planning report PDU/0257b/01 31 October 2012 Former Powergen Site, Bulls Bridge, Hayes in the Borough of Hillingdon planning application no.13226/APP/2012/2185

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Aggregate recycling plant, ashphalt storage and wet waste (gulley recycling) plant, post remediation of the site and construction of ancillary offices for staff. A weighbridge and stack is also proposed at the site.

The applicant The applicant is FM Conway Ltd and the agent is First Plan

Strategic issues The principle of the proposed redevelopment and waste use is acceptable in this preferred industrial location (PIL) and supports the waste, employment and design policies in the London Plan. Further work is needed in respect of noise, air quality, climate change, transport and CIL.

Recommendation

That Hillingdon Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 74 of this report; however possible remedies set out in this paragraph define how these deficiencies can be addressed.

Context

1 On 20 September 2012 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. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 31 October 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 2B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

page 1 Category 2B 1. Waste development to provide an installation with capacity for a throughput of more than— (b) 50,000 tonnes per annum of waste; produced outside the land in respect of which planning permission is sought.

3 Once Hillingdon Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is bounded by Grand Union Canal Paddington Branch to the east, the Great Western railway to the north, Brook to the west and the access road to the canal to the South. Part of the site also lies underneath the A312 flyover, known as The Parkway, which is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). Access to the Parkway is from Bulls Bridge Roundabout, via North Hyde Gardens/Road, which is less than 1km away from the site. This will remain the main access to the site.

6 Hayes & Harlington rail station is located approximately 1.6km west of the site, providing services into central London, Reading/Oxford and Heathrow. This station will also benefit from Crossrail services from 2019. There are no London Underground services within a reasonable walking distance of the site. This site is served by 2 bus routes (195 and E6) providing services between Hayes and Hounslow or Ealing. The nearest bus stop is 700m away from the site on North Hyde Road. As such, the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is 1 (based on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 is lowest and 6 is highest) which equates to a very poor level of accessibility to public transport.

7 The site is approximately three hectares and has been cleared. Three metre high bunds surround the site which prevent views into the site, with exception to the flyover to the west. The railway line to the north is also on an embankment of approximately five metres above the site level.

8 The proposal site is located within the Hayes Industrial estate Preferred Industrial Location (PIL) and is designated as an Industrial and Business Area within the Hillingdon UDP Proposals map. The site is on the eastern boundary of the London Borough of Hillingdon within the Hayes and East Drayton business corridor. The site is also designated in the draft West London Waste Plan as a site with the potential for development for waste management facilities (Appendix 5, Map reference: site 244, , Bulls Bridge, Hayes, Hillingdon). This development is also in close proximity to the Heathrow/ Opportunity Area.

9 The site is in close proximity to , a nature conservation area of Metropolitan Importance and the Bulls Bridge Conservation Area, which includes the Grand Union Canal and the listed Bulls Bridge. This lies east of the site and contains a number of leisure moorings. There are no residential properties bordering the site as yet.

10 The site is in close proximity to the Southall Gas Works site where residential development has been approved.

11 There is a separate proposal for a coachworks along the canal, south east of the application site. This will have a separate access point via North Hyde Gardens, but this continues along the

page 2 southern boundary of the Conway site after the left hand turn which will provide the access road to the application site, thus providing a separate access. The coachworks proposal is an entirely separate operation.

Details of the proposal

12 The applicant is proposing the phased construction of:

 an aggregate recycling plant, which will be up to 10.5 metres in height;  asphalt storage and production plant of approximately 27 metres in height;  a wet waste plant, also 9 metres in height;  administrative offices for staff, which will be approximately 11.4 metres in height;  a 30 metre stack and  a weighbridge, which will be approximately 7.55 metres.

13 It is proposed that the aggregate recycling plant will process approximately 300,000 tonnes per annum of waste material extracted from road works. Some of this material will be used within the asphalt plant which would have a production capacity of 300,000 tonnes per annum. The majority of the aggregates used in the asphalt production process would therefore be sourced from the recycling plant.

14 The wet waste plant will recycle up to 20,000 tonnes per annum of gulley waste. This tarmac and gulley waste is being is therefore being diverted from landfill.

15 The site will have storage, parking and circulation routes for the vehicles making the deliveries. The site will also contain a weigh bridge.

16 The applicant will be recycling roadworks waste and has contracts with numerous London Boroughs, TfL, LOCOG and some private sector companies. Currently the company is seeking to establish an operating centre similar to its other two plants in Dartford and Erith at this west London site with a view to potentially managing west London contracts within this centre rather than transporting the material to the other two plants.

17 The applicant is exploring the possibility of transporting some of the waste material to the site by barge along the canal. It is in discussion with British Waterways. Case history

18 On 31 July 2012 a pre-planning application meeting was held at City Hall to discuss this proposal. A site visit was also made prior to this meeting on 24 July 2012.

19 Various permissions have been granted at this site. The most recent application in November 2008 was for B1, B2 and B8 buildings. This has not been implemented. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

20 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Waste London Plan; the Municipal Waste Management Strategy; PPS10  Employment London Plan; Industrial Capacity SPG  Urban design London Plan  Tall buildings/views London Plan

page 3  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy;  Air quality London Plan; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy;  Climate change London Plan; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

21 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Hillingdon Council Unitary Development Plan amended with saved policies, 27 September 2007 and the 2011 London Plan.

22 The following are also relevant material considerations:

 The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework  The Hillingdon Core Strategy, which was submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 October 2011. This has undergone Examination in Public.  The Draft West London Waste Plan (Issues and Options stage, April 2009). The Proposed Submission draft of the Plan is to be consulted on next year (although it has been agreed in a joint Boroughs meeting on 11 May 2012).

Waste

23 The London Plan aims to ensure London is 100 per cent waste self sufficient by 2031. London Plan waste policy focuses on minimising the level of waste generated, increasing re-use, recycling and composting of waste and generating energy from non-recycled waste in the most environmentally friendly way possible in order to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and to support the development of low carbon waste infrastructure in London. 24 The application is supported from a waste management perspective as its supports London Plan policies 5.16, 5.17 and 5.20, since:  the site is a strategic industrial site (Preferred Industrial Location - PIL) on brownfield land. The non-construction, demolition and excavation waste activities will contribute to meeting borough waste apportionment; and the application includes a range of complementary waste facilities on a single site.

 The facilities will contribute towards achieving the Mayor's recycling targets and divert waste from landfill.

 The site will operate aggregates recycling facilities on site.

25 The application also supports London Plan Policy 5.18, however, the applicant is requested to include within the Site Waste Management Plan, details of how waste generated both in the construction and operation phases will be moved up the waste hierarchy. Employment

26 The development will generate 79 jobs. The London Plan has a specific policy to protect, promote and manage the varied industrial offer contained within Strategic Industrial Locations (policy 2.17). The Plan also supports the establishment of green industries (policy 5.17). The

page 4 proposal is an appropriate use for and supports the continued operation of the identified Preferred Industrial Location and will generate employment in the local area.

Urban design

Urban design / tall buildings / views

27 The development would replace an existing industrial site. The proposed tallest building would be clearly visible and a new element within the landscape. The appearance would be obviously industrial and visible within the view of the canal, from the listed Bulls Bridge. This would create some visual harm within this particular view, and a small amount within others. The views presented within the application documentation are generally from within or include the surrounding industrial area and the elevated main road, which minimises the harm created by the new element. In other views, including those from surrounding open land, the large scale of the consented development of Southall Gas Works would be visible. The new tall building would be significant within the Bulls Bridge view, and it would be difficult to conceal this element of the scheme. However the proposed mitigation, which includes the use of light materials and colouring, and the slender massing of the tower, would ensure that although there is an impact, it would be acceptable in a strategic context.

28 The proposed layout is efficient and would meet the applicant’s need in processing material on the site. The use of the land under the A312 viaduct is supported. GLA officers support the avoidance of new buildings in the north east corner of the site, adjacent to the railway line to protect the tree roots in this area. These trees also provide visual and noise screening from the railway line and the Southall Gas Works consented development. Noise

29 The noise assessment has been reviewed by external consultants and whilst it demonstrates that noise is a manageable adverse impact, rather than a reason for refusal, the following matters require further work.

30 The assessment presented in the report indicates that noise can be adequately controlled provided that the proposed mitigation measures are effective. However, it should be noted the “safety margin” is as low as 0.1dB for some of the assessment scenarios and so there is no margin for error from a noise management perspective. Therefore appropriate noise control conditions will need to be imposed by Hillingdon Council if it is minded to grant permission.

31 Hillingdon Council is advised to attach a condition requiring the prior approval of a more detailed noise mitigation scheme that demonstrates compliance with agreed noise control criteria. The criteria will need to be set locally having regard to local circumstances. The submitted scheme should be required to demonstrate that the noise control criteria can be met with a reasonable degree of certainty.

32 A more detailed delivery noise assessment should be undertaken and submitted to the Council for further consideration, paying particular attention to when vehicle movements are likely to occur and including specific assessment of night-time delivery noise.

33 Restrictions on operating hours and delivery times may also need to be considered depending on the outcome of these more detailed assessments. Local negotiation and agreement on an appropriate noise control criteria is also recommended as a way forward for dealing with the possible impact of noise on the nearby Coachworks Staff Accommodation proposal.

page 5 34 The Council should also seek a commitment towards ongoing monitoring from the applicant to prove that any attached noise conditions are being complied with and to seek a commitment to undertake remedial measures if the conditions are breached.

35 In summary, the noise and vibration impact assessment considers the impacts during the construction and operation of the proposed development and is considered to be generally adequate to support this planning application. However, clarification of the sampling methodology, noise indicators and time periods is required to ensure consistency and accuracy in the tables and appendices of the report. Further work is required to the noise mitigation scheme and a detailed delivery noise assessment is required. Air quality

36 The GLA is currently updating the Best Practice Guidance on the control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition and this will be published at the end of the year as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). All new relevant conditions/requirements included in this guidance document must be followed by the developer, particularly those relating to Non Road Mobile Machinery.

37 As dust production is an ongoing risk once the site is in operation, due to the nature of the activities, the relevant measures outlined in the above SPG must also be followed during site operation, as well as the mitigation measures mentioned in the Air Quality Assessment (AQA). The Council should ensure that this is conditioned.

38 Although it is recognised that the site will reduce regional emissions, which will have a positive impact for London as a whole, it is a concern that the local NO2 emissions will increase due to the increased road journeys. It is requested that prior to the phase two application, the applicant look into the inclusion of hydrogen and biomethane vehicles into its fleet in order to reduce emissions.

39 An additional concern is the predicted increases of PM10 and PM2.5 at nearby receptors. Although concentrations are expected to stay below the air quality objective, there is no safe level of these emissions and so any increase will have a negative impact upon the health of nearby residents. There are particular concerns with the moderate increase in PM2.5, which is the most harmful to health as due to its tiny size it can travel deep into the lungs. As such it is required that the applicant consider additional mitigation measures prior to the phase 2 application (this could include green screens, increased stack heights or the installation of a gas oil supply etc). Although some acoustic buffering is proposed it is not clear whether this has been included within the modelling work and this needs to be clarified. In the AQA, the applicant states that it will be using gas oil (and thus it has been presumed that all the modelling is based upon this), however, it does state that they might look at connecting the site to the natural gas network. Natural gas is much cleaner than gas oil in terms of emissions and would also significantly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, therefore the option would be strongly recommended. Energy

40 This application has been assessed in two parts –both the “process” and “building” elements have been addressed separately as this is a 'process heavy' application. It is apparent that the carbon dioxide emissions from the buildings are a fraction of those associated with the process which has quite substantial use of fossil fuel to process asphalt (around 27 GWh) and therefore these are evaluated separately.

page 6 41 It is understood that the 'baseline' CO2 emissions (derived from published benchmarks and performance of similar site) associated with the process element of the proposed development are 11,467 tonnes CO2/year.

42 The baseline regulated CO2 emissions of the buildings (offices and weighbridge) is projected to be 33.7 tonnes CO2/year.

Be Lean - Process

43 In order to achieve carbon dioxide emissions savings for the process equipment the applicant is proposing to install a range of energy efficient technology in the process, e.g. burner control, variable speed drives.

Be Lean - Buildings

44 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include energy efficient lighting.

45 The buildings on the proposed development are estimated to achieve a reduction of 3 tonnes per annum (10%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

Be Clean - Process

46 The applicant has investigated various technologies and decided against implementing any at this stage. However, the process will generate a substantial amount of waste heat (approximately 8 GWh) and although there is no current demand (i.e. local district heating networks) the applicant should confirm that a heat off take and a connection to a district heating network can and will be incorporated into the process at some future date should a heat demand be available.

Be Clean - Buildings

47 No 'be clean' measures are proposed for the buildings on the proposed development.

Be Green - Process

48 Various renewable energy technologies have been evaluated and are not feasible for the process element of the proposed development.

Be Green - Buildings

49 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 118 square metres of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roofs of the Administrative Office and the Weighbridge.

50 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 5 tonnes per annum (16%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

page 7 Overall Carbon Savings

51 The CO2 emissions after applying the energy hierarchy to the process element of the proposed development are stated as 9,120 tonnes CO2/year. This yields a saving of 2,322 tonnes CO2 or 20%.

52 The regulated CO2 emissions after applying the energy hierarchy to the buildings element of the proposed development are 25 tonnes CO2/year which represents a saving of 8 tonnes CO2/year (25%).

53 Therefore, the proposed development meets the relevant policies of the London Plan. However, the applicant should commit to installing a suitably designed facility to ensure that waste heat can be removed from the flue gases created by the asphalt processing plant. This facility should enable the installation of a heat exchanger at a future date to provide a heat source for any district heating networks in the vicinity of the proposed development without necessitating plant shutdown. The applicant should safeguard a route for future pipework to the site boundary so that heat can be exported from the proposed development. The applicant should therefore engage with the GLA in the district heat network development at its various stages (energy master planning, feasibility etc)

54 Since this development proposal is in close proximity to the Heathrow/Southall Opportunity Area, the applicant should consider the high-level energy master plan (EMP) of this area with Lakeside EfW plant, BAA Heathrow and Hillingdon and Ealing Councils. The applicant should clarify:

 What waste heat could be recovered from the development in order to supply a potential district heating network; and

 as an alternative, clarify the development's heating requirements (temperature and volume of heat), to establish whether the site might be supplied with it's process heat from the district heating network.

55 In summary, the Energy Strategy is well presented and addresses the issues associated with a proposed development of this type. However, it is important that the potential for recovering waste heat from the process is addressed, as set out above, as it will substantially be in excess of any on-site requirements. Transport for London

56 The development proposes to provide a total of 76 parking spaces, with 4 spaces for blue badge holders. This provision is in line with London Plan Policy 6.13 “Parking” and is therefore acceptable. There is however no mention of Electrical Vehicle Charging Points. To be in line with London Plan Policy 6.13 “Parking”, 8 active and 7 passive spaces should be provided. It would be expected that the number of EVCP be secured by condition and their use be monitored through the employment Travel Plan.

57 As there is no comparable standard within the London Plan for this type of land use, the level of cycle parking proposed should be consistent with the anticipated mode share of around 10%, hence a request for at least 10 cycle parking spaces should be considered. It is also recommended that these facilities be located in accessible, secure and well lit location with lockers and showers facilities provided.

page 8 58 Given the nature of the land use, TfL agrees that for the purpose of the trip generation assessment, the use of first principles and data from existing comparable sites is acceptable. However, TfL would have expected further information to be supplied in support of those, including modal share for employees. As the previous planning application for site has now lapsed, the assessment should have also been carried out considering the site as brown field.

59 However, and not withstanding the above comments, given the nature, scale and location of the proposals, TfL considers that from the initial assessment the approach to trip generation presented in the Transport Assessment is acceptable and therefore compliant with London Plan Policy 6.3 ’Assessing effects of development on transport capacity’.

60 The Transport Assessment contains junction modelling for the local road network and the extent of the modelling is acceptable. However, there is no evidence that the modelling has followed TfL Best Practice modelling guidance. This will have to be provided, including submission of validation of the base years as well as selection of peak periods, before TfL can confirm the acceptability of the results. Further comments may be forthcoming once this model has been submitted to the Borough and to TfL. TfL may subsequently be seeking contributions for junction improvements, particularly on the A312. The A312 is already at capacity at the junction with North Hyde Road during peak periods and any increase in traffic will cause further delays at this junction.

61 As stated above, The Parkway and Bulls Bridge Roundabout are heavily congested and therefore TfL would also expect to see good incentives to encourage use of more sustainable means of staff travel and movements of Heavy Goods vehicles through the Travel Plan and Delivery and Servicing Plan.

62 Notwithstanding the comments made above on trip generation and based on the figures presented in the TA, it is accepted that there should be sufficient capacity on existing passenger transport services to accommodate the forecast increase in bus and rail trips likely to be generated by the proposed development.

63 No Travel Plan for the entire development was submitted as part of the application, this will need to be submitted to the Borough and TfL for approval, to ensure conformity with London Plan Policy 6.3. Once approved, the travel plan is expected to be secured, monitored, reviewed, and enforced through the s106 agreement.

64 No Pedestrian Environmental Review System (PERS) audit of the pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the development site had been carried out. It is therefore recommended that an audit should be carried out and that any improvements identified in it be implemented by the developer and secured through s106 or s278 agreements. These will be required to comply with London Plan Policy 6.10.’ Walking’

65 The inclusion of a Construction Logistic Plan (CLP) within the TA is supported and is in line with London Plan Policy 6.14 “Freight”. TfL recommends that this should be further secured through a planning condition.

66 Similarly, a Delivery Servicing Plan (DSP) for the whole site, as referred in the London Freight Plan should be produced and submitted to the Borough and TfL for approval, in line London Plan policy 6.14 to manage vehicle movements and restrict them to off-peak periods.

67 In summary the main issues raised above need to be resolved before the application can be considered in line with the transport policies set out within the London Plan (2011).

page 9 Community Infrastructure Levy

68 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.

69 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for Hilllingdon is £35/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made

70 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Hillingdon has yet to adopt a scheme has adopted a scheme. See the council’s website for more details. Local planning authority’s position

71 The Local Authority’s position is not known at this stage. Legal considerations

72 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

73 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

74 London Plan policies on waste, employment, design, noise, air quality, energy and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others and on balance does not comply with the London Plan; the reasons and the potential remedies to issues of non compliance are set out below:

 Waste: The proposal supports the London Plan policies for waste management. Further clarification is required on how waste is being moved up the waste hierarchy.

 Employment: The proposed use is consistent with the site designation as part of a Preferred Industrial Location and supports the relevant London Plan policies.

page 10  Urban design: Although there is a tall building proposed at the site, it is considered appropriate within this industrial setting and is not unreasonably detrimental from a balanced strategic perspective.

 Noise: Clarification of the sampling methodology, noise indicators and time periods is required to ensure that suitable agreed noise limits can be met with reasonable certainty. A more detailed noise mitigation scheme and a more detailed delivery noise assessment are required. The Council will need to impose relevant local conditions, which require monitoring by the applicant to ensure that the conditions are not breached.

 Air quality: Conditions relating to Non Road Mobile Machinery will need to be applied to comply with the forthcoming SPG and the Council should ensure that these are imposed. Clarification should be provided as to how emissions will be reduced. The provision of natural gas to the site, together with hydrogen and biomethane vehicles for deliveries should be explored.

 Energy: The potential for recovering waste heat from the process is crucial and should be addressed. Outstanding district heat opportunities and links need to be specified.  Transport: Various transport related plans and conditions stated in the report need to be undertaken and secured. To ensure compliance with the London Plan, cycle parking figures need to be provided, a delivery servicing plan (DSP), construction logistics plan (CLP), travel plan, PERS, and EVCP should all be submitted and secured by condition.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Sukhpreet Khull, Case Officer 020 7983 4806 email [email protected]

page 11