AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT
Meeting: Special Uxbridge Planning Committee
th Date: Monday 11 August 2003 Time: 5.30pm
Place: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre Uxbridge
Committee Administrator: Nadia Williams Tel: 01895 277655 Press Enquiries: Roy Mills Tel: 01895 250534
Councillors on the Committee
Conservative Labour Sandra Jenkins (Chairman) Mo Khursheed David Routledge (Vice-Chairman) Tony Burles Geoff Courtenay Janet Duncan Shirley Harper-O’Neill
Substitute Councillors
Bruce Baker Paramjit Sethi Henry Higgins Dave Allam Ann Banks Roshan Ghei Margaret Grant Paul Harmsworth George Cooper Peter Curling Mary O’Connor Ken Lakhan
Advisory Members
Dr Robin Wakelin Greenway Conservation Panel Mr Michael Hirst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Ms Pamela Jeffreys Ickenham Conservation Panel Mr Dale Venn Hillingdon Village Conservation Panel Mr Doug Adams/Mr Frank Harris Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel vacancy West Drayton Green Conservation Panel
You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached.
David Brough Head of Committee Services
Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room Parking is available to the public attending meetings - entrance in High Street, opposite Discotheque Royale. Please turn off your mobile telephone at the start of the meeting.
DESPATCH DATE: Friday 1st August 2003
UXBRIDGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 11TH AUGUST 2003
AGENDA
1. Apologies for absence and to report the attendance of any substitute members. 2. Declarations of interests 3. Report of the Head of Planning Services, copy attached.
PART 1 – PUBLIC
ICKENHAM WARD
1 66, Long Lane, A & B. Erection of 12 two-bedroom flats (in two Page 1 Ickenham blocks) with associated car parking and landscaping (involving the demolition of existing house).
Recommendation : Delegate power to Head of Planning and Transportation to approve the applications subject to legal agreement.
C. Demolition of dwelling house (Application for Conservation Area Consent).
Recommendation : Consent
4. Any other business and urgent items in Part 1
PART 2 – PRIVATE
5. Any items transferred from Part 1 6. Any other business and urgent items in Part 2
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11 AUGUST 2003 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
SPECIAL MEETING
A Item No. 1 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Address: 66 LONG LANE, ICKENHAM
Development: APPLICATIONS A & B: ERECTION OF 12 TWO-BEDROOM FLATS (IN TWO BLOCKS) WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE).
LBH Ref Nos: (A) 39319/APP/2003/1293 (B) 29319/APP/2003/1505
Drawing Nos: 102B, 103B, 106C, 107B, 109 C, 110D, 111A, 112A and Survey No. HS 5054, A: received 09/05/03 B: received 25/06/03
Date of receipt: (A) 09/05/03 (B) 25/06/03
Date of Amendment: (A) 08/07/03 (B) 08/07/03
Development: APPLICATION C: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING HOUSE (APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)
LBH Ref Nos: 39319/APP/2002/2884
Drawing Nos: RW1007/DL/109, HS5064 received on 10/12/02
Date of receipt: 10/12/02
(1) VARIATION REPORT
Members resolved to defer the report on these applications at the Special Uxbridge Planning Committee meeting on 28/07/03 to ensure that the consultation period had fully expired.
Officers’ Response
The following schedule details the consultation dates for applications A, B and C.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 1
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
APPLICATION A: 39319/APP/2003/1293
Site Notice 5 June 2003 > 26 June 2003 Consultation Letters 18 June 2003 > 8 July 2003 Newspaper Advert 11 June 2003 > 25 June 2003
Amendments (amending application A to be identical to application B)
Consultation Letters 8 July 2003 > 28 July 2003
APPLICATION B: 39319/APP/2003/1505
Site Notice 2 July 2003 > 23 July 2003 Consultation Letters 3 July 2003 > 23 July 2003 Newspaper Advert 9 July 2003 > 23 July 2003
APPLICATION C: 39319/APP/2002/2884
Site Notice 27 December 2002 > 17 January 2003 Consultation Letters 20 December 2002 > 09 January 2002 Newspaper Advert 27 December 2002 > 17 January 2003
SUPPLEMENTARY SITE NOTICE
The statutory and other obligations regarding site notices, newspaper adverts and notification of adjoining owner / occupiers have been fulfilled in respect of these applications (notwithstanding unavoidable difficulties arising from the number of applications and amendments thereto regarding this site over recent months). The notice that was drawn to Committee’s attention on 28/07/03 is a non statutory notice (normally coloured green) that the applicants are invited to display at the application site to seek to ensure that local people are aware of a development scheme even though it duplicates other types of publicity. The notice is sent to the applicants when their application is formally acknowledged. Unlike other notices, which give a shorter period for comment, this particular green notice invites comment over a period of 28 days. The notice that was drawn to Committee’s attention regarding 66 Long Lane was sent to the applicants on 2/07/03. Although Committee could have determined the applications subject to no further material considerations being received on or before 30/07/03, and instructed the Head of Planning and Transportation to issue the relevant decision notices thereafter it elected to allow the consultation period specified on the green site notice to fully expire.
Contact Officer: CAMERON JUDSON Telephone No: 01895 277683
Appendix
(a) Committee report of 28 July 2003
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 2
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Appendix A
A Item No. Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Address: 66 LONG LANE, ICKENHAM
Development: APPLICATION A & B: ERECTION OF 12 TWO-BEDROOM FLATS (IN TWO BLOCKS) WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE).
LBH Ref Nos: (A) 39319/APP/2003/1293 (B) 29319/APP/2003/1505
Drawing Nos: 102B, 103B, 106C, 107B, 109 C, 110D, 111A, 112A and Survey No. HS 5054, A: received 09/05/03 B: received 25/06/03
Date of receipt: (A) 09/05/03 (B) 25/06/03
Date of Amendment: (A) 08/07/03 (B) 08/07/03
Development: APPLICATION C: DEMOLITION OF DWELLING HOUSE (APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)
LBH Ref Nos: 39319/APP/2002/2884
Drawing Nos: RW1007/DL/109, HS5064 received on 10/12/02
Date of receipt: 10/12/02
(1) SUMMARY (A & B)
1.1 Two similar applications (A and B) have been submitted and through amendments to one of them they are now identical. Each seeks planning permission to erect two blocks of flats to provide 12 two-bedroom flats with associated car parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing house). Block 1 – 8 is located at the rear of the site, behind block 9-12, which fronts on to Long Lane.
1.2 These applications were lodged to seek to overcome Council’s concerns about previous applications one of which is the subject of a separate report on this agenda. The revisions include the omission 3 car parking spaces, relocation of 2 car parking spaces and cycle store (in order to introduce additional amenity space and provide block 1 – 8 with an improved landscaped curtilage), additional floor space through a square bay to the southern flank of block 1 – 8, changes to materials and finishes, reconfiguration of the roof form to introduce a hip to the southern flank of
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 3
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
block 1 - 8, the provision of obscured glazing to avoid overlooking and the provision of security measures.
1.3 While applications A and B are identical, the consultation periods differ due to the time of lodgement of each application. Consultation for application B is complete whilst application A concludes on 28 July. Application A was the subject of reconsultation due to amendments. The applications were advertised in the local paper and 37 neighbours were consulted. 26 objections and a petition containing 100 signatures have been received in relation to all applications submitted to date. 20 objections, including an objection from the residents association have been received in specifically in relation to applications A and B. Objections received to all applications have been considered.
1.4 It is considered that applications (A and B) have addressed the key concerns raised against previous applications. The site is of sufficient size to accommodate a flat development and is conveniently located to public transport and other services. The applications are considered to be consistent with the provisions of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
1.5 Conservation Area Consent (application C) is also sought for the demolition of the dwelling house and garage. The application was advertised in the local paper, a site notice was erected and the Ickenham Conservation Area Panel and Residents’ Association were consulted. 5 objections have been received in respect to this application. The issues raised are addressed in this report. It is considered that, on the basis of an acceptable scheme for redevelopment having been received, demolition is acceptable.
1.6 As such applications A, B and C are recommended for approval.
(2) RECOMMENDATION for applications (A) and (B):
That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning and Transportation to grant planning permission subject to the following:- a) That the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Section 278 of the Highways Act and all appropriate legislation to secure:
A financial contribution of £28,217.00 towards the provision of primary and secondary school places in the relevant education planning areas and;
A financial contribution to meet the full costs the provision of removal of the existing pedestrian refuge island located immediately to the south of the site access and the construction of a new pedestrian refuge island
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 4
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
including appropriate markings and signage in a appropriate location as nominated by the Local Highway Authority.
b) That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 and 278 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.
c) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement.
d) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers, subject to the completion of legal agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers.
e) That if each application is approved, the following conditions be attached:-
1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M1) Details/Samples 2. (M1) Standard 3. (M4) Means of Enclosure 3. (M4) Standard 4. (OM1) Development in accordance 5. (OM1) Standard with approved plans 5. Details of the driveway, car parking 5. To ensure that the access, and manoeuvring areas including parking and manoeuvring line marking and pedestrian areas function appropriately delineation shall to submitted and and safely. approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any work is commenced. 6. Details of lighting of the front car 6. To increase ensure that the park and pedestrian access shall development is secure and be submitted and approved by the safe. Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the building. This lighting shall be thereafter permanently maintained. 7. Details of a designated area for the 7. To provide a designated area storage of waste recycling for bin storage and recycled receptacles adjacent to the bin waste prior to its removal from store shall be submitted to and the site. approved by the Local Planning Authority. This recycling area shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained. 8. Provisions shall be made within the 8. To ensure that the site to ensure that all vehicles development does not cause
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 5
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
associated with the construction of danger and inconvenience to the development hereby approved users of the adjoining are properly cleaned to prevent the pavement and highway. passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 9. (DIS1) Facilities for People with 9. (DIS1) Standard Disabilities 10. (DIS4) Signposting for People with 10. (DIS4) Standard Disabilities 11. (H13) Installation of gates onto a 11. (H13) Standard highway 12. Details of the vertical alignment of 12. To ensure adequate vehicular crossovers including the ramp to access to the site. the car parking area shall be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. 13. Development shall not begin until a 13. To ensure the surrounding scheme for protecting surrounding properties, pedestrians and dwellings from dust emitted from environment is not unduly the construction works, has been affected. submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 14. (TL2) Trees to be retained 14. (TL2) Standard 15. (TL3) Protection of trees and 15. (TL3) Standard plants during site clearance and development 16. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme - (full 16. (TL5) Standard applications where details are reserved for future approval) 17. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme – 17. (TL6) Standard implementation 18. (TL7) Maintenance of Landscaped 18. (TL7) Standard Areas 19. The first floor windows south 19. (RPD3) Standard facing lower hung windows of block 9 – 12 shall be glazed with obscure glass for so long as the development remains in existence.
INFORMATIVES
1. (5) Access to buildings and facilities for persons with disabilities 2. (7) Building regulations – Demolition and building works 3. (8) Works affecting the Public Highway – General 4. (20) Control of environmental nuisance from construction work 5. (21) The Construction Regulations 1994 6. (22) Notification to building contractors
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 6
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
7. (31) Sewerage connections, water pollution etc. 8. (36) Property Rights/Rights of light 9. No bonfires shall be lit on the construction site.
(2) RECOMMENDATION (C): Consent subject to the following conditions;
1. (CAC1) Time Limit 1. (CAC1) Standard 2. (CAC3) Demolition 2. (CAC3) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (14) Environmental control on construction sites 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (26) Notification of demolition
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1 This application concerns 66 Long Lane, Hillingdon; a large detached property located on a plot of land 0.202 hectares in area. The property is located on the western side of Long Lane, approximately 40 metres to the north of its junction with Court Road, Ickenham.
3.2 The exiting house is one of a group of 5 larger detached houses on generous plots set back from the main road frontage behind groups of trees. These houses run northwards from the application site to the junction with Milton Road. Running southwards from Milton Road are residential cul-de-sacs, Neela Close and Pepys Close.
3.3 The northern boundary of the appeal site abuts both the rear garden of No. 3 Neela Close, a detached two storey house and the side boundary of No. 64 Long Lane, a two storey detached house.
3.4 Pepys Close runs southward passing to the west of the appeal site and the rear gardens of 6 semi-detached properties, Nos. 11-21 (odd) Pepys Close abut the boundary of the application site.
3.5 At the end of Pepys Close are a group of four, two storey blocks of 31 flats these flats which are accessed from Long Lane and Pepys Close The curtilage of these flats abut the southern boundary of the appeal site.
3.6 The site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
Scheme
3.7 Permission is sought for the erection of 12 two-bedroom flats with associated car parking and landscaping (involving the demolition of the existing house).
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 7
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.8 The proposed development comprises two blocks of flats. Block No. 1-8 is a two-storey development, which comprises 8 two-bedroom flats situated at the rear of the site. Block No. 9-12 is also a two storey block, which is situated to the front of the site and faces onto Long Lane. This block comprises of 4 two- bedroom flats.
3.9 9 car parking spaces are provided within the front setback of the development with a further 6 spaces to the south of block 9 – 12 and to the front of block 1 - 8. A service road connecting both parking areas runs to the south of Blocks 9-12.
3.10 Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing house and detached garage.
Planning History
3.11 Planning application ref: 49805/95/382 for the erection of a detached house with an integral garage was refused on 26/10/95 for the following reasons:
1. It is considered that the siting and design of the proposal would be visually harmful to the street scene and detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and that in the context of this part of the street scene, the proposal would be cramped and out of character with neighbouring properties. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development by reason of its bulk, siting and location, would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers through overdominance and loss of light and sunlight, contrary to policy UL3 (i) and (iii) of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE14 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposal fails to make adequate provisions for the protection or replacement of existing trees and landscape features on the site, thus running contrary to policy UL3 (iv) of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE30 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.12 Planning application ref: 49805A/96/601 for the erection of a coach house style detached house with an integral garage was refused for the following reasons: -
1. It is considered that the siting of the proposal would be visually harmful to the street scene and detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of Ickenham Village Conservation Area. In the context of this part of the street scene, the proposal would be cramped and out of
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 8
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
character with neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2. The design, form and scale of the proposal does not integrate with the adjacent properties and is considered out of character and visually harmful, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.13 An appeal against the refusal of planning application ref: 49805A/96/601 was dismissed on 29/05/97.
3.14 Planning application ref: 39139/APP/2002/2259 for the fourteen units as originally submitted was reported to the Uxbridge Planning Committee on 18 March 2003. Members recommended that had an appeal against non- determination not been received this application would have been refused for the following reasons:
3.15 The proposed block of flats, Nos. 9-14, by reason of its overall size, bulk, height, design and projection forward of an established building line along Long Lane, represents an unduly intrusive, obtrusive and incongruous form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
1. The proposed block of flats, Nos. 1-8, by reason of its overall size, bulk and design would result in a form of development, which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and detrimental to the visual amenities of surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposal by reason of the excessive site coverage by building and hard surfacing results in the cramped overdevelopment of the site at an excessive density. The development therefore fails to harmonise with its surroundings being out of keeping with the character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area, and contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE19, and H6 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposal fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the development will safeguard existing trees protected by TPO 5, or by virtue of their location within a Conservation Area and fails to justify the loss of trees shown to be removed. The proposal fails to
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 9
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
demonstrate how existing trees will be utilised and makes inadequate provision for new planting within the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies BE4 and BE38 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4. The proposed development by reason of the siting of the buildings and the windows would result in the direct overlooking of the adjoining properties and proposed flats, causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to both adjoining and future residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE24 and H12 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles 5.1 and 5.2 from the Council’s design guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’.
5. The proposal fails to provide sufficient amenity space as defined in this Council’s Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design” and would result in a substandard form of accommodation for future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE23 and H6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
6. The development does not provide a safe means of egress from the site and makes inadequate provision for pedestrian access within the site. The additional traffic generated by the proposed development and failure to provide a safe and convenient means of access for future residents is likely to give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety being contrary to Policy AM7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.16 At the Uxbridge Planning Committee Conservation Area Consent was refused for the following reason:
“In the absence of an acceptable redevelopment the proposed demolition of an existing dwelling house, would result in an unsightly open gap, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Ickenham Conservation Area, the street scene and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.”
3.17 A Public Inquiry is scheduled for 12/08/03 and 13/08/03 to determine appeals against the non-determination of planning applications ref: 39139/APP/2002/2259 and 39319/APP/2002/2885 and the refusal of Conservation Area Consent.
3.18 On 09/05/03 planning application ref: 39139/APP/2003/1293 (application A) was received for the erection of 12 two-bedroom flats. The scheme at lodgement was identical to the revised drawings submitted under planning application ref: 39319/APP/2002/2885. This application has since being amended seeking to overcome the reasons for refusal and is now identical to application ref: 39139/APP/2003/1505 (application B), which was received on 25/06/03.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 10
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Planning Policies and Standards
PPG3 (Housing)
PPG15 (Planning and the Historical Environment)
PPG13 (Transport)
UDP Designation: Developed Area Ickenham Conservation Area Located on Local Distributor Road
The relevant UDP polices are:-
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.8 To seeks to preserve or enhance those features of Conservation Areas, which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Pt1.13 To seeks to ensure that the provision of 8000 additional dwellings in the Borough
Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards.
Pt1.17 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards.
Pt1.32 To encourage development for uses other than those providing local services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport
Pt1.39 To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed.
Part 2 Policies:
BE4 New development within or on the fringes preserve of conservation areas.
BE13 Layout and appearance of new development
BE19 New development with residential areas – complementing and improving character and amenity of the area
BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 11
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity to new buildings/extensions
BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys
BE23 External amenity space and new residential development
BE24 Design of new buildings – protection of privacy
BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals
BE39 Protection of trees and woodland – tree preservation orders
OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area
OE12 Energy conservation and new development
OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites
H4 Mix of housing units
H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development
H9 Provision for people with disabilities in new residential developments
R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities
AM2 Development proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability
AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed development
AM8 Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and implementation of road construction and traffic management schemes
AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities
AM14 New development and car parking standards
AM15 Provision of reserved parking for disabled persons
SPG Residential Layouts and House Design Guide
Council’s Revised Parking Standards (December 2001)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 12
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Consultations
External Consultees
The applications were advertised in the local paper and 37 neighbours were consulted. 26 objections have been received and a petition with 100 signatures objecting to the proposal have been received in relation to all applications submitted to date. The issues raised are listed below:-
• Excessive density and over development • Adverse impact on character of Conservation Area • Unacceptable traffic generation and pedestrian safety • Insufficient parking • Loss of trees and wildlife • Overlooking and loss of privacy • The long drive and car parking will generate noise and disturbance • The height and scale of the development is visually intrusive • The amount of car parking provided is inadequate • The development will reduce property values • The lighting for the proposal will be obtrusive • Loss of light • Loss of view
Metropolitan Police No objections.
Ickenham Conservation (i) The proposal will detract from residential Area Advisory Panel amenity and does not comply with the Unitary Development Plan. (ii) The proposal will result in a loss of privacy and overlooking. (iii) The only means of access onto Long Lane will exacerbate existing problems of traffic congestion. (iv) Several of the car parking spaces do not adequately function in respect to manoeuvring. (v) The proposal will result in the overdevelopment of the site. (vi) Many trees will not survive in the long term many others largely concealed from viewing beyond the site. (vii) The proposed bin stored is remote from the flats it would serve. (viii) Insufficient amenity space is provided for prospective occupants. (ix) Many habitable rooms appear to be little above the minimum standards.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 13
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
(x) The unimaginative design neither preserves the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. (xi) The layout is similar to a previous scheme, which was dismissed on appeal in 1987.
Ickenham Residents’ (i) The proposal results in the overdevelopment of Association the site and would be out of keeping with the street scene, being contrary to policy BE4. (ii) The proposal would result in unacceptable tandem development. (iii) The overall size, bulk and proximity to adjoining houses would result in a loss of amenity to adjoining residents. (iv) The proposal would result in a loss of privacy. (v) The proposal would result in development at an excessive density. (vi) The proposal would protrude beyond established building lines. (vii) The amenity space provision is unsatisfactory for family accommodation. (viii) A similar scheme at 58 Long Lane, Hillingdon was refused and dismissed at appeal.
Pepys Close Residents (i) The proposal results in overdevelopment and Company does not preserve or enhance the surrounding area. (ii) The proposed design does not enhance the Conservation Area. (iii) The proposal will result in a loss of privacy. (iv) Noise, lighting, vehicle movements will adversely affect local residents. (v) The additional traffic will give rise to problems of traffic congestion and safety.
Cllr J Hensley Supports the view of local residents that the application should be refused for the following reasons: -
Approval would create an undesirable and unwarranted precedent.
The proposal would create back garden development, which is contrary to the UDP.
Insufficient car parking will generate on street parking in Long Lane and the restricted access has the potential to cause vehicular and pedestrian accidents.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 14
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Rooflines of the flats are out of keeping with adjacent properties and the development has a negative visual impact. The development does not harmonise with the street scene, is completely out of keeping and does meet UDP Policy.
The residents on either side will suffer loss of privacy and does not meet UDP Policy in this respect.
The proposal will adversely impact upon trees and does not meet UDP Policy in this respect.
Internal Consultees
Highways Engineer Long Lane is a busy road with a steady stream of often fast moving traffic. The means of access and visibility is adequate for vehicles and the number of vehicles generated by the development would not prejudice the free flow of traffic. Immediately to the south of the means of access are pedestrian bollards. These are heavily used by school children. Vehicles turning right out of the application site would do so in close proximity to the pedestrian bollards. These traffic movements would not be readily visible to pedestrians crossing from the west side of Long Lane to the east. The applicant will have to enter into a Section 278 Agreement in order to remove the existing bollards and construct new bollards in an appropriate location.
Trees/Landscape Officer The site layout plan takes account of the trees, in particular the prominent and valuable Horse Chestnut trees on the road frontage. Subject to tree protection measures for the two Chestnut trees, the Holly, the mature Birch and several other small trees, the front of the site should not be affected by the development. The Red Horse Chestnut is in terminal decline and a potential hazard. The Laurel tree is to be retained and pruned back away from the proposed building if required.
The plan shows two groups of TPO Birch trees to be retained at the rear of the site. These trees are mature and over mature and should not be affected by the development. It would be desirable
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 15
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
for the over mature trees to be removed and replaced with new Birch trees.
The plan shows the retention of existing scrub planting along the southern boundary this area should be replanted to provide increased amenity space. No objections to the proposal subject to conditions.
Conservation/Urban Design To overcome previous reasons for refusal the Officer development has been amended. The back block has more space around it allowing for soft landscaping reducing the visual bulk of the building. In addition the canted windows will be expressed as vertical strips (with glazed or black glass panels between) to simplify this element and lighten the heaviness of the side elevations. The projecting north and south wings, will have tile hanging to the first floor to further relieve the oppressive appearances of these side elevations. The centre part of the west elevation will have the tile hanging omitted. Dormers will be omitted on the east and west elevations and, on the south elevation, the gable above the door will be hipped in line with other roofs. With all these changes, The building will be sufficiently broken up to overcome the previous reasons for refusal relating to massing, bulk and design. It is therefore acceptable in terms of Policy BE4 and PPG 15.
Education Directorate A contribution of £41,681 should be sought for school places by way of a Section 106 Agreement.
Environmental Protection No objection, subject to conditions. Unit
Main Planning Issues
3.19 The main issues that are considered to be relevant to this proposal are:-
(i) Appropriateness of flat development (ii) Impact on character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and the visual amenity of the street scene. (iii) Density and hard surfacing (iv) Impact on the amenity of adjoining residents (v) Adequacy of accommodation for future residents (vi) Traffic, parking and access to public transport (vii) Planning Obligations
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 16
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
(i) Appropriateness of flat development
3.20 The land is considered to be of an adequate size and dimension to achieve an acceptable residential development that is in keeping with the character and amenity of the area. The site is conveniently located close to public transport including the nearby Ickenham tube station and the local bus network, which services Long Lane.
3.21 Flat development in this location would also contribute to a better housing mix in the Borough in accordance with Policy H4 of the Unitary Development Plan and assist in providing additional dwellings to meet demand in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy 1.13.
(ii) Impact on character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scene.
3.22 Policies BE4, BE13, BE15 BE19, BE21 & OE1 of the UDP seek to ensure that new development will complement and improve the character and amenity of the area. The streetscape of Long Lane is comprised generally of detached two storey homes in a variety of styles, although a flat development can be found immediately to the south. The application site is one of a group of 5 large detached houses set back from the main road behind trees. The houses are set back between 17 and 19 metres from the front boundary. Although gaps between the properties vary the overall impression is one of spaciousness. Boundary treatments include fences of varying heights and materials, hedges and other screen planting. The existing landscaping on the site contributes substantially to the local amenity and character of Long Lane. The utilisation of the front setback for car parking is common in the street.
3.23 The block fronting onto Long Lane (known as Block 9-12) would be two- storeys, 16.3 metres wide and 10.5 metres deep. The roof form is generally hipped with a gabled projected end facing onto Long Lane. The setback of the block is generally in keeping with the prevailing setback set of adjacent and nearby buildings along Long Lane. On this basis the block does not intrude unacceptably into the existing street scene.
3.24 The mass and proportions of the front block are similar to that of a large detached house. The gabled end facing onto Long Lane picks up the roof form of adjacent development. Accordingly it is considered that this block does not represent an obtrusive or incongruous form of development which would detract from the character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scene.
3.25 The rear block (known as block Nos. 1-8), whilst not visible from the street scene, is visible from surrounding residential properties. This block occupies a substantial part of the rear of the site. The block is 2 storeys in height, has
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 17
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
a length of 25.5 metres and a width ranging from 8.3 metres to 17.6 metres towards the rear. Canted windows, projecting elements and changes in materials assist in breaking up the overall bulk and appearance of the building.
3.26 The proposed development maintains much of the existing vegetation on the site and preserves the significant trees. The development retains the landscape character on the site and ensures that the landscape continuity of the Conservation Area remains intact. Moreover amendments have provided more space around block 1 – 8 allowing for additional landscaping to reducing the visual bulk of the building. In addition the canted windows will be expressed as vertical strips (with glazed or black glass panels between) to simplify this element and lighten the heaviness of the side elevations. The projecting north and south wings, will have tile hanging to the first floor to further relieve the oppressive appearances of these side elevations. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the adopted Unitary Development Plan. Furthermore the proposal would have less developed area than previous proposals by virtue of the removal of car parking spaces. The proposal has addressed the concerns raised by the Council in previous applications and has therefore overcome the second reason for refusal given in respect to application ref: 39139/APP/2002/2259.
(iii) Density and hard surfacing
3.27 Section 7.13 of the Unitary Development Plan indicates that the Borough contains housing built at a variety of densities. As a guide to developers, new housing is expected in the range of 100 – 200 habitable rooms per hectare. Policy H6 however states:
3.28 ‘The appropriate density of development depends on a balance between full and effective use of available housing land and the following important considerations; the quality of housing, layout and design, its compatibility with the density form and spacing of surrounding development, the proposed dwelling mix, and location, configuration and characteristics of the site. However applicants for a residential development over 150 habitable rooms per hectare will be expected to submit sufficient details to demonstrate that the layout and design of the scheme are of a quality which produced good environmental conditions within the development and harmonise with the surroundings.’
3.29 This Conservation Area has a variety of house styles with the density of development that is relatively low when compared to that of other areas in the Borough, although the adjacent flat development to south has a much higher density. The proposed development has a density of 142 habitable rooms per hectare. On this basis the development complies with the 150 habitable rooms per hectare guideline. The developed area of the site, which amounts to approximately 43%, indicates that the site would not be overdeveloped. The environmental conditions for prospective occupiers of the development
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 18
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
are acceptable. The setbacks and separation to site boundaries and adjacent development are satisfactory. Moreover, the proposal is in accordance with PPG3, which encourages housing development that makes for the efficient use of land by seeking a greater intensity of development within areas with good public transport and accessibility. It is considered that the development has now achieved a suitable balance between the protection of the character of the conservation area and the provision of higher density residential development. The proposed density, whilst being higher than much of the surrounding development, is therefore considered acceptable. Given the above comments it is considered that on balance the application has overcome the third reason for refusal in respect of planning ref: 39139/APP/2002/2259.
(iv) Impact on the amenity of adjoining residents
3.30 Policy H12 of the Unitary Development Plan states that tandem development of backland sites in residential areas will not be permitted if undue disturbance or loss of privacy is likely to be caused to adjoining occupiers. Unitary Development Plan Policies BE24, BE20, OE1 also apply to the proposed development.
3.31 The Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ requires that a distance of 21 metres is required between habitable room windows of adjoining houses or flats.
3.32 With regard to block 9-12, the secondary living room and toilet windows in the flank elevations would be obscured glass and the introduction of a square bay window to the southern flank orientates the window that previously generated privacy concerns to the east, away from the adjacent property 23 – 33 (odd) Pepys close. The proposal will not therefore result in the direct overlooking of adjoining properties.
3.33 The distance between the proposed two blocks of flats varies between 12.4 and 14 metres. Amended plans have removed the bedroom windows on the ground and first floors of the eastern elevation of block 1-8, which face directly towards block 9-12, and replaced them with a canted bay window on the north and south elevations. The privacy of future occupants of these blocks of flats will therefore be safeguarded.
3.34 Three ground and first floor canted bay windows are now proposed in the north elevation of block 1-8, which are angled so they face towards 64 Long Lane. The proposed first floor living room windows are situated 26 and 29 metres from the rear of this property. The additional canted bay bedroom window now proposed in the north elevation is situated 21 metres from No. 64. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupants of this property.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 19
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.35 The windows in the west elevation are situated between 25 and 35 metres from Nos. 11-21 (odd) Pepys Close. The privacy of these properties will not therefore be adversely affected.
3.36 The additional canted bay window on the southern elevation is angled so that it faces towards flats 35-45 (odd) Pepys Close. A distance of 21 metres is maintained between these properties in accordance with Council Guidelines. The other windows on the southern elevation are for 2 kitchens and 2 bathrooms on the ground and first floor. A landing window is also proposed on the first floors. These windows face towards the block of flats Nos. 23-33 (odd) Pepys Close and the distance between the proposed and existing block of flats where windows face one another varies from 18 metres to 18.7 metres. All windows with the exception of the landing have fixed obscure glazing. The landing window provides little opportunities for overlooking given its distance from the top of the stairs. Notwithstanding this the existing and proposed landscaping will provide adequate screening. It is considered that the impact upon the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining flats is acceptable.
3.37 A car park with 4 parking spaces is proposed in between the proposed block of flats. This area is located centrally on the site. It is considered that the car parking would not significantly detract from the amenities of adjoining residents by reason of noise and disturbance.
3.38 Access to the site is provided to the south of Block 9-12. A distance of 8 metres is provided between the south wall of this building and the boundary of the site adjacent to the flats on Pepys Close. It is considered that this distance is sufficient to ensure that the access will not be detrimental to the occupiers of these premises by reason of noise and disturbance.
3.39 By virtue of the above the proposal is considered to have addressed the fifth reason for refusal given in respect of planning application ref: 39139/APP/2002/2259.
(v) Adequacy of accommodation for future residents
3.40 Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts, Landscaping and House Design’ requires that shared amenity space should be of a convenient size and shape, orientated to make full use of the sunshine, and make a positive contribution towards the environment. Flats where two bedrooms or more are proposed should also provide safe play space for children.
3.41 The development proposes approximately 728m² (60 m2 per unit) amenity area to the side and rear of the buildings. Additional space has been provided through the deletion of 3 car parking spaces. The space is considered to be of a suitable size and shape. Although the proposed development will overshadow a substantial part of the proposed amenity area to the north throughout the day.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 20
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.42 A row of trees runs along the boundary of the application site with 3 Neela Close. The trees provide a degree of screening however part of the proposed amenity area to the rear corner of the site would be overlooked by this property. Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ states that areas to the front of flats will not be counted as useable amenity space, as they are more openly visible. In this case the amenity area would be overlooked by 64 Long Lane and, in the absence of suitable screening, by passers-by on the adjacent highway. This amenity space area is also located adjacent to the highway and to the main access into the site. It would therefore be subject to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance from traffic and fails to provide a safe environment for children.
3.43 Notwithstanding the above comments the amenity space between the rear and front blocks provides an area that is private, has reasonable access to sunlight and provides an appropriate environment for children. This space, when added to the balance of the amenity space, is considered to provide an acceptable outdoor recreational environment for the prospective occupiers of the development. Accordingly the proposal complies with BE23 and H6 of the Unitary Development Plan and Council’s Design Guide – Residential Layouts and House Design and has overcome the sixth reason for refusal given in respect of planning application ref: 39139/APP/2002/2259.
(vi) Traffic, parking and access to public transport
3.44 Policies AM2, AM7, AM14, AM15 are concerned with traffic generation, road capacity, on-site parking and access to public transport. In terms of traffic generation and road capacity, the Council’s Highways Engineer has not raised any objections to the development on these grounds.
3.45 The Council’s current parking standards seek the following as a maximum:
1.5 spaces per dwelling 10% of spaces to be for people with disabilities 1 motor cycle space per 20 car spaces 1 bicycle space per dwelling (1 & 2 bedrooms)
3.46 Using these standards, the development should provide a maximum of 18 parking spaces, 1 disabled space and minimum of 12 cycle spaces. The development proposes 16 parking spaces including 2 visitor spaces, and ten bicycle spaces. Given the proximity of the site to public transport links and a Local Centre, it is considered that this provision is adequate.
3.47 Access to the site is to be from Long Lane. Long Lane is a busy road with a steady stream of often fast moving traffic. The Highway Engineer considers that the means of access and visibility is adequate for vehicles and that the number of vehicles generated by the development would not prejudice the free flow of traffic.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 21
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.48 Immediately to the south of the means of access are pedestrian bollards. These mark a crossing point which is heavily used by school children. Road crosshatching extends to the north and south of these bollards. Vehicles turning right out of the application site would therefore have to cross the road markings and would do so in close proximity to the pedestrian bollards. These traffic movements would not be readily visible to pedestrians crossing from the west side of Long Lane to the east. In the absence of a physical barrier and U-turn facility nearby it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would give rise to additional right turns which in this location would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety.
3.49 However the applicant has agreed to construct a new pedestrian island in an appropriate location and remove the existing by way of a Section 278 Agreement. The Highway Engineer is agreeable to this. Accordingly it is considered that the current proposal has overcome the seventh reasons for refusal given in respect of planning application 39139/APP/2002/2259.
(vii)Planning Obligations
3.50 The impact of housing development on school places is a material planning consideration and as such can form the basis for a Section 106 Agreement. The Council’s Education Directorate has advised that the proposed development of 12, two bedroom flats will bring additional pressure for school places in the area. A contribution of £28,217.00 has been requested to help fund the required school places for the reduced scheme of 12 units and the applicants have agreed this.
3.51 In addition, as noted above, the applicant has agreed to the removal of the existing pedestrian island and the construction of a new island in an appropriate location to be determined the Local Highways Authority.
Comments on Public Consultations
1.7 At time of writing this report, 26 letters of objection and a petition with 100 signatures had been received in relation to all applications submitted to date. 20 objections, including an objection from the residents association have been received in specifically in relation to applications A and B. Objections received to all applications have been considered. The bulk of the issues raised have been dealt with in the main body of the report. The following comments are provided in relation to other issues raised:
• In respect of loss of trees and wildlife the Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer has raised no significant concerns. Prominent trees and much of the vegetation that exists on the site would remain. Furthermore the area is not designated as an Area of Special Scientific Interest. This objection is not of sufficient weight to warrant the refusal of the applications.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 22
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• Loss of property values and loss of view are not material planning consideration.
• Lighting details are subject to condition. Lighting provided will be low spillage. This objection is not of sufficient weight to warrant refusal.
• Loss of light is addressed by the development and is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application.
(4) Observations of the Borough Solicitor
4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
(5) 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 s106 contribution to the Council towards associated public facilities. The developer will also meet all reasonable costs of the Council in the preparation of the Section 106 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) CONCLUSION
6.1 The applications (A and B) are a clear improvement on previous schemes and have overcome Council’s concerns. The site is capable of accommodating a flat development and is well located in respect of public transport and local services. It is considered that the development proposed would have an acceptable impact upon street scene of Long Lane, adjacent properties and the wider Ickenham Conservation Area. Accordingly, the scheme is considered to accord with the policies of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
6.2 On the basis of applications A and B being acceptable, no objection is raised to the granting of Conservation Area Consent.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 23
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Reference Documents:
(a) PPG3 (Housing) (b) PPG13 (Transport) (c) PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) (d) Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (e) SPG – Residential Layouts and House Design Guide (f) Council’s Revised Parking Standards (December 2001) (g) Letters of objection (h) Petition
Contact Officer: CAMERON JUDSON Telephone No: 01895 277683
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 24
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11 August 2003 Page 25
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF REPORTS
Title Date Publisher 1 Available Premises Register (6 monthly) LBH 2 Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest LBH (Being Updated) 3 Colne Valley Park: A Vision for the future and a Strategy 1995 Colne Valley Park 4 Conservation Area Study- Hillingdon Village 1981 LBH 5 Conservation Area Study- Old Uxbridge 1990 LBH 6 Conservation Area Study-Hayes Village 1981 LBH 7 Ecology Handbook 4- Woodland, Wasteland, the Tidal 1986 London Thames in two London Boroughs Ecology Unit 8 Ecology Handbook 7- Nature Conservation in Hillingdon 1988 London Ecology Unit 9 Ecology Handbook 8- London Meadows: Pastures 1988 London Ecology Unit 10 Funding for Training Initiatives Policy (Initial Draft) 1999 LBH 11 Gledwood Estate Replacement Roofs Policy 1992 LBH 12 Government Circulars (Various) DETR/HMSO 13 Hillingdon Census Atlas 1991 LBH 14 Hillingdon Census Employment Monitor 1991 LBH 15 Hillingdon Census Monitor 1991 LBH 16 Industrial Profile (Annual) LBH 17 LPAC: Strategic Planning Advice for London 1994 LPAC 18 LPAC: Supplementary Strategic Advice (Various) LPAC 19 Minerals Policy Guidance Notes (Various) DETR 20 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Industrial, Office & LBH Warehousing Developments (Quarterly). 21 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Residential LBH Developments & Hotels (Quarterly). 22 Parking Standards 1998 LBH 23 Parliamentary Acts (Various) HMSO 24 Parliamentary Statutory Instruments (Various) HMSO 25 Parliamentary White Papers (Various) HMSO 26 Planning Brief- 40- Western Avenue- Hillingdon Circus 1990 LBH 27 Planning Brief- Block 13, Uxbridge Town Centre 1990 LBH 28 Planning Brief- Blocks 6 & 7, Uxbridge Town Centre 1988 LBH 29 Planning Brief- Breakspear House, Harefield 1997 LBH
Special Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11th August 2003 Page 26 Title Date Publisher 30 Planning Brief- British Waterways Land at Packet Boat 1997 LBH Lane, Cowley Peachey 31 Planning Brief- Former Barn Hill School Site, Yeading 1998 LBH Lane, Hayes 32 Planning Brief- Hayes Station Site 1996 LBH 33 Planning Brief- Hillingdon House Farm, Park Road, 1988 LBH Uxbridge 34 Planning Brief- Minet Estate 1988 LBH 35 Planning Brief- Thorn Complex, Blyth Road, Hayes 1997 LBH 36 Planning Inspectorate/ Secretary of State for ETR- HMSO Inspectors Decisions on Planning Appeals 37 Planning Policy Guidance Notes DETR 38 Regional Planning Guidance Note3 (London) 1996 HMSO 39 Regional Planning Guidance Note9 (South East) 1994 HMSO 40 SERPLAN: Regional Strategy and Reviews (Various) SERPLAN 41 Standards for Canalside Development 1993 London Canals Committee 42 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Changes to 1995 LBH Boundaries and Gradings of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 43 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential 1999 LBH Layouts, Landscaping and House Design (Consultation Draft) 44 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance for 1998 LBH Seeking funding for School Places from Residential Development 45 The Canal Way: A Review 1990 LBH 46 Transport Policies and Programme 1999/2000 1998 LBH 47 Unitary Development Plan (Adopted) 1998 LBH
Planning Services: Friday, 05 March 1999
Special Uxbridge Planning Committee – 11th August 2003 Page 27