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 Percentage of Respondents 40 30 20 10 0
Percentage of Respondents s e g rt se r rts U u o ation using s c o ty r Spo H Lei o alth Uses t Trainin or Sp ry Offices Edu e n o a H Indo mmuni o yme C Outd Ancill
Emplo
4.8 69% of respondents found that education would be the most appropriate use of the southern portion of site, followed by 55% suggesting indoor sports and 53% housing. Only 19% of respondents found outdoor sports and 16% of respondents found ancillary offices to be the appropriate.
Q2. The brief seeks to increase public access to the open part of the site. What form do you think this should take?
Question 2
70 60 50 40 Percentage of respondents 30 20 10 0 Percentage of Respondents
s e ea s e se land r n U k A sport y ty or la espo o P r td o with the sit ns N mmuni e o Ou Open Par ms / ildr C d h le C rob p s / Organise cces A o N
4.9 In answer to what form the open space on the site should take, 58% of respondents said organised / outdoor sports, 41% said open parkland and 29% said children’s play. Comments have also included: - Any children’s play area should be structured, safe and secure - 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
4
Q3. In the event that residential development takes place on the southern part of the site, do you have any views concerning the nature and scale of development?
Question 3
35 30 25 Percentage of 20 respondents 15 10 5 0 l . Percentage of Respondents .. ia se rs g e .. u. t u e in ns ... rt Q en o rk s o d a id H o ou p a p h s r W s ro n ig e te H e / er H r s ey le R s h / o a K b o e t s N nc r a N ic ou ey a o rd rv s r L F fo e n to h f s o -s it A g t 3 w o in en / g N st ity in xi pm ns ep e lo e e of e d k t ev w In c d o ffe o L E N
4.10 29% would only find residential development acceptable if it is low density, no more than 3-storeys and of a high quality. 18% would like it be in keeping with Lancaster House. 21% of respondents do not want any residential and 10% specifically do not want any affordable housing on the site. 8% are concerned over the effect more housing will have the existing services. In addition the following comments were made: - There appears to be an association with low income / affordable housing and problem families and crime - How to keep affordable housing in perpetuity - Parking problems as the result of additional residents - No additional floor-space to be created - build only on the existing footprint
Q4. Do you agree with the location for new pedestrian accesses?
Question 4
8%
19% Agree Disagree No repsonse 73%
4.11 73% of respondents agreed and 19% disagreed with the new pedestrian access. In addition the following comments were for those who said no: - There should be no access (14 respondents) - Alternative access exists on Ridgeway Road (4 respondents) - Access required from Great West Road (3 respondents) - No access from Great West road (3 respondents) - Access dependent on future of site (2 respondents)
5
- Agree with access points if there are additional lighting or pedestrian crossings (3 respondents) - Access not to go as far as Osterley Road (1 respondent) - Vehicular access on all sides (1 respondent)
Q5. Where do you think vehicular access should be provided, Borough Road, Ridgeway Road, Wood Lane?
Question 5
100 90 80 70 60 Yes 50 No 40 No Response 30 20 No of Respondents 10 0 Borough Road Ridgeway Wood Lane Road
4.12 55% of respondents agreed and 23% disagreed with the vehicular access on Borough Road. 47% agreed and 31% disagreed with the vehicular access on Ridgeway Road. 59% agreed and 21% disagreed with vehicular access on Wood Lane. Comments also included: Wood Lane is already congested; Safe crossings for cycles and pedestrians needed; Car parking for Crown Court essential; Vehicular access onto the site depends on the actual use.
Q6. Do you agree that building heights should generally be between 3 and 5 storeys?
Question 6
Agree 5% 5% Disagree 19% 46% Maximum of 3 storeys Between 3-4 storeys 25% No response
4.13 46% of respondents agree with building heights between 3-5 storeys. 5% would like the buildings to be between 3 –4 storeys. 44% disagree with building heights between 3-5 storeys or suggest that they should be no more than 3 storey. In addition, the following comments were recorded; Convert Lancaster House into residential; Residential houses to be no more than 2 storeys similar to surrounding houses; No new buildings to be erected.
Q7. Are there any specific areas where floodlighting should be restricted? 4.14 32% of respondents think that floodlighting should be restricted near residential dwellings. 18% think there should be no restrictions on floodlighting and 3% think there should be no floodlighting. In addition the following comments were also made:
6
- Restrictions of floodlighting dependent on height /type/ power of lights but restrict floodlighting by the A4 - No upward floodlighting - Restrict floodlighting to pedestrian areas for security/ safety reasons - Floodlighting in sports areas only - Floodlighting not to intrude on wildlife
Question 7
No comments made 3% 8% Restrict near residential 18% 39% No restrictions
Other comments
No Floodlighting at 32% all
Q8. Do you agree with the nature of community benefits to be provided suggested in section 10 of the draft brief?
Question 8
14%
Agree 21% Disagree 65% No comment
4.15 65% agree with the nature of the community benefits, although 21% disagree.
Q8. Do you have any other suggestions?
4.16 Other comments have also included:
Housing - Quiet residential area needed - No housing development on the site in any circumstances - Extra care housing for frail older people - Student accommodation for University of London - Housing for young adults
Key -workers - Links with the NHS and in particular the West Mid Hospital, to house and train staff - Accommodate existing teachers - Residential only for caretakers and site managers
7
Open Spaces - National Trust should develop parkland aspect - Close park during hours of darkness - Adequately patrol parkland
Community and Leisure Uses - Outdoor swimming pool - Use newly built library as a local library and redevelop the existing Osterley library site - New health care centre - Outreach youth work here - Build community aspect first - Promote and encourage cricket - Bowling alley - Site should be developed for sport leisure or education - Community Centre with sports facilities - Concert size civic hall - Licensed bar
Traffic and parking concerns - Removal of ‘rat run’ from A4, via Ridgeway Road to Church Road - Any development of Brunel University should include provision for turning Church Road East into a ‘T’ junction - Traffic to/from west on Great West Road must use Wood Lane. Traffic to/from east on Great West Road likely to use Wood Lane - Other traffic from east and west can use Borough Road or Wood Lane entrance, or go via Great West Road - Traffic lights and road layout must be improved to cope safely with increased volume of motor traffic, and provide safe crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. - Controlled residents parking needed in particular in Wood Lane and Great West Road - Already there is pressure on car parking in the local streets - Any new residential development shall worsen the already congested traffic in the area.
Other Comments made - Explore links with West Middlesex Hospital, West Thames College and Isleworth and Syon School (see comments below, no response from West Middlesex Hospital) - Separate north/ south areas - Demolish 1960’s outbuildings - Encouragement of wildlife – creating suitable habitat - Move Isleworth and Syon School and Crown Court to the site and use these sites for residential purposes - Strain on existing services - Principals of Spring Grove Conservation Area should be strictly adhered to
GROUP/COMPANY LETTERS
4.17 GVA Grimley agent for Brunel University
Educational use and associated facilities - It is almost impossible for the University or any subsequent applicant to prove or disprove that a primary or secondary education need exists for this Campus. Consequently, the onus should be on the London Borough of Hounslow (LBH), as the Local Education Authority, to provide this information.
8
- The words “the preference would be to retain…” in the first sentence of paragraph 5.1 are too restrictive and do not reflect policy C.2.1 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan. They should be replaced with the words “Consideration would be given to retaining…” - The second sentence of paragraph 5.1, reading “the existing student accommodation will be expected to be retained” should be deleted. This is too prescriptive as once the University has vacated the site, there will no longer be a need for any form of student accommodation, unless any other education establishment makes a competitive offer for the site. However, such an offer would need to provide for the considerable works required to improve access, to bring the Campus up to the required standards of condition or fitness for purpose, to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and to refurbish and retain the listed building. - Given the site’s recent designation within a conservation area, it may be appropriate for the student accommodation tower to be demolished in order to preserve and enhance the conservation area setting. - Brunel University is prepared to offer a large proportion of its Campus to a Trust, to enable LBH to utilise this land in whatever way it sees fit for wider sporting and education uses for the benefit of the entire community. The Campus is currently in private ownership, so any public access would be a significant benefit to the local community. LBH needs to recognise this balance and that any requirement to retain some education use on the Campus over and above this gift of land would be prohibitively onerous.
Residential - Brunel University supports the provision of residential development as the most appropriate alternative use on the site, as it will meet the housing targets set out in the LBH Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and allow for the continued use of the listed building, Lancaster House. - However, the university disagrees that residential development would not be acceptable on that part of the site currently used for indoor and outdoor sports use, as there is no policy justification for this in the UDP. The viability test is inappropriate and the requirement to demonstrate need for alternative provision is also inappropriate.
Affordable housing - The final sentence of paragraph 5.4 is not acceptable and would have a huge impact on value. As currently worded, it implies that there should be provision for 50% affordable housing, of which 15% should be below market cost for key workers. There needs to be some recognition within the Planning Brief that there is a balance to be struck and that there may be some flexibility in terms of the level and tenure of affordable housing to come forward, that might enable other sporting, educational and community objectives to be met on site. - The University has a requirement to achieve best value for its Campus, which would be compromised by the current wording of the Planning Brief. Whilst the University is fully committed to gifting land to LBH, it has always made it clear that if a satisfactory balance cannot be struck then it would be forced to vacate the Campus and leave it vacant until a suitable compromise can be reached.
Sports/Leisure/Open Space/Community/Health - This section does not recognise the fact that the University is gifting a large part of its Osterley Campus to LBH for community use. The site is currently in private ownership with no access for the public permissible. The University’s offer is considerable and is clearly of benefit to the public.
9
- Consequently, the final sentence of Paragraph 5.10 should be reworded as follows, “The provision of improved public access to recreation and sports facilities on the site would be welcomed as part of any redevelopment”.
Having considered the amendments to the draft brief, GVA have since written to the Council outlining discussions, which they have held with Isleworth and Syon School, west Thames College and Thames Valley University with a view to assessing educational need in the area.
4.18 Rambert School The Rambert School is presently part of Brunel University and is situated on its Twickenham Campus. From September 2003, although remaining on that site, the school will become independent. In September 2005 Rambert School must vacate the Twickenham site. The school’s development committee, chaired by Lord John Sainsbury, are looking into a number of sites suitable for relocation, including some of the buildings located in the South East corner of Osterley Campus.
The school has 100 students aged between 16-mid 20’s and is financially self sustaining. The school have expressed a particular interest in occupying/ adapting/ improving the Esme Woodland building and the George Little Complex (made up of a number of linked buildings). The intention is to create a world class educational facility at Osterley of five dance studios, (one of which converts into a studio theatre), changing rooms, class rooms, library, IT rooms, cafeteria, common rooms, staff studies and offices.
The school would plan to offer four public performances each year and also plan to develop a community outreach programme, providing children’s and young peoples classes at weekends and during academic breaks. It would also encourage use of its space for related disciplines such as Yoga and martial arts.
The Rambert school wish to progress their plans as quickly as possible and hopes that Brunel University will support its proposal which would demonstrate its commitment to the continued educational use of the site.
4.19 West Thames College With over 7000 students of whom 1500 are full time 15 - 19 year olds, it would be extremely beneficial to the college if the sports facilities were accessible to us. Space is limited on our campus and does not permit full size pitches and a running track. Many of our students require the use of such facilities as part of their course (uniformed services, sports etc) and many others would enjoy the sporting and leisure opportunities that this would afford nearby.
We would therefore strongly support the organised and shared use of these facilities within an appropriate agreement and feel that it is essential that the sporting facilities at Osterley Campus are open to all those in the locality who would benefit from them.
With over 2000 higher education students and over 1000 overseas students preparing for University, we would greatly value the availability of student accommodation nearby. This would also enable us to house teachers, thus increasing our, and local schools, opportunities of recruiting younger teachers.
10
We would support any solution that allows this accommodation to continue in some form and would wish to consider some shared use or ownership of this facility.
4.20 Isleworth and Syon School for Boys
Current situation/ background Isleworth and Syon School has recently acquired Specialist Sports College Status. They already co-ordinate a national sporting programme which involves 7 partner secondary and 35 partner primary schools. This is one of the largest partnerships in the Country.
The impending sale and restructuring of the Osterley Campus provides a rare opportunity for the Local Authority to make a significant statement about its support for the development of sporting provision in Hounslow and one that can truly create a Sports College worthy of national recognition.
Use of Playing Fields The primary objective of the school is to secure the use and/or ownership of the playing fields on the northern part of the site. The additional facility would be of huge benefit to the school and the community generally. The school already use the grounds.
The grounds should be designated as sports field rather than open parkland as security and maintenance are paramount if good quality facilities are to continue on the site.
Use of Sports Hall The school would be interested in the use of the sports hall. The facility is in excellent condition and would provide a top quality teaching resource. If the school acquired the hall, Middlesex County Cricket Club would be most keen to have their youth County Cricket Centre on the campus.
Need for additional teaching space Isleworth and Syon school's own building stock is in much need of development. There are 5 temporary huts on the site, all in poor condition - even with the huts the school is already under resourced, in terms of teaching space and also has shortages in a number of resource rooms and office spaces. The school would be interested in acquiring teaching space to help solve these accommodation problems. Existing facilities on the campus could be modified to help with this.
The school considers that other opportunities should be explored before the site is lost to development. Some creative thought must be given to the possible development of the site. The Headmaster is happy to take an active role in the consideration of the future use of the site.
4.21 Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services, LBH
There is no foreseeable need for additional primary places in the area and we would have no need of any facilities for such a purpose. The Council is at present undertaking a review of secondary accommodation and could consider expanding provision in that locality. The current projections in no way indicate the need for a new secondary school and, if it were to be agreed to expand secondary provision, this would probably by expanding an existing school(s) with the addition of a new block. That said however, Isleworth and Syon School now have sports status and generally inadequate accommodation in a range of areas. There are a number of opportunities 11
for seeking use of grounds and buildings on the Brunel campus and we should certainly wish to explore how this could be developed. To that extent I would formally register the wish to explore continued educational use for part of the grounds on the site and some of the relevant buildings.
4.22 CIP - Area recorded as being of public open space deficiency - Osterley Campus is bounded to the north by the A4, which presents a substantive physical barrier, that any assessment of open space needs and in particular for children and youths should disregard any existing provision north of A4. - Tree survey requested should be carried out by a qualified arboriculturalist to BS 5837 - Any development should seek to extend the existing tree stock in quantity, diversity of indigenous species and increase age range of the tree stock. - The desirability of providing public access so that the area can function as public open space with associated facilities. An assumption has been made that the land could continue in private ownership and management but with recognition from the applicant that this requires ongoing long term maintenance and renovation, significantly increase access and an improvement plan that provides amenity and interest for all in the community. - Recommend a negotiated management agreement to increase public access to this site should be provided, to enable the open space to operate as a local park, not only for on site development but for the wider community in the catchment area. A mix of passive and active recreation should be provided taking account of existing provision. - Any use of the Osterley Campus site for additional community sports must be for the benefit of new clubs, sports or schools, otherwise the danger is that the new uses will merely transfer from other nearby sports pitches, possibly leading to their under use or dereliction. - Assuming there is some residential development on the site - the remaining open space in Osterley Campus should provide fro children's play and youth activities as there are no existing facilities nearby. (lists uses suitable for different age groups) - We would object to any proposal which saw the demolition or conversion of the sports hall to other uses, which would mean the loss of this important sporting amenity. We would also look for details of how the sports hall could be fully developed and utilised for a community use. - As the locality is not particularly rich in nature conservation aspects, the site could also provide for nature conservation amenity planting. - We recommend that the development of Osterley Campus site should provide local open space with facilities for all the community, including seated quiet area, improvements to the landscape and facilities for children’s play, youth and young adults as previously noted. In any proposed agreement sufficient maintenance finance should be identified. - Jersey gardens provide a simple sitting out and walk through garden. A planning agreement to improve this site could provide facilities for families and adults which may not be able to the accommodated within the more active provision proposed for Osterley Campus Site. Improved facilities might include seats, picnic tables, path resurfacing and replanting. - Development along perimeter roads facing 2 storey existing houses should generally be restricted to 2 storeys to keep in scale with the area.
INDIVIDUAL LETTERS
12
4.23 Resident, Ridgeway Road - A developer should take the site. The council should refurbish Jersey Gardens. - Demolish existing student accommodation buildings. - Accommodation should cater for mixed communities (including the elderly). - No need for new community, health or library facilities on the site due to existing provision. - Advocates partnership working between residents and planning to make best use of site.
4.24 Resident, Ridgeway Road and Governor of Isleworth and Syon School - No additional buildings on the southern part of the campus. Lancaster House and Arthur Page Hall have significant historical interest and should remain for their original purpose. - Housing in the area is expanding rapidly putting pressure on car parking spaces and more children requiring educational provision. - Existing buildings should be adapted to accommodate extra pupils. - Isleworth and Syon School requires more space for teaching and sporting activities. The school could expand into the south part of the Osterley Campus. - Stockwell House (7 storey student residential block), could provide accommodation for young teachers, nurses etc. - The existing sports buildings and facilities should be retained as they already provide an important community function. The athletics track and the Sports Hall would upgrade the facilities at Isleworth and Syon School.
4.25 Resident, Osterley Road - No Housing. - Make better use of Osterley Campus for training future sportsmen and women. The site needs money spent on it but the site is ready made with facilities already there. - Local sports clubs would welcome the chance to train youngsters prior to them joining the club at a suitable age. - The site has good road and public transport access.
4.26 Resident, Roxborough Avenue − Use the site for an indoor and outdoor sports complex for young people. Runners now go as far as Windsor to train and a local facility would encourage a greater involvement by local people. − No housing.
4.27 Resident Deborah Close − A formal sports area should have a properly maintained cricket pitch in order to encourage and promote cricket in the area. − No pedestrian entrances should be visible from the A4 as this will encourage non-local 'passers through' to commit crime/dumping in the park area. − The brief should be more prescriptive with regards to what will be acceptable. Phrases such as ‘as appropriate’, ‘a convincing case’ are ambiguous.
4.28 Resident, Church Road - Concerned that the site does not become an eyesore therefore no general public access to the northern open part of the site. This should remain for organised sport. There is enough open parkland within the local area. - Concern that the site will not be satisfactorily maintained if it is not in private ownership. - No need for an additional access from Ridgeway Road.
13
- New pedestrian access/cycle routes will result in the public using the site as a cut through with associated noise, litter and mess. - Supports the requirement to secure a legal agreement re management and maintenance of open space but concerned that this may not be enforced. At present it is well maintained by Brunel University. - No vehicle access from Ridgeway Road as it is already congested.
4.29 Resident, Ridgeway Road In addition to the following comments, there is a very detailed analysis of the draft planning brief. These comments will be taken into consideration when assessing revisions. − The development should be self-sustaining, and the benefits shared. − Anxious about the future use of the open space and the potential for it to become unused, unsightly and locked up. − Real public streets should cross the site and skirt any park/green. − A private gated community, for either the very rich or the very poor should be resisted. − It has potential to add to peoples quality of life, where at the moment, a dead and dull street front stretches around our neighbourhood. − The Brief should express much more strongly the need to increase the openness of the site and integrate with the surrounding streets.
4.30 Resident, Ridgeway Road The University is seeking the best possible commercial return from the sale of the site. It needs the savings arising from site rationalisation and the profit from the sale of the site. This profit is expected to come from selling land to a developer who will build housing on the site. Local residents do not want this. Hounslow should encourage alternative uses for the site and so avoid housing on part or the entire site. The respondent has made very detailed comments about the drafting of the brief. These detailed points have been considered when reviewing the draft brief.
4.31 Resident, Wood Lane The Council should promote private sector companies to take over this site for sports/ education use to make up for the shortfall in the area. Some of the profit should fund facilities for local people. Isleworth and Syon School should use the facilities during the day and private clubs / public use could be based around evenings and weekends.
4.32 St Mary’s College, Twickenham Brunel University intend to establish a school at their Runnymede Campus to attract inner city teenagers on to degree courses, with the total number of 4 – 19 year olds attending the school is envisaged to be 300. Osterley Campus would provide a better location for this venture with its excellent transport links providing access for students from other London Boroughs and would also retain this site for educational purposes. (Note: The press release re the school at Runnymede was incorrect. The intention is to put the new school on the Uxbridge Campus, consolidating the education/sporting role of this site.)
4.33 Local Resident (recent graduate-no address) Regret the loss of the site in Osterley. The redevelopment of the site for a sports use would be a valued asset to the area. Would like the inclusion of sports / leisure / recreational use on this site that would provide something for the community.
4.34 Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee
14
The amended planning brief and covering report were considered by the Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee on 23rd October 2003. Members were pleased with the way in which the consultation exercise had been undertaken and considered that there had been a valuable input from the community. Several questions were raised with regards to the potential to improve the amenity value of the open space. It was generally considered that the site and the surrounding area would benefit from the creation of views into and out of the site, thus integrating the open space with the surrounding area. The issue of how the open space would be used is largely dependant on the future use of the southern part of the site. There is clearly a demand for organised sport, open parkland and children’s play. The provision and balance of these uses will need to be considered as the future of the site becomes clearer. An update with regard to the interest and progress shown by the Rambert School of Ballet was given. The school was still very interested in the site with regard to the buildings in the south east corner (the George Little Complex) and were actively progressing their interest. Amendments were requested to the report and the brief with regard to the following; • Members considered that there had been an underestimate of the amount of people attending the public meeting and considered that this was more in the region of 200. The report has been amended. • It was not considered that the brief reflected the strength of public opinion with regard to Isleworth and Syon School for Boys having use of the facilities on site. The brief has been amended (Para 5.2) • It was considered that early indications showed that there was a ‘demand’ rather than a ‘general interest’ in using parts of the site for educational or sporting use. The brief has been amended (Para. 5.3) • Although the map showing the extent of the listed building was factually correct, it did not indicate the other buildings on the site, which were within the curtilage and subject to the same protection. Greater clarity would assist those interested in the site. Additional text has been added to the map to draw people’s attention to the extent of the listing.
5.0 KEY ISSUES RAISED THROUGH CONSULTATION
Future Use of Open Land in the Northern Part of the site 5.1 The majority of people wish the northern part of the site to be retained for open space use and specifically for organised outdoor sports. There was also considerable support for open parkland and a children’s play area (specifically by CIP), although several people expressed concern with regard to the potential for the site to become unsightly and vandalised if general public access were made available. The future management and maintenance of the site is a concern for many people. Reference was also made to the need for improvements to other open spaces within the area (namely Jersey Gardens). GVA Grimley has stated that Brunel is prepared to offer a ‘large proportion’ of the site to a Trust to enable Hounslow to use the land for sporting and educational uses in whatever way it sees fit.
Response 5.2 It is clear that there is wide public support to keep the northern part of the site in open space use. This is also supported by planning policy. Building on open space and playing fields is clearly contrary to planning policy regardless of whether it is public or private land (DLP-3D.8&10, HUDPR-ENV.N.1.11, 11A, and 13). PPG17 states that open spaces with recreational value should be protected from development. The planning system should respond to the need for recreation and sport provision and 15
take account of any opportunities that arise. In the event that housing does take place on the site in some form, dependant on its nature and scale, this could put considerable strain on existing local infrastructure and services including recreational open space, particularly as it lies within an area of Public Open Space Deficiency. The primary issue is how to address the differing open space demands on the site, as well as ensure that it is managed and maintained well in the future. The exact nature of the use of this land will be influenced by the eventual use of the southern part of the site. The amended brief emphasises the need for any future management plan to accommodate these competing needs as appropriate (namely organised sport, parkland and children’s play). Ultimately, this area of open land has to be valued by the local community. It is clear that there will have to be a rigorous management and maintenance agreement in place to address peoples concerns re potential vandalism and neglect as well as respond to local needs. The Council welcomes the offer made by the University to ‘gift land to a trust’ although the extent of land and/or buildings in question is not known at this stage. However, such an offer cannot override the need to protect open space or to ensure that any proposed development complies with planning policy. Although CIP have suggested that a planning agreement may be appropriate for improved facilities at Jersey gardens, the overall aim is to provide all necessary facilities directly on site given the extent of the open space that currently exists.
Future use of buildings on the Southern part of site/ continued educational use. 5.3 The preferred use of the site stated by local people is for an educational use. However, indoor sport and housing were also considered appropriate by over 50% of respondents. There was a general concern that the potential for an educational use should be fully explored prior to other uses being considered. Employment training and ancillary offices had little public support.
Response 5.4 This is an important educational site within the Borough and should be retained as such if this is feasible and there is a demonstrable need. GVA Grimley and Brunel have stated that the existing buildings require considerable investment to bring them up to the standard required by the DfES (details have been requested but not supplied). The Council’s own Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services do not consider that the site is needed for primary education, either now or in the foreseeable future. However, they have expressed a desire to use part of the grounds and buildings for educational use in association with Isleworth and Syon School for Boys. This desire has been reiterated by the school itself.
5.5 Planning policy (ENVB.2.3) promotes the original use of an historic building (in this case an educational use of Lancaster House and all other buildings within its curtilage since 1948). In addition, the brief needs to take account of the strategic needs for educational facilities as expressed in the Draft London Plan as well as local needs. In order to provide clarity with regard to the assessment of educational use and need (prior to considering alternative uses), an appendix has been attached to the brief outlining the remit of any supporting information submitted with regard to the potential for continued educational use. It is considered that the current reference to employment/ training is inappropriate as it mainly focuses on the fact that a major office use is not suitable on this site. In the event that an educational or training use continues on the site, it is inevitable that there will be a need for ancillary office/administrative facilities. This would be considered as integral to the overall use of the site. The brief has been amended to give greater clarity to this particular issue.
16
5.6 Indoor sports facilities would be considered to be appropriate on the southern portion of the site, however this would need to be considered within the context of Policy C.5.2 which seeks to retain both private and public existing indoor recreation facilities and Policy C.5.5 New small private sports and leisure facilities, which would seek development to be an appropriate scale and nature in suitable locations taking into account of access issues, design and the nature of activity it may generate. Further encroachment on the open space is not considered appropriate unless buildings are of an appropriate scale and clearly ancillary to the open space use of the site.
Expressions of interest in using the open space/ various buildings 5.7 Isleworth and Syon School for boys are interested in using the northern part of the site for sports use as well as the existing sports hall. They have also expressed an interest in using some of the teaching space located in the southern part of the site. Such use is supported by the Council’s Lifelong Learning, leisure and Cultural Services. The retention of the sports hall is supported by CIP.
5.8 The Rambert School of ballet and contemporary dance have expressed an interest in using several buildings located within the South Eastern corner of the site for ballet and teaching purposes. Their interests do not overlap with those of Isleworth and Syon School.
5.9 West Thames College has also expressed an interest in using the sports facilities potentially available on the site as well as the student accommodation.
Response 5.10 Although all the above expressions of interest are welcomed, the Local Planning Authority are limited in its remit. It is not in a position to be able to deliver sports facilities, indoor sports and teaching space as well as student accommodation. Interested Parties will need to discuss their interest with Brunel University. In principle, all interested parties above present an acceptable use of the site (dependant on nature and scale of use). Although the Local Planning Authority is willing to facilitate negotiations, it is not in a position to insist that certain areas of land and buildings should be offered to the above interested parties. The agents will obviously be aware of their potential interest in the site through this report and take whatever action they consider appropriate within the context of the educational needs assessment.
Residential Development 5.11 Although there was overwhelming concern with regards to the general principle of residential development on the site at the public meeting, this was not expressed at the second meeting. The completed questionnaires gave strong support for a continued educational use on the site although 53% of people considered that housing would be appropriate.
Response 5.12 Paragraph 5.4 and 5.5 above outlines the need to give full consideration to the feasibility of retaining the site for educational purposes. Only in the event that the continuation of the site in educational use cannot be sustained would residential development be considered an appropriate alternative use of the southern part of the site dependant on the detailed consideration of design, density etc(in accordance with national, strategic and local planning policy). Until the educational needs assessment has been undertaken, it is premature to consider the use of the southern part of the site
17
for residential purposes, either in part or in its entirety. However, the Local Planning Authority has a duty to make the best use of urban land and to respond to the pressing need for housing in the Borough. In the event that the site is not needed for educational purposes (in whole or in part) in the future, a sensitively designed residential development, enhancing the Spring Grove Conservation Area and in keeping with Lancaster House, is considered to be appropriate in planning terms. Whilst the University’s requirement to achieve ‘best value’ is recognised, this needs to be considered within the overall context of planning policy and cannot override it. It would not serve either the interests of the University or the local community for the site to be left vacant and as such the Local Planning Authority is committed to working with the University within the context of the planning brief.
Affordable housing 5.13 There have been differing views re the provision of affordable housing, some wishing to see none at all, others considering that any new build should be for those in greatest need. Both Isleworth and Syon School and West Thames College have expressed the need for affordable (key worker) housing for teaching staff, the latter also expressing a need for student accommodation.
Response 5.14 In considering these concerns, the pressing need for affordable and key worker housing in the Borough has been taken into account. Although GVA Grimley suggest that a 50% provision of affordable housing is inappropriate, no evidence has been submitted to support this. Currently, there would appear to be no reason to justify a reduced provision of affordable housing on the site. As such, any planning application will be expected to deliver 50% affordable housing unless there are clear reasons why this should be relaxed in accordance with policy H2.1.
Design and Density 5.15 Generally, people considered that any residential development that takes place should generally be low density, low rise and high quality, in keeping with Lancaster House and enhancing the Spring Grove Conservation Area. Views with regard to building heights were generally split. Although almost half of the respondents agreed that buildings should be generally between 3-5 storeys, half disagreed or considered that heights should not exceed 3 or 4 storeys. Some considered no more than 2 storeys adjoining residential boundaries.
Response 5.16 In the event that residential development does take place on the site, the Local Planning Authority will have a duty to maximise the use of this site in order to make the best use of urban land. However, the site does have considerable planning constraints that will have an impact on the nature, design and scale of development. The open space in the northern part of the site should be maintained as such. Due to the fact that Lancaster House is a listed building and the site lies within Spring Grove Conservation Area any development should be well designed; trees and landscaped areas will need to be protected; and the amenities of residents will also have to be taken into account. The brief has been amended to offer more detailed guidance with regard to design and density to address the concerns raised through public consultation. Amendments have also been incorporated to allow for the demolition of Stockwell House, and re-provision of student accommodation in a building which is more in keeping with the area.
18
Pedestrian Access 5.17 This was agreed by the majority of people, although some pointed out that this largely depended on the future use of the open space.
Response 5.18 Amendments have been made to the brief to make reference to flexibility in the provision of pedestrian access dependant on the nature of the use.
Vehicular access and traffic 5.19 Access from Borough Road, Ridgeway Road and Wood lane was considered acceptable by the majority of the people although greatest concern was raised with regard to access from Ridgeway Road primarily because of parking issues associated with the Court and the School at drop off/ pick up periods.
5.20 Although traffic calming measures have been put into the area, there appears to be a need for further measures including:- discouragement of rat running, improving the highway infrastructure and crossing facilities in order to mitigate against the negative impacts of additional traffic in the area and improve road safety.
5.21 Several people expressed concern about the pressure on car parking in local streets and the need for a Residents Parking Scheme. However, informal consultation has recently been undertaken with regard to such a scheme and it would appear that the majority of people who live around the Brunel campus are currently not in favour of its implementation. A full report on the results of consultation-Isleworth College/Court Proposed Parking Scheme forms part of this Committee Agenda.
Response 5.22 In the event that any development which is proposed on the site is considered to have the potential to cause further pressure for on street parking space, the situation will be reviewed and residents reconsulted if a Residents Parking Scheme is proposed in the future. Any planning application will need to be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment. However, more details have been added to the brief with regard to potential issues relating to parking access and traffic measures which may be deemed necessary dependant on the nature of the development proposed.
Floodlighting 5.23 Variety of responses were received ranging from no restrictions to no floodlighting at all. However, the majority of those who commented considered that it should be restricted near residential properties.
Response 5.24 The brief already refers to restricting floodlighting near residential areas. Detailed consideration of design, direction and level of light would need to be considered as part of a full planning application and could be controlled by condition.
Community benefits 5.25 The vast majority of respondents agreed with the nature of community benefits. Potential benefits for Isleworth and Syon School were mentioned by several people including the school itself and the Council’s lifelong learning, leisure and cultural services.
Response
19
5.26 Planning policy encourages the dual use of facilities as well as public use of any private facilities which may be provided in the Borough. Reference to links to existing schools and educational establishments, specifically Isleworth and Syon School for Boys and West Thames College has been added to this section.
6.0 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE BRIEF
6.1 The amended brief is attached for Members consideration as an appendix. The amendments are annotated as follows.
-A summary of the changes is highlighted at the beginning of each section. This is provided to assist Members and will not form part of the final brief.
- Additions to the brief have been underlined.
- Deletions have been struck through.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The development brief for the site promotes a form of development that, either directly or indirectly, promotes environmental and health benefits for many people, regardless of whether it continues in its current use or is redeveloped for another. In the event that an alternative redevelopment takes place, the open space within the site should be protected, providing direct benefits for people’s health and well being.
8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The brief outlines the potential need to provide affordable housing as well as provide access and facilities for people with disabilities. In the event that the southern part of the site is redeveloped, the provision of publicly accessible open space and new access through the site also offers recreational opportunities to a large number of people who currently have no opportunities within the local area.
9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The financial implications of development and long term management and maintenance are addressed with a view to entering into a legal agreement with the developer in the event that publicly accessible open space is provided. This will therefore not draw on the Councils own financial resources.
Contact: Margaret Howe/ Lesley Underwood Telephone: 020 8583 5227/ 5207 Background Papers: This report has been or is due to be considered by:
Draft Planning Brief-June 2003 IBAC –23rd Oct. 2003 Unitary Development Plan, Unitary Development Plan Proposed Alterations Revised Deposit Jan 2001 Draft London Plan-June 2002 PPG3 and 17 This report is relevant to the Spring Grove Ward
20
BRUNEL UNIVERSITY – OSTERLEY CAMPUS
DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF FOR CONSULTATION
JUNE NOVEMBER 2003
OWNERSHIP: Brunel University – The University intends to vacate the site in 2005 at the earliest
SITE AREA: 8.15has (20.14 acres)
HISTORIC AND CURRENT USE: Used for educational purposes since the site was first developed in 1890 and also now includes 137 bed spaces for student accommodation. A significant part of the site is open and used for a range of sporting activities.
FORMAL DESIGNATIONS: Local Open Space (privately owned) across the northern area of the site, Spring Grove Conservation Area, Tree Preservation Orders, Grade II listed building (Lancaster House).
1.0 General Background to the University Reference to Twickenham Campus has been removed as this site now has planning permission for housing.
1.1 Brunel University was founded in the 1960’s, and was merged with Shoreditch College in 1981 and the West London Institute in 1997. Brunel currently has four three campuses in four three different boroughs including the Osterley campus, the subject of this planning brief. The other sites are: • Runnymede (Runnymede Borough Council) • Twickenham (London Borough of Richmond upon Thames) • Uxbridge, the administrative headquarters of Brunel University (London Borough of Hillingdon)
2.0 Site Description and Context (see maps 1 and 2) Minor amendments have been made to the site description to provide greater clarity.
2.1 The brief site has a total area of approximately 8.15ha (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 predominately 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.
2.2 The open area in the north of the site is designated as Local Open Space within the Revised Deposit UDP. It is privately owned and there is therefore no legal public 1
access at the current time. Its lies immediately south northern boundary forms part of the Green Corridor which runs along the Great West Road. and although not within an area of public open space deficiency it is adjacent to an area of open space deficiency which lies generally to the West and South. With the exception of land which lies in the northernmost part of the site, the remaining open land and buildings lie within an area of public open space deficiency.
2.3 There is a significant area of open space in the north of the site predominately used for outdoor sporting facilities by the university including a running track, tennis courts and playing fields. However as there is no public access the area is recorded as being of public open space deficiency The site is well landscaped with a number of mature trees across the site, many of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders.
2.4 An array of buildings are clustered in the southern and eastern part of the site, including lecture rooms, Students Union, Health Centre, Sports Halls, student accommodation, refectories and other uses ancillary to the educational and sports use of the site. Lancaster House, which is a striking and attractive three storey, grade II listed building fronts onto Borough Road.
2.5 Pedestrian and cycle access to the site is good via the established network of relatively quiet but safe residential streets. Traffic signals at the junction of Wood Lane and the Great West Road assist pedestrians crossing this busy road (although there is no pedestrian phase). The Great West Road provides a well maintained footpath and cycleway and is part of the existing London Cycle Network.
2.6 The closest tube station is Osterley station on the Piccadilly line which is about a 15 minute walk away. Isleworth British Rail station is also about 15 minutes walk away to the south. The site is also served by a number of the H91 bus routes which travels east and westwards along the Great West Road and the H28 bus route which travels north south along Wood Lane.
2.7 The Great West Road provides good linkages to both Heathrow, the M4 and the West as well as into central London. Vehicular access to the site is provided at three points. The main access is via a one way 'in and out' service road which leads off onto Borough Road. Access to the student car park is via Wood Lane and the refectory and kitchens are accessed via Ridgeway Road. There is no direct access, either vehicular or pedestrian, from the Great West Road. The area has been 'traffic calmed' with a view to deterring car drivers 'rat running' to and from the Great West Road. However, despite these measures, residents still experience problems with traffic cutting through these residential roads.
2.8 Car parking is provided in two main areas. A general parking area of 34 cars is provided at the front of the site and is accessed from Borough Road. Student parking for 60 cars is provided in the north east corner of the site. This is accessed from Wood Lane and is floodlit.
2.9 The site is fenced on all sides. Along the front boundary, an attractive brick wall and railings is complemented by a backdrop of mature trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The remaining three boundaries have concrete post fencing and well maintained hedges.
2
3.0 Relevant Planning Policies Amendments have been made to update relevant planning guidance, specifically the Draft London Plan, as well as address policy omissions. Reference to employment policies has been removed as this is not included as a development option.
National, Regional and Strategic Planning Policy
3.1 At a national level The following documents are relevant:
PPG1 – General Policies and Principles; PPG3 – Housing; PPG13 – Transport; PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment; PPG17 and draft PPG17– Sport and Recreation; RPG3 – Strategic Guidance for London; Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 DETR Circular 08/00, Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Land) England) Direction 2000 LPAC – Sustainable Residential Quality – Exploring the Housing Potential of large sites Better places to live-By Design-A companion guide to PPG3. Sport England – ‘A sporting future for the playing fields of England – Policy on planning applications for development on playing fields.’ The Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy – Towards a London Plan Draft London Plan-June 2002. Key policies are listed below;
2A.10- London’s Network of Spaces 3A.1- Increasing London’s Housing supply 3A.4-Housing Choice 3A.7-Affordable Housing targets 3A.8- Negotiating affordable housing in individual schemes 3A.21-Education facilities 3A.22-Higher education 3D.8- Realising the value of open space 3D.10-Protecting open spaces 4B.1- Design for a compact city 4B.3-Maximising the potential of sites 4B.7-Respect local context and communities
Unitary Development Plan
3.2 This brief should be read at all times in conjunction with the provisions of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (1996) and the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan (January 2001) and Proposed Modifications 2003. There should be particular regard to the following policies in the Revised Deposit UDP and proposed modifications 2003. The UDP Review is anticipated to be formally adopted at the end of 2003. Until this time, reference should be made to the adopted UDP also.
Implementation Policies
3
IMP.1.2 – The re-use and recycling of urban land IMP.5.1 – High quality building and urban design IMP.6.1 – Planning obligations.
Open Space
The northern area of the site is designated as Local Open Space (see plan).
ENV-N 1.13 – Protection of open space ENV-N.1.10 – Provision of New Open Space ENV-N 1.11 – Protection and improvement of local open space. ENV -N.1.11A – Retention of Playing Fields ENV-N.2.3 – Promotion of Nature Conservation Management ENV-N.2.6 – Landscape Features ENV-N.2.7 – Trees and Community Woodland ENV-N.2.8 – Tree Preservation Orders ENV.P.1.7 – Light Pollution
Built Environment
The site is within the proposed Spring Grove Conservation Area (adopted April 2002)
ENV-B 1.1 – New Development ENV-B 1.8 – Access and facilities for people with disabilities ENV-B.1.9 – Safety and Security ENV-B.2.2 – Conservation Areas ENV-B 2.3 – Re-use of redundant historic buildings ENV-B 2.4 – Demolition of listed buildings ENV-B 2.5 – Development affecting the setting of a listed building ENV-B 2.7 – Alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character ENV-B 2.8 – Protection of local and strategic views. ENV-P.2.4 – Recycling facilities in New Developments
Employment
E.1.1 – Location of new employment development E.1.2 – Locations for business use E.2.1 – Environmental criteria E.2.2 – Mixed uses.
Education, Sports and Recreation
C.2.1 – Education facilities C.5.2 – Existing Indoor Recreation Facilities C.5.4 – Outdoor Recreation C.5.5 – New small private sports and leisure facilities
Housing
H.1.1 – New housing development 4
H.1.2 2.1 – Affordable housing H.4.1 – Housing Standards and Guidelines H.4.2 – Residential Density H.4.3 – Residential Mix H.4.4 – Children’s Play H.4.5 – Associated Facilities for Residential Developments
Transport
T.1.2 – The movement implications of development T.1.4 + Appendix 4 – Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments T.2.1 – Pedestrian access T.2.4 – Public transport infrastructure
4.0 Existing Factors Affecting Development/Site Constraints Additions have been made to give greater guidance re open space and views into and out of the site. Additions have also been made to the development criteria section to provide greater clarity.
4.1 Any redevelopment of the site would be affected by the following existing factors:
• The Spring Grove Conservation Area
Several key features of the Conservation Area fall within the boundary of the planning brief including Lancaster House, the open area to the front of Lancaster House as well as the open character of the northern part of the site. The array of mature trees across the site also adds to the character of the Conservation Area.
• Listed Building – Lancaster House
Lancaster House is a grade II listed building fronting Borough Road built in 1867 as London International College. Any new development must be carefully designed to preserve the setting of the building and be of an appropriate design scale, height, massing and alignment with the use of appropriate materials. The open landscaped area to the front of Lancaster House allows views of the building along Borough Road and should be retained.
• Open Space
A significant area of the north of the site is identified as Local Open Space in the Revised Deposit UDP (January 2001). The southernmost part of the site lies within an area of public open space deficiency. It is important not only to protect open space from development but also to ensure that opportunities are taken to improve the amenity value and to increase public accessibility, particularly in areas of public open space deficiency.
• Tree Preservation Orders
There are a large number of protected trees across the site shown on the attached plan. There are 29 individually protected trees and a number of groups of trees. The two 5
relevant T.P.O's are nos 136 + 152. Regard must be given to these trees in relation to any new development.
• Views into and out of the site
The most important views into the site are of Lancaster House together with the open green aspect into the site views from the Great West Road. St Mary's Church provides a focal point out of the site, to the north west and this should be taken into account in the design and layout of any new development. There are no other important views, which would affect the development, although Regard should also be given to local views and glimpses in and out of the site with a view to integrating the open space with the surrounding neighbourhood and providing informal surveillance. in relation to the surrounding land uses.
Criteria
4.2 Therefore, any form of future redevelopment of the site should meet the following criteria having regard to the policies referred to in section 3 of this brief above.
Protect the appearance and setting of Lancaster House, a listed building, and ensure that any works to it respect its integrity and listed building status; Protect and maintain existing trees and habitats as appropriate and seek to increase the stock and range of trees on site; Safeguard the existing open space from further encroachment by built development; Seek to provide improved public access to the open space and to increase the 'permeability' of the open space by improving access for pedestrians and cyclists in order that the public can benefit from the provision of open space; Maximise use of the open space by local people, schools and clubs through proper attention to safety and security management and maintenance and the promotion of public and private organised sport and general recreational use; Retain and improve Encourage the improvement of indoor and outdoor sports facilities on the site with a view to providing greater access to the community; Ensure that the open space and Lancaster House are well maintained and managed with a view to securing their long term viability; Ensure that any new development enhances the visual amenities of the area generally Lancaster House and Spring Grove Conservation Area, and that any activity on and associated with the site does not result in a loss of amenity to surrounding residents; Ensure that the future masterplan is designed to the highest quality; and Any new development takes account of sustainable objectives.
5.0 Proposed Land Uses Several amendments/additions have been made in order to clearly state the land use priorities for the site, the desirability of fostering local community and educational links, as well as offering guidance with regard to any supporting material which may be considered necessary to justify a particular form of development. Reference to employment use has been deleted
5.1 The central factors in determining the appropriate uses for the site are the existing use as an educational resource, the sustainability of the site in terms of the reuse of previously developed land, the protection of open space and sporting facilities, the type of surrounding land use, accessibility by modes of travel other than car and 6
relevant planning policy. All the uses would be expected to meet the criteria set out in para.4.2 above.
Educational Use and Associated Facilities
5.2 The preference would be is to retain the site for some form of educational purpose and with associated facilities or other institutional establishment. subject to their being a local need The feasibility of the use is dependant on there being a local or strategic need for the use as set out in policy 3A.21 and 3A.22 of the Draft London Plan and policy C.2.1 of the Revised Deposit UDP. The existing student accommodation will be expected to be retained reprovided if the site remains in educational use in the event that a local need is established. Links with existing educational and sporting institutions should be explored. Any person wishing to develop the site should contact Isleworth and Syon School who already have an agreement to use many of the sporting facilities on the site, an arrangement which has wide public support locally, as well as West Thames College with a view to establishing the needs of the local area. The Council would consider alternative uses only once it is convinced that this historic and established educational use is no longer required and/or viable.
5.3 In the event that a convincing case is presented to the Council proving the inappropriateness of continuing the educational use, there are a number of possible alternative uses that might be considered to be suitable for the site. The Council will only consider alternative uses on the site if the lack of educational need is proven . Early indications show that there is a need and demand in substantial parts of the site to be retained for educational and sporting use. In the event that alternative uses are proposed, a comprehensive educational needs assessment will be required to accompany any planning application. Please refer to the appendix re Educational Needs Assessment.
Residential
5.4 Residential development would be considered on the existing area of the southern part of the site, which is used for educational purposes through conversion of existing buildings or redevelopment as appropriate within the existing developed part of the site. Residential development would not be considered acceptable on that part of the site currently used for indoor and ancillary sporting facilities. These facilities should be retained in accordance with policies C5.2 and C5.4 of the Revised Deposit UDP. unless a convincing case can be made to the LPA that the existing buildings are no longer viable and the land is not required for the re-provision and improvement of alternative sporting facilities on the site.
5.5 PPG3 clearly states that the presumption will be that previously developed sites should be developed before greenfield sites which in this instance would be the Local Open Space. Any new residential development would potentially make an important contribution towards addressing local housing need particularly in respect of affordable housing including student accommodation and the needs of key workers (such as teachers; health and social workers) (see policy H.2.1 of the Revised Deposit UDP). Accommodation should cater for mixed communities including elderly people and people with disabilities. The built up part of the site accords with criteria set out in PPG3 for the selection of sites for residential development, in terms of its location and accessibility, capacity of the existing infrastructure and the ability to build communities. Redevelopment of the existing developed part of the site for residential use would enable the re-use of previously developed land. Residential redevelopment 7
would should include 50% affordable housing of which 15 30% should be below market cost for key workers in line with relevant planning policy H2.1.
5.6 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG3) advises that the density of residential development should make the most effective use of previously developed land and sets out indicative targets of up to 50 residential units per hectare. The London Borough of Hounslow's upper limit for residential density is 250 habitable rooms per hectare. The density of any residential development should take into account the accessibility of the site, the existing built form on the site and the surrounding townscape. It should be noted that the PPG3 definition of density would include access roads within the site, private garden space, car parking areas, incidental open space and landscaping but would not include major distributor roads, significant landscape buffer strips and open spaces serving a wider area.
5.7 Residential density is a useful tool in establishing the general level of development anticipated by a site. However, good urban design and the need to respect, enhance and relate to Lancaster House, adjoining residential properties as well as the Spring Grove Conservation Area generally are considered to be paramount. Developers are recommended to refer to national and local guidance relating to design and sustainable residential quality. Any development should take into account the form and density of surrounding development. Any redevelopment for residential use which exceeds this level on the site should also have regard to accessibility by public transport and guidance prepared by LPAC: "Sustainable Residential Quality – Exploring the Housing Potential of Large Sites".
Employment/Training
5.7 The Council wishes to promote sustainable forms of development in accessible areas and those served well by public transport with the aim of reducing the need to travel. Appropriate employment uses could therefore include training or business training and/or an element of ancillary B1 office use. However, the site would not be suitable for a major office (B1) use or major Headquarter accommodation because it does not fall within the areas considered suitable for B1 use as set out in the Council’s UDP which are town centres because they offer the greatest accessibility by public transport. The site also does not fall within the Great West Road Employment Area.
Sports/Leisure/Open Space/Community/Health
5.8 The provision of improved sports and leisure recreational facilities associated with the open space and sports halls on the site would be appropriate, and should accord with relevant UDP policies and the principles of PPG17 (Sport and Recreation) and the criteria contained in Sport England’s document ‘A sporting future for the playing fields of England’ subject to detailed design considerations. Any new facilities would be expected to preserve or enhance the appearance of the conservation area and to be of a high quality appearance. It is considered that A re-organisation of sports facilities on the site, both indoor and outdoor may be required considered in order to provide an improved provision of facilities. There should be no reduction in the area of the site given over to sporting facilities.
5.9 Any new built development should not encroach on the identified area of open space unless any new ancillary facilities are required to improve the quality of sporting facilities on the site which cannot be provided on existing developed land. used for 8
sporting facilities. In accordance with policy ENV-N.1.11 of the Revised Deposit UDP any new buildings or change of use of buildings are only acceptable for purposes ancillary to open air sport and recreation facilities that preserve the predominately open character of the area.
5.10 The majority of the site is open land in private ownership used for outdoor sporting facilities but with no public access. The site should provide for both active and passive recreation. In the event that any new facilities are privately run, the Council will seek to secure agreement for public use. The provision of improved public access to recreation and sports facilities on the site should be provided as part of any redevelopment.
5.11 Any development of this nature is likely to be subject to restrictions of hours of use.
5.12 PPG3 clearly states that developing more housing within urban areas should not mean building on urban green spaces.
5.13 Opportunities could also be explored for the provision of other community facilities on the site in addition to those which are set out above which would be compatible with the existing educational use of the site. This could include, as examples, a community meeting place, provision of health facilities or library.
Mix of Uses
5.14 A mix of the above uses may be acceptable dependent on the balance of those uses.
Planning Guidance
5.15 In the event that the site is no longer used on a comprehensive basis as a university or educational campus, the following guidance will apply.
6.0 Movement (pedestrian vehicular and cycle) and Parking Amendments have been made to take account of the potential use of much of the open space for organised sport and the need to avoid conflict which may arise through public access.
6.1 Any development that takes place on the site should take account of the need to provide access for pedestrians and cyclists to and through the site. The site is currently in private ownership and therefore there is no permitted access to the site at the current time. Reference should be made to the existing links shown on the context map. as well as the desire lines potential for convenient links through the site. Additional pedestrian and cycle links should be provided dependant on the nature and function of the open space provided. Attention should also be given to the need for safe, secure and direct access to the public transport network. Desire lines leading to the Great West Road and Wood Lane should be considered with a view to providing the most direct route to public transport and crossing facilities, whilst All pedestrian and cycle routes should avoiding conflict with any formal open space provision for organised sport use. As such, new pedestrian accesses should be created as indicated on the context map. Public access for pedestrians and cyclists should also be available via Borough Road with a view to reducing the area of Public Open Space deficiency to the south and west of the site.
9
6.2 There are currently a number of access points from Borough Road, Ridgeway Road and Wood Lane leading to various parking areas across the site. Vehicular access to the site should be reviewed in relation to the proposed use or uses of the site. Alterations to access roads are likely to be necessary in order to improve the safety of all road users and reduce any conflict between pedestrian, cycle and vehicular movement within and at the entrance of the site. The main points of vehicular and pedestrian access should be designed as gateways that are attractive, direct, safe and secure.
6.3 Any proposals for redevelopment of the site should include a Transport Impact Assessment which details the impact of the development on the surrounding transport network, and access to the site by foot, cycle, public transport and private car. Dependant on the findings of such an assessment, it may be appropriate to restrict access via particular roads as well as implement traffic and parking measures in the local area in order to mitigate against any negative impact the development may have. Such measures would be subject to consultation with local residents. Any development of the site should encourage the use of public transport and must include provision for improvement to public transport accessibility via investment in the local public transport network. A Green Travel Plan would may also need to be prepared which would identify ways of reducing reliance on the private car.
6.4 Any new development within the planning brief area should generally comply with the Council's car parking standards stated in the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan including provision for people with disabilities. It should be noted that these are maximum standards.
6.5 Secure and conveniently located cycle parking should be provided for any new development which should generally comply with the Council's cycle parking standards set out in the UDP.
6.6 All routes and access to buildings should provide access for people with disabilities.
6.7 Parking should be conveniently located to buildings on site. The level of parking sought will need to be fully justified, taking account of the nature of uses proposed, the overall accessibility of the site and the need to promote access by means such as walking, cycling and public transport. All parking areas should be well designed, safe and secure and landscaped using good quality materials and integrating well with the open character of the site. They should have sufficient surveillance in order to deter crime and car theft.
7.0 Building Form Additions have been made to provide greater clarity with regards to potential demolition, design and building heights within the scheme.
7.1 There are a number of buildings across the site with various styles. Many of them are unattractive, functional buildings built during the 1960's and 70's generally varying in height from one to three storeys although rising to seven (Stockwell Hall) in the south west corner of the site. Any new development should look comprehensively at the built form and new redevelopment proposals should seek to rationalise the siting of buildings. The site would benefit from selective demolition of some of the buildings which should be replaced by new buildings which are more in keeping with the listed building and the Spring Grove Conservation Area.
10
7.2 The site is within the Spring Grove Conservation Area. As such The LPA is required under section 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act to preserving or enhancing the appearance of the Conservation Area and ensuring that any development respects the character of the existing architecture in scale, design and materials.
7.3 In assessing development proposals, consideration will be given to existing heights across the site and around the site, the need to preserve the setting of Lancaster House and the potential impact on the surrounding area and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
7.4 New development should also take account of the residential character surrounding the site together with the setting of Lancaster House in terms of size, scale, materials and design. Generally 3-4 5 storey development would be considered appropriate with the highest buildings punctuating main entrances and corners in order to facilitate a more imaginative design and within the body of the site. However, building heights should be sensitive to their surroundings, and in particular surrounding residential properties. In some instances 2 storey development may be appropriate to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers whereas selective 5 storey elements may be acceptable in parts of the site in order to add interest to the built form and help to achieve good and imaginative urban design. Any proposals for buildings higher than this would need to be considered in conjunction with the design criteria set out in this brief which take into account policies ENV-B 1.1 (New Development), ENV-B 2.2 (Conservation Areas) and ENV-B 2.5 (Development affecting the setting of a listed building) of the Revised Deposit UDP. Proper attention must be paid to designing buildings with proper street frontages along the boundary roads which would enhance the street scene and provide attractive frontages to the open space within the site.
7.5 Lancaster House is a grade II listed building fronting Borough Road. As such, any alterations to the external appearance or internal alterations would require listed building consent. This should be accompanied by a justification of why these works are necessary and desirable in accordance with PPG15 together with full information to enable an assessment of the likely impact on the special architectural and historic interest of the building. Any alterations should maintain the character of the interiors and retain any features of interest, and be sympathetic in terms of scale and form of the original building, in the use of materials and other details to the period and style of the original building. The division of principal rooms or excessive alterations to plan form is also unlikely to be acceptable.
7.6 In addition to the above, any new buildings or extensions falling within the curtilage of the building are likely to need listed building consent. The design and layout of any new buildings on the site must pay particular regard to the setting and relationship with Lancaster House. It should be carefully designed, be of an appropriate design, scale, height, massing and alignment with the use of appropriate materials. Any new development should be subordinate to the retained listed building.
7.7 The boundary between the build development and open space should be sensitively treated providing pleasant views from either direction. The open aspect of the north of the site should be retained in order to preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area. Opportunities should be explored to incorporate the existing trees into the layout of any new development in order to preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the area in general. In the event that residential accommodation is proposed, all family units should be provided with private amenity space.
11
7.8 Any floodlighting should be sensitively located away from residential properties, should not result in any undue loss of amenity to local residents and take account of the effect on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. Detailed consideration will be considered within the context of policy ENV.P 1.7 of the Revised Deposit UDP.
8.0 Image
8.1 Whatever form of development that takes place, it should result in a site that is valued and preferably used by local people. The open space, which should remain as such, should offer a pleasant environment for people within and outside of the site and Lancaster House should continue to act as a focal point within the area.
8.2 Regardless of the scale of any redevelopment in the future, all new development should seek to enhance the environmental and historic qualities of the site, preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area and maximise the potential to enhance the listed building, its setting and associated landscaping.
8.3 In the event that the existing open space becomes publicly accessible, the network of pathways and the provision of lighting, coupled with enhanced opportunities for surveillance from adjoining residential properties, should engender a sense of safety and security and an attractive recreational and sports environment. Important to the long-term image of the site is a high quality of management and maintenance. All parts of the site that are publicly accessible should conform to the Council's dog policy with dog free zones and dog bins provided as appropriate.
9.0 Management and Maintenance
9.1 Regular maintenance and repair are key to the preservation of Lancaster House. In the event that the original educational use is not feasible, an alternative use may be appropriate, as keeping the building in active use is considered the best way to preserve its long term future.
9.2 The quality of long term management and maintenance of the open land is fundamental to the value of this site to the community. As such it is important that future management is considered as integral to any development which may take place.
9.3 The potential for public and private use of the open space as outlined in this brief, will help to maximise the level of recreational use, generate higher levels of participation and thus help achieve greater efficiency. This should ensure its long term viability as a valuable community resource. Adequate security measures will also be important and as such the management of the site should address the need to open and secure the site on a daily basis.
9.4 The developer will be required to enter into a legal agreement with the Council in order to ensure adequate management and maintenance of open space in the future.
10.0 Community
10.1 The local community should be given every opportunity to influence the future use of the site. It is important that development and activities which takes place on the site 12
are seen as an asset to the community. Any major redevelopment or change of use granted planning permission will may be subject to the provision of the following benefits both on and off site (dependant on the nature and scale of development).
y Public access to and through the site and specifically to open space y Agreement to contribute to the long term management and maintenance of the publicly accessible open space y A contribution to public transport improvements or access to the public transport network may be necessary dependant on the nature and scale of new development proposed y Affordable housing (including provision for key workers) y Contributions to traffic management/controlled parking/highway improvements y Traffic calming to Ridgeway Road including a ‘safe routes to school’ traffic calming scheme at Isleworth and Syon School y Appropriate support services, for example education, health and community and children’s play facilities y Community access to indoor and outdoor sports facilities. Specific attention should be given to the needs of local schools and educational establishments namely Isleworth and Syon School and West Thames College. y Refurbishment of Lancaster House y A Green Transport Plan incorporating initiatives to reduce dependence on car travel to the site.
11.0 Supplementary Information
11.1 Any planning applications must be accompanied by the following information:
(i) A tree survey (undertaken by a qualified arboriculturalist to BS 5837)
(ii) A nature conservation survey (which makes specific reference to the Local Biodiversity Action Plan)
(iii) A transport impact study
(iii) Proposals for the refurbishment of Lancaster House including an application for listed building consent. This should be accompanied by a justification of why these works are necessary and desirable in accordance with PPG15.
(iv) An urban design statement if major redevelopment is proposed. If required this should include:
- An assessment of scale, mass, height, silhouette, density, layout, materials and colour in relation to the local context, Lancaster House, the skyline and local landmarks and historic buildings (eg St Mary's Church in Osterley Road with its distinctive church tower). - Proposals for visual and physical permeability, enhancing public access, lighting and landscaping.
(v) An archaeological statement if new development is proposed.
(vi) If development is not for educational purposes, evidence that there is no need for educational facilities in the vicinity should be provided.(see appendix re educational needs assessment). 13
12.0 Contacts
12.1 For further information about this planning brief, contact:
MARGARET HOWE, (LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW) 020 8583 5227.
12.2 For further information about any land matters, contact:
LOUISE MORTON, (GVA GRIMLEY) 020 7911 2654.
14
Appendix 1 Educational Needs Assessment
Policies contained within Hounslow’s UDP Review and the Draft London Plan seek to respond to the demands of educational facilities and make adequate provision for a variety of learning facilities. Relevant policies include;
Policy 3A.21 Education Facilities-Draft London Plan Policy 3A.22 Higher Education-Draft London Plan
Policy C2.1 Education Facilities-Hounslow UDP
Land already in educational use should be safeguarded in order to ensure adequate provision within the Borough and across the Capital. As a pre-requisite to considering any alternative use on the site, the Local Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that there is not an educational need, currently or in the foreseeable future, for the provision of pre school, primary, secondary or higher and further education on the site. Those proposing an alternative use will therefore need to submit an educational needs assessment which addresses the following issues;
1. The need for new facilities 2. The potential for expansion of existing provision or additional school facilities 3. The possibility of inter-borough provision. 4. The need to protect open space. 5. The need for student accommodation.
The Local Planning Authority will expect any assessment to contain a response to those educational needs already expressed as well as provide evidence to show that the site has been adequately marketed for an educational use.
Applicants are specifically advised to contact the Council’s Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services as well as schools and colleges within the area who will be able to assist in fulfilling the requirements of the assessment.
15