MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Acquisition of Land Act 1981

LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW (LAND SOUTH OF BRENTFORD HIGH STREET) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2016

PROOF OF EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO PLANNING

APP/NPCU/CPO/F5540/77609

Marilyn Smith MA Dip TP MRTPI

Page 1 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

Index

1.0 Qualifications and Experience 3 2.0 Scope of Evidence 4

3.0 Description of the Order Land and Surrounding Area and the 5 Historic Planning Framework 4.0 The Scheme and Planning Permission 11 5.0 Compliance with the Planning Framework 21 6.0 Amendments to Block D of the Scheme 34 7.0 Stopping Up Order 37 8.0 The Benefits of the Scheme 38 9.0 Objections to the Order 42 10 .0 Conclusion 54

2 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 My name is Marilyn Smith. I am the Chief Planning Officer (Interim) at the London Borough of Hounslow. I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute; hold a Diploma in Town Planning and a MA in Environmental Planning. I have over 30 years’ experience in planning, having worked in policy, strategic planning and development control in England and overseas. I have worked in Development Management in London Borough of Hounslow for over 26 years.

1.2 In my 26 years at Hounslow I have worked on a number of major schemes throughout the Borough.

1.3 I first had responsibility for this land that is the subject of the London Borough of Hounslow (Land South of Brentford High Street) Compulsory Purchase Order 2017 ('Order Land') in my role as Development Control Support Manager, when I was responsible for managing Development Control across the Borough between 2009 and 2013. I have been in my substantive role as Head of Development Management and Enforcement since 2013, and am currently acting up as Chief Planning Officer for the Borough. I have had significant involvement in the major town centre regeneration project in Hounslow, a mixed use scheme that will enhance the heart of town centre with significant new public realm, multiplex cinema and 9,830 sqm of shopping and leisure uses (retail and restaurant/ café space), as well as 527 dwellings. This is from writing the planning brief in 1999 through to taking the second planning application through Planning Committee in 2015 and then being the Council’s planning witness at a Compulsory Purchase Order Inquiry in 2016 relating to the abovementioned major regeneration scheme in Hounslow town centre. This order was confirmed on 25 August 2016 and was operative from 16 December 2016.

1.4 I am aware of the regeneration of all significant sites in Brentford, and I assisted in taking the planning application for the Brentford Waterside scheme ('Scheme') underlying the compulsory purchase order that has been made in respect of the Order Land ('Order') through Planning Committee in 2014. 3 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

4 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

2.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 My evidence is concerned with planning issues that are relevant to the merits of the making of the Order. I will describe the Order Land (Section 3.0) and the details of the Scheme and extant planning permission (Section 4.0). I will explain how the Scheme complies with the relevant planning framework (Section 5.0).

2.2 I will then explain the Council’s proposals for revisions to Block D of the Order Land (Section 6.0) and the details of a stopping up order relating to existing areas of public highway land within the Order Land (Section 7.0).

2.3 I will describe the benefits of the Scheme and how these will result in substantial public benefits from improvements to the social, economic and environmental well-being of the area (section 8.0).

2.4 I will then address the objections made on planning grounds (section 9.0).

2.5 Finally, in my conclusion (section 10.0) I will confirm that the purpose for which the land is being acquired fits in with the adopted planning framework for the area, and the planning context generally, and that the proposed purpose of the Order for the redevelopment and regeneration of the area will significantly contribute to the achievement of the promotion or improvement of the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area.

5 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER LAND AND THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE HISTORIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

3.1 The Order Land has an area of 4.79ha and is located within Brentford Town Centre between the High Street (London Road) and the River Brent/Grand Union Canal to the south. The Order Land and rights to be acquired are detailed in the Order (CD1/1) and associated map (CD1/2) as well as the Visual Booklet (CD3/11. It is bounded to the west by Augustus Close and by the Heidelberg Building to the east. It excludes Johnsons Island and the existing MSO boat yard which is accessed from Dock Road (“Order Land”).

3.2 The northern boundary of the Order Land contains a large proportion of the existing south side of the High Street, including the Vicarage, a temporary car park and County Parade (which are within the Council’s ownership). Here buildings are generally occupied by retail uses with some residential at upper floors (generally two to three storeys).

3.3 The majority of the Order Land beyond the High Street comprises predominantly industrial/commercial buildings, many of which are vacant and derelict, although some buildings are occupied on short-term leases. Many of these buildings are in a very dilapidated condition, with buildings typically being two to five storeys and being of a variety of designs and typologies.

3.4 At the western end of the Order Land, at the junction of High Street and Augustus Close, is St Lawrence’s Church, which is included within the Buildings at Risk Register and will be retained within the Scheme. The church, which is Grade II* listed, is set within a churchyard to the south. The churchyard is currently overgrown and contains a number of mature trees. The church is currently derelict and deconsecrated and there is no public access to either the church or the churchyard.

3.5 Other listed buildings within the Order Land are Numbers 80 and 129-130 High Street, which are both Grade II listed. The Scheme provides for the retention of these listed buildings. Works are proposed to the path at the 6 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith frontage of 80 High Street but these works already have listed building consent. The former vicarage at 139 High Street which is listed as a ‘Building of Local Townscape Character’ will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of St Lawrence's church.

3.6 The majority of the Order Land is not located within a Conservation Area although small parts of the Order Land fall within the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area. St Lawrence’s Church, the Vicarage and the existing Jupps Wharf are all located within the Conservation Area. The Grand Union Canal is non-tidal due to impoundment by the Thames Lock and a weir immediately to the south of the Order Land. The Order Land is also in the Thames Policy Area, is an Archaeological Priority area and Flood Zone 3 to 3ai and 3b. The town centre has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (“PTAL”) rating that ranges from 2 to 4, where 1 is the worst and 6 which is best. The Order Land also benefits from a number of bus routes along the High Street and is within walking distance of Brentford Railway Station.

3.7 Many of the buildings within the Order Land are vacant and are in a poor condition with limited architectural value. The High Street currently turns its back to the canal side/waterside environment to the south and the Order Land has poor permeability and connectivity between the canal and the High Street with little public access through or across the Order Land. Historic yards and lanes to the river have been lost with new road building and development.

3.8 The Order Land currently offers very little in terms of public open space provision and legible, safe access to the waterfront. Town Wharf and Workhouse Dock, once bustling with the loading and unloading of goods are both inaccessible, in a poor condition and are generally hidden from view. A number of moorings are contained within the two docks that lie within the Order Land boundary. In addition a number of residential moorings are located along the northern bank of the canal adjacent to or within the southern boundary of the Order Land.

3.9 The Order Land has a significant fall of 3.00m between the High Street (7.56m AOD) and the dock edge (4.58m AOD) along Catherine Wheel Yard, providing a natural draw to the waterside which is currently not emphasised. 7 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

3.10 Further south of the Order Land, across the Thames River and into the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames are Kew Green and the Royal Botanic Gardens, both of which are designated as conservation areas. Additionally, Kew Gardens is a World Heritage Site and an area designated Grade I on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. It has many Listed Buildings including Kew Palace. Kew Garden’s World Heritage Buffer Zone incorporates Kew Green and extends to the Brentford side of the Thames (but not as far as the Order Land).

3.11 Brentford Town Centre is classified as a ‘District Centre’ in the London Plan (“LP”)(CD6/4) and Hounslow Local Plan (“HLP”) (CD6/5).

Wider Site Context

3.12 The town centre and wider area is a very distinctive yet heterogeneous mix of building types and uses, containing large areas of industrial and waterside related development that have undergone significant change since the decline of industry in the region and closure of major economic activities such as Brentford gasworks and Brentford Dock and associated river borne freight in the 1960s. For many years large areas around the town centre have deteriorated with redundant industrial sites and restricted access to the waterside severing the historic links between the town centre and the waterways.

3.13 Since the early 2000s a number of large former industrial sites such as Brentford gasworks, further east of the town centre, Ferry Quays (adjacent to the western side of the Heidelberg site) and land either side of Brentford Lock, have undergone regeneration with new mixed use schemes that have provided commercial uses, new housing and public realm improvements that have opened up public access to the waterside along the Thames and River Brent/ Grand Union Canal.

3.14 Regeneration of the heart of the town centre, especially the High Street and land to the south, including the Oder Land has failed to progress, primarily due to the multiple and complex land ownership, though Ballymore, in partnership with the Council now own the majority of this land. 8 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

3.15 Nevertheless some successful work to enhance the High Street to make it more attractive, introduce new activity from housing and leisure uses has occurred. Most recently in 2014 Brentford’s former magistrates court (on the northern side of the High Street) has been transformed with a new public square and market space created by high quality paving, new planting and a water feature and conversion and extension of the disused magistrates court building to residential use. This work was partly funded by the Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund recognising the importance of the Council’s aspirations for regeneration.

3.16 Another significant regeneration scheme is taking place on the land adjacent to the River Brent and Grand Union Canal, on the northern side of the High Street. This is a 6.5 ha. area of former industrial land being redeveloped by a commercial venture with British Waterways. This area is to contain 530 dwellings, as well as commercial and leisure space, new moorings and pontoons. Significant areas of new public realm including a waterside square, enhanced tow path and a canal footbridge are being created. This is a good example good example of major regeneration that respects the historic character of the area and utilises the waterway and industrial heritage of Brentford, as is the aspiration for the Order land(see CD3/11).

3.17 These developments show how regeneration can greatly improve the economic, environmental and social well-being of the area. It also highlights that further regeneration to secure wider public benefits and support Brentford’s role as a District Centre are necessary. The High Street and the areas that link the heart of the town centre to the waterside are one of the last, as well as the largest areas in need of regeneration. It is poorly used and in poor physical condition, with this area detracting from the character and appearance and vitality of the townscape. Together these schemes will all complement each other, which will multiply their regenerative benefits.

Historic Planning Framework

3.18 In Section 4.0 of my proof I consider the current planning framework. By way of background I consider the historic framework now. The Council’s long held

9 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith aspiration and the need for regeneration of Brentford town centre and surrounding areas is discussed in the evidence of Michael Sudlow. Government funding was obtained in partnership with the Council, for social, economic and environmental improvements to be achieved through physical regeneration and associated programmes from the mid-1990s onwards and some success was achieved with redevelopment of land near the town centre at Ferry Quays and Brentford Lock and at the edge of the centre at the former gasworks site (see CD3/11).

3.19 Alongside this work, the Order Land, as part of Brentford District Centre, has been identified throughout historic planning policies within various versions of the Council’s planning framework, as an area in need of regeneration. The policy objectives have sought to enhance shopping and employment opportunities as well as bring environmental improvements, with these considered necessary to ensure the future vitality and viability of the centre.

3.20 The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan (“1996 UDP”)(CD5/2) was adopted on 6 December 1996. The town centre and Order Land were included in the ‘Brentford Town Centre Regeneration Area’.

3.21 Policy IMP.1.1 (Regeneration of Brentford Town Centre) of the 1996 UDP applied to the Brentford Town Centre Regeneration Area, this policy stating:

“The Council will pursue the following principal objectives through the regeneration of Brentford Town Centre and riverside: maximise the potential of the centre’s Thames side and canalside location by opening up these frontages; maximise the potential of the centre as an historic, cultural and arts, leisure and shopping centre; reinforce and expand its town centre role by stimulating future demand via the redevelopment of employment and housing sites and increasing the number of visitors to the centre, and by safeguarding the town centre from the threat posed by inappropriate out of centre retail and other facilities”.

3.22 These objectives were supported by other policies within the 1996 UDP as well as the Brentford Town Centre Action Plan (1997), the latter being described further by Michael Sudlow.

10 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

3.23 Similar objectives for regeneration were carried through to the revised version of the 1996 UDP, with the adoption of the London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan on 12 December 2003 (“2003 UDP”)(CD5/3), with the Order Land allocated for mixed-use development.

3.24 Policy IMP.2.1 (Regeneration of Brentford Town Centre and Riverside) of the 2003 UDP included objectives and policies for the regeneration of the Order Land and sought to “… develop Brentford’s role as an historic and cultural centre by encouraging more visitors and more people to live and work in the town centre ”1.

3.25 Policy IMP.3.1 (Brentford Regeneration Area) aimed to support the regeneration of the physical environment and improvements to the local economy in order to achieve wider social and community benefits.

3.26 The 2003 UDP policies were supported by the Brentford Town Centre Action Plan (1997) (“Action Plan”) which was supplementary planning guidance and provided planning guidance for several sites within the town centre and along the riverside and canal, including the land south of the High Street.

3.27 Further supplementary guidance developed with the Brentford Regeneration Framework (the “BRF”)(CD5/4) in 2003, which provided a strategic vision for the area to promote regeneration and sustainable development. The aims of the Action Plan and BRF are discussed further by Michael Sudlow. On 18 September 2007 most policies of the 2003 UDP were saved by Direction of the Secretary of State.

3.28 On 27 January 2009 the Council adopted the Brentford Area Action Plan (the “BAAP”)(CD5/5) as a Development Plan Document and this become part of the Council’s Development Plan, replacing and amending various 2003 UDP policies (saved) and providing new policies and a spatial strategy for the continued regeneration of the Brentford area. Michael Sudlow further describes key objectives and site allocation of the Order Land from the BAAP. The 2003 UDP and BAAP were replaced by the Hounslow Local Plan in 2015.

1 At 2.6 of the support text (pg 40) of UDP 2003. 11 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

3.29 As detailed above, the planning framework for the area has sought regeneration of the Order Land for over twenty years.

12 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 4.0 THE SCHEME AND PLANNING PERMISSION

The Scheme

4.1 The Council granted consent for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Order Land on 2 April 2015 subject to a Section 106 Agreement 2. This “Scheme” is a hybrid, part-outline, part-detailed, development consisting of several separate planning permissions and listed building consents. The evidence of Paul Monaghan provides further explanation of the design of the Scheme. Detailed descriptions of the proposals are given in the application documents as listed below with details of drawings and parameters given in CD3/11.

(i) Environmental Statement and Addendum (ii) Design and Access Statement (with amendments) (iii) Planning Statement (iv) Design Code (with amendments) (v) Energy Strategy (vi) Sustainability Statement (vii) Transport Assessment and Addendum (viii) Retail Assessment (ix) Economic Report (x) Affordable Housing Statement (xi) Health Impact Assessment (xii) Heritage Statement (xiii) Landscape Masterplans (xiv) Proposed Drawings

4.2 The planning permissions and listed building consents that comprise the Scheme are as follows:

4.3 00607/BA/P2 (CD3/3) – A hybrid planning permission (part detail part outline) for the demolition of existing buildings and retention of a number of buildings as part of a comprehensive mixed-use development comprising a maximum of 111,821sqm (GEA) including a maximum of 876 residential units along with

2 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended) 13 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith associated works. The Scheme includes retail (A1 use), residential (C3 use), business (B1 use) and leisure (D1/D2 use) and associated uses as part of the development including car parking, cycle storage, and an energy centre. Creation of enhanced vehicular access and public realm works including hard and soft landscaping, works to the river walls and facilities associated with the mooring of boats, boat storage and maintenance (the “Planning Permission”);

4.4 00607/BA/L1 (CD3/8) – Works to a listed building namely 129-130 High Street (as amended);

4.5 00607/AJ/P10 (CD3/4) – Change of use of St Lawrence's Church to Health and Fitness use (D2) and the erection of a new building in association with the proposed D2 use. To include associated works of hard and soft landscaping within the site including the removal of some trees and the provision of cycle spaces and treatment to the existing boundary walls (amended plans);

4.6 00607/AJ/L9 (CD3/5/) – Change of use and external and internal alterations to the listed building at St Lawrence's Church to Health and Fitness use (D2 use) (as amended); and

4.7 00607/80/L2 (CD3/9) – Works within the curtilage of the listed building at 80 High Street consisting of the relocation of the existing front wall.

Description of the Scheme

4.8 The Scheme will comprehensively redevelop land between the southern side of Brentford High Street and the River Brent, within Brentford town centre, and will include new mixed-use buildings, streets and public realm that provides:

• Up to 876 dwellings including affordable housing • New retail, services and food and drink uses (A1-A5 use classes) • New commercial office space • New leisure and cultural uses • New public realm including walkways, public square, streets, a wider pavement to the High Street and new connections from the High Street to

14 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith the waterside which reinstate historic yards Extension of the Thames Path across the Order Land along the waterfront • Improved waterside infrastructure and permanent mooring spaces • Up to 915 car parking spaces, including a multi-storey car park (606 spaces) and disabled parking

4.9 The maximum floor areas 3 approved by the Planning Permission are given in the table below.

Use Use Class Maximum Floor Area Residential C3 74,418 sqm Retail/ Services A1-A5 14,133 sqm Commercial B1 3,931 sqm Leisure/ Cultural D1/D2 7,906 sqm Other (parking, plant, 22,416 sqm storage, refuse etc)

4.10 The Planning Permission (paragraph 4.2) is a hybrid planning permission that granted detailed consent for the first phase, and outline consent for later phases of the Scheme.

4.11 The Planning Permission has a mix of residential, retail, employment, and community and leisure uses across the Order Land within a high quality landscaped public realm. It includes demolition of derelict and vacant buildings, alongside the retention and incorporation of some existing buildings (including a number of listed and non-listed buildings).

4.12 The Planning Permission is made up of eleven development blocks providing new buildings fronting the High Street, along the new routes that reinstate connections from the High Street to the waterside and along the waterside itself. The scale and massing of new buildings considered the urban context and history of the Order Land, reflecting the historic grain of the yards and scale of warehouse and industrial buildings while maintaining the scale of the

3 Gross External Area 15 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith existing high street. The massing of the scheme is generally 3-5 storeys along the High Street and 5-7 elsewhere, with two taller 7-10 storey buildings marking key public spaces around main basins in the waterway.

4.13 The layout of the eleven blocks is provided in Appendix MCS1 and CD3/11.

Phase 1 (Detailed Permission)

4.14 Detailed planning permission was given for building plots B, C & K which forms Phase 1 of the Scheme and accounts for approximately 40% of the Order Land. This phase includes 323 dwellings, a retail supermarket and additional retail units (7,167 sqm) and B1 floorspace (362 sqm), as well as a basement car park, additional parking, an energy centre and associated landscaping and works.

Other Phases (Outline Permission)

4.15 The remaining eight building plots A, D, E, F, G, H, J and L are submitted in outline, with all matters reserved. These plots will form the later phases of Scheme. Guiding design principles for these plots are provided within an Outline Masterplan.

4.16 The Planning Permission includes parameters for the outline elements with these showing how the outline plots are to be developed to accord with the Outline Masterplan and a Design Code, the latter being a set of drawings which provides guidance to architects and design teams as to how to develop plots within the Outline Masterplan for future detailed reserved matters applications that conform the appearance, layout, scale, landscaping and access details.

4.17 The approved parameters are drawings that set out the overall characteristics of each outline plot covering building lines, uses at ground level and upper floors, building storey heights, parking areas, and routes across the Order Land.

Conditions

4.18 The Planning Permission includes conditions relating to both the detailed and 16 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith outline elements of the Scheme. These include typical pre-commencement and pre-occupation conditions that seek to secure approval of appropriate particulars of environmental conditions and the particulars of the Scheme. None of the conditions present any impediment to the delivery of the Scheme.

Other Permission/ Consents

4.19 In addition to the Planning Permission the Scheme includes three Listed Building Consents and a separate planning permission that grant listed building consent for works to the curtilage of No. 80 High Street, works to Nos. 129-130 High Street and external and internal changes to St Lawrence’s Church (see paragraphs 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6). A separate planning permission was granted for the change of use of St Lawrence's Church to Health and Fitness use (D2) and the erection of a new building in association with the proposed D2 use (see paragraph 4.4).

Planning Process

4.20 The Scheme was the subject of extensive pre-application consultation and review, and detailed assessment and rigorous scrutiny at the planning application and decision making stages. This is outlined below.

Pre-Application Consultation and Advice

4.21 Planning Performance Agreement – The Council and the applicant for the Scheme signed a Planning Performance Agreement (“PPA”) on 11 July 2012. The purpose of the agreement was to provide pre-application advice to the applicant to assist the preparation of an application and establish key issues and procedural requirements. Comments made were without prejudice to formal consideration of any planning application, covering a broad range of planning topics.

4.22 Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) – The PPA confirmed that the development would require an EIA, and the Council issued a formal Scoping Opinion to this effect on 27 February 2012.

17 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 4.23 An Environmental Statement (“ES”) was submitted with the application 00607/BA/P2 and this was supplemented with additional information in July 2013 during the assessment of the application (“ES Addendum”).

4.24 Pre-Application Consultation – Extensive pre-application consultation for the Scheme comprising two public exhibitions, two leaflet drops to over 5,000 local residents (each edition) and meetings with statutory bodies, and local resident and amenity groups was undertaken by the applicant, including meetings with:

• Brentford Community Council • Brentford Chamber of Commerce • High Street Steering Group • Brentford Dock Ltd • Greater London Authority including Transport for London • Kew Gardens • Environment Agency • English Heritage 4 • CABE

Consultation on the Applications for the Scheme

4.25 Publicity and consultation about the application was carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

4.26 Several site notices and a press notice advertised the application, and copies of the ES, ES Addendum and other application documents were made available at the Hounslow Civic Centre and Brentford library, as well as the Council’s website. There were also separate site and press notices for the development in respect of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requirements.

4.27 Over 1,900 consultation letters were sent to neighbouring and nearby residents, statutory consultees, neighbouring boroughs, and local amenity societies.

4 Now Historic England 18 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

Public Meeting

4.28 The Council organised a public meeting on 21 November 2013 to discuss the planning application. This meeting was held at St Paul’s Church, Brentford, and was attended by over 200 people from the local area.

Statement of Community Involvement

4.29 The applicant developed a comprehensive pre-application consultation approach, with this detailed in the Statement of Community Involvement which was submitted with the application. This approach coordinated key local stakeholders and sought their participation with a series of workshops, public exhibitions and consultation leaflets. During this pre-application consultation process from July 2011 to July 2012 there was consultation with over 600 local people, around 1,350 comments were collected, and 200 canvas cards and feedback sheets received. The consultation included attendance at the Brentford Festival, two public exhibitions and five Reference Group meetings. Three workshops were convened and two newsletters circulated to over 5,000 local residents per edition.

Determination of the Planning Permission

4.30 The application was considered at the Council’s Planning Committee on 27 November 2014 (CD3/1), with the committee resolving to grant consent to the Scheme, subject to conditions and a legal deed (s106 agreement). After referral to the Mayor of London 5, and the Mayor’s response on 25 March 2015 (CD3/10), that he was content for the Council to determine the application, the Planning Permission was issued on 2 April 2015, subject to the s106 agreement (CD3/13). In the next section of my evidence I refer to the planning merits of the Scheme in more detail.

Planning Obligations

4.31 The Planning Permission was issued with an accompanying legal agreement (see paragraph 4.28) that has planning obligations to secure public benefits and

5 Under the Mayor of London Order 2008. 19 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith mitigation of effects of the Scheme in the following key areas:

4.32 Affordable Housing

• Transfer of land to the Council to enable the Council to build a block of affordable housing (Block D) including financial contribution. • A review mechanism that revaluates the viability of the Scheme and requires payment of a deferred contribution towards affordable housing if the Scheme is more profitable than at the time of the decision (capped at £70,820,750).

4.33 Sustainable Transport

• Local bus improvement contribution of £405,000. • Controlled Parking Zone contribution of £60,000 towards review and expansion of on-street parking controls. • Highway improvements contribution of £1,500,000 to enhance the local pubic highway network to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion and create a better environment for walking and cycling. • Site wide, residential and retail travel plans that promote non-private car. modes of travel to and from the Order Land. • Provision for an on-site car club. • Phasing of parking and temporary parking arrangements.

4.34 Education, Employment and Training

• Construction Training contribution of £475,000 for local skills training. • Education (school places) contribution of £1,748,018. • Employment and Training Strategy to facilitate use of local labour within the construction of the Scheme.

4.35 Environmental Protection and Enhancement and Community Use

• Provision of space for a Community Facility (5,000 sqm in Block F) – for a ‘community purpose’ which is defined as for social, recreational,

20 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith leisure, educational, caring (including health and day care), cultural and workshop purposes, a youth meeting centre and for any other purposes which meet the community needs of the residents or a contribution of £135,240. • Waterside Infrastructure Strategy and maintenance plan to enhance and maximise use of the waterside including improving public access, facilities, leisure and recreational opportunities and mooring provision. • New public realm and rights of public access throughout the Order Land. • Considerate Contractor Scheme to minimise effects of construction.

4.36 Town Centre Support

• Restrictions of residential occupation until commercial units are completed to ensure town centre uses re-provided and expanded. • Preparation of a Retail and Commercial Strategy that requires at least 20% of the retail and commercial floor space to be provided for existing local business at a discount of 20% of the market rent for 5 years. • Preparation of a Retail Car Park Management Plan.

Implementation

4.36 The development has not commenced yet, primarily because the land has not been assembled. There are obligations restricting implementation until all land is tied to the s106 agreement and the Planning Permission also has pre- commencement conditions. A time line for the implementation of the Scheme, assuming confirmation of the Order is found in the evidence of Nigel Morley.

4.37 The exchange of Block D to the Council would occur after conditions from the Block D Agreement are met (see 11.2-11.6 of the evidence of Michael Sudlow)

4.38 The Council intends to make amendments to Block D through a new ‘drop-in’ planning permission in order to maximise the number of affordable homes and enhance the retail viability and public realm of that block. An application will be made in September 2017 (see section 6.0 below).

Other Permissions

21 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

4.39 Since the Planning Permission was granted it has been the subject of an application for non-material amendments 6 to vary the wording of a number of pre-commencement conditions to exclude demolition work from the definition of commencement in order to facilitate an earlier start of work on the Order Land. This application (reference 00607/BA/P2(NMA) was approved on 7 August 2017.

4.40 Planning permission (reference 00217/I/P1) for works to a small section of highway outside the ‘Brewery Tap’ public house on Catherine Wheel Road (which was omitted from the Scheme) was granted on 21 August 2017. The work is for new landscaping and highway works including new paving, kerbs, realigned levels and drainage. This application ensures that this part of the Order Land would be landscaped to complement the approved masterplan of the Scheme.

6 Under s96A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 22 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 5.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

5.1 I consider that the purposes for which the Order Land is being acquired fits with the local planning framework and the NPPF. The Scheme will enable the Council to begin to realise the long held objective of the regeneration of Brentford Town Centre which will bring significant improvements to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area. As I have explained, this has been an objective of planning policy for a considerable length of time.

5.2 At the time the Scheme planning application was determined, the Development Plan included the saved policies of the Council’s 2003 UDP, the BAAP and the Employment Development Plan Document 2008 (“EDPD”). The 2003 UDP, BAAP and EDPD were all replaced by the HLP in 2015.

5.3 The saved policies of the 2003 UDP, and policies of the BAAP and EDPD were consistent with the NPPF and are similar to policies of the HLP seeking sustainable development and regeneration with the main objective of transforming the land south of the High Street to the waterside being carried forward . Consideration of the emerging planning framework was given when determining the Planning Permission (see paragraphs 6.5 to 6.7 of the officer report 7)(CD3/1).

5.4 I summarise the key policies of the Development Plan which is comprised of the Hounslow Local Plan 2015, London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2011 (2016) and the West London Waste Plan 2015. A more detailed summary of the relevant policies of the planning framework is given in Appendix MCS2.

5.5 The Scheme has been considered against the current planning policy and guidance, which includes the:

• The National Planning Policy Framework (CD8/1); • The National Planning Practice Guidance ("NPPG") (CD8/5); • London Plan; • Hounslow Local Plan; and • Other material planning documents.

7 Officer Report to Planning Committee on 27 November 2014. 23 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

5.6 Below I assess the planning merits of the Scheme under key themes. My assessment reflects the assessment carried out in the officer’s report that led to the grants of planning permission, and I cross-refer to this report at various places in my evidence.

5.7 My evidence along with the officer report and the material submitted with the planning application demonstrates that the Scheme complies with the well-being purposes of the CPOs 8 (CD8/2) as the purpose for which the Order Land is being acquired fits with the adopted planning framework for the area, and the Scheme will greatly contribute to the achievement of the promotion and improvement of the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the area.

Regeneration of the Town Centre and Sustainable Development

5.8 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development 9. To achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system 10 . Local Planning Authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area 11 .

5.9 The NPPF promotes the role of town centres, stating that town centres should be recognised as the heart of their communities. Local authorities are required to pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town centres. This includes promoting competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer which reflects the individuality of town centres 12 . In particular, the NPPF promotes the preference for main town centre uses to be located in town centres 13 .

5.10 Policies of the LP and the HLP provide strong support for the Scheme, with

8 S226 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 9 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. 10 Paragraphs 7 & 8 of the NPPF. 11 Paragraph 187 of the NPPF. 12 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF. 13 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF. 24 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith these encouraging a regenerated town centre on brownfield land, including a mix of uses to create a new retail and leisure offer and provide much-needed housing. The HLP site allocation No. 17 corresponds with the Order Land, and allocates the site for a mix of uses “… comprising of residential, retail leisure, cultural, community and waterspace related uses and provision for town centre car parking ”. The justification for the allocation states:

“The redevelopment of this site for retail led mixed use town centre development is key to the successful regeneration of Brentford town centre ”.

5.11 The HLP says Brentford District Centre is one of three key areas of the Borough which have capacity for growth and change in the plan period with it to “… benefit from high levels of regeneration and growth over the next 15 years, which will deliver much needed new housing and jobs, as well as improved infrastructure, retail and leisure ”14 .

5.12 The HLP says these objectives will be achieved by regenerating Brentford town centre as a vibrant District Centre that celebrates the town’s heritage and waterside location including by meeting policies TC1, TC2, TC3 and TC4 which relate to town centres. LP policy 2.15 identifies town centres as the focus for economic and housing growth. Brentford is identified in the LP as a District Town Centre that is identified as having medium growth and regeneration potential.

5.13 The Planning Permission would completely transform the Order Land, helping greatly to achieve the regeneration of the wider Brentford area. This would make a major positive contribution to wider strategic objectives of the Development Plan, to promote regeneration of previously developed sites for the enhancement of the quality of life, housing and employment opportunities, and to attract new economic development, encourage economic diversity, and direct it to appropriate areas.

5.14 By providing a mix of retail, leisure and community uses the Scheme would significantly enhance the offer, vitality and viability of Brentford Town Centre, as well as providing a spur to wider economic activity. The need for town

14 Paragraph 2.50 of the Hounslow Local Plan. 25 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith centre regeneration, as well as the effects and overall positive benefits of the Scheme are discussed further in sections 7.3 to 7.80 of the Planning Officer’s Report.

5.15 The Scheme is sustainable development as it would result in the comprehensive regeneration of the Order Land with a mixed use scheme that provides much needed new housing, significant new public realm and environmental enhancement, and new retail, leisure, housing, commercial and community uses that supports and strengthens Brentford town centre’s role as a District Centre. It meets the objectives of HLP policy IMP2 in relation to delivery of sustainable development on allocated sites, with this Scheme to be comprehensive. This would be consistent with the spatial strategy for Brentford including HLP policies TC1, TC2, TC3, TC4, ED1, ED2, ED4, IMP1, IMP2 and IMP3 and related policies of the London Plan.

Housing and Affordable Housing

5.16 To significantly boost the supply of housing, the NPPF says local authorities should identify and update regularly a supply of deliverable housing sites, to provide a choice of high quality housing of different sizes and tenure, including affordable housing 15 .

5.17 LP policy 3.3 recognises the pressing need to significantly boost the supply of housing and requires local authorities to seek to achieve and exceed relevant minimum annual housing targets, and in particular to realise brownfield housing capacity through intensification and mixed use redevelopment. Town centres are included as one of the areas which "… could provide a significant increment to housing supply ".

5.18 HLP policy SC1 seeks to maximise the supply of housing in the Borough to meet housing need, with provision to exceed the London Plan annualised completion targets to achieve at least 12,330 new homes between 2015 and 2030. This will be achieved by allocating sites for new housing, in particular on previously developed land.

15 Paragraphs 47 & 50 of the NPPF. 26 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

5.19 Other HLP policies including HLP SC2, HLP SC3, HLP SC4 and HLP SC5 set objectives to optimise the amount, quality and affordability of new housing. LP policies 3.11 and 3.12 also state that London Boroughs should seek to maximise affordable housing provision.

5.20 Sections 7.81 to 7.103 of the Planning Officer’s Report explain how the Scheme will help meet the Council’s strategic housing need and maximise affordable housing provision. Sections 7.195 to 7.276 of the same report discuss the quality of the housing. The key conclusions on housing quality, given at section 7.275 of the report highlight are as follows:

• Both the detailed and outline elements (subject to careful detailed design and adherence to design measures given in the Design Code and details to follow with Reserved Matters applications) would provide a good standard of residential accommodation that would meet key minimum baseline standards for housing quality as recommended in the Mayor of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance.

• The supporting illustrative material shows that a scheme can be built within the maximum parameters that would see all dwellings meet the minimum size standards, have good access and security, an appropriate mix, meet Lifetime Homes requirements and in general have good outlook, privacy and access to light, as well as adequate provision of children’s play within an enhanced public realm.

5.21 The affordable housing secured by the Planning Permission is discussed in the officer’s report at 7.91 to 7.103. The financial viability of the Scheme was reviewed by an independent valuer on behalf of the Council. The review indicated that the viability of the Scheme would potentially enable around 10% of the housing to be affordable but delivery of these units was unlikely to be viable until the later phases of the Scheme.

5.22 Given the need for affordable homes the Council negotiated a land deal and financial contribution. The Planning Permission secured outline permission for

27 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith Block D for affordable housing with this equating to 10% of the overall residential units.

5.23 Having considered the viability of the Scheme, the assessment concluded that the proposal provided the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and that it would make a welcome contribution to the Council’s affordable housing supply 16 subject to the review mechanism (see 4.32 above). Block D would be developed by the Council with it having 100% nomination rights with this allowing the affordable housing to be delivered early in the scheme’s implementation.

5.24 Therefore the housing delivered by the Scheme would make a significant contribution to the Council’s supply of good quality new housing, including affordable housing for which there is great demand in accordance with requirements of the NPPF, LP policies regarding housing supply and quality including policies 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 and HLP policies SC1, SC2, SC3, and SC5. I consider that the purpose for which the land is being acquired fits with the adopted planning framework for the provision of new housing, the housing tenure and mix, density and affordable housing located within the town centre.

5.25 The Mayor of London 17 concurred with this conclusion, stating that it was welcomed that “…the affordable housing would come forward sooner…and that it would be policy compliant”. Additionally, it was noted that the “ review mechanism would also ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing would be achieved should the circumstances change in the future ”.

Urban Design and the Townscape

5.26 The design process and rationale for the Scheme, and its design merits, are explained in detail in the evidence of Mr. Paul Monaghan RIBA to which reference should be made.

16 Section 103 of the Officer’s report. 17 Paragraph 29 of Mayor of London Stage II response 25 March 2015. 28 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 5.27 The NPPF says good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people and it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes 18

5.28 LP policies LP 7.1, LP 7.2, LP 7.3, LP 7.4, LP 7.5, and LP 7.6 requires buildings streets and open spaces to be of a good design with high quality, accessible, durable and safe public realm and has regard to the surrounding character and in areas of poor or ill-defined character, development should build on the positive elements that can contribute to establishing an enhanced character for the future function of the area. LP policy 7.7 applies to tall buildings and requires such buildings to be appropriately located and well designed,

5.29 HLP policy CC1 recognises the context and varied character found in the Borough, and seeks to ensure that all new development conserves and takes opportunities to enhance their special qualities and heritage. HLP policies CC2 and CC3 say that to contribute to regeneration and growth, the Council will, support tall buildings of high quality in identified locations which accord with the principles of sustainable development. Town centres are identified as suitable locations though care needs to be given to sensitive surroundings, including the World Heritage Site at Kew Gardens and conservation areas and settings of listed buildings.

5.30 Sections 7.277 to 7.492 of the Planning Officer’s report thoroughly considers the design of the Scheme and its effects on the townscape, including heritage assets, with the report concluding:

“… the development will enhance and create a new high quality public realm, improving links between the site and its surrounds. It would reconnect the waterside with the wider town centre and provide supporting waterside uses and public realm alongside which would encourage activity. Despite the

18 Paragraphs 57 & 58 of the NPPF. 29 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith relatively high density within the centre of the site this would become a significantly more pleasant space with more greenery and activity proposed, contrasting with its present industrial nature and use predominantly as a vehicle thoroughfare. The philosophy overall results in an attractive and permeable public realm, with hard and soft landscape treatment contributing to its character and appearance to the benefit of the site and surrounding area including enhancing the character of the Conservation Area ”.

5.31 The Mayor of London’s Stage II response 19 found that the Scheme “… works with the fine historic grain if the site and should make a significant contribution to revitalising the town centre and canalside. The developer is commended for its commitment to design excellence ”.

5.32 Therefore the townscape impacts from the Scheme are substantial and positive, with the character and appearance of the Order Land itself, being significantly enhanced and at the same time respecting the historic fabric of the area. The details and illustrative material demonstrated that minimum baseline standards for housing quality can be met, with these secured by conditions. Use of appropriate, quality materials and sensitive refinement of the buildings’ form and articulation, guided by the approved Design Code would ensure high quality architecture and urban design, which would enhance the townscape. This is consistent with HLP policies CC1, CC2, CC3 and CC4 and LP policies 7.3, 7.4. 7.5. 7.6 and 7.7 and the Housing SPG. I consider that the purpose for which the Order Land is being acquired fits with the adopted planning framework for the design of new developments, and the design and integration of new developments within the public realm in the town centre.

Heritage Assets including Kew World Heritage Site

5.33 LP 7.8 (Heritage Assets and Archaeology) and LP 7.10 (World Heritage Sites) seeks to ensure special consideration is given to the protection of the setting of heritage assets including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, and World Heritage Sites (“WHS”).

19 Paragraph 28 of Mayor of London Stage II response 25 March 2015. 30 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

5.34 HLP policy CC4 says development should conserve and take opportunities to enhance any heritage asset and its setting in a manner appropriate to its significance.

5.35 Assessment of effects on the significance of heritage assets on the Order Land and its surrounds, including the Royal Botanic Gardens WHS was undertaken in sections 7.431 to 7.470 of the Planning Officer’s Report. This was informed by a comprehensive Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the Order Land and proposed development submitted as part of the ES. This was supplemented in the ES Addendum by further views to address comments from the consultation. The key points I highlight are as follows:

• The Order Land has a significant separation distance from Kew Gardens itself, although the Buffer Zone is closer to the site. The majority of the Order Land and Scheme would be shielded from Kew by the Brentford Dock development, albeit the higher elements of Blocks H and K may be visible above these existing developments in winter.

• Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment demonstrated that the Scheme would have an acceptable impact upon the surrounding context, including sensitive viewpoints such as the WHS.

5.36 Effects on the Royal Botanic Gardens WHS and its buffer zone are minor and are not considered significantly harmful. The Scheme would not reduce the ability of visitors to appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance of the Gardens, thereby complying with policy 7.10 of the London Plan.

5.37 The effects upon other heritage assets and the surrounding Conservation Areas is considered acceptable and the Scheme would preserve and in some cases enhance the character, appearance and setting of these buildings and areas in accordance with HLP policy CC4 and London Plan Policy 7.8.

5.38 I consider that the Scheme has appropriately considered effects on the

31 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith significance of heritage assets, preserving and respecting existing heritage at the Order Land including the retention of buildings and restoration of the historic links between the High Street and the waterside, and so it would not unduly affect the significance or setting of heritage on surrounding land.

Transport

5.39 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and advises that developments that generate significant movement should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised 20 (paragraph 34). A key tool to achieve this will be a Travel Plan and all developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan 21 .

5.40 HLP policies EC1 and EC2 seek to maximise regeneration potential by utilising and improving sustainable modes of transport secure a more sustainable local travel requiring development to maximise use of walking, cycling and using public transport, reduce congestion, and make improvements to the public realm to improve health and well-being.

5.41 LP policies 6.9 and 6.10 aim for improvements to the public realm and facilities to encourage increases in walking and cycling, whilst LP policy 6.13 sets maximum parking standards with the aim of preventing excessive car parking provision. HLP policy GB5 seeks to support the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ formed by London’s waterways and to protect its associated infrastructure such as slipways, moorings and workshops.

5.42 Traffic and parking impacts were considered in detail, in conjunction with Transport for London, in sections 7.557 to 7.609 of the Planning Officer’s report 22 . The key points I highlight are as follows:

• The Planning Permission was supported by a Transport Assessment in the ES (and an addendum to the Transport Assessment).

20 Paragraph 34 of the NPPF. 21 Paragraph 36 of the NPPF. 22 Planning Officer’s report to Planning Committee 27 November 2014. 32 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith • The Council engaged external Transport Consultants to review the submitted Transport Assessment which was also reviewed by Transport for London. • There would be some minor worsening in traffic journey times at peak hours due to increased traffic. However with the mitigation, which includes new traffic signals, junction improvements, enhancement of walking and cycling routes and public transport contributions, the effects were considered acceptable. The Mayor of London concluded 23 that the regeneration benefits outweighed any remaining transport issues.

5.43 A transport mitigation package including highway works to be secured under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, would see alterations to Brentford High Street and local junctions, contributions towards public transport, enhancing the pedestrian realm, improving cycle infrastructure, enhancing connectivity with the north side of the High Street, and providing the basis for a modal shift in local transport habits. The s106 agreement obligation to prepare a Waterside Infrastructure Strategy will secure improvements to access and facilities along the waterfront, enhancing the recreational and functional use of the waterway, and protecting its continued use by commercial operators. This would be consistent with HLP policies EC1, EC2, GB4 and GB5 and related LP policies 6.9, 6.10 and 6.13.

5.44 I consider the Scheme would have a satisfactory impact on the local and strategic transport network, and would greatly improve conditions for walking and cycling in the locality.

Neighbours’ Amenity

5.45 HLP policies SC1 and SC4 look to maximise the supply of housing growth but in a manner that is sustainable and responds appropriately to the character and context of the area, whilst policy CC2 requires development to minimise overbearingness and overshadowing and to maintain adequate levels of privacy to neighbours through the careful layout, design and orientation of buildings and spaces. Other HLP policies including EQ5, EQ6 and EQ7 look to

23 Paragraph 41 of the Mayor of London Stage II Response. 33 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith minimise environmental effects regarding noise, lighting and waste management.

5.46 In respect of daylight and sunlight impacts, there are minor adverse effects on some neighbours with the ES identifying some transgressions of the BRE 24 guidance for daylight and sunlight. However the extent of the impacts was not considered to be of such significance that the Planning Permission should not be granted noting that the BRE guidance should be applied flexibly, especially in an urban, town centre setting. In addition, the results were partly affected by the architectural design of neighbouring buildings themselves, which include solid, overhanging balconies and reduces available daylight and outlook. Overall it was considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact upon daylight and sunlight levels at existing neighbouring properties and surrounding amenity areas. I agree with that assessment. This matter is further explained by the evidence of Mr Oliver Law which is appended to my evidence (Appendix MCS3).

5.47 The Planning Officer’s Report considers these matters in detail at sections 7.493 to 7.556. Effects on neighbours to the Order Land are on balance satisfactory, in accordance with HLP policies SC1, SC4, SC5, CC1, CC2, CC3, EQ5, EQ6, EQ6, and EC2 with mitigation provided through the careful siting of buildings, as well as conditions to limit impacts from construction, disruption and the uses proposed, including noise and lighting.

Conclusion

5.48 Overall, I believe that the purposes for which the Order Land is being acquired fits with the policies of the HLP and LP and is consistent with the objectives of the NPPF regarding sustainable development. The Scheme will enable the Council to begin to realise the wider regeneration aspirations for Brentford Town Centre by acting as a catalyst to wider investment and development. In respect of the Planning Permission, the Mayor of London 25 concluded that “… the scheme is acceptable in strategic terms and should

24 BRE Guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ 2011.

25 Paragraph 55 of Mayor of London Stage II response dated 25 March 2017 34 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith make a significant contribution to the regeneration of Brentford ”.

5.49 The Scheme within Brentford District Centre is a significant opportunity for economic, social and environmental improvements which will contribute to the broad goals of sustainable development and also help in the wider regeneration of the area.

35 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 6.0 AMENDMENTS TO BLOCK D OF THE SCHEME

6.1 There is a Land Agreement between the Council and the developer that permits the Council to the develop an affordable housing block at Block D, subject to meeting necessary planning and other conditions, the latter includes obtaining reserved matters approval or detailed planning permission for Block D. Block D is shown on the site plan in Appendix MSC 1 and in CD3/11 (Part I – Block Plan).

6.2 It is the Council’s intention to revise the Block D proposal to incorporate the building at Nos. 98-99 High Street, which is presently excluded from the Planning Permission but is within the Order Land, as this wider site area would facilitate delivery of approximately 16 additional affordable homes and improved retail units with a larger plot enable a more efficient and comprehensive design. The proposed revision would also amend the front building line to the High Street by setting the front of the building further back from the road to allow for a wider footpath and space for a future cycleway extension along the High Street. The total number of affordable homes would then be 96.

6.3 This amended design would be the subject of a new application for planning permission, to be submitted by the Council in September 2017, with any consent to ‘drop-in’ to the existing outline Planning Permission. The new planning application will relate to the Block D area only. No changes to the surrounding development under the outline planning permission will be required.

6.4 Such an amendment would be compliant with policies of the Development Plan as it would maximise affordable housing and as the plot at No. 98-99 High Street is within the Site 17 allocation boundary (see paragraph 5.22 above), ensuring an even more comprehensive scheme of regeneration.

6.5 In respect of affordable housing, the NPPF and policies of the LP and HLP emphasise the importance of new affordable housing and this is a priority for the local authority. LP policy 3.12 states boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing having regard to their affordable 36 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith housing targets, the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual circumstances of the site. HLP policy SC2 also seeks to maximise affordable housing provision. Significantly the Council’s ‘Delivery Plan for Affordable Housing Supply Target 2014-2018’ (CD9/7) identifies that large strategic sites including where the Council has land ownership, is where affordable housing supply is likely to be delivered, with the Order Land being listed as an example of such sites. The delivery plan states that: “ The Council is working with developer Ballymore (Geronimo) to secure a site within the Brentford Town centre regeneration scheme to be developed as part of the council house building programme. The proposed site would yield between 75 and 80 homes …”

6.6 Also of note is that the Council’s most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (June 2016) (CD9/8) also found that:

“There is a high level of affordable housing need, in part arising from significant backlog needs in the existing population, as well as from future growth. Even on generous assumptions over the ability of households to afford high housing costs, and conservative assumptions about the time period over which to meet need, the net level of annual affordable housing need is similar to the average level of production of all new housing over the past decade. Hence a step change in housing production will be necessary to secure enough affordable housing ”.

6.7 Therefore there is strong policy support and great need for affordable housing. The Council’s proposed revisions to Block D would help maximise affordable housing delivery of a mix and tenure determined by the Council to meet local needs.

6.8 The proposed revisions would not be of a magnitude that would require an ES, though relevant parts of the existing ES may need to be supplemented when details are submitted as appropriate to consider effects of the proposed changes to the Planning Permission.

6.9 The proposed revisions are designed to be compatible with the existing Planning Permission. The revisions include an additional storey to parts of the 37 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith outline Block D and incorporation of No. 98-99 High Street into the block though the general layout and configuration is similar, apart from a wider pavement to the High Street.

6.10 The revised Block D application will be carefully integrated with the Scheme so it can “drop in” to the existing Planning Permission, with the remainder of the Scheme to be delivered unchanged. Although no amendments to the rest of the Planning Permission are envisaged if they were required these could be achieved through applications by applications under s96A or s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

6.11 As the proposed affordable housing application for Block D and Nos. 98-99 High Street would be designed to be integrated with the Scheme, and would help maximise affordable housing delivery, there is no reason why this development will not be granted planning permission. The revision to Block D gives rise to no impediments to the implementation and delivery of the Scheme.

38 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith

7.0 STOPPING UP ORDER

7.1 A stopping up order application under section 247 Town and Country Planning Act is required to stop up and remove a number of existing roads, including Brent Way, within the Order Land. The Scheme replaces these with a new road and street layout and associated highway works as part of the redevelopment that will reinstate the historic connections between the High Street and the waterside. The areas to be stopped up are shown in CD3/11 (Part G – Stopping Up Plan).

7.2 An application for a Stopping Up Order was submitted on 16 June 2017 in respect of a number of highways within the Scheme. The stopping-up order was envisaged when the planning application for the Scheme was submitted.

7.3 Some objections to the Stopping Up Order have now been received. These are under consideration. The initial assessment is that all the objections can be overcome. I understand that these may be addressed in due course if this is necessary.

39 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 8.0 THE BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME

8.1 Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) enables a local authority to exercise its compulsory purchase powers:

i If it considers that acquiring the land in question will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment, or improvement on, or in relation to, the land being acquired (s.226(1)(a)); and

ii Provided that it considers that the proposed development, redevelopment or improvement is likely to contribute to achieving the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well- being of its area (s.226(1A)).

8.2 I consider that the land and new rights proposed to be compulsorily acquired will facilitate the comprehensive redevelopment of the Order Land in a manner which will positively contribute to the improvement of the economic, social and environmental well-being of the locality and the wider Borough. The key benefits from the Scheme are summarised below.

8.3 Social – The regenerated High Street and restored access to the waterside would contribute positively to the identity of Brentford, enhancing civic pride and cultural opportunities, and would provide new and more attractive places for people to meet. The housing, office, retail and leisure uses would increase employment opportunities, enhance accessibility to an improved range of goods, and provide greater housing choice including affordable and wheelchair- suitable housing, which would aid social inclusion and services. In summary the main social benefits are:

• Provision of up to 876 new dwellings to meet relevant LP Housing SPG baseline standards for quality, including 10% adaptable for wheelchair users and with all to meet Lifetime Homes standards, helping to address the current high demand for housing; • Provision of approximately 10% affordable units which would assist in providing housing opportunities for local residents as well as helping to meet the Borough’s affordable housing targets;

40 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith • Significant increase in retail and service opportunities, including a new food store; • New community use space • Increased access to leisure/cultural opportunities; • Public realm enhancements; • Cycle and pedestrian flow improvements; and • Public access to waterside and new public realm where community events and interaction can take place.

8.4 Environmental – The redevelopment of the Order Land provides a major opportunity to enhance the townscape, which at present is unsightly and detracts from the town centre, and to restore historic links to nearby waterside. The Scheme re-uses previously developed land, whilst respecting and integrating with the local character of the area, and retaining or restoring items of built heritage. Although the Scheme will be of a higher density than at present, the contemporary buildings and significant areas of new public realm would create a high quality and vibrant area within the heart of the town centre, creating an attractive place to live, shop, work, and for leisure.

8.5 Development of all of the Order Land will enable a comprehensive scheme of regeneration for the area, ensuring the area is developed in a form which creates a distinctive character and is integrated with nearby development. In summary the main environmental benefits are:

• Re-use of a previously developed site for a mix of uses including retail and housing offsetting need for greenfield development; • Regeneration of unsightly brownfield land of low townscape value, thereby enhancing the appearance of the Order Land and acting as a catalyst for improvements to the wider area; • Creation of new and enhanced public realm connecting the High Street with the waterside and enhancing the quality of the High Street itself, with significant areas of publicly accessible space including a woodland park and towpath walk which will provide missing link in the Thames Path; • Through significant net increase in planting across the Scheme and a high quality landscape strategy as well as ecological improvements, plans to

41 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith significantly enhance the biodiversity value of the Order Land; • New paving, street tree planting, lighting and pathways will enhance the permeability of the area linking the Order Land with the surrounding area; and • Both housing and commercial elements of the Scheme to meet relevant targets for energy efficiency and carbon reduction targets, contributing to mitigation of climate change.

8.6 Economic – In economic terms, redevelopment of the Order Land, which has been previously developed, is a major opportunity to bring vitality to and enhance the vibrancy of the town centre. New retail, commercial, leisure, and housing uses would significantly increase economic activity and employment for both the construction and operational phases of the Scheme. Once complete, the commercial uses would provide a substantial increase in employment for the area, with this creating new economic activity which also has a multiplier effect adding further to growth and employment prospects, which in turn would reinforce the High Street’s role at the heart of the District Centre.

8.7 The Scheme is estimated to result in over 950 new jobs in the improved retail, office, leisure and cultural floorspace, compared to the present employment at the Order Land of around 130 jobs. In addition, although construction jobs would be temporary, the construction phase of the Scheme is scheduled to occur over a seven year period, creating approximately 118 full time jobs for each year of the implementation of the Scheme. In summary the main economic benefits are:

• Significant contribution to economic activity through increased employment and expenditure from construction of the Scheme; • Significant contribution to economic growth through increased employment and expenditure from new housing, commercial uses; • New retail, leisure and cultural offer for the District Centre; and • Opportunities for enhancement of skills and knowledge of local people through training initiatives.

42 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith Conclusion

8.8 In my view, the redevelopment of the Order Land will fulfill the objectives of the development plan for the area. It would contribute to and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre, enhancing its designation as a District Centre for the area and achieving economic growth. It will also deliver much needed significant new housing (including affordable housing), and a more vibrant public and community use of the town centre, including an evening and social aspect to the uses. It will physically transform the Order Land by providing high quality buildings and public realm, including reinstating historic links between the High Street and the waterside.

8.9 The whole Scheme contributes to the achievement of the promotion and improvement of the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the District centre of the borough. Accordingly the Council is satisfied that s226(1)(A) is met.

43 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 9.0 OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER

9.1 The Secretary of State has received 28 objections to the Order and a number of objections raise similar points. Geronimo Limited ('GL') has made thorough and repeated efforts to contact all affected landowners to attempt to acquire the various land interests by agreement. Additionally, GL and its advisors, and the Council, have attempted to resolve concerns from the objections and through this process a number have been withdrawn.

9.2 In respect of the remaining objections, these cover common themes regarding claimed failure to negotiation with affected landowners, issues around funding and delivery of the Scheme, and whether the benefits of the Scheme outweigh interference with private rights including Human Rights, and a failure to demonstrate a compelling need in the public interest. There are also individual issues of objection.

9.3 A summary of the common themes and a response are detailed in Section 8.0 of the Council’s Statement of Case. In the following sections I respond to particular individual issues raised by objectors, where they are planning related matters, with reference to the Statement of Case. I note that some of the matters raised relate to planning issues that were already addressed when the Planning Permission was granted, and in this regard refer to the planning assessment and Scheme benefits that I have already set out (see in particular sections 5.0 and 8.0 above).

Rebuttal of Objections

9.4 Statutory objections were received from the following parties:

Objection Objector Address 1 Dianne Elizabeth ‘The Fair Triumvirate’, Town Wharf, (CD4/15) Preston Catherine Wheel Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 2 David Loudon ‘Aquaticus’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/14) Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 3 Wilma Seston ‘Anguilla’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel

44 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith (CD4/20) Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 4 Nicola Swann ‘Leopard’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/19) Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 5 Katy Elizabeth ‘Visah’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel Road, (CD4/17) Paramor Brentford TW8 8BD 6 Michael John ‘Madison’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/18) Addison Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 7 Jessica Maureen ‘La Paz’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/16) Bass Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 8 Beverley Jayne ‘Jasmine’, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/13) Holt Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 9 Baron Crilly ‘AppleJack II, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/26) Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 10 Peter Radley Radleys, Town Wharf, Catherine Wheel (CD4/22) Collins Road, Brentford TW8 8BD 11 Port of London River Brent (CD4/2) Authority 12 London Diocesan St Lawrence Church, Brentford High Street (CD4/7) Fund 13 Greggs 115 High Street, Brentford (CD4/8) 14 Heidelberg Graphic 69-76 High Street, Brentford (CD4/28) Equipment 15 Fullers Brewery The Brewery Tap, 47 Catherine Wheel (CD4/4) Road, Brentford & the Beehive, 227 High Street, Brentford 16 Wellington Pub The Magpie & Crown Public House, 128 (CD4/9) Company High Street, Brentford 17 Tamar Z Burns The Magpie & Crown Public House, 128 (CD4/5) High Street, Brentford 18 Bharat Liya 98-99 High Street, Brentford (CD4/6) 19 Mr & Mrs Shaweis 7 County Parade (CD4/24) 20 Brentford Dock Land at Dock Road and Augustus Close,

45 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith Limited Brentford 21 Ian Ezzard 2 Julius Court, Brentford (CD4/11) 22 Jake Oliver, Olivers MSO Marine, Dock Road, Brentford TW8 (CD4/23) Boatyard 8AG 23 P Goddard & Sons 110-11 High Street, Brentford (CD4/2) 24 Canterdale 27 & 28 Julius Court, Brentford (CD4/27) Properties 25 Natwest Bank PLC 100 High Street, Brentford TW8 8AY (CD4/10) 26 Vodafone N/A (CD4/1) (WITHDRAWN) 27 Southern Electric Company address not provided (registered (CD4/3) Power Distribution office address: 55 Vastern Road, Reading, PLC Berkshire, RG1 8BU) 28 Steven and Helen ‘The Fair Triumvirate', Town Wharf, (CD4/29) Carr Catherine Wheel Road, Brentford TW8 8BD

Response to Individual Objectors

9.5 Where responses raise planning related matters I respond below. The evidence of Michael Sudlow, Jon Sayer, David Pearson, Oliver Law, Tim Beckett, Paul Monaghan and Nigel Morley, will respond to other issues raised in the objections.

9.6 Objections 1 – 8 and 28: Plot 86 - Town Wharf (Dianne Elizabeth Preston, David Loudon, Wilma Seston, Nicola Swann, Katy Elizabeth Paramor, Michael John Addison, Jessica Maureen Bass, Beverley Jayne Holt, Steven and Helen Carr)

9.7 Summary of Objection

• No compelling case for the acquisition of the mooring and residence.

46 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 9.8 Response

9.9 Section 8.0 above demonstrates that there is a compelling case for the Order. There is no intention to acquire the objector’s residence (houseboats), however it is necessary for GL to own and have control of Town Wharf to ensure that it is well managed and that the standard of the wharf and the moorings in terms of appearance meet the standards of the overall Scheme. This will ensure that the Wharf is operated safely and in a controlled way, and that the risks of conflicts between the amenities of occupiers of the Wharf and the amenities of residents of the new housing is minimised. To support the successful and inclusive planning and operation of the Wharf, the Planning Permission includes obligations in respect of the preparation and approval of a Waterside Infrastructure Strategy, which will cover access and arrangements for permanent residential moorings alongside other water related infrastructure. The details of the Strategy are to be determined but will need to address access, storage of hazardous materials, control of waste and prevention of unsuitable activities and pollutants relating to the moorings. The Scheme would also enable the Thames Path to be extended across the Order Land along the waterfront including around Town Wharf. It will be necessary to ensure that this new area of public realm is appropriately landscaped to a high standard and is well managed, meaning the current arrangements cannot be retained.

9.10 Objection 9: Plot 86 – Town Wharf (Baron Crilly)

9.11 Summary of Objection

• Development will radically alter and diminish the historic character of the area.

9.12 Response

9.13 The Scheme has the benefit of planning permission and impacts on the historic character of the area caused by the Scheme were considered as part of the determination of the planning application, and to the extent that impacts were identified they were considered to be acceptable (see paragraphs 5.26 to 5.31 above). In addition, the re-integration of the High Street, its adjoining land and 47 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith the riverside will reinstate the historic character of the area compared to its current condition.

9.14 Objection 11: Plots 85, 86, 88, 104, 106, 108, 109-110 (river bed not bridge); 113, 114, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123 (ownership); 89, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118 (within port limits over which the PLA exercises rights) – Port of London Authority

9.15 Summary of Objection

• Proposal would have a detrimental impact on MSO Marine business – only ship yard in upper part of River Thames capable of repair/refurbishment and build. Loss of the facility would have a major impact on the boat owning community of the Thames and moorings along Grand Union Canal and the River Brent. Loss of moorings in the area would be detrimental to its business. Curtailing operation would probably impact on current level of employment. • Boatyard business could be considered a non-conforming user and considered a nuisance by incoming residential occupiers. • Concerned at detrimental effect on businesses. (shipyard has a local distinctiveness) • BAAP does not mention existing occupiers/businesses in description of waterside • BAAP intends to promote waterside industries and related uses and make waterways more accessible; proposals do not do this. • No guarantees are given regarding the existing businesses and it would appear that there would be an overall reduction in residential moorings (rather than respecting, utilising and improving this asset). The acquiring authority should also give a formal undertaking that river-related industries will be retained and not interfered with as part of the Scheme.

9.16 Response

9.17 The Scheme and Planning Permission has had regard to the existing businesses and their continued operation. The Scheme acknowledges the

48 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith sensitivity and deliberately separates more sensitive uses from the boatyard to avoid any harm to and conflict with the existing businesses e.g. the Scheme has located a multi-storey car park to face the boat yard and area where boats are worked.

9.18 The Order does not seek to acquire land occupied by MSO Marine. The land and rights sought in the Order affect the access routes (over land and water) used by the MSO Marine. GL has committed to ensuring that MSO Marine will be able to continue to have vehicular access to its yard during the construction and operation of the Scheme, including allowing for large lorries and cranes to deliver boats to the yard.

9.19 In respect of minimising the impact of works within the river on the MSO Marine business, this issue was addressed at the planning stage through careful siting of proposed residential units and is dealt with at 7.134 of the Officer’s Planning Report. It will be necessary to address noise specifications in the detailed design of the new residential units closest to Montgomery Wharf and the Design Code for Block H recognises the need for adequate acoustic mitigation and will seek to limit fenestration and habitable rooms from the elevations facing onto the working boatyards. This is secured by condition 41 of the Planning Permission. Additionally, the new residential units are a similar distance from the boatyard to existing residential buildings at Brentford Dock so the boat repair use is already subject to some constraints by being in a mixed- use area.

9.20 The BAAP has been superseded by the HLP. Notwithstanding this the Scheme places great emphasis on retaining and enhancing the heritage and activity along the waterside. The Scheme includes obligations in respect of waterside infrastructure and has carefully sought to minimise effects on the existing boatyard operations having regard to maintaining navigational and vehicle access, as well as the siting of sensitive uses.

9.21 The Scheme is the best opportunity to halt and reverse the decline of the waterfront activity and water related industries along the River Brent. The riverside activity formerly found in Brentford has suffered greatly from changes to industry and transport over a long period. Piecemeal redevelopment would 49 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith not enable the links between the High Street and the waterside to be restored. The new housing and commercial development within the Scheme along with extensive public realm improvements and improved mooring facilities will significantly enhance the vibrancy and attractiveness of the waterway and foreshore area.

9.22 The first phase of the Scheme restores access to and activity within Workhouse Dock, with the proposals including the retention of the slipway and the provision of a pontoon providing the potential for several wide beamed vessels. Workhouse Dock is to include water based leisure and recreational facilities. The outline phase carefully locates residential uses in relation to the working boatyard, requires a new working heritage boat yard, provides a craning location for boats of all sizes, and has a dry boat stack for leisure craft. The vast improvements to access to the waterside, new public realm and respect for existing waterside activity, including businesses are entirely consistent with the planning policy framework for the area.

9.23 Objection 12: Plots 1 & 2 – London Diocesan Fund

9.24 Summary of Objection

• Fail to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for acquiring freehold of the Church. • The proposed block of apartments for which the purchase of the freehold is required is a small peripheral block and would not have a bearing on viability or greatly impact regeneration.

9.25 Response

9.26 The Order has been made pursuant to section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act and justification for the making of the Order under these powers is set out in Section 8.0 above.

9.27 The proposed block on this plot is prominently sited at the end of the new route to the river, providing an edge to the replicated yard leading from the river to the High Street and it also terminates the new vista along the proposed new

50 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith route that that runs parallel to the waterway. The proposed contemporary building and associated public realm also helps to blend the remainder of the Scheme with the former Churchyard woodland area, which will be a key amenity space within the Scheme. The residential block is therefore important in terms of the overall regeneration objectives of the Scheme.

9.28 Objection 13: Plot 9 – 115 High Street (Greggs)

9.29 Summary of Objection

• Failure to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest that the CPO is necessary (no full detailed planning permission for the site; outstanding information required including in relation to Block D). Cannot therefore be demonstrated that there is a need to compulsorily purchase the site for a specific detailed scheme, or whether the purpose for which the land is being acquired could be achieved by other means.

9.30 Response

9.31 Section 8.0 above and the totality of the evidence in support of the making of the Order demonstrates that there is a compelling case for the Order. Block D is part of the Scheme that has been granted Planning Permission (see paragraph 4.28 above). The Planning Permission included parameters for the outline elements with these showing how the outline plots are to be developed to accord with the Outline Masterplan and a Design Code (see 4.15 to 41.6 above).

9.32 In respect of the revisions to Block proposed by the Council, I believe there is no reason that such a development will not be granted planning permission (see paragraph 6.11 above).

9.33 Objection 19: Plot 9 – 7 County Parade (Mr & Mrs Shaweis)

9.34 Summary of Objection

• Has had little opportunity to make meaningful representations to influence

51 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith the design of the scheme.

9.35 Response

9.36 Paragraphs 4.24 to 4.29 above describe the extensive pre-application consultation process and how the planning application for the Scheme was determined. Both the pre-application consultation and the consultation carried out as part of the assessment of the Scheme gave many opportunities for input to be made on the design of the Scheme.

9.37 Objection 20: Plots 98, 109-111, 148, 150-153 & 164 – Land at Dock Road and Augustus Close (Brentford Dock Limited)

9.38 Summary of Objection

• No case demonstrated in the public interest for acquiring interest in Dock Road; Ballymore owns plots either side of Road and would be capable of development without CPO. • No works to Road required by condition of listed building consent, or any obligations, or the site allocation. Dock Road is in good condition and is already a well used route road and so does not require ‘reinstatement’ as per other proposed yards. Therefore it is not clear what works Ballymore would propose to undertake on Dock Road. • No case has been made as to why the acquisition is necessary to achieve the purposes set out in section 226 of the 1990 Act in respect of Dock Road. • Considerable traffic disruption to clients and residents of Brentford Dock estate.

9.39 Response

9.40 The Order has been made pursuant to section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act and justification for the making of the Order under these powers is set out in Section 8.0 above.

52 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 9.41 Dock Road is specifically needed to be acquired so that GL will have control of the access, maintenance and management arrangements for the road. Dock Road will be retained, though minor alterations and refurbishment works are necessary (with new subsoil infrastructure required), to enhance and utilise its historic character and successfully integrate it with the redeveloped land on either side of Dock Road. In addition GL requires control of Dock Road as sections at the edge of the road are required for construction purposes. The Scheme will have a high standard of design and the road needs to be maintained to meet those standards. . 9.42 Attempts have been made to acquire the property by agreement. The offer has also provided a commitment that a route of access would be provided during the construction period for emergency and service vehicles and residents on foot. This route may vary during the construction period but post construction this will return to a fixed alignment subject to maintenance and management requirements. During construction works any party who currently enjoys a private right of way across Dock Road will have its rights maintained along Dock Road or an alternative route.

9.43 Conditions 36 and 37 of the Planning Permission require details of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to the commencement of work on each phase of the Scheme. These conditions would ensure appropriate access is maintained throughout the duration of construction works and that disruption to neighbours and the flow of traffic on the existing highway network from construction traffic is minimised.

9.44 GL has confirmed that post construction works any party who currently enjoys a private of right of way will have those rights replicated, subject to minor variations and subject to agreement. Dock Road is located on the opposite side of the River Brent to residential properties within the Brentford Dock estate. Residents have a right of way on foot only across Dock Road and whilst GL will provide continuous access across the Order Land residents are unable to use this route for vehicular access except of emergency vehicles and if Augustus Close is closed for any reason.

53 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 9.45 Although Dock Road is retained, the works necessary at its edges and for refurbishment will ensure that this part of the Order Land fits in with the re- provision of yards (new routes) elsewhere within the Scheme. A comprehensive approach to the routes within the Scheme, including Dock Road, is needed. Ownership of Dock Road is necessary to ensure that the Scheme reads as a coherent whole and so that the high quality design of the proposals can be maintained consistently across the Scheme. As the officer’s report discussed, access and permeability including delivery of the Waterside Infrastructure Strategy are key features and benefits of the Scheme. Integrating Dock Road with the rest of the Scheme, in particular the new yards, will play a pivotal role in stitching together the riverside and the High Street along with the new development in between. It is also necessary to ensure occupiers of the Scheme and visitors can access the land via Dock Road.

9.46 Objection 21: Plot 98 – Ian Ezzard (2 Julius Court)

9.47 Summary of Objection

• Dock Road essential on-foot access to High St, would inconvenience self and family and would affect property value. • Dock Road is a necessary alternative vehicular entrance/exit onto Brentford Dock when High Street/Augustus Close are undergoing major works. • Dock Road is a vital emergency access road. If Augustus Close is inaccessible, Dock Road is a vital alternative which would otherwise leave residents isolated.

9.48 Response

9.49 See 9.40 to 9.45 above.

9.50 Objection 24: Plot 98 – 27 & 28 Julius Court (Canterdale Properties)

9.51 Summary of Objection

• Reduce the estate's privacy and access and result in more crime and

54 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith diminution in property values; • Increased vehicular traffic will damage the cobblestones; • Impacts on access for Chiswick Fire Brigade; • Will create more hazardous pedestrian access; and • Lack of parking in the Scheme.

9.52 Response

9.53 See 9.40 to 9.45 above in respect of access to the Brentford Dock estate, including for emergency vehicles. Vehicular traffic on Dock Road is not expected to affect the fabric of the road (granite setts) given it has previously accommodated industrial and commercial traffic and appears to be mostly in good condition. However it would be necessary to repair, refurbish and reinstate parts of the road that are in poor condition or not of the same high quality as the rest of the road to ensure it fits with the remainder of the Scheme and the enhancement of the public realm is maximised (also noting new subsoil infrastructure is required).

9.54 Effects on neighbours and the locality from Scheme, including safety and privacy, and the adequacy of car parking provision were considered at the planning stage. The improvement of the public realm in particular will help to create a more attractive and safer shopping environment along the High Street and the waterside will be opened up with pedestrianised routes, public spaces and amenities. Demolition of derelict buildings and replacement with active shop fronts and residential units would increase natural surveillance throughout the area.

9.55 Parking was a key issue considered at the planning stage with this assessed in detail in sections 7.592 to 7.602 of the Planning Officer’s Report, with the conclusion being that the level of on-site parking provision for the Scheme would be acceptable and the Planning Permission includes sufficient safeguards and monitoring requirements in order to ensure that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of overspill parking to the surrounding area.

55 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 9.56 Objection 25: Plot 19 – Natwest Bank PLC (100 High Street, Brentford TW8 8AY)

9.57 Summary of Objection

• If the scheme is built in this location, it needs to be redesigned to minimise the detrimental impact on the locality and avoid the acquisition of the property.

9.58 Response

9.59 Section 8.0 above demonstrates that there is a compelling case for the Order. Block D is part of the Scheme that has been granted Planning Permission (see paragraph 4.28 above). The Planning Permission included parameters for the outline elements with these showing how the outline plots are to be developed to accord with the Outline Masterplan and a Design Code (see 4.15 to 41.6 above) which will ensure the comprehensive regeneration of the Order Land, and takes the opportunity to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions.

9.60 The proposed revisions to Block D (see section 6.0 above) would maximise the amount of affordable housing within the Scheme and further improve the public realm.

Conclusion

9.61 The concerns raised in the objections detailed above relate to planning matters, many of which which were considered during assessment of the Planning Permission and do not raise new issues. It is considered that these objections have been appropriately considered and addressed in the Planning Permission, which includes a number of conditions that would mitigate impacts from the Scheme. None of the objections outweigh the economic, social and environmental improvements that will arise from the Scheme for which there is compelling case in the public interest.

56 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The new mixed-use development within Brentford District Centre proposed by the Scheme is a significant opportunity for economic, social and environmental improvements which can help achieve the objectives of sustainable development and also secure the wider regeneration of the area. The Scheme will deliver the desired development and regeneration specified in the site allocation of the HLP (see 5.10 above).

10.2 The Order Land is suitable for the Scheme and in need of regeneration. The Council granted consent for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Order Land with a hybrid, part-outline, part-detailed, development consisting of several separate planning permissions and listed building consents.

10.3 The Scheme will transform the largely underutilised and derelict land at the heart of the town centre and will reinstate its historic link with the waterside, meeting objectives in respect of regeneration and economic development of Brentford town centre (TC1-TC4 and ED1-ED2 of the HLP and 2.15 of the LP).

10.4 The new housing and retail development will bring vibrancy and would aid the vitality of the town centre, helping to meet housing need and creating a better and more attractive place to live, work and visit, in accordance with policies HLP policies SC1-SC5 and CC1-CC3 and LP policy 4.7.

10.5 The quality urban design and masterplan for the Order Land will bring physical improvements including new public realm that would enhance the townscape and permeability of the area, and respects the historic waterside character of Brentford in accordance with policies CC1-CC4 and GB5 of the HLP and LP policies 7.1-7.7.

10.6 The Council’s intention to revise Block D of the Planning Permission and incorporate Nos. 98-99 High Street into the Scheme is satisfactory as it would be designed to be integrated with the Scheme, and would maximise affordable housing delivery, in accordance with policy SC2 of the HLP and LP policies 3.11-3.12.

57 MCS - Proof of Evidence of Marilyn Smith 10.7 As such there is no reason to consider that such a development will not be granted planning permission.

10.8 The Stopping Up Order submitted under section 247 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to stop and remove a number of existing roads within the Order Land is necessary as the Scheme replaces these with a new road and street layout and associated highway works as part of the redevelopment that will reinstate the historic connections between the High Street and the waterside. As I have indicated above objections to the Order are being considered.

10.9 In my view, the redevelopment of the Order Land will fulfill the objectives of the Development Plan for the area. It would contribute to and enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre, enhancing its designation as a District Centre for the area and achieving economic growth. It will also deliver much needed significant new housing (including affordable housing), and a more vibrant public and community use of the town centre. It will physically transform the Order Land by providing high quality buildings and public realm, including reinstating historic links between the High Street and the waterside and the character of the area.

10.10 A number of objectors to the Order raise planning matters, most of which were considered when the Planning Permission was determined. None of the objections outweigh the economic, social and environmental improvements that will arise from the Scheme for which there is compelling case in the public interest.

10.11 I conclude that the use of compulsory purchase powers to achieve the comprehensive regeneration of the Order Land, will result in significant public benefits that will promote and improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area, and given these benefits there is a compelling case in the public interest that the Order should be confirmed to enable site assembly to be achieved and the Scheme to be delivered.

58