Swakeleys House, Ickenham in the London Borough of Hillingdon Planning Application No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report D&P/2995/02 30 October 2013 Swakeleys House, Ickenham in the London Borough of Hillingdon planning application no. 23202/APP/2013/12 Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Change of use of Swakeleys House, (a Grade I listed building), from office (B1) use and sports (D2) use into a single dwelling, along with demolition and replacement of ancillary outbuildings buildings (Vyners House and the Ice House) into ancillary accommodation for Swakeleys House. The applicant The applicant is CES Properties (Ickenham) Ltd and the architect is Paul Davis & Partners. Strategic issues The concerns raised at the consultation stage regarding affordable housing, accessibility and transport have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposal now accords with strategic planning policy. The Council’s decision In this instance Hillingdon Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Hillingdon Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 25 January 2013 the Mayor of London received documents from Hillingdon Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development (a) on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres or a material change in the use of such a building.” page 1 2 On 6 March 2013 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2995/01, and subsequently advised Hillingdon Council that while the application was generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 49 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies also set out in this paragraph could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 28 August 2013 Hillingdon Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, for the revised application, and on 17 October 2013 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Hillingdon Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Hillingdon Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 30 October 2013 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 At the consultation stage Hillingdon Council was advised that while the application was generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 49 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies also set out in this paragraph could address these deficiencies: Principle of development: The proposal complies with London Plan policy 7.8 ‘Heritage assets and archaeology’ and London Plan policy 7.16 ‘Green Belts’. The change of use from employment back to the former residential use does not raise any strategic concerns. The existing footpath use and open day/festival uses are also to be retained. The Council should ensure the guest and staff accommodation and banqueting facilities are secured for ancillary use only. Housing: An affordable housing contribution is required. Accessibility: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan policy 7.2 Energy: The proposals are acceptable. Transport: Electric vehicle charging points should be provided. Principle of development 6 The principle of development was accepted at the consultation stage. However, while the proposal to reuse the existing building and the construction of guest accommodation and banqueting facilities was considered not to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, GLA officers emphasised the importance that these facilities remain ancillary to the use of the house, as independent use of them could cause harm to the Green Belt. These ancillary uses have been secured as such by planning condition and is welcomed. page 2 7 It was noted that the use of the existing footpath and open day/festival uses should be retained. A commitment to securing these public facilities and uses has been included in the draft section 106 legal agreement and is supported. Affordable housing 8 The applicant does not propose to provide a contribution to affordable housing and does not consider that it is required, a position that is also supported by the Council. In the context of the discussions set out paragraphs 32 to 34 of the GLA stage one report, it was considered that given the size of the dwelling and its outbuildings and given that the building is in a good state of repair, and no case had been made for enabling works to fund repairs, it would seem reasonable for some contribution to be made to off-site affordable housing. 9 In response to the above, the Council has considered the unique circumstances of the site and an individual assessment of what might ‘normally’ be expected to have come forward has been made, as advised at the consultation stage. Council officers are of the view that Swakeleys House represents an exceptional case and that the retention of the open house/festival use and access to the existing footpath offer considerable benefits to the wellbeing of the local community; requirements that have economic implications for the potential value of the development, and outweigh the need for a contribution to affordable housing. Furthermore, the Council has argued that the robustness of any economic viability assessment would be questionable given the unpredictability of the associated maintenance costs, economic implications of the community benefits and the costs associated with restoring the Grade I listed building. With regard to these factors the Council considers that the estimation of build costs and resultant land values would be difficult to calculate and therefore any conclusion for what constitutes the maximum reasonable contribution made on such an assessment would be subject to criticism. 10 With regards to the sites heritage value, the proposals will restore a Grade I listed building considered by English Heritage to be a very rare building type in London representing “a practically unaltered example of the Artisan Mannerist style” by giving the highest priority to the architectural integrity of the house and presenting the opportunity to remove the ancillary building uses associated with its pervious office use. Despite marketing efforts the building has remained vacant as an office location for ten years and it is considered that the proposals to return it to its original use as a single residential dwelling represent an increased opportunity for the buildings occupation, thus securing a long term future for the valuable heritage asset. 11 As set out above, the proposals will contribute to the local community by maintaining the footpath access and a firm commitment to retaining the open house and Ickenham Festival uses. Furthermore, the development will enable the sympathetic restoration of the Grade I listed building and return it to its original use, securing a long-term future for the heritage and community asset. Taking these benefits into account, and the difficulties outlined above in producing a robust financial viability assessment to support a maximum reasonable contribution to affordable housing, it is ultimately accepted in these special circumstances that an offsite contribution to affordable housing is not provided. Accessibility 12 At the consultation stage, the applicant was requested to provide further information regarding the entrance to, and lift replacement within Swakeleys House, the level changes within the new glazed link and to demonstrate how at least one of the guest suites will be designed to be easily adaptable for occupation by a wheelchair user. Officers note that a planning condition has been secured requiring that full details of how the development will meet Lifetime Home standards, including details of how the above issues will be addressed, must be submitted to and page 3 approved in writing by the Council. This is accepted and will ensure general accordance with London Plan policy 7.2. Transport 13 At stage 1, Transport for London requested a reduction in the level of car parking for the banqueting use, the provision of electric vehicle charging points, secure cycle parking spaces, consideration of local pedestrian and cycle improvements, as well as the submission of a delivery and servicing plan, construction logistics plan and a travel plan. 14 The requested reduction in parking was not agreed given the site’s poorly accessible location. While this is disappointing as it exceeds the London Plan standards, it is accepted that the likely impact of the proposals on the highway should be accommodated given the infrequent and off peak use of the banqueting suite, which is controlled by way of planning condition, and the site’s remote location away from any sections of the TfL Road Network.