SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10TH November 2003
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10TH November 2003 DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF-RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION BRUNEL UNIVERSITY, OSTERLEY CAMPUS, OSTERLEY Report by: Borough Planning Officer 1.1 On 12th September 2002, the Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee (IBAC) approved a draft planning brief for Brunel University for consultation purposes. On 23rd October IBAC considered the response to consultation together with the proposed amendments to the brief. The comments raised at this meeting have been taken into account in the attached version of the brief and covering report. 1.2 The brief has been subject to extensive consultation, and has been amended where changes are considered appropriate. Once adopted, it will form supplementary planning guidance to the Borough’s Development Plan, the Hounslow UDP. 1.3 The following report presents members with a summary of the response to consultation and recommends amendments to the brief. Responses are detailed in some instances because of their specific implications on the future use of the site. Key changes include; • The inclusion of an appendix giving greater guidance re assessing educational need • Reference to policies contained within the Draft London Plan • Further detailed guidance re design and built form • Specific reference to links with local schools/ education establishments 1.4 The intention of the brief is to set out clear planning guidance, which can assist in considering the appropriateness of any planning application submitted, and ultimately speed up the planning process. Brunel University have marketed the site prior to the formal adoption of the brief. The deadline for expressions of interest has now closed. It is the University’s intention to keep the Council involved in considering the various options put forward for the site. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 That Members note the contents of this report and the proposed amendments to the planning brief following consultation 2.2 That Members approve the attached planning brief prior to formal adoption by the Council’s Executive. 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 The brief site has a total area of approximately 8.15has (20.14 acres) and is currently used as a university campus. It lies on the south side of the Great West Road, mid way between Osterley tube station and Gillette corner. Wood Lane lies to the east, Borough Road to the south and Ridgeway Road to the west. The site is located in a predominantly residential area with the university grounds and buildings, Isleworth and Syon School for Boys and Isleworth Crown Court providing an enclave of public /community /educational buildings. The site is within the Spring Grove Conservation Area, which was designated in April 2002. The planning brief attached as an appendix describes the site and its surroundings in more detail. 4.0 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION 4.1 The Draft Planning Brief has been subject to extensive public consultation including; • Public meetings • Door to door delivery of the brief and questionnaire to over 1000 households in the immediate area, • Direct mailing to community and residents groups as well as national and local sporting organisations. • Press notices and articles, • Posters in local libraries and posted around the site, • Advertised on Hounslow’s web site The response to consultation and the amendments to the brief have been presented to IBAC for comment. The Committees comments are summarised in Paragraph 4.34 The results of the comprehensive consultation exercise are summarised below. Public Meetings 4.2 A public meeting was held on the 26th June 2003 at the Brunel Campus at Osterley and was attended by 200 people. 4.3 The notes from this public meeting have been put on Hounslow’s web site. Some of the key issues raised are as follows: - Regret loss of University. - Concern that the site will automatically go from an educational use to residential without the exploration of other educational uses. - The main concern was the provision of housing on the site; There was particular concern over social / affordable housing and perceived problems associated with it. - Concern over how development will take into account the Listed Building (Lancaster) and Conservation Area Status. - Areas ongoing traffic problems – in particular around Crown Court and the roads around the secondary school. There was also concern re construction traffic. - Link between the University site and its sports facilities – how will these links be maintained and funded and in particular what, if any community benefits will arise from this? - There was concern over the security and maintenance of the site if it is opened up. If open space is not used positively it will become a derelict area. 2 - Links between the Brunel site and Isleworth and Syon School should be maintained. Continued use for sport and education is the priority. Isleworth and Syon School, would like to continue to use the sporting facilities on the site. 4.4 A second meeting was held on Friday 27th June 2003 at St Mary’s Community Hall. This was arranged for those who had attended the opening of the Community Hall on the Thursday and thus had been unable to attend the Public meeting. This was attended by 25 people. 4.5 Issues raised at the second meeting were as follows; - There was generally an acceptance that some form/element of residential development would take place on this site. - Some people expressed the view that any housing provided should be affordable and allocated to those most in need. - The effect of the site being developed on the surrounding residents particularly in relation to traffic concerns, - The maintenance of the site and strain on local services (particularly education, in the event that residential development goes ahead). - What discussions had taken place between the university and the school, maintaining the site in an educational use? - Maintain the site as open space and for community use. Response to Questionnaires 4.6 154 questionnaires were received. These have been analysed below. (Please note that for questions 1 and 2 each respondent could tick more than one answer. For questions 3 and 5 the respondent was able to answer with a number of options) Q1. What uses do you consider to be appropriate on these two parts of the site? Appropriate uses for the North portion of the site 90 80 70 60 50 Percentage of Respondents 40 30 20 10 Percentage of Respondents 0 e s g rts r se rt o u U s ation using ty c o Lei r Spo alth Use H or Sp o e t Trainin ry Offices o Edu H n a mmuni Indo o yme Outd C Ancill Emplo 4.7 77% of respondents think that outdoor sports would be the most appropriate use of the northern part of the site. 58% considered leisure, and 51% found a community use to be most appropriate. Only 5 % found housing and ancillary offices as appropriate for the northern part of the site. 3 Q1. Appropriate uses for the South portion of the site 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percentage of Respondents 0 Education Indoor Sports 4.8 69% of respondents found that education w Housing Health Uses southern portion of site, followedCommuni by t55%y Use Only 19% of respondents found outdoor Q2. The brief seeks to increase public access to the openLei partsu rofe the site. What form do you think this shouldancillary take? offices to be the appropriate. Employment Training Percentage of Respondents Outdoor Sports Ancillary Offices 70 60 50 suggestingould be indoor the mostsports appropriate and 53% housing. use of the Percentage of Respondents 40 30 Question 2 sports and 16% of respondents found 20 10 0 Organised / Outdoor sports 4.9 In answer to what form the Openopen spaceParkland Childrens Play Area said organised / outdoor sports, 41% said No response Comments have also included: No Access / problems with the site Percentage of respondents - - Any children’s play area should be structured, safe andCo securemmuni ty Use Many have suggested a mix of the open area as parkland, then with sports facilities - and also an element of children’s play area Some concern was expressed over potential crime and dereliction if the site is just - left. There have also been suggestions to link the site and the use of it with Isleworth and Syon School on the site should take, 58% of respondents open parkland and 29% said children’s play. 4 Q3. In the event that residential developmen site, do you have any views concerning the nature and scale of development? 35 30 25 t takes place on the southern part of the Percentage of Respondents 20 15 Question 3 10 5 0 Low density /3-storeys / High Qu... 4.10 29% would only find residential developmen No residential In keeping with Lancaster House than 3-storeys and of a high quality. 18% w House. 21% of respondents do not want a For Key Workers want any affordable housing on the site. 8% are concerned over the effect more housing will have the existing services. In additionNo Atheffo rfollowingdable Hou scommentsing were made: No Response - Percentage of There appears to be an association w Effect of existing services / road... respondents - problem families and crime - How to keep affordable housing in perpetuity No development on southern part... Q4. Do you -agree Parking with the problems location as for the new result pedestrian of additional accesses? residents No additional floor-space to be created - build only on the existing footprint t acceptable if it is low density, no more ould like it be in keeping with Lancaster ny residential and 10% specifically do not Question 4 ith low income / affordable housing and 19% 8% 4.11 73% of respondents agreed and 19% disagr addition the following comments were for those who said no: 73% - - There should be no access (14 respondents) Agree - Alternative access exists on Ridgeway Road (4 respondents) Disagree - Access required from Great West Road (3 respondents)No repsonse - No access from Great West road (3 respondents) Access dependent on future of site (2 respondents) eed with the new pedestrian access.