North Planning Committee
Meeting date: TUESDAY 28th FEBRUARY 2006
Time: 7.30PM
Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 5, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE
To Members on the Planning Committee
Councillors Conservation Area Advisory Panel Members Scott Seaman-Digby (Chairman) Michael Platts (Eastcote) Bruce Baker (Vice Chairman) Clive Pigram (Ruislip) Shirley Harper O’Neill David Horne John Ross (Harefield) David Payne Peter Curling Michael Hirst (Canal Locks) Tony Burles Pamela Jeffreys (Ickenham) Substitute Councillors Anne Banks Geoff Courtenay Henry Higgins Lee Griffin Josephine Barrett Brian Crowe Mary O’Connor Norman Nunn-Price David Bishop Catherine Dann Michael White Mo Khursheed George Cooper John Hensley David Allam Janet Duncan
Further information
For information about the planning applications please telephone 01895 250401.
This agenda was published on Monday 20th February 2006. If you would like further information about the meeting please call Miriam Wearing in Hillingdon’s Cabinet Office on 01895 556517 [email protected] or visit the Council’s website www.hillingdon.gov.uk
Involving the Public in the way we do business…
The Public have a right to petition and speak at this committee, but must notify the Cabinet Office beforehand on 01895 556517.
Members of the Public and Press are very welcome to attend this meeting. Free parking is available via the entrance to the Civic Centre in the High Street. Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away. This agenda Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be is available in directed to the Committee Room. Please switch off your mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council large print operates a no-smoking policy in its offices.
Agenda
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting
3. To sign and receive the minutes of the meeting held on 7th February 2006 (copy attached)
4. Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent.
5. To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private.
6. Consideration of the reports from the Head of Planning & Transportation
Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press
Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. Reports are split into ‘major’ and ‘minor’ applications. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned.
Major Applications Without Petition
Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 1 RAF Northolt, West End South Ruislip New and refurbished living 1. Road, Ruislip accommodation, mess facilities, sports, social, health and welfare facilities, new office and technical accommodation (totalling 53,590 sq metres floorspace), improved infrastructure including utilities, access roads and parking (outline application) (consultation under circular 18/84 procedure) Recommendation – no objection subject to junction and signal design and conditions.
Non Major Applications Without Petitions
Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 2. The Old Forge, Northwood Change of use from car showroom 50. Rickmansworth Road, to retail/shop (interior design Northwood products) (retrospective application) Recommendation - approval 3. 76 Linden Avenue, Manor Erection of a first floor side 56. Ruislip extension and pitched roof over existing front porch. Recommendation - approval
4. New Appeals and Appeal Decisions January 1st 2006 to January 31st 2006. (page 63)
5. Bi-monthly Progress Report on Breaches of Planning Control. (page 75)
Other Business
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 28 FEBRUARY 2006 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (NORTH) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
A Item No. 1 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: RAF NORTHOLT, WEST END ROAD, RUISLIP
Development: NEW AND REFURBISHED LIVING ACCOMMODATION, MESS FACILITIES, SPORTS, SOCIAL, HEALTH AND WELFARE FACILITIES, NEW OFFICE AND TECHNICAL ACCOMMODATION (TOTALLING 53,590 SQ. METRES FLOORSPACE), IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING UTLITIES, ACCESS ROADS AND PARKING (OUTLINE APPLICATION) (CONSULTATION UNDER CIRCULAR 18/84 PROCEDURE)
LBH Ref Nos: 189/APP/2005/1321
Drawing Nos: Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5032193/TP/002 rev. A, 5031362 /TP/PD/004 rev. B; Supporting Statement, Design Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Building Condition Survey, Tree survey, Land Quality Statement, Consultation Statement, Sustainability Appraisal, Environmental Review, Transport Assessment, received12/5/2005.
Date of receipt: 12/05/2005 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 This is a Notice of Proposed Development (NOPD) by the Defence Estates under Circular 18/84 Procedures. As the proposal involves development by a Government Department the Council as Local Planning Authority does not have the power of determination as with a normal planning application and can only provide its views on the proposal to the developing Department. The submission is in outline form with only the means of access to be considered at this stage. There is considered to be no objection to the principle of the development or access arrangements. It is therefore recommended that the applicant be advised that this Council raises no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions.
2.0 RECOMMENDATION - That the applicant be informed that the Council as Local Planning Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to the following:
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 1
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 1. That details of the proposed junction and signal design for the Main Gate, the White House Gate and Station Approach/West End Road junctions are approved by the Council and Transport for London before any work is commenced on site and the proposed off-site highway works, including the provision of highway grass verges and foot paths affected by carriageway widening at the Main Gate, are implemented before occupation of any of the development subject of this Notice.
2. That the following conditions be imposed:
1. The development hereby permitted 1. (OUT1) Standard. shall begin either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 2. The application for approval of the 2. (OUT2) Standard reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 3. Approval of the details of the siting, 3. (a) To ensure that the design and external appearance of the Council’s objectives buildings and the landscaping of for Green Belt individual phases of the development enhancement are met. (hereinafter called the “reserved (b) To ensure that the matters”) shall be obtained in writing development does not from the Local Planning Authority for prejudice the each phase of development, before appearance of the development of that phase is locality commenced. For each phase, the (c) The free flow of traffic detailed drawings to be submitted shall and conditions of incorporate the following: general safety within (i) The siting of all buildings and the site and on the ancillary structures (including local highway network sub-stations necessitated by the (d) The amenity and use of development) relative to neighbouring property. surrounding development and (e) To enable the Local details of associated demolitions. Planning Authority to (ii) The traffic arrangements assess the amenity including the means of ingress value of existing trees, and egress, the closure of hedges and shrubs existing access (where and the impact of the appropriate), visibility splays, the proposed development footpath network, cycle network, on them. the phasing of any construction work and construction traffic signage.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 2
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (iii) The parking, turning, loading and unloading arrangements. (iv) The means of construction and surfacing of all roads, drives, parking areas and footpaths. (v) The use, surface treatment and landscaping of all open areas and landscaping zones not occupied by buildings or roads, including the provision for protected areas of landscaping and planting from accidental damage by vehicles. (vi) The finished levels of the development in relation to the levels of the surrounding area and ordinance datum. (vii) An accurate survey plan at a scale of not less than 1:200 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must show: (a) Position, height, species, condition and branch spread of all existing trees, shrubs and hedges on and immediately adjoining the site. (b) A clear indication of trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and removed. (c) Existing and finished site levels (d) Routes of any existing or proposed underground works and overhead lines, including their manner of construction. (viii) Full plans and elevations of all buildings, screen walls and structures to a scale of not less than 1:100, incorporating details of all materials to be used for external surfaces, including samples of all such materials. (ix) The treatment of the boundaries (where appropriate), indicating which are existing and which are new treatments and incorporation of full details of height and materials. (x) Details of cycle storage and
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 3
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS changing/showering facilities (xi) Security measures, including CCTV and external lighting. 4. No phase of development approved by 4. To ensure that the this permission shall be commenced development does not until a landscape master plan strategy, prejudice the appearance of including long term design objectives, the locality. management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas (except small, privately owned domestic gardens), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape master plan strategy shall be carried out as approved. 5. The boundary treatment approved for 5. To safeguard the amenities each phase in compliance with adjoining occupiers and to Condition 3(ix) shall be provided before ensure that the commencement of any other phase of development does not the development or within such longer prejudice the appearance of periods as the Local Planning Authority the locality in compliance may agree in writing. The boundary with Policies BE13 and OE1 treatment shall thereafter be retained of the Unitary Development for so long as the development remains Plan. in existence. 6. The access and traffic arrangements 6. To ensure that adequate approved in compliance with Condition facilities exist to serve the 3(ii), cycle storage and shower facilities development. approved in compliance with Condition 3(x) and security measures approved in compliance with Condition 3(xi) shall be provided before that part of the development is occupied or brought into use, or within such longer periods as the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing. Thereafter, they shall be retained for so long as the development remains in existence. 7. The parking/turning/loading/ unloading 7. To ensure that adequate facilities approved in compliance with facilities are provided and Condition 3(iii) shall accord with the retained to service the Local Planning Authority standards and development without shall be provided before that part of the creating conditions development is occupied, or brought prejudicial to the free flow into use, or within such longer period of traffic. as the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing. Thereafter, they shall be retained for so long as the development remains in existence.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 4
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 8. All surfacing and landscaping agreed in 8. To enhance the visual compliance with Condition 3(v) for each amenities of the phase of the development shall be development and its impact provided before occupation of the said on the locality, in buildings or during the first planting compliance with Policy season following such occupation. BE13 of the Unitary Each landscape scheme shall include:- Development Plan. planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:200), Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities and where appropriate, implementation programme. 9. An Access Statement showing how the 9. To ensure inclusive design principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of people with disabilities, have been integrated into the proposed development is to be submitted in association with reserved matters applications required by Condition 2. 10. (TL2) Trees to be Retained. Amend first 10. (TL2) Standard sentence to “Trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained on the approved plan in compliance with Condition 3(vii)” shall not be … 11. (TL3) Protection of Trees and plants 11. (TL3) Standard “for each phase of the development” 12. (TL7) Maintenance of Landscaped 12. (TL7) Standard Areas Amend first sentence to “No development shall take place for each phase of the development” until … 13. (M1) Details/Samples to be submitted 13. (M1) Standard “for each phase of the development” 14. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme - 14. (TL6) Standard implementation 15. (OM7) Refuse and Open-Air Storage 15. (OM7) Standard “for each phase of the development” 16. For each phase of the development, 16. To provide a designated details of a designated area for the area in addition to the storage of waste recycling receptacles refuse store where recycled adjacent to the refuse stores shall be waste can be stored and submitted to and approved by the local handled before it is planning authority. These recycling removed from the site, in areas shall be provided prior to the compliance with Policy OE occupation of that phase of the 13 of the Unitary
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 5
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS development and thereafter be Development Plan. permanently retained. 17. (DIS3) Parking for Wheelchair Disabled 17. (DIS3) Standard People (both non-residential and residential with communal parking) 18. Provision shall be made within the site 18. To ensure that the to ensure that all vehicles associated development does not with the construction of the cause danger and development are properly washed and inconvenience to users of cleaned to prevent the passage of mud the adjoining pavement and and dirt onto the adjoining highway. highway. 19. Any construction operations which 19. To safeguard the amenity of cause noise audible at the site surrounding areas, in boundary, are only to be carried out compliance with Policy OE1 between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday of the Unitary Development and 8am to 1pm Saturday. No work is Plan. permitted on Sundays and Public Holidays. This is inclusive of all deliveries of materials to and from the site. 20. For each phase of the development, no 20. To safeguard the amenity of works shall commence until details of a surrounding areas Site Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall be implemented as approved. This plan must incorporate: (i) A tree protection method statement as described in Condition 11 (ii) A programme showing how the most valuable or potentially contaminating materials and fittings can be removed from the site safely and intact for later re- use or processing (iii) Provisions to ensure that all construction vehicles are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway (iv) A scheme for protecting surrounding dwellings from dust and noise emitted from demolition and construction activity. The scheme shall include such combination of dust control measures and other measures as may be approved by the Local
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 6
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Planning Authority. 21. A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted 21. To minimise the reliance on to and approved by the Local Planning private transport to and Authority within six months of the first from work by employees occupation of the buildings hereby and facilitate increased use approved and shall be retained for a of public transport and minimum of 5 years. The Green Travel alternative forms of Plan shall outline the means and transport apart from the methods of reducing private transport private car. use by employees and visitors, and facilitate increased use of public transport and alternative modes of transport apart from the private car. The Green Travel Plan shall include penalties, which will be triggered if the modal split targets are not met. The Plan shall be reviewed annually and the results forwarded to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. 22. AR3) Sites of Archaeological Interest 22. (AR3) Standard 23. There shall be no building or raising of 23. To prevent the increased existing ground levels, nor deposition risk of flooding due to of spoil/material on that part of the site impedance of flood flows lying within land liable to flood (land and reduction of flood below 31.9m AOD). storage capacity. 24. Surface water drainage works and 24. To prevent increased risk of source control measures for each flooding and to improve phase of the development shall be water quality carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that phase of the development commences. 25. Any walls or fencing constructed within 25. To prevent obstruction to or around the site lying within land the flow and storage of liable to flood (land below 31.9mAOD) flood water with a shall be designed to be permeable to consequent increased risk flood waters. of flooding. 26. An eight metre buffer zone shall be 26. Buffer zones along provided alongside the Yeading Brook watercourses enhance the along the full length of the site, except ecological character of the at the two minor points of watercourse and provide encroachment as shown in Drawing undisturbed refuges for number 14159-L dated November 2005. wildlife using the river The buffer zone shall be measured from corridor. bank top (bank top is defined as the point at which the bank meets normal land). 27. There shall be no storage of materials 27. To reduce the impact of the
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 7
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS related to the development within eight proposed development on metres of the watercourse (Yeading the river buffer zone and Brook) along the entire length of the the movement of wildlife site. This area must be suitably marked along the river corridor. and protected during development and Buffer zones along there shall be no access within the area watercourses should be during development. There shall be no undisturbed and maintained fires, dumping or tracking of machinery for wildlife. within this area during development. 28. All planting within 10 metres of the 28. Use of locally native plants Yeading Brook watercourse shall be of in landscaping is essential locally native plant species only, of UK to benefit local wildlife and genetic origin. to help maintain the region’s natural balance of flora. 29. Before each phase of the development 29. To prevent pollution of the is commenced, a detailed site water environment and to investigation shall be carried out to safeguard residential establish if the site is contaminated, to amenity. assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work for each phase. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before that phase of the development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved. 30. The construction of the site 30. To prevent pollution of foundations for each phase of the groundwater. development shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that phase of the development commences. 31. The construction of the surface and 31. To prevent pollution of the foul drainage system for each phase of water environment. the development shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 8
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Authority before that phase of the development commences. 32. All new buildings and parking spaces 32. To prevent over- shall be constructed within the development of the site, to development zones as identified on the fulfil the objectives of on the land use master plan Figure 1.3. Green Belt enhancement and to comply with the terms of the application. 33. The proposed heights of any buildings 33. (i) To ensure that the or structures within the areas identified scale and massing of on the land use master plan Figure 1.3 the buildings are shall not exceed the following: appropriate to their (i) Single Living Accommodation, setting, Community and Welfare (Brown (ii) to safeguard the visual Zone) amenities of the Green • 3 Storeys in height above Belt proposed ground level (iii) to prevent over (ii) Technical, Admin and Storage development of the site (Blue Zone) (iv) to ensure that the • The new offices - three outlook and privacy of storeys in height above adjoining residential proposed ground level properties are not • The new technical buildings - unduly prejudiced two storeys in height above (v) to comply with the proposed ground level terms of the (iii) Aircraft Operations, Maintenance consultation. and Servicing (Purple Zones) • The new hanger shall not exceed 12 metres in height in height above proposed ground level. 34. The proposed net total increase in floor 34. i) To ensure that the space within the development zones scale and massing of identified on the land use plan, Figure the buildings are 1.3, excluding the British Forces Post appropriate to their Office (BFPO)committed development, setting, shall not exceed the following: (ii) to safeguard the visual amenities of the Green Office/Admin 14,000 m2 Belt Training 4,000m2 (iii) to prevent over Storage 4,000 m2 development of the site Technical 20,000m2 (iv) to ensure that the Residential 35,000 m2 outlook and privacy of Social/Welfare/ adjoining residential Recreation 3,000 m2 properties are not unduly prejudiced The proposed net total increase in floor (v) to comply with the space within the development zones terms of the shall not exceed 53,590m2 (excluding consultation.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 9
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the BFPO committed development). 35. No work shall commence on site until 35. To ensure that a proportion an energy efficiency report has been requirements is derived submitted to and approved by the Local from renewable sources, in planning Authority, demonstrating that accordance with Policy a proportion of the development’s 4A.9 of the London Plan. electricity and/or heat needs will be derived from renewable technologies. Any strategy approved by the Local Planning authority shall be implemented prior to occupation and shall thereafter be permanently retained. 36. Development of the rifle range, sports 36. To protect the residential pitches or military band practice amenities of adjoining building must not begin until a detailed residents, in compliance assessment has been conducted of all with Policy OE1 of the noise sources, including the rifle range, Unitary Development Plan. military band and sports pitches, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment should assess the combined effect of all noise sources and specify the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from these activities. The scheme shall include such measures as are agreed with the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the scheme shall be fully implemented before the activity commences and thereafter shall be retained and maintained in good working order, for so long as the activity remains in use. All mitigation measures which form part of the scheme shall be fully implemented strict accordance with the approved scheme. 37. For each phase, no development shall 37. To monitor and control site commence until a scheme for emissions and the effect on monitoring emissions from the site has air quality. been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Any significant increase in emissions will require the implementation of a further scheme of measures to address their effect on air quality. 38. A bat survey should be undertaken 38. In order to protect the
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 10
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS prior to demolition or renovation of any ecology of the site, in the building to ascertain the presence of interests of nature any protected species, estimate the size conservation and in order of the population present (if any) and to comply with the assess the distribution of the species Conservation (Natural and their habitats across and adjacent Habitats etc) Regulations to the application site. Where protected 1994 species are found to be present, an assessment shall be made of the likely impacts the development would have on the species concerned. This should be accompanied by a set of any additional mitigation measures necessary to comply with relevant legislation.
INFORMATIVES:
1. (1) Building to Approved Drawings 2. (2) Encroachment 3. (3) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 4. The development of the site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage Guidelines. English Heritage consider that in this case, an archaeological watching brief would be an appropriate form of investigation. 5. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 6. (11) The Construction Regulations 1994 7. (12) Notification to Building Contractors 8. (13) Asbestos Removal 9. (14) Installation of Plant and Machinery 8. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 9. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 10. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc. 11. (24) Works affecting the Public Highway – General 12. You are advised to ensure that any necessary consents are obtained and that the works are compliant with the current British waterways “Code of Practice for Works affecting British Waterways”. 13. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the brink of the Yeading Brook. Contact Lydia Bruce-Burgess on 01707 632309 for further details. 14. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 11
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact Consents Department on 01707 632475 for further details. 15. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. Contact Consents Department on 01707 632475 for further details. 16. Environment Agency advise that surface water discharge from the developed site should mimic that of an undeveloped greenfield site, up to and including a 1 in 100 year critical duration storm event. Greenfield run off rates are generally between 2 - 8 l/s/ha for storm events up to the critical 1 in 100 year return period event. A sustainable approach to the surface water drainage system is required, however storage may need to be provided on site to achieve the above criteria. 17. In order to check that the proposed storm water system meets their requirements, the Environment Agency will require the following information be provided to discharge condition 24: a) A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation ponds, soakaways and drainage storage tanks. This plan should show any pipe 'node numbers' that have been referred to in network calculations and it should also show invert and cover levels of manholes. b) Confirmation of the critical storm duration. c) Where infiltration forms part of the proposed stormwater system such as infiltration trenches and soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365. d) Where on site attenuation is achieved through attenuation ponds or tanks, calculations showing the volume of these are also required. e) Where an outfall discharge control device is to be used such as a hydrobrake or twin orifice, this should be shown on the plan with the rate of discharge stated. f) Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during a 1 in 100 year critical duration storm event. If overland flooding occurs in this event, a plan should also be submitted detailing the location of overland flow paths. 18. As far as possible, the buffer zone (condition 26) shall be managed to develop a natural character, with the two metre strip along the fence line mown only late in the summer season. The buffer zone should be left as a natural area for wildlife. It is important that formal landscaping is not incorporated into the buffer zone, to avoid problems such as fragmentation of the buffer by fencing; dumping of garden rubbish near the bank; introduction of non-native plants along the river corridor; and pressure for inappropriate bank retention works. 19. The Environment Agency advise that the native planting required by condition 29 is crucial, as native insects, birds and other animals cannot survive without the food and shelter that native plants provide - introduced plants usually offer little to our native wildlife. Local plants are the essence of regional identity and preserve the character of the British landscape. Local plants are adapted to local soils and climate, so have low
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 12
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS maintenance requirements. In addition, planting locally native plants helps to prevent the spread of invasive plants in the region. 20. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 21. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 22. The decision to raise no objection to this Notice of Proposed Development has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan, namely policies OL1, OL2, OL3, OL4, OL14, OL16, OL17, OL26, EC1, EC2, EC3, EC5, EC6, BE3, BE4, BE8, BE9, BE10, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE15, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE32, BE34, BE38, BE39, OE1, OE6, OE7, OE8, OE12, OE13, H4, H6, H8, H9, R17, AM2, AM7, AM14 & AM15 and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. In reaching this decision the Planning Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application, namely the impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the area 23. (7) Design Guidance – Reserved Matters 24. (8) Reserved Matters 25. (9) Community Safety – Designing Out Crime. All reserved matters applications are to have regard for the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Community Safety by Design. 26. (10) Illustrative Drawings 27. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 28. To promote the development of sustainable building design, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, such as solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems. 29. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts.
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1 The site is known as RAF Northolt, the only operational military airfield in the London area. The airfield is dominated by one operational runway that runs across the central area of the airfield in a northeast to southwest direction. The greatest concentration of built development is to the north and south of the main runway around the edge of the airfield and includes aircraft hangers, military accommodation, workshops, a passenger terminal, and substantial areas of hardstanding. The site contains a range of sport, recreation and community facilities to support those living and working on
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 13
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the base. These include 2 sports pitches at the far western end of the site and a medical centre.
3.2 The site is bounded to the south by the A40, and the south east by a mix of predominantly single and two storey semi-detached and terraced houses in Wingfield Way and Glebe Avenue. It is bounded to the north east by West End Road and to the north by Yeading Brook, beyond which are 2 storey terraced and semi-detached houses in Lea Crescent and Clyfford Road, South Ruislip. Green Belt land lies to the north west, west and south (beyond the A40).
3.3 The site is designated an Area of Open Character in the Hillingdon UDP and falls within the Council’s designated Air Quality Management Area. The area of Green Belt to the north east is designated a countryside conservation area, within which Ickenham Marsh nature reserve and the larger nature conservation site of Borough Grade I importance are situated. Further nature conservation sites are in close proximity to the south of the site; these include Gutteridge Wood and Ten Acres nature reserves. All of the above fall into the area of environmental opportunity as described in the UDP.
3.4 There are currently 2 vehicular access points to the base, both off West End Road. The main access point is located through the Main Gate, just south of Bridgewater Road junction. A secondary access is through The White House Gate entrance, which is located approximately 600 metres away from South Ruislip Station. There is currently designated parking for approximately 970 cars and space for up to 100 civilian and military HGVs. There is also some cycle parking facilities around the site.
Scheme
3.5 The proposed development of RAF Northolt forms part of a major investment and restructuring programme for Defence Estates in London, known as Project MoDEL (Ministry of Defence Estate in London). Its aim is to produce an estate within Greater London of the right size and quality to support the delivery of a defence capability. RAF Northolt is to be redeveloped as the Core Site for military activities in London, resulting in new development at the station and refurbishment of some of the existing buildings.
3.6 In March 2003, the Council was consulted on proposals to relocate the British Forces Post Office to RAF Northolt. This comprised the first phase of Project MoDEL. The current Notice of Proposed Development (NOPD) sets out details of the remainder of the proposals required under Project MoDEL. It is submitted in outline form under the provisions of Circular 18/84, to secure the acceptance of the principle of the development. It is illustrated by a Land Use Master Plan, which details the key development principles for the site and provides the framework for subsequent detailed proposals. Under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Government has elected to revoke the permitted rights associated with Crown development. This is likely to take place at the beginning of 2006. As
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 14
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS such, the subsequent detailed development proposals are likely to be submitted to the Council as reserved matters or full planning applications.
3.7 In this connection, a preferred land use framework has been developed by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for the site. The structure and layout of the development is shown in The Land Use Master Plan and the Illustrative Layout Plan and is summarised below:
• Single living accommodation (SLA), community and welfare facilities and new domestic (residential) accommodation will be located towards the north east corner of the airfield. This accommodation will meets modern military standards and enable efficient use of shared facilities. This zone will be developed to contain new blocks of single living accommodation and dinning facilities for Junior Ranks and Officers. Building heights in this area will not exceed three storeys. Informal recreational and welfare facilities, landscaped areas and car parking will also be developed in this area.
• Technical Admin & Storage This zone is located to the west of the community and welfare uses, to the north of the airfield. It will primarily contain administrative and office uses, workshops and squadron operations not directly linked with airfield operations. The existing buildings in the area will be converted for use by some of the units relocating to the site. The height of new offices will not exceed three storeys and are proposed to be located towards the centre of the zone. The new technical buildings will not exceed two storeys.
• Sports & Recreation It is proposed to retain the existing sports pitches at the north west corner of the site. A new all weather sports pitch is proposed in the north east corner of the site, which is likely to be floodlit. A new gym and indoor sport and physical training facility (P&RTC) is also proposed for this zone.
• Aircraft Operations, Maintenance and Servicing It is proposed to focus the aircraft operations, maintenance and servicing on the south side of the airfield, away from residential areas to the north of the site. This will involve the relocation of air related maintenance and servicing activities and the construction of a new hanger adjacent to the existing terminal building, thereby enabling direct access to the taxiways. The new hanger will be approximately 7,000 sq. m. and is likely to be the equivalent of a 4 storey building in height. The existing hangers are proposed to be retained and converted to provide alternative technical accommodation.
• Operational Airfield This is by far the largest part of the site in terms of land area and comprises the main runway, taxi ways and other airfield infrastructure. This area will remain largely unchanged. A replacement fire station and a 25 metre rifle range is proposed towards the western edge of the airfield. It is also proposed to retain and improve the dog section, also located to the west of the site.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 15
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The development described in this NOPD as required by Project MoDEL will not result in an increase in business aviation movements to and from RAF Northolt. These are currently restricted to 7,000 air traffic movements per annum.
• New British Forces Post Office (BFPO) facility. This is to be located adjacent to the existing Explosives Ordnance Disposal Buildings (EOD) and the disused runway towards the south east corner of the site. This has been subject to a separate NOPD consultation process.
• Entrance & Security Arrangements There are currently two access points to the site; the Main Gate to the north of the site and the White House Gate to the south. It is proposed to retain and upgrade these access points, including moving the main gate northwards and realigning the spine road to create a crossroads with Bridgewater Road.
3.8 In total, it is proposed to develop approximately 80,000 sq. m. of floorspace, which will result in a net increase of 54,000 sq. m of floor space, excluding the BFPO committed development. The largest increase in floor space is associated with the new living accommodation and mess facilities required by the incoming units. RAF Northolt currently accommodates approximately 900 personnel, 400 of which are civilians. Through the proposed development, the number of personnel will increase by approximately 900 to 1,800. This figure excludes the 430 personnel who will be working at the British Forces Post Office (BFPO) and also excludes the 450 bed spaces proposed for the London Transit Centre (LTC), which forms part of this application. However, the LTC provides temporary over-spill accommodation only, and is likely to experience low occupancy rates. It would be fully occupied on occasions such as state funerals and national emergencies.
3.9 The structure and layout of the development described in the NOPD is shown in Fig 3.1 and the Illustrative Layout is shown in Fig 3.2. The development aims to rationalise the ad hoc collection of buildings found in the north-east corner of the site, with the exception of the BFPO building in the south-east corner of the site.
3.10 The applicants have submitted a number of detailed technical papers that describe the development and assess the impact of the proposal together with mitigation measures. These are briefly summarised below:
• Supporting Statement This statement provides a description of the site and surroundings, details of the proposed development, key features of the development proposals, relevant policy advice, the key planning considerations relating to the scheme and identifies measures to be secured by planning conditions or a Statement of Intent in the event of permission being granted. It concludes that the proposals are critical to the future operational requirements of the Ministry of Defence in London. The proposals will ensure the operational
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 16
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS future of the site and have been designed to make the most efficient use of land at the base. The proposals will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts and as such the scheme is considered to comply with national policy guidance, The London Plan and the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
• Design Statement This report sets out the aims and objectives of the proposed development and demonstrates how the principles of good design will be applied. It sets out the design policies and guidance relevant to the development and provides an evaluation of the site and its context, identifying those site characteristics which inform the design concept.
• Flood Risk Assessment This report assesses potential flood risk issues affecting the site. Based on the assessment, a number of mitigation measures have been identified to minimise the flood risk posed both to and by the proposed development.
• Building Condition Survey A schedule of all the buildings on the site, listing their type, size, height, age and condition.
• Tree survey This report provides a survey of the existing trees on the site and an arboricultural inventory to record the results, recommendations and protective measures. It concludes that a programme of arboricultural works will need to be agreed with the Local Authority and that a programme of tree planting should be implemented in mitigation of proposed tree removal.
• Land Quality Statement This report establishes the overall site condition by identifying any potential sources of contamination and receptors that may be sensitive to such contamination and provides an appraisal of environmental risks.
• Consultation Statement This statement sets out the details of the pre and post application consultation. The consultation strategy was primarily focused on local Councillors, council officers, local residents’ associations, statutory bodies, adjacent residents and wider public and military stakeholders.
• Sustainability Appraisal This appraisal concludes that the development will contribute to sustainable development in the Borough. It notes that the proposals will significantly improve the land and buildings on the site, while acknowledging that there are opportunities for mitigation in the areas of traffic and transport, energy consumption, noise and vibration, water and drainage, health, safety and crime.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 17
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • Environmental Review This report reviews the key environmental issues associated with the redevelopment proposals and outlines mitigation measures where appropriate. The eight topics addressed are;
1. Air Quality – Impacts from traffic emissions and dust levels during construction 2. Biodiversity – Roosting bats and designated wildlife sites outside the application site were identified as the key nature conservation issues 3. Cultural Heritage 4. Landscape and Views – Visual impacts of the proposal on the Green Belt and surrounding homes, proposed mitigation and effects on landscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. 5. Noise – impacts primarily from traffic during operation but also from construction traffic entering and leaving the site 6. Soil Geology and Contaminated Land 7. Water Resources and 8. Water Quality
• Transport Assessment This report considers the traffic and transportation issues expected to arise from the development. The report sets out the two key measures that will ensure that there is compliance with relevant national, regional and local planning guidance. These are:
(i) Construction of a new signalised access at the main gate, re-aligned with Bridgewater Road. The report concludes that the new access will ensure that the effect of private vehicles on West End Road can be managed to minimise delays to through traffic. (ii) The preparation of a travel plan, the focus of which would be to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport to the private vehicle, in accordance with Government guidance.
It concludes that the development proposal will result in an improvement to the operation of the highway network when compared to the existing baseline situation. The proposal will not compromise the capacity, efficiency and safety of the surrounding highway network.
Planning History
3.11 On 8th January 1996 a Notice of Proposed Development by the MoD under Circular 18/84 Procedures for the permanent use of the White House Gate entrance was received (Ref. 189/BL/96/0043). On 30 April 1996 the Council resolved to raise no objection subject to the following condition:-
That the entrance be used solely in connection with traffic movement serving the southern section of the Aerodrome i.e. VIP’s and other civil passengers and by military personnel employed there, and not for construction traffic or
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 18
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS other Heavy Goods Vehicles, which should be directed to the main Northern entrance.
3.12 On 25th April 2003 a Notice of Proposed Development for the construction of a 20,300 sq.m British Forces Post Office (BFPO) facility was received (Ref: 189/APP/2003/1112). The proposed building would be the primary mail sorting and distribution facility for British Forces, as well as being the centre for the Defence Courier Service. It is proposed that the BFPO would be contained within a single warehouse style building with a shallow bow roof form to reflect the traditional design of an aircraft hanger. The building would comprise a single storey mail sorting area and a two storey office block area housing administration and support services. The building footprint is shown to be 210m by 90m, with the building no higher than 10m.
3.13 The proposed BFPO facility would be accessed from West End Road (A4180) through the existing access point to the airfield at White House Gate, which would be upgraded by the provision of improved kerb radii, pedestrian facilities and traffic signals. The operation of these signals would be linked to the operation of the existing traffic signals at the junction of Station Approach and West End Road. It would involve some local widening of the carriageway in West End Road, to provide a dedicated left turn lane into the site from the south and a protected right turn lane into the site from the north. Some local widening of the carriageway in West End Road to the south of the Station Approach junction is also proposed to provide improved queuing capacity at this junction.
3.14 On 12th December 2003 the Council resolved to raise no objection to the proposal subject to the following: A legal agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) and/or Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) or other appropriate legislation to ensure:
(i) That details of the proposed signal design for the White House Gate and Station Approach/West End Road junctions are approved by the Council and the Traffic Technology Service of Transport for London before any work is commenced on site and the proposed off-site highway works are provided before use of the development commences. (ii) That the applicant provides a financial contribution of £20,000 (index linked) towards the provision of cycle lane facilities in West End Road.
Planning Policies and Standards
National Policy
PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belts PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 19
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS PPG17 Sport & Recreation PPG24. Planning & Noise PPG25 Development and Flood Risk
Regional Policy
The London Plan
UDP Designation: Area of Open Character (RAF Northolt) and Area of Environmental Opportunity
UDP Policies The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Pt1.32 To encourage development for uses other than those providing local services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport.
Pt1.33 To promote the construction of new roads or the widening of existing roads only where they would improve safety; promote pedestrian movement, cycling or public transport, or the improvement of the environment; reduce local congestion in a cost effective way; or are required to accommodate traffic likely to be generated by new development.
Part 2 Policies:
Areas of Environmental Opportunity
OL9 Areas of Environmental Opportunity - condition and use of land
Design of New Development BE13 Layout and appearance of new development
Residential Amenity BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE36 Proposals for high buildings/structures in identified sensitive areas Planning Benefits LE7 Provision of planning benefits from industry, warehousing and business development
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 20
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Terminal Capacity A3 Development at Northolt Aerodrome
Other Environmental Considerations OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE2 Assessment of environmental impact of proposed development OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance - mitigation measures OE5 Siting of noise-sensitive developments OE6 Proposals likely to result in pollution OE7 Development in areas likely to flooding - requirement for flood protection measures OE8 Development likely to result in increased flood risk due to additional surface water run-off - requirement for attenuation measures OE9 Limitation of development in areas with a potential for sewerage flooding OE11 Development involving hazardous substances and contaminated land - requirement for ameliorative measures OE12 Energy conservation and new development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites
Ecology And Nature Conservation Protection of Habitats EC1 Protection of sites of special scientific interest, nature conservation importance and nature reserves EC2 Nature conservation considerations and ecological assessments EC3 Potential effects of development on sites of nature conservation importance
Creation of New Habitats EC4 Monitoring of existing sites of nature conservation importance and identification of new sites EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats EC6 Retention of wildlife habitats on derelict or vacant land
Land use and Accessibility AM1 Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking distance based catchment area - public transport accessibility and capacity considerations AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability and capacity
Road Construction and Improvement AM3 Proposals for new roads or widening of existing roads AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 21
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS AM11 Improvement in facilities and promotion of safety and security at bus and rail interchanges; use of planning agreements to secure improvement in public transport services
Car Parking AM14 New development and car parking standards
Consultations
The Notice of Proposed Development was advertised as major development under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and 355 local residents were consulted in the surrounding area. No letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal.
External Consultees
Ruislip Residents’ Association The Association is concerned about the activity outside the base, mainly access and traffic. Increased traffic flow to and from West End Road close to the junction with Station Approach, resulting in a worsening of existing congestion problems.
An alternative vehicular access to the airfield should be considered.
South Ruislip Residents’ The proposal would increase traffic congestion Association’ on West End Road at the White House Gate entrance. An alternative vehicular access to the site should be considered nearer to the A40 preferably before Glebe Avenue.
West End Road is already congested and the arrival of the BFPO will only add to the traffic problems along the road. An entrance at Glebe Farm will minimise the impact from the additional traffic wanting to get on and off the site. The Association would therefore like to see an entrance to RAF Northolt through Glebe Farm, when the BFPO and other units are located at the air base.
Defence Estates Safeguarding No safeguarding objection Team
National Air Traffic Services Ltd No objection
Environment Agency No objections provided that the following
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 22
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted:
• No building or raising of existing ground levels, nor deposition of spoil/material on that part of the site lying within land liable to flood • Surface water drainage works and source control measures • Any walls or fencing constructed within or around the site shall be designed to be permeable to flood waters • An eight metre buffer zone shall be provided alongside the Yeading Brook • There shall be no storage of materials related to the development within eight metres of the watercourse • A landscape management plan, • All planting within 10 metres of the Yeading Brook watercourse shall be of locally native plant species only • A detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment • Details of the construction of the site foundations • Details of surface and foul drainage systems (Conditions 17 – 26)
Greater London Authority No response
English Heritage The site has some archaeological potential, (Archaeology) particularly towards the southern boundary of the site, especially from the prehistoric and medieval periods. Artefacts dating the prehistoric period, including worked flint tools, have been recovered from the vicinity and medieval remains are well documented from the field immediately to the south of Western Avenue. Archaeological remains may be affected by the development proposals, depending on the degree of modern truncation and ground disturbance. Further work needs be undertaken prior to determination of this planning application but the archaeological position should be reserved by attaching a condition to any consent granted under this
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 23
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS application.
Transco No response
London Fire Brigade No response
Metropolitan Police This is a military base and adequate security will be provided. No objections.
London Ambulance Service No response
Sport England No response
English Nature (London Office) No response
Biodiversity Group, Greater No response London Authority Scottish and Southern No response Electricity British Waterways Do not wish to make any comments
Three Valleys Water PLC No response
Transport for London (TfL) TfL raise no objection to the application, subject (Street Management) to the developer entering into an appropriate Travel Plan Transport for London (TfL) In response to concerns regarding the impact of (Signals) queues on the wigwag signals along West End Road, the impact is negligible. Peak spreading in this case is not considered to be an issue. TfL are satisfied that the modeling for the proposed signals will work
Internal Consultees
Policy and Environmental London Plan Planning London Plan Policy 3C.6, Airport development supports the development of a sustainable and balanced London Area Airport system. Policy 4A.14 ‘Reducing Noise’, seeks to minimise the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise by separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources. Policy 4A.6 ‘Improving Air Quality’ seeks to implement the Mayor’s air quality strategy and achieve reductions in pollutant emissions.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 24
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Main Policy Issues
The main land use issue in relation to this development is the erection of new facilities and the refurbishment of existing facilities in an area of open character. Policy A3 relates specifically to this designation and states that planning permission will normally be granted for development at RAF Northolt only if it is directly associated with Military or civilian aviation or for the purposes of national defence. It is considered that the proposed developments in this location are acceptable as ancillary uses to the airport for purposes of national defence.
Air and Noise Pollution Policy A3 seeks to protect the environment and nearby residents from any increase in noise and air pollution in and around Northolt Aerodrome and as such a limit of 7,000 business aviation air traffic movements a year has been imposed on the airport. The development proposals at Northolt are not proposed to increase business air traffic movements and will remain in accordance with the imposed limit. The environmental impacts of the airport will be further reduced by the relocation of existing aircraft operations away from residential dwellings at the north of the airport. In accordance with noise related policies OE1-3 development will only be permitted if the impact is mitigated within acceptable noise levels.
The site is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and will need to accord with guidelines published within the Supplementary Planning Document on Air Quality 2003.
Road Traffic It is anticipated that the proposed development will double the personnel at Northolt to 1,800 people. Such a rise is likely to contribute to road traffic growth in the area associated with a significant increase in passenger and employee trips to and from the airport. In accordance with policy A3 measures are needed to redress the effects of any expansion to Northolt Aerodrome on the surrounding area. Appropriate public transport improvements and parking restrictions may be required to address the potential impacts of this
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 25
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS development on the surrounding road network. Traffic engineers should be satisfied that the production of a Green Travel plan and the attached transport assessment are sufficient to redress the potential traffic growth at Northolt.
Green Belt Policies OL3 and OL5 are relevant given the close proximity of the site to land designated as Green Belt. Under the terms of the policies the intensification of a site in or conspicuous from the Green Belt may collectively harm the countryside. The proposed development is likely to intensify the built up nature of the site to the north and to the south adjacent to the Green Belt. Mitigation measures included in the design of the proposal are new planting and landscape management regimes intended to improve the visual impact of the development on nearby residents and the Green Belt. Such mitigation measures may need to be sufficient in screening the additional development from the Green Belt and maintaining the character of the Green Belt.
Flooding The development site is located adjacent to a large series of flood zones. The supporting text of the application states that the Environment Agency have been consulted and have confirmed that there is a risk of flooding in this area. In accordance with policy OE7 flood protection measures will be required as part of the proposed development.
Ecology To the north east of the site is a designated countryside conservation area, within which Ickenham Marsh nature reserve and a larger conservation site of Borough Grade I importance are situated. Further nature conservation sites are in close proximity to the south of the site. In accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (Screening opinion 10/2004) for the proposed development, it is considered that there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the conservation value of the neighbouring sites. However, mitigation measures to redress any impacts should be considered.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 26
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Conclusion PEP have no objections in principle to the proposed development, but have significant concerns with regard to the potential flood risk in this location.
Environmental Protection Unit NOISE Noise from the rifle range: 1. A noise assessment has not yet been undertaken to determine the likely impacts upon local residents or schools and therefore the suitability for such an activity in this area.
Noise from the military band: 1. The hours of use of this activity have not been specified which will obviously have implications for the level of impact for local residents.
Noise from the sports pitch: 1. The hours of use of this activity have not been specified which will obviously have implications for the level of impact for local residents.
There is insufficient detail submitted to offer any firm conclusions with reference to the noise impact of the development on surrounding residents. The rifle range in particular is likely to have significant detrimental affect on local amenity and could affect a significant number of residential premises and schools (sensitive receptors) that are in close proximity. It is recommended that a detailed assessment be conducted of all noise sources. The assessment should assess the combined effect of all noise sources.
AIR QUALITY Theoretically, the levels of pollutants outlined by the applicant meet the Council’s air quality objectives. However, the increase is substantial. Current thinking is for continual improvement of air quality and this includes background levels as well as hot-spot areas. The local residents would have lower air pollution if the site was not there/development not permitted, so every effort should be made to reduce emissions from this site.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 27
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Mitigation measures Construction - There is emerging guidance on Best Practice for Construction Sites with regard to air quality minimisation being produced by the GLA. This is currently out for consultation and the Council should look towards this guidance being taken into consideration where relevant.
Design - Hillingdon have adopted as best practice the GLA Sustainable Design and Construction guidance. Where relevant, this should be followed. Energy efficiency measures, and the use of renewable energy, should be evaluated in order to minimise pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. Where possible future developments should aim towards zero emission developments.
Operation - restricted car parking, provision of infrastructure for alternative fuelled vehicles e.g. provision of electric charging points for electric cars/bikes, personalised travel planning should be given to potential new residents to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport than the private car.
Hillingdon’s Air Quality Action Plan Safer routes to school - there is currently a pilot air quality initiative to increase awareness of air quality within the safer routes to school programme. This could be extended to include the school close to the development.
Consideration should be given to the extension of the nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube survey monitoring programme in the locality. This would look to include collation of pre-construction, construction and post-construction data.
And raising awareness campaigns in locality, including prevention of idling vehicles outside schools and other relevant locations, improving local public transport information and air quality bulletin to local residents.
There is a need to ensure that any decisions on transport measures used to relieve any potential congestion arising from final use of the development are subjected to air quality
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 28
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS assessments prior to final agreement.
Contaminated Land The only information submitted is the Land Quality Statement. This indicates there are contamination issues, some of which appear to be potentially significant and include fuel installations and spillage, disposal pits with waste, suspected landfilling, unexploded ordnance and mounds above ground level. The Land Quality Statement indicates that the contamination is likely to be in shallow ground and could be effectively removed during the development works.
The information contained in the Land Quality Statement is not supported by any appended data such as ground investigations. The Land Quality statement is not a full desk study. No intrusive site investigation work appears to have been carried out, or it has not been thought necessary for submission. The report concludes by advising the site is suitable for use and can be redeveloped subject to further investigation and remediation as necessary.
It is therefore advised that further information should be submitted prior to the redevelopment of this site, particularly in the light of the sensitive housing use on some areas. A Desk Study, site Investigation and any remediation proposals on the basis of the study will be necessary. It is recommended that a contaminated land condition be imposed to ensure that these works are carried out. (Condition 29)
Urban Design/Conservation The site is situated adjacent to the Metropolitan Officer Green Belt. The airfield facilities at the core of RAF Northolt are within an area of Open Character within which there is a presumption against development other than that essential for aircraft operations. The open green character ensures a green appearance to the A40 corridor and provides separation between Ickenham and South Ruislip. It is essential to retain the existing open character and spaciousness of the area. The open views across the airfield are a key aspect that should be retained in any proposal affecting the site.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 29
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The major part of the proposed development represent re-provision and redevelopment of existing facilities. New development will essentially take place on the footprint of demolished structures and brownfield land.
The Officer’s Mess, an existing building within the site, has been proposed for listing by English Heritage in a thematic study. The heritage conservation value for buildings within the site is restricted to this building only.
There are no objections to the proposed scheme from an urban design or conservation point of view. The treatment of the Officer’s Mess building should be based on its heritage value.
Trees/Landscape Officer The site has an urban fringe character, heavily influenced by the presence of the A40 to the south and residential areas to the north and east. Views of the site are confined to areas immediately adjacent to the site to the north and east and some longer distance views to the south of the site. No objections are raised to this proposal, subject to reserved matters conditions, including landscape conditions. (Conditions 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14).
In terms of details, the landscape strategy is described further in the Design Statement and Environment Review, but is based on the following principles: - screening from visual receptors while maintaining a clear 50 metre perimeter strip for security purposes, - retaining and enhancing vistas, - retaining and enhancing existing tree, woodland edge and structure planting, where possible - introducing new planting to define and visually separate the various land uses and site functions, - providing focal points, landscape character and a 'sense of place.'
These objectives are appropriate for the site and respond to the requirements of policy BE38.
There is an acknowledgement in the applicant’s
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 30
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS landscape strategy that these objectives will be compromised, to some extent, by the operational requirements of the site including security and the threat of bird strike.
The accompanying reports conclude that the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the landscape during the operation and construction period.
It is acknowledged that there will be some change to the landscape character during the construction phase, including the loss of mature trees in the north-east corner. Mitigation measures will be identified through a landscape strategy, which will inform the detailed design proposals to be submitted at a later stage.
A further tree survey of trees which may influence, or be influenced by, the development will be required to accompany the detailed applications. (Condition 3 (vi))
Highways As part of the Transport Assessment the following (Transportation/Traffic) junctions were assessed: Polish War memorial Roundabout, West End Road/Main Gate, West End Road/Whitehouse Gate and West End Road/Station Approach. It was considered that junctions beyond those listed above were unlikely to be significantly affected by the development proposal and as such were not considered to warrant specific modelling of their operations. Traffic generated from committed developments such as the British Forces Post Office (BFPO) have been taken into consideration.
Transport for London (TfL) are the highway authority for the Polish War Memorial Roundabout. At their request, sensivity tests were carried out by the applicant’s traffic consultant. The roundabout was tested in accordance with the scenarios and growth requested by TfL. The highest impact will be on West End Road south and will result in an increase of 3% on the ratio of flow to capacity (RFC), resulting in 0.94 RFC with an additional 4 vehicles queuing.
The modelling undertaken by TfL for a signalised
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 31
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS roundabout shows saturation flows not to exceed 60 %, which indicates that there is some comfort with regard to spare capacity when the roundabout is signalised . Signalisation of the roundabout is currently on hold.
TfL have accepted that the development traffic will not pose a significant impact on the Polish War Memorial Roundabout.
The TRANSYT modelling of West End Road has been assessed using a network model of the entire road from the Polish War Memorial through to junction with the Main Gate ( Bridgewater Road) and is based on the worst case scenario for the morning and evening peak hours, without any allowance for the effects of a Green Travel Plan. The West End Road northbound and southbound links at the Main Gate have degrees of saturation at 91% (pm) and 87% (am) respectively with queue lengths of 24 pcu's (passenger car units ). The maximum saturation levels at the White House Gate are 73% southbound (am peak) and 80% northbound (pm peak) with a queue length of 6 pcu's.
At the Station Approach junction maximum saturation levels are 80% southbound (am), 63% northbound (am), 88% southbound (pm) and 82% northbound (pm). At the pelican crossing on West End Road, south of Station Approach junction, the degrees of saturation are higher at 91% northbound (pm) and 89% southbound (am). However saturation levels will vary with demand at the pelican, which should not be called in all the time.
The modelling has been checked and accepted by TfL.
It is proposed to link the wig-wag signals to the new junction signals particularly at the White House Gate and arrange the phasing of the signals to show a green aspect for southbound vehicles on West End Road when the wig-wag signals are activated, during aircraft take off and landing. This is to ensure that there is no queuing in the area controlled by the wig-wag signals.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 32
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Waste Strategy Good vehicular access and egress should be provided to ensure facilities can easily be serviced and bins should be located no more than 10 metres from the closest point of access for a refuse vehicle. Bin chambers should be adequately constructed.
3.15 The main planning issues are considered to be:
(i) Acceptability of the principle of the development (ii) The visual impact on the Green Belt, the Northolt Aerodrome Area of Open Character/Area of Environmental Opportunity and the locality (iii) The impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties (iv) Access, parking and traffic generation (v) Bio-diversity and nature conservation (vi) Flood risk (vii) Environmental/Sustainability issues (viii) Planning obligations
(i) Acceptability of the principle of the development
3.16 The proposed development is to be located within the Northolt Aerodrome Area of Open Character. Policy A3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that within this designation planning permission will not normally be granted except for development essential for aircraft operational activities, or for safety, or for the purposes of national defence. The proposal seeks to develop a further 53, 590 sq m of development, comprising living accommodation, mess facilities, sports, social, health and welfare facilities, all in connection with the site’s redevelopment as the core site for military activities in London. The highest proportion of additional floor space will be for accommodation purposes. It is considered that the proposed developments in this location are acceptable as ancillary uses to the airport for purposes of national defence.
(ii) The impact on the Green Belt, the Northolt Aerodrome Area of Open Character and Area of Environmental Opportunity and the locality.
3.17 The site has an urban fringe character, heavily influenced by the presence of the A40 to the south and residential areas to the north and east. Views of the site are confined to areas immediately adjacent to the site to the north and east and some longer distance views to the south of the site. The likely landscape and visual impacts of the proposals have been based on the level of information available in the Planning Statement, the Master Plan Design Statement and The Landscape and Visual Assessment. The Visual Assessment concludes that overall only a small number of receptors will
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 33
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS achieve views from selected locations of the proposed development and that only the residents in the upper floors at Carmichael Close will sustain a significant effect, which should be beneficial. Furthermore, the report considers that the development will be viewed as an intensification of land use rather than an introduction of significant new built development. The Landscape and Visual Assessment also concludes that the site is unlikely to have a significant impact on the landscape during the operation and construction period. The Urban Design Officer raises no objections to the scheme as a whole, subject to appropriate built development conditions. Detailed considerations of the main views are considered below:
Entrance (West End Road) 3.18 The alterations to the Main Gate entrance will have a minor impact on West End Road involving slight widening within the existing carriageway on the west side and the loss of some grass verge. The hedges and trees on the east side remain unaffected. The realignment of the entrance road into the station will involve the demolition of existing buildings and the removal of some hedgerow and trees. Furthermore the indicative outline plan suggests that the entrance area will be much more open than at present. Nevertheless, provided a co-ordinated approach is taken to new buildings and landscaping, and subject to details, this is likely to produce a more attractive entrance.
North site 3.19 The bulk of development on the site is to be located within and adjacent to the main existing built up area in the north east corner of the site. This northern area includes a variety of buildings reflecting their different ages, condition and functions. It is intended to remove most of them and provide a more intensive, coordinated development relevant to this part of the site’s military purpose, for living, recreation, welfare, administration training and technical matters. In general it is intended to retain those buildings of some historic/architectural interest. These include the two large Hangars, the Station H.Q. as well as the Officers’ Mess. All buildings on the site have been subject to an assessment by English Heritage and only the Officers’ Mess is considered to be of sufficient architectural and or historic interest to warrant Listing. These buildings together with other more recent buildings will be integrated into the new development with their settings safeguarded. This is considered acceptable.
3.20 The development is to be set back away from the site boundary and separated from it by landscaping and car parking. Its height will extend to no more than three storeys, which approximates to the height of existing and retained accommodation blocks and is lower than the hangars. It is not considered that the development will make much difference to existing views where they exist from the north and east and, where they do, they are likely to be improved, provided the details of the eventual development are of appropriate quality. Due to the lie of the land and the long distances involved little of this part of the station is visible from the Green Belt to the west and the A40 and therefore the proposed development will not be apparent.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 34
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Whilst more of the development will be visible from the Green Belt in the vicinity of Charvel Lane, which lies on higher ground to the south, its impact will be minimal due to the distance involved and the presence of existing and adjacent development. Furthermore, it is considered that the retained presence of the two large hangers will continue to dominate the view and offset any impact arising from the new development.
Airfield 3.21 The bulk of the site is concerned with the operation of the airfield and the proposed developments within it include replacement of the fire station, a rifle range and improvements to the dog facilities. It is considered that these will have a relatively limited visual impact.
Hanger 3.22 There is greater potential impact from the hangar, which is proposed for the southern boundary of the station adjoining the A40. The new building replaces the existing hangars on the north side of the site and augments the existing operations building. The proposed hangar would have the largest footprint of any other building on the station apart from the British Forces Post Office, which is proposed in the south east corner. Although it would replace some existing buildings it would be substantially larger and also much bigger than the existing operations building, which will be retained to the east. In addition it would be would be sited closer to the A40.
3.23 It is acknowledged that the footprint of the proposed hanger would be somewhat larger than other buildings on the base. However, it is considered that its visual impact will be no more significant than that which already exists from several groups of military buildings located around the margins of the site. The principle of large, military buildings on the site is well established. The provision of an additional large structure is considered acceptable, provided it does not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and the A40 corridor which forms an Area of Environmental Opportunity, referred to in Policy OL9 of the Unitary Development Plan.
3.24 Whilst the building will have only a marginal impact on views from the eastbound carriageway of the A40 there will be a greater impact on views from the west bound carriageway. There would also be some views from the Green Belt on higher ground to the south. However, good design and landscaping would mitigate some of the impact. The proposed hanger would be sited some 60 metres north of the boundary with the A40. The site already has substantial screening from the A40 by sheeting covering the airfield fence for security reasons. The boundary setback would mean that there would be significant opportunities for planting and landscaping and it is recommended that a landscaping scheme be included within any subsequent planning application to further minimise any visual impact of the proposed building on the A40 corridor. It is considered that the relatively low height of the proposed development (maximum 12 metres, as required by condition 34), combined with existing screening, proposed landscaping and
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 35
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the substantial setback from the site boundary, would result in the building not having an unacceptable impact on views from the A40 or Green Belt land. As such, the objectives of the Area of Environmental Opportunity would not be compromised and the proposal would be consistent with Policy OL9 of the Unitary Development Plan.
3.25 With regard to the overall landscape strategy for the site, this is described in the submitted documentation as being based on the following principles: - screening from visual receptors, while maintaining a clear 50 metre perimeter strip for security purposes, - retaining and enhancing vistas, - retaining and enhancing existing tree, woodland edge and structure planting, where possible. - introducing new planting to define and visually separate the various land uses and site functions, - providing focal points, landscape character and a 'sense of place.'
3.26 These objectives are considered appropriate for the site and respond to the requirements of Policies BE26 and BE38 of the UDP. However, the precise impact of the redevelopment of the site can only be ascertained once more detailed proposals, in the form of reserved matters planning applications for each phase of the development have been submitted. The Planning Statement acknowledges that these objectives will be compromised, to some extent, by the operational requirements of the site, including security and the threat of bird strike. It is also acknowledged that there will be some change to the landscape character during the construction phase, including the loss of mature trees in the north-east corner of the site.
3.27 Mitigation measures will be identified through a landscape strategy, which will inform the detailed design proposals to be submitted by the applicant. This is required by condition 4. These measures include landscape proposals in the north of the site and enhanced screening along the southern boundary with the A40. The enhancement of trees and woodlands will also be shown at the detailed design stage, and this is covered by condition. A further survey of trees which may influence, or be influenced by, the development will be required to accompany the detailed applications and this is required by condition 3. The landscape officer raises no objection to this proposal, subject to appropriate landscape conditions, including those referred to above.
(iii) The impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties
3.28 The MoD has key locational criteria that need to be met. These constraints include a restriction on building within 150m of the centre line of the main runway and 30m of taxiways, the need to maintain sight lines for the airfield radar systems, security setback areas restricting building within 50m of the site boundary, and the siting of the main sewers which cross the base.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 36
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.29 None of the proposed buildings would be sited closer than 50 metres from the nearest residential properties to the north. This is sufficient distance to avoid any loss of light to, or loss of outlook from, these properties. The boundary setback would mean that there would be significant opportunities for planting and landscaping to minimise the visual impact of the buildings on these properties and it is recommended that the landscaping scheme to be included with any subsequent reserved matters applications should also address this issue.
3.30 With reference to the noise impact the development may have upon surrounding residents, traffic from the proposed development would utilise the existing internal estate roads, while the proposed parking areas would be located over 40 metres from the nearest adjoining residential properties. It is not considered that the additional vehicle movements associated with the proposed development would result in the occupiers of surrounding properties suffering any significant additional noise and disturbance or visual intrusion, in compliance with Policy OE1 of the UDP.
3.31 With regard to potential noise from the rifle range, the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) have commented that they do not have sufficient information to make a detailed assessment of any potential impact this activity may have on surrounding residents. The proposed facility will replace the existing range at RAF Uxbridge. The existing facility is typically used during normal working hours. Only in very exceptional circumstances (say once or twice a year) is the range at Uxbridge used in the evenings or at weekends. This is only if there is an unavoidable operational requirement to do so.
3.32 In the Environmental Review, submitted as part of this NOPD, the applicant recognises the need and importance of undertaking a detailed noise assessment for the replacement facility. This assessment will help guide the detailed siting of the range and the nature of any mitigation measures necessary to ensure that excessive disturbance is not caused by the operation of this facility. It is therefore recommended, in line with the conclusions of the Environmental Review and advice of the EPU, to impose a condition requiring a comprehensive assessment of the proposed range at detailed design stage. At this point, information will be available in terms of the proposed design, the frequency of use and the types of weapons to be used, to enable an appropriate level of quantitative assessment to be undertaken.
3.33 The NOPD indicates that a new purpose-built facility will be constructed to accommodate the military band. As described in the Environmental Review, this will require an appropriate level of sound proofing to protect users from aircraft noise, which will also have the effect of reducing the level of noise emanating from the building. The applicants have advised that the vast majority of practice sessions will be undertaken within this sound proofed facility during normal working hours. As stated in the Environmental Review, it is unlikely that noise from the facility will be audible from the nearest
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 37
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS housing which is approximately 350m from the band headquarters. Furthermore, the closest housing is located adjacent to West End Road and the nearby railway line. The background noise levels in this area are already relatively high.
3.34 The band currently practices at RAF Uxbridge. Based on the existing level of use it is estimated that the band would typically practice outside on the parade ground during normal working hours, perhaps 4 or 5 times each year. It is not considered that this level of use is sufficient to cause a significant noise nuisance, particularly given the distance to the neighbouring residential areas and the presence of other buildings between the parade ground and the residential areas. The Environmental Review notes that a condition requiring approval of the level of noise insulation in the rehearsal building at the detailed design stage would be appropriate (Condition 41).
3.35 There are no limitations to the hours of use of the current sporting facilities on the base. However, the effects of floodlighting and noise associated with a more intensive use of the site on residential amenity, are matters for consideration. The applicant advises that sports pitches on military bases operate differently from public facilities, in that they are mainly used during normal working hours and less frequently in the evenings and weekends. Regular use in the evenings is normally curtailed by 8.30pm. The site already contains a number of sports pitches and there do not appear to have been any complaints in relation to their use. The new pitch is proposed towards the north east corner of the site, which has a relatively high ambient noise level, being located adjacent to West End Road and the railway. The exact siting of the sports pitch will be determined at the detailed design stage. At this outline stage, approval is only being sought for the principle of accommodating a sports pitch on the site.
3.36 Any scheme will need to be designed in order to ensure that the potential effects of light and noise pollution to surrounding residential development is kept to acceptable levels. Effective screening of the floodlights will limit the level of light spillage, while the limitation on the hours of use will ensure that the facilities are not in use during unsociable hours. These issues have been covered by conditions 38 and 39.
(iv) Access, parking and traffic generation
3.37 A Transport Assessment has been submitted as part of this NOPD. As part of this assessment, surveys of traffic movements along West End Road were undertaken in September 2004. It was noted that an unusual increase in traffic volumes on West End Road occured, compared with a previous survey carried out in March 2002. A further survey was therefore carried out in January 2005, at the junctions of West End Road with Station Approach, White House Gate, Odessey Business Park and the main gate. Traffic volumes have increased between March 2004 and January 2005 at an average rate of 0.3% and 3.7% for the morning and evening peak periods, respectively, while the rate of increase from the first survey and the
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 38
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS September 2004 survey was 6.2% and 13% This is significantly higher than the 0% to 3% rate of traffic growth that would normally be expected for the major road network. It transpired that the abnormal traffic flow figures were as a result of a lane closure on the A40. The assessment therefore considers that the January figures better represent the typical operation of the surrounding roads.
3.38 The Transport Assessment states that the dominant traffic movement along West End Road is southbound during the morning peak hour, representing 64-70% of theoretical peak capacity. Congestion often occurs during the morning peak hour as a result of heavy traffic volumes and the resultant queuing on the A40, which regularly affects the operation of the Polish War Memorial roundabout. This in turn results in queues on West End Road, particularly for southbound vehicles. During the evening peak hour the dominant traffic movement is northbound, representing 78-89% theoretical peak capacity. It is therefore evident that some sections of West End Road are already approaching practical capacity during weekday peak hours.
3.39 Overall there will be an increase of 1,374 personnel working on-site (including the BFPO), compared to the existing situation, resulting in a total of 2,257 on-site personnel. The airfield will continue to use the two existing primary access points to service the proposed development. The main gate will be realigned with Bridgewater Road and new traffic signals installed at this junction. The White House Gate will also be signalised to support the BFPO development. In addition a new internal road will be constructed that will connect the Main Gate with the White House Gate. This new road will allow personnel to use the most convenient point of access for their journey, regardless of the side of the station that they work on. It is not currently practical to do this. The new road will change the proportion of vehicles using each gate but not affect overall trip distributions.
The Main Gate junction 3.40 The Main Gate junction currently shows minor levels of delay on the side roads during some peak periods. These delays are a result of traffic volumes on West End Road. The Traffic Assessment envisages that, without mitigation measures, the revised flows that are predicted to occur, once the development proposal becomes operational, would result in significant queues and delays. As such, highway improvements will be required to provide an appropriate level of capacity. The applicants state that a roundabout was not considered to be an appropriate solution, presumably as there was insufficient space, and, accordingly, it is intended to install traffic signals instead. It is also intended to relocate the main gate slightly north of its current position, so that it directly aligns with Bridgewater Road. This will ensure that vehicles turning right into the side roads do not obstruct through traffic and are provided with more queuing space than is currently the case. A small amount of kerb widening will be required on the western side of West End Road to accommodate the signalised junction.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 39
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The White House Gate junction 3.41 New traffic signals are also to be installed at the junction of West End Road and White House Gate, as part of the relocation of the BFPO. A separate NOPD has been submitted for the BFPO and accordingly, this is considered to be a committed development. The new signals are to be coordinated with the existing signals at the Station Approach junction. The Traffic Assessment predicts that the junction would operate satisfactorily and well within the capacity of the junction. It also predicts that no queues will form on the West End Road that will compromise the performance of the adjacent junction with Station Approach. No additional highway improvements are therefore proposed to this junction to facilitate the development proposal.
The West End Road /Station Approach junction 3.42 This junction is currently signalised and is to be linked to the signals to be installed at the White House Gate. It is proposed that modifications are made to the signal timing at the junction, reducing the cycle time. There are no highway improvements proposed to this junction. The junction is predicted to operate below practical capacity with all movements having a saturation of less than 77%. The Transport Assessment predicts that the queues will not extend back through the adjacent junction with the White House Gate. While the development proposal is expected to reduce queue lengths along West End Road, these are expected to increase on Station Approach.
Polish War Memorial 3.43 Transport for London (TfL) have carried out modifications to the Polish War Memorial junction, involving Lane markings and sign improvements to improve safety. Their proposal to signalise the roundabout, which would have improved the situation further has been put on hold. TfL have advised that they accept the conclusion that the development traffic does not pose a significant impact on the Polish War Memorial Roundabout. TfL therefore raise no objection to the application, subject to the developer entering into an appropriate Travel Plan.
3.44 The Highway Engineer initially raised concerns relating to the lengthening of peak hour levels, ensuring the keep clear wig wag zones were not compromised, and the Transyt modelling for the proposed main gate traffic signals. Having sought further clarification from the applicant’s highways consultant, neither Transport for London nor the Council’s Highways Engineer raise objections to the proposal on traffic generation grounds subject to the proposed highway improvements contained in the Notice of Proposed Development being implemented prior to commencement of development. They would wish to see the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and approval of a Green Travel Plan with the aim of reducing car use over time by occupiers of the development and to reduce the number of vehicle movements generated to the site during the weekday peak hours.
Parking 3.45 The proposed on-site car parking provision is below the Council’s maximum permitted standards. There are existing hard standing areas within the site
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 40
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS which would be able to accommodate any overspill parking if necessary and, therefore, in the worst case scenario the development will not result in any additional parking in adjoining streets. In the event of a subsequent planning application being submitted a condition is recommended requiring the provision parking for people with disabilities as well as covered and secure storage areas for both cycles and motorcycles, together with shower and changing facilities.
(v) Bio-diversity and nature conservation
3.46 There are no known features of ecological importance within the site boundary. However, to the north east of the site is a designated countryside conservation area, within which Ickenham Marsh Nature Reserve and the larger conservation site of Borough Grade I importance are situated. Further nature conservation sites are in close proximity to the south of the site. There are no development proposals adjacent to these sites of recognised ecological importance. It is therefore considered that there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the conservation value of the neighbouring sites.
3.47 However, the Environment Agency is developing a river restoration strategy for the rivers of North London, highlighting areas which have the potential to be enhanced. The Yeading Brook is identified as a watercourse, which has the potential to undergo environmental enhancements. Furthermore, London Wildlife Trust have embarked on an enhancement project along a large section of the Yeading Brook from Ickenham Marshes, through to Gutteridge Wood and Yeading Brook Meadows all of which lie in close proximity to this watercourse. As such, the proposed development at RAF Northolt presents an opportunity to enhance this watercourse. The Environment Agency has recommended a number of measures, in order to protect and enhance the watercourse. These have been covered by conditions 26 – 30 and informatives 18 and 19.
3.48 In addition, the Environmental Review recommends that, as well as the mitigation measures that have been built into the scheme, buildings subject to demolition or renovation should be checked for evidence of bat species. This has been addressed by condition (41). Subject to these safeguards, it is considered that the Master Plan proposals will preserve the existing nature conservation interests on the site, while providing opportunities for promotion and enhancement, in compliance with policies EC2, EC3 and EC5 of the UDP.
(vi) Flood Risk
3.49 The Environment Agency originally objected to the proposed development as they considered that the fluvial flood risk information submitted in support of this application for the southern section of this site was not acceptable for the following reasons: 1. The applicant proposed to mitigate the loss of floodplain storage capacity in the southern section of this site by providing an embanked flood
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 41
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS storage area within the floodplain. This is not acceptable, as flood plain compensation must be provided outside of the floodplain on a level for level basis. 2. The proposal to erect an embankment was also considered unacceptable as this would consume additional space within the floodplain and might obstruct flood flow routes, thus increasing the risk of flooding to people and property.
3.50 For the fluvial flood risk assessment to be acceptable the Environment Agency required the following criteria to be met: 1. The area of floodplain lost through the development shall be compensated for on a level for level basis outside of the floodplain. 2. No land raising will occur within the 1 in 100 year floodplain taking into account climate change. 3. The proposed development should be designed to ensure that it does not obstruct flood flow routes.
3.51 The Environment Agency also considered that the surface water flood risk information submitted in support of this application was not acceptable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed drainage strategy has not reduced discharge from the new development to greenfield rates. 2. The proposed drainage strategy has not provided 1 in 100 year on-site attenuation 3. The proposed drainage strategy has not confirmed the types of techniques/strategies to be utilised to dispose of surface waters sustainably.
3.52 For the surface water flood risk assessment to be acceptable the Environment Agency required confirmation that the following criteria will be met: 1. Surface water discharges from the site should not exceed the existing greenfield runoff rate 2. The drainage system must be able to accommodate the worst case 1 in 100 year storm event without the flow balancing system being bypassed. 3. Confirmation of the types of sustainable urban drainage systems to be used and the location of these different drainage systems across the site.
3.53 The Environment Agency also objected on the basis that the proposal includes development in close proximity to the Yeading Brook (main river), particularly in the north east corner of the site. This would prejudice flood defence interests, adversely affect the character of the watercourse, preclude the provision of an adequate buffer zone and restrict necessary access to the watercourse for them to carry out their functions. The Agency therefore require an eight metre vegetated buffer zone of native plant species alongside the Yeading Brook and a distance of eight metres from the nearest building.
3.54 Following further discussion and the receipt of further information from the applicant’s agent, the issues highlighted above have been addressed and
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 42
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the Environment Agency have removed their objections to this proposal, subject to conditions being imposed on any planning permission granted. These conditions relate to control of ground levels, surface water drainage works and source control measures, fencing, the provision of an eight metre buffer zone alongside the Yeading Brook, control of storage of materials, a landscape management plan, a detailed site investigation, details of the construction of the site foundations and details of surface and foul drainage systems (Conditions 17 – 26).
(vii) Environmental/Sustainability issues
3.55 With regard to air quality, the EPU advise that, the levels of pollutants outlined by the applicant are below the air quality objectives for the area. However, continual improvement of air quality, including background levels as well as hot-spot areas should be sought. Therefore every effort should be made to reduce emissions from this site. The Environmental Review predicts that even with the development in place there will still be a decrease from the current levels of NO2 and PM10 pollutants in the future. The Environmental Review proposes to minimise the emissions associated with the development, particularly in relation to vehicle use, by preparing a Green Travel Plan at the detailed design stage. The mitigation measures suggested by EPU could be incorporated in the plan and a condition is therefore recommended, accordingly (Condition 21).
3.56 The Environmental Review also recognised the potential impacts on air quality during the construction phase of the development, largely from dust emissions. The report describes the commitment to preparing a Site Environmental Management Plan, which would contain details of the mitigation measures to control emissions during the construction period. This plan can take on board the emerging guidance on construction sites referred to by the EPU. A condition is recommended, requiring the preparation of such a plan for approval in advance of the construction stage (condition 20).
3.57 With regard to land contamination, a Phase 1 Land Quality Assessment for Northolt has been undertaken and the Summary Land Quality Statement was included in the NOPD. This describes the potential sources of contamination and the environmental risks associated with the redevelopment of the site. The Phase 1 Assessment concludes that the site is unlikely to contain any significant environmental constraints that would restrict the redevelopment as described in the NOPD. Based on these results and advice from EPU, it is recommended that the Council’s standard conditions relating to land contamination details be imposed, requiring further information and mitigation, to fully address the potential issues relating to land quality, at the detailed design stage. (Condition 29).
3.58 In terms of energy consumption, the applicants state that there is little scope to increase the use of renewable energy on the site. However, the Sustainability Review identifies the opportunity to make more efficient use of land and buildings and influence design to reduce waste. All new
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 43
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS development will therefore seek to achieve high levels of sustainability in terms of materials construction methods and energy use. New buildings will be constructed using new insulation standards, while existing buildings will be refurbished as part of an on going programme. This will result in reduced energy usage on-site. A condition is recommended requiring the submission of an energy efficiency report has been submitted, demonstrating that a proportion of the development’s electricity and/or heat needs will be derived from renewable technologies (Condition 35). In addition, the transport proposals include the preparation of a Travel Plan, whose aim is to encourage an increased use of alternative modes of transport, other than the private vehicle. This Plan, which will include measures that encourage use of public transport, and promote walking and cycling, also supports the overall objectives of achieving sustainable development in urban locations. There is also the potential to increase re cycling. These measures have been addressed by conditions 21 and 16 respectively.
3.59 Overall the Sustainability Appraisal concludes that the development proposals will contribute to sustainable development in the Borough. Subject to the detailed comments above, these measures are generally considered to be in accord with the aims of Policy OE12 of the UDP and Renewable Energy- Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan.
(viii) Planning obligations
3.60 The obligations sought relate solely to highway improvements, which are considered necessary to deal with the likely traffic generation arising from this development at RAF Northolt. Medical facilities will form part of these proposals. These are likely to consist of a combined medical and dental facility for those living on the site. As such it is not considered that there will be a need for developer contributions to primary health care facilities. In addition, because the proposed residential component will be for single living accommodation, no children are envisaged and a contribution towards education provision locally is not considered necessary. Community, welfare and recreational facilities are also to be provided by the applicants on site for residents and wider “military staff”. Therefore contributions for such facilities off site cannot be justified.
3.61 The housing proposed on the base will not form part of the main housing stock of the Borough. There is therefore no requirement for affordable housing in this case. However, from a strategic planning perspective, the additional accommodation will help meet future MoD requirements and relieve pressure on the private-rented sector; thereby helping to meet the general need for affordable housing in Hillingdon.
3.62 It is considered that the level of planning benefits sought is adequate and commensurate with the scale and nature of the proposed development and is necessary to deal with the likely impacts of this Master Plan development programme, in compliance with policy R17.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 44
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Comments on Public Consultations
3.63 In addition to the consultations carried out by the Council, the applicant carried out their own consultation exercise, prior to the submission of this NOPD. This included, a press advertisement, a meeting with local residents’ associations, a public exhibition and leaflet drops. Although no letters of objection have been received from local residents, both Ruislip and South Ruislip Residents’ Associations have made representations, regarding the increased levels of traffic along West End Road. A detailed assessment of traffic implications resulting from the proposed development has been included in the report.
3.64 With respect to of the suggestion that an alternative vehicular access to West End Road from the airfield closer to the A40 should be considered, this would require extensive research on the highway impact of such a change, involving the Council and Transport for London. It would need to be demonstrated that any changes would not worsen the existing highway situation. This is not an area of work that the applicant is prepared to fund, as they do not consider that their development proposals necessitate a requirement for such an access, which in any event has not been demonstrated will work. Furthermore, this would not be possible without crossing Green Belt land at Glebe Farm. A new road would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In addition, the impact of a new access road on the amenities of nearby residential properties would have to be taken into account. Finally, as well as the above planning issues, there is the question of the MoD acquiring what is presently private land over which to put a new road and potential issues involved in relocating the Polish War Memorial. The applicant has therefore advised that they are not prepared to consider access through Glebe Farm at this time.
4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor
4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
4.2 In addition, Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 45
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4.2 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal Committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
4.3 Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
4.4 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance
5.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the developer, and the developer will make a contribution to the Council towards associated highway facilities in accordance with a Statement of Intent. The developer will also meet all reasonable costs of the Council in the preparation of the relevant Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or the Council.
6.0 Conclusion
6.1 There is considered to be no objection to the principle of the development or the access arrangements. The Master Plan proposals represent an appropriate balance between open land and buildings, thereby safeguarding the amenities and function of the Area of Open Character and the nature conservation value of surrounding areas. Residential amenities would not be unduly affected by the proposed development, subject to sensitive siting, landscaping and high quality design. In terms of traffic generation, no objections are raised subject to the proposed highway improvements contained in the Notice of Proposed Development being implemented, prior to commencement of development. It is therefore recommended that the applicant be advised that this Council raises no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions and the necessary highway improvements.
Reference Documents:
(a) Unitary Development Plan (b) Unitary Development Plan: Further Alterations to the parking policies and Standards: Second Deposit Draft 2001 (c) 2 letters from residents associations (d) Responses from statutory consultees
Contact Officer: KARL DAFE Telephone Number: 01895 250727
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 46
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 1
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 47
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 2
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 48
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 49
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 2 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: THE OLD FORGE, RICKMANSWORTH ROAD, NORTHWOOD
Development: CHANGE OF USE FROM CAR SHOWROOM TO RETAIL/SHOP (INTERIOR DESIGN PRODUCTS) (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)
LBH Ref Nos: 29487/APP/2005/2763
Drawing Nos: 2748-1, received 28/09/05
Date of receipt: 28/09/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS:
5 adjoining owners/occupiers have been consulted. No comments have been received.
Northwood Residents’ No comments received Association
Highways Engineer I have been aware of the operation of the site in its current use for a number of months how. At no point during site visits have I observed an adverse impact as a result of the change of use. Given the small size of the proposal I also do not expect there to be adverse affect in the future. I therefore raise no objection to the proposed development.
Policy and Environmental Application is acceptable given existing development Planning in the Green Belt and no intensification of use
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The application site is located on the south west side of Rickmansworth Road and comprises a detached single storey building with a front to rear pitched roof and gable ends, a flat roof rear extension and an attached side kitchen extension. The building was previously in use as a car showroom but has since been used as a specialist retail shop selling interior furnishings, without the benefit of planning permission.
2. The surrounding area comprises Dyke Cottages, which are Grade II listed buildings located to the north of the application site, a vacant public house to the south, open green belt land to the west and a residential estate to the
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 50
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS east on the opposite side of Rickmansworth Road. The application site lies within the Green Belt, as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), and for this reason why this application is before the Planning Committee for determination.
3. Planning permission is sought for the retention of the current use of the building as a shop. No external alterations to the building have been carried out. A non-illuminated timber boarded sign with raised lettering has been installed on the front roof pitch of the building, however this benefits from deemed consent and therefore Advertisement Consent is not required.
4. There are no policies in the Council’s UDP which seek to protect the loss of car showrooms. Policy S1 of the UDP will only permit new retail development which is appropriate in type and scale to the function of its location within the shopping hierarchy as set out in Paragraph 8.1 of the Shopping Chapter, subject to a series of criteria. With regard to the criteria set out in Policy S1, the shop use falls within the ‘corner shop’ definition as set out in the Council’s shopping hierarchy as the application site does not lie within a designated shopping centre. The nearest shopping centre to the application site is Green Lane Northwood Minor Town Centre which is 500m east of the application site. This distance is considered to be sufficient to ensure that the shop use does not adversely affect the vitality and viability of that shopping centre.
5. The application site is within the Green Belt and the existing single storey building has an established commercial use. The previous and proposed use do not comply with Policy OL1 which restricts Green Belt uses to predominantly open land uses associated with agriculture, open air recreation facilities or cemeteries. Policy OL1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for new buildings or changes of use of existing building other than for purposes essential for and associated with the specified uses outlined above. However, Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2-Green Belts) states that re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of the Green Belt since the buildings are already there. The re-use of buildings on a site in the Green Belt is not inappropriate providing:-
a) there is no greater impact on the openness than the present use;
b) strict control is exercised over extensions and over any associated uses of surrounding land;
c) the buildings are of permanent construction;
d) the form and bulk of buildings are in keeping.
Given that the application site falls in the midst of a small group of established buildings in a variety of uses and its established commercial use, it is considered that no additional material harm will result from this change of use. The nature of the retail use will mean a reduction in the levels of the
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 51
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS activity associated with the previous car sales and showroom use, with an overall improvement in the openness around the building.
6. The nearest residential properties are Dyke Cottages. No complaints have been received regarding noise nuisance from the shop use. Furthermore, it is considered that the use does not generate noise nuisance over and above the previous use as a car showroom. No external alterations are proposed to the building and its appearance relates satisfactorily with the street scene and does not harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt, in accordance with Policies BE13 and OL1 of the UDP. Furthermore, the front door is of a sufficient width to cater for pedestrians and people with disabilities.
7. The shop unit is accessible by foot, cycle and public transport and is 500m to the west of Northwood Underground station. There is also sufficient space to the front and side of the building to provide off-street parking spaces. Therefore the use does not have a harmful effect on road safety and does not worsen traffic congestion in accordance with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP. It is therefore considered that the use complies with Policy S1 and OL1 of the UDP.
8. This application is recommended for approval.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 52
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: UNCONDITIONAL APPROVAL - subject to the following informatives:-
INFORMATIVES
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: OL1 Green Belt –open land uses will be acceptable BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene. S1 - New retail development within the shopping hierarchy AM7 – Impact on the capacity and function of existing road network AM14 – Car parking standards PPG2 – Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Green Belts 3. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs
Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 01604 883629
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 53
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 54
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 55
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
B Item No. 3 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
Address: 76 LINDEN AVENUE, RUISLIP
Development: ERECTION OF A FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION AND PITCHED ROOF OVER EXISTING FRONT PORCH
LBH Ref Nos: 23965/APP/2005/3459
Drawing Nos: Lindenavenue-76/0; -76/1; -76/2; -76/5 and -76/9 received 15/12/05 and -76/3 and -76/6 received 02/02/06
Date of receipt: 15/12/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 02/02/06
CONSULTATIONS:
6 adjoining owners/occupiers have been consulted. No comments have been received
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1. The application site is located on the south east side of Linden Avenue and forms part of a terrace of 6 two storey houses. It has a single storey front/side extension and a rear conservatory granted planning permission in September 2003. A 1m wide public footpath separates the application site from 74 Linden Avenue. The street scene comprises blocks of 6 two storey terraced houses and the application site lies within the ‘developed area’ as designated in the Unitary Development Plans (UDP).
2. The first floor side extension would be set 500mm behind the front wall and extend for the full length of the original house. It would measure 1.3m wide, retaining a 500mm gap to the public footpath, 5.9m deep and would be finished with a hipped roof set 300mm below the roof ridge of the original house. The part single storey side extension would be finished with a pitched roof 4m high at ridge level.
3. Design Principle A5 advises that that extensions should normally be designed as an extension of the original house (normally applicable to end of terrace & detached houses) or as an additional volume subordinate to the original house. In this case although an end of terrace property it is considered that the first floor extension should be designed as a subordinate element to maintain the overall proportions of the property which has a projecting bay window design. The proposed first floor is set back 1m from the main front wall of the property and the roof set-down from the main ridge to create a subordinate element which would not detract from the character of the terrace in accordance with Policies BE13 and BE15 of the UDP.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 56
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4. Policy BE22 of the adopted UDP and Design Principle B2 of the Design Guide “Residential Extensions” requires extensions buildings of two or more storeys to be setback a minimum of 1m from the side boundary at first floor level, but this may not he sufficient if the ground floor is built up to the side boundary. In these circumstances a gap of 1.5m is usually required to maintain a visual gap, especially if the dwelling forms part of a closely developed road frontage. However in this case with a 1 metre public footpath running between Nos. 74 & 76 Linden Avenue, it is considered that a gap of 500mm to the side boundary is acceptable. A reasonable visual gap of 2m will be maintained even if No. 74 is extended at first floor level in the future because of the combination of the set-in from the side boundaries and the 1m public footpath. This is would be less than the recommended 3m in Design Principle B2 but in these particular circumstances a gap of 2m between first floor extensions is considered sufficient to prevent the development appearing cramped. As such, the proposal would maintain a sufficient gap to the side footpath to preserve the visual amenities of the street scene in accordance with Policies BE13, BE19 and BE22 of the UDP.
5. The attached pair 78 Linden Avenue would not be affected by the development as that property lies to the north east of the application site while the proposal lies to the south east. The proposal would not breach a 45o line of sight taken from the rear window and 74 Linden Avenue. No habitable room windows are proposed in the side elevation facing No. 74 and the proposed rear facing bathroom window would be fitted with obscured glazing with only a top vent opening to prevent overlooking onto the private amenity space of 74 Linden Avenue. This would be secured by condition.
6. 74 Linden Avenue lies to the south east of the application site and therefore the proposal would not result in an increase in overshadowing onto the rear private amenity space of that property. As such the proposal would not result in a loss of residential amenity through overdominance, visual intrusion, overshadowing and overlooking, in accordance with Policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP and Design Principle A3 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions.
7. The rear private amenity space and off-street parking will not be affected by the development.
8. This application is recommended for approval.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 57
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.
Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.
Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.
Observations of the Director of Finance
As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions: -
1. (T8) Time Limit (3 Years) 1. (T8) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard existing building 3. (RPD1) No additional windows or 3. (RPD1) Standard doors (‘… facing 74 Linden Avenue’) 4. (RPD2) Obscured Glazing and top 4. (RPD2) Standard vent Opening Windows (‘… rear facing first floor bathroom window’)
INFORMATIVES
1 The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 58
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene. BE19 New development to complement and improve the amenity and character of the area. BE20 Ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are safeguarded. BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of extensions not to result in a significant loss of residential amenity. BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE24 Design to protect privacy of occupiers and neighbours
SPG: Residential Extensions – A3 – Impact of mass bulk and overlooking A5 – Design of extensions / materials B2 - Side Extensions and Distances from side boundary 3. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 4. (3) Building Regulations 5. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 6. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 7. (43) Dirt on highway 8. (47) Damage to verge 9. Written notification of the intended start of works shall be sent to the Hillingdon London Borough Council, Planning & Transportation Group, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW, at least seven days before the works hereby approved are commenced.
Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 01609 883329
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 59
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 1
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 60
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN 2
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 61
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 62
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Item No. 4
NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS January 1st 2006 to January 31st 2006
(A) NEW APPEALS
1. Site Property: Land opposite 144 Joel Street Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills (North) Development: Replacement of existing 12.5 metre high telecommunication mast with 15 metre high monopole mobile phone mast and equipment cabinet (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 24 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended) Application Ref. No: 58424/APP/2005/1894 Appeal Ref. No: 5290 Start Date: 03.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Committee refusal 25.08.05
2. Site Property: 25 Frithwood Avenue, Northwood Ward: Northwood (North) Erection of part two storey, part three storey building comprising 7, two-bedroom flats and one three- bedroom flat with some of the Development: accommodation in the roof level and parking and amenity areas (involving demolition of existing house and garage) (outline application) Application Ref. No: 6498/APP/2005/2503 Appeal Ref. No: 5291 Start Date: 10.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Non-determination Procedure: Written representations Information: Expiry date 28.10.05
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 63
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3. Site Property: 36 Gatehill Road Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills (North) Development: Erection of a single storey, pitched roof side extension and conversion of roofspace to
habitable accommodation with the installation of one front and one rear dormer window Application Ref. No: 56821/APP/2005/1121 Appeal Ref. No: 5292 Start Date: 10.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Hearing Information: Delegated refusal 17.06.05
4. Site Property: 158 Northwood Road Harefield Ward: Harefield (North) Development: Change of use from residential dwelling to mixed use as dwelling, office (ground floor - one room) and use of land for sale and display (excluding drive and rear) of motor vehicles limited to a
maximum of 7 motor cars at any one time (Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use or operation or activity in breach of a planning condition) Application Ref. No: 36044/APP/2005/1699 Appeal Ref. No: 5293 Start Date: 10.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Inquiry Information: Delegated refusal 08.08.05
5. Site Property: 9 Windermere Avenue, Ruislip Ward: Cavendish (North) Development: Erection of a part two storey, part first floor side
extension and single storey rear conservatory Application Ref. No: 42389/APP/2005/2215 Appeal Ref. No: 5295 Start Date: 12.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 26.09.05
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 64
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
6. Site Property: 34 The Sigers, Eastcote Pinner Ward: Eastcote & East Ruislip (North) Development: Erection of single storey pitched roof part side
extension Application Ref. No: 52535/APP/2005/2723 Appeal Ref. No: 5296 Start Date: 13.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 17.11.05
7. Site Property: 31 Oak Avenue Ickenham Ward: West Ruislip (North) Development: Erection of a rear facing dormer window with resultant roof extension and a raised rooflight (Appeal against Enforcement Notice; application
for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) Application Ref. No: 26577/APP/2006/189 Appeal Ref. No: 5298 Start Date: 19.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against enforcement Procedure: Written representations Information:
8. Site Property: 31A Oak Avenue Ickenham Ward: West Ruislip (North) Development: Erection of a rear facing dormer window with resultant roof extension and a raised rooflight (Appeal against Enforcement Notice; application
for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) Application Ref. No: 26577/APP/2006/190 Appeal Ref. No: 5299 Start Date: 19.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against enforcement Procedure: Written representations Information:
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 65
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 9. Site Property: 193 Swakeleys Road Ickenham Ward: Ickenham (North) Development: Change of use of the land for the display of motor vehicles for sale, in excess of the lawful maximum of six motor vehicles and not exceeding a maximum weight of 1.5 tonnes
(appeal against enforcement notice; application for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 Of The Town And Country Planning Act 1990) Application Ref. No: 31898/APP/2006/274 Appeal Ref. No: 5304 Start Date: 24.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against enforcement notice Procedure: Hearing Information:
10. Site Property: Path adj recreation ground opp. Field End Junior School, Field End Road, Ruislip Ward: Cavendish (North) Development: Installation of a 13 metre high imitation telegraph pole mobile phone mast and equipment cabinets (Consultation Under
Schedule 2, Part 24 Of The Town And Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995)(As Amended) Application Ref. No: 61143/APP/2005/2511 Appeal Ref. No: 5305 Start Date: 30.01.06 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Committee refusal 18.10.05
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 66
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
(B) APPEAL DECISIONS
1. Site Property: Land forming part of 94 and 94 Glebe Avenue
Ickenham Ward: Ickenham (North) Development: Erection of two storey attached building containing 2 one-bedroom flats, with rear parking Application Ref. No: 54202/APP/2005/324 Appeal Ref. No: 5241 Appeal Decision Date: 10.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 23.03.05 Inspector’s Design, massing and general form of building conclusions would relate poorly to existing building. Visually domineering, prominent and very intrusive in the area. Open aspect and spacious layout contribute to the character of this pleasant
suburban setting. The design, including the dormer window, would further add to the incongruity of the building. Overlooking not an issue and car parking arrangement and amenity space are acceptable.
2. Site Property: The Bungalow (Swan Cottage), Park Lane
(Jacks Lane), Harefield Ward: Harefield (North) Development: Erection of a detached garage Application Ref. No: 13341/APP/2005/2130 Appeal Ref. No: 5244 Appeal Decision Date: 16.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 20.09.05 Inspector’s conclusions The addition would substantially increase the footprint of development of the original house and is therefore not appropriate in the Green
Belt. Garage would block important views and reduce openness of the area - detrimental to the character of this Conservation Area.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 67
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3. Site Property: Land r/o 13 & 14 Westways, York Road,
Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills (North) Development: Erection of a two-storey, two-bedroom detached house with part flat, part pitched roof and attached carport Application Ref. No: 60285/APP/2005/292 Appeal Ref. No: 5218 Appeal Decision Date: 19.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 28.02.05 Inspector’s Development would be cramped and quite out conclusions of place in this position and have a materially harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. Would appear dominant and awkward. Substantially different impact from previous garage block and the proposed dwelling. Amenity space is significantly below standards. Car parking inadequate in this location.
4. Site Property: Adjacent Tanrey Cottages, Hill End Road,
Harefield Ward: Harefield (North) Development: Erection of a two storey block containing 6 two- bedroom flats for key workers with parking spaces to front of site Application Ref. No: 47685/APP/2004/3019 Appeal Ref. No: 5232 Appeal Decision Date: 23.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: 47685/APP/2004/3019 Inspector’s Very little definitive or reliable evidence to conclusions support contention that key worker housing is needed, and no firm and binding arrangements have been put in place to ensure that such a tenure would be secured. Development is not for health purposes associated with the hospital and so is not acceptable in principle, nor does it comprise limited infilling, and nor is it part of a comprehensive planned development to the hospital. No special circumstances demonstrated.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 68
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
5. Site Property: Adj West Ruislip station, Ickenham Road,
Ruislip Ward: West Ruislip (North) Development: Installation of an 11.7 metre high monopole mobile phone mast and equipment cabinets (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 Of
The Town And Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995)(As Amended) Application Ref. No: 38574/APP/2005/1207 Appeal Ref. No: 5222 Appeal Decision Date: 24.01.06 Decision: Allowed Information: Committee refusal 07.06.05 Inspector’s Have demonstrated that no suitable alternative conclusions sites are available that meet the needs of the provider. Would have limited visual impact - busy main road with existing street furniture and mature trees.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 69
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
6. Site Property: Land to the east of 1 & 2 Canal Cottages,
Springwell Lane, Rickmansworth Ward: Harefield (North) Development: Use as a depot for a furniture storage and removals business; and use of the workshop for the repair and servicing of ventilation units (Appeal against enforcement notice; application for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) Application Ref. No: 15220/APP/2005/1674 Appeal Ref. No: 5173 Appeal Decision Date: 24.01.06 Decision: Allowed in Part Information: Enforcement Appellant has not demonstrated that the use as a depot for a storage and removals business has taken place for 10 years (dismissed). The workshop has been demonstrated to have been in continuous use for 10 years for B2 general industrial use (allowed). Stark contrast between the commercial and industrial character of the former quarry and the attractive rural scene along the canal. Limited views into the quarry - minimal effect on views. Inspector’s Would have a neutral effect on character of
conclusions conservation area and would preserve the existing character of the area. Colne Valley Park not affected by the development. Conditions to reduce height of storage would overcome objections relating to residential amenity. Fallback position is that favourable consideration would have to be given to other non-harmful commercial use on this site - would outweigh the harm of inappropriate development. Permission granted subject to conditions.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 70
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
7. Site Property: 66 Long Lane, Ickenham Ward: Ickenham (North) Development: Erection of 6, two-bedroom flats and 2, four- bedroom houses with garages and courtyard
parking (involving demolition of existing property) Application Ref. No: 39319/APP/2004/1665 Appeal Ref. No: 5066 Appeal Decision Date: 30.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated Refusal 05.08.04 Two sizeable houses so close together would appear cramped and out of keeping with the spacious setting. The bulk of the flat building would not have an adverse impact on character of area. Loss of trees would be acceptable with sufficient trees remaining on boundaries to protect character of area. Loss of TPO trees would be harmful and there would Inspector’s be pressure to prune or remove trees. Close
conclusions proximity of bedroom windows of proposed and existing flats is unacceptable. Overdominance of dwelling on neighbouring occupier would be unacceptable. Flat building would not be overdominant on neighbouring property. Overshadowing of house gardens not unacceptable. Overshadowing and poor access to flats amenity space indicates that the scheme does not fit well within the site.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 71
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
8. Site Property: 66 Long Lane, Ickenham Ward: Ickenham (North) Development: Demolition of existing house and garage (in connection with proposal to redevelop site for 6, two-bedroom flats and 2, four-bedroom houses) (Application for Conservation Area Consent) Application Ref. No: 39319/APP/2004/1666 Appeal Ref. No: 5067 Appeal Decision Date: 30.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated Refusal 05.08.04 House is not worthy of preservation in its own Inspector’s right but would not be appropriate to allow its
conclusions loss without an acceptable alternative redevelopment scheme.
9. Site Property: 66 Long Lane Ickenham Ward: Ickenham (North) Development: Erection of 6, two-bedroom flats and 2, four- bedroom houses with garages and parking
courtyard (involving demolition of existing house and garage) Application Ref. No: 39319/APP/2005/11 Appeal Ref. No: 5135 Appeal Decision Date: 30.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Delegated refusal 31.01.05 Information: Conjoined with 5066 & 5067 and 5136 Inspector’s See above conclusions
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 72
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
10. Site Property: 66 Long Lane Ickenham Ward: Ickenham (North) Development: Demolition of existing house and garage (in connection with proposal to redevelop site for 6, two-bedroom flats, and 2, four-bedroom houses with garages and parking courtyard) (Application for Conservation Area Consent) Application Ref. No: 39319/APP/2005/13 Appeal Ref. No: 5136 Appeal Decision Date: 30.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Delegated refusal 31.01.05 Information: Conjoined with 5066 & 5067 & 5135 Inspector’s See above conclusions
11. Site Property: 44 Joel Street Northwood Ward: Northwood Hills (North) Development: Change of use from Class A1 (Shop) to Class A3 (Restaurant) and the installation of a rear extractor unit/ flue pipe at rear Application Ref. No: 6902/APP/2005/1493 Appeal Ref. No: 5249 Appeal Decision Date: 31.01.06 Decision: Dismissed Information: Committee refusal 25.08.05 Proposal would reinforce the lack of retail activity in this block and would polarise the retail uses towards either end of the parade. Retail use is thinly spread and would reduce footfall across the block. This would result in Inspector’s loss of viability and vitality. Separation of A1 conclusions units would also increase polarisation of retail uses. A1 uses already below 70% required by UDP. Range of non-A1 units is good and this proposal would not improve the range of facilities within the shopping centre.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 73
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
12. Site Property: 7 Nicholas Way Northwood Ward: Northwood (North) Development: Permanent retention of mobile home; variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: 16461/L/95/104 dated 28/7/1995 Application Ref. No: 16461/APP/2005/1753 Appeal Ref. No: 5246 Appeal Decision Date: 31.01.06 Decision: Allowed Information: Delegated refusal 17.08.05 Mobile home is not readily visible from the road and is therefore unobtrusive. Although in good condition the structure is an unattractive and Inspector’s temporary building not intended to be
conclusions permanent. The mobile home may remain in place for an indefinite period, but only occupied by Mrs Benjamin. Building shall be demolished and removed once that occupation ceases.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 74
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
CONTACT OFFICER: JIM LYNN EXTENSION: 0788
Item No. 5 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation
BI-MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON ALLEGED BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL
(1) RECOMMENDATION
That Members note the contents of this report.
(2) INFORMATION
• The attached schedule provides information on progress with breaches of planning control where enforcement action has been authorised by Committee. It updates Members on progress since the last schedule was presented to them, and it includes new investigations where a breach of planning control has been identified.
• This information is placed on Part 1 of the Agenda
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 75
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Site/Property Cannonsbridge Farm, Bury Street, Ruislip
Ward Ruislip
Date Received April & December 2000
Breach(es) i) Erection of front single-storey extension without planning permission ii) Unauthorised works to a Listed Building
Background Extension Retrospective planning permission for the extension was refused in February 2002. An appeal was dismissed in January 2003. Enforcement Notices, including a Listed Building Enforcement Notice, were served on 4 February 2004. An appeal against the Listed Building Enforcement Notice was dismissed on 11 November 2004.
Update The Listed Building Enforcement Notice was varied to allow 12 months for compliance from the date of the appeal decision. Unauthorised extension still in use as a store. Planning Application (Ref. 35387/APP/2005/2469) has been received for a 2 storey front and rear extension. Awaiting outcome as if approved the unauthorised extension will be demolished.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 76
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Site/Property Land to the east of 1 and 2 Canal Cottages, Springwell Lane, Rickmansworth
Ward Harefield
Date Received November 2002
Breach(es) The unauthorised change of use of land to a depot for a furniture storage and removals business, the use of a single storey building for the assembly, repair and servicing of ventilation unit and erection of perimeter fencing.
Background The site is part of the larger Quarry complex, which has a number of different uses.
The unauthorised activities constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, are contrary to the aims of the Colne Valley Park, which seeks to resist urbanisation and to safeguard the countryside from inappropriate development, and are detrimental to the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area. A report was presented to Committee in December 2004 recommending enforcement action. The Planning Committee agreed the recommendation.
Update An Enforcement Notice was issued on 07/04/05 and an appeal lodged 8 June 2005. The inquiry was held on 01/12/05. On 24.1.06 the appeal was upheld in respect of the workshop and upheld with conditions in respect of the furniture storage and removals business. The enforcement notice was quashed. Conditions: (1) hours Mon-Fri 0700 – 1700 hrs, Sat 0700 – 1200 hrs, Sundays/Bank Holidays at no time. (2) Storage containers not to exceed 2.5 metres and to be placed 1.5 metres away from Western Boundary. (3) Within 3 months submit a scheme for landscaping and boundary treatment. Enforcement officers are in contact with the owner who has advised the containers will be re- positioned by 01/03/06.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 77
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Site/Property Copthall Farm, Breakspear Road South, Ickenham
Ward Ickenham
Date Received January 2002
Breach(es) Change of use without planning permission from agricultural farm buildings to engineering business (Class B2) and use of an area of land for open storage, unconnected with the farm.
Background Following the withdrawal of an earlier Enforcement Notice on 9 December 2003 (issued on 13 February 2003) due to the need to take account of recent events, further enforcement action was authorised by Committee on 27 May 2004. An Enforcement Notice was issued on 13 July 2004 requiring the owners to cease the unauthorised uses and the storage of materials, vehicles, plant, equipment and Portacabins. This notice took effect on 16 August 2004 and the owners were given six months for compliance. Much, if not all, of the unlawful storage has been cleared. EPU are currently investigating the unlawful engineering business in terms of noise nuisance.
Update After an appeal against the Enforcement Notice was subsequently withdrawn following negotiations with the Borough Solicitor., amendments have been made to the requirements of the notice to delete the elements of storage that have now ceased. That notice is in force with regard to the change of use of and the external alterations to the building. An officer will check the site for compliance of the amended notice prior to committee.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 78
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Site/Property 22 Sunnydene Avenue, Ruislip
Ward Manor
Date Received N/A (generated from planning application)
Breach(es) The unauthorised erection of a side dormer window, a front roof extension, and the installation of clear glazing in the new rooflight.
Background Planning permission (ref. 27366/APP/2004/299) was granted on 13 July 2004 for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension (involving the demolition of an existing lean-to) and the conversion of the roof space to habitable accommodation involving raising part of the roofline and the installation of one side and one rear facing dormer window. The works have been completed. However, a variety of elevational alterations have been carried out during the construction phase. These include changes to the type, position and glazing of windows in all four elevations (most noticeably the installation of a new roof light in the roof slope facing 157-163 Cornwall Road), the addition of a pitched roof above the front door, a front roof extension with the consequential removal of the double gable face on the front elevation, and significant alterations to the approved dormer windows. A planning application was submitted to retain the above works in November 2003. A report was presented to the North Planning Committee recommending refusal and Enforcement action in January 2005.
Update Instructions to Legal are being prepared to progress this matter.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 79
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Site/Property 28 Bridgewater Road, Ruislip
Ward South Ruislip
Date Received N/A (generated from planning application)
Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of a single storey rear extension
Background A planning application was submitted in August 2004 for the retention of a single storey side and rear extension. The extension is not considered to adversely impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. However, it resulted in the unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of 26 Bridgwater Road by reason of loss of sunlight and over dominance. A report was presented to the North Planning Committee on 3 February 2005 with a recommendation to refuse planning permission and to issue an enforcement notice. Members agreed this recommendation.
Update Legal Services had requested fresh committee authorisation in order to be able to serve a breach of condition notice rather than an enforcement notice. The address was re-visited 8/11/05 and photographs and measurements taken. Legal have now agreed that it is not appropriate to issue enforcement notice and have been instructed to do so.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 80
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Site/Property 31 & 31A Oak Avenue, Ickenham
Ward Ickenham
Date Received April 2004
Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of rear facing dormer windows and raised roof lights
Background Planning permission was granted on the 16 November 2001 (ref: 26577/APP/2000/2493) for the erection of a pair of two-storey, five bedroom, detached houses with integral garages incorporating rooms in the roof space, involving the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage.
enced on site and in April 2004 it was brought to the Council’s attention that the works had not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans. The site was inspected in April 2004 and it was found that the following works had been carried out which did not form part of the approved scheme:
(i) The erection of a raised rooflight on the main roof of both houses (ii) The reduction in the visual gap between the houses from 2m to 1.7m (iii) The extension of the roof at the rear to form a rear dormer window to both houses
A report was presented to the North Planning Committee on 3 February 2005 with a recommendation to take enforcement action against (i) and (iii) above. Members agreed this recommendation.
Update Enforcement Notices were served on 29/09/05. Though the roof lights were lowered by approximately 300mm (but not removed as required in the Notices) an appeal was submitted on 19/01/06 against the Notices. There will be no further action until the outcome of appeals.
North Planning Committee – 28 February 2006 Page 81
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS