out in accordance with prevent the increased risk of details submitted to and flooding. approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. (B2) Trees Retained 4. (B2) Standard 5. (B3) Fencing to Protect Root 5. (B3) Standard Areas 6. (B6) New Planting 6. (B6) Standard 7. (TL7) Maintenance of 7. (TL7) Standard Landscaped Areas 8. (B5) Landscaping scheme. 8. (B5) Standard 9. The windrows shall not exceed 9. To protect the visual 2.0 metres in height. amenities of the Green Belt. 10. The stockpiles shall not exceed 10. To protect the visual 3.0 metres in height. amenities of the Green Belt.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 11
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 11. A survey should be undertaken 11. To ensure the protection of prior to implementation of a European Protected works on the site, to ascertain Species the presence of any protected species, estimate the size of the population present (if any) and assess the distribution of the species and their habitats across and adjacent to the application site. Where protected species are found to be present, an assessment shall be made of the likely impacts the development would have on the species concerned. This should be accompanied by a set of any additional mitigation measures necessary to comply with relevant legislation. 12. All delivery and collection 12. To ensure that the vehicles servicing the development does not development hereby approved cause danger and shall enter and depart the site inconvenience to users of using the eastern section of the adjoining pavement and New Years Green Lane, via highway. Breakspear Road. 13. Unless previously agreed in 13. To safeguard the amenity of writing with the Local Planning the Green Belt and to ensure Authority, there shall be no that pedestrian and more than 52 HGV movements vehicular safety is not (26 in, 26 out) at the facility prejudiced approved under planning permissions 12579/APP/2006/673, 12579/APP/2006/1524 and 39755/APP/2002/3026 in any one working day, involving a cumulative total (including the existing facility) not exceeding a maximum 50,000 tonnes of waste input each year. Any temporary modification of the current restriction in HGV movements must be preceded by a written application to the Council providing information on: the source and volume of the material the route between
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 12
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the source and the site the maximum number of trips per day sought for that particular material the planned duration of the extra number of trips 14. An odour suppression system 14. To mitigate odour shall be installed around the emanating from the proposed extended maturation windrows, in order to site in accordance with details safeguard the residential that have been submitted to amenity of the occupiers of and approved in writing by the adjoining and nearby Local Planning Authority. The properties, in accordance use shall not commence until with Policy OE6 of the the odour suppression system Hillingdon Unitary has been installed in Development Plan. accordance with the approved details. Thereafter the system shall be permanently retained and maintained in good working order for so long as the use continues. 15. The composting facility hereby 15. To safeguard the residential approved shall be used only for amenity of the occupiers of the processing of organic adjoining and nearby biodegradable waste (excluding properties in accordance commercial food waste) and with Policy OE6of the shall not be used for the Hillingdon Unitary processing or disposal of Development Plan. hazardous or toxic materials. 16. Before the development hereby 16. In order to enable greater permitted is commenced, a public access to the scheme shall be submitted to, countryside in compliance and approved in writing by, the with policies Pt1.3, R17 and Local Planning Authority OL17 of the UDP. detailing measures for the upgrading of footpath U36. This shall include measures to ensure that the footpath is suitably surfaced and a timescale for implementation. The approved measures and timescale shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. 17. No machinery shall be 17. To safeguard the residential operated, no process shall be amenity of the occupiers of carried out and no deliveries adjoining and nearby taken at or dispatched from the properties in accordance site between 07:30 hours and with Policy OE3 of the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 13
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 18:00 hours Mondays to Hillingdon Unitary Fridays, between 07:30 hours Development Plan. and hours 13:00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 18. The facilities hereby permitted 18. To enable the Local shall be used only for purposes Planning Authority to retain ancillary to the existing control over the use in composting operations terms of HGV movements and waste input, so as to ensure that it complies with policies OL1 and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 19. Details of the location of he 19. To safeguard the residential screening operation shall be amenity of the occupiers of submitted to and approved by adjoining and nearby the Local Planning Authority, properties in accordance prior to commencement of the with Policy OE6 of the use hereby approved. The Hillingdon Unitary screening operation shall be Development Plan. located away from sensitive receptors. Any temporary modification of the approved location must be preceded by a written application to the Council.
INFORMATIVES:
1. (1) Building to Approved Drawings 2. (2) Encroachment 3. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 4. (11) The Construction Regulations 1994 5. (12) Notification to Building Contractors 6. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 7. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 8. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 9. The existing conservation value of the adjacent nature reserve, especially with regards to Great Crested Newts, should be safeguarded through measures in consultation with environmental organisations such as English Nature and the Country Wildlife Trust. 10. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies in the Unitary Development Plan, namely Policies OL1, OE1, OE3, OE6, BE38 and AM7, and to all relevant material
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 14
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. 11. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 12. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 13. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts. 14. Discharge of Conditions Your attention is drawn to condition(s) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 16, which must be discharged prior to the commencement of works. You will be in breach of planning control should you commence these works prior to the discharge of this/these conditions. The Council may consider taking Enforcement action to rectify the breach of this condition(s). For further information and advice contact - Planning and Transportation Group, Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Tel: 01895 250400). 15. The decision to GRANT/REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS (A, B & C)
Site and Locality
3.1 The applications relate to parts of Highview and Pylon Farms, located 2.5km to the south east of Harefield. The overall farm area is approximately 60 hectares in extent. The sites are accessed from New Years Green Lane, a single track lane with passing places that links two distributor roads, Breakspear Road South and Harvil Road. The farm and surrounding land is Metropolitan Green Belt and also lies within the Colne Valley Park.
3.2 The nearest major residential area on the edge of Ruislip is approximately 1km to the east of the development site, although the site is in close proximity to a number of farms (St. Leonard’s, Pylon, High View, Elm Tree) and small settlements including New Years Green and Tile Kiln, which are also predominantly farming settlements. The site is located to the north of the air quality management area (AQMA) boundary, although it would be expected that vehicles associated with the proposal will use the A40, which is within the AQMA.
(a) High View Farm
3.3 The application site forms part of High View Farm, and comprises an area of land approximately 0.43 hectares in extent. This farm was formally used for the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 15
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS intensive rearing of pigs and cattle and contains a number of redundant agricultural buildings. The application site is now used as a concrete crushing waste transfer station, permitted under a Certificate of Lawful Use.
(b) Existing maturation site (Pylon Farm)
3.4 The application site is a part of Pylon Farm, located on the north side of New Years Green Lane. The site is adjoins a group of two semi-detached cottages to the west and adjoins open countryside on all other sides. To the east is St Leonard’s Farm.
(c) Proposed maturation site extension (Pylon Farm).
3.5 The site is approximately 0.81 hectares in extent and is located due north of the existing maturation site. The edge of Ruislip Woods is located approximately 250 meters to the north west of the proposed site extension. Ruislip Woods is a site of interest for nature conservation (SINC) and has the national designation of a National Nature Reserve (NNR), incorporating much of the Ruislip Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). New Years Green, a site of interest to nature conservation of Borough Grade I importance, is located approximately 400 meters to the west of the site. The development is immediately adjacent to a public right of way. The proposal site is adjacent to St Leonard’s Farm, which contains 2 listed buildings, which contribute to the local character.
Schemes
(a) High View Farm
3.6 Planning permission is sought for the erection of 16 composting clamps, located on a concrete pad in the approximate position of the existing concrete crushing facility, in addition to an overflow reception building, to be used for the reception, handling, processing and recycling of green waste. The reception building will be constructed of pre stressed concrete panels and profiled steel sheet cladding. As the application is contrary to the Council policy, the application has been advertised as a departure.
(b) Pylon Farm
3.7 Planning permission is sought to vary condition 2 of planning permission ref: 12579/M/99/2048 granted on 13 September 2002 to allow the continued use of the site for organic composting involving open windrows. The existing compost maturation area is approximately 74 metres x 127 metres (9,398 sq. metres)
(c) Geographical extension to the existing maturation site
3.8 Planning permission is also sought for a change of use 0.84 hectares of low grade agricultural land to an organic composting site, to provide a northern geographical extension to the existing maturation site. All organic waste entering this site will be pre-shredded or processed ready to go directly onto the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 16
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS composting windrows. On site sorting will be minimal to remove contaminants that are remaining in the organic material.
3.9 To ensure that there is no contamination of ground water, the proposal involves extensive works to provide a protective membrane with ground levels altered to allow leachate to feed into a lagoon located to the north of the existing site. It is proposed that the development will retain the existing hedge and saplings that have already been planted on the northern boundary of the development site.
3.10 The planning application for an extension to the existing site was deemed to require an Environmental Impact Assessment. This assessment considers the potential impacts on air quality, odour, dust, biodiversity, landscape and groundwater. As the application is contrary to the Council policy, the application has also been advertised as a departure.
Planning History
3.11 The existing recycling facility is located on two sites and was the subject of two separate planning applications. The facility involves the deposition of household green waste and foodstuffs collected predominantly from the Local Waste Authority contractors. The composting process is carried out initially at High View Farm, where the incoming waste is received, sorted and shredded. The waste is then transferred to enclosed pods, incorporating ventilation and sprays. Once the initial processing is complete, the waste is transferred to the adjoining Pylon Farm, to the north of New Years Green Lane, where it is deposited on tarmac aprons and formed into rows of material (windrows), where the material is turned during maturation. Individual planning histories of the 3 application sites is given below:
Pylon Farm
3.12 Planning permission was granted on 13 September 2002 for change of use from agriculture to organic composting site for open windrows (Ref:12579/M/99/2048). Since Council policy aims to increase green waste recycling, this was considered a sufficient special circumstance to justify the use in this location, to the extent that the harm on the openness of the Green Belt had been outweighed. Therefore, even though the application was contrary to Green Belt policy, approval was recommended subject to a S 106 agreement to divert public footpath U36.
3.13 There are no restrictions governing the level of use on this site other than that the windrows shall not exceed 1.5 metres in height (condition 9). However, this permission is temporary. The use has to be discontinued, on or before 6 May 2006 and the land restored to agricultural use. The application to renew the use Ref: 12579/APP/2006/673, was received on 6/3/06 (Application B).
3.14 In March 2004 it was established that engineering operations to level the land in preparation for laying of hard core and excavations for a drainage lagoon had extended some 80 metres to the north of the boundary of the approved site
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 17
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS relating to the 2002 planning permission. The land owner agreed to reinstate all the land outside the application site to its original condition by filling in the excavated lagoon, furrowing the land and seeding to grass. He also agreed to limit the hard surface to the area shown on the approved drawings. A site visit was carried out in May 2004, when it was established that the remedial work to rectify the breach of planning control had been carried out.
High View Farm
3.15 High View Farm has historically been used for intensive animal farming. In December 2002, an application was submitted for the erection of a reception building and composting clamps for the processing of green waste (39755/APP/2002/3026). This application was considered by the Ruislip/Northwood Planning Committee on 24/04/03, where it was resolved that:
a) The application be referred to the Secretary of State as departure from the Development Plan. b) Subject to the Secretary of State not calling in the application, that the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers. c) Any subsequent approval of details for the temporary weigh bridge building/ education facility required by Condition 19 should be determined by this Committee.
3.16 The Secretary of State determined that the application should not be called in and that the Local Planning Authority should determine that application as it sees fit. The Mayor raised no significant strategic issues and was content for Hillingdon Council to determine the application. Approval was therefore granted under delegated powers, subject to conditions, on 5/6/2003 (Ref: 39755/APP/2002/3026).
3.17 In 1991 an Established Use Certificate (EUC) was issued for the southern portion of the Farm, following an appeal. The EUC is for ‘The purposes of agriculture and for the purpose of the ‘transfer of waste’ (Ref: 39755/C/89/1338). The Inspector considered that a workshop and parking of vehicles were elements of the overall use and did not need to be specifically mentioned in the EUC.
3.18 In March 1993 a Certificate of Lawful Use was granted, replacing the EUC. The Certificate is for ‘The continued use of for the transfer of waste, with a maximum of 24 deliveries by motor vehicles each week involving a cumulative total of a maximum of 320 cubic yards (244.7 cubic metres) of waste input each week and agriculture’. The Certificate identifies specific areas on the farm that can be used for waste purposes and constitutes primarily the area subject to the current application on Highway Farm (application A) in use for intensive animal farming. The existing permitted waste transfer use deals with skip waste. Composting has never been part of the established operations on the site.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 18
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.19 Planning permission ref:39755/APP/2003/1489 was granted for a temporary weighbridge office/education facility. Condition 19 of (39755/APP/2002/3026) requires that this temporary building is to be removed and the land restored to its former condition within 5 years (June 2008).
Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Green Belt; Colne Valley Park
National Policy
Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 (Nature Conservation) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) PPS10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ 2005
Government Waste Strategy; Waste Strategy 2000. Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy, GLA.
The London Plan
The following Unitary Development Plan policies are relevant to the consideration of this application.
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.1 To maintain the Green Belt for uses which preserve or enhance the open nature of the area. Pt1.3 To seek greater public access to the countryside for informal leisure activities Pt1.6 To safeguard the nature conservation value of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, designated Local Nature Reserves or other Nature Reserves, or sites proposed by English Nature or the Local Authority for such designations. Pt1.10 To ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.32 To encourage development to locate in places which are accessible by public transport. Pt 1.39 To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 19
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Part 2 Policies:
Green Belt OL1 Green Belt - acceptable open land use and restrictions on new development OL2 Green Belt - Landscaping Improvements OL3 Green Belt - retention and improvement of existing landscape
Protection of habitats EC2 Nature conservation considerations and ecological assessments EC3 Potential effects of development on sites of nature conservation importance EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats
Built Environment BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area
Security and Safety in Design BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety
Environmental Assessments OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE2 Assessment of environmental impact of proposed development OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance - mitigation measures OE5 Siting of noise-sensitive developments OE6 Proposals likely to result in pollution
Trees and landscaping BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals
Energy Conservation OE12 Energy conservation and new development
Recycling OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites
Accessibility and Movement AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability and capacity AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards AM15 Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons
Also considered relevant are:
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 20
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001) Supplementary Planning Guidance - Community Safety by Design
Consultations
External Consultees
3.20 Applications A and C have been advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Procedure Order 1995 as being developments which do not accord with the provisions of the development plan. Application B has been advertised as a development of a type likely to be of wider concern 20 adjoining owner/occupiers have been notified. In addition, the following organisations/residents groups were also notified: Harefield and Ruislip Residents’ Associations were notified. 2 petitions bearing 40 and 46 signatures respectively have been received objecting to the continued use and possible expansion of the facility.. 2 individual letters have also been received. The objections from local residents are summarised below.
1. Support for the national policy of increasing the amount of recycled green waste, subject to a number of concerns 2. The permanent loss of Green Belt land 3. The departure from the Local Development Framework/UDP 4. The smell experienced last year continuing in the future 5. The increased heavy goods traffic accessing the site along local roads. 6. To grant a permanent permission would be inappropriate, given the serious problems with odour
Harefield Village The Panel has no objections to the Conservation Panel variation of Condition 2 to allow the continued use of the land as an organic composting site. The Panel, which supports the organic composting of waste material, trusts that the Council’s assessment of the impact of this use has not found it o be detrimental to the character, appearance and function of the Green Belt in the area.
Environment Agency 39755/APP/2006/1446 (A) No objections are raised in principle, to the proposed development provided that a condition requiring the submission and approval of surface and foul drainage systems be imposed. 12579/APP/2006/1524 (C) Objections are raised as this site may harbour great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). Great crested newts and their habitat are protected under the Wildlife and
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 21
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994. As such it is illegal to: Deliberately disturb great crested newts or intentionally or recklessly disturb them in a place used for shelter or protection; Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place; Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a place used for shelter or protection. It is possible that the lagoon within the application site, despite supporting minimal vegetation, may be utilised by great crested newts.
A survey must be carried out by a suitably qualified person to determine if great crested newts are using this site. If this protected species are found, a mitigation strategy should be provided before planning permission is granted. As a protected species, the great crested newt is a material consideration in the planning process. The London Borough of Hillingdon should take appropriate steps through the planning process to ensure that great crested newt habitat is protected. Greater London Authority To be reported (Application A)
Councillor Corthorne I would like to register my objections to this application. I do not feel comfortable that the serious problems which we experienced with odour have been addressed. To grant permanent permission would therefore be inappropriate. In addition, I have concerns over the level of heavy goods traffic on local roads, and the permanent loss of Green Belt land. I believe this is at odds with our UDP and LDF policies. Metropolitan Police No objection
Internal Consultees
Policy and Environmental The London Plan sets out the Mayor’s Planning strategic objective for the future of Green Belt Land in London and aims to ensure that Green Belt is maintained and
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 22
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS protected. The London Plan states that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and such development should not be approved unless in very special circumstances. Land-use The site is located within designated Green Belt land. Under the terms of Policy OL1 development in the Green Belt is normally unacceptable unless it is agriculture, cemetery or recreation related.
In line with Planning Circular 11/2005 and Planning Policy Guidance 2, it must be determined whether this is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and, if this is the case, whether it would significantly impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The nature of the proposed development is a relevant consideration and of particular note would be the intensification of uses, traffic movements to and from the site and the number of parked vehicles.
The applicants consider that the impact on the openness of then Green Belt will not be significant as the additional vessel clamps will replace a large stockpile of crushed concrete, including the unregulated crushing operation, that currently has a height greater than the proposed buildings. This is in addition to the proposal currently having permission.
PPS 10 does not explicitly rule out waste management development as being an appropriate use in the Green Belt. On balance it is not considered that the proposed activities will have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal will continue the overall existing uses on the site and will allow the operation to function more effectively. This will not result in the overall intensification of the use and as a result it the additional vessel clamps may come within the established use on site. The uses on the site promote the recycling of green waste,
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 23
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS which at a Borough wide level is beneficial to Hillingdon. While this in isolation may not be a justification for approving the application, it can be a material consideration, to balance against the use being located within the Green Belt. The existing uses on the site are restricted to a maximum of 50,000 cumulative tonnes of waste processed on the site per year. While, the application stipulates that no intensification of the waste processed on the site will occur, officers need to be certain that this is the case and that in allowing the application this will not result in the cumulative justification for a future application to increase the waste processed. While the application will result in a number of buildings to be erected in the Green Belt, due to the special circumstances of the application PEP have no specific objections.
Urban Design/ Conservation No objections Officer
Waste Strategy Manager To be reported
Trees and Landscape Officer Pylon Farm There are no Tree Preservation Orders or Conservation Area designations affecting this site. The site lies within the Green Belt and Ruislip Woods National Nature Reserve lies 200m to the north.
There are existing hedgerows and field/hedgerow trees around the site which will not be affected by the proposal. There are also young woodland / hedgerow plantations to the north and west of the existing windrows which were planted in order to screen and mitigate the visual impact of the windrows when viewed from public footpaths. - While on site it was noted that the maintenance of the plantation on the embankment area (west boundary) is very poor. The plantation is not visible through the mass of tall weeds which will be suppressing the growth of, and possibly destroying, the young
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 24
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS plantation (due to competition for light and water).The maintenance conditions attached to the previous planning approval should be reviewed and, if appropriate, secure replacement planting and a more robust management plan put in place.
Details of the proposed levels at the northern end of the site should be provided. If this land has to be raised significantly in relation to the levels of the surrounding land, the beneficial effect of any existing, or proposed, screening /vegetation will be diminished.
The view of the site from surrounding areas was partly addressed by the 'advance' planting carried out as part of the approved conditions for the current temporary permission. The condition and effectiveness of this planting (particularly on the northern boundary) should be reviewed and, if appropriate, supplemented. No objections are raised subject to standard landscaping conditions and offsite improvement to the footpath surfacing (U36)
With regard to the application to permit the continued use of the land as an organic composting site, it is noted that the plantation between the tarmac and the footpath is completely smothered by weed growth - which looks unsightly and will be detrimental to the successful establishment of the new planting. No objections are raised subject to the enforcement of the original planting and maintenance conditions.
High View Farm The siting of the new composting vessels will occupy an area to the rear of the existing waste reception building, which is currently occupied by an unsightly storage mound of hard core and is visually prominent from the public footpath to the south. The removal of this artificial mound to facilitate the flat base required for the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 25
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS new vessels will be beneficial to the appearance of the site.
In order to further enhance the landscape quality of the site, in accordance with UDP policies BE38 and OL2, it is desirable to establish a hedge, or preferably hedgerow with trees, along the south-west boundary. It may also be appropriate to install gentle bunding along the south-west boundary on which the planting can sit.
Highways Engineer No objections to any of the applications.
Environmental Protection Unit Since Spring 2005, Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) have received a large number of odour complaints from local residents and, in response to the odour problem, West London Composting (WLC) have produced an action plan. The purpose of these planning applications is to allow the composting process to be lengthened and thereby discouraging the formation of malodorous substances.
The use of in-vessel composting method, as used by WLC, is a relatively recent development in the UK. The technical knowledge to deal with odour problem arising from this type of plant is, therefore, still being developed and is constantly under review. The doubling of the number of vessel clamps should, in theory, provide a more stable compost before it is transported to the maturation area. A more stable compost at this stage could eventually lead to less odour being produced during the maturation process. However, in the absence of any specific technical data, EPU is unable to comment on the effectiveness of this measure in reducing odour.
If the Planning Committee is minded to grant permission for the additional vessels, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the vessels to be sealed units with bio-filters
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 26
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS EXTENSION OF COMPOST MATURATION SITE Based on the consultant’s report commissioned by WLC, three main sources of odour emitted during the process have been identified. The areas are the shredding of green waste on arrival, first stage of the in-vessel treatment and the turning and screening of partially treated compost at the maturation pad following treatment in the vessels.
The extension of the maturation area would provide greater storage space and enable the maturation time of the partially treated compost to be increased. This in turn should produce a less odoruous material before screening. In the absence of any specific technical data, EPU is unable to comment on the effectiveness of this measure in reducing odour.
If the Planning Committee is minded to grant permission for the maturation site to be extended, EPU would advise the inclusion of conditions requiring 1. An odour suppression system installed around the proposed extended maturation site to mitigate odour emanating from the windrows 2. The total quantity of waste accepted at the site per year shall not exceed 50,000 tonnes 3. There shall be no composting of commercial food waste 4. The screening operation shall be located away from sensitive receptors 5. The hours of operation should be consistent with the current planning condition for the main site
The installation of the additional vessel clamps and the extension of the maturation site should be seen as a package of odour mitigation measures. If the grant of planning permission applies only to one and not the other, it could undermine the overall effectiveness of the measures as a whole.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 27
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Land Quality and Contamination issue EPU would advise attaching a land contamination condition as a precaution to ensure that if contamination is found it will be addressed.
Main Planning Issues
3.21 The main planning issues are considered to be:
(i) The principle of the developments. (ii) The impact on the Green Belt and surrounding area. (iii) Environmental issues (iv) Impact on ecology. (v) Access and parking arrangements and impact on the highway.
(i) The principle of the developments.
3.22 Of particular relevance is policy OL1 which states that agriculture, horticulture, nature conservation, open air recreation and cemeteries are the only open land uses which may be acceptable in the Green Belt. The existing buildings at Highway Farm were historically used for intensive animal husbandry, an activity permitted within the Green Belt. Pylon Farm, to the north of New Years Green Lane, was historically used as low grade agricultural land. Commercial composting, if it is not small scale or ancillary to a residential or farm use, is normally considered to be an industrial use, being a form of recycling, where waste undergoes a process that will break down the matter and be converted into usable material. In principle this type of use is to be encouraged (Policy MIN 16) in an appropriate location. However, proposals for industrial and waste uses are not normally considered appropriate in a Green Belt location. The use of these sites for composting is therefore contrary to Policy OL1 of the UDP and constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
3.23 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) states that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development and the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt. It goes on to state that: “It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.
3.24 PPS 1 recognises that planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of development. PPS10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ provides guidance on delivering sustainable development and implementation of national waste strategy, encouraging communities to take more responsibility for their own waste. It also seeks to secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 28
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS environment, while reflecting the concerns of interested communities. In terms of the protection of the Green Belt, it recognises the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities and states that these locational needs, together with wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations which should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission.
3.25 The Government’s waste strategy (Waste Strategy 2000) states that local authorities must consider composting as an integral part of waste management in order to increase recycling targets and reduce the amount of waste (particularly biodegradable waste) that is sent to landfill, in order to help meet the requirements of European Landfill Directive. This strategy sets out a waste hierarchy by clearly placing an emphasis on solutions which first consider recycling and composting before the use of energy recovery options such as incineration.
3.26 In terms of regional policy the London Plan supports the proximity principle and requires local policies to safeguard existing waste management sites and to identify new sites in suitable locations for waste management facilities. In September 2003 the Mayor introduced strategic guidance in the form of The Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS). The policies contained in the MWMS seek to promote waste minimisation, increase recycling and ensure waste is handled in a sustainable manner.
3.27 The standards identified in the National Waste Strategy are further detailed by the Council’s Draft Waste (Recycling) Strategy (Environment Committee 20/03/01). The strategy aims:
• To recycle or compost 17% of waste recovery by the end of 2001/02 • To recycle or compost 19% by the end of 2002/03 • To recover 31% including 24% recycling or composting by 2003/04 • To recover 50% including 30% recycling or composting by 2005/06 • To reduce biodegradable wastes going to landfill to 41,380 tonnes by 2005/06
3.28 With regard to Pylon Farm, the existing open composting facility, although contrary to policy, was considered sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the harm to Green Belt objectives. National and local requirements to increase green waste recycling still apply and it is considered that this need still constitutes the very special circumstances to justify the continued use at this location (Application B).
3.29 In addition, a composting facility on this scale requires large open areas not normally available in a more urban environment. The applicant has submitted that a larger maturation area is required in order to allow for improved management of the facility, enabling prolonged storage of material, in order to reduce odour and to allow the screening operation to take place further away from the site boundary. These measures, although not involving an increase in
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 29
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the waste volumes accepted to the facility, are necessary to allow the facility to continue to operate without adverse environmental impacts on the locality. It is therefore considered that national and local requirements to increase green waste recycling constitute the very special circumstances to justify the geographical extension of the maturation site (Application C).
3.30 Since the site is located within the Borough, it is considered that this is a sustainable location, as it satisfies the Government’s ‘proximity principle’, whereby it is deemed environmentally beneficial to manage waste as close as possible to its point of origin.
3.31 With regard to application A at High View Farm, the majority of the site already benefits from Certificate of Lawful Use as a waste transfer station. This lawful use of the site for concrete crushing and screening is a material consideration which should be given significant weight. The adjoining composting facility, to which the new facilities will form an integral part, although contrary to policy, was considered sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the harm to Green Belt objectives, given national and local requirements to increase green waste recycling.
3.32 Finally, since all these sites are located within the Borough, it is considered that this is a sustainable location, as it satisfies the Government’s ‘proximity principle’, whereby it is deemed environmentally beneficial to manage waste as close as possible to its point of origin. It is therefore considered that very special circumstances to justify the green waste recycling use in this location, to the extent that the harm on the openness of the Green Belt has been outweighed. Therefore, even though the applications are contrary to Policy OL1, approval is recommended for all three applications.
(ii) The impact on the Green Belt and surrounding area.
Pylon Farm (B & C)
3.33 Application C proposes to extend the compost maturation windrows to the north of the existing facility. The change of use from agricultural land to an open composting maturation site will involve development within the Green Belt, Colne Valley Park and within proximity to nationally protected woodland. There is potential for long-term effects on biodiversity, landscape character, visual impacts on these areas and on the amenity of the Green Belt for its users.
3.34 The landscape assessment in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) concludes that the landscape in the vicinity of the application site is considered to have a low-medium sensitivity to the landscape changes arising from the proposed development. The visual impact assessment concludes that the visibility of the application site is restricted by topography, existing buildings and intervening vegetation. It is also noted that the view of the site from surrounding areas was partly addressed by the 'advance' planting carried out as part of the approved conditions for the current temporary permission. The sensitivity of principal viewpoints is assessed to be low to low-medium, with secondary
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 30
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS viewpoints rated as negligible-low/low. The main visual impacts will be created by the earthworks/construction operations. The magnitude of visual change will be vary between medium- high (adverse) to negligible -low during the 8 day construction stage. This reduces to a range of medium (adverse) to negligible during the operational stage.
3.35 The assessment concludes that the significance of the landscape impact will be small deterioration of the existing landscape character. The assessment concludes that 'the proposed development would be integrated into the existing site and its surroundings and would not cause unacceptable landscape and visual impacts’.
3.36 There will be a need to raise the northern end of the site, in order to achieve the necessary gradients, so that surface water run-off falls in a southerly direction, into the existing lagoon. However, since the natural topography rises in a northerly direction, this increase will be modest at approximately 0.5 metres at its highest point. Nevertheless, it will be necessary for any proposed screening /boundary vegetation to take into account this increase in levels at the north of the site.
3.37 There are existing hedgerows and field/hedgerow trees around the site which will not be affected by the proposal. There are also young woodland and hedgerow plantations to the north and west of the existing windrows which were planted in order to screen and mitigate the visual impact of the windrows when viewed from public footpaths. It was noted that the maintenance of the plantation on the embankment area (west boundary) is very poor. Conditions are therefore recommended to secure replacement planting and a long term management plan.
High View Farm
3.38 It is acknowledged that the proposal will double the number of vessel clamps on site from 16 to 32. However, the proposed vessel clamps are to be installed in an area that presently has a significant number industrial/agricultural style buildings. The clamps will be screened to the south and east by a hedge and to the north predominantly by the existing buildings. The siting of the new composting vessels will be located to the rear of the existing waste reception building in an area that is currently operated for concrete crushing and stock piling. This includes an unsightly mound of hard core, which is visually prominent from the public footpath to the south. The site is located on a high point within attractive countryside and is visible for some distance. The waste transfer use, with its untidy appearance, mountains of crushed concrete, regular bonfires and associated activity, seriously harms the appearance and character of this area. The removal of the existing waste transfer station, which is not a use normally considered appropriate in the Green Belt and which is considered to cause significant harm to the appearance of the area, is considered to be beneficial to the appearance of the site.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 31
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.39 The modified reception building will be only marginally larger than the existing agricultural building it replaces in terms of bulk and footprint, and no higher than the adjoining reception building. It is proposed to establish a hedge, or preferably, a hedgerow with trees, along the south-west boundary with gentle bunding along the south-west boundary on which the planting can sit. It is considered that the development (application A) would represent an improvement over the existing situation, in terms of the visual amenities of the Green Belt, in compliance with policies OL4 and OL5 of the UDP.
3.40 In terms of levels of activity, up to 26 lorries each way are allowed to visit the current composting facility on a normal working day under the terms of the existing permission. It is not intended that this level of vehicular movements will be exceeded. The loss of the waste transfer station, which is authorised to receive a maximum of 24 deliveries by HGVs vehicles each week, would result in a net reduction in HGV movements to High View Farm, since the HGV movements to the composting facility would not exceed the authorised maximum. In addition, the provision of the overflow reception building would result in most of the activities being carried out in an enclosed environment. The overall level of activity at High View Farm would be reduced and it is considered that the development (application A) would represent an improvement over the existing situation
3.41 Overall, it is considered that the proposal will have a minimal impact on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt, in accordance with the aims of policies OL2 and OL3. Subject to compliance with landscape conditions, the Trees/ Landscape Officer considers that the development complies with Policy BE 38 of the UDP.
3.42 The landscape assessment notes that the condition of footpath U36, running along the western boundary of the maturation site is poor in places and remedial action is necessary. The applicant has agreed to resurface the footpath and this has been covered by a ‘Grampion’ condition. With regard to High View Farm two public footpaths, U39 and U40, bisect the site. However, both these footpaths have been informally diverted to the south of the site, via a more scenic route, as there are serious health and safety implications for potential users, in terms of conflict with dangerous moving plant and general activities associated with the composting and waste transfer facilities. A condition has been recommended to ensure that both public footpaths are formally diverted, kept clear of obstructions and are suitably sign-posted and surfaced. This would represent an improvement over the existing situation. It is considered that by upgrading and securing these public footpaths, the proposal would contribute towards enabling greater public access to the countryside in compliance with policies Pt1.3 and OL17 of the UDP.
(iii) Environmental issues
3.43 During 2005 a significant volume of odour complaints from the residents of neighbouring residential developments in the Ruislip and Harefield area were received by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Council’s EPU. The odours
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 32
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS were attributed to two composting facilities, one of which was West London Composting (the application site). Since May 2006 approximately 100 odour complaints have been received by the EA.
3.44 The applicants have produced an action plan. which includes a number of measures to improve the operations at the composting facility, in order to mitigate the air quality (odour) issue, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Construction of odour suppression systems 2. Commercial food waste not to be accepted 3. Diversion of waste streams at peak periods to prevent stockpiles 4. Adequate maintenance of systems 5. Increase timescales for upstream composting process, before material reaches the windrows. (This will require additional in vessel composting modules at Highview Farm, subject of application A). 6. Increasing the area for composting at Pylon Farm in order to move the activity to a less sensitive area. (Subject of application C)
3.45 In essence, the purpose of the planning applications A and C is to allow the composting process to be lengthened and thereby discourage the formation of malodorous substances. However, the use of in-vessel composting method, as used by the applicant, is a relatively recent development in the UK. The technical knowledge to deal with odour problem arising from this type of plant is therefore still being developed and is constantly under review. The doubling of the number of vessel clamps should, in theory, provide a more stable compost before it is transported to the maturation area (Pylon Farm). A more stable compost at this stage could eventually lead to less odour being produced during the maturation process. However, in the absence of any specific technical data, EPU is unable to comment on the effectiveness of this measure in reducing odour. Since the activities associated with the operation of these clamps could potentially give rise to bad odours, EPU have recommended a condition requiring the vessels to be sealed units with bio-filters
3.46 EPU have also recommended a number of conditions in connection with the open maturation site, in order to ensure that the odour mitigation measures are effective as possible. These include a requirement that an odour suppression system is installed around the proposed extended maturation site, to mitigate odour emanating from the windrows. Conditions are also recommended to ensure that the total quantity of waste accepted at the site per year shall not exceed the 50,000 tonnes currently allowed and prohibiting composting of commercial food waste. In addition conditions are recommended to ensure the screening operation is to be located away from sensitive receptors (adjacent farm buildings along New Years Green Lane), while the hours of operation are to be limited to the current planning condition for the main site.
3.47 In addition to the controls governed by planning and environmental health legislation, the applicants are currently required by their Waste Management Licence to control and monitor the emissions of odours from the site. The extension of the site will be beyond the boundary of the existing licence. It will be necessary for the applicant (West London Composting) to address the issue
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 33
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS of holding a waste management licence for the new extension. Consideration of the risk of odour release will be considered by the Environment Agency during the licence negotiations.
3.48 Given these safeguards, and provided the applicant adheres to the conditions recommended above, it is anticipated that these measures will reduce the risk of odour release, thereby safeguarding the residential amenity of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Policy OE6 of the UDP. However, it is acknowledged that this composting process is ground breaking technology and there remains some uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of the improved management of the facility to reduce the potential for creating offsite odours. It is therefore recommended that a further 5 year temporary permission be granted for the continued use of the existing open maturation site (application B) and a 5 year temporary permission be given for the extended maturation site (application C). This will allow the Council the opportunity to monitor the sites and assess the impact on the amenities of the locality.
3.49 With regard to site drainage, there is potential for leachates to pollute groundwater quality. The potential effects are likely to become more significant with a longer exposure period to pollution. The Environment Agency has therefore requested conditions requiring details of surface and foul water systems.
(iv) Impact on Ecology
3.50 The applicant has provided a detailed Ecological Appraisal of the site, The appraisal has established that there are no protected species on the site . It found that there are records for great crested newts in the area up to 2 kilometres away. The Environment Agency consider that the 2 ponds located to the east of the application site have the potential to support great created newts and also consider the possibility that the lagoon within the application site, despite supporting minimal vegetation, may be utilised by great crested newts. The Agency have objected to application C on this basis. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration in considering development which, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. The Environment Agency have therefore requested a condition requiring a survey to be carried out by a suitably qualified person to determine if great crested newts are using this site. If this protected species are found, a mitigation strategy should be provided.
3.51 A phase 1 survey was carried out in March 2006 and no protected species were found on the site. The appraisal notes that the habitats within the site are unsuitable to support amphibians. The lagoon is man made, supports no vegetation and the recycled leachate would not be conducive to supporting an amphibian population. Nevertheless a condition is recommended requiring a further survey to be undertaken. Where protected species are found to be present, an assessment will have to be made of the likely impacts the development would have on the species concerned. This should be
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 34
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS accompanied by a set of any additional mitigation measures necessary to comply with relevant legislation. The applicants will also be advised by means of an informative that planning permission does not override any obligations they may have under relevant Regulations relating to European Protected Species. Subject to compliance with the relevant conditions, it is not considered that the scheme will have an adverse impact on ecology and nature conservation in the area, in accordance with policies EC1 and EC3 of the UDP.
(v) Access and parking arrangements and impact on the highway considerations
3.52 Policies AM1, AM2, AM7, AM9, AM14 and AM15 of the UDP are concerned with traffic generation, road capacity, on-site parking, access to public transport and provisions for parking for people with disabilities. The Highway Engineer advises that New Years Green Lane is unsuitable for HGV traffic for much of its length, due to the width of the road and further traffic increases ought to be discouraged. The applicants have already implemented measures to ensure that delivery and collection vehicles use only the short stretch of New Years Green Lane, between the site and Breakspear Road. These measures include site signage and profiling the junction to the access road so that vehicles are physically prevented from turning towards Harvil Road. In addition, operators are to be informed of the preferred route for all vehicles entering and leaving the site. These measures have were secured by conditions on the previous High View Farm consent and have been incorporated into the Waste Management Licence, issued by the Environment Agency.
3.53 The Traffic and Transport Assessment accompanying the application concludes that, as there is no proposal to increase the volume of waste material being accepted at the site, there will be no impact on the highway network, once construction has been completed. As stated in section 3.40 above, there will be a net reduction in HGV movements to the sites due to the closure of the existing waste transfer facility at High View Farm. The Highway Engineer, therefore raises no objections to any of the applications.
Comments on Public Consultations
3.54 The issues local residents and petitioners have been addressed in the main body of the report.
4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor
4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition, Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 35
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance
5.1 As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Planning and Transportation Group and the wider Council.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 It is considered that national and local requirements to increase green waste recycling constitute the very special circumstances to justify the continued use, additional facilities and the geographical extension of the maturation site. These circumstances are considered to outweigh the fact that the proposals are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There will be a small but noticable deterioration of the existing landscape character at Pylon Farm. However the removal of the existing waste transfer station at High View Farm, will result in significant benefit to the appearance of the area. Overall it is not considered that the visual amenities or the open character of the Green Belt would be adversely affected by the proposals.
6.2 The proposals form part of number of measures to improve the operations at the composting facility, in order to mitigate the air quality (odour) issue. It is recommended that a further 5 year temporary permission be granted for the continued use of the existing open maturation site (application B) and a 5 year
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 36
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS temporary permission be given for the extended maturation site (application C). This will allow the Council the opportunity to monitor the sites and assess the effectiveness of these measures on the amenities of the locality. It is not considered that the scheme will have an adverse impact on ecology and nature conservation in the area, or on the highway network. On this basis approval is recommended, subject to applications A and C being referred to the Secretary of State as departures from the Development Plan.
Reference Documents:
(a) Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) (b) PPS10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ (c) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) 9 (Nature Conservation), 13 (Transport), 24 (Planning & Noise (d) The London Plan) (e) Unitary Development Plan (Adopted September 1998) (f) Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001) (g) Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy, GLA. (h) Draft Waste Recycling Strategy
Contact Officer: KARL DAFE Telephone No: 01895250727
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 37
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 1
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 38
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 2
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 39
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 40
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
A Item No. 2 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 41-55 WINDMILL HILL, RUISLIP
Development: ERECTION OF A FOUR STOREY BUILDING FOR A MIXED USE COMPRISING USES WITHIN CLASS A1 (RETAIL), A2 (FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL), CLASS A3 (RESTAURANT & CAFÉS), CLASS B1 (BUSINESS) OR CLASS D1 (NON- RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS) ON GROUND FLOOR AND 24 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS ABOVE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, UTILITIES AND AMENITY SPACE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING)
LBH Ref Nos: 48283/APP/2006/1351
Drawing Nos: PL100, PL110, PL101, PL115, PL112, PL113, PL114, PL130, PL140, PL141, T06/0082/P/0001 received 15/05/06.
Planning report, containing transport statement, prepared by Q Developments dated June 2006, received 12/06/06.
Date of receipt: 15/05/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of Crown House located at 41- 55 Windmill Hill, and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site for a mixed use scheme comprising flexible class A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1 uses at ground floor level, with 24 two and three bedroom apartments above.
1.2 A total of 26 responses have been received. The key issues raised by objectors relate to traffic generation and congestion, the potential for over spill parking, the possibility that the proposed commercial units will be surplus to local demand, and impacts on residential amenity.
1.3 The development exceeds London Plan density guidelines, and is considered inappropriate for this edge of town centre site. The bulk, scale, and external treatment of the building is not considered to satisfactorily relate to the surrounding area and are not considered favourably by the Council’s Urban Design Officer. There are also a number of other planning issues relating to the details of the proposal which are considered unacceptable.
1.4 The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 41
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
2.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL – for the following reasons:-
1. The density of the residential development is inconsistent with the public transport accessibility level of the site and its position within a transitional zone between the more urban setting of the Primary and Secondary shopping areas of the Ruislip Manor Minor Town Centre and adjoining suburban residential areas. In this regard the development is contrary to Policy H6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 4B.3 of The London Plan.
2. The height, bulk, scale, design, and materials of the proposed building are considered inappropriate having regard to the character and distinctiveness of the local area and the position of the site within a transitional zone between the more urban setting of the Primary and Secondary shopping areas of the Ruislip Manor Minor Town Centre and adjoining suburban residential areas. The development would therefore be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality, and is therefore contrary to Policies BE13 and BE19 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposal involves the removal of existing trees, which contribute to the character of the streetscene. The applicant has failed to provide a justification for the removal of these trees, or details regarding proposed landscaping around the exterior of the building. Accordingly, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Policies BE19 and BE38 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4. The proposed development by reason of its overall size, height and siting would result in the overshadowing of and loss of light to habitable room windows serving adjoining properties in Westholme Gardens. As such it would constitute an un-neighbourly form of development resulting in a material loss of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE20 and BE21 from the adopted Unitary Development Plan, as well as design principle A3 from the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.
5. The application fails to provide adequate cycle parking and servicing facilities contrary to Policy AM9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Annex 4 of The London Plan and Council’s ‘Parking Policies and Standards 2nd Deposit Draft’ (December 2001).
6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed units can accommodate people with disabilities or be refurbished in a manner which would accommodate people with disabilities. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 42
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 7. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a proportion of the site’s energy needs can produced on site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan.
8. The applicant has not demonstrated satisfactory recycling and waste disposal provision. No adequate details are provided explaining on-site recycling activities, nor have the provisions for maintaining separation between domestic and commercial waste been made clear. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with Policy MIN16 or OE13 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
9. No agreement has been reached with the applicant in respect to contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities arising from the demands created by the proposed development, in particular education facilities and open space. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policy R17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE26, BE28, BE38, OE1, OE5, OE12, OE13, H4, H6, H8, H9, H11, S3, S6, R17, AM2, AM7, AM9, AM14, AM15, AM16
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1 The application site is located on the corner of Windmill Hill and Westholme Gardens, approximately 100 metres north of the Ruislip Manor Underground Station. The site is located within the Ruislip Manor Town Centre, which is designated as a Minor Town Centre in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.2 A three-storey ‘T’ shaped office block known as Crown House currently occupies the site. Car parking is provided to the rear of the building. Access to the car park is primarily from Westholme Gardens, although access is also available via a service lane from Windmill Hill.
3.3 The site boundary forms the northern extent of the Ruislip Manor Minor Town Centre. To the south of the site and on the opposite side of Windmill Hill lie a
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 43
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS series of three-storey town centre buildings comprising retail at ground floor level with mixed office and residential uses on the upper levels. Two storey detached residential properties are located to the north, on the opposite side of Westholme Gardens. The site directly abuts a two storey residential building occupied by flats (41/43 Westholme Gardens) and the rear of a car sales yard to the east. Accordingly, the site is located at the point of transition between the town centre and surrounding suburban areas.
3.4 The site gradually falls away to the south. Five large trees are located near the northern boundary of the site and a hedge defines the primary entrance to the car park. A further row of trees is located along the eastern boundary with the car sales yard and 41/43 Westholme Gardens.
3.5 Bus stops are located on either side of Windmill Hill directly adjacent to the site. These, combined with the nearby Ruislip Manor Underground Station, provide the site with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of 3, on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 represents the lowest level of accessibility, and 6 the highest.
Scheme
3.6 It is proposed to demolish Crown House to facilitate the erection of a new building for mixed use. The proposed building would be four storeys in height with a flat roof, and would lie parallel to the Windmill Hill frontage.
3.7 The footprint of the proposed building would be 1500m2 at ground floor level, and would cover all but a 12m wide strip of the site adjoining 41/43 Westholme Gardens. Two units, with a gross floor area of 316m2 and 372m2, respectively, would be located at ground floor level. These would be used flexibly for class A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional), A3 (restaurants and cafes), B1 (business) or D1 (non-residential institutions) uses. The units would be finished with full height glazing, and provision would be made for signage along the building fascia.
3.8 A part exposed, part undercroft parking area would be located to the rear of the ground floor units. This parking area would be accessible from Westholme Garden, and would accommodate a total of 38 car parking spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces, 1 loading bay and storage for 24 bicycles. 24 of the car parking spaces would be allocated to the residential units, with the remaining 14 for the ground floor units. Two would accommodate drivers with disabilities. A dedicated refuse store, capable of accommodating 10 x 1100 litre bins, is also proposed at this level.
3.9 The upper three floors of the building would accommodate a total of 24 residential units, of which 16 will have two bedrooms and 8 three bedrooms. Units would maintain a minimum internal size of 80m2, and would be provided with private amenity space in the form of balconies (at the 2nd and 3rd floor levels) and roof terraces at fourth floor level. Balconies would be slightly inset into the building, and would each have a minimum area of 8.4m2.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 44
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.10 The first and second floors would have an area of 1,020m2 and would be finished with large expanses of render with timber balustrades. The third floor would be recessed from the lower floors with a floor area of 791m2, and would be finished with metal cladding and glass balustrades. The building would be finished with a flat roof, 0.56m higher than the ridge of the adjoining town centre building at 59 Windmill Hill.
3.11 The roof terrace of the undercroft parking area would be utilised as a communal amenity space, and 468m2 in area. It would be largely paved, with intermittent areas of soft landscaping. Small areas of landscaping would be provided at ground floor level, on Westholme Gardens. Some larger trees located on this frontage are proposed for removal. Stairs and lifts would provide direct access between the undercroft area, the terrace, and the units above.
3.12 The applicant has also submitted a number of technical reports in support of the application. These are detailed below:-
• Planning Report
3.13 This report describes the scheme, the site and the planning context within which the application should be assessed. It considers the loss of the existing building and office space, the density proposed, and impacts on the streetscene and residential amenity.
3.14 The report draws heavily on the ‘urban’ setting of the site when considering the proposed development and considers that a density range of between 50-110 uph or 200-300hrph would be appropriate for residential development. This range is suggested by the London Plan for urban sites with a PTAL score of 3. The report advises that, while the proposal exceeds the habitable room density range proposed by the London Plan (with a density of 341hrph), ‘the character and location of this site within the town centre make a higher density proposal more suitable in terms of both townscape merit and in ensuring the most effective use of land’.
• Transport Statement
3.15 This report details the use of TRAVL data to anticipate likely traffic impacts associated with the development. The report concludes that the proposal would result in a decrease in traffic during the AM peak, but a slight increase during the PM peak, but that this increase is very small and would not have any significant impact on the capacity of the local road network. The report also considers access, servicing and parking, concluding that adequate provision has been made for this town centre site.
• Design Statement
3.16 This report describes the proposed building and outlines the driving forces that have shaped the design of the proposal. It advises that the ‘main elevations of the building are expressed in a contemporary tripartite arrangement, distinguishing the ground and roof levels from the intermediate floors’. It
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 45
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS contends that the proposal would result in the provision of high quality residential accommodation which would enhance the character and appearance of the street scene.
Planning History:
There is no relevant planning history for this site.
UDP Designation:
The site is located within the Ruislip Manor Minor Town Centre. However, it is located outside the designated Primary and Secondary Shopping Areas.
Planning Policies and Standards:
The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:-
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards. Pt1.18 To maintain, enhance and promote town centres as the principle centres for shopping, employment and community and cultural activities in the Borough. Pt1.19 To maintain a hierarchy of shopping centres which maximises accessibility to shops and to encourage retail development in existing centres or local parades which is appropriate to their scale and function and not likely to harm the viability and vitality of Town or Local Centres. Pt1.20 To give priority to retail uses at ground floor level in the Borough’s shopping areas. Pt1.30 To promote and improve opportunities for everyone in Hillingdon, including in particular women, elderly people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. Pt1.31 To encourage the development and support the retention of a wide range of local services, including shops and community facilities, which are easily accessible to all, including people with disabilities or other mobility handicaps. Pt1.35 To accord priority to pedestrians in the design and implementation of road construction and traffic management schemes, and to seek to provide a network or cycle routes through the Borough to promote safer cycling and better conditions for cyclists. Pt1.39 To seek where appropriate planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 46
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Part 2 Policies:
BUILT ENVIRONMENT BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE26 Town centres - design, layout and landscaping of new buildings BE28 Shop fronts - design and materials BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE5 Siting of noise-sensitive developments OE12 Energy conservation and new development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites
HOUSING H4 Mix of housing units H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development H8 Change of use from non-residential to residential H9 Provision for people with disabilities in new residential developments H11 Provision of affordable housing
SHOPPING AND TOWN CENTRES S3 Increasing the attractiveness of town centres S6 Change of use of shops - safeguarding the amenities of shopping areas
RECREATION, LEISURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities
ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability and capacity
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 47
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities AM14 New development and car parking standards AM15 Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons AM16 Availability for public use of parking spaces in commercial developments in town centres and other areas
Other relevant documents include: (a) The London Plan (b) Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (c) Planning Policy Guidance 3 – Housing (d) Planning Policy Guidance 4 – Industrial, commercial development and small firms (e) Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning for Town Centres (f) Planning Policy Statement 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (g) Planning Policy Guidance 10 – Planning and Waste Management (h) Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport (i) Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001) (j) Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Accessibility Statement (k) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design (l) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Obligations
Consultations
A site notice was erected and a public notice was placed in a local paper on 24 May 2006. 16 households and adjoining businesses were notified via letter. A total of 26 letters of objection have been received. The issues raised by the objectors are summarised below:-
(i) The proposed building would be inconsistent with the character of the area. Its design and materials are too modern and it would not blend with the street scene. (ii) The residential density proposed is excessive. The proposal would result in the over development of the site. (iii) The proposal would adversely impact residential amenity through the loss of daylight and over dominance. (iv) All units should be for private sale. Affordable housing is inappropriate in this location. (v) The proposal would create additional traffic resulting in further congestion. (vi) Insufficient provision has been made for on-site parking. The development would result in overspill parking to the detriment of existing
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 48
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS local residents. The proposed side entry for service vehicles is not considered acceptable. (vii) Inadequate on-site amenity space is proposed. (viii) The proposal would result in the loss of trees in Westholme Gardens which contribute to the character of the area. (ix) There is already an overprovision of retail space in the Ruislip Manor Town Centre with many units empty. The proposal should be amended to remove the ground floor units. Restaurants, cafes and takeaway bars should not be permitted. (x) The proposal would result in disturbance including night time noise and anti-social behaviour. (xi) The site may be subject to subsidence and inadequate drainage and water pressure. Councillor Michael Cox has also registered his objection to the scheme.
One letter has been received in support of the application, stating that the redevelopment is necessary to remove an existing eyesore (Crown House).
External Consultees
Hillingdon Primary Care The number of residential units proposed is Trust below the threshold at which planning obligations could be sought in respect of healthcare facilities.
Metropolitan Police To be reported.
Ruislip Residents’ Object to the proposal as the building would Association be over dominant and would intrude on local views. No compensation in the form of landscaping or open space is offered for the increased building mass. The proposal would result in the loss of trees.
Internal Consultees
Policy & Environmental Raise the following in principle objections to Planning Team the scheme:
(i) The density of the scheme is excessive; (ii) No affordable housing is proposed on site; and, (iii) There is a lack of information regarding the introduction of renewable energy measures on site.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 49
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Highways Engineer No in-principal objections to the proposal. However, adequate secure cycle parking should be provided.
Urban Design Officer The proposed building fails to harmonise with the existing scale, form, character and local distinctiveness of surrounding development and is considered unsuitable for the site.
Environmental Protection No objections subject to conditions in respect Unit of noise emanating from the commercial units.
Trees/Landscape Officer The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with Policy BE38 as no justification has been provided for the removal of the trees and a landscaping scheme has not been provided.
Waste Strategy Manager No objections are raised in principle, subject to standard advise being complied with.
Projects & Implementation Planning obligations would be inappropriate Team in respect of education, environmental improvements, open space, community facilities, community safety, town centre improvements and project management and monitoring.
Housing Directorate The application was submitted prior to the adoption of the SPD: Affordable Housing. It is therefore under the threshold at which affordable housing can be sought.
Education Directorate There is a need for a contribution of £136,225 towards additional primary & secondary school facilities in the area.
Green Spaces Team Planning obligations should be sought towards the following improvements at Shenly Recreation Ground: 1) Provision of benches and bins to the value of £8,000 2) The provision of a children’s play area to the value of £ 37,680.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 50
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Main Planning Issues
3.17 The main issues are considered to be:
(i) Principle of the use & residential density (ii) Building design and impacts on the streetscene (iii) Impacts on residential amenity (iv) Traffic, access, car parking and cycle storage (v) Energy efficiency and waste disposal (vi) Access for people with disabilities (vii) Planning Obligations
(i) Principle of the use & residential density
3.18 The site is located within Ruislip Manor Minor Town Centre but not within either the primary or secondary shopping areas. Policy S3 states that the Local Planning Authority will seek to increase the attractiveness of town centres by encouraging suitable development opportunities.
3.19 It is proposed to remove the existing office building and replace it with a four storey mixed use building which would accommodate two retail/commercial units at ground floor level with residential above. Office uses are not protected within town centres and, as such, no objection is raised to the removal of these uses.
3.20 Policy S13 states that within defined town centre boundaries activities in Use Classes A1, A2 and A3 and other town centre uses will be considered acceptable at ground floor levels. Paragraph 8.4(i) of the UDP expands on this advising that indoor leisure and entertainment, local services and community facilities are appropriate in town centres. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the proposal for A1, A2, A3, B1 or D1 uses within the proposed ground floor units.
3.21 However, Policy S1 states that the Local Planning Authority will only permit new retail development which is appropriate in type and scale to its location and would not harm the viability, vitality or attractiveness of any town or local centre, or damage the general pattern of local shops which provide essential local services. It is considered that there is no quantifiable need for further retail units within the town centre and that non-retail uses would be preferred. However, it is not considered that planning policies could justify a reason for refusal on this basis alone.
3.22 Paragraph 8.4(i) of the UDP states that housing is an acceptable use within town centres. Policy H4 states one and two bedroom development will be preferable within such areas. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the principle of flatted residential development on this site. Indeed development would allow for the more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, adding to the vitality of the town centre.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 51
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.23 Policy H6 of the Hillingdon UDP states that the appropriate density of residential development depends on a balance between the full and effective use of available housing land and the building’s compatibility with surrounding development. As a guide, new housing is expected to be in the range of 100- 200 habitable rooms per hectare (h.r.p.h). Applications with densities above 150 h.r.p.h need to demonstrate that the layout and design of the schemes are of a quality that produce good environmental conditions and that harmonise with the surroundings.
3.24 The London Plan is the most up to date development plan and therefore policies contained within the plan carry greater weight than UDP policies where they are not in general conformity. Policy 4B.3 of the London Plan advises that boroughs should ensure that development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context and the site’s public transport accessibility. The London Plan provides a density matrix to establish a strategic framework for appropriate densities at different locations.
3.25 The subject site is located on the fringe of minor town centre and has a PTAL score of 3. The London Plan density guidelines make no provision for 100% flatted developments on the suburban fringes of a town centre with this level of accessibility. The Council’s Policy and Environmental Planning Team have therefore recommended a density range of between 50-80uph and 200- 250hrhp. The proposed development has a residential density of 102 units/ha and 341hr/ha and therefore exceeds both the UDP and London Plan recommended ranges.
3.26 The applicant contends that the site is located within an ‘urban’ setting, and that this justifies a higher density than that recommended by the Council’s Policy and Environmental Planning Team. The London Plan ‘Housing’ Supplementary Planning Document defines ‘urban’ areas as having a mix of uses and buildings of 3-4 storeys in height. While the Ruislip Manor Minor Town Center accommodates a range of uses and larger buildings, these are concentrated within the primary and secondary shopping areas. The application site is located on the very edge of the town centre and falls outside the primary and secondary shopping areas. Land to the immediate north and west of the site is suburban in character, being occupied by two storey detached and semi-detached houses.
3.27 Accordingly, the site is considered to fall within in a transitory zone between the more highly developed primary and secondary shopping areas of the town centre, and surrounding suburban land. While a density higher than that associated with adjoining suburban areas would be appropriate, the density proposed is not considered acceptable as it would not facilitate a smooth transition between urban and suburban environments.
3.28 The proposal is therefore not considered to comply with the density guidelines of the UDP and The London Plan.
(ii) Building design and impacts on the streetscene
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 52
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.29 Policy BE13 of the UDP highlights the importance of designing new development to harmonise with the existing streetscene. Policy BE19 seeks to ensure that new development within a residential area complements or improves the amenity and character of the area.
3.30 The site is located on the edge of the Ruislip Manor Town Centre which is characterised by modest-scale, three storey buildings, typical of 1930’s local architecture. Sites to the north and east are suburban in character with detached and semi-detached houses. The application site is therefore located in a transitory zone, within which a smooth transition should be maintained between urban and suburban environments.
3.31 The proposed building would be four storeys in height with a flat roof 0.56m higher than the pitched roof of the adjoining town centre building. The fourth floor would be recessed from the building’s facades. The front elevation, facing onto Windmill Hill, would be 52m in length, and would be unremarkable in terms of character or appearance, with an overly even distribution of windows and balconies.
3.32 The Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposed building to be inconsistent with surrounding development by reason of its height, scale and bulk, and external appearance. It would replicate the anonymous appearance of Crown House, and maintain the existing lack of coherence with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed flat roof would contrast strongly with the steeply pitched roof of 59 Windmill Hill, and the hipped roofs of surrounding residential properties. Furthermore the proposed external treatment, comprising render with timer balustrades around balconies, has little regard to the materials (red brick) that contribute to local distinctiveness.
3.33 The building would therefore stand out as a visual anomaly in an otherwise cohesive environment. It would be incompatible with the transition between the adjoining urban and suburban areas. The building would appear to be more intensively developed than those sites further within the town centre. It would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area, neither blending into the town centre nor the adjoining residential areas, nor assisting the transition between the two.
3.34 Currently, a wide grass verge is provided along the Westholme Gardens frontage of the site. This verge supports a number of trees which provide a valuable landscape setting, offsets the volume of the existing office block and contribute to the well-vegetated character of the street scene. There is also a line of conifers close to the eastern boundary of the site which provides a low level screen. While a satisfactory setback would be maintained from the road, the development would eat into the existing verge by way of an additional crossing.
3.35 Whilst a topographical survey has been submitted and includes some information about the existing trees, a tree survey/report (based on the recommendations of BS 5837:2005) has not been provided with the application,
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 53
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS as required by policy BE38. The applicants have advised that ‘the development will be set within an attractive landscaped area, with particular focus on boundary treatments and the retention and improvement to the setting of the mature trees on Westholme Gardens’, but then say that the existing Birch trees will be replaced with new trees and shrubs.
3.36 On the block plan, the existing group of trees and the hedge are shown removed and replaced by unspecified landscaping on the Westholme Gardens frontage. The drawings of the proposed scheme within the Planning Report appear to show a mixture of large and small trees in the remaining verge. However, the applicants have failed to justify the removal of the trees or provide a landscaping scheme required in terms of Policy BE38.
3.37 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to adversely impact upon the street scene by way of building design and external landscape treatment, contrary to Policies BE13 and BE19. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate compliance with Policy BE38.
(iii) Residential Amenity
3.38 Policies BE20, BE21, BE24 and OE1 of the UDP seek to control the effects arising from new development. While these policies recognise that any development will result in some effects on surrounding properties by virtue of the status quo being altered, the scale of a development proposal is not directly indicative of significant adverse effects.
3.39 Policies BE20 and BE21 relate to potential over-shadowing and over- dominance effects arising from new development. The roof terrace of the undercroft parking area, with a height of 5.5m, would be setback 12 m from the boundary with 41/43 Westholme Gardens. The four storey section of the building, with a height of 14m, would be setback 21.5m from the boundary. Accordingly, the building would be sufficiently remote from the boundary with 41/43 Westholme Gardens to prevent significant over dominance.
3.40 However, the proposed building would create additional shadowing, which would impact on the habitable room windows located in the flank elevation of 41/43 Westholme Gardens. Shadowing would effect this elevation from 2pm onwards. The duration and impact of this shadowing on habitable room windows is not considered acceptable.
3.41 Policy BE24 states that the development should be designed to protect the privacy of future occupiers and their neighbours. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – ‘Hillingdon Design and Access Statement’ also provides further guidance in respect of privacy, stating that the distance between habitable room windows should not be less than 21m. A distance of 21.5m is maintained between the upper floors of the building and the residential boundary. However, the roof terrace above the undercroft parking area, which is proposed as dedicated communal amenity space would be positioned 12m from the boundary. The floor level of this amenity space would be elevated
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 54
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.8m above ground level. Accordingly, there is the potential for residents utilising this terrace to overlook the rear gardens of the adjoining residential properties. However, this could be addressed by a condition requiring vegetation and screening along the edge of the terrace to a height of 1.8m.
3.42 Residents of the proposed building would be provided with private amenity space in the form of balconies (at the 2nd and 3rd floor levels) and roof terraces at fourth floor level. Balconies would be slightly inset into the building, and would have a minimum area of 8.4m2. In addition, the roof terrace would have an area of 468m2, equating to 19.5m2 per unit. This level of provision, while slightly under that recommended by HDAS, is considered acceptable having regard to the town centre location of the site, and the provision of a financial contribution towards improvement of local public amenity space.
3.43 Policy OE1 seeks to protect residents from the adverse impacts of noise. The applicant has not submitted a noise report with the application. However, it is likely that the site is subject to reasonably high levels of traffic noise. It is also possible that noise associated with plant would impact on local residents’ amenities. The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions addressing this matter in the event of permission being granted.
3.44 Noise may also be produced from vehicles accessing the car parking area. An open car park is currently located to the rear of Crown House. While the use of this car park would create noise, it would generally be limited to business hours. In contrast the proposal has the potential to create traffic related noise throughout the day.
3.45 The surrounding area is already characterised by reasonably high levels of traffic noise. The car parking area would be partially enclosed. The proposed parking layout is generally similar to the existing layout in that parking directly abuts the side boundary and boundary treatment would be limited to the existing fence and some trees. The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit has raised no concerns and, accordingly, no objection is raised in this regard.
(iv) Traffic, access, car parking and cycle storage
3.46 Policies AM2, AM7, AM14, and AM15 are concerned with traffic generation, road capacity, on-site parking and proximity to public transport.
3.47 The London Plan seeks to minimise on-site parking in order to encourage the use of more sustainable non-car modes. In this regard, public transport accessibility is suggested as the most appropriate means of determining the level of car parking provision. Table A4.2 of the London Plan (Maximum Residential car parking standards) suggests that flatted development in areas of good public transport should aim for 1 parking space or less per unit. However for mixed use developments the London Plan suggests that it is not possible to prescribe parking standards and the key for identifying provision lies in the Transport Assessment provided as part of the application.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 55
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.48 A total of 38 car parking spaces, 3 motorcycle parking space and 24 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. One car parking space would be allocated to each residential unit. This level of provision is considered appropriate for this PTAL 3, town centre site having regard to the Council’s maximum parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, and is consistent with the recommendations of the London Plan. No objections are raised in terms of Policy AM14.
3.49 The Council’s car parking standards recommend a maximum of 1 space per 20m2 for retail (food) floor space and 1 per 50m2 for other retail floorspace and class D1 uses. This is broadly consistent with the more recent London Plan car parking standards which link car parking standards for retail developments to public transport accessibility. The London Plan looks for a maximum parking for retail units of 1 space for 35 - 50m2 of floor space in locations with PTAL scores of between 2-4. 14 car parking spaces and one loading bay would be available for use by the commercial units. This level of provision is considered acceptable in a town centre location where many shops have no dedicated parking or servicing arrangements.
3.50 While direct access will be available between the loading bay and commercial unit 2, no such provision has been made for unit 1. Accordingly, goods delivered to the site will have to be transported around the exterior of the building to this unit. Similarly, the layout of the building does not allow for direct access between the car parking area and the residential units above. Residents will be required to leave the site before entering the building from Westholme Gardens, crossing the car park and loading bay crossings. This arrangement is not considered satisfactory for a new development. Furthermore, the open nature of the car parking area does not provide appropriate security.
3.51 One bicycle space will be provided per residential unit, in accordance with Council standards. The spaces would be located to the rear of the parking area. The security of these spaces could be enhanced through additional security measures, such as a controlled enclosure and/or CCTV coverage. Such measures could be conditioned in the event of an approval.
3.52 However, no bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the commercial units. This is contrary to the Council’s standards which recommend a minimum of 34 spaces for A3 uses, based on the provision of 1 space per 20m2 gross floor area. While it would be inappropriate to locate bicycle stands for public use in the same position as those for private use, some provision should be made.
3.53 The Council’s Highways Engineer has raised no objections to the development in terms of traffic generation and road capacity.
(v) Energy Efficiency and Waste Disposal
3.54 Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan advises that boroughs should require major developments to show how a development would generate a proportion of a site’s energy needs from renewable sources, wherever feasible.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 56
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.55 The applicant has not demonstrated how the development would incorporate built sustainability measures, or how the site’s energy needs would be met. As such, the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with Policy A4.9 of the London Plan.
3.56 Policy OE13 relates to the provision of satisfactory recycling and waste disposal provisions as part of new developments.
3.57 A single refuse store is proposed, capable of accommodating 10 x 1100 litre ‘euro’ bins. The store would be both internally and externally accessible, and utilised by both residents and the commercial units.
3.58 The Council’s Waste Manager has advised that a minimum of 4 bins for both refuse and waste should be provided for the residential component. While the commercial units will have discretion over the waste management methods they use, measures need to be put in place to ensure recycling facilities for all grades of paper and cardboard, cans, plastic bottles, and also glass bottles and jars. Measures also need to be put in place to ensure the absolute segregation of waste disposal and recycling facilities for commercial waste from the waste disposal and recycling facilities for the flats. The applicant has failed to demonstrate appropriate provisions for the separation of residential and commercial wastes, and recycling, contrary to Policies MIN16 and OE12.
(vi) Access for people with disabilities
3.59 Policy AM15 seeks the provision of conveniently located parking spaces for people with disabilities. The Council’s Parking standards require 10% of all car parking spaces to be capable of accommodating drivers with disabilities.
3.60 A total of 38 car parking spaces are proposed on site, of which 2 would be suitable for drivers with disabilities. This is less than 10% of the total number required by Council’s parking standards. These spaces would be located within close proximity to the main entrance to the building and, as such, no objection is raised.
3.61 Policy H9 of the UDP and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan requires housing to include units designed (or capable of easy adaptation) for people with disabilities. No details have been provided in this regard. The proposal is therefore not considered to comply with Policies H9 and AM13 of the UDP.
(vii) Planning Obligations
3.62 Policy R17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan requires the Council to supplement the provision of recreation open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and entertainment activities and other community, social and education facilities through planning obligations in conjunction with other development proposals. Policy H11 requires affordable housing to be provided on-site for developments of 25 residential units or more.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 57
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.63 The proposed development will result in an increased population within the town centre that will increase demand on local services and facilities. In order to mitigate these impacts, the applicant would, in the event of a favourable recommendation, be required to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure improvements to local open space (to the value of £45,680) and educational facilities (to the value of £136,225). However, no agreement has been entered into and, therefore, this constitutes a reason for refusal.
3.64 The proposal incorporates the provision of 24 residential flats. The application was submitted prior to the 24th of May and the adoption of the Council’s ‘SPD: Affordable Housing’. Accordingly, the application has been assessed in terms of the Council’s old guidelines, which only required affordable housing on schemes of 25 units or more.
Comments on Public Consultations
3.65 The main issues raised by adjoining residents, namely the building design, impacts on residential amenity and the streetscene, and traffic and parking implications, have been dealt with in the main body of the report.
3.66 The following additional comments are made in respect of those matters not addressed in the main body of the report.
3.67 The proposal would result in disturbance including night time noise and anti- social behaviour. Officer comments: Night time noise arising from parking and traffic has already been commented upon. The commercial units face away from the residential interface. Noise arising from the use of these units could be controlled by way of conditions in the event of an approval. Noise emanating from the residential units would be consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area. Anti-social behaviour, including littering and vandalism, can be influenced by appropriate building design, maintenance and surveillance.
3.68 The site may be subject to subsidence and inadequate drainage and water pressure. Officer comments: These concerns could be addressed though appropriate engineering solutions. The proposed development would, in the event of an approval, be required to obtain building regulations approval and comply with the requirements of local utility services (including Thames Water).
4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor
4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
4.2 In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 58
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
4.3 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
4.4 Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
4.5 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance
5.1 As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved in light of the recommendation for refusal, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 No objections are raised to the principle of mixed use development. The introduction of residential units on this site would invigorate both the currently under utilised site and the Ruislip Manor Minor Town Centre.
6.2 However, the number of units proposed, and the size, scale and appearance of the building is not considered appropriate to this transitional site. The site is strategically positioned on the edge of the town centre, and abuts suburban development. While a density higher than that associated with adjoining suburban areas would be appropriate, the density proposed is not considered acceptable as it would not facilitate a smooth transition between urban and suburban environments.
6.3 In addition, the building is not considered to relate satisfactorily to the street scene. The scale, form, external appearance and materials of the proposed building would not harmonise with either the town centre or residential areas,
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 59
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS nor would it provide a successful transition between the two. The building would also impact on local residential amenity by way of the loss of sunlight.
6.4 The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with a range of London Plan and UDP policies. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.
Reference Documents:
(a) Unitary Development Plan (b) The London Plan (c) Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (d) Planning Policy Guidance 3 – Housing (e) Planning Policy Guidance 4 – Industrial, commercial development and small firms (f) Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning for Town Centres (g) Planning Policy Statement 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (h) Planning Policy Guidance 10 – Planning and Waste Management (i) Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport (j) Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001) (k) Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Accessibility Statement (l) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design (m) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Obligations
Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250 525
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 60
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Block plan
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 61
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 62
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 3 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: ABBEYFIELD RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME, 64-66 HALLOWELL ROAD, NORTHWOOD.
Development: ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION (INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING REAR OUTBUILDING).
LBH Ref Nos: 2200/APP/2005/2640
Drawing Nos: NO2/01, NO2/02, NO2/03 and NO2/04 Rev A, received 09-SEP- 05.
Date of receipt: 21/09/05. Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS:
Eight adjoining properties have been consulted. Five letters of objection have been received. A petition in opposition has also been submitted, containing 29 signatures. The issues raised in the letters and petition are summarised below:
(i) The property already has a substantial two storey rear extension, and the proposed extension would consist of most of the rear of the property resulting in an overbearing development (ii) The existing rear extension is intrusive and is unsympathetic to the original Victorian building (iii) The site is already overdeveloped (iv) The business nature of the care home does not fit in with the residential character of the street. (v) The extension is contrary to Council policies (BE15, BE20, and BE21) and guidance notes (A3 and A4) (vi) The extension will be of a large size and impact on the neighbouring properties (vii) There will be a loss of amenity, light and outlook toward adjoining properties, and increase of overshadowing (viii) Windows will overlook adjoining properties (ix) Property values would be affected (x) There will be an increase in parking demand on the street and generally in the area (xi) The development will cause night light pollution
The issues raised in the petition are: (xii) The site is already heavily developed and the proposal is unacceptable (xiii) The proposed building will overlook neighbouring gardens, reducing privacy and views (xiv) There will be an increase in traffic and parking demand on Hallowell Road
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 63
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Internal Consultations
Urban Design and This is a pair of semi-detached early 1900s property within Conservation Officer the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character. They are red brick with attractive detailing to the eaves and white brick used to highlight features on the façade. The frontage has been hard surfaced over but there are still a few trees to the front boundary with a wall providing some screening from the street. The property has been greatly extended from its original form. This part of the street is characterised by similar semi-detached properties.
The proposal would extend the rear of the property by another 9.5 metres leaving almost no rear garden on this side of the handed pair. The size of the extension would not be in keeping with the rest of the property, and it would relate poorly to the existing extension. The proposed flat roof would not match the existing building. The side elevations would be very plain and would create a rather imposing block when viewed from the garden of 64 Hallowell Road.
There would be no objection to demolition of the existing out building.
Unacceptable in principle.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. This application concerns the Abbeyfield Care Home situated on the western side of Hallowell Road, Northwood. The area is residential in character, with the London Underground (Metropolitan) Line running along the rear of the property to the west. The site is large in relation to neighbouring properties, and contains a pair of large Victorian houses that have been converted into a residential care home. The site has been used as a care home for some time, with an Established Use Certificate for this use granted by the Council in 1979.
2. The property is a red brick 1900’s building, with much of the original detailing evident. From the street the property appears unaltered. The property has been extended at the rear with a two storey extension projecting 19m from the main bulk of the building. The end of the existing two storey extension comprises of steps to the first floor. A first floor single room extension was approved in 2002 (ref: 2200/APP/2002/2209) at the top of these stairs but has yet to be constructed. A conservatory, also approved in 2002, has been constructed at the rear of the northern side of the main building (ref: 2200/APP/2002/2210).
3. A large single storey outbuilding is located across the full width of the rear of the site, containing the kitchen and laundry. A small store room is located on
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 64
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the southern boundary in close proximity to the existing two storey rear extension. It is proposed to remove this building as part of this application.
4. The properties at 62 and 68 Hallowell Road are both residential in use and character. 62 Hallowell Road has a two storey rear annexe with a single storey side extension in part of the recessed area, and two small outbuildings at the rear of the site. This property was formerly a British Red Cross Centre which was granted approval for change of use (from Use Class D1) to residential in March 2002. 68 Hallowell Road has a small single storey rear extension, and approximately five small outbuildings along the northern boundary of the site in close proximity to the subject property. A carport is attached to the side of the dwelling.
5. Planning permission is sought to further extend the two storey rear extension an additional 9.5m in depth at a height of 5.7m and width of 6.8m. This will be 0.6m lower in height than the existing two storey rear extension which is 6.3m high. The structure would have a flat roof and be set back 1.0m from the side boundary in line with the existing extension. A new kitchen is proposed on the ground floor, with adjacent office, and three bedrooms are proposed on the upper floor. The application does not indicate whether the present kitchen in the rear outbuilding is to be retained.
6. Policy BE5 requires that new development within Areas of Special Local Character harmonises with the existing design features, architectural style and building heights in the area. Extensions are expected to respect the symmetry of the original building. The development has been appraised by the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer, who has advised that, as the development will leave almost no rear garden relative to the southern side of the original semi detached dwellings on the site, and as the bulk of the structure will be bulky with a roof not in keeping with the original property, it cannot be supported in principle. The original semi-detached buildings will be further compromised by such an uncharacteristically bulky development, further unbalancing the property, and contrasting with the existing built form of the surrounding residential area. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy BE5 and criteria A.5 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions.
7. Although the development is towards the rear of the site, it will be visible from the street from in front of 68 Hallowell Road. Policy BE13 requires that new development harmonises with the existing street scene and other features of the area considered to be desirable. The development will add to a building which already occupies the majority of the side boundary, and is considered to be an uncharacteristic type of development. The extension is considered to impact upon of the established street scene, to the detriment of the area.
8. Extensions are required to harmonise with the original building, in accordance with Policy BE15. In this case, the existing building has been considerably extended at the rear with a large existing two storey rear extension and a small conservatory. It is considered that the existing extension is large and bulky,
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 65
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS and does not relate well to the form and character of the existing building. The proposed extension will exacerbate the impact, creating a further uncharacteristic element. The extension will create further excessive bulk which will result in an imposing, unsightly and plain elevation, particularly when viewed from the adjoining site at 68 Hallowell Road, but also towards the site from 62 Hallowell Road and sites further removed. The development diminishes the amenity of adjoining properties due to its overbearing nature and discordant character, and does not respect the existing pattern of development in the area. The proposal is not considered to accord with Policies BE15 or BE19 of the UDP.
9. The proposed development is located toward the rear of the site and will not directly impact upon the amenity areas at the rear of the adjoining properties with regard to sunlight. Although there will be additional shadowing as a result of the extension, this will impact on the rear of adjoining properties, and will not unreasonably increase the shading of these sites. The development is therefore in general accordance with Policy BE20 of the UDP.
10. The proposed two storey rear extension is considered to be contrary to Policy BE21 and criteria A.3 and A.4 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions. Policy BE21 requires that new buildings or extensions do not result in a significant loss of residential amenity. The proposed development is located in close proximity to the southern boundary adjacent to 68 Hallowell Road, increasing bulk and dominance of this property, and generally reducing residential amenity as a result. The residential buildings in the immediate area generally have modest rear extensions and outbuildings (if any) and have medium sized rear gardens with planting and vegetation. The proposed extension will conflict with this character thereby substantially impacting on the residential amenity of the area.
11. The development meets the 1.0 setback from the side boundary for the full height of the building in accordance with Policy BE22. However, it is considered that the intent of Policy BE22 is not met – which is to preserve visually open gaps between properties, and to prevent a terraced appearance. The extension will be of such an excessive length that it will reduce the visual gap between properties from an oblique viewpoint, particularly when viewed from the road in front of 68 Hallowell Road. The extension is considered to result in unreasonable additional bulk, to the detriment of the open space of the area. This is also contrary to design criteria, specifically B.2 and B.3 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions.
12. The use of the site is for a residential care home for the elderly, and therefore, there may well be limited demand for a large expanse of outdoor area. Policy H10 requires that redevelopment of residential care homes has regard to the Council’s amenity guidelines, which are set out under Design Principle 7.2 of the Residential Layouts and House Design Guide. The care home has a recently constructed conservatory which offers residents outlook toward the rear of the site, and there are outdoor seating areas at the rear of the site. Nevertheless, it is considered that, despite the use potentially not resulting in a
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 66
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS high demand for amenity space, the reduction in the rear garden area will not be in line with the character of rear garden amenity areas in the immediate area, nor provide satisfactory outlook for residents. The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the Design Guide for Residential Layouts and House Design, and Policies BE23 and H10 of the UDP.
13. Policy BE24 requires that new development ensure that the privacy of occupiers of the intended development and neighbours be retained. The proposed development indicates a new first floor window orientated toward the south that relates to the external escape stairs. This is not considered to result in any additional privacy impacts toward 68 Hallowell Road as the location of the window is presently open. There are four new windows proposed on the first floor facing 62 Hallowell Road, relating to two bedrooms, and two ensuite bathrooms. The design guide advises that a minimum distance of 21m is required between adjoining residential properties in order to ensure that no loss of privacy will occur. With a 10.5m distance from the northern windows to the northern side boundary, this requirements will be infringed. It is considered that the first floor windows will additionally impact upon the privacy of the occupants of properties to the north of the site by creating an unreasonable sense of overlooking toward these sites. The development is therefore contrary to Policy BE24 of the UDP and design principles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Residential Layouts and House Design Guideline.
Comments on Public Consultations
Most of the comments made by objectors have been discussed above, specifically, comments (i), (ii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (xii), and (xiii). With regard to comment (iii), the site does appear to be nearing a maximum capacity for buildings given the extent of the development to date. However any further application for additional development will be assessed on its merits. The business use of the site (comment (iv)) is established and cannot be reconsidered. Property values (comment (ix)) are not a material planning consideration, however, factors such as character and amenity have been considered in the bulk of this report. Parking demand is unlikely to increase as a result of the small increase in bedrooms (comments (x) and (xiv)). Point (xi) is noted.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life);
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 67
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1. The proposal, by reason of its bulk, form, design and excessive size would result in a development that would not harmonise with the form and character of the original property, unbalancing the original semi- detached property and contrasting with the existing built form of the surrounding residential area. The proposed development would adversely impact upon the character and appearance of the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character and is considered to be contrary to Policy BE5 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan, and criteria A.5 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions.
2. By reason of its length and height within close proximity to the boundary with 68 Hallowell Road it will create an uncharacteristic and excessively bulky structure when viewed from the street and will not preserve the visually open gaps between properties within the area and impact upon the established street scene. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies BE13 and BE22 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan, and design criteria B.2 and B.3 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 68
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3. The proposed development will result in an imposing, unsightly and plain southern elevation to the detriment of the residential amenity of residential properties to the south and in particular, 68 Hallowell Road. The bulk and excessive length of the extension will diminish the amenity of adjoining properties due to its overbearing nature and discordant character, and does not respect the existing pattern of development in the area. The proposal is therefore not in accordance with Policies OE1, BE15 and BE19 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4. The proposed development will reduce the available outdoor amenity area that is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The development does not meet the requirements of Design Principle 7.6 of the Design Guide for Residential Layouts and House Design, and Policies H10 and BE23 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
5. The proposed windows facing northward in the two storey rear extension will result in the direct overlooking of neighbouring residential properties causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to adjoining residents, including the occupiers of 62 Hallowell Road. The development is not in accordance with design principles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Residential Layouts and House Design Guideline, and would be contrary to Policy BE24 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
2. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Part 2 Policies:
H10 Development or Redevelopment of Residential Care Homes
BE5 Design of new development within Areas of Special Local Character BE13 Layout and appearance of new development. BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 69
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy
OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area
H4 Housing mix
AM14 New development and car parking standards
SPG: Residential Layouts & House Design Guide Residential Extensions Design Guide
Contact Officer: JOANNE PACEY Telephone No: 01895 277080
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 70
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 71
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 72
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 4 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 45 COPSE WOOD WAY NORTHWOOD
Development: ERECTION OF A FOUR BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE, WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE AND ACCOMMODATION IN THE ROOFSPACE AND BASEMENT (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE, GARAGE AND CAR PORT).
LBH Ref Nos: 11577/APP/2006/1319
Drawing Nos: 528/PL/01; 02C; 03B; 04C; 06C; 07C; 08C; 09; 10C and tree report received on 05/05/06 and 05D received 05/06/06
Date of receipt: 05/05/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 05/06/06
CONSULTATIONS:
6 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. A petition with 23 signatures and 1 letter of objection has been received with the following comments: -
(i) The basement would result in subsidence problems and alterations to the water table; (ii) If permission were granted an independent structural engineer should provide an independent assessment; (iii) Removal of spoil would result in constant lorry movements; (iv) Adverse impact on existing trees.
Trees and Landscape Officer This scheme has been designed to retain the two trees close to the building and should not affect any others.
Subject to conditions TL1, TL2, TL3, TL5, TL6 and a condition requiring demolition, construction and tree protection method statement and the implementation of the scheme in accordance with the statement, the proposed development complies with policy BE38.
Highway Engineer No objection
Northwood Residents’ Association No response
Urban Design/Conservation Officer This application has been revised to show a design more in keeping with its vernacular
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 73
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS context, and, at the rear, an L-shaped form which would reduce the overall bulk.
The scheme is now acceptable: though large, it has been well articulated and the elevations modulated to create an interesting design.
Conditions regarding the types of materials and details of fenestration and rooflights should be attached.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The application site currently comprises a large detached house situated on a plot of land of 0.11 hectares in area on the southern side of Copsewood Way Northwood. The locality is characterised by large detached houses on large plots of land set back significantly from the road frontage to give an open character and appearance. The house is situated within the Copsewood Area of Special Character. The adjoining house has recently been demolished and the plot is currently vacant.
2. Planning application is sought to demolish the detached house and erect a large replacement house with an integral garage. The proposed two-storey house would be 14.9m wide, 12.9m deep and 8.6m high with a hipped roof. The building would have a gross floor area of 534m2.
3. Planning permission ref: 11577/APP/2005/2675 to demolish the detached house and erect a large replacement house with an integral garage was withdrawn on 23/11/05.
4. Planning application ref: 3436/APP/2006/1629 for the erection of a detached house at 43 Copsewood Way has yet to be determined.
5. Policies BE5 and BE6 of the UDP require that new development harmonises with the architectural features of merit and the character and appearance of the Copsewood Estate.
6. The application site is 18.6m wide and already accommodates a detached property. The proposed replacement dwelling would be constructed on a building plot of a similar average width as surrounding residential development and therefore complies with Policy BE6 (i) of the UDP.
7. The flank walls would be inset by 1.5m and 1.7m from 43 and 47 Copsewood Way, respectively. The proposed inset from the side boundaries is sufficient to comply with Policy BE22, which requires a minimum 1.5m inset from the side boundaries to be provided within the Copsewood Estate.
8. Policy BE6 (ii) of the UDP states that new houses should be constructed on similar building lines formed by the front walls of existing houses. The application
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 74
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS plans indicate that the proposed two-storey house would not project beyond the forward building line of the existing house. As such, the proposed house would not unacceptably intrude into the street scene and would comply with policy BE6 (ii) of the UDP.
9. The houses in the area have a variety of designs but are characterised by a traditional style with a strong vertical emphasis. The proposed house of the previous withdrawn scheme had a contemporary appearance with a strong horizontal emphasis. It was considered that it would fail to harmonise with the design features and architectural styles predominant in this Area of Special Character. Following discussions with the Council’s Urban Design/Conservation Officer the previous scheme has been substantially revised. The overall depth of the house has been reduced by 2.3m. The size and bulk of the proposed development is now considered to be in keeping with nearby properties and would not result in an overdevelopment of the site. A street scene elevation indicates that the roof of the proposed development would be the same height as that of the adjoining houses. The proposal would not therefore appear overdominant in relation to adjoining houses and the street scene.
10. The number and size of the roof lights have been reduced so that they are not considered to dominate the roof slope. The fenestration and garage door design has introduced a greater vertical emphasis to the front and rear elevations. The Council’s Urban Design/ Conservation Officer considers that this revised design would be in keeping with the design features, architectural style and building heights predominant in the area. As such, the proposal would comply with policies BE5, BE6 (iii), BE13 and BE19 of the UDP.
11. TPO 398 protects the trees on the site, including the two mature Oak trees close to the existing house, which contribute to the wooded character of the estate. The Oak in the front garden is a prominent feature in the local landscape. The application includes a tree survey / report about the trees, proposed in accordance with BS 5837. The Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer raises no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions, and the proposal is therefore considered to comply with policy BE38 of the UDP.
12. This Council’s Design Guide requires a minimum of 100m2 amenity space to be provided for four bedroom houses. The proposed amenity space provision is in excess of this Council’s minimum standards. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE23 of the UDP.
13. There are no habitable room windows which face towards 43 and 47 Copsewood Way. The plans originally submitted indicated a balcony to the proposed master bedroom at first floor level and to bedroom 4 situated at second floor level within the roof. The plans have since been revised, replacing the balcony to bedroom 4 with a rooflight. This revision is sufficient to ensure that there would be no direct overlooking of adjoining properties from bedroom 4. The applicants have demonstrated by means of a section drawing that direct views of the private garden area of adjoining properties from the proposed first floor balcony would
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 75
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS be obstructed by the proposed roof slope. As such, the proposal would comply with Policy BE24 of the UDP.
14. No.43 and 47 Copsewood Way are situated to the north-east and south-west of the proposed house respectively. Taking into consideration the distance from these properties, the proposed house would not give rise to undue overshadowing or loss of light to justify refusal. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE20 of the UDP.
15. The proposed house would project by 5.4m beyond the rear wall of No.47. This property is however situated 4m from the proposed flank wall and the proposed house would not project beyond a 45-degree line taken from the nearest rear window. As such the proposal is not considered to be overdominant in relation to this property and would not significantly affect neighbours’ outlook. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE21 of the UDP.
16. An objector to this application has indicated that the proposal, which involves the removal of trees and excavations, could result in the lowering of the water table in the ground supporting the neighbouring property which is likely to result in subsidence problems. The application site is located on clay which is defined in PPG 14 as being unstable land. Paragragh 12 of PPG14 ‘Development of Unstable Land’ Annexe 2 ‘Subsidence and Planning’ states that: -
“Planning responses to subsidence should be specific to individual developments as well as relating to wider areas of land through policies in development plans. It is material in planning terms to assess whether a development will be affected by subsidence and, where appropriate, to consider the acceptability of any proposed mitigation measures. A precautionary avoidance strategy can seldom be justified on risk grounds, since most potential subsidence problems can be minimised by careful site investigation followed by appropriate ground treatment or the adoption of sufficiently robust foundation and/or superstructure designs.”
17. Paragraph 25 states: -
“Potential subsidence problems can be minimised by ground treatment or suitably designing the foundations and superstructure of any building or structure. The effects of shrinkable clay are sufficiently well known and its mitigation sufficiently straightforward that Building Regulations provide full control. It is therefore most unlikely that clay shrinkage would need to be considered in relation to individual planning applications in affected areas.”
18. In respect of the above, the Building Regulations have provisions to ensure the structural stability of the new house including any basement accommodation. The future structural design of the scheme will need to secure the stability and integrity of the building in relation to topography and adjoining structures.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 76
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 19. The formation of a deep excavation and structure in proximity to adjoining property will also require a civil agreement to be entered into before work starts, to protect and support the adjoining land and buildings under the Party Wall Act.
20. In view of the above, it is considered that the provision of information to assess the effects of possible ground movements and the measures to mitigate them is not necessary.
21. 2 off street parking spaces are required per dwelling unit to comply with the Council’s interim standards. An integral double garage is provided for the proposed house in accordance with Council’s standards. The Highway Engineers raise no objection to the proposal which would comply with Policies AM7 (ii) and AM14 of the UDP.
22. With regard to the letter of objection received points (i), (ii) and (iv) have been addressed in the main body of the report. Point (iii) is not a planning matter.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 77
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: -
1. (T8) Time Limit – full planning 1. (T1) Standard application-3 years 2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 2. (M1) Standard submitted 3. (RPD5) Restrictions on 3. (RPD5) Standard Erection of Extensions, Garages, Sheds and Outbuildings 4. (RPD1) No additional windows or 4. (RPD1) Standard doors – facing nos. 43 and 47 Copsewood Way 5. (RPD3) Obscured Glazing 5. (RPD3) Standard en-suite bathroom facing nos. 43 and 47 Copsewood Way 6. (H7) Parking Arrangements 6. (H7) Standard (Residential) 7. (TL1) Existing Trees - Survey 7. (TL1) Standard 8. (TL2) Trees to be retained 8. (TL2) Standard 9. (TL3) Protection of trees and plants 9. (TL3) Standard during site clearance and development 10. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme – full 10. (TL5) Standard applications 11. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme - 11. (TL6) Standard implementation 12. Prior to development commencing 12. To ensure that trees can be on site a method statement satisfactorily retained on the outlining the sequence of site in accordance with policy development on the site including BE38 of the UDP. demolition, building works and tree protection shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved method statement. 13. Prior to the commencement of 13. To establish an ‘audit trail’ for demolition work the developer shall demolition materials based on
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 78
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS prepare a selective programme (or an established Demolition demolition protocol) to demonstrate Protocol which will encourage that the most valuable or potentially more effective resource contaminating materials and fittings management in demolition can be removed from the site safely and new builds, in accordance and intact for later re-use or with Policy OE12 of the UDP. processing. Details shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to APPROVE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) 2. The decision to APPROVE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
BE5 New development within areas of special local character BE6 New development within Gate Hill Farm and Copsewood Estates areas of special local character BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations. BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys. BE23 External amenity space and new residential buildings BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments. AM14 New development and car parking standards. 3. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 4. (6) Property Rights/ Rights to Light 5. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 6. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 7. (23) Works affecting the Public Highway - Vehicle Cross-over 8. (3) Building Regulations - Demolition and Building Works 9. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 79
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 10. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc. 11. To promote the development of sustainable building design and construction methods, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems and use of high quality insulation.
Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 556774
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 80
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 81
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 82
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS A
Item No. 5 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 14 COPSE WOOD WAY NORTHWOOD
Development: ERECTION OF A SIX BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE, WITH SINGLE-STOREY RECREATION BUILDING AT THE REAR, INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE, AND ACCOMMODATION IN THE ROOFSPACE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE, GARAGE AND CAR PORT).
LBH Ref Nos: 30870/APP/2005/3456
Drawing Nos: 0512 PA00; 01; 02; 09; 10; 11; 12; 16; 16; 17; 18; 19 and 20 received on 23/12/05; Tree Survey by G. Bunyan Associates received 10/01/06; 09/12/06; 200512 PA18 REV A0512 PA19 REV B received on 16/02/06; Tree Assessment, Tree Survey Schedule, photographs, perspectives viewed from the east and the south, 0512 PA005 (Tree Survey), 0512 PA06 (Proposed works Layout), 0512 PA07 (Local Plot to built footprint ratio), table of site area to built area received on 08/05/06
Date of receipt: 23/12/05 Dates of Amendments: 16/02/06 & 08/05/06
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a six bedroom detached house. It is considered that the proposal would fail to harmonise with the character and appearance of the surrounding area being detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the Copsewood Estate Area of Special Local Character. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development will safeguard existing trees protected by TPO 400 (area A1) and makes inadequate provision for the protection and long-term retention of the protected trees. The proposed rear balcony would result in the direct overlooking of neighbouring properties causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to adjoining residents. This application is therefore recommended for refusal.
2.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL for the following reasons: -
1. The proposal by reason of its width, scale, materials, proportions and architectural style and distance from the side boundary would result in an incongruous form of development which would be out of keeping with the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the Copsewood Estate Area of Special Local Character and would fail to comply with Policies BE5, BE6 (iii), BE13, BE19 and BE22 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 83
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development will safeguard existing trees protected by TPO 400 (area A1) and makes inadequate provision for the protection and long-term retention of the protected trees. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policy BE38 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposed first floor balcony would result in the direct overlooking of the private garden area of 16 Copsewood Way causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to adjoining residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE24 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles 5.1 and 5.2 from the Council’s design guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’.
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)
2. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE5 New development within areas of special local character BE6 New development within Gate Hill Farm and Copsewood Estates areas of special local character BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations. BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys. BE23 External amenity space and new residential buildings BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments. AM14 New development and car parking standards.
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1 This application concerns a large detached house situated on the northern side of Copsewood Way, Northwood. The application site is an L-shaped plot of land 0.29 hectares in area and the existing, traditional two-storey building is set in a very spacious garden setting, which contains many mature trees.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 84
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.2 The area is designated as an Area of Special Local Character (ASLC) in order to protect and enhance the special character of the area. The Copse Wood Estate is individually important, and collectively its preservation is regarded as essential to the retention of the character of London as a whole. Birch, Hornbeam and Oak trees on this site are protected by TPO 400 (area A1).
Scheme
3.3 Planning permission is sought to erect a six bedroom detached dwellinghouse, with a single-storey recreation building at the rear, integral double garage and accommodation in the roofspace (involving demolition of existing dwelling house, garage and car port).
3.4 The existing two-storey house is 10.5m wide, 8.5m deep and 10m high with a hipped roof. The proposed two-storey house with a basement would be a maximum of 25.5m wide, 16.4 m deep and 8.4m high. The basement would accommodate a plant room. On the ground floor it is proposed to provide an integral double garage, dining room, kitchen, utility room, lobby, study, lounge, pool room and prayer room. On the first floor it is proposed to provide 6 bedrooms, each with an en-suite bathroom. The master bedroom and bedroom 3 would have rear balconies. Bedroom 2 would have a side and rear balcony. The building has been broken down into several smaller compartments, which are to be joined together by transparent glazed links. To the rear of the site a recreation room is proposed 7.1m wide, 7.1m deep. Amended plans have reduced the height of this building from 5.2m to 3.2m.
3.5 The proposal consists of a crisp, contemporary designed two storey building and materials, such as white render, zinc roof, natural stone and glass. The western most part of the building has a tilted roof to create variation of the roof along Copsewood Way.
3.6 Plans originally indicated a 2m high white rendered front boundary wall with two matt black sliding steel gates. In front of the proposed house it was proposed to erect a 1.5m high inner white rendered wall with bamboo planting in front. Amended plans have since been received which have lowered the height of the front boundary wall to 0.5m in height and the inner wall to 0.9m in height with planting in front.
Planning History
3.7 No planning history applies to the site.
Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Developed Area.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 85
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Part One Policies:
Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenity and the character of the area.
Part Two Policies:
BE5 New development within areas of special local character BE6 New development within Gate Hill Farm and Copsewood Estates areas of special local character BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards
SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’
SPG ‘Roads in Residential Layouts’
Consultations
3.8 65 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted and 1 petition with 36 signatures against the proposal 12 letters of objection and 1 petition with 13 signatures in support of the application have been received making the following comments: -
Petition against the proposal:
(i) The wall would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Copse Wood Way. (ii) Loss of Oak trees; (iii) The design of the house which includes a large flat zinc roof would be out of keeping with the street scene and this Area of Special Character;
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 86
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Letters of objection:
(i) The proposed size, bulk, scale, materials, design features and architectural composition would be inappropriate and out of character with the area; (ii) The front boundary wall is excessive in height and would adversely affect the openness of the area; (iii) The proposal is contrary to the Copsewood Covenants; (iv) Loss of protected trees; (v) The height of the building would be 3 storey; (vi) Loss of view; (vii) The recreation building would be overdominant in relation to the adjoining property; (viii) The design of the building would not be sustainable; (ix) The design of the building is likely to deteriorate; (x) The roof material is likely to give rise to noise and disturbance; (xi) Overlooking from balconies;
Petition in support of the proposal
(i) This petition simply indicates support for the proposal. A covering letter states that some of the points made in the letters of objection are matters of personal opinion and that some of the points are inaccurate, e.g. the flat roof
Northwood Residents’ Objects to the proposal as it would be Association contrary to Policies BE13 and BE19 of the UDP.
Internal Consultees
Urban Design/Conservation The application site is located in an area Officer of Special Local Character, and as such it is covered by the UDP policies BE5 and BE6.
The proposed scheme fails to conform with the above policies on a number of vital aspects, such as width, scale, form, proportions, design features as well as architectural style. From a conservation point of view this application cannot be supported, since the scheme is in breach of established UDP policies.
A design statement has been submitted by the applicants after the application was initially considered.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 87
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
The design statement suggests that there is a great deal of architectural style. This is not the case. The Estate was built, largely in the 1920’s and 1930’s in a vernacular style. Copsewood and Broadwalk are particularly good examples of this style. They comprise modest, fundamentally two storey houses, in brown brick, with some of the materials such as stained timber studding, or rendered panels. The designs are taken from the vernacular palette, with porches, hips, gables, dormers and good strong traditional roofs with splayed eaves, corbelling and chimneys. Houses have a traditional articulation of flanks and frontages, and in Copsewood Way, a characteristic stepping down in height down the hill towards The Covert.
The green open frontages are an important part of the character of the Estate. The Broadwalk and Copsewood Way are characterised by low front boundary treatment, shrubs, planting, and some very low brick walls. The trees and woodland backdrop to the whole Estate, glimpsed in rear gardens, particularly on the north side of Copsewood Way are also an important element of this character.
The proposed house would be entirely out of keeping with the character of the Estate, and particularly with that part of it in Copsewood Way. The Estate does not have a typology of large distinctive houses. It is of one era (albeit of little infill roads such as Rogers Ruff) with houses which relate to their woodland context, sit quietly in muted, mostly red-brown clay, colours amidst strong vegetation and open frontages. The vast majority are of the same architectural style, although differing designs have been used of that style. A few of the original houses have been replaced with replacement houses, but these form a very small proportion of
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 88
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the whole Estate. Materials and designs of the new houses have again followed the general, vernacular architectural palette.
It is stated that replacement houses extend from boundary to boundary. This is not the case, as policy demands a 1.5m gap on either side. The vast majority are in any event, the original houses, and these usually have considerable gaps between the house and the boundary.
Trees and Landscape Officer The group of middle-aged and mature Oak, Birch and Hornbeam trees at the front/middle of this site comprise a prominent feature in the local landscape. This group of trees are located within TPO 400 (area A1). The group is contiguous with the area of woodland at the rear of the site. Collectively and individually, the trees have high/very high amenity values and make a highly significant contribution to the wooded character of the area of special local character. In terms of policy BE38, the trees comprise a large-scale feature of merit that should be retained for the future. The trees, due to their value, shade effect and size/dominance, constrain the development of this site.
The applicant’s arboricultural expert has assessed twelve of the individual trees comprising the group at the front/side of the site. The Oak and Hornbeam trees (trees 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) at the front and the Birch (tree12) are categorised as A1 or B2. The Oak tree (No. 5) and the group should be graded as A2.
The scheme includes the loss of two Oak trees (Nos. 3 and 6), which are both graded as B2. These trees are an integral part of the group, and are conspicuous alongside the Oak (No. 1) close to the road frontage in views from the north-east. The proposed building
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 89
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS would be sited between, and in proximity to, several of the retained trees, and the proposed driveway would be also be close to several trees, in particular the Oak (No. 1). The loss of the two Oaks, as part of the development will reduce the extent and value of the group and have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality.
There is, despite the precautions and special designs (intended to avoid damage) outlined by the applicant, still a risk that some of the retained trees would be affected directly by the construction of the proposed house.
There are serious concerns about the future prospects of the protected trees if the house is built and occupied. Trees would surround and overhang the house, and the garden would be entirely wooded. The trees are likely to have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the future occupiers of the proposed house, particularly during the summer. The trees would shade most of the garden area and restrict its use. The larger trees would dominate the building. It is therefore likely that future occupiers would seek the removal, or substantial reduction, of the protected trees, and it would be unreasonable to resist such requests for the reasons outlined.
In addition to the direct loss of two trees, the development would be likely to lead to the loss or substantial reduction of a number of protected trees. This would be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the Copsewood Estate area of special local character and would conflict with policy BE38 (and BE20 and BE23) of the UDP.
Highways Engineer No objections subject to a condition requiring details of site access to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 90
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Main Planning Issues
3.9 The main issues in this particular case are considered to be: -
(i) Acceptability of the principle of development. (ii) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area. (iii) Impact on the amenities of adjoining properties. (iv) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers. (v) Highway and pedestrian safety.
(i) Acceptability of the principle of development.
3.10 There is no objection in principle to residential development within the ‘developed area’ subject to the proposal satisfying other policies within the UDP. The area is a long established residential area.
(ii) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area.
3.11 Policies BE5 and BE6 of the UDP require that new development harmonises with the architectural features of merit and the character and appearance of the Estate.
3.12 The applicants have provided a design statement in support of the application. This puts forward the view that no particular style predominates the Estate. It is suggested that the Estate is an eclectic mix of architectural styles, materials and roof types. It is argued that the older properties which have distinct architectural features are in a minority and there is therefore no distinct architectural style. The applicants consider that the proposed development would be of an exceptional architectural quality. In addition, the proposed house would not be out of keeping with the width, scale and plot ratio of other houses on the Estate. The applicants consider that the proposed set back from the road frontage, shallow pitch roof and the break in the roofline has reduced the scale of the building. The applicants therefore consider that the scale, mass and use of materials reflect the vernacular of the older properties on the Estate. In addition, trees of merit to the front of the site have been retained and the house has been set back from the building line of neighbouring houses.
3.13 However, the Council’s Urban Design/ Conservation Officer considers that the Estate which was built, largely in the 1920’s and 1930’s has a vernacular style. For the reasons outlined above the Council’s Urban Design/ Conservation Officer considers that the proportions and architectural style of the proposed house would be out keeping with the architectural style predominant in the area. As such, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy BE5 and BE6 (iii) of the UDP.
3.14 A plan of the street scene indicates that the roof of the proposed development would be lower than that of the existing houses. In addition, amended plans
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 91
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS have reduced the height of the proposed front boundary wall and inner to 0.5 and 0.9m respectively. As such, the height of the proposed house and the reduction in the height of the front walls is sufficient to ensure the proposal is not considered to be overdominant in relation to adjoining houses to the detriment of the visual amenities of the street scene. The proposed two-storey house would also not project forward building line of the existing dwelling house nor that of adjoining properties. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy BE6 (ii) of the UDP which states that new houses should be constructed on similar building lines formed by the front walls of existing houses.
3.15 The application plans indicate that the ground floor of the flank elevation which faces No.12 would be situated only 1.4m from boundary with that property. In addition, whilst the flank wall of the proposed first floor would be situated 1.5m from the side boundary the proposed roof over this element would be situated only 0.8m from the side boundary. As such, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy BE22 which requires that buildings within the Copsewood Estate should be situated a minimum distance of 1.5m from the side boundary for the full height of the building. The flank walls of the two-storey house would be inset by 7.5m from 16 Copsewood Way. However, the attached single storey element would be situated only 0.5m from the boundary with this property. The proposed house would therefore be some 33m wide, extending across almost the entire width of the application site and would be 16.4m deep. It is accepted that No.14 has a bigger plot of land in comparison to nearby properties and there are other large properties within the Copsewood Estate. However, the width and scale of the proposed house and the distance from the proposed side boundary when viewed from the street scene and surrounding area is considered to be out of keeping with adjoining properties resulting in an incongruous form of development out of keeping with the open character of the area. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Policies BE5, BE6 (iii), BE13, BE19 and BE22 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.16 Policy H6 states that new housing will generally be expected to be in the range of 100-200 hr/ha, however circumstances may enable an appropriate level of density above or below these figures to be achieved. Where the density exceeds 150 hr/ha it is expected that applicants demonstrate that the design and layout of the scheme ensures good environmental conditions are maintained. The residential density of the proposed development equates to 48 habitable rooms/hectare (hr/ha). The proposal therefore complies with Policy H6 of the UDP although it is below the density requirements of PPG3 ‘Housing’.
3.17 Birch, Hornbeam and Oak trees on this site are protected by TPO 400 (area A1). The application includes a tree survey / report about the trees in accordance with BS 5837. For the reasons given above the Council’s Tree Officer raises an objection to the proposal which would fail to comply with Policy BE38.
(iii) Impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining properties.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 92
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.18 The flank wall of the proposed development would project by 10.5m beyond the rear wall of No.12. However, the mid-point of the nearest habitable room window of No. 12 would be situated 4.5m from the side boundary with No.14. and the flank wall of the proposed house would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from this point. In addition, the building would be substantially screened by a row of trees situated in the rear garden of No.12 which run along the boundary with the application site. As such, the proposal is not considered to be overdominant in relation to 12 Copsewood Way. The proposed recreation building which extends up to a maximum height of 3.8m would be located 7.5m beyond the rear building line of No.16. However, this element would be situated 5m from No.16 and would angled away from this property. The proposal is not therefore considered to be overdominant in relation to this property and would comply with Policy BE21 of the UDP.
3.19 No. 43 and 47 Copsewood Way are situated to the north-east and south-west of the proposed house and taking into consideration the distance from these properties the proposal would not give rise to overshadowing or loss of light to justify refusal. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE20 of the UDP.
3.20 The design guide advises that a minimum distance of 21m is required between overlooking habitable rooms in order to ensure that no loss of privacy will occur. The rear elevation of the proposed house would not overlook any residential properties and the proposed ground floor windows could be screened from neighbouring properties by appropriate boundary treatment. The proposed en- suite bathrooms and secondary bedroom windows which face towards No. 12 and 16 could be obscured glazed. Plans indicate first floor rear balconies to bedroom 3 and the master bedroom. Bedroom 2 would have a first floor side and rear balcony. The balcony of bedroom 3 and the master bedroom would be screened from No. 12 by the proposed building and would be situated more than 21m from the rear garden of No.16. However, side and rear balconies to bedroom 2 would be situated within 21m of the rear garden area of No.16. Views from this balcony into the rear garden of this property would not be screened by the proposed building and would only be partially obscured by existing Oak and Hornbeam trees which run along the boundary of the application site. As such, it is considered that the proposed house would result in the overlooking of adjoining properties. The proposal would therefore result in a loss of privacy to existing and future occupiers being contrary to policy BE24 of the UDP.
3.21 It is considered that the provision of an additional house will not give rise to an increase in noise and disturbance sufficient to justify refusal. The proposal therefore complies with Policy OE1 of the UDP.
(iv) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers.
3.22 This Council’s Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design” states that for 4 bedroom houses a minimum of 100m2 of private amenity space should be provided. The house would have an amenity space of approximately 2140m2, well in excess of minimum standards for properties of this size. It is
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 93
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS therefore considered that the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for the occupiers of the house in accordance with policy BE23 of the UDP.
(v) Highway and pedestrian safety
3.23 The Council’s parking standards for houses requires a maximum of 2 parking spaces should be provided per dwelling. Plans indicate that two space would be provided. The proposal therefore complies with the Council’s adopted standards and the Council’s Highway Engineer raises no objection to the number of spaces provided. It is considered that the level of traffic generated by the proposal would not give rise to additional congestion sufficient to justify refusal of permission. The application is therefore considered to be consistent with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.
Comments on Public Consultations
3.24 With regard to the petition against the proposal the points raised are supported in the reasons for refusal. With regard to the letters of objection received points (i), (iv) and (xi) are supported in the reason for refusal. Point (ii) is addressed in the main body of the report. Points (iii) and (iv) are not material considerations. Points (vi), (viii) and (x) would not be sufficient to justify refusal. With regard to Point (v) the proposal would be two storeys in height.
3.25 With reference to the petition in support the comments made in respect of the letters of objection received have be noted. The points raised by the objectors have been addressed in the main body of the report and the paragraph above and an assessment on the acceptability of the proposed scheme has been made on the basis of the submitted plans.
4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 94
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance
5.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the developer, and the developer will make a S.106 contribution to the Council towards associated public facilities. The developer will also meet all reasonable costs of the Council in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or the Council.
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.1 It is considered that the proposed building and loss of trees would detract from the visual amenities of the street scene and the Copsewood Estate Area of Special Character. The proposal would result in the overlooking of adjoining the adjoining property. It is recommended that planning permission be refused.
Reference Documents:
(a) Unitary Development Plan (b) Supplementary Planning Guide: ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ (c) Letters of objection. (d) Petition.
Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 556774
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 95
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Block plan
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 96
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 97
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 6 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: CORNER OF CHENEY STREET AND BRIDLE ROAD, PINNER
Development: INSTALLATION OF AN 11.8M HIGH MONOPOLE MOBILE PHONE MAST AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT CABINETS (CONSULTATION UNDER SCHEDULE 2, PART 24 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING(GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 AS AMENDED).
LBH Ref Nos: 61376/APP/2006/1914
Drawing Nos: 30/GLN8070A/01 Rev C
Date of receipt: 29/06/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS
External Consultees
Consultation letters were sent to 97 adjoining owners/occupiers, Eastcote Residents’ Association, Eastcote Park Estate Residents’ Association and a site notice was posted.
To date 2 letters of objection have been received, including one from the Eastcote Residents’ Association. They raised the follow issues:
(i) The proposed mast is on the fringe of an area of special character, the installation would be out of keeping with this very attractive area. (ii) Health Issues.
Internal Consultees
Highways Engineer No Objection.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES
1. The site comprises the public footway on the north west corner of the junction of Bridle Road and Cheney Street, Eastcote. This corner is characterised by a grassed area planted with several bushes and shrubs at the rear of the tarmacked footway on Bridle Road. A 1.6m high close boarded fence at the rear of this planted area provides the boundary between Bridle Road and 1A Cheney Street which is a two-storey house. There are several tall trees behind this fence which offer substantial screening between this property and Bridle Road. There is another small planted area, consisting of bushes approximately 1.5m high, and one 8m high tree nearer the front of the footway on the corner
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 98
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS of Cheney Street. The site lies within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
2. The telecommunications installation is proposed by Orange PCS Ltd in order to provide improved signal quality and coverage to the surrounding area and to provide future 3G video coverage. The applicant has searched this area and concluded that there are no other more suitable locations available. In support of the application Orange PCS Ltd have supplied copies of pre-application consultation documents and technical details of their search/coverage area plans and justification for their site selection.
3. The application seeks to determine whether prior approval is required for the siting and design of an 11.8m high monopole mobile phone mast. One equipment cabinet with dimensions of 0.65m x 1.45m x 1.25m high would be located 3.9m to the west of the mast and towards the rear of the verge. The mast and cabinet would be coloured grey.
4. The proposed installation does not exceed the limits set out in Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended). It is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, such as a conservation area, where more restrictive criteria are applicable. Accordingly the proposal constitutes permitted development, subject to the criteria set out below.
5. In accordance with Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended) Orange PCS Ltd is required to apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether prior approval of the details of siting and design is required and, if so, for the LPA to either approve or refuse those details.
6. The application has been assessed principally against Policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. Both seek to find solutions which minimise the impact of telecommunications development on the appearance of the surrounding area.
7. The application site falls within a suburban residential area, largely characterised by a mix of two-storey detached and semi-detached residential properties. The nearest house is approximately 9m to the north of the proposed mast. Missouri Court, which is a home for elderly people, is located approximately 27m away on the southern side of Bridle Road. The Eastcote Park Estate, which is designated as an ‘Area of Special Local Character’ is just under 100m to the west of the site, and this part of Cheney Street and Bridle Road has many of the same characteristics as the Estate. Cheney Street is a particularly attractive road within this area, having the character and appearance of a more rural setting.
8. The monopole mast would be significantly taller than the surrounding houses and vegetation. It is considered that the at 11.8m the mast would appear particularly out of character within the street scene. Although there is a
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 99
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS backdrop of mature trees which are approximately 8m high and three of these trees are evergreen, they would do little to screen the installation when viewed from Bridle Road or The Chase. At 11.8m high the mast would be considerably taller and wider than the nearby 8m high streetlights.
9. It is considered that an imitation telegraph pole design would help to lessen the visual impact of the proposal, but at 11.8m high it is considered that it would still be unacceptable visually.
10. There are two large existing utility cabinets located approximately 7m to the west of the site for the proposed new equipment cabinet, and two more approximately 15 to the east. It is considered that the proposed cabinet due to its size together with the 11.8m high mast, would significantly add to the street clutter on this part of Bridle Road. It is also noted that these existing cabinets have attracted unsightly graffiti that significantly detracts from the quality of the street scene.
11. A previous application for a 12m high imitation telegraph pole mobile phone mast and equipment cabinets, at the junction of Field End Road and Bridle Road, was dismissed at appeal on the 16/12/05. The Inspector considered that the installation would appear out of scale with and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. It was also sited close to the Grade II Listed Tudor Lodge Hotel. The Inspector did not feel the appellant had demonstrated that the environmental impact had been kept to a minimum as required by PPG8 and the Unitary Development Plan. It is considered that these points are equally valid for this proposed installation, which is of a less sympathetic design.
12. The applicant has provided details of 4 alternative sites which have been investigated and discounted, however there are other sites nearby such as the Ministry of Defence building on Lime Grove and Eastcote Methodist Church on Field End Road which may be more suitable and should have been considered. These options should at least be investigated and discounted as they may provide sites which are less visually prominent and sensitive within the search area.
13. In terms of potential health concerns, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed installation complies with the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines. Accordingly, in terms of Government policy advice, there is not considered to be any direct health impact. Therefore, further detailed technical information about the proposed installation is not considered relevant to the Council's determination of this application.
14. The proposed installation would have an unacceptable visual impact upon the street scene. Its height and design in this location would be clearly visible and, indeed, would draw attention to it. As such it is contrary to policies pt1.11, BE13, BE37, and OE1 of the Unitary Development Plan
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 100
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Comments on public consultation
Issues (i) and (ii) have been addressed in this report.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Recent court cases concerning telecommunications development, including the Harrogate Case which went to the Court of Appeal on 12.11.04, have clarified the primacy of Government health advice in this field. The Court of Appeal ruled that a proposed telecommunications mast was acceptable despite a planning inspector having dismissed a planning appeal because he was not convinced that the appellants had provided enough reassurance that there would be no material harm to young children at local schools.
This significant legal judgement backs Government policy and clearly limits the ability of local planning authorities to resist telecommunications installations close to schools or houses on grounds of any adverse health impacts.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 101
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Observations of The Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Planning and Transportation Group and the wider Council.
RECOMMENDATION (A) That prior approval of siting and design is required.
RECOMMENDATION (B) The details of siting and design are REFUSED.
REASON: The proposed development, including the large cabinets, by reason of its siting and design would result in an incongruous and visually obtrusive form of development which would be out of keeping with the visual character of the adjoining street scene and surrounding area and detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers nearby properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies pt1.10, pt1.11, BE13, BE37, and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
Contact Officer: ADRIEN WAITE Telephone Number: 01895 556776
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 102
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 103
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 104
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS B Item No. 7 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: ICKENHAM HALL, COMPASS THEATRE ARTS CENTRE, GLEBE AVENUE, ICKENHAM
Development (A): EXTERNAL WORKS TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ACCESS TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL RAMPS TOGETHER WITH HANDRAILS, NEW PEDESTRIAN / WHEELCHAIR ACCESS PATHS, RAMPED AND LEVEL CROSSINGS, CAR PARK RESURFACING, AN ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE TO THE FOYER, ILLUMINATED, COLLAPSIBLE AND NON-ILLUMINATED BOLLARDS TO CAR PARK AND ACCESS PATHS, AND THE AUTOMATION OF EXISTING ENTRANCE DOORS.
LBH Ref Nos: 187/APP/2006/30
Drawing Nos: INDEX TO ACCESS STATEMENT (REVISION 5), 2005/0018/01, 2005/0018/02L AND 2005/0018/02R 2005/0018/05A, 2005/0018/06C, 2005/0018/07A, 2005/0018/08A, 2005/0018/09, 2005/0018/010 AND 2005/0018/013 RECEIVED 03/05/06.
Date of receipt: 25/01/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 03/05/06
Development (B): EXTERNAL WORKS TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ACCESS TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL RAMPS TOGETHER WITH HANDRAILS, NEW PEDESTRIAN / WHEELCHAIR ACCESS PATHS, RAMPED AND LEVEL CROSSINGS, CAR PARK RESURFACING, AN ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE TO THE FOYER, ILLUMINATED, COLLAPSIBLE AND NON-ILLUMINATED BOLLARDS TO CAR PARK AND ACCESS PATHS, THE AUTOMATION OF EXISTING ENTRANCE DOORS AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE AREA WITHIN THE BUILDING. (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
LBH Ref Nos: 187/APP/2006/29
Drawing Nos: INDEX TO ACCESS STATEMENT (REVISION 5), 2005/0018/01, 2005/0018/02L AND 2005/0018/02R 2005/0018/05A, 2005/0018/06C, 2005/0018/07A, 2005/0018/08A, 2005/0018/09, 2005/0018/010 AND 2005/0018/013 RECEIVED 03/05/06.
Date of receipt: 25/01/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 03/05/06
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 105
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS CONSULTATIONS:
External
The development has been advertised as works affecting a Listed Building and as development within a Conservation Area.
57 adjoining neighbours were consulted. 2 letters of objection were received; the points raised are as follows:
(i) Vital details of the proposed street lighting (number of lights and height of lights) not available on the plans. (ii) Concern that the street lighting within the car park could intrude into the neighbouring residential properties and become a nuisance. The current level of night time illumination is quite acceptable. (iii) Object to the Council wasting money by sending the letter of consultation twice.
Ickenham Conservation Area Panel No objections, application is acceptable.
Very detailed drawings accompany this application but it would be beneficial if the different ground levels were also shown on the layout plans. In particular entrance 1c could need steps. Overall this panel considers that the scheme has no significant effect on the building, but is designed to improve its access and therefore potential usage, which is highly meritable.
However the continuing constraints on available parking space are unfortunate. The Panel is disappointed that there does not appear to be any increase in overall parking provision, especially in view of the open land around the Arts Centre. We appreciate that much thought has been given to the detail of this scheme but overall increased parking facilities would be much appreciated.
Ickenham Residents Association No comments received.
Environment Agency No comments received.
Uxbridge Local History and Archive No comments received. Society
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 106
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
English Heritage English Heritage have visited the site and been consulted on the amended plans. A response is expected but has not been received as yet. Once received the comments will be reported to Committee in writing.
Internal
Urban Design/Conservation Acceptable with conditions
There were concerns, also expressed by English Heritage, about the scale of the proposed ramps, paving, and the loss of some of the green setting of this Listed Building in Ickenham Conservation Area.
The drawings are now in line with the negotiated position, and thus acceptable in principle. Conditions are suggested however regarding the requirement for approval of details of the Box Office sign, the ‘fire signage and emergency lighting’ the compacted bitumen bound hogging for the north path, the size and colours of ‘wheelchair symbols’ and ‘directional signs’. There should also be submitted details of ‘wheelchair ramp/path crossing north south across the car park’, which should be a path rather than a ramp.
Samples of paving, plain and tactile, will also be necessary.
Projects & Environmental Planning PEP have no ‘in principle’ objection to this proposal
Site The proposal site is located in land designated as Green Belt and 1998 Conservation Area. The site, situated opposite Ickenham tube station, is accessed from Glebe Avenue via an access road.
London Plan Policy 3D.8 states that the Mayor will
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 107
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS and Boroughs should maintain the protection of the Green Belt from inappropriate development except in very special circumstances.
The London Plan provides strategic direction to local authorities to provide a consistent approach to the delineation of Conservation Areas rather than specific guidance addressing development within these areas (Policy 4C.11 Conservation Areas).
Main Policy Issues
Land Use The main land use issue in relation to this development is proposed external works within a Green Belt and Conservation Area. The proposal will not result in a change in floor space or the use of existing buildings.
Green Belt UDP Green Belt policies seek to protect and enhance the Green Belt. Proposed works will not have significant adverse effects on the Green Belt. However, regard should be taken to Policies OL4, which safeguards the Green Belt and ensures the harmonisation of any proposed development.
Conservation Area The proposed development is located within a Conservation Area and new development under the terms of policy BE4 will be expected to preserve or enhance those features, which contribute to the special architectural and visual qualities of that area. Officers should consult Urban Design and Conservation Team.
Secondary Policy Issues
Car Parking There are 20 car parking spaces on the site and the proposal seeks to increase
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 108
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS car parking spaces to 22. The car parking standards ‘Parking Policies and Standards 2nd Deposit Draft’ allows for a maximum of 1 space per 5 theatre seats. The capacity of the auditorium is 158 and up to 32 car parking spaces are considered acceptable. The proposed 22 car parking spaces are within the maximum allowed and are therefore acceptable, subject to no objection being raised by traffic engineers on highways impact grounds.
Conclusion
PEP have no ‘in principle’ objection to this proposal.
Highways The proposed development would be a vast improvement on the existing vehicle and pedestrian access and layout situation. I therefore wholly recommend that the proposed development be given planning approval.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The applications relate to the Ickenham Hall, Campus Theatre Arts Centre on Glebe Avenue. The building is used as a theatre for entertainment and drama, as well as administrative offices and classrooms. The site lies north east of Glebe Avenue and comprises a single building almost centred within the site. This building comprises an original 1750’s Georgian house along with a linked theatre building, which was constructed in 1970’s. The two buildings are deemed conjoined for listing status purposes and can be regarded as one single Grade II Listed Building for the purposes of this report. Allocated car parking on this site lies to the south and south west of the building, together with the vehicular access to the site, which is approached via a tight hairpin bend off Glebe Avenue. The existing pedestrian access is currently from Glebe Avenue, via a set of external steps. The application site lies on a lower ground level than adjoining Glebe Avenue, and abuts London Transport land to the north west. The land to the north east of the site is public open space, and the rear gardens of Nos. 66 to 92 Lawrence Drive abut the site to the south east. The site lies within the Green Belt and as well as within the Ickenham Conservation Area as designated within the UDP.
2. The site has a long a varied planning history, none of which is of particular relevance to this application. Planning permission and Listed Building consent are sought for external works to provide an improved access within and around
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 109
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the building on this site under the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations & Approved Document (2004). The works would include the installation of external access ramps from the existing fire exit doors at the rear of the building together with the creation of a new pedestrian/wheelchair access path running behind the building and leading to an assembly point at the front of the building. The proposed works involve the levelling of the front entrance of the building, as well as the resurfacing of the car park and the creation of 3 disabled car parking spaces. The works would also involve the creation of a new box office entrance and the automation of the existing main set of double leaf entrance doors to the building, together with the installation of illuminated, collapsible and plain bollards on and around the proposed pedestrian/wheelchair access paths as well as emergency lights at the rear of the building. The proposed works to the main pedestrian and vehicular access points onto the site involve the refurbishment of the existing steps leading from Glebe Avenue; the creation of handrails at the bottom of these steps; as well as the creation of a pedestrian gate alongside the existing vehicular double gates onto the site. The improvement works to the aforementioned access points would involve the creation of two pedestrian/wheelchair access paths leading to the main entrance of the building.
3. A good portion of the site’s frontage lies 2m below the level of Glebe Avenue. The road then declines to a land level matching that of the site towards the far south east of the site at the tight hairpin bend off Glebe Avenue. Some trees and vegetation moderately screen the boundary shared with Glebe Avenue. The site abuts London Transport land to the north west, which includes several rail tracks. This boundary is more heavily vegetated and not open to members of the public. To the north east and east of this site is public open land and the rear gardens of the houses on Lawrence Drive, however this shared boundary also comprises some screening. Therefore the site is screened from outside locations.
4. The front (south and south west) of the site comprises the entrances to the site and the car parks. The works to this elevation involve the creation of a footpath alongside the existing vehicular access including the removal of the existing chain link fence alongside the vehicular access double gates and its replacement with a separate pedestrian access gate 3.9m high to match the height and design of the existing vehicular access double gates. The proposed pedestrian access gate would be 1.05m wide, and thus wheelchair accessible. The gate would have an externally illuminated place sign above, 0.6m high and 1.05m wide. This sign would have a maximum height above ground level of 2.9m. The proposed pedestrian footpath would be 1.5m wide and would be accessible via the pedestrian gate. This would comprise a straight path which would run parallel to the car parking spaces on this site, until the point close to the building, where this footpath would meet another proposed footpath at right angles; then run alongside the front of the building, and lead to the main entrance. The works to the main entrance involve the automation of the double width leaf doors as well as the creation of a new box office entrance comprising a new sign on the fascia above. The new entrance would comprise sliding doors to provide a clear 1.2m wide opening.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 110
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
5. Other works to the front (south and south west) of the site involve the creation of a pedestrian footpath to run along the front of the main building from the existing external steps leading from Glebe Avenue. This footpath would be 1.5m and would cross the existing paved area that leads to the unmarked parking area, which lies alongside the main building. This footpath narrows to 1.35m where it runs along the main building leading to the main entrance and comprises 6 illuminated bollards and 5 non-illuminated bollards alongside. The other works would involve the extension of the guardrails at the bottom of the steps, which would run perpendicular to the steps for a length of 5m; the guardrails would be 2m high. Other works around this area include the installation of associated signage and the installation of 3 illuminated bollards. The proposed works to the car park would involve the demarcation of 3 disabled car parking spaces together with the creation of a 1.8m wide footpath leading to the main entrance including a level access that would cross the vehicular access leading to the rear of this building (service area) diagonally. The proposed works would also involve the installation of 8 illuminated bollards.
6. The proposed works to the rear (north and north east) of the site involve the creation of an escape footpath to run around the rear of the building in a clock- wise direction, which would lead to the assembly point at the front (south and south west) of the building. This footpath would vary in places, between 1.39m and 1.75m in width and would be accessed from the existing 4 fire escape doors at various points along the rear flank of this building, some of which are to be rehung to open in the direction of escape. The works involve the creation of 4 external access ramps each outside the existing doors. Each would comprise a handrail with varying gradients; along with the installation of 1 illuminated bollard and 3 removable / socketed bollards around the escape footpath along with appropriate signage.
7. The works proposed to the building are not considered to be large in scale, or bulk and are not concentrated within a single area of the site. As such it is considered these would appear subordinate to the main building in compliance with policy BE15 of the UDP. Because of the screening around this site, whose access is also semi-concealed; and the difference in land levels of the surrounding area, views of these proposed works would mainly be restricted to the site and to a short stretch of Glebe Avenue; and as such the proposed works would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene or the character of the area. The application therefore complies with policies BE13 and BE19 of the UDP.
8. The nearest residential properties would be located within 11m of the proposed location of the illuminated bollards within the car park. However it is considered that vegetation and other boundary screening along this area would conceal the proposed illumination from these residential properties. Bollards by their nature do not normally exceed 1.5m in height, and as such a condition is recommended to ensure that the illumination to result would be at relatively low heights and would be glare free in keeping with policies BE21 and OE1 of the UDP. The proposal is therefore not considered to be detrimental to the
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 111
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS residential amenities of the residents of Lawrence Drive, whose back gardens vary between 6m and 15.5m deep.
9. The site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, however it is considered that due to varying levels of this part of Glebe Avenue, its limited visual impact, its restricted views from the surrounding conservation area, as well as by virtue of the scale of the works proposed, the proposal would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of this conservation area. Urban Design/Conservation have raised no objection to the proposal, which is considered to be in keeping with policy BE4 of the UDP.
10. The site lies within Green Belt land and is surrounded by Green Belt land to the north and north east, however it is considered that the vegetation and screening would restrict views of this site and as such the proposed works would not injure its openness nor visual amenities, in compliance with policies OL4 and OL5 of the UDP.
11. The works proposed to the Grade II Listed Building are considered to be of a scale and nature that would not detract from the setting or the character and appearance of the listed building and as such would be in keeping with other parts of the historic building in accordance with policies BE8 and BE10 of the UDP. The Urban Design/Conservation officer has raised no objections to the scheme, subject to conditions regarding the approval of details of the Box Office sign, the ‘fire signage and emergency lighting’, the compacted bitumen bound hogging for the north path, the size and colours of ‘wheelchair symbols’ and ‘directional signs’. The application is considered acceptable subject to the submission additional details of the proposed ‘wheelchair ramp/path crossing north south across the car park’, as well as samples of the proposed paving.
12. There are 20 marked car parking spaces on the site and the proposal seeks to increase the marked car parking spaces to 22. The interim car parking standards indicate a requirement for up to 32 car parking spaces. The proposal involves the marking out of 22 car parking spaces; this is considered an acceptable provision given that the proposed works relate to alterations rather than the extension and/or intensification of this theatre building. It is also considered acceptable in view of the existing additional unmarked car parking area south west of the building, which can accommodate up to 10 cars. The Highways Engineer has raised no objection and considers these works to be an improvement on the existing vehicle and pedestrian access and layout situation. No cycle parking has been designated. The interim car parking standards stipulate a minimum of 1 space per 3 theatre seats and an informative is recommended to ensure that future applications relating to this site incorporate this, in order to encourage cycle use in accordance with policy AM9 (iii) of the UDP.
13. The trees on the site are not affected by any Tree Preservation Orders, but the site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and on Green Belt land. There is no tree survey provided, but the application form confirms that the development work does not involve the removal of any trees. The application is
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 112
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the therefore considered to comply with policies BE4, BE38, and OL2 of the UDP, subject to conditions. Furthermore, a condition is recommended to ensure that the trees on site are protected during the duration of the works on the site.
14. 57 adjoining neighbours were consulted and 2 letters of objection were received. With regard to points (i) and (ii), the lighting referred to on the south and south east elevation relates to illuminated bollards, which by design do not exceed a height of 1.5m. A condition is recommended to ensure that the lighting to result is at relatively low levels and provides glare free illumination, in keeping with policies BE21 and OE1 of the UDP. The proposed emergency lighting would be installed on the rear flank of the building, away from residential properties. Point (iii), records indicate that the adjoining neighbours were consulted only once and only on planning application ref. 187/APP/2006/30. The Ickenham Conservation Area Panel were also consulted and have raised concerns that there is no increase in the overall parking provision, and suggested more detailed level drawings be provided especially since the Panel considered that entrance 1c could need steps. The first point is addressed in paragraph 9 above. With regard to the latter point raised during a site visit with the applicant, English Heritage and the Urban Design/Conservation officer deemed the access ramp to the main entrance as too dominant and as such requested amended plans, which have been submitted. These plans propose to afford access to the new and existing entrances by raising and adjusting the levels of the paving and road in order to bring the levels up to theatre entrance floor level; therefore obviating the need for steps.
15. Conditional Planning Permission and conditional Listed Building Consent are recommended for approval.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 113
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION (A): APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (T8) Time Limit (3 years) 1. (T8) Standard
2. (M2) External Surfaces to 2. (M2) Standard Match Existing Building
3. (OM1) Development in 3. (OM1) Standard Accordance with Approved Plans
4. All the facilities designed 4. To ensure that adequate specifically to meet the needs facilities are provided for of people with disabilities that people with disabilities in are shown on the approved accordance with policies AM13 plans shall be provided prior to and R16 of the Hillingdon the completion of the Unitary Development Plan. construction works in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
5. Notwithstanding the details of 5. To ensure that the the submitted plans, no development presents a development shall take place satisfactory appearance in until details of the wheelchair accordance with Policy BE13 ramp/path crossing north of the Hillingdon Unitary south across the car park Development Plan.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 114
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS leading from the proposed pedestrian gate, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities should be completed as an integral part of the development, in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
6. Notwithstanding the details of 6. To ensure that the the submitted plans, no development presents a development shall take place satisfactory appearance in until details of the compacted accordance with Policy BE13 bitumen bound hogging for the of the Hillingdon Unitary north path have been Development Plan. submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities should be These facilities should be completed as an integral part of the development, in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
7. Notwithstanding the details of 7. To ensure that the the submitted plans, no development presents a development shall take place satisfactory appearance in until details and/or samples of accordance with Policy BE13 the proposed paving, both of the Hillingdon Unitary plain and tactile, to be used Development Plan. have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities should be These facilities should be completed as an integral part of the development, in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
8. Prior to the installation of the 8. To ensure minimal glare and illuminated bollards and light pollution to nearby emergency lighting, a full properties in compliance with
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 115
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS detailed design shall be Policies BE21 and OE1 of the submitted to and approved in Hillingdon Unitary writing by the Local Planning Development Plan. Authority showing light intensity and louvers or cowling to direct the light downwards. This lighting should be installed in accordance with the approved plans.
9. No development shall take 9. To ensure that the place until section plans of the development relates site showing the changes in satisfactorily to adjoining levels at the front entrance and properties in accordance with along the rear footpath have policy BE13 of the Hillingdon been submitted to and Unitary Development Plan. approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such levels shall be shown in relation to a fixed and know datum point. Thereafter the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
10. (TL3) Protection of trees and 10. (TL3) Standard plants during site clearance and development
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to GRANT Planning Permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE8 Planning applications for alteration or extension of listed buildings BE9 Listed building consent applications for alterations or extensions BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 116
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities AM14 New development and car parking standards OL4 Green Belt - replacement or extension of buildings OL5 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area 3. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 4. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 5. (3) Building Regulations - Demolition and Building Works 6. You are advised that future applications relating to this site should incorporate covered and secured cycle parking this in order to encourage cycle use in accordance with policy AM9 (iii). 7. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 8. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts. 9. You are advised that that the wheelchair ramp/path crossing north south across the car park leading from the proposed pedestrian gate, should be a path, rather than a ramp, and that additional and/or samples of the proposed paving are sought to satisfy condition 5 above.
RECOMMENDATION (B): LISTED BUILDING CONSENT, subject to the following conditions: -
1. (CAC1) Time Limit- Listed 1. (CAC1) Standard Building Consent (3 years)
2. (CAC4) Making good of any 2. (CAC4) Standard damage
3. No development shall take 3. To ensure that the place until details of the Box development presents a Office sign, the ‘fire signage’; satisfactory appearance in the size and colours of accordance with Policy BE13 ‘wheelchair symbols’ and of the Hillingdon Unitary ‘directional signs’ have been Development Plan. submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 117
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Authority. The signage should be installed prior to the completion of construction works on this site, in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to GRANT Listed Building Consent has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
2. The decision to GRANT Listed Building Consent has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE8 Planning applications for alteration or extension of listed buildings BE9 Listed building consent applications for alterations or extensions BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building
Contact Officer: LUNGILE MNGADI Telephone No: 01895-277948
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 118
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 119
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 120
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 8 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 79 DULVERTON ROAD, RUISLIP
Development: ERECTION OF A FIRST FLOOR SIDE AND PART REAR EXTENSION
LBH Ref Nos: 11672/APP/2006/328
Drawing Nos: Site plan at scale 1:200, Existing front elevation, existing side elevation, existing rear elevation, existing first floor received 06/03/06, Drawing No. OSM 427-12 Dul-06 received 25/04/06
Date of receipt: 06/03/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 25/04/06
CONSULTATIONS:
11 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted. No responses have been received.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The application site is located on the north-eastern corner of Dulverton Road and Dawlish Drive and comprises a semi-detached two-storey house with single storey side and part-rear extension. The street is generally characterised by terraced properties. The site lies within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the UDP.
2. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor side and part-rear extension. The first floor side and rear extension would be built on top of an existing ground floor extension and would measure 3m wide and 7.6m deep.
3. The proposal is brought before the Planning Committee as the extension would breach the building line along Dulverton Road. The extent of the breach would be minimal and is not considered to impact detrimentally on the character of the street.
4. The two-storey extension would be built with a hipped roof. The design is considered acceptable and is not considered to harm the appearance of the house. The adjoining semi has a similar two-storey rear extension that has also been designed with a hipped roof. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP.
5. This is a resubmission of a previously refused scheme. The current scheme has been revised to provide a hipped roof to the first floor extension and the width of the rear first floor component has also been reduced to provide a more satisfactory design outcome. The scale, siting and design of the proposed
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 121
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS extension are now considered to harmonise with the existing house when viewed from the rear of the site.
6. There are two windows proposed at first floor level within the rear elevation of the extension. Both of the proposed windows provide natural light to bathrooms and are not considered to result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The proposal complies with policy BE24 of the UDP and design principle 5 from the Council’s design guide “Residential Layouts and House Design”.
7. The proposal would be of a similar design to that of the adjoining property at 1 Dawlish Drive. The proposal would not result in the unbalancing of the pair of semi-detached pair in accordance with adopted policy.
8. There would be no change in the current car parking arrangements on site. The proposed extension would not give rise to a significant increase in traffic to and/or from the site.
9. The proposed development would retain adequate private rear amenity space for occupiers of the house in accordance with policy BE23 of the UDP.
10. The proposed extensions comply with the relevant policies of the UDP and, as such, approval of the application is recommended.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 122
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: -
1. (T8) Time Limit – full planning 1. (T1) Standard application- 3 years
2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard existing building
3. (RPD1) No additional windows 3. (RPD1) Standard or doors – 77 Dulverton Road and 1 Dawlish Drive
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
BE13: Layout and appearance of new development, BE19: New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area, BE20: Daylight and sunlight considerations, BE21: Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions, BE22: Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys, BE23: External amenity space and new residential development, BE24: Design of new buildings – protection of privacy,
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 123
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BE38: Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals, AM7: Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments, AM14: New development and car parking standards Design Guide “Residential Extensions”: A.1 and A.2 – Building lines and return building lines A.3 – Outlook and Over domination; A.4 – Visual Impact; A.5 – Design of extensions to be in keeping with the character of the existing building and area; B1 – front extensions B2 – single storey and two storey side extensions B3 – Single storey and two storey rear extensions. 3. (1) Development in accordance with approved drawings 4. (2) Encroachment 5. (3) Building Regulations 6. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 7. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 8. (47) Damage to Verge 9. (51) Commencement of Works
Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No: 07849471539
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 124
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 125
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 126
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 9 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 4 BURLINGTON CLOSE, PINNER
Development: ERECTION OF A PART SINGLE, PART TWO STOREY REAR/SIDE EXTENSION
LBH Ref Nos: 61789/APP/2006/1215
Drawing Nos: 1:1250 Location Plan, burlingtonclose-4/0, /2, /5 received 24/04/06 and /1a, /3a, /6a and /8a, received 02/06/06
Date of receipt: 24/04/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 02/06/06
CONSULTATIONS:
9 adjoining owner/occupiers have been notified. 1 letter of objection has been received making the following comments:
(i) No objections to the ground floor rear extension; (ii) Two storey rear extension would block light to 5 Burlington Close; (iii) It would be out of keeping with the surrounding area; (iv) It would be visually intrusive when viewed from 5 Burlington Close, (v) Would affect property values; (vi) 5 Burlington Close was not permitted to have a two storey rear extension. It would amount to discrimination if it were allowed.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The application site is located on the north side of Burlington Close and comprises a detached two storey house with a part single storey side garage, which projects beyond the rear wall of the house. To the north east is 5 Burlington Close, a two storey detached house with a single storey rear extension approved in 2002. To the south west is 3 Burlington Close, also a two storey detached house, with a part single storey rear extension approved in March 2004. The application site forms part of a recently developed residential estate comprising a distinctive design pattern of detached two storey houses. The application site lies within the developed area as identified in the UDP.
2. The proposed single storey rear extension measures 9.1m wide extending across the full width of the house and the rear of the existing side garage. It would be 3.25m deep from the main rear wall, and 1.15m deep beyond the rear wall of the garage. The part single storey rear extension attached to the main rear wall would be finished with a mono-pitched roof 2.5m high at eaves level and 3.4m high at its highest point. The part single storey rear element attached to the rear wall of the existing garage would be finished with a gable end roof 2.5m high at eaves level and 3.3m high at ridge level.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 127
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3. The part first floor element has been reduced from 4.35m wide to 3.3m wide. It would project 3.25m deep and be finished with a gable end roof set 1.4m below the roof ridge of the main house.
4. The principle of a single storey rear extension has been established by the grant of planning permission at 3 and 5 Burlington Close. The proposed part single storey rear extension is considered to relate satisfactorily to the appearance of the house. It would appear subordinate and is not considered to detract from the appearance of the surrounding area.
5. The rear of this part of Burlington Close comprises two distinctive house designs; a gable end and a hipped roof design. The first floor would be in keeping with these design features. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and design principles A4 and A5.
6. The proposed rear extension would not project beyond the rear wall of the existing rear extension at 3 Burlington Close and would be set 2m from the flank wall of the existing rear extension at 5 Burlington Close. Furthermore, the part first floor would be 4.1m from the side boundary with 3 Burlington Close and 4.2m from the side boundary with 5 Burlington Close. It is considered that these distances will ensure that the proposal would not have a visually intrusive nor overdominant impact on the adjoining houses. There are no windows facing the adjoining houses and there are no windows at the adjoining houses that would be affected by the development.
7. The new rear facing first floor window would be approximately 17m from the rear private amenity space of 235 Tolcarne Drive, contrary to design principle 5 of the Design Guide: Residential Layout and House Design. Which indicated that a minimum distance of 21m is an adequate separation. However, the rear windows of 2 and 3 Burlington Close are within 21m of that private amenity space. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would significantly reduce privacy over and above the current situation. The existing side garage at 6 Burlington Close would screen views onto that property’s private amenity space from the proposed first floor rear window.
8. Due to the orientation of the application site with the adjoining properties, the proposal would not result in a significant increase in overshadowing onto 3 Burlington Close over and above that created by the application property and side garage. As the proposal would project beyond the rear wall of 5 Burlington Close, it would result in an increase in overshadowing during the afternoon hours. However, this increase is not considered to be so significant as to justify the reason for refusal.
9. The proposal would comply with Policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP and design principle A3.
10. Sufficient amenity space would be retained and off-street parking will not be affected by the development.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 128
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 11. With regard to third party comments, points (i) to (iv) are addressed in the report. Point (v) is not a material planning consideration and on point (vi), each application is determined on its individual merit.
12. This application is recommended for approval.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions: -
1. (T8) Time Limit – 3 years 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to 2. (M2) Standard
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 129
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS match existing building 3. (OM1) Development in 3. (OM1) Standard accordance with Approved Plans (REASON: “… policies BE13 and BE15”) 4. (RPD1) No additional windows 4. (RPD1) Standard or doors – facing “3, 5 and 6 Burlington Close and 235 Tolcarne Drive”
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
BE13 – new development to harmonise with the existing street scene. BE15 – extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural composition and proportions of the original building. BE19 – new development to complement and improve the amenity and character of the area. BE20 – ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are safeguarded. BE21 – siting, bulk and proximity of extensions not to result in a significant loss of residential amenity. road network AM14 – Car parking standards
SPG: Residential Extensions – A3 – Impact of mass bulk and overlooking. A4 – visual impact of a development. A5 – Design of extensions / materials. 3. (1) – Building to Approved Drawing 4. (3) – Building Regulations 5. (4) – Neighbourly Consideration 6. (6) – Property Rights/Rights of Light 7. (51) Notice of intent to start work
Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 07985 731898
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 130
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 131
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 132
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 10 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 88 PINNER ROAD, NORTHWOOD
Development: ERECTION OF PART SIDE GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR, AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION INCLUDING NEW REAR DORMER WINDOW
LBH Ref Nos: 46132/APP/2006/1389
Drawing Nos: 1:1250 Location Plan, PR/06/1 and 2A, received 12/05/06
Date of receipt: 12/05/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS:
7 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. No comments have been received.
Northwood Hills No comments received Residents’ Association
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The application site is located on the north side of Pinner Road and comprises a two storey terraced house with a cat slide rear roof slope over a rear projection with a flat-roofed rear dormer window. To the east lies 86 Pinner Road and to the west lies 90 Pinner Road. Both houses are similar in design and appearance, however 90 Pinner Road has been extended with a single storey rear infill extension with roof over and rear extension, and an additional dormer window. The street scene is residential in character and appearance comprising a mix of two storey terraced, detached and semi-detached houses. The application site lies within the developed area as identified in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
2. The proposed infill single storey rear extension would project to the rear wall of the original house and be set 900mm off the side boundary with 86 Pinner Road. It would measure 1.9m wide and 2.7m deep. The existing cat slide roof extend over the proposed rear extension matching the eaves over the existing projection. A dormer window is proposed above, measuring 1.7m wide, 1.5m deep and 1.5m high with a flat roof. It would be set 2.3m to the left of the existing dormer window and would achieve more than 600mm gaps to the eaves and roof ridge and a 300mm gap to the edge of the new roof.
3. A single storey rear extension is proposed projecting across the full width of the house and the proposed rear infill. It would measure 3.1m deep, 8.5m wide and be finished with a flat roof 2.95m high.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 133
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4. The proposed infill rear extension with roof over and single storey rear extension are considered to relate satisfactorily to the appearance of the original house and the surrounding area. It would match that which exists at 90 Pinner Road, which was approved in May 2001. Although the proposed rear dormer window would not maintain a 600mm gap to the edge of the roof, contrary to design principle B4, it is of a size that would not appear overdominant on the roof plane and would be similar to that which exists at 90 Pinner Road. As such the proposal would not detract from the visual amenities of the surrounding area, in accordance with policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and design principles A4 and A5 of the design guide: ‘Residential Extensions’.
5. The proposed rear extension would maintain a 900mm separation gap to the side boundary with 86 Pinner Road and would match the depth of the rear extension at 90 Pinner Road. The rear door of 86 Pinner Road lies adjacent to the side boundary. As such, the proposal is unlikely to have an overdominant and visually intrusive impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers. No windows are proposed facing 90 Pinner Road and the existing side boundary would prevent overlooking from the proposed side door and window facing 86 Pinner Road. The rear dormer window would overlook the rear garden and is not considered to significantly increase overlooking over and above the current situation.
6. As the rear of these properties face north, the proposal would result in an increase in overshadowing onto 90 Pinner Road during the morning hours and onto 86 Pinner Road during the afternoon hours. However, these increases are not considered to be so significant as to justify the reason for refusal. The proposal would comply with policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP and design principles A3 and B3 of the design guide: ‘Residential Extensions’.
7. Sufficient amenity space would be retained and off-street parking will not be affected by the development.
8. This application is recommended for approval.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life);
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 134
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions: -
1. (T8) Time Limit – 3 years 1. (T8) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard existing building 3. (M6) Boundary Fencing – retention 3. (M6) Standard – “on the boundary with “86 & 90 Pinner Road” 4. (RPD4) Prevention of 4. (RPD4) Standard Balconies/Roof Gardens 5. (RPD1) No Additional Doors or 5. (RPD1) Standard Windows Facing 86 Pinner Road
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 135
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 – new development to harmonise with the existing street scene. BE15 – extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural composition and proportions of the original building. BE19 – new development to complement and improve the amenity and character of the area. BE20 – ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are safeguarded. BE21 – siting, bulk and proximity of extensions not to result in a significant loss of residential amenity. BE23 – sufficient external amenity space BE24 – design to protect privacy of occupiers and neighbours
SPG: Residential Extensions – A3 – Impact of mass bulk and overlooking. A4 – visual impact of a development. A5 – Design of extensions / materials. B3 – Single storey and two storey rear extensions 3. (1) – Building to Approved Drawing 4. (3) – Building Regulations 5. (4) – Neighbourly Consideration 6. (5) – Party Walls 7. (6) – Property Rights/Rights of Light 8. (51) - Notice of intent to start work
Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 01604 883629
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 136
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 137
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 138
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS B Item No. 11 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 22 THE GREENWAY, ICKENHAM
Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY BUILDING FOR USE FOR CHILDMINDING FOR 3 CHILDREN (CLASS D1) (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE).
LBH Ref Nos: 57121/APP/2006/306
Drawing Nos: Drawing Nos. One, One A, Two, Two A, Three, Three A, Four, Five and Six, Site Location Plan scale 1:1250 – received 07/03/2006, Letter dated 19/5/2006 – received 25/5/2006
Date of receipt: 7/03/2006 Date of amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS:
27 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. One letter of objection has been received raising the following issues:
(i) Allowing a business in a residential property will set a precedent for others; (ii) The size of the development is out of proportion with the surrounding dwellings; (iii) The new crossover would reduce available space for on-street parking; (iv) There will be noise disturbance if this proposal is allowed
Highways Engineer No objection to the proposed development, as the parking provision will serve a dual use: provision for the child minding during the daytime and provision for the house during the evening.
A condition should be attached that only the permanent resident of 22 The Greenway be permitted to run the nursery, given the dual use of the parking spaces.
Ickenham Residents’ Association No comments received.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The site is located on the northern side of The Greenway, Ickenham, and comprises a two-storey semi-detached house with an existing single-storey garage at the end of the rear garden. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached houses. The site lies within the Developed Area as identified in the Unitary Development Plan.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 139
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey detached building to be used as a childcare facility for 3 children. The building would measure 10.5m wide and 4.7m deep, with a hipped roof measuring 2.45m high to the eaves and 4.2m to the ridge.
3. Planning permission (57121/APP/2005/1039) for a similar scheme was refused in June 2005 for the following reason:
The proposal fails to provide adequate car parking and, as such, is likely to result in on-street car parking to the detriment of pedestrian and highway safety, contrary to Policies R12, AM14 and AM7(ii) of the Unitary Development Plan.
4. The proposed building would be situated at the bottom of the rear garden adjacent to a large detached outbuilding constructed at the bottom of the garden of 2 The Greenway. The building would not be sited in close proximity to any of the adjoining houses and is unlikely to result in a loss of residential amenity to these houses by reason of over-dominance, loss of outlook or loss of privacy. The proposal accords with Policy BE19 of the UDP
5. The proposed structure is single storey and would not result in a loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties in accordance with policy BE20 of the UDP.
6. The proposed development would result in the retention of adequate private amenity space for the existing house at 22 The Greenway in accordance with policy BE23 of the UDP.
7. The proposed use of the building for childminding would generate the need for additional parking for parents dropping off and picking up children. The application shows that an existing garage would be demolished to make way for the outbuilding. Following the reason for refusal of the previous (similar) proposal, which relates to inadequate parking provision, the applicant is now proposing to have two, tandem off-street parking spaces. The two parking spaces would be sited in the garden in front of the proposed building and accessed from a new crossover from The Greenway. The applicant will need to seek a separate consent from the Highway Authority to close the existing crossover and create a new crossover to access the proposed parking. The car parking spaces are intended to serve a dual purpose: as a set down and pick up area for parents during the day and as a parking area for occupiers of the dwellinghouse during evenings and weekends. The Council’s Traffic Engineer considers this arrangement acceptable.
8. The applicant has provided a statement with regard to the use of the proposed building and the parking spaces. The parking area and the grassed area alongside are to serve as the play area for the children. This arrangement is considered to be acceptable given the limited period of time when the spaces will be used in the daytime for parking. It is considered that, due to the small number of children (three) to be catered for at any given time, the proposal would not have any significant adverse impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining properties and surroundings nor be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety. As such, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy AM7(ii) of the UDP.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 140
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 9. Policy R12 of the UDP sets out the criteria under which a proposal for childminding would be permitted. The criteria are:
(i) The proposal does not result in the loss of any units of residential accommodation; (ii) The proposal does not lead to conditions prejudicial to the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway; (iii) Parking provision is in accordance with the Council's adopted standards; and (iv) The proposal, by reason of noise and general activity, does not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residential properties.
10. The provision of child-care facilities within a residential area is a use that is often welcomed. It is considered that the proposal would not result in the loss of any residential unit nor lead to conditions prejudicial to safety and free flow of traffic. The proposal accords with the Council’s adopted parking standards and would not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residential properties by way of noise and general activities due to its small scale and the small number of children to be catered for. It is therefore considered that the use of part of the application site for business purposes accords with Policies BE19, BE20, BE21, OE1, OE3, R12, AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
11. Issues (ii) and (iv) raised by the objector have been addressed in the body of this report.
On issue (i), it should be noted that every application is considered on its own merit. The merit of this proposal has been assessed according to laid down criteria as set out in paragraph 9 and deemed to accord with Policy R12. As such, it is not considered that the approval of this scheme would set a precedent.
(iii), the existing crossover is to be replaced by a new crossover. As such, there is no net loss in on-street parking.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL – Subject to the following conditions: -
1. (T8) Time Limit 1. (T8) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard existing building 3. The use hereby permitted shall 3. In order to ensure that the be carried on only by Miss Gunu approved mode of operation is Gohil. The use shall cease when strictly adhered to and to ensure the premises (22 The Greenway) that the use of the application cease to be occupied by Miss site is not sub-divided in Gunu Gohil and all materials and accordance with Policies BE19, equipment brought on to the OE1, OE3, AM7 and AM14 of the premises in connection with the Hillingdon Unitary Development use shall be removed Plan. 4. The premises shall not be used 4. To ensure that the amenity of the except between 08:00hours and occupiers of adjoining or nearby
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 141
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 18:30 hours Mondays to Fridays, properties is not adversely and at no other time including affected in accordance with Bank Holidays. Policy OE3 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 5. The use of the building hereby 5. To ensure that the amenity of the approved shall be limited to only occupiers of adjoining or nearby 3 children during operating properties is not adversely hours. affected in accordance with Policies OE1, OE3 and AM7 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 6. The premises shall be used for 6. To enable the Local Planning childminding and for no other Authority to assess all the purpose (including any other implications of any other uses purpose in Class D1 of the within its Use Class. Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987) (as amended). Should the use hereby approved cease, the approved building shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the use of the dwellinghouse. 7. (H7) Parking Arrangements 7. (H7) Standard (Residential)
INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2 The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance mitigation measures R12 Use of premises to provide child care facilities
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 142
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS M7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards. 3. (1) Building to Approved Plans 4. (3) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 5. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 6. (5) Party Walls 7. (6) Property Rights/ Rights to Light 8. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts 9. (15) Control of Environmental nuisance from Construction Work 10. (23) Works affecting the public highway –Vehicle Cross-Over 11. (51) Commencement of Works 12. To promote the development of sustainable building design and construction methods, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources, which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems and use of high quality insulation.
Contact Officer: RAPHAEL ADENEGAN Telephone No: 07849471539
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 143
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 144
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 145
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS B Item No. 12 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: WEYBEARDS FARM, HILL END ROAD, HAREFIELD
Development(A): CONTINUED USE OF YARD FOR STORAGE OF CARAVANS (RENEWAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 42197/APP/20060/2711, DATED 22-06-2001)
LBH Ref Nos: 42197/APP/2006/1816
Drawing Nos: 1:2500 Location Plan received 20/06/06
Date of receipt: 20/06/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
Address: WEYBEARDS FARM, HILL END ROAD, HAREFIELD
Development(B): CONTINUED USE OF CARAVAN STORAGE AREA ADJACENT TO FARM ACCESS TRACK (RENEWAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 42197/APP/20060/1622, DATED 21-11-2001)
LBH Ref Nos: 42197/APP/2006/1817
Drawing Nos: 1:2500 Location Plan received 20/06/06
Date of receipt: 20/06/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS (A) & (B):
3 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. No comments have been received
Harefield Tenants and No comments received Residents’ Association
Ickenham Residents’ No comments received Association Policy & Environmental No comments received Planning
KEY PLANNING ISSUES (A) & (B):
1. Weybeards Farm lies on the northern outskirts of Harefield Village immediately abutting the former north wards site at Harefield Hospital. The farm holdings comprise approximately 24 acres and lies some 150m to the west of Hill End Road. The application sites comprise an open yard located to the south of two barns and on land to the north of the farm buildings. The surrounding area is open countryside and the application site lies within the Green Belt and within the Colne Valley Regional Park, as identified in the Unitary Development Plan
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 146
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2. Planning permission is sought for the continued use of the site for the storage of caravans on these two sites on a permanent basis.
3. There have been several temporary planning permissions for the storage of caravans on the farm. Planning permission for the continued use of part of a field for the storage of touring caravans was approved for a temporary period of one year on 6/1/89 (ref: 42197/88/1906). That application was approved for a limited period due to the site’s Green Belt status and as there were few sites suitable for storage of caravans in the Borough.
4. Planning permission for the change of use of land for the storage of caravans was approved for a limited period until 16/01/01 (ref: 42197/C/91/1520). That application was approved on the basis that while the proposal was contrary to Green Belt policy, there were difficulties in achieving a reliable income from the land while concentrating on pig farming. The existing caravan parking area was well managed and screened the site from adjacent roads although it could be seen from an adjacent footpath, and the use took caravans out of the front gardens of houses from a wide area surrounding the site.
5. A planning application (ref: 4219/APP/2000/2711) for the continued use of the yard for storage of caravans was recommended for refusal at the former Ruislip/Northwood Planning Committee. Members resolved to grant temporary planning permission in June 2001 for a further 5 years subject to a condition requiring the applicant to submit, for the approval of the local planning authority, a hedge planting scheme within 4 months of the date of that permission (October 2001). No scheme was submitted.
6. A planning application (ref: 42197/APP/2001/1622) for the continued use of caravan storage adjacent to the farm access track was approved for a limited period for 5 years in November 2001. That application also included a condition requiring a hedge planting scheme to be submitted for approval within 4 months from the date of that permission. No scheme was submitted.
7. The application site lies within the Green Belt. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG 2): Green Belts and Policy OL1 of the UDP make a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt, except for a number of prescribed uses set out in PPG2 and Policy OL1. The proposal does not fall within the uses listed in PPG2 and Policy OL1 as exceptions to restrictions on development in the Green Belt and is therefore considered to be inappropriate development. To establish the principle for the development ‘very special circumstances’ would need to be demonstrated for inappropriate development.
8. No ‘very special circumstances’ have been provided by the applicant to justify granting permission for an inappropriate Green Belt use. However, under previous planning applications, the applicant has given a number of reasons to justify the development:-
(i) There are few sites suitable for storage of caravans in the Borough – while this may have had some merit in the past, no evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the applicant has actively sought
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 147
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS alternative sites. Summerhouse Lane Industrial and Business Area lies some 300m to the west of the application site. Class B8 storage uses are acceptable within such areas.
(ii) There were difficulties in achieving a reliable income from the land while concentrating on pig farming – it is understood that pig farm has ceased on this site.
(iii) The existing caravan parking area was well managed and screened, the site was screened from adjacent roads although it could be seen from an adjacent footpath - the fact that the site is not widely publicly visible does not make the proposed use acceptable in the Green Belt. The proposed uses are unacceptable by definition.
(iv) The use took caravans out of the gardens of houses from a wide area surrounding the site – this implied that storage of caravans in all front gardens is implicitly unacceptable. This is not necessarily the case and certainly storage in the Green Belt is unacceptable by definition.
9. Temporary planning permissions have been granted on these sites. Government Guidance in Circular 11/95: The Use of Planning Conditions, advises at paragraph 112 that:
“A second temporary permission should not normally be granted. A trial period should be set that should be sufficiently long for it to be clear by the end of the first permission whether permanent permission or a refusal is the right answer. Usually a second temporary permission will only be justified where highway or redevelopment proposals have been postponed, or in cases of hardship where temporary instead of personal permission has been granted for a change of use”.
10. The approvals in 2001, for a limited period, were granted on the grounds that the sites were not widely publicly visible and additional hedge screening and planting would further limit public visibility. The applicant did not comply with theses conditions. Nevertheless, the important aspect about Green Belt is its openness, which cannot be maintained if land is used for storage on a permanent or temporary basis. Additional planting will not overcome the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness.
11. Furthermore, sufficient time has lapsed for the applicant to find alternative sites for storage purposes. It therefore considered that there are no exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify departure from well-established Green Belt policies. The proposal is detrimental to the character and appearance of both the Green Belt and the Colne Valley Park, contrary to Policies OL1, and OL10 of the UDP.
12. These applications are recommended for refusal.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 148
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION (A): Planning Application 42197/APP/2006/1816 and (B) Planning Application 42197/APP/2006/1817 – REFUSAL, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt in that it is not one of the specified exceptions listed in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2): Green Belts and Policy OL1 of the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and, consequently, is considered harmful by definition. In this instance, there are no very
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 149
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS special circumstances sufficient to warrant a reversal of central government policy and local planning policies for the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Central Government Guidance and Policy OL1 of the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
2. The site is located within the Colne Valley Park where the broad aims and objectives include resisting urbanisation, safeguarding existing areas of land from inappropriate development, and maintaining and enhancing the landscape. The proposal to store caravans on the site would run counter to the aims and objectives of the Colne Valley Park and is therefore considered unacceptable, contrary to Policy OL10 of the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
OL1 - Green Belt - acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new development OL10 - Colne Valley Park
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belt
Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 01604883629
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 150
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 1
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 151
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 2
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 152
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 153
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Item No. 13
NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS 01 June 2006 to 30 June 2006
(A) NEW APPEALS
1. Site Property: 24 Joel Street Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills Development: Change of use of ground and first floor from retail
shop (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3). Application Ref. No: 24663/APP/2005/3340 Appeal Ref. No: 5373 Start Date: 05.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 27.01.06
2. Site Property: 11 Torrington Road Ruislip Ward: Manor Development: Installation of a vehicular crossover Application Ref. No: 61558/APP/2006/301 Appeal Ref. No: 5374 Start Date: 08.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 29.03.06
3. Site Property: 195 Eastcote Road Ruislip Ward: Eastcote & East Ruislip Development: Retention of loft conversion to habitable accommodation involving the installation of two
side dormers and conversion of roof from hip to gable ends (retrospective application). Application Ref. No: 54004/APP/2006/616 Appeal Ref. No: 5375 Start Date: 14.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 26.04.06
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 154
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4. Site Property: 25 Joel Street Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills Development: Change of use from Class A1 (shops) to Class A3 (restaurants, snack bars, cafes) and Class A5 (takeaways) Application Ref. No: 56137/APP/2005/2824 Appeal Ref. No: 5377 Start Date: 15.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Local inquiry Information: Committee refusal 20.01.06
5. Site Property: 72A Briarwood Drive Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills Development: Erection of a single-storey front and part side extension and pitched roof over flat roof of existing front porch Application Ref. No: 61360/APP/2005/3294 Appeal Ref. No: 5378 Start Date: 15.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 28.02.06
6. Site Property: 8 Yeomans Acre Ruislip Ward: Eastcote & East Ruislip Development: Erection of a rear window dormer and roof extension at the rear elevation of the property (Appeal against enforcement notice; application
for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) Application Ref. No: 59216/APP/2006/1827 Appeal Ref. No: 5379 Start Date: 20.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against enforcement notice Procedure: Written representations Information:
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 155
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
7. Site Property: Mossleigh, Highfield Close, Northwood Ward: Northwood Development: Erection of six semi-detached and one detached
dwellinghouses (outline application) Application Ref. No: 61633/APP/2006/637 Appeal Ref. No: 5380 Start Date: 22.06.06 Basis for Appeal: against non-determination Procedure: hearing Information: Expiry 25.04.06
8. Footway opposite Wooler Car Care, 315 West Site Property: End Road, Ruislip Ward: South Ruislip Development: Installation of a 9.7 metre high monopole mobile phone mast and equipment cabinets (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 24 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995)(As Amended). Application Ref. No: 61418/APP/2006/726 Appeal Ref. No: 5381 Start Date: 20.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Committee refusal 25.04.06
9. Site Property: 21 Boldmere Road Eastcote Ward: Eastcote & East Ruislip Development: Erection of a first floor side extension. Application Ref. No: 1811/APP/2006/863 Appeal Ref. No: 5382 Start Date: 23.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 16.05.06
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 156
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
10. Site Property: Land forming part of 653 Field End Road Ruislip Ward: South Ruislip Development: Erection of a two storey one-bedroom attached dwellinghouse (involving demolition of existing side addition and garage). Application Ref. No: 61526/APP/2006/188 Appeal Ref. No: 5385 Start Date: 29.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Committee refusal 11.04.06
11. Site Property: The Homestead, Springwell Lane, Harefield Ward: Harefield Development: Extension to existing detached garage for
storage of classic cars Application Ref. No: 45675/APP/2005/2918 Appeal Ref. No: 5386 Start Date: 30.06.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 12.12.05
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 157
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
(B) APPEAL DECISIONS
1. Site Property: 17 Fairfield Avenue Ruislip Ward: West Ruislip Development: Conversion of roofspace into habitable accommodation involving installation of two side dormer windows Application Ref. No: 11056/APP/2005/2973 Appeal Ref. No: 5318 Appeal Decision Date: 09.06.06 Decision: Allowed Information: Delegated refusal 19.12.05 Inspector’s The dormers would ensure that the catslide roof conclusions would remain mostly in tact and prevent an unsightly extension as found elsewhere in the road. They would be subordinate to the house as required by the SPG and would not detract significantly from the openness of the streetscene.
2. Site Property: Land at 53-59 and rear of 61 & 63 Long Drive
Ruislip Ward: South Ruislip Development: Residential development of six dwelling houses and eighteen flats (involving demolition of 53 - 59 Long Drive) (Outline Application) Application Ref. No: 60523/APP/2005/1085 Appeal Ref. No: 5180 Appeal Decision Date: 07.06.06 Decision: withdrawn Information: Committee refusal 21.06.05
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 158
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3. Site Property: 51 Cheney Street Eastcote Ward: Eastcote & East Ruislip Development: Tree surgery to 14 western red cedars (G1) on
TPO 582 Application Ref. No: 50961/TRE/2005/68 Appeal Ref. No: 5276 Appeal Decision Date: 22.06.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 20.09.05 Inspector’s The Secretary of State dismissed the appeal, conclusions after the Inspector recommended that it should be allowed. The tree surgery would detract from the appearance of the area and have an
adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. The reasons for the surgery do not justify the harm it would cause to the amenity of the area.
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 159
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
PROJECTS & IMPLEMENTATION TEAM CONTACT OFFICER: Vanessa Scott/Jales Tippell EXTENSION: 7084
Item No.14 S.106/278 PLANNING AGREEMENTS - QUARTERLY FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT
SUMMARY
This report provides financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 31 March 2006, where the Council has received and holds funds.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members note the contents of this report.
INFORMATION
1. The Council is committed to implementing the recommendations in the District Audit’s ‘The Management of Planning Obligations’ Action Plan of May 1999 and relevant recommendations of the subsequent Monitoring Officer’s Report to Full Council on 18 January 2001. The Leader of the Council in his statement of May 2004 identified s106 as a key priority, i.e. ‘that s106 funds are spent to the maximum in a planned and effective way.”
2. The information contained in this report was reported to Cabinet on 20 July 2006 and updates the information received by Members in March 2006. The attached Appendix 1 provides updated financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 31 March 2006, where the Council has received and holds funds.
3. Appendix 1 shows the movement of income and expenditure taking place during the financial year. The agreements are listed under Cabinet portfolio headings. Text that is highlighted in bold indicates key changes since the previous report of March 2006. Figures shown in bold under the column headed ‘Total income as at 31/03/06’ indicate new income received. Agreements asterisked under the column headed ‘case ref’ are those where the Council holds funds but is unable to spend for a number of reasons. These include cases where the funds are held as a returnable security deposit for works to be undertaken by the developer and those where the expenditure is dependant on other bodies such as transport operators.
4. Members should note that in the Appendix, the ‘balances of funds’ held include funds that may already be committed for projects such as affordable housing and school expansion projects. Expenditure must be in accordance with the legal parameters of the individual agreements and must also serve a planning purpose and operate in accordance with legislation and Government guidance
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 160
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS in the form of Circular 05/2005. The Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations that provides the framework in which the Council will operate.
5. Members should also note that the listed “balances of funds”, i.e. the difference between income received and expenditure, is not a surplus. As explained in a previous report, a majority of the funds are linked to projects that are already underway or programmed but have not been drawn down against the relevant s106 (or s.278) cost centre. The column labelled “balance spendable not allocated” shows the residual balance of funds after taking into account funds that the Council is unable to spend and those that it has committed to projects.
Financial implications
6. This report provides information on the financial status on s106 and s278 agreements up to 31 March 2006. The recommendation to note has no financial implications.
CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Finance Corporate finance have seen this report and have no further comment to make.
Legal It is a requirement of the District Audit report into planning obligations and the Monitoring Officers report that regular financial statements are prepared.
EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
There are no external consultations required on the contents of this report.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
ODPM Circular 05/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’ District Auditor’s “The Management of Planning Obligations” Action Plan May 1999 Monitoring Officers Report January 2001 Cabinet Report December 2002 / March 2003 / October 2003 / January 2004 / June 2004 / September 2004 / November 2004 / March 2005 / July 2005 / October 2005 / December 2005 / March 2006 / July 2006 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations Adopted Dec 2003 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations – Health Facilities Adopted Dec 2004
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006 Page 161
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS FINANCIAL UPDATE ON SECTION 106 AND 278 AGREEMENTS AT 31 MARCH 2006 FOR NORTH AREA APPENDIX 1
CASE REF. WARD SCHEME / PLANNING TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL TOTAL 2005 / 2006 BALANCE OF BALANCE COMMENTS REFERENCE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE FUNDS SPENDABLE NOT (as at late June 2006) ALLOCATED
AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/3/06
SECTION 278 AGREEMENTS PORTFOLIO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATON PT278/26/127 South Ruislip 664 Victoria Rd S.Ruislip / 58,164.40 56,867.02 5,619.06 5,426.56 5,307.06 52,545.34 0.00 £50,430.02 was received on 27 January 2005 for payment of 27060/APP/2003/1105 the TTS estimate relating to the works to provide a pelican crossing on Victoria Road. £5,000 held as security deposit and £1,000 for engineering fees. Portion of security deposit used to make site safe. Additional fees income expected. £1,500 previously held here transferred to PT/44 (S278 surplus), as it relates to an earlier application for this site that was withdrawn and no agreement entered into. Await TfL and developer to progress. TfL on site, signal work in progress. Interest Accrued. No time constraints. PT278/38/116 South Ruislip MFI, Victoria Rd, Ruislip 2,957.00 17,550.96 2,957.00 2,957.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Highways works including traffic island on Field End Road (Includes 43510/APP/2000/2485 south of its junction with Victoria Road and access to site to be former undertaken by developer. £15k plus interest Security PT278/43) associated with highway works. 1.5k fees spent. Additional *12 HEC fees charged for 'stopping-up' order - to be reconcilled by s278 surplus funds or claiming of fees from developer. Security to be repaid upon issue of the Final Certificate. All works complete except traffic island, however, there are a number of objections to those works proceeding. 22 September 2005 North Planning Committee agreed not to commence with traffic island. Deed of Variation approaching execution. Refund drawn and final certificate to follow. PT278/46/135 Northwood 10A Sandy Lodge Way 7,458.07 7,458.07 2,458.00 2,458.00 1,652.00 5,000.07 0.00 Improvement of visibility for junction of Sandy Lodge Way & *32 Northwood 54671/APP/2002/54 Woodridge Way. ECU fees have been claimed and £5,000 security remains. Works substantially complete & currently in 12 month maintenance period, ending 16 September 2006.
PT278/56/136 Northwood 23B Green Lane Northwood 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 £1,000 plus a further £500 received for costs associated with (Howarth Homes) review of highway scheme - spent. 38244/APP/2005/993 SECTION 278 SUB - TOTAL 70,079.47 83,376.05 12,534.06 12,341.56 8,459.06 57,545.41 0.00
SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS PORTFOLIO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION PT/11/45 Harefield Springwell Lane - Cycle Way / 3,209.83 3,134.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,209.83 0.00 Towards traffic calming in Springwell Lane. Funds earmarked/ 6679/AZ/98/0897 committed towards traffic calming to benefit a cycle way. Awaiting release of Quiet Lanes legislation before scheme can progress. Traffic surveys completed and options being considered. Officers recommending 20m/hr speed zone and will shortly seek authorisation. interest accrued. Unexpended funds at January 2011 to be returned to the owner.
Page 1 of 6 S106 - 8 Aug 06.xls FINANCIAL UPDATE ON SECTION 106 AND 278 AGREEMENTS AT 31 MARCH 2006 FOR NORTH AREA APPENDIX 1
CASE REF. WARD SCHEME / PLANNING TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL TOTAL 2005 / 2006 BALANCE OF BALANCE COMMENTS REFERENCE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE FUNDS SPENDABLE NOT (as at late June 2006) ALLOCATED
AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/3/06 PT/17/69 Northwood Hills 53 Joel Street, Northwood / 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 Restricted parking scheme in and around the vicinity of Joel 5564/5/96/1728 Street. Scheme not in favour with residents - funds to be retained in case of a change in public opinion. 14 July Planning Committee agreed to pursue a deed of variation to spend funds on a shop front CCTV system in Joel Street, Northwood Hills. Funds spent on CCTV following deed of variation agreed. No time constraints. PT/25/56 South Ruislip J Sainsbury, 11 Long Drive, 35,400.57 34,570.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,400.57 0.00 Highway improvements in the vicinity of Long Drive with *24 Ruislip 33667/T/97/0684 Victoria Road. Legal advice stated that because of time that has elapsed, it would not be reasonable to proceed without Sainsbury's agreement. Currently liaising with Sainsbury's in that regard. Interest accrued. Excess funds are to be refunded to the developer following the date of the Final Account. PT/49/72 Northwood Land at 110 Ducks Hill Rd, 11,560.53 11,401.42 9,261.21 4,215.13 9,261.21 2,299.32 0.00 Highway improvements consisting of an island refuge to Northwood / 54381/APP/2001/289 reduce the speed of traffic to allow safe access and egress to (see: EYL/20) the development. Work substantially complete. Further charges made relating to works. Currently working with London Buses to resolve issue regarding bus stop. Remaining issue is with DDA compliance which will be resolved through TfL funded programme on Ducks Hill Road by removing pedestrian island - currently in design stage. Interest accrued. No time constraints. PT/53/60 Northwood 31-35 Ducks Hill Road, 45,000.00 45,000.00 26,340.97 26,340.97 0.00 18,659.03 0.00 Highway improvements consisting of an island refuge, the Northwood - Highways provision of a pedestrian crossing and associated works. (see: EYL/32) Improvements / Works substantially complete. Final account due to be issued 44987/APP/2001/404 following end of 12 month maintenance period - July 2006. The funds unspent at 11 July 2007 to be refunded. PT/57/27C South Ruislip Carmichael Close, Ruislip - 13,546.53 13,335.16 1,371.00 1,371.00 110.00 12,175.53 0.00 For highway improvements including a temporary waiting (see: EYL/35 & Highway Works / scheme. Designs received from HEC - currently looking at E/18) 55898/APP/2000/2736 feasibility. Unexpended funds after 5 years of the sale/renting *34 of the last housing unit (30 July 2008) to be repaid to the developer. No progress due to uncertainties associated with proposed development at RAF Northolt. RAF Northholt application approved which when implemented will include these highways works or deadline before refunding remaining funds. Interest accrued. Expenditure is on HEC designs. PT/72/88B Harefield Land at Hales Yard Springwell 41,118.02 41,062.04 22,020.21 0.00 22,020.21 19,097.81 0.00 Improvements along Springwell Lane adjacent to the site as (see: PT/73 & Lane, Harefield identified by the Highway Authority. Detailed estimates sought. EYL/47 ) 21895/APP/2003/763&764 - bridge works almost complete - awaiting final account. Highways Balance of funds to be used for carriageway/ footway works. Interest accrued. No time constraints. PT/73/88C Harefield Land at Hales Yard, Springwell 9,251.55 9,238.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,251.55 0.00 Towards the implementation of improvement works to the (see: PT/72 & Lane, Harefield Canal Towpath alongside the Grand Union Canal. British EYL/47 ) 21895/APP/2003/763&764 - Waterways land and British Waterways not supportive of *26 Towpath scheme at present time. Officers continuing to negotiate with British Waterways. Interest accrued. No time constraints.
Page 2 of 6 S106 - 8 Aug 06.xls FINANCIAL UPDATE ON SECTION 106 AND 278 AGREEMENTS AT 31 MARCH 2006 FOR NORTH AREA APPENDIX 1
CASE REF. WARD SCHEME / PLANNING TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL TOTAL 2005 / 2006 BALANCE OF BALANCE COMMENTS REFERENCE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE FUNDS SPENDABLE NOT (as at late June 2006) ALLOCATED
AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/3/06 PT/76/119 Northwood Land at 64 Ducks Hill Road 33,360.10 32,578.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,360.10 0.00 To provide a speed camera, anti-skid surface and associated Northwood/ 26900L/99/1077 road markings in Ducks Hill Road. Speed camera cannot be installed in this location, as the accident rate in this location is below the threshokd established by TfL. Officers looking at installation of an electronic speed warning display as an alternative - this may require a deed of variation. Deed of variation not required. Site included in vehicle activated sign (VAS) forward programme. Interest accrued. No time constraints. PT/79/108A West Ruislip Larchmont, Ladygate Lane, 72,724.97 71,103.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 72,724.97 0.00 For signal works at junction of Ladygate Lane and Bury Street. (formerly Ruislip. 14633/APP/2002/203 Petition against signalised junction - issue to be considered by PT278/41) Cabinet Lead Member - report submitted on 8 July 2005. Cabinet Lead Member has decided that further investigations are required before a final decision can be made. Lead member has agreed to an investigation into proposed signals at Ladygate Lane and Bury St. Interest accrued. Unspent funds at 19 June 2008 to be refunded.
PLANNING & 275,172.10 271,424.70 68,993.39 31,927.10 41,391.42 206,178.71 0.00 TRANSPORTATION SUB - TOTAL PLANNING & 345,251.57 354,800.75 81,527.45 44,268.66 49,850.48 263,724.12 0.00 TRANSPORTATION TOTAL
PORTFOLIO: CULTURE, SPORT AND LEISURE
CULTURE, SPORT AND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEISURE SUB - TOTAL
PORTFOLIO: EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES EYL/18/76 Northwood Former Electric Station 1 Forge 12,502.51 12,215.45 12,502.51 0.00 12,502.51 0.00 0.00 Secondary School Places (11K). For the expansions of Lane, Northwood / Queensmead and/or Haydon secondary schools. Funds spent 54680/APP/2000/179 on the new Ruilsip High School. Interest accrued. No time limits. EYL/19/44 Harefield The Springs, Springwell Lane, 30,806.51 30,084.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,806.51 0.00 Towards the provision of primary school places in Harefield. Rickmansworth / Earmarked for a nursery scheme at Harefield Infants School. 6679/AZ/98/0897 Interest accrued. Unexpended funds by January 2011 to be repaid to the developer. EYL/24/77 Northwood Hills 72-74 Tolcarne Drive, Pinner / 20,101.11 19,639.58 20,101.11 19,639.58 20,101.11 0.00 0.00 Secondary school places in the area. Unspent funds as at 5 51269/APP/2002/164 May 2008 to be refunded. Funds spent on the new Ruislip High School. Interest accrued. EYL/25/64 Harefield Knightscote, 32-34 Sullivan Cr, 49,788.22 48,621.31 49,788.22 48,621.31 49,788.22 0.00 0.00 Education contributions towards seconodary school places in Harefeld . 5848/APP/2001/1756 Ruislip/Northwood area. Funds spent on the new Ruislip High School. Interest accrued. No time limits. EYL/26/78 West Ruislip 12 St Catherines Rd, Ruislip 11,628.85 11,361.85 11,628.85 11,361.85 11,628.85 0.00 0.00 Towards secondary school places in the Ruislip/ Northwood 14353/APP/2002/1339 Area. Funds spent on the new Ruislip High School. Interest accrued. Unspent funds at 8 April 2013 to be refunded.
EYL/32/80 Northwood 31-35 Ducks Hill Road, 11,000.00 11,000.00 11,000.00 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00 0.00 An additional school place in the Borough. To be applied Northwood / 44987/APP/2001/404 toward Frithwood Primary School expansion. No time (see: PT/53) constraints. Funds spent on Firthwood School expansion.
Page 3 of 6 S106 - 8 Aug 06.xls FINANCIAL UPDATE ON SECTION 106 AND 278 AGREEMENTS AT 31 MARCH 2006 FOR NORTH AREA APPENDIX 1
CASE REF. WARD SCHEME / PLANNING TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL TOTAL 2005 / 2006 BALANCE OF BALANCE COMMENTS REFERENCE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE FUNDS SPENDABLE NOT (as at late June 2006) ALLOCATED
AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/3/06 EYL/39/65A Harefield Land at North Works, 120,643.81 120,229.63 102,605.08 102,605.08 0.00 18,038.73 0.00 Primary School places in Harefield (103K). Funds spent on the Summerhouse Lane, Harefield Hillingdon Rising Fives Programme at Harefield Infant and 201AJ/98/2472 Junior School. 5K spent towards CCTV at Harefield Primary with additional match funding of £10,000 from the £250,000 capital funds (see Cabinet Lead Member report March 2004). No time constraints. Balance allocated to proposed refurbishment of Harefield Nursery. Interest accrued. EYL/47/88A Harefield Land at Hales Yard, Springwell 73,095.26 71,312.44 73,095.26 71,312.44 73,095.26 0.00 0.00 Towards the provision of school places in the (see: PT/72 & Lane, Harefield Ruislip/Northwood. Funds spent on the new Ruislip High PT/73) 21895/APP/2003/763&764 School. No time constraints. Interest accrued. EYL/48/105 Northwood Land at 48a Murray Road 18,218.67 17,800.36 18,218.67 5,640.00 18,218.67 0.00 0.00 Towards education places in the borough. To be put toward Northwood 43038/APP/1999/2339 Frithwood Primary and/or Queensmead and Haydon Second School expansions. Unspent funds after 7 years of receipt of PO1 form notification of implementation (yet to be received) to be refunded. Funds spent on Frithwood School expansion. Interest accrued. EYL/51/120 South Ruislip 44 - 46 Station Approach South 2,436.66 2,381.88 2,436.66 0.00 2,436.66 0.00 0.00 Towards educational places in the Ruislip/Northwood area. Ruislip/ 3498/APP/2002/2076 Allocated to new Sidmouth Drive Secondary School. No time constraints. Interest accrued. EYL/52/121 Northwood Land at 1 Forge Lane Northwood/ 3,860.67 3,773.87 3,860.67 3,773.87 3,860.67 0.00 0.00 Towards educational places in the Northwood area. Funds 54680/APP/2003/2901 spent on the new Ruislip High School, this is the Sidmouth Drive Secondary School. Any funds not spent within seven years of receipt of funds (i.e. by 18 December 2011) must be returned to the Owner. Interest accrued. EYL/53/122 Northwood Land at 154 & 156 Joel Street 14,653.56 14,317.11 14,653.56 14,317.11 14,653.56 0.00 0.00 Towards educational places in the Northwood area. Funds Northwood/ spent on the new Ruislip High School. Any funds not spent 58977/APP/2003/2736 within seven years of receipt of funds (i.e. by 17 November 2011) must be returned to the Owner. Interest accrued. EYL/54/109 South Ruislip 306 - 310 West End Road Ruislip/ 11,960.95 11,709.28 11,960.95 11,709.28 10,960.95 0.00 0.00 Towards educational places in the Borough. Allocated for the 52544/APP/2004/1449 Queensmead or Haydon secondary school expansions. Funds spent on the new Ruislip High School. Any funds not spent within seven years of receipt of the PO1 Form (received on 3 December 2004) must be returned to the Owner. Interest accrued. EYL/56/108B& South Ruislip Larchmont, Ladygate Lane, 22,523.90 22,021.69 9,270.98 8,302.00 9,270.98 13,252.92 0.00 £12,968 for primary school places in the Borough. Allocated to C Ruislip. 14633/APP/2002/203 LEA's costs associated with expanding Sacred Heart Primary (See also School. £8,302 for secondary school places in the Borough. PT278/41) Allocated for the Queensmead or Haydon secondary school expansions. £8,302 spent on the new Ruislip High School. Any funds not spent within five years of receipt (i.e. by 2 November 2009) to be returned to the developer. Interest accrued EYL/58/126A Northwood Land at 96 - 108 Ducks Hill Road 100,976.63 98,609.99 100,976.63 98,609.99 100,976.63 0.00 0.00 Towards educational places in the Borough.Funds spent on Northwood the new Ruislip High School. No time constraints. Interest 45616/APP/2004/333 accrued. EYL/61/130A West Ruislip 6 - 10 Wood Lane Ruislip 37,930.84 37,041.84 37,930.84 37,041.84 37,930.84 0.00 0.00 Towards education places and facilities in the Borough. 3175/APP/2004/854 Allocated to new Sidmouth Drive Secondary School. Unexpended funds including interest accrued 7 years following receipt of cleared funds (i.e 9 March 2012) are to be refunded. Interest accrued.
Page 4 of 6 S106 - 8 Aug 06.xls FINANCIAL UPDATE ON SECTION 106 AND 278 AGREEMENTS AT 31 MARCH 2006 FOR NORTH AREA APPENDIX 1
CASE REF. WARD SCHEME / PLANNING TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL TOTAL 2005 / 2006 BALANCE OF BALANCE COMMENTS REFERENCE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE FUNDS SPENDABLE NOT (as at late June 2006) ALLOCATED
AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/3/06
EYL/62/137 Northwood Hills St Vincent's Hospital Northwood 364,573.28 364,573.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 364,573.28 364,573.28 First installment of funds received. Towards the costs and 138/APP/2001/1240 improvement of local primary and secondary education in the area of the Council north of the A40. Unexpended funds including interest accrued 5 years following receipt of cleared funds (i.e 18 July 2010) are to be refunded. Second installment of the education contribution received. EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S 906,701.43 896,694.04 480,029.99 443,934.35 376,424.91 426,671.44 364,573.28 SERVICES SUB - TOTAL
PORTFOLIO: FINANCE & BUSINESS SERVICES
FINANCE & BUSINESS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SERVICES SUB - TOTAL
PORTFOLIO: IMPROVEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS & COMMUNITY SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PARTNERSHIPS & COMMUNITY SAFETY SUB - TOTAL
PORTFOLIO: ENVIRONMENT E/05/101 West Ruislip 40 High Street, Ruislip / 1,219.32 1,219.32 1,219.32 1,219.32 26.75 0.00 0.00 Towards provision and running of CCTV in area of Ruislip 2258/K/99/1543 High Street. To be spent on CCTV maintenance contract. Unspent funds at 28 February 2005 (5 years of receipt) to be refunded. E/16/24B West Ruislip Former Sainsbury Building at 8-10 42,024.17 41,743.51 42,024.17 41,743.51 13,593.59 0.00 0.00 Committed towards CCTV and lighting improvements to Ickenham Rd, Ruislip - facilitate CCTV operation at Manor Farm (Chrysalis scheme). (see: H/2) CCTV/Lighting at Manor Park Interest accrued. Project completed and funds spent. Farm / 2192/APP/2000/313 Unexpended funds at April 2006 are to be repaid to the developer. E/18/27B South Ruislip Carmichael Close, Ruislip - 123,995.59 122,060.85 69,085.50 46,167.00 41,699.50 54,910.09 0.00 For the provision of play facilities on and the improvements of Sidmouth Open Space / Sidmouth Open Space. Final consultation completed and (see: PT/57 & 55898/APP/2000/2736 designs agreed. Works commenced early September 2005. EYL/35) Playground on site completed, perimeter fencing in progress due for completion end of February 2006. Interest accrued. Unexpended funds following 5 years of the sale/renting of the last housing unit (i.e. by 30 July 2008) to be repaid to the developer. ENVIRONMENT SUB -TOTAL 167,239.08 165,023.68 112,328.99 89,129.83 55,319.84 54,910.09 0.00
PORTFOLIO: SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH AND HOUSING H/2/24A West Ruislip Former Sainsbury Building at 8-10 466,750.00 466,750.00 466,750.00 466,750.00 10,572.72 0.00 0.00 Cabinet approval on 30 September 2004 to spend balance of Ickenham Rd, Ruislip / s106 funds on housing provision project. Remaining balance (see: E/16) 2192/APP/2000/313 to be used to recharge portion of non-s106 spend on project. Unexpended funds at 1 May 2008 are to be repaid to the developer. Funds have been recharged.
SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH 466,750.00 466,750.00 466,750.00 466,750.00 10,572.72 0.00 0.00 AND HOUSING SUB-TOTAL
Page 5 of 6 S106 - 8 Aug 06.xls FINANCIAL UPDATE ON SECTION 106 AND 278 AGREEMENTS AT 31 MARCH 2006 FOR NORTH AREA APPENDIX 1
CASE REF. WARD SCHEME / PLANNING TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL TOTAL 2005 / 2006 BALANCE OF BALANCE COMMENTS REFERENCE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE FUNDS SPENDABLE NOT (as at late June 2006) ALLOCATED
AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/12/05 AS AT 31/3/06 AS AT 31/3/06
1,815,862.61 1,799,892.42 1,128,102.37 1,031,741.28 483,708.89 687,760.24 364,673.28
GRAND TOTAL ALL 1,885,942.08 1,883,268.47 1,140,636.43 1,044,082.84 492,167.95 745,305.65 364,673.28 SCHEMES
NOTES
The balance of funds gygppgremaining must be spent on works as set out in each individual agreement. Bold figures in 'Total income as at 30/12/04' column indicates new income received * Denotes funds the Council is unable to spend currently (totals£2,998,888.13): *24: PT/25 £35,400.57 reasonable period' for expenditure without owner's agreement has lapsed *26: PT/73 £9,251.55 successful scheme would require support of and implementation by British Waterways. BW not currently interested in schemes in this area. *32: PT278/46 £5,000.00 is to be held as a returnable security deposit for the highway works (to be later refunded). *34: PT/57 £12,175.53 currently unespendable due to uncertainties associated with RAF Northolt development, which may conflict with works to which these funds are to be applied. £61,827.65
Page 6 of 6 S106 - 8 Aug 06.xls