Report of the Corporate Director of Planning and Community Services

Address: OUTBOROUGH CONSULTATION BY LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING (SOUTHALL GAS WORKS SITE, HAYES BY-PASS, HAYES (OUTLINE APPLICATION))

Development: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, REMEDIATION OF LAND AND REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE FOR MIXED USES

LBH Ref Nos: 39704/APP/2009/1917

Drawing Nos: received 29/10/08

Date of receipt: 29/10/2008 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 01/05/2009

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The majority of this 44.7Ha site is located in the London Borough of Ealing, immediately to the east of the Grand Union canal. The proposed redevelopment of the former Southall Gas Works offers significant regenerative benefits (including remediation of contaminated land and provision of a considerable amount of housing).

1.2 As this report relates to the request from the London Borough of Ealing for observations and comments in relation to the planning application it has received, the issue for consideration by the Central and South Planning Committee is the impact of the proposed development on the London Borough of Hillingdon (rather than the determination of the application itself).

1.3 This is a substantial scheme with the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on the London Borough of Hillingdon. The application in its current form does not propose to adequately mitigate impacts, as such the proposal would: • Cause harm to the highways network; • Result in the loss of ecologically significant wildlife habitat; and • Result in future residents of the scheme intensively using land and facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon (land and facilities which do not have the spare capacity necessary to cope with additional loading which would be resultant from this scheme); • Cause harm to the setting of the Green Belt and Grand Union Canal.

1.4 Additionally, supporting documentation accompanying the scheme fails to demonstrate that the scheme would not result in potentially adverse economic impacts on existing centres and their shopping areas. Concern is also raised

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS in relation to the monitoring and management of contaminated material during remediation works (including the transportation of contaminated materials through the London Borough of Hillingdon).

1.5 It is considered that the impact of the proposed development on land within the London Borough of Hillingdon has not been adequately addressed by the Applicant.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION:

That the London Borough of Ealing be informed that the London Borough of Hillingdon raises strong objection to the proposed scheme on the following grounds:

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the road network can accommodate the levels of traffic that would be generated by the development, nor has it been demonstrated that there would not be a significant worsening of conditions on the highway network within the London Borough of Hillingdon. In particular objection is raised to: • The impact of the development on the Bilton Way, which would result in a queue from the Pump Lane / Bilton Way roundabout to the Hayes bypass slip road; • The lack of any assessment of impacts arising from the development on Pump Lane / Coldharbour Lane roundabout; • Three bus routes are proposed through Pump Lane (which has a width restriction). No details of measures to prevent HGV’s using the bus route to gain access to Coldharbour Lane are proposed; Lack of a turning head at the proposed dead end with the A312.

2. The application fails to demonstrate that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to the ecology of the wider area, including Minet Country Park, the neighbouring river/blue ribbon network and Yeading Valley. The scope and timing of surveys of flora and fauna are inadequate to accurately demonstrate the presence or otherwise of endangered species. Proposed measures to mitigate for loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat are unsatisfactory and would not offset the unacceptable harm to the ecology of the wider area caused by the development.

3. The proposed development would have significant adverse impacts on land and facilities in the London Borough of Hillingdon and the application does not provide for planning obligations to offset the impacts. Specifically, planning obligations are required for the following: • Financial contribution to implement mitigation measures and capacity enhancements to Minet Country Park made necessary by the proposed development. Financial contribution sought: £3,038,000;

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • Financial contribution to offset impacts on local educational facilities. Financial contribution sought: £821,000; • Financial contribution towards capacity enhancements in local recreational and leisure facilities: £1,000,000; • Financial contribution to implement works to enable the public realm to cope with additional users: £50,000; • Provision of construction training of Hillingdon residents, by enabling them to actively work and receive construction training on the construction site; • Require the Applicant to enter into and abide by the terms of a Sustainable Travel Plan.

Additionally British Waterways requested that the following planning obligations be secured: • Financial contribution towards a strategic master plan for the wider area: £20,000; • Financial contribution towards delivery and implementation of a Waterspace Strategy: £10,000; • Financial contribution towards remediation of land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal (Minet Tip): £4,000,000; • Financial contribution to implement works to improve access along the canal edge from Uxbridge Road to Bulls Bridge: £660,000.

The heads of terms requested by British Waterways seek to protect human health and safety, secure enhancements to the Grand Union canal and its tow path made necessary by the development and are fully supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon .

The Applicant has advised that the scheme finances are affected by exceptional development costs and as such the imposition of Planning Obligations may make the scheme financially unviable.

No demonstrable evidence has been provided to verify the financial position of the development. If the obligations set out above are not satisfied the unacceptable impacts will remain and as such the application would remain unacceptable in planning terms and should be refused.

4. The proposed development includes a significant amount of retail space and the retail impact assessment submitted in support of the application does not demonstrate that the scale of the proposed retail component would not unacceptably harm existing centres. The retail study accompanying the application is considered inadequate for the following reasons: • Information relating to the existing supply of retail space (including vacancy rates) dates from 2006. The age of this

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS research makes its use in 2009 unreliable. Since 2006, retailing has been going through a fundamental market correction, new retailers have opened (e.g. Westfield shopping centre in Shepherds Bush). Vacancies have been increasing in town centres with businesses often under trading. The use of information from 2006 is simply not appropriate. • The retail economic impact assessment accompanying the application does not take account of changes to consumer spending enabled by the proposed access ways to the site from the west (including three bus routes through Pump Lane) and the impact this would have on spending in Hayes town centre.

Unless the retail study, including the sequential test is revisited to consider current market conditions and the influence of the proposed access arrangements (including bus services along the Pump Lane extension) on spending patterns, the London Borough of Hillingdon objects to the scheme on the basis of its potential impacts upon Hayes Town Centre.

5. The application provides inadequate measures to ameliorate the potential impacts of remediating on site contaminants and to ensure that these works do not cause harm to human health and wider environment (potential receptors include the Guru Nanak School, users of Minet Park and adjacent land over the brook, and occupiers of any nearby housing and business areas in Hayes). Remediation works would produce emissions of dust and odours and vapours, and if not fully controlled at source, could adversely affect residents in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The application does not propose dust and odour / vapour monitoring, nor is it proposed to manage traffic leaving site (including vehicles transporting contaminated waste) so as to prevent any contaminants from entering the environment.

6. The scale of development proposed in such close proximity to the canal has the potential to cause harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt. A greater minimum set back of buildings from the canal is required to ensure that the open appearance the Green Belt is maintained and to allow for structural landscaping to be incorporated into the proposal as a buffer between the development, the canal and Green Belt land to the west.

In addition it is recommended that the London Borough of Ealing be advised of the following:

1. In relation to Objection 1 above, should the London Borough of Ealing be minded to grant planning permission despite our objections we would request that as a minimum the following conditions be imposed: • The route from the new western link to Pump Lane shall not be open to general traffic until the off-site highway works at Pump

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Lane / Western Access, A 312 Hayes By-pass/ Pump Lane, Bulls Bridge Junction ( A312 / North Hyde Road / Hayes Road ) and the M4 Junction 3 works have been fully completed and opened to traffic. The reason for this is to mitigate the impact of additional traffic on highway safety and the capacity of the highway network. • Not more than 1,500 development units shall be occupied prior to the construction and opening to traffic of the improvements to M4 Junction 3 with the A312 as shown on SBA drawing 52212/B/31 revision A, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Highways Authority and TFL. The reason for this is to mitigate the impact of additional traffic on highway safety and the capacity of the highway network. • Not more than 1,350 development units shall be occupied prior to the construction and opening to traffic of the improvements to the A312 Bulls Bridge roundabout as shown on SBA drawing 52212/B48, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Highways Authority and TFL. The reason for this is to mitigate the impact of additional traffic on highway safety and the capacity of the highway network. • The improvement works to Bulls Bridge Junction and M4 Junction 3 shall not be carried out contemporaneously unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Highways Authority and TFL. The reason is to prevent major disruption to the highway network and the free flow of traffic. • The Pump Lane access as shown on drawings 52212/B/33 and 52212/B/34 shall not be opened to general traffic until conditioned improvements at M4 Junction 3 and Bulls Bridge junction are complete and open to traffic unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Highways Authority and TFL. Reason is to mitigate the impact of additional traffic on safety and capacity of the M4 and A312.

The bulk of the traffic impact is on roads directly affecting the Hillingdon highway network, it is imperative therefore that the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon enter into a binding (i.e. reinforced with an associated bond) joint Travel Plan with the developer.

2. In relation to Objection 2 above, should the London Borough of Ealing be minded to grant planning permission despite our objections, we would request that as a minimum, conditions be imposed to ensure: • The proposed 4m nature strip adjacent the tow path (eastern side of canal) is provided; • Proposed bat roosting boxes on bridge abutments are provided

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • A plan of management be submitted to and approved in writing by the relevant Local Planning Authority (i.e. the London Borough of Hillingdon) for the proposed relocation of any reptiles found on the main site to Minet Park; • Appropriately timed wildlife surveys be undertaken addressing Minet Country Park, the adjacent river/blue ribbon network and Yeading Valley. • A construction management plan be submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority, which includes a requirement for any works within Minet Country Park to be undertaken during winter and a plan be developed to avoid detrimental impacts on ecology during construction.

3. In relation to Objection 3 above , the London Borough of Hillingdon notes that the Applicant’s financial assertions are being tested by the District Valuers Service (DVS). However, inputs into the financial appraisal relating to planning obligations have not been informed by the London Borough of Hillingdon, and as such these inputs make the basis for the DVS assessment unreliable. The Applicant has not provided a response to the London Borough of Hillingdon’s request that the terms of the confidentiality agreement be altered. A transparent assessment of viability is the essential starting point for any negotiation with Developers in terms of reducing Planning Obligations to assist with scheme viability. Evidence is required (and has not been provided) to verify the financial position of the development.

4. In relation to Objection 5 above, should the London Borough of Ealing be minded to grant planning permission despite our objections we would request that as a minimum, the following conditions be imposed to ensure: • A management plan is prepared setting out how traffic leaving the site (including vehicles transporting contaminated waste) is to be managed to prevent any contaminants from entering the environment; • Adequate monitoring of dust, vapours and odours is undertaken during the remediation works.

The proposed storage of contaminated waste on the western area of the main site for 6-9 months before removal via Pump Lane is of concern, and The London Borough of Hillingdon wishes to be consulted on the details of how this is to be managed. The final Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan should include measures to mitigate any effects on the London Borough of Hillingdon.

The London Borough of Hillingdon’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) has attended contaminated land meetings with Ealing Council Pollution Officers, the Developer, British Waterways and the Environment Agency to discuss the proposal. The London Borough

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS of Hillingdon EPU wish to continue this involvement and to have an input into the environmental management of the site.

5. Increased traffic generation arising from the proposal in addition to the potential use of biomass or biodiesel as a fuel source within the proposed energy strategy have implications for the worsening of local air quality. The London Borough of Ealing’s attention is drawn to guidance available from Environmental Protection UK regarding the use of biomass and the wider sustainability implications of the origins of the fuel to be used.

The majority of the air quality impacts have been identified as arising from the associated increases in traffic. The direct relationship between traffic generation and air quality impacts means that any new or revised traffic management proposals must be accompanied by a new or revised air quality assessment.

6. While the development indicates aspects of positive design, it is vital that the following issues are resolved at the detailed design stage: • The proposed courtyard developments are all of similar concept and scale, with only a limited number of typologies extensively repeated throughout the site. This is likely to result in a monotonous urban site with a lack of distinctiveness and poor legibility, both internally and when viewed from the neighbouring Minet Country Park. • The western part of the site (specifically the proposed Pump Lane extension) is not clearly expressed as a main entrance to the site. The approach would benefit from further design work in order to emphasise this key gateway to the site. • It is vital that at the detailed design stage that vents from underground parking be sensitively located and indeed that the buildings be articulated and expressed so as to prevent the visual amenities of the Green Belt being compromised.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS

Site, locality and form of development

3.1 The application site is roughly triangular in shape and occupies approximately 44.7Ha in area. The application site is bounded to the south by the Wales and Great Western Mainline Railway (with commercial and employment uses beyond), to the west by the Grand Union Canal (with Minet Country Park beyond) and to the north by residential development in Southall (off Beaconsfield Road).

3.2 The majority of the application site is located within the London Borough of Ealing. Critically, three accesses ways from the west into the site as well as flood water storage areas are proposed to be located within London Borough of Hillingdon.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3.3 It is worth noting that this is an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access (including the three proposed access ways into the site from the west, proposed on land in the London Borough of Hillingdon).

3.4 The application straddles two local authority boundaries and in accordance with Circular 04/2008 (Planning Related Fees), the Applicant submitted identical applications to both Ealing and Hillingdon Councils.

3.5 The London Borough of Ealing seeks comments from this Council on the planning application it has received. It is worth noting that the planning application submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon is still being assessed and will be the subject of a further report to the Central and South Planning Committee in due course.

3.6 As this report relates to the request from Ealing Council for observations and comments in relation to the planning application, the issue for consideration by the Central and South Planning Committee is the impact of the proposed development on the London Borough of Hillingdon (rather than the determination of the application itself). It is not therefore appropriate to comment in detail on aspects of the scheme that do not directly impact on the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Scheme

3.7 The application proposes a mixed-use development comprising the following:

Outline application • Residential: up to 320,000 sq m (between 3,400-3,750 units); • Non-food retail: up to 14,200 sq m; • Supermarket: up to 5,850 sq m; • Café / restaurant / bars / takeaway uses: up to 1,750 sq m; • Primary school (two form entry); • Health centre; • Sports pavilion; • Hotel; up to 9650 sq m; • Conference / banqueting: up to 3,000 sq m; • Cinema: up to 4,700 sq m; • Office / studios: up to 3,500 sq m; • 2 Multi-storey car parks and on-street parking – maximum 950 non- residential spaces and maximum 2,625 residential spaces (0.7 spaces per dwelling) • Coach park for 8 coaches. • Play and recreational space; wetland area, canalside park, town square (Minimum 2.5 ha of playspace).

Full application • Pump Lane Link Road (London Borough of Hillingdon) – new access road connecting from Pump Lane and the Hayes bypass to the application site

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS for vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access, including drainage and a flood relief area. • Minet Country Park Bridge (London Borough of Hillingdon) – Central pedestrian and cycle access to Minet Country Park, bridging over the Canal and Yeading Brook. • Springfield Road Bridge (London Borough of Hillingdon) – Northern pedestrian and cycle access to Minet Country Park and Springfield Road. • Widening of South Road (London Borough of Ealing) across the railway line for the creation of a bus lane. • Eastern access (London Borough of Ealing) – new access road from Southall centre to the site, including land currently occupied by properties on The Crescent. • Accesses onto Beaconsfield Road (London Borough of Ealing).

3.8 The application is supported by the following documentation: • Design and Access Statement; • Development Specification; • Environmental Impact Assessment; • Planning Statement; Transport Assessment; • Framework Travel Plan; • Retail Assessment; • Sustainability Strategy; • Energy Strategy including Renewables; • Housing strategy; • Health Impact Assessment; • Remediation Strategy; • PADHI Report; • General Management Strategy; and • Statement of Community Involvement.

3.9 The Development Specification defines the development for which approval is being sought. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) identifies and assesses the effects that the proposed development is likely to have on the environment. These documents are particularly important, because they clarify (given the outline nature of the scheme) what is to be assessed and additionally the documents tie the developer into the submitted details. It is against these details that the EIA “tests” the impacts of the development, and it is within the parameters of the planning application that any subsequent reserved matter applications must be submitted.

Planning History

3.10 The site has a long established use as a gas works. More recently, parts of the site have been used for car parking.

3.11 In 2005, an application was submitted to the London Borough of Ealing seeking the 'Demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment of the site for mixed uses comprising residential, employment,

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS retail, leisure, community uses, new roads and points of access, and landscaping (London Borough of Ealing Ref: P/2005/2398).

3.12 At the same time three planning applications were submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon seeking permission to create access ways from west of the Grand Union Canal into the Gas Works Site. Works proposed included footbridges, roadways and floodwater storage facilities (Refs: 54814/APP/2005/1773, 54814/APP/2005/1775, 54814/APP/2005/1781 and 54814/APP/2005/2095).

3.13 The applications submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon were refused due concerns relating to: • High levels of traffic generation adversely impacting upon the highways net work; • Lack of remediation of contaminated land; • Harm to the Green Belt; • Loss of and damage to wild life habitat; • Flooding; and • Loss of sports playing fields.

3.14 The Applicant appealed against the decisions. The appeals were subsequently withdrawn in order for a fresh approach to the Masterplan to progress. The application submitted to the London Borough of Ealing was also withdrawn (November 2006).

Planning Policies and Standards

Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) Planning Policy Statement (Planning and Climate Change) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) Planning Policy Statement 6 (Planning for Town Centres) Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk) The London Plan (February 2008) Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007)

UDP Designation:

3.15 The proposed pedestrian and vehicular bridges and accesses to the west are located within the Green Belt. The Canal which runs along the western boundary of the Application Site is subject to various designations and planning policies, including: • A Site of Importance for Nature Conservation of Metropolitan (Grade 1) Importance; • Part of the ‘Blue Ribbon’ network as identified in the London Plan; • The eastern part of the Canal (that which falls within Ealing) is designated as a Conservation Area as shown on Map 8 of Ealing UDP; and

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • The towpath of the Canal is promoted as a recreational route, forming in part, the Grand Union Walk and the Hillingdon Trail.

Planning Policies and Standards

The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.4 To safeguard a network of Green Chains from built development to provide a visual and physical break in the built-up area and opportunities for recreation and corridors for wildlife. Pt1.6 To safeguard the nature conservation value of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, designated Local Nature Reserves or other Nature Reserves, or sites proposed by English Nature or the Local Authority for such designations. Pt1.7 To promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.12 To avoid any unacceptable risk of flooding to new development in areas already liable to flood, or increased severity of flooding elsewhere. Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards. Pt1.17 To seek to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings are provided in the form of affordable housing. Pt1.18 To maintain, enhance and promote town centres as the principal areas for shopping, employment and community and cultural activities in the Borough. Pt1.19 To maintain a hierarchy of shopping centres which maximises accessibility to shops and to encourage retail development in existing centres or local parades which is appropriate to their scale and function and not likely to harm the viability and vitality of town or local centres. Pt1.30 To promote and improve opportunities for everyone in Hillingdon, including in particular women, elderly people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. Pt1.34 To maintain the road hierarchy set out in this Plan and accordingly seek to segregate different types of traffic by the function of the various tiers of the hierarchy through traffic management schemes, road signing and planning control over development and redevelopment schemes. Pt1.35 To accord priority to pedestrians in the design and implementation of road construction and traffic management schemes, and to seek to provide a network of cycle routes through the Borough to promote safer cycling and better conditions for cyclists.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Pt1.39 To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed.

Part 2 Policies:

Open Land and Countryside OL1 Green Belt - acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new development OL2 Green Belt -landscaping improvements OL5 Green Belt – development adjacent or conspicuous from the Green Belt

Ecology and Nature Conservation EC1 Protection of sites of special scientific interest, nature conservation importance and nature reserves EC2 Nature conservation considerations and ecological assessments EC3 Potential effects of development on sites of nature conservation importance EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats

Built Environment BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety BE31 Facilities for the recreational use of the canal BE32 Development proposals adjacent to or affecting the Grand Union Canal BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

Other Environmental Considerations OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE7 Development in areas likely to flooding - requirement for flood protection measures

Housing H4 Mix of housing units

Recreation, Leisure and Community Facilities R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities

Accessibility and Movement AM1 Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking distance based catchment area - public transport accessibility and capacity considerations AM2 Development proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability and capacity AM4 Safeguard land for new road link between Hayes by-pass and former Southall gasworks AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS AM8 Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and implementation of road construction and traffic management schemes AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities AM10 Incorporation in new developments of additions to the proposed cycle network AM12 Priority to Bus Lanes AM13 Increasing the ease of movement for frail and elderly people and people with disabilities in development schemes through (where appropriate):- (i) Dial-a-ride and mobility bus services (ii) Shopmobility schemes (iii) Convenient parking spaces (iv) Design of road, footway, parking and pedestrian and street furniture schemes AM18 Developments adjoining the Grand Union Canal – securing facilities for canal borne freight

Also considered relevant are: Council’s SPD – Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement Council’s SPD – Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement – Residential Layouts Council’s SPG - Planning Obligations Council’s SPG - Community Safety by Design

Consultations

Planning Application

3.16 The cross boundary nature of this scheme means that a separate planning application has been submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon for determination. Accordingly, the London Borough of Hillingdon has carried out full consultation with local residents. Consultation responses will be reported and considered in determining that planning application. Copies of all third party responses including letters from London Borough of Hillingdon residents objecting to the scheme as well as objections from the local Member of Parliament, Hayes Town Centre Partnership and the Friends of Minet Country Park will be forwarded to the London Borough of Ealing with this Council’s formal out of Borough consultation response.

3.17 Consultation responses will be fully reported and considered in determining that planning application. In addition to submissions received from members of the public, responses have been received from the following organisations: • Friends of Minet Park, raised concern with regard to the impact the proposal would have on Minet Park and identified mitigation measures considered necessary to offset impacts; • Hayes Town Partnership and Hillingdon Chamber of Commerce, raised concern in relation to the following aspects of the proposal: o Additional traffic generated by the scheme will cause unacceptable congestion;

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS o Retail space proposed within the scheme would result in a diversion of trade from existing stores in the Hayes Town Centre, causing an adverse economic impact; o Minet Country Park as well as local health care, community and educational facilities do not have the capacity to cope with additional residents who would be living in the scheme; o There is lack of certainty that residents from the London Borough of Hillingdon will be able to access affordable housing built as part of the scheme; • St Georges Church Southall, raised concern with regard to the impact the proposal would have on Minet Park. • Save Our Southall Community Group; raised concern in relation to the following aspects of the proposal: o Local health care, community and educational facilities do not have the capacity to cope with additional residents who would be living in the scheme; o Retail space proposed within the scheme would result in a diversion of trade from existing stores in the Hayes Town Centre, causing an adverse economic impact; o Additional traffic generated by the scheme will cause unacceptable congestion; o Insufficient parking for future residents is proposed; o There is a lack of detail submitted by the Applicant in relation to remediation.

Out of Borough Consultation

3.18 This report relates to a request from the London Borough of Ealing for comments in relation to the planning application that Ealing Council has received. As a consultation response, this report relates to aspects of the development that would impact on the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Highways These comments are based on the Transport Assessment (TA) dated October 2008 and the Addendum TA dated May 2009. No further addendum to the TA has been received either via Ealing Council or the Applicant.

The transport assessment is based on the principle of ‘Nil Detriment’ i.e. with the development and the proposed highways mitigation measures, the highway network would be no worse off than it is at present.

Annual growth in traffic of 0.8% is assumed.

Bulls Bridge Junction (A312/ North Hyde Road/ Hayes Road)

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The application proposes to change the circular roundabout by elongating the junction and increasing the lanes within the junction to create additional capacity, as indicated on Drawing 52212/B/48 dated 09/03/2009.

This junction is located with the London Borough of Hounslow and TFL are the highway authority.

A312 - The degree of saturation for the AM peak for A312 North is currently 108% and a queue length of 136 for the Observed Flows (existing layout). The base flows for the year 2025, without the development (and the proposed highways mitigation measures) will result in the degree of saturation of 276% and queue length of 916.

With the development and the proposed highways mitigation works in year 2025, the degree of saturation for the A312 North would reduce to 196% and the queue length to 823.

Similarly for North Hyde Road, the worst case in the PM peak, where the degree of saturation would decrease from 184% (year 2025, base scenario, no mitigation works) to 176% (year 2025, base + development with mitigation measures). The corresponding queue length reduces from 349 to 339.

The A312 South PM peak is the worst case where the degree of saturation post development (with mitigation measures) would increase from 167% to 173%, with a corresponding queue length increasing from 732 to 764.

The modelling for this junction has been approved by TFL and their traffic consultants, subject to detailed design and safety audits.

Pump Lane / Bilton Way

The proposed A312 / Pump Lane junction will result in Bilton Way (currently serving an industrial estate) becoming a cul-de-sac. No turning head has been provided at the proposed dead end with the A312.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

The Bilton Way link is currently operating within capacity; post development in year 2025, with the assumed 0.8% growth, this link would be operating over capacity with extensive queuing (78pcu). This would result in a queue from the Pump Lane / Bilton Way roundabout to the Hayes By Pass slip road.

The impact of the development on Pump Lane / Coldharbour Lane roundabout has not been assessed.

Pump Lane has a width restriction. Three bus routes are proposed through Pump Lane. Details need to be provided on measures to prevent HGVs using the bus route to gain access to Coldharbour Lane.

Given the above issues in relation to Pump Lane and Bilton Way, objections are raised to the scheme as currently proposed on highways grounds.

If the London Borough of Ealing is minded to approve the application, they should be advised that the bulk of the traffic impact is on roads directly affecting the Hillingdon highway network, and it is imperative that Ealing and Hillingdon sign up to a joint Travel Plan with the developer.

Pump Lane / A312 – New Signalised Junction

This junction is shown to operate within capacity with the proposed development and mitigation measures.

M4 Junction 3

The highways works proposed as part of the development include additional lanes to the roundabout and on the approaches to the roundabout. These are shown on Drawing 52212/B/31 dated 18/08/2008.

Traffic modelling confirms that in 2025, with the development and proposed mitigation

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS measures, there will be ‘Nil Detriment’ in relation to the A312 (North and South) and the M4 (West). With regard to the M4 (East), during the PM peak there will be an increase in the degree of saturation from 95% to 118%, with queue lengths increasing from 28 to 55.

The Highways Agency have accepted the modelling. This junction is also located in the London Borough of Hounslow.

Ossie Garvin Junction (A312 / A4020)

The junction is expected to operate satisfactorily post development. No mitigation measures are proposed.

Conditions

It has been proposed that the main construction access will be from the new western link to Pump Lane. A Condition is required to ensure that this route is not open to general traffic until the off-site highway works at Pump Lane / Western Access, A 312 Hayes By-pass/ Pump Lane, Bulls Bridge Junction ( A312 / North Hyde Road / Hayes Road ) and the M4 Junction 3 works have been fully completed and opened to traffic.

In addition to the above the LB Hillingdon fully supports the Highways Agency's request for four conditions as detailed in their letter to Ealing dated 26 June 2009 linking partial occupation of the development with the completion of the M4 J3 and Bulls Bridge off site highway works.

A Condition is required to ensure the Applicant enters into a S278 agreement under the highway act 1980, with each relevant highways authority for the delivery of the approved works.

Policy The proposed development includes a significant quantum of retail floorspace (20,050 sqm) including a 5,850 sqm supermarket. PPS6 supports a town centre first policy. Whilst the proposed development

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS is considered as West Southall, and is being proposed in the emerging Ealing Core Strategy as a town centre boundary extension, this is yet to be tested through an examination in public. Until this has been tested, the proposal remains a policy ambition and therefore whilst it can be a material consideration, it remains out of centre according to the 2004 Ealing UDP.

The accompanying retail study considers the impacts on Southall, Ealing, Greenford, Hanwell, Hayes, Fulham and Uxbridge. There is a concern that research informing the retail study is from 2006. Since then the retail industry has been going through a market correction. Additionally many new retail developments have opened including the Westfield shopping centre in Shepherds Bush. Vacancies have been increasing in town centres and established out of centre locations with remaining businesses often under trading.

Whilst there will be a notable expenditure increase from the development, there are concerns regarding a further large out of centre supermarket as part of a town centre quantum of retail floorspace. There are already a number of significant supermarkets in the locality, and whilst there could be a need for some basic facilities, the scale of the proposed retail development could fundamentally harm the existing centres and their shopping areas. It is therefore considered that the retail study including the sequential test should be revisited to consider the current market and the impact on spending patterns resultant from proposed access ways to the site from the west (including additional bus services proposed along Pump Lane to / from Hayes). Until that time there is a policy objection to the scale of the retail component of the proposal.

Environmental Protection Increased traffic generation arising from the Unit – proposal in addition to the potential use of Air Quality biomass or biodiesel as a fuel source within the proposed energy strategy have implications for the worsening of local air

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS quality.

There is guidance available from Environmental Protection UK regarding the use of biomass and it is suggested that the London Borough of Ealing’s attention should be drawn to this as well as the wider sustainability implications of the origins of the fuel to be used.

The direct relationship between traffic generation and air quality impacts means that any new or revised traffic management proposals must be accompanied by a new or revised air quality assessment.

Environmental Protection This is a heavily contaminated site and the Unit – Contamination proposals are to bioremediate and reuse much of the soil on site, whilst taking any heavily contaminated material that cannot be treated off site. From Hillingdon’s viewpoint the gasworks clean up is positive in that one of the main water receptors is the Yeading Brook in Hillingdon.

Comments in relation to proposals on land within the London Borough of Hillingdon are set out below: • The area at the Pump Lane Link Road on ‘Minet Island’ (land between brook and canal) has been excavated historically for gravels for the canal embankments, and these soils were replaced with domestic and construction wastes, dredgings and also gasworks waste. Hydrocarbon and heavy metal contamination exists at the surface and there is a greater contamination at depth (particularly gasworks waste). Remediation works will be required to clear the unsuitable soil for the road foundations. • The proposed Minet Bridge would not discharge persons onto the highly contaminated land between the canal and Yeading brook. However this bridge will have a central footing in this contaminated area. The location of the bridge footing in the park itself is in an area where records show the existence of some contamination. While high

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS contaminant levels in the area were not found in 2007 by White, Young and Green or by London Borough of Hillingdon in 1987, remediation works are likely to be necessary. • The northern most bridge leading to Springfield Road traverses the top of the Council owned land in Minet Island. This is thought to be less contaminated. The only data is this Council’s 1987 analysis and an investigation in 2007 of the area west of the brook in the park itself. Some slight heavy metal and groundwater contamination was found in the park. The northern (Springfield Road) bridge is in an area with a lower risk of being contaminated. Again some remediation works may be required in the ‘Minet Island’ area for the central bridge footing (and potentially the park footing). • In chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement there is a broad ‘Stages of Construction’ paragraph for each access way (i.e. the Pump Lane extension and the two pedestrian/cyclist bridges). It would be useful if site specific remediation strategies are submitted prior to the works to deal with the contaminated soil and water at the sites in the London Borough of Hillingdon. • A ‘Strategy for the Management of Earthworks Contamination’ will be necessary. This could be included in the remediation strategy in compliance with the standard contaminated land condition. We would then be more aware of how the contaminated soil will be handled given the proximity of Minet Park. Following the completion of works the developer will need to submit a validation report for each access or a combined report dealing with all three access ways. • Of concern to the EPU is the potential for users of the access ways to access contaminated land. This may make the contaminated area a Part IIA site if there is ‘the significant possibility of significant harm’. This would have serious implications for British Waterways (BW)

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS as the toxic gasworks waste is on the surface of the BW land. Therefore our opinion is that the developer should be required to provide assurance that remediation measures or other mitigation measures (such as fencing and signage) can be put in place to prevent any access to the contaminated area.

Reference is made to policy OE11 in the Saved Policies UDP, which requires ameliorative measures to be used where the proposals ‘involve an increase in the use by the public of contaminated land which is to remain untreated’.

In determining the application submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon, if minded to approve the application, this Council should impose a condition requiring the developer to provide information confirming how access to the contaminated land from the new routes will be prevented.

The consultation response to the London Borough of Ealing should raise the following contamination matters: • Remediation works at the gasworks will produce emissions of dust and odours and vapours. These emissions if not fully controlled at source could affect residents in the London Borough of Hillingdon, and potential receptors include the Guru Nanak School, users of Minet Park and adjacent land over the brook, and occupiers of any nearby housing and business areas in Hayes. Some dust and odour / vapour monitoring should be undertaken at the Hillingdon boundary and at any sensitive receptors such as the school within Hillingdon. • The proposed storage of contaminated waste on the western area of the main site for 6-9 months before removal via Pump Lane is also a concern, and Hillingdon Council should be consulted on the details of how this is managed. Odours are usually very strong with this type of gasworks waste and are produced

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS from both excavations and storage mounds. The London Borough of Hillingdon should advise the London Borough of Ealing that the final Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan should include measures to mitigate any effects on the London Borough of Hillingdon. • This Council’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) has attended contaminated land meetings with Ealing Council Pollution Officers, the Developer, BW and the Environment Agency to discuss the proposal. The London Borough of Ealing should be advised that EPU would wish to continue this involvement and to have an input into the environmental management of the site.

Conditions

The London Borough of Ealing should be advised that if minded to approve the scheme, a condition should be imposed on any permission granted requiring the Applicant to prepare a management plan setting out how traffic leaving site (including vehicles transporting contaminated waste) is to be managed to prevent any contaminants from entering the environment.

A condition is also recommended to ensure that adequate monitoring of dust, vapours and odours is undertaken during the remediation works.

Trees & Landscape Minet Country Park is situated within the designated Green Belt with much of its eastern boundary designated a Nature Conservation Area of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 importance.

There are no trees protected by Tree Protection Order (TPO) or Conservation Area designation within the London Borough of Hillingdon part of the site.

The Environmental Statement concludes that permanent beneficial townscape and visual effects would result from the scheme due to

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the creation of a high quality coherent townscape with improved connectivity between the site and its surroundings. It also notes that any tree loss will be offset in the long term by an extensive programme of tree planting across the site.

The canalside residential blocks will be set back from the canal by only 8.5m, with ‘fingers’ of development extending towards the canal. Significant concern is raised in relation to the potential for harm to be caused to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, particularly if buildings proposed adjacent to the canal were to be developed to the maximum potential height and minimum potential set back. A greater set back of buildings from the canal would increase the open appearance and the view from and into the Green Belt, and allow for structural landscaping to be incorporated into the proposal as a visual buffer between the development and the canal.

Section 4.1 of the submitted Landscape Strategy refers to the active landscape management and maintenance which is integral to the success of the landscape and public realm strategy. Provision for landscape maintenance and management should be secured through a legal agreement.

Comments from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) make reference to the potential for views across the canal (from Minet Country Park) to be compromised by the insensitive handling of parking vents to the residential blocks along the canal’s length. The residential courtyard gardens facing the canal, are in effect, roof gardens with parking beneath.

The loading capacity of the roof gardens should be designed to support ‘intensive green roofs’, capable of supporting structural landscaping (with trees) and recreational uses.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Springfiled Road Bridge.

This bridge will cross the designated Green Corridors and the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook at the north side of the site, linking through to Springfield Road. It has been designed to be accessible for wheel chair users. The bridge has been aligned to minimise the loss of valuable vegetation. Its prefabrication (off site) should minimise the onsite construction time and disturbance of flora and fauna.

Minet Country Park Bridge

This bridge will connect the master plan’s Central Park with open spaces of Minet Country Park. In addition to forming a crossing point the bridge will serve as a platform for observing wildlife.

Pump Lane Access

Section 10.2 of the Design and Access Statement explains the detrimental impacts of the road, which forms a barrier for wildlife moving north or south. There will be an inevitable loss of habitat and shadows cast over the water course. A number of mitigation measures have been designed to reduce adverse impacts during and after construction.

Summary

This is a comprehensive Masterplan proposal supported by tree surveys and the Environmental Statement. Most of the built development will be within the Borough of Ealing, although the scheme will have a visual impact when viewed from Hillingdon. The scheme is also dependent on the road bridge and two footbridge links onto Hillingdon’s land. More intensive use and enjoyment of the Minet Country Park is anticipated by future occupants of the gas works site and this should be factored into a management and maintenance provision.

Green Spaces It is considered that the timing, methodology

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS and scope of the ecological surveys (including surveys of birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates) undertaken are unsatisfactory. Objection is raised to the proposal in this regard.

The application proposes relocating any reptiles found on the main site to Minet Park. Further details are required to ensure how and where this takes place is appropriate.

The proposed access ways to the site from the west (extension of Pump Lane and two pedestrian/cycle bridges) will have the effect of reducing and fragmenting wild life habitat. Proposed mitigation measures include: • A single mammal tunnel beneath Pump lane extension (proposed on land within London Borough of Hillingdon); • Create a flood water storage area (proposed on land within London Borough of Hillingdon); • 4m strip of land adjacent the tow path (eastern side of canal, London Borough of Ealing).

The proposed mitigation measures are considered inadequate.

Planning obligations should be sought to enhance the capacity of remaining wild life habitat.

There is significant concern that the facilities and infrastructure within Minet Country Park are inadequate to cater for the increased access (in terms of pedestrians and cyclists) and associated use in addition to meeting the demand of its existing users. If planning permission were to be granted the need for significant improvements to the facilities would be necessary.

Projects and Implementation The application would result in a significant Team number of impacts within the London Borough of Hillingdon which would need to be mitigated through use of planning obligations.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Urban Design The proposed courtyard developments are all of similar concept and scale, with only a limited number of typologies extensively repeated throughout the site. This is likely to result in a monotonous urban site with a lack of distinctiveness and poor legibility, both internally and when viewed from the neighbouring Minet Country Park.

The western part of the site, in particular the vehicular approach originating within the London Borough of Hillingdon, is not clearly expressed as one of the sites main entrances in terms of layout. The approach would benefit from further design work in order to emphasise this key gateway to the site.

Main Planning Issues

3.19 The main planning issues are considered to be:

(i) Principle of the development (ii) Impact on Green Belt land (iii) Impact on the highway network (iv) Ecological impacts (v) The impact upon the Minet Country Park (vi) The failure to provide adequate planning obligations to offset the impacts of the development (vii) Contamination (viii) Air Quality (ix) Retail impact (x) Design issues

(i) Principle of the development

3.20 This scheme has the potential to deliver a significant level of housing (a level of sub regional importance) on what is a vacant brown field site within a Special Opportunity Site as identified on the Ealing UDP Proposals Map, as such no objection is raised in principle to the development. However, concern exists in terms of the impact of the scheme on the London Borough of Hillingdon.

(ii) Impact on Green Belt land

3.21 Access ways proposed to the site from land in the London Borough of Hillingdon are considered key to the delivery of the proposal. In this case, it is considered that there are very special circumstances which justify the development proposed in the Green Belt.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.22 Saved Policy OL5 resists development which injures the visual amenities of the Green Belt. These policies are relevant given the considerable amount of housing and retail development proposed adjacent to the Grand Union Canal. The outline nature of this application means that details relating to building heights and foot prints are specified in maximum and minimum ranges. The residential and mixed use buildings proposed adjacent to the canal could rise to between 4 (minimum) to 8 (maximum) stories in height, and the proposed layout, at its closest point, sets the new buildings back from the eastern edge of Grand Union Canal by 8.5m.

3.23 The footprints of the canalside residential blocks have been designed so ‘fingers’ of the development extend towards the canal. The residential courtyard gardens proposed between these ‘fingers’ are in effect, roof gardens over underground parking areas. Comments from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) make reference to the potential for views across the canal (from Minet Country Park) to be compromised by the insensitive handling of exhaust vents from underground parking areas associated with the residential blocks along the canal’s length.

3.24 Concern is raised in relation to the potential for harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, particularly if buildings proposed adjacent to the canal were to be developed to the maximum potential height and minimum potential set back. While no objection is raised in relation to proposed building heights, it is considered that a greater minimum set back of buildings from the canal would increase the open appearance and the view from and into the Green Belt. Additionally a greater set back would allow for structural landscaping to be incorporated into the proposal as a buffer between the development and the canal.

3.25 It is also vital that at the detailed design stage that vents from underground parking be sensitively located and indeed that the buildings be articulated and expressed so as to prevent the visual amenities of the Green Belt being compromised.

(iii) Impact on the highway network

3.26 The application was referred to the Council’s Highways Officer, who raised objection to the proposed scheme in terms of highways impact. Specifically there is considerable concern with regard to: • Traffic modelling for the year 2025 indicates that with the development, traffic queues would exist from the Pump Lane / Bilton Way roundabout to the Hayes By Pass slip road (even with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures); and • Pump Lane has a width restriction. Three bus routes are proposed through Pump Lane. Details need to be provided on measures to prevent HGVs using the bus route to gain access to Coldharbour Lane. • Works proposed to the A 312 / Pump Lane junction which would result in Bilton Way (currently serving an industrial estate) becoming a cul-de-sac. No turning head has been provided at the proposed dead end with the A312;

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3.27 Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the development would have an acceptable traffic impact on roads within the London Borough of Hillingdon. At this stage, objection is raised to the highway aspects of the submitted proposal.

(iv) Ecological impacts

3.28 Information submitted in support of the application is insufficient to demonstrate that the scheme will not cause harm to the local ecology. Concern is raised to: • The application’s failure to address the impacts from the scheme on the Minet Country Park, relying on survey work undertaken on the main site and areas affected by proposed bridges and road works only. • The survey work relating to multiple species including bats, birds, invertebrates and reptiles was undertaken at inappropriate times of the year, using inappropriate methodologies. • The application’s failure to acknowledge the importance of the Minet Country Park as a Green Corridor route for migratory species and its role within the wider Yeading Valley.

3.29 Circular 06/2005 requires that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by the proposed development, be established before the planning permission is granted. The need to ensure ecological surveys are accurately carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances are not considered to exist.

3.30 The Applicant has advised that approximately 6.4Ha of land will be required to create the Pump Lane extension (including connection to/from the Hayes bypass) and flood water holding area. While, the landings and footings proposed as part of the pedestrian/cyclist bridges would require less land, they too would impact upon local ecology, acting to fragment wildlife corridors. The EIA sets out measures proposed to off set the loss of habitat: • 4m wide buffer along much of the length of the eastern side of the canal; • A single mammal tunnel beneath the proposed Pump Lane extension; • Bat roosting boxes on bridge abutments; • Flood water holding area serving as a wet land habitat; • Consider enhancements to Yeading Brook.

3.31 The proposed 4m wide buffer would be adjacent to the tow path, proposed residential buildings, below ground car parking exhaust vents and retail frontages. It is not considered that the 4m strip provides wild life habitat comparable to that which would be lost. The Application was referred to the Council’s Green Spaces team who noted that a single mammal tunnel and bat roosting boxes would be inadequate to overcome fragmentation of habitat caused by the proposed Pump Lane extension and pedestrian/cycle bridges. The proposed flood water holding area will result in the loss of existing habitat, and it is not considered an adequate mitigation measure to offset the loss of habitat resultant from the development of the Pump Lane extension.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3.32 With regard to this Out of Borough consultation response to the London Borough of Ealing, it is recommended that the London Borough of Hillingdon object to the grant of planning permission on the basis that the application does not propose adequate measures to mitigate the loss and fragmentation of wild life habitat caused by the proposal. Should the London Borough of Ealing be minded to approve the application, despite these issues not being appropriately resolved, they should ensure the following outcomes are catered for through planning obligations and conditions: • The undertaking of appropriately timed wildlife surveys addressing Minet Country Park, the adjacent river/blue ribbon network and Yeading Valley. The surveys should include assessment of noise and lighting impacts and any recommendations be implemented as part of the development; • Plans and detail of proposals for the relocation to Minet Country Park of any reptiles found on the main site during remediation and construction, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(v) The impact upon the Minet Country Park

3.33 The development lies in close proximity to Minet Country Park, which in addition to forming a valuable open space on Green Belt land, forms a Nature Conservation Area of Metropolitan Importance. The capacity enhancements will be necessary to off set the impact of the proposed development: • Reclamation or restoration of the land to a standard suitable for public access; • Wider and additional footpaths, bridleways and cycleway networks; • Additional lighting, security measures, seating, bins, way finding signage, toilets and other facilities; • Landscape capacity enhancements by remodelling and replacement; • Protection of areas of ecological importance.

3.34 While open space is proposed within the development site, the proposal remains heavily dependant on the utilisation of Minet Country Park in order to meet the open space and recreational demands of its future occupiers and users. The development will substantially increase the patronage of this open space and associated facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon.

3.35 Minet Country Park, in its current form, is not adequately served by infrastructure, facilities or maintenance arrangements to accommodate the additional patronage which would be imposed by this development. Nor are adequate provisions in place to secure the protection of wildlife interests on site were it to be subject to the proposed level of additional activity. Importantly, Natural England have raised concern in this regard and support the use of planning obligations to mitigate impacts on Minet Country Park. The mayor in his Stage 1 response also recognises the importance of planning obligations addressing the impact on Minet Park.

(vi) The failure to provide adequate planning obligations to offset the impacts of the development

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.36 The proposal represents a substantial mixed use development directly on the boundary of the London Borough of Hillingdon; accordingly it would give rise to significant additional impacts on facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon.

3.37 The development has been assessed in detail and it is considered that the following planning obligations are required to mitigate the impacts of the development: • Financial contribution to implement mitigation measures and capacity enhancements to Minet Country Park made necessary by the proposed development. Financial contribution sought: £3,038,000; • Financial contribution to offset impacts on local educational facilities. Financial contribution sought: £821,000. This represents the cost of additional secondary school aged children, and post 16 year old students who can reasonably be expected to reside in the proposed scheme, but attend educational institutions in the London Borough of Hillingdon. An analysis of school roles and the postcodes in which students live was undertaken, for the last five years, to establish the likely average number of students who could reasonably be expected to attend Hillingdon schools. • Financial contribution towards capacity enhancements in local recreational and leisure facilities: £1,000,000; • Financial contribution to implement works to enable the public realm to cope with additional users: £50,000; • Provision of construction training of Hillingdon residents, by enabling them to actively work and receive construction training on the construction site; • Require the Applicant to enter into and abide by the terms of a Sustainable Travel Plan.

Additionally British Waterways request that the following planning obligations be secured: • Financial contribution towards a strategic master plan for the wider area: £20,000; • Financial contribution towards delivery and implementation of a Waterspace Strategy: £10,000; • Financial contribution towards remediation of land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal (Minet Tip): £4,000,000; • Financial contribution to implement works to improve access along the canal from Uxbridge Road to Bulls Bridge: £660,000.

3.38 The planning obligations sought by British Waterways would help to progress the local Water Space strategy relating to the Grand Union Canal and land uses along its edge. Remediation of contaminated land would protect human health and safety and greatly enhance the quality of wildlife habitat between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal. The application site does not extend to include the tow path along the Grand Union canal, and as such necessary enhancements to the tow path must be secured by way of a legal agreement. It is recommended that the Council strongly support the heads of terms set out by British Waterways.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3.39 The Applicant has advised that the scheme finances are affected by exceptional development costs such as remediation, and as such the imposition of Planning Obligations may well make the scheme financially unviable.

3.40 The Applicant’s assertions relating to costs and revenues are being tested by the District Valuers Service (DVS). However, inputs into the financial appraisal relating to planning obligations have not been informed by the London Borough of Hillingdon, and as such the basis for work undertaken by the DVS may well be inaccurate. Additionally, the Applicant has made it clear to the London Borough of Hillingdon that the findings of work undertaken by DVS would not be released to the Council unless the Council enters into a confidentiality agreement. Examination of a copy of a draft confidentiality agreement revealed that it is an inflexible document and if signed would not enable this Council to discuss with the DVS the implications of a different input relating to planning obligations. The Applicant has not yet responded to this Council’s request for the terms of the confidentiality agreement to be altered.

3.41 A transparent assessment of viability is the essential starting point for any negotiation with Developers in terms of reducing Planning Obligations to assist with scheme viability. At this stage, no evidence has been provided to verify the financial position of the development.

3.42 Planning Obligations are necessary to make acceptable the impact of an otherwise unacceptable development. If the obligations set out in the recommendations section of this report are not satisfied the unacceptable impacts will remain and as such the application would remain unacceptable in planning terms and should be refused. It is recommended that the Council object to the development in its current form.

(vii) Contamination

3.43 The application was referred to the London Borough of Hillingdon’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) who noted that it is proposed to bioremediate and reuse much of the soil contamination whilst taking the most heavily contaminated material that cannot be treated off site. The application documentation notes that the main access to and from the site (including for vehicles removing the most heavily contaminated waste) will be via Pump Lane. This matter was discussed with the Council’s Highways Engineer and EPU, who noted the when the location of major access routes and concentrations of existing residential development were taken into account, the proposed use of Pump Lane as the main access to and from the site is appropriate.

3.44 It is recommended that the London Borough of Ealing be advised that should that Council be minded to approve the application, a condition should be imposed on any permission granted requiring the Applicant to prepare a management plan setting out how traffic leaving site and travelling through the

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS London Borough of Hillingdon (including vehicles transporting contaminated waste) are to be managed to prevent any contaminants from entering the environment.

3.45 Remediation works will produce emissions of dust and odours and vapours. These emissions, if not fully controlled at source could affect surrounding occupiers in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The Council’s EPU recommend that The London Borough of Ealing be advised that the final Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan should include measures to mitigate any effects on the London Borough of Hillingdon. A condition is also recommended to ensure that adequate monitoring of dust, vapours and odours is undertaken during the remediation works.

3.46 Land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union Canal has been excavated historically for gravels, and these soils were replaced with domestic and construction wastes, dredgings and also gasworks waste. Remediation works will be required to clear the unsuitable soil for the bridge and road foundations.

3.47 The proposed bridges would not discharge persons onto the highly contaminated land between the canal and Yeading brook. However, the scheme may well be occupied by over 13,000 residents; the access ways would greatly elevate the number of persons using Minet Country Park, which is of concern given the potential for users of the proposed access ways to access heavily contaminated land. British Waterways (who own the majority of this contaminated land) have requested that a planning obligation be sought to ensure sufficient funding is secured to enable remediation of the contaminated land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal.

(viii) Air Quality

3.48 The London Borough of Hillingdon has been declared an Air Quality Management Area due to nitrogen dioxide (from traffic emissions). Increased traffic generation arising from the proposal in addition to the potential use of biomass or biodiesel as a fuel source within the proposed energy strategy have implications for the worsening of local air quality, and its use should be viewed with caution. The London Borough of Ealing’s attention should be drawn to current guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK in relation to the sustainable use of biomass and the wider sustainability implications of the origins of the fuel to be used.

3.49 The majority of the air quality impacts have been identified as arising from the associated increases in traffic. The direct relationship between traffic generation and air quality impacts means that any new or revised traffic management proposals must be accompanied by a new or revised air quality assessment. It is recommended that the London Borough of Hillingdon strongly supports the planning obligations requested by British Waterways.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (ix) Retail Impact

3.50 The application was referred to the Council’s Policy advisor who advised that the proposed development includes a significant quantum of retail floorspace, including a 5,850 sq.m supermarket. The retail economic impact assessment accompanying the application considers the impacts on Southall, Ealing, Greenford, Hanwell, Hayes, Fulham and Uxbridge. Information relating to the existing supply of retail space (including vacancy rates) dates from 2006. There is concern that the age of this research makes its use unreliable.

3.51 Since 2006, there has been a major down turn in the retail sector. There has also been the opening of the Westfield shopping centre in Shepherds Bush, planning permission for additional retail floorspace at Dickens Yard, Ealing is imminent and a significant retail proposal at the Arcadia Centre in Ealing is currently under consideration by the Secretary of State. Vacancies have been increasing in town centres and established out of centre locations, with remaining businesses often under trading.

3.52 Bus services are proposed along Pump Lane, these would enable easy access to retail offerings within the development. The retail economic impact assessment accompanying the application does not consider how the proposed access ways might change existing consumer behaviour.

3.53 There are already a number of significant supermarkets in the locality, and whilst there could be a need for basic facilities, the scale of the proposed retail development could fundamentally harm the existing centres and their shopping areas.

3.54 It is therefore considered that the retail study including the sequential test should be revisited to consider current market conditions and the influence of the proposed access arrangements (including bus services along the Pump Lane extension) on spending patterns. Until that time, it is considered that a policy objection to the scale of the retail component of the proposal should be raised.

(x) Design issues

3.55 The proposal currently under consideration is an outline planning application. If approved, the detailed design of the scheme will be assessed through subsequent reserved matters applications.

3.56 The application was referred to the Council’s Urban Design advisor who advised that while the development indicates aspects of positive design throughout, two concerns exist: • The proposed courtyard developments are all of similar concept and scale, with only a limited number of typologies extensively repeated throughout the site. This is likely to result in a monotonous urban site with a lack of distinctiveness and poor legibility, both internally and when viewed from the neighbouring Minet Country Park.

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • The western part of the site (specifically the proposed Pump Lane extension) is not clearly expressed a main entrance to the site. The approach would benefit from further design work in order to emphasise this key gateway to the site.

3.57 It is worth noting at this point that these concerns are consistent with those raised by CABE in their design review of the scheme (7th April 2009).

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

4.2 In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention of Human Rights (the convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

4.3 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

4.4 Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of those rights protected under these articles are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

4.5 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of ‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 Located just beyond the eastern edge of the Borough boundary, the development of this brown field site offers various potential regeneration benefits, primarily for the London Borough of Ealing. This is a substantial scheme with the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on the London Borough of Hillingdon. The application in its current form does not propose to adequately mitigate impacts and as such the proposal would: • Cause harm to the highways net work; • Result in the loss of ecologically significant wildlife habitat; and

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • Result in future residents of the scheme intensively use land and facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon (land and facilities which do not have the spare capacity necessary to cope with additional loading which would be resultant from this scheme).

5.2 Supporting documentation accompanying the scheme fails to demonstrate that the scheme would not result in potentially adverse economic impacts on existing centres and their shopping areas. Concern is also raised in relation to the monitoring and management of contaminated material during remediation works (including the transportation of contaminated materials through the London Borough of Hillingdon. It is not considered that the impact of the proposed development on land within the London Borough of Hillingdon has not been adequately addressed by the Applicant.

Reference Documents:

(a) Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) (b) Planning Policy Statement (Planning and Climate Change) (c) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) (d) Planning Policy Statement 6 (Planning for Town Centres) (e) Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) (f) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) (g) Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk) (h) The London Plan (February 2008) (i) Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies Parking Policies and Standards (September 2007)

Contact Officer: MATT DUIGAN Telephone No: 01895 250230

Central & South Planning Committee – 15 September 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ´

Notes Site Address LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary London Borough of Ealing OF HILLINGDON For identification purposes only. (Southall Gas Works, Planning & Community Services This copy has been made by or with Hayes By-Pass, Hayes) the authority of the Head of Committee Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW Services pursuant to section 47 of the Telephone No.: Uxbridge 250111 Copyright, Designs and Patents Scale Act 1988 (the Act). Planning Application Ref: Unless the Act provides a relevant 39704/APP/2009/1917 1:12,000 exception to copyright. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Planning Committee Date London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2009 Central and South September 2009