Southall Gas Works, Hayes by Pass, Hayes

Report of the Corporate Director of Planning & Community Services

Address: SOUTHALL GAS WORKS HAYES BY PASS, HAYES

Development: Demolition of 16-32 The Crescent (all properties); 1-11 (odd) Randolph Road; remediation of the land and redevelopment of the site to deliver a mixed use development for up to: 320,000sq of residential, up to 14,200sqm for non-food retail, up to 5,850sqm of food retail, up to 1,750sqm of Class A2-A5 uses, up to 9,650sqm of hotel, up to 3,000sqm of conference and banqueting, up to 4,700sqm of leisure forming a cinema, up to 2,550sqm of health care facilities, up to 3,450sqm of education facilities, up to 3,500sqm of office/studio units, up to 390sqm of sports pavilion, an energy centre and associated car, coach and cycle parking, landscaping, public realm, open space and children's play space; and full details submitted (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for the following accesses: Pump Lane Link Road New access road from the Hayes bypass to the Application Site for vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access, including drainage and a flood relief pond. Eastern Access New access road from Southall centre to the site, including land currently occupied by properties on The Crescent. Minet Country Park Footbridge Central pedestrian and cycle access to the Minet Country Park, bridging over the Canal and Yeading Brook. Springfield Road Footbridge Northern pedestrian and cycle access to Minet County Park and Springfield Road. Widening of South Road across the railway line - Widening of south road over the railway line for the creation of a bus lane. Accesses onto Beaconsfield Road (Outline Application with full details of accesses).

LBH Ref Nos: 54814/APP/2009/430

Drawing Nos: 368_A_100 - F; 368_A_200 - B; 368_A_300; 368_A_305; 368_A_306; 368_A_310 - B; 368_A_315 - A; 368_A_316; 4597-P-001; 4597-P-002; 4597-P-003; 4597-P-010; 4597-P-011; 4597-P-012; 4597-P-020; 4597-P-021; 4597-P-022; 4597-P-023; 4597-P-024; 4597-P-030; 4597-P-031;

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4597-P-032; 4597-P-033; 4597-P-034; 4597-P-035; 4597-P-036; 52212/A/51 - A; 52212/A/74; 52212/A/77; 52212/AR/R1; 52212/AR/R2; 52212/AR/R3; 52212/B/31; 52212/B/32 - A; 52212/B/33 - A; 52212/B/34 - A; 52212/B/35; 52212/B/36; 800E - A; 800VV - A; EX_02_site plan; P1000/00; P1001/00; P1002/00; P1003/00; P1004/00; P1005/00; P1006/00; P1007/00; P1008/01 - 1; P1009/00; P1010/00; P1011/01 - 1; P1012/00; P1013/00; P1014/00; P1015/00; P1016/00; PO_02_plan - A; PO_02_site plan; PO_04_13A - A; PO_04_13B - A; PO_04_13C - A; PO_04_13D - A;

Date Plans Received: 09/10/2008 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 26/10/2009, 20/11/2009,

Documents: Design and Access statement Environmental statement and non-technical summary Development specification Planning statement Transport assessment Transport submission Framework travel plan Sustainability strategy

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Energy strategy Addendum to energy strategy Health impact assessment Retail assessment October 2009 retail centre health check Regeneration strategy Housing statement General management strategy Statement of community involvement Existing tree removal/clearance, retention and protection Remediation strategy

Date Documents Received: 09/10/2008 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 18/04/2009, 15/05/2009, 15/11/2009.

Date Application Received: 09/10/2008

Date Application Valid: 12/02/2009

1. SUMMARY

The majority of this 44.7Ha site is located in the London Borough of Ealing, immediately to the east of the Grand Union canal. The proposed redevelopment of the former Southall Gas Works offers significant regenerative benefits (including remediation of contaminated land and provision of a considerable amount of housing).

This is a substantial scheme with the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on the London Borough of Hillingdon. The most significant changes to the landscape character and the greatest urbanisation impact are considered to be towards the western side of the site, adjacent to the Grand Union Canal. While it is noted that only fingers of development would approach the canal and Green Belt land, these 'fingers' would be up to 8 storeys high. The limited set back of buildings from the canal would leave little room for structural landscaping (which might have been able to be used to screen and soften the appearance of the proposal). The maximum potential height of buildings means that these will be highly visible and it is considered that this portion of the proposal by virtue of its scale, height and siting would dominate the landscape, and would injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt, the Grand Union canal, and Yeading Brook contrary to Policy OL5, BE32 and BE34.

It is also considered that information submitted in support of the application is inadequate to demonstrate that the scheme will not cause harm to the local ecology. In particular the timing, methodology and scope of the ecological surveys (including surveys of birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates) undertaken is considered inadequate.

Approximately 6.4Ha of land will be required to create the western vehicular access way into the site (including connection to/from the Hayes bypass) and flood water holding area. The proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridges would also impact upon local ecology, acting to fragment wildlife corridors. Proposed mitigation measures are considered inadequate to offset the loss of and fragmentation of habitat resultant from the development.

Without required mitigation measures the proposal would be unacceptably detrimental to Minet Country Park (a Site of Metropolitan or Borough (Grade I) Importance for Nature Conservation), contrary to Policies EC1 and EC3.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Whereas the applicant has undertaken substantive further highways mitigation work to address most of the Highway Engineer's concerns, the additional traffic levels on the A312 AM peak are not considered to be acceptable.

Agreement has not been reached with the applicant over planning obligations necessary to mitigate the harm caused by the development. If approved the development would result in unacceptable impacts and as such the application is unacceptable in planning terms and is contrary to Policy R17.

2. RECOMMENDATION

REFUSAL for the following reasons

1. Impact on Green Belt, Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook

The proposal, by virtue of the height, size and siting of buildings proposed adjacent to Green Belt land to the west of the site (Minet Country Park), would injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt, Yeading Brook and Grand Union Canal. In particular, the limited setback provided for between the canal edge and the development restricts the potential to successfully integrate the scale of this development into its surroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OL5, BE32 and BE34 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies 27 September 2007).

2. Impact on Ecology

The proposal, by virtue of the inadequate timing and scope of the ecological surveys (including surveys of birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates), and lack of adequate measures to mitigate habitat loss and fragmentation caused by the scheme would be unacceptably detrimental to the ecological value of Minet Country Park (a Site of Metropolitan or Borough (Grade I) Importance for Nature Conservation) the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook contrary to Policies EC1, EC3, BE32, and BE34 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

3. Planning Obligations

The applicant has failed to provide, through an appropriate legal agreement an adequate provision of, or contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development, including: • Financial contribution to implement mitigation measures and capacity enhancements to Minet Country Park made necessary by the proposed development; • Financial contribution to offset impacts on local educational facilities; • Provision of construction training of Hillingdon residents, by enabling them to actively work and receive construction training on the construction site; • Require the Applicant to enter into and abide by the terms of a Sustainable Travel Plan; • Financial contribution to offset cost of additional air quality monitoring made necessary by the scheme; • Financial contribution towards a strategic master plan for the wider area; • Financial contribution towards delivery and implementation of a Waterspace Strategy; • Financial contribution towards remediation of land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal (Minet Tip); • Financial contribution to implement works to improve access along the canal from Uxbridge Road to Bulls Bridge;

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS • Project management and monitoring. The scheme therefore conflicts with London Plan Policy 4A.16, Policies EC1, EC3, OE11 and R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and the Hillingdon Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2008).

4. Highways

The additional 6% increase in saturation levels on the A312 South PM peak, with the resultant increase in queuing lengths, is at odds with the applicant's assertion that the development will have nil detriment. It is considered that this increase in queue length will have an adverse impact on the highway network. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to be policies AM2 and AM7 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and Policies 3C.1 and 3C.2 of the London Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1. I52 Compulsory Informative 1 The decision to REFUSE 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. I53 Compulsory Informative 2 The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including the London Plan (February 2008) and national guidance. Pt1.4 To safeguard a network of Green Chains from built development to provide a visual and physical break in the built-up area and opportunities for recreation and corridors for wildlife. Pt1.6 To safeguard the nature conservation value of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, designated Local Nature Reserves or other Nature Reserves, or sites proposed by English Nature or the Local Authority for such designations. Pt1.7 To promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.12 To avoid any unacceptable risk of flooding to new development in areas already liable to flood, or increased severity of flooding elsewhere. Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards. Pt1.17 To seek to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings are provided in the form of affordable housing. Pt1.18 To maintain, enhance and promote town centres as the principal areas for shopping, employment and community and cultural activities in the Borough. Pt1.19 To maintain a hierarchy of shopping centres which maximises accessibility to shops and to encourage retail development in existing centres or local parades which is appropriate to their scale and function and not likely to harm the viability and vitality of town or local centres.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Pt1.30 To promote and improve opportunities for everyone in Hillingdon, including in particular women, elderly people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. Pt1.34 To maintain the road hierarchy set out in this Plan and accordingly seek to segregate different types of traffic by the function of the various tiers of the hierarchy through traffic management schemes, road signing and planning control over development and redevelopment schemes. Pt1.35 To accord priority to pedestrians in the design and implementation of road construction and traffic management schemes, and to seek to provide a network of cycle routes through the Borough to promote safer cycling and better conditions for cyclists. Pt1.39 To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed. OL1 Green Belt - acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new development OL2 Green Belt -landscaping improvements OL5 Green Belt – development adjacent or conspicuous from the Green Belt 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 EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety BE31 Facilities for the recreational use of the canal BE32 Development proposals adjacent to or affecting the Grand Union Canal BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE7 Development in areas likely to flooding - requirement for flood protection measures H4 Mix of housing units R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities 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 AM4 Safeguard land for new road link between Hayes by-pass and former Southall gasworks AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments 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 AM10 Incorporation in new developments of additions to the proposed cycle network AM12 Priority to Bus Lanes AM13 Increasing the ease of movement for frail and elderly people and people with disabilities in development schemes through (where appropriate):- (i) Dial-a-ride and mobility bus services (ii) Shopmobility schemes (iii) Convenient parking spaces (iv) Design of road, footway, parking and pedestrian and street furniture schemes AM18 Developments adjoining the Grand Union Canal – securing facilities for canal borne freight

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality

3.1.1 The Site

The application site is roughly triangular in shape and occupies approximately 44.7Ha in area. The application site is bounded to the south by the Wales and Great Western Mainline Railway (with commercial and employment uses beyond), to the west by the Grand Union Canal (with Minet Country Park beyond) and to the north by residential development in Southall.

The application site excludes the operational gasholder and the converted water tower, which is located in the eastern corner of the main site (London Borough of Ealing).

The main site was historically used for a range of industrial uses. While the site retains a working gasholder, the wider gasworks associated activity on the site ceased in the 1970’s.

Vehicle accesses are currently provided to the site from The Crescent, Beaconsfield Road, and Brent Road.

The site is relatively level with built development limited to buildings adjacent the site entrance from Beaconsfield Road, workshop buildings in the western corner of the site and two (redundant) gasholder structures.

The site is currently used off airport car parking, associated with London Heathrow Airport. Vehicle servicing is also undertaken in the workshops located in the western corner of the site. These existing uses are located on land within the London Borough of Ealing.

The boundary between the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon is defined by the centre line of the Grand Union Canal. The canal is also adjacent to the western boundary of the main site.

The site extends across the Grand Union Canal, and into land within the London Borough of Hillingdon in three locations:

(i) An armature of the site extends to the north-west, across the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook into Minet Country Park (extending to join to Beaconsfield Road and Springfield Road); (ii) The site also extends to the west across the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook into Minet Country Park; (iii) The site also extends to the southwest, linking to Pump Lane and the A312 Hayes Bypass road and to include an area to be used as a flood water storage area. Parts of the site where the bridges are proposed are in locations with a high flood risk of 2 to 3. The proposal site is in an Air Quality Management Area and an area of land contamination.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Figure 1. Application Site

3.1.2 The Locality

The land between the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook is owned by British Waterways. This land was formally used as a landfill tip and is known to be subject to contamination. Minet Country Park is owned by the Council and is maintained as a public country park.

The area north of the rail line, and bounded by the A312 to the west and the Grand Union Canal to the east is currently part of Minet Country Park, and is an area of semi-wilderness.

Figure 2. Looking from the southwest to the southeast (from the A312 Hayes BY Pass, across Minet Country Park towards the site).

Beyond the railway corridor to the south of the main site, is an area of industrial development based around Brent Road. A further area of industrial development is bound by Featherstone Road and the Green. The railway corridor acts as a physical barrier between the site developments to the south.

The Yeading Football Club grounds are located beyond the northwest corner of the site.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Figure 3. Looking from northwest to southeast (from Beaconsfield Road/Yeading FC the site).

The area to the north of the site (London Borough of Ealing) is characterised by terrace housing provided on straight, north-south roads linking between Beaconsfield Road and Uxbridge Road/The Broadway.

To the east of the site is the Southall Town Centre, which extends from The Broadway in the north, to Norwood Road in the south (London Borough of Ealing).

Southall Railway Station, which is located to the east of the site, is identified for redevelopment as a Crossrail Station.

The site is in close proximity to a network of Main Distributor Roads, namely Norwood Road, Merrick Road, South Road, Uxbridge Road and Lady Margaret Road. To the west of the site is the A312 and to the south of the site is the M4.

3.2 Form of Application

The application straddles two local authority boundaries and in accordance with Circular 04/2008 (Planning Related Fees), the Applicant submitted identical applications to both Ealing and Hillingdon Councils.

Any resolution that the Council makes to grant or refuse planning permission for this application will be required to be referred to the Greater London Authority (GLA). Under the Mayor of London Act, the Mayor has the power to direct approval or refusal of such referred applications. The GLA’s broadly supportive position on the application is set out in their Stage 1 Update consultation response.

A resolution to grant planning permission would also be required to be referred to the Government Office for London, which represents the Secretary of State. The Government Office for London (GOL) could direct that the application is ‘called in’ to be heard at a public inquiry. GOL has not provided any indication of any position in support or opposition to the application.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3.3 Proposed Scheme

3.3.1 Onsite Proposals

The application seeks outline planning permission for the remediation of the existing contamination and comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a mix of commercial, community and residential uses along with areas of public realm and public open space and an internal network of roads within the site.

The application envisages a phased development, and reserves the matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for later determination. At this time, planning approval is sought for:

(i) The accesses to the site, including three access ways proposed from the west across land within the London Borough of Hillingdon; (ii) The demolition of the specified properties on Beaconsfield Road, The Crescent, and Randolph Road (all within the London Borough of Ealing), (iii) Redevelopment of the site to provide the specified quantum of development for each proposed use, (iv) The internal road layout as specified in the parameter plan “Road Layout”, (v) The general layout of the site as illustrated in the master plan, and (vi) The upper and lower scale limits for buildings, positioned in accordance with the illustrative master plan.

While the application is submitted in outline form, the applicant has submitted a Development Specification document and a series of parameter plans, which provide further definition of the application proposals and are intended to provide a structure of elements and requirements that an approval could be conditioned against. In particular, the Development Specification (which provides specification of minimum and maximum areas to be provided) and the parameter plans specify the proposed upper and lower building scale limits, internal road layout and areas of private and public realm.

The upper development limits for each use proposed by the application are as follows:

(i) 320,000sqm of residential floorspace (3400 – 3750 Residential units); (ii) 20,050sqm of retail floorspace (14,200sqm non food, 5,850sqm food); (iii) 1,750sqm A3-A5 floorspace (eating and drinking); (iv) 9,650sqm hotel floorspace; (v) 3,000sqm conference and banqueting suite floorspace; (vi) 4,700sqm leisure floorspace (to be provided as a cinema); (vii) 2,550sqm of community use health care facility floorspace (a health centre with capacity for 8 General Practitioners); (viii) 3,450 of community use education facility floorspace (a 2 form entry junior school is proposed); (ix) 3,500sqm office/studio unit floorspace; (x) 390sqm sports pavilion floorspace (proposed to be provided in association with the main area of open space within the site); (xi) 600sqm energy centre floorspace (to accommodate the required plant to provide 20% of the site’s energy from renewable sources); (xii) 24,450sqm multi storey public car park.

The majority of the application site is located within the London Borough of Ealing. Critically, three of the proposed access ways from the west into the site as well as flood water storage areas are located within London Borough of Hillingdon. These three access-ways and the flood water storage area are described below:

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (i) To the Northwest corner of the site, it is proposed to construct a foot/cycle bridge across the Canal providing northern pedestrian and cycle access to/from the site to Minet country Park and Beaconsfield Road (London Borough of Hillingdon). (ii) The proposed Minet Country Park foot/cycle bridge would provide pedestrian and cycle access to the Minet Country Park, bridging over the Canal and Yeading Brook. (iii) To the southwest of the main site is the proposed Pump Lane link Road for vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access (iv) Alterations to and expansion of the existing drainage and flood relief area adjacent to Pump Lane is also proposed.

To enable the accesses to the northern and eastern sides of the site (located within the London Borough of Ealing), the application proposes the demolition of several residential properties in Beaconsfield Road, The Crescent and Randolph Road (all within the London Borough of Ealing).

The master plan submitted with the application provides detail of the proposed development layout and overall development strategy. A central ‘spine’ road would run diagonally through the middle of the site, connecting the eastern and western accesses. A network of secondary and tertiary roads would extend northward and southward from this spine road, providing access to the remainder of the site. An open ‘town square’ would be provided to the north of the retained gasholder. Town centre commercial and community uses would be accessed from this public square, with these uses generally contained to the eastern half of the site. Additional café, restaurant and bar uses would be provided in a contained area opening onto the Grand Union Canal. A large open space would be provided west of the retained gasholder, with a wetland area extending further westward from this park. Higher density housing would be provided at the eastern end of the site and lower density housing at the western end, reflecting the relative distance to the proposed commercial uses on the site and the main transport link of Southall Rail Station.

Remediation of contaminants on the site would be necessary prior to redevelopment. This remediation would be phased across the site, with development following remediation.

The program of phased construction on the site is indicated as taking place over 15 years, and it is proposed that the completed development would be administered and maintained by a management company.

3.3.2 Off-Site Highways Work

Off site works are proposed as an integral part of the application scheme to provide additional capacity at the following junctions:

(i) Bulls Bridge Junction (A312/ North Hyde Road/ Hayes Road). Off site highways include changing the circular roundabout by elongating the junction and increasing the lanes within the junction to create additional capacity. This junction is located with the London Borough of Hounslow and TFL are the highway authority. (ii) Pump Lane / Bilton Way. Works are proposed to the A 312 / Pump Lane junction (including installation of signals). (iii) M4 Junction 3. Highways works include additional lanes to the roundabout and on the approaches to the roundabout.

3.4 Relevant Planning History

54814/APP/2005/1773 Land To East Of Pump Lane And West Of Southall Gas Works Hayes

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS PROPOSED NEW LINK ROAD BETWEEN PUMP LANE ON THE HAYES BY-PASS (A312) AND THE FORMER SOUTHALL GAS WORKS WITH ASSOCIATED EMBANKMENT AND CULVERTS OVER THE FLOOD RELIEF CHANNEL AND BRIDGES OVER THE YEADING BROOK AND GRAND UNION CANAL.

Decision 29-11-2005 Refused Appeal: 07-12-2006 Withdrawn

54814/APP/2005/1775 Land To The South East Of Beaconsfield Road Hayes And To The West

PROPOSED NEW LINK ROAD BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD ROAD/BEACONSFIELD ROAD AND THE FORMER SOUTHALL GAS WORKS WITH ASSOCIATED EMBANKMENT AND BRIDGES OVER THE YEADING BROOK AND GRAND UNION CANAL.

Decision 06-02-2006 Refused Appeal: 07-12-2006 Withdrawn

54814/APP/2005/1781 Land Between Minet Country Park Hayes And Former Southall Gas Work

PROPOSED NEW FOOTBRIDGE OVER THE YEADING BROOK AND THE GRAND UNION CANAL TO LINK THE MINET COUNTRY PARK WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE FORMER SOUTHALL GAS WORKS.

Decision 29-11-2005 Refused Appeal: 07-12-2006 Withdrawn

54814/APP/2005/2095 Land To East Of Pump Lane Slip Road Of The Hayes By Pass Hayes

CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPENSATORY FLOOD STORAGE LAGOON.

Decision 29-11-2005 Refused Appeal: 07-12-2006 Withdrawn

3.4.1 Comments on Relevant Planning History

The site has a long established use as a gas works. More recently, parts of the site have been used for car parking.

In 2005, an application was submitted to the London Borough of Ealing seeking the 'Demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment of the site for mixed uses comprising residential, employment, retail, leisure, community uses, new roads and points of access, and landscaping (London Borough of Ealing Ref: P/2005/2398).

At the same time three planning applications were submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon seeking permission to create access ways from west of the Grand Union Canal into the Gas Works Site. Works proposed included footbridges, roadways and floodwater storage facilities (Refs: 54814/APP/2005/1773, 54814/APP/2005/1775, 54814/APP/2005/1781 and 54814/APP/2005/2095).

The applications submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon were refused due concerns relating to:

(i) High levels of traffic generation adversely impacting upon the highways net work;

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (ii) Lack of remediation of contaminated land; (iii) Harm to the Green Belt; (iv) Loss of and damage to wild life habitat; (v) Flooding; and (vi) Loss of sports playing fields.

The Applicant appealed against the decisions. The appeals were subsequently withdrawn in order for a fresh approach to the Masterplan to progress. The application submitted to the London Borough of Ealing was also withdrawn (November 2006).

The planning application submitted to the London Borough of Ealing as part of the current scheme was considered by that Council on 4 November 2009 where it was resolved to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

"The proposal, by reason of traffic generation from the mixed uses on site, would add to local road congestion, harming traffic movement on South Road and Beaconsfield Road. This is contrary to policies 9.1 and 9.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and policy 3C.1 of the London Plan."

At the time of writing this report the application considered by the London borough of Ealing had not been referred to the Mayor of London for determination.

4. PLANNING POLICIES AND STANDARDS

The following Policies and standards are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.4 To safeguard a network of Green Chains from built development to provide a visual and physical break in the built-up area and opportunities for recreation and corridors for wildlife. Pt1.6 To safeguard the nature conservation value of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, designated Local Nature Reserves or other Nature Reserves, or sites proposed by English Nature or the Local Authority for such designations. Pt1.7 To promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.12 To avoid any unacceptable risk of flooding to new development in areas already liable to flood, or increased severity of flooding elsewhere. Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards. Pt1.17 To seek to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings are provided in the form of affordable housing. Pt1.18 To maintain, enhance and promote town centres as the principal areas for shopping, employment and community and cultural activities in the Borough. Pt1.19 To maintain a hierarchy of shopping centres which maximises accessibility to shops and to encourage retail development in existing centres or local parades which is appropriate to their scale and function and not likely to harm the viability and vitality of town or local centres.

Part 2 Policies:

Open Land and Countryside OL1 Green Belt - acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new development OL2 Green Belt -landscaping improvements OL5 Green Belt – development adjacent or conspicuous from the Green Belt

Ecology and Nature Conservation 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 EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats

Built Environment BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety BE31 Facilities for the recreational use of the canal BE32 Development proposals adjacent to or affecting the Grand Union Canal BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

Other Environmental Considerations OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE7 Development in areas likely to flooding - requirement for flood protection measures

Housing H4 Mix of housing units

Recreation, Leisure and Community Facilities R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Accessibility and Movement 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 AM4 Safeguard land for new road link between Hayes by-pass and former Southall gasworks AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments 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 AM10 Incorporation in new developments of additions to the proposed cycle network AM12 Priority to Bus Lanes AM13 Increasing the ease of movement for frail and elderly people and people with disabilities in development schemes through (where appropriate):- (v) Dial-a-ride and mobility bus services (vi) Shopmobility schemes (vii) Convenient parking spaces (viii) Design of road, footway, parking and pedestrian and street furniture schemes AM18 Developments adjoining the Grand Union Canal – securing facilities for canal borne freight

Also considered relevant are: Council’s SPD – Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement Council’s SPD – Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement – Residential Layouts Council’s SPG - Planning Obligations Council’s SPG - Community Safety by Design Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) Planning Policy Statement (Planning and Climate Change) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) Planning Policy Statement 6 (Planning for Town Centres) Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk) The London Plan (February 2008)

5. ADVERTISEMENT AND SITE NOTICE

Advertisement Expiry Date: 29 April 2009

Site Notice Expiry Date 29 April 2009

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 6. CONSULTATIONS

6.1 External Consultees

6.1.1 Resident Submissions

5,328 surrounding occupiers were notified. Site notices were erected in the surrounding area. A public notice was placed in a local paper on 8 April 2009, and the application was published on the Council's web site. A public viewing planning file was held at the Planning and Community Services reception in the Civic Centre. Nine letters of objection were received from residents raising the following concerns:

(i) The development will place considerable strain of social and community infrastructure (e.g. health and educational facilities); (ii) The application will generate significant amounts of traffic, which will cause unacceptable congestion; (iii) Proposed buildings are too high and there is not enough green space proposed; (iv) The scheme will result in significant additional usage of Minet Country Park. Capacity enhancements to the Park will be necessary and are not proposed; (v) There would be a loss of wildlife habitat in Minet Country Park and other negative impacts on the ecological values of the park; (vi) The applicant has stated that the scheme is not financially viable if made to meet planning obligations, however the lack of supporting financial information makes it impossible to confirm this; (vii) The energy strategy is inadequate; (viii) The scheme will worsen air quality; (ix) The proposals do not comply with disabled access requirements; (x) The scheme may result in harmful impact to existing retail areas; (xi) Construction impacts may cause damage to existing homes and the historic water tower on the site; (xii) Some of the buildings proposed to be demolished to create access-ways into the site from the north are worthy of retention; (xiii) Consultation was not carried out correctly and notification letters were in English, which is inappropriate because many persons in the area of the site do not speak English; (xiv) The application was accompanied by so much information it was not possible to adequately consider it all within the consultation time frame; (xv) The site may be bound by a covenant which may prevent the development, additionally, the applicant may not own the land; (xvi) The determination of the scheme should not occur until the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Development Framework has been finalised; (xvii) The Developer does not have the skill set necessary to undertake the development;

6.1.2 Submissions from Organisations

Hayes Town Partnership

Raised the following concerns: (i) The scheme will result in a significant increase in traffic generation; (ii) Retail proposed in the scheme will compete with and impact upon existing retailers in the area. (iii) Additional persons living in the scheme would place additional pressure of infrastructure (including community/social infrastructure such as schools and health care facilities);

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (iv) London Borough of Hillingdon residents should be able to access affordable housing proposed in the scheme; (v) The proposal would involve loss of wildlife habitat in Minet Country Park, and would result in adverse impacts on the ecology valuable of the area; (vi) Given the number of people who would be living in the housing proposed on site and the proposed new access-ways into Minet Country Park, the park would be more heavily used. Capacity enhancements will be needed in the park in order to cope with additional usage; (vii) The cycle circuit would also be more heavily used and contributions should be sought to cover the cost of capacity enhancements needed at the cycle circuit in order to cope with additional usage.

Hillingdon Chamber of Commerce

Reiterate and support comments made by the Hayes Town Partnership.

Friends of Minet Country Park

Raised the following concerns: (i) Building heights will harm views to/from Minet Country Park and surrounding streets; (ii) The scale of the proposal is excessive; (iii) Land between the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook the Park is heavily contaminated, the greater number of persons using the park would increase the chance of someone gaining access to the contaminated land; (iv) There is a gas pipeline near the site which may affect the development and safety of future occupiers of proposed housing; (v) Onsite energy generation proposals are considered problematic; (vi) Additional persons living in the scheme would place additional pressure of infrastructure (including community/social infrastructure such as schools and health care facilities); (vii) There is a lack of detail in relation to affordable housing and there is concern that it may not be managed or located appropriately; (viii) Retail proposed in the scheme will compete with and impact upon existing retailers in the area; (ix) The scheme will result in a significant increase in traffic generation and congestion, as well as pressure on parking in surrounding streets; (x) Given the number of people who would be living in the housing proposed on site and the proposed new access-ways into Minet Country Park, the park would be more heavily used. Capacity enhancements will be needed in the park in order to cope with additional usage; (xi) The proposal would involve loss of wildlife habitat in Minet Country Park, and would result in adverse impacts on the ecological values of the area; (xii) Studies undertaken by the applicant in relation to ecological impacts are inadequate; (xiii) Additional land should be included in the park to make up for land lost to the Pump Lane extension; (xiv) A floating class room and enhancements to wet land areas should be provided; (xv) The proposed development is inappropriate in its proposed form, scale, composition and extent on the gas works site, including the accesses from the western part of the site; (xvi) The group seeks further ecological assessment of the Park, and states concern about the loss of areas of ecological value, and the impact that additional users would have on these areas;

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Save Our Southall:

Raised the following concerns: (i) Sustainable transport strategy will not work, and the scheme will not be pedestrian friendly; (ii) The scheme will have a negative impact on existing retailers in the area; (iii) Transporting of contaminated material from the site may result in contaminants entering the environment; (iv) The canal has not been adequately incorporated into the proposals; (v) The scheme will result in additional traffic congestion and parking pressure; (vi) The proposed flatted accommodation is inconsistent with local needs.

Hillingdon Slipstreamers

Raised the following concerns: (i) The cycle circuit would also be more heavily used and contributions should be sought to cover the cost of capacity enhancements needed at the cycle circuit in order to cope with additional usage; (ii) Greater numbers of people using Minet Country Park and surrounding roads would increase the risk of people colliding with cyclists. Additional way finding signage will be required; (iii) The increase in population in the area may lead to elevated levels of antisocial behaviour and criminal activity. Security measures will be required in the general area and within Minet Country Park.

St Georges Church

Raised the following concerns: (i) The proposal would involve loss of wildlife habitat in Minet Country Park, and would result in adverse impacts on the ecological values of the area; (ii) Given the number of people who would be living in the housing proposed on site and the proposed new access-ways into Minet Country Park, the park would be more heavily used. Capacity enhancements will be needed in the park in order to cope with additional usage; (iii) Land between the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook the Park is heavily contaminated, the greater number of persons using the park would increase the chance of someone gaining access to the contaminated land.

Bovis Residents Association

Raised the following concerns: (i) The scheme will result in a significant increase in traffic generation and congestion; (ii) Additional persons living in the scheme would place additional pressure of infrastructure (including community/social infrastructure such as schools and health care facilities).

Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA):

Provided the following advice:

“The CBOA has an interest in promoting the use of canals for shipping goods, to relieve road congestion and reduce exhaust emissions. This is particularly relevant where movement of material is proposed for development that are adjacent or near to the canal.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS CBOA members operate businesses with barges carrying goods on the waterways and could assist in the transportation needs of removal of material during excavation and delivery of construction material and in the long term delivery of biomass for the biomass CHP unit. A canal wharf at Powerday (near Old Oak Common), which handles waste material and also supplies biomass, could enable transport of material between Powerday and the Southall site without using road transport. Construction material could be transported into the site from other wharves locally at Bulls Bridge or further afield, reducing local road traffic in Southall.”

The Inland Waterways Association:

Provided the following advice:

“No objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site. Noted that much of the development is remote from, and would not have a visual impact on, the Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal.

Generally, the proposals around the canal zone are welcomed, and particularly the provision of a plaza. With appropriate short term mooring, the facilities would be an asset for boaters and other canal users.

There is concern regarding the proximity of the high residential blocks to the canal and the potential for undesirable overshadowing or unfavourable wind patterns which could adversely affect navigation.

Further confirmation is required to ensure that the design of the bridges respects the navigational dimensions of the canal. It is noted that none of the bridges appear to impinge on waterspace of otherwise narrow the canal. Confirmation is required that the Minet Country Par footbridge and Pump Lane Link Road Bridge maintain 2.75m minimum head clearance above the waterline.

The development provides further potential for the provision of on-line off-side residential moorings against the west bank, with the proposed bridges providing access into the site. This suggestion has been put forward to British Waterways, who control the land.”

6.1.3 Statutory Consultees

Greater London Authority: Stage 1 Report and Stage 1 Update Report Summaries

Summary Stage 1 Report (09/12/2008)

“The principle of this residential led mixed use development on this large challenging brownfield site in an opportunity area is supported.

Retail: Given the complementary nature of the proposed development to the existing centre and the fact that the retail impact assessment has identified that there is a need for the development, the impact of the development would be acceptable, the scale of development is appropriate and there is no suitable, viable alternative town centre site it can be concluded that the retail element of the application complies with the London Plan.

Green Belt: The Pump Lane link road is safeguarded in Hillingdon’s UDP and is essential to unlock the potential of this significant site for provision of much needed housing. The pedestrian bridges do not constitute inappropriate development and increase access to the green belt. The application complies with the London Plan in this regard.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Biodiversity: Given that the application increases access to the Minet Country Park from an area that is currently deficient in accessible wildlife sites and these accesses minimise impact through good design the proposal complies with the London Plan in this regard. Consideration should be given to the provision of a contribution towards the maintenance of Minet Country Park and all recommendations for ecological mitigation and enhancements contained in the Environmental Statement should be made fully enforceable as conditions.

Blue Ribbon Network: the application broadly complies with London Plan policy in this regard however, the flood risk assessment, the impact of the bridges on the blue ribbon network and the adequacy of the flood storage areas have yet to be assessed.

Housing and affordable housing: the affordable housing mix proposed broadly complies with the London Plan however an affordable housing toolkit has yet to be submitted and as such it is not possible to assess whether the application is compliant with the London Plan with regard to affordable housing and housing mix. Currently wheelchair accessible units are only provided in the affordable sector and as such the application does not comply with the London Plan.

Children’s play space: The development provides a large amount of dedicated playspace however, given that the dwelling mix has not been fixed it is not possible to calculate the child yield in order to assess if the development complies with the London Plan target of 10 sq.m. per child.

Office, leisure, hotel and community uses: the land uses are broadly compliant with the London Plan. The hotel use is welcomed however the provision of 10% of accessible hotel rooms should be considered to ensure compliance with the London Plan. Urban design: Overall this is one of the most humane and well thought through masterplans for a large site that has been referred to the GLA and as such the application complies with the London Plan in design terms.

Climate change mitigation: the applicant has proposed two alternative energy strategies- one that relies on CHP only and one that relies on gas pressure reduction and bio-fuel CHP. Whilst the second option is innovative the approach that fits best within the London Plan hierarchy is the CHP only option. However, significant further information is needed on both options before it can be concluded if either is compliant with London Plan policy.

Climate change adaptation: The target for 50% of all roofs to be green or brown is welcomed. The applicant should commit to the maximum water use target for residential development. The surface water run-off arrangements have yet to be assessed.

Transport: TfL has no objection in principle to the proposed development however, significant further work is needed on a number of aspects before it can be concluded that the application complies with the London Plan in this regard.

On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan: • Office, leisure, hotel and community uses: 10% of all hotel rooms should be accessible. • Climate change mitigation: further information on proposed demand reduction measures should be provided; further modelling work should be submitted for both options, a communal heat network should be committed to, the sizing of the CHP should be reassessed, cooling needs should be assessed, further consideration should be given to the impact of the delivery of the biomass fuel and on the supply chain, the carbon intensity of the biofuel should be provided.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS • Climate change adaptation: The applicant should commit to the maximum water usage target of 105 litres of water per person per day for residential development. Further consideration should be given to including rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling across the site. • Transport: Detailed work needs to be undertaken on car parking, traffic modelling, cycle parking, bus priority and network improvements, potential Crossrail landownership conflicts and integration with Southall Station, freight and servicing, travel plan initiatives, and phasing and delivery.”

Summary of Stage 1 Update Report (07/10/2009)

“The scheme falls within both Ealing and Hillingdon Councils. The majority of the scheme lies within the boundary of Ealing Council, with three points of access falling within Hillingdon’s boundary.

Ealing Council is due to report to committee in November. It is continuing its discussions with the GLA and the applicant regarding the acceptability of the affordable housing proposal and is yet to form a recommendation.

Hillingdon Council has provided a response to Ealing Council on the potential impacts of the Ealing part of the development on Hillingdon, but is yet to report to the planning application to committee.

In its response to Ealing Council it raises a strong objection to the scheme. In summary, Hillingdon Council considers the scheme would: • Cause harm to the highways network; • Result in the loss of ecologically significant wildlife habitat; and • Result in future residents of the scheme intensively using land and facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon (land and facilities which do not have the spare capacity necessary to cope with additional loading which would be resultant from this scheme); • Cause harm to the setting of the Green Belt and Grand Union Canal.

In addition the Council considers the supporting information fails to demonstrate there would not be any potential adverse harm on existing centres and their shopping areas. A further concern is raised in relation to monitoring and management of contaminated material during remediation works where these pass through Hillingdon.

Transport for London is considering the Council’s objection as part of its on-going discussion with the applicant. The biodiversity impacts were considered in report PDU/2310/01 which noted that the focus of biodiversity impact would be where the three bridges land, but provided the ecological mitigation and enhancement recommendations contained in the Environmental Statement are fully enforceable as conditions, and that a financial contribution is made towards Minet Country Park to address increased footfall, that the scheme would be consistent with strategic biodiversity policies.

Impact on Green Belt was also considered in the aforementioned report, which focused on whether the bridges were inappropriate development that would cause harm to the Green Belt. The Council’s main objection is the proximity of the buildings along the canal and their impact. GLA officers have further considered the potential impact of the scheme on Hayes Town Centre, and are satisfied that from a strategic point of view, although there will be some likely trade draw, this is not considered to harm the viability of the town centre and that there should also be some benefit from the development for the town centre, although GLA officers are happy to continue discussions given queries about the modelling work, and the applicant should ensure it responds to the Council’s concerns.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The application complies with some of the London Plan policies but not with others, for the following reasons: • Housing: The scheme does not provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

The applicant has sought to demonstrate that in order to encourage the development of this site, a maximum provision of 20% of floorspace /units can be for affordable housing, of which 60% will be for social rent and 40% intermediate.

The applicant’s approach has been to make a series of assumptions about costs, values and economic growth over the lifetime of the development, using a baseline at March 2008 to negate the distortion created by recent unprecedented economic conditions. Using this approach it has run a financial model to estimate what it considers to be the maximum possible contribution towards affordable housing.

The alternative approach put forward by GLA and Ealing Council officers for discussion was to have a form of review as the development was built out, to allow viability to be considered for different phases and for the affordable housing contribution to more closely reflect likely costs and values.

The applicant considers that a review mechanism would result in the distribution of affordable housing at much later stages, as the up-front costs would demonstrate early provision not to be viable if considered on a phase by phase, or similar basis. It has also queried whether this would deliver the same amount of affordable housing.

The independent assessment raised a number of queries on the assumptions, the main conclusion it drew was that even with the best will in the world it is not possible to accurately predict costs and values over such a long time period with so many variables.

The independent assessment concludes that the development is highly sensitive to relatively small changes to design, in particular increases/decreases in the gross net floorspace and sales value per square foot. The thrust of the assessment’s conclusion is that even taking account proposed ranges, if the reality proves that the average is even a single percentage out or a few pounds per square foot out, then the finances of the scheme alter significantly.

In conclusion, as things currently stand, the applicant’s approach does not provide sufficient assurance that the scheme will deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of the individual circumstances of the scheme, in particular the early stage of design and the proposed development timeframe. • Climate change: The further information requested in terms of energy has been provided and demonstrates consistency with the energy hierarchy, subject to the agreement of suitable section 106 clauses to deliver the proposed strategy. • Design: Further information has been provided in respect of children’s play space and an appropriate solution has been found to make the eastern access as accessible as possible given the level change. • Transport: Further discussions are required with Transport for London to ensure that the delivery and implementation of suitable transport measures is secured.

On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Housing: The applicant should reconsider its provision of affordable housing, either in terms of an increased guaranteed percentage to prevent harm to strategic and local targets, whilst retaining an incentive to develop, or by capturing more accurately the financial performance of the scheme through full review of viability at appropriate stages to ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is delivered.

Transport: Continue discussions with Transport for London to ensure that the delivery and implementation of suitable transport measures is secured.”

London Borough of Ealing

Advice received from the London Borough of Ealing is set out below:

“The planning application submitted to the London Borough of Ealing as part of the current scheme was considered by that Council on 4 November 2009 where it was resolved to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The London Borough of Ealing has not yet referred the scheme to the Mayor of London for determination.”

London Borough of Hounslow

Advice received from the London Borough of Hounslow is set out below:

“Hounslow will not be objecting to the proposed scheme subject to further consideration of the matters outlined in the paragraphs below:

Highway implications and local parking arrangements The Council would wish to ensure that Section 106 contributions are agreed for public transport improvements that benefit north-south bus movements in the area and would wish to be a partner in any group formed to discuss these improvements.' In this regard it is understood that Transport for London are seeking a contribution of £6,000,000 towards improvements to public transport links and road improvements. If you wish to discuss this matter in greater detail please contact the Council’s Head of Traffic and Parking, Nick Woods on 020 8583 4870.

Implications for health facilities within the Borough of Hounslow Given the large number of residential units being created, there is potential for the scheme to place additional pressure on health facilities within the Borough. It is noted that the West London Heath Estates (WLHE) has been consulted regarding the proposed development. Given that the WLHE act for both Ealing and Hounslow Public Care Trust and will be seeking a financial contribution of £20,884,782 we are happy for the WLHE to represent the Borough’s interests in this matter.

Implications for education facilities within the Borough of Hounslow The proposed development has the potential to place additional pressure on education facilities within the Borough. The Council’s Children Services and Lifelong Learning department have been consulted and have advised that there is very little surplus capacity in either primary or secondary in any part of the borough. What spare capacity there is mainly in Key Stage 2 (Junior). There is high demand for places both at Reception and Year 7

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (entry points for primary and secondary). Additional classes in Reception have had to be added for the Sept 2008 intake and the Council is anticipating the same for September 2009. We are also currently consulting on permanent expansion to 8 primary schools across the Borough for September 2010. The Building Schools for the Future programme will also be consulting on adding 15.5 forms of entry over the next ten years to secondary schools and this includes plans to build a new school.

Whilst a new primary school would be constructed as part of the proposed scheme, there is still potential for future residents on the development to attend education facilities within the London Borough of Hounslow. The Council would seek a financial contribution towards the provision of additional educational facilities within the Borough.”

Health and Safety Executive

This is HSE’s current advice, which is based on the existing consultation distances and zones which apply to the major hazard site (Southall Gas Works), which in turn is based on the existing Hazardous Substances Consent for that site, and the existing major hazard pipelines, which the proposed development is within.

The “West Southall Masterplan; PADHI Report - October 2008”, produced for National Grid Property Limited by Advantica assumes that HSE’s consultation distances around the Gas Works site, and the Southall to Richmond pipeline, should change because some of the gasholders have been decommissioned and the pipeline is to be replaced. As a result, it also assumes that HSE’s advice will be that HSE does not advise against the proposed development.

However, before HSE can reassess the consultation distances around the Gas Works site, the Hazardous Substances Authority must notify HSE that the Hazardous Substances Consent for the site has been revoked or revised. HSE must also be notified that changes have been made to the Southall to Richmond pipeline before the consultation distances around it can be reassessed.

When HSE is notified of these changes, HSE will reassess the consultation distances which should be applied to the Southall Gas Works site and the Southall to Richmond pipeline.

A preliminary assessment, based on the information contained in the Advantica report, indicates that HSE would not advise against the granting of planning permission were we to be consulted again over the proposed development when the changes to the Hazardous Substances Consent and the pipeline have been notified.

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE):

Advice from CABE is generally supportive of the proposal, relevant content is set out below:

“We praise the project team on the thoroughness of their presentation and we applaud the overall ambition of this masterplan for the Southall gasworks site. The masterplan promises to radically improve permeability and connectivity with and between surrounding areas. Overall, we welcome the principles underpinning this masterplan on what is a difficult, but potentially fantastic, site. We offer broad support for the diagram, the disposition of the uses, and routes across the site. The design principles set by this planning application will play a critical role in defining a clear hierarchy of built form and spaces and in ensuring the deliverability of the masterplan overall. Ultimately, the determining authorities will need to be confident that the masterplan will act as a flexible framework which guards against the emergence of a homogeneous urban place that could potentially result from a repetition of the same building typology throughout the site.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Providing bridge access across the canal to the Minet Country Park seems to us an eminently sensible idea that seeks to make the most of existing green space. We would ask the design team to consider locating the northern-most pedestrian bridge at the end of the high street. If this is feasible, we think this would aid understanding of how the site connects to the Country Park, and reinforce the role of the high street as the primary east/west route through the site. Equally, we are concerned that the western vehicular entrance to the site does not reflect the significance of what for many residents and visitors will form the primary gateway to the site. In our view, the masterplan should make a more confident gesture in this location to respond to this.

We are confident that the design team can resolve the above issues to produce a masterplan worthy of the aspirations of both boroughs. The design principles established by this outline planning application will be crucial to its success. The local authorities should satisfy themselves that these are sufficiently robust to allow for flexibility in the build out of the masterplan in the coming years. It will require careful conditioning to ensure that future reserved matters applications abide by these principles so that the development reaches its full potential.”

Natural England

“We are of the opinion that this development has the potential to deliver significant benefits in relation to the natural environment. Proposed enhancement measures should be secured through conditions or a S106 agreement.

We support the proposal to provide access into Minet Country Park. This should help increase access to nature. However this application does not propose to improve/enhance the Country Park as part of the development. This development will provide 3,400 to 3,750 dwellings, and therefore it is expected that there will be a significant increase in the use of the park. In order to mitigate the potential effects on the park’s biodiversity, and to deliver significant biodiversity enhancements alongside the development (in line with PPS9), we recommend that the Council secures funding from the developer to improve the park as part of the development.”

Thames Water

Advised that conditions would be required on any consent to ensure: (i) A drainage strategy is in place before development commences; (ii) Surface water drainage is dealt with adequately; (iii) The development does not damage sewer lines; (iv) Petrol/oil interceptors are installed around car parking areas; (v) Fat traps installed on all catering establishments.

British Waterways London

Raise no objections to proposed development, subject to conditions and s106 requirements.

Planning obligation – Heads of Terms (i) Financial contribution towards a strategic master plan for the wider area: £20,000; (ii) Financial contribution towards delivery and implementation of a Waterspace Strategy: £10,000; (iii) Financial contribution towards remediation of land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal (Minet Tip): £4,000,000; (iv) Financial contribution to implement works to improve access along the canal edge

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS from Uxbridge Road to Bulls Bridge: £660,000.

Environment Agency (EA)

Following the receipt of satisfactory Flood Risk Assessments covering the West Southall Eastern Access A012564-E V2 September 2008 and West Southall Yeading Brook A012564 V4 August 2008 and appendix to the Surface Water FRA, the EA have removed an earlier objection and request that conditions to reduce flood risks are imposed on any planning permission granted.

Highways Agency (HA)

Raise no objection subject to imposition of conditions on any consent granted to ensure highways works are carried out as dwellings are occupied.

Cross London Rail Links Limited

Provided the following advice:

“The site of this planning application is identified within the limits of land subject to consultation under the Crossrail Safeguarding Direction. The implications of the Crossrail proposals for the application have been considered and the detailed design of the proposed development needs to take account of the construction of Crossrail.

Therefore, if the LPA is minded to grant planning permission for the development, CLRL are of the view that conditions should be applied requiring further detail of railway boundary treatment and detailed design and construction method statements.

Network Rail

Raised the following matters: (i) Fencing is required to prevent access to railway land; (ii) Drainage should not discharge onto railway land; (iii) Demolition method statements will be required; (iv) No excavations should occur near railway land; (v) Buildings should be set at least 2m from railway land; (vi) Siting of and design of building should take account of noise from the railway; (vii) All scaffolding and cranes should be such that it can not fall onto the railway.

English Heritage (Archaeology)

Provided the following advice:

“The geology of the site, brickearth overlying gravel, is particularly noted in the Southall area for being conducive to settlement particularly in the prehistoric periods. The Greater London Sites and Monuments Record shows that a number of flint handaxes and other tools, and also possibly teeth and bones, dating to c. 500,000 – 10,000BC have been recovered from within the gasworks site. There is speculation that these assemblages may represent ‘kill sites’ which would be of national importance. Archaeological remains from later periods within the site and the vicinity are described in detail in Section 15 of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application, but include the development of the site as a gasworks and the construction of the standing gasholders and associated structures.

As the development is likely to be phased over several years, it will be necessary to ensure that the submitted Written Scheme of Investigation is robust enough to cover subsequent

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS programming and applications. Each individual development phase will be required to submit an archaeological strategy, specific to each phase yet also demonstrating how the Written Scheme of Investigation attached to the Outline Consent will be applied, as part of each detailed planning application.

I do not consider that any further work need be undertaken prior to determination of this planning application but that the archaeological position should be reserved by attaching a condition to any consent granted under this application.”

Defence Estates Safeguarding – Northolt:

Provided the following advice:

“The site of the proposed development falls within the statutory height safeguarding zone of RAF Northolt. The MOD’s principle concern relates to development in the area which may cause obstruction to air traffic using RAF Northolt. The MOD has no objection to the proposed development, provided that the maximum permitted height does not exceed 94.5m above ground level.

Response: The maximum height of development, as defined on the submitted scale parameter plans, is 42m for building HS.15/typology 5.3.”

NATS NERL Safeguarding:

Provided the following advice:

“The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, there is no safeguarding objection to the proposal.”

BAA Airports

Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions on any consent requiring: (i) A Bird Hazard Management Plan; (ii) A landscape plan; (iii) Cranes to be limited in height so as not to endanger aircraft.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Raise no objection to the proposed development, subject to compliance with layout and specification standards that are based on Building Regulations.

6.2 Internal Consultees

Highways

These comments are based on the Transport Assessment dated October,2008 and the Addendum TA dated May,2009 and the modelling data for signalisation of the Pump Lane/Bilton Way junction (November 2009).

The transport assessment is based on the principle of ‘Nil Detriment’ i.e. with the development and the proposed highways mitigation measures, the highway network would be no worse off than it is at present.

Annual growth in traffic of 0.8% is assumed.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Bulls Bridge Junction (A312/ North Hyde Road/ Hayes Road) The application proposes to change the circular roundabout by elongating the junction and increasing the lanes within the junction to create additional capacity, as indicated on Drawing 52212/B/48 dated 09/03/2009. This junction is located with the London Borough of Hounslow and TFL are the highway authority.

A 312 - The degree of saturation for the AM peak for A 312 North is currently 108% and a queue length of 136 for the Observed Flows of (existing layout). The base flows for the year 2025, without the development (and it associated highways mitigation measures) will result in the degree of saturation of 276% and queue length of 916.

With the development and the proposed highways mitigation works in year 2025 the degree of saturation for the A312 North would reduce to 196% and the queue length to 823.

Similarly for North Hyde Road, the worst case in the PM peak, where the degree of saturation would decrease from 184% (year 2025, base scenario, no mitigation works) to 176% (year 2025, base + development with mitigation measures). The corresponding queue length reduces from 349 to 339. However, these queue values are comparatively better than the without development scenario due to the junction development scenario due to the junction improvements proposed as part of the application.

The A312 South PM peak is the worst case where the degree of saturation post development (with mitigation measures) would increase from 167% to 173%, with a corresponding queue length increasing from 732 to 764. The additional 6% increase in saturation levels with the resultant increase in queue lengths does not strictly demonstrate nil detriment.

The modelling for this junction has been approved by TFL and their traffic consultants, subject to detailed design and safety audits.

The safety audit raised some concerns and the designer’s response has been accepted by TfL, as the issues raised could be addressed at detailed design stage. A Condition is required to ensure that the detailed design is submitted to the LPA for approval.

Pump Lane / Bilton Way The proposed A 312 / Pump Lane junction would result in Bilton Way (currently serving an industrial estate) becoming a cul-de-sac. There were no proposals for a turning head at the proposed dead end with the A312. The revised proposal is to re open the Bilton Way northbound access to the A 312 and TfL have agreed to this subject to a safety audit.

The Bilton Way link is currently operating within capacity, but post development in year 2025, with the assumed 0.8% growth, this link would be operating over capacity with extensive queuing (78 passenger car units (pcu)). This would result in a queue from the Pump Lane / Bilton Way roundabout to the Hayes By Pass slip road.

The applicant has now agreed to remove the roundabout and signalise this junction and has demonstrated that the junction can operate within satisfactory saturation levels (worst case saturation of 79.3 %) and the mean max. queue reduced to 12 pcu.

The impact of the development on Pump Lane / Coldharbour Lane roundabout has now been assessed. The development flows on Coldharbour Lane during peak hours typically fall within the daily variations during weekdays . The Saturday peak hour development flows are of the order of 6.7% north and 7.3% south. However the combined Saturday observed plus

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS development flows are lower than the weekday pm peak flows. It is not therefore envisaged that the development traffic would have a material impact on the Hayes Town Centre.

The capacity on Pump Lane is restricted west of the industrial area and this is to be retained / enforced with the changes proposed to let buses through. Three bus routes are proposed through Pump Lane. Priority will be given to car traffic leaving Hayes over inbound traffic.

If the application is recommended for approval it is imperative that Ealing and Hillingdon sign up to a joint Travel Plan with the developer.

Pump Lane / A312 – New Signalised Junction This junction is shown to operate within capacity with the proposed development and mitigation measures.

M4 Junction 3 The highways works proposed as part of the development include additional lanes to the roundabout and on the approaches to the roundabout. These are shown on Drawing 52212/B/31 dated 18/08/2008.

Traffic modelling confirms that in 2025, with the development and proposed mitigation measures, there will be ‘Nil Detriment’ in relation to the A312 (North and South) and the M4 (West). With regard to the M4 (East), during the PM peak there will be an increase in the degree of saturation from 95% to 118%, with queue lengths increasing from 28 to 55.

The Highways Agency has accepted the modelling. This junction is also located in the London Borough of Hounslow.

Ossie Garvin Junction (A312 / A4020) The junction is expected to operate satisfactorily post development. No mitigation measures are proposed.

Conditions It has been proposed that the main construction access will be from the new western link to Pump Lane. A Condition is required to ensure that this route is not open to general traffic until the off-site highway works at Pump Lane / Western Access, A 312 Hayes By-pass/ Pump Lane, Bulls Bridge Junction ( A312 / North Hyde Road / Hayes Road ) and the M4 Junction 3 works have been fully completed and opened to traffic.

In addition to the above the LB Hillingdon fully supports the Highways Agency's request for four conditions as detailed in their letter to Ealing dated 26,June,2009 linking partial occupation of the development with the completion of the M4 J3 and Bulls Bridge off site highway works.

In conclusion the application fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development will not have an adverse impact on the highway network.

Policy

Main UDP Policy Issues Land-Use In establishing the principle for the scheme from the Hillingdon perspective there are 7 key policy issues: (i) Development in the Green Belt; (ii) The impact on the nature conservation area;

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (iii) Development in a high flood risk area. (iv) The suitability of the access road (v) The proposed range of uses; (vi) Open space provision (vii) The mix and density of housing; and (viii) Impact on Hillingdon’s social infrastructure

(i) Impact on the Green Belt Saved Policies OL1 and OL2 relate to development in the Green Belt. OL5 relates to development adjacent or conspicuous from the Green Belt. The proposed bridges and access routes are not identified as appropriate development in the Green Belt. In establishing the Very Special Circumstances, it is noted that the Pump Lane link road route is already safeguarded in the UDP. With regard to the two pedestrian/ cycle bridges these have been supported in the outline principles for the Southall Gas Works site by LB Ealing and the GLA and are considered key to the delivery of the proposal. In view that this scheme has the potential to deliver a significant level of housing of sub regional importance it would appear that sufficient very special circumstances have been demonstrated. However officers would need to be satisfied that the proposed access developments are of a designed and location which minimizes the harm to the open character of the Green Belt. Moreover the scale of use should be such that it does not harm the open character of the Green Belt.

With regard to the flood storage area, it would appear that this would not affect the open character of the Green Belt and would itself not harm the Green Belt, subject to the case and Landscape officer's views.

With regard to development adjacent to the Green Belt, Saved Policy OL5 resists development which affects the visual amenities of the Green Belt. It is noted that there is a significant quantum of housing and retail development/ cafes proposed adjacent to the Grand Union Canal. Officers would need to be satisfied that the heights, set backs and views are appropriate and don’t harm the open character.

(ii) Impact on Nature Conservation Policies EC1and EC3 seek to protect nature conservation areas. Whilst it is noted that the scheme would tackle Japanese Knotweed from the site and the bridges have been designed to minimize the impact on local ecology, officers will need to be satisfied that the scheme will not harm the environmental conditions of the neighbouring nature conservation areas. In particular and in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.17 water quality should not be adversely affected by the scheme through inappropriate runoff or activities which could harm nature conservation both in and adjacent to the waterways. A series of mitigation proposals, including an four metre wildlife corridor along the canal has been proposed along with other habitat improvements including along the Yeading Brook.

(iii) Development in a High Flood Risk Area Officers would need to be satisfied that the scheme would be safe in terms of the development, access to the development and further along the waterways. The flood risk assessment would appear to demonstrate that this is the case with the inclusion of a flood storage area.

(iv) The Suitability of the Access Road Policy AM4 effectively safeguards the Hayes by-pass link to the former Gas Works, Southall. Highway officers would need to be satisfied that the accompanying Transport Assessment adequately demonstrates that the scheme would not have a detrimental impact on the existing capacity or safety of the road network and other users in accordance with Saved Policies AM2 and AM3.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (v) Proposed Range of Uses

Retail The proposed development includes a significant quantum of retail floorspace (20,050 sq.m) including a 6,304 sq.m supermarket. PPS6 supports a town centre first policy. Whilst the proposed development is considered as West Southall, and is being proposed in the emerging Ealing Core Strategy as a town centre boundary extension, this is yet to be tested through an examination in public. Until this has been tested, the proposal remains a policy ambition and therefore whilst it can be a material consideration, it remains out of centre.

In October 2009, the Applicant undertook further studies of existing centres to better understand vacancy rates and to obtain an up to date understanding of the ‘health’ of existing centres. The retail assessment was also revisited in October 2009 to consider current market conditions.

The retail assessment has considered current conditions and estimates of impact are considered accurate. It is considered that there is a need for the proposed retail space, the impact of the development would be acceptable, the scale of development is appropriate and there is no suitable, viable alternative town centre site.

Officers have further considered the potential impact of the scheme on Hayes Town Centre, and are satisfied that while there will be some likely trade draw, this is not considered to harm the viability of the town centre and that there should also be some benefit from the development for the town centre.

Hotel and Conference Centre Hillingdon Saved Policy T4 supports Tourism development. Whilst PPS6 Town Centre promotes hotel location in town centres the site is close to Heathrow Airport which is a unique traveller destination. Provided site specific issues are addressed there is no policy objection to the hotel and conference centre component.

Cinema According to PPS6 such a high trip generation use should be located in a town centre where there is good public transport access. Whilst it is noted that a town centre extension is being proposed, there is no policy objection to the cinema provided it doesn’t undermine neighbouring town centres and that access issues are fully and appropriately addressed.

Housing The proposal identifies between 3,400 to 3,750 residential units.

Residential Density In terms of density, Policy 3A.3 seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use based on local circumstances. As a guide Table 3A.2 states that in suburban locations with a PTAL of 2/3, densities between 200-450 habitable rooms per hectare or 70-170 units per hectare (On the basis of 2.8 habitable rooms per hectare (Based on an average of 2.8 habitable rooms per hectare). The proposed density would appear appropriate.

Housing mix Policy H4 seeks a mix of residential units. It is noted that the applicant will seek to match the GLA and LBE's housing policy aspirations with regard to mix. This would appear appropriate subject to the final details.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Affordable Housing The London Plan seeks 50% affordable accommodation subject to an economic viability assessment.

The proposal is for 30% affordable housing with a 50%:50% rent to intermediate tenure mix. On this basis and bearing in mind that a viability assessment has been carried out which indicates that the development could bear greater than the initial 20% affordable offer but unlikely to achieve the London Plan policy of 50% affordable. No objection raised.

Open Space It would appear from the proposed density of the scheme that Minet country Park features highly in the application as a source of open space provision for future residents of West Southall. Provided the scheme meets much of its basic recreation needs according to GLA Playspace provision standards there would be no policy objection to this aspect of the proposal.

Social Infrastructure Provision The scheme includes a primary school. However it is not clear how the scheme would impact on the scale of use of other neighbouring social infrastructure components. As the site is located on the edge of Hillingdon, it is probable that LBH facilities would be used by new residents and visitors. Appropriate mitigation should be sought to ensure that Hillingdon facilities are adequate to cope with such a major development in accordance with London Plan Policy 3A.18.

Secondary Issues

Air Quality The proposal site is within an Air Quality Management Area where air pollution is already an issue. The applicant considers that the scheme would have a minor adverse effect on air pollution mainly attributable to the increased traffic generation and the operation of the energy centre. Officers from the Environmental Protection and Consumer Team would need to consider whether this is appropriate in terms of the assessment, the effect of the scheme and the integration of appropriate mitigation measures.

Renewable Energy The 2008 London Plan Policy 4A.7 requires that schemes should reduce Carbon emissions by 20% through the use of renewable technologies. A biomass or biodiesel CHP plant and turbo expander energy generation plant is proposed which has the potential for a 20% reduction of the carbon emissions. Whilst this is new technology the use of a single energy centre serving the site provides an effective viable solution to reducing carbon emissions which can be extended to other communities in the locality. However the site is located in an Air Quality Management Area and officers would need to be satisfied that the operation of the plant and the transport of the material would not further harm the area’s poor air quality.

Conclusion The proposed redevelopment represents one of the most significant issues in West London. Key issues from LBH’s point of view includes impact on the Green Belt, local ecology, traffic, air quality and flood risk. Appropriate mitigation and contributions would be required to address the impact on Hillingdon’s social infrastructure.

This is a heavily contaminated site and the proposals are to bioremediate and reuse much of the soil on site, whilst taking any heavily contaminated material that cannot be treated off site. From Hillingdon’s viewpoint the gasworks clean up is positive in that one of the main water receptors is the Yeading Brook in Hillingdon.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Environmental Protection Unit – Contamination

(i) The area at the Pump Lane Link Road on ‘Minet Island’ (land between brook and canal) has been excavated historically for gravels for the canal embankments, and these soils were replaced with domestic and construction wastes, dredgings and also gasworks waste. Hydrocarbon and heavy metal contamination exists at the surface and there is a greater contamination at depth (particularly gasworks waste). Remediation works will be required to clear the unsuitable soil for the road foundations. (ii) The proposed Minet Bridge would not discharge persons onto the highly contaminated land between the canal and Yeading brook. However this bridge will have a central footing in this contaminated area. The location of the bridge footing in the park itself is in an area where records show the existence of some contamination. While high contaminant levels in the area were not found in 2007 by White, Young and Green or by London Borough of Hillingdon in 1987, remediation works are likely to be necessary. (iii) The northern most bridge leading to Springfield Road traverses the top of the Council owned land in Minet Island. This is thought to be less contaminated. The only data is this Council’s 1987 analysis and an investigation in 2007 of the area west of the brook in the park itself. Some slight heavy metal and groundwater contamination was found in the park. The northern (Springfield Road) bridge is in an area with a lower risk of being contaminated. Again some remediation works may be required in the ‘Minet Island’ area for the central bridge footing (and potentially the park footing). (iv) In chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement there is a broad ‘Stages of Construction’ paragraph for each access way (i.e. the Pump Lane extension and the two pedestrian/cyclist bridges). It would be useful if site specific remediation strategies are submitted prior to the works to deal with the contaminated soil and water at the sites in the London Borough of Hillingdon. (v) A ‘Strategy for the Management of Earthworks Contamination’ will be necessary. This could be included in the remediation strategy in compliance with the standard contaminated land condition. We would then be more aware of how the contaminated soil will be handled given the proximity of Minet Park. Following the completion of works the developer will need to submit a validation report for each access or a combined report dealing with all three access ways. (vi) Of concern to the EPU is the potential for users of the access ways to access contaminated land. This may make the contaminated area a Part IIA site if there is ‘the significant possibility of significant harm’. This would have serious implications for British Waterways (BW) as the toxic gasworks waste is on the surface of the BW land. Therefore our opinion is that the developer should be required to provide assurance that remediation measures or other mitigation measures (such as fencing and signage) can be put in place to prevent any access to the contaminated area. Reference is made to policy OE11 in the Saved Policies UDP, which requires ameliorative measures to be used where the proposals ‘involve an increase in the use by the public of contaminated land which is to remain untreated’. (vii) In determining the application submitted to the London Borough of Hillingdon, if minded to approve the application, this Council should impose a condition requiring the developer to provide information confirming how access to the contaminated land from the new routes will be prevented. (viii) If minded to approve the scheme, a condition should be imposed on any permission granted requiring the Applicant to prepare a management plan setting out how traffic leaving site (including vehicles transporting contaminated waste) is to be managed to prevent any contaminants from entering the environment. (ix) A condition is also recommended to ensure that adequate monitoring of dust, vapours and odours is undertaken during the remediation works.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Environmental Protection Unit – Air Quality

Increased traffic generation arising from the proposal in addition to the potential use of biomass or biodiesel as a fuel source within the proposed energy strategy have implications for the worsening of local air quality.

There is guidance available from Environmental Protection UK regarding the use of biomass and it is suggested that the London Borough of Ealing’s attention should be drawn to this as well as the wider sustainability implications of the origins of the fuel to be used.

The direct relationship between traffic generation and air quality impacts means that any new or revised traffic management proposals must be accompanied by a new or revised air quality assessment.

A planning obligation is sought to cover the cost of additional air quality monitoring made necessary by the development.

Trees & Landscape

Minet Country Park is situated within the designated Green Belt with much of its eastern boundary designated a Nature Conservation Area of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 importance.

There are no trees protected by Tree Protection Order (TPO) or Conservation Area designation within the London Borough of Hillingdon part of the site.

The Environmental Statement concludes that permanent beneficial townscape and visual effects would result from the scheme due to the creation of a high quality coherent townscape with improved connectivity between the site and its surroundings. It also notes that any tree loss will be offset in the long term by an extensive programme of tree planting across the site.

The canalside residential blocks will be set back from the canal by only 8.5m, with ‘fingers’ of development extending towards the canal. Significant concern is raised in relation to the potential for harm to be caused to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, particularly if buildings proposed adjacent to the canal were to be developed to the maximum potential height and minimum potential set back. A greater set back of buildings from the canal would increase the open appearance and the view from and into the Green Belt, and allow for structural landscaping to be incorporated into the proposal as a visual buffer between the development and the canal.

Section 4.1 of the submitted Landscape Strategy refers to the active landscape management and maintenance which is integral to the success of the landscape and public realm strategy. Provision for landscape maintenance and management should be secured through a legal agreement.

Comments from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) make reference to the potential for views across the canal (from Minet Country Park) to be compromised by the insensitive handling of parking vents to the residential blocks along the canal’s length. The residential courtyard gardens facing the canal, are in effect, roof gardens with parking beneath.

The loading capacity of the roof gardens should be designed to support ‘intensive green roofs’, capable of supporting structural landscaping (with trees) and recreational uses.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Springfield Road Bridge This bridge will cross the designated Green Corridors and the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook at the north side of the site, linking through to Springfield Road. It has been designed to be accessible for wheel chair users. The bridge has been aligned to minimise the loss of valuable vegetation. Its prefabrication (off site) should minimise the onsite construction time and disturbance of flora and fauna.

Minet Country Park Bridge This bridge will connect the master plan’s Central Park with open spaces of Minet Country Park. In addition to forming a crossing point the bridge will serve as a platform for observing wildlife.

Pump Lane Access Section 10.2 of the Design and Access Statement explains the detrimental impacts of the road, which forms a barrier for wildlife moving north or south. There will be an inevitable loss of habitat and shadows cast over the water course. A number of mitigation measures have been designed to reduce adverse impacts during and after construction.

Summary This is a comprehensive Masterplan proposal supported by tree surveys and the Environmental Statement. Most of the built development will be within the Borough of Ealing, although the scheme will have a visual impact when viewed from Hillingdon. The scheme is also dependent on the road bridge and two footbridge links onto Hillingdon’s land. More intensive use and enjoyment of the Minet Country Park is anticipated by future occupants of the gas works site and this should be factored into a management and maintenance provision.

Green Spaces

The Council wrote to the applicant in September 2009 raising a number of concerns, namely: • The timing, methodology and scope of the ecological surveys (including surveys of birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates) undertaken were unsatisfactory; • The proposed access ways to the site from the west (extension of Pump Lane and two pedestrian/cycle bridges) will have the effect of reducing and fragmenting wild life habitat. The proposed mitigation measures are considered inadequate; • If planning permission were to be granted the need for significant improvements to the facilities would be necessary. The Council has considered what works would be necessary to mitigate the impact of the proposal, including: a) Habitat creation & enhancement as compensation for wildlife habitat lost to the Pump Lane extension and altered and extended flood water holding area; b) Security measures; c) Access ways, park furniture and facilities; d) Maintenance and management; e) Removal of waste and invasive species. A planning obligation would be required to secure the finding of the above.

The applicant provided a response to the matters raised on 7 October 2009, noting that Natural England and the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the timing of surveys or the impact of the proposal on the ecological value of the area.

While the applicant’s response addressed several issues, a number remain unresolved, in particular:

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Bat surveys Although the applicant’s bat survey was carried out during the recommended survey time, this was done at the very end of this period and was completed in 2004. Bats are present at Minet and it is possible that there could be a roosting site. Further surveys carried out in 2007 were along the Grand Union Canal but not in Minet Country Park.

Bat surveys were insufficient and only the area directly affected by the road bridge was surveyed. Data from Minet Country Park, the adjacent river corridor and Yeading Valley should be collated as bats do not stay in one place to feed; and an acknowledgement of the bigger picture is necessary. Furthermore fragmentation of Minet Country Park and how this could affect foraging bats has not been fully acknowledged.

Bird Surveys No bird surveys were carried out specifically at Minet Country Park, rather the surveys were carried out within the borders of the gasworks development site and along the canal and Yeading Brook. The local ecological monitoring group (A Rocha) was not asked to supply records and bird ringing records were not mentioned in the EIA. There is some concern that records used in the EIA may be out of date, and a general concern that information about birds in the EIA is not an accurate representation of bird species found at Minet Country Park.

Reptile Surveys Reptiles were surveyed in the Autumn, a time of year when reptiles would be hibernating. Not surprisingly, no reptiles were found. Grass Snakes have been recorded at Minet therefore further survey work is required.

Water Vole Survey Water Vole surveys were undertaken in 2007. Within the last 18 months Water Vole presence has increased locally therefore it is possible that new populations may be present in the vicinity.

Invertebrate Surveys Invertebrates surveys were last carried out in 2007 (2 years ago), and were not site specific to Minet Country Park.

Mitigation Measures The Pump Lane extension will fragment wild life habitat. The applicant proposes to install one mammal tunnel under the road to mitigate the fragmentation. One mammal tunnel is insufficient and further mammal tunnels should be provided as an integral part of the road section passing through Minet Country Park to allow mammals to pass between the areas cut off by the road and also to compensate for access lost owing to the culverting of Yeading Brook.

The proposed location of the mammal tunnel is sub-optimal and does not allow for any movement across the main section of Minet Country Park.

No management details have been provided for areas that will be isolated by the road development and the associated shift of the flood relief channel. There are concerns regarding how this pond area can be managed as it would be inaccessible owing to the road. Ponds need to regular maintenance ensure that they remain ecologically viable. This pond is likely to be of very low water quality, and would contain high levels of pollutants if its water source is to be run-off from the road.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The applicant has maintained that the flood water holding area as well as enhancements of habitats along Yeading Brook will be adequate mitigation measures for habitat lost as a result of the development.

The ecological value of the existing habitat to be lost to the road and flood water holding area will not be compensated for through the construction of the flood water holding area.

Measures proposed to mitigate habitat loss and fragmentation are considered inadequate.

The EIA focuses on the main development site (i.e the gasworks site) and the proposed extension to Pump Lane. However it should cover a much wider area including the entirety of Minet Country Park; the Yeading Brook corridor and Grand Union Canal North to Uxbridge Road; British Waterways Land; council land between British Waterways land and Beaconsfield Road; the existing flood relief channel running West to Hayes By-pass and also TFL land.

The EIA does not address the impact that the raised banked road (which will be higher than existing ground levels) will have on species movement including feeding and breeding of resident and migratory species specific to Minet Country Park and surrounding areas.

Projects and Implementation Team

The application would result in a significant number of impacts within the London Borough of Hillingdon which would need to be mitigated through use of planning obligations.

Urban Design

The proposed courtyard developments are all of similar concept and scale, with only a limited number of typologies extensively repeated throughout the site. This is likely to result in a monotonous urban site with a lack of distinctiveness and poor legibility, both internally and when viewed from the neighbouring Minet Country Park.

The western part of the site, in particular the vehicular approach originating within the London Borough of Hillingdon, is not clearly expressed as one of the sites main entrances in terms of layout. The approach would benefit from further design work in order to emphasise this key gateway to the site.

Access Officer

A suitable access route to the building should be provided from the car parking area. Paths forming access routes should be a minimum of 1.8m clear wide, no steeper than 1:20 (unless designed as a suitable ramp), non-slip, well lit and clearly defined using texture and visual contrasts. Paths should include suitable dropped kerbs at key crossing points.

The approach to, and gradient onto, both pedestrian footbridges should be no steeper than 1:21 and should otherwise accord with the guidance of BS 8300:2009.

All facilities, including any children’s play area and equipment, within the proposed Minet Country Park should be fully accessible to disabled people.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Conditions should be imposed on any permission to ensure: • All dwellings accord with Lifetime Homes standards; • 10 percent of all units are designed to be suitable for wheel chairs users; and • 10 percent of all car parking spaces are designed to be suitable for wheel chairs users.

Additionally, the Council’s Access Officer should be consulted further as the details of Minet Country Park become available.

Leisure Services

With the opening of Botwell Leisure Centre (which includes swimming and sports hall provision) in February 2010 my opinion is that this facility (Botwell Leisure Centre) would adequately cope with the demand (including any additional demand placed on facilities by new residents living in the scheme).

With the introduction of the Hillingdon First card scheme into the Leisure Centres at this time, this would also ensure that local Hillingdon residents are not disadvantaged by Ealing residents using the facilities.

7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES

7.01 The Principle of the Development

7.01.1 Development in the Green Belt

The application site is designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan 1998 (the UDP) as Green Belt land. Development within such areas is subject to National Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 - Green Belts (PPG2). PPG 2 notes that new structures in the Green Belt are inappropriate development unless they are to be used for: • Agricultural or forestry purposes • Essential facilities for outdoor recreation • Limited extensions to existing dwellings • Limited infill in existing villages • Limited infill on major sites identified in adopted local plans

It is proposed to construct a road and two pedestrian/cycle bridges within the Green Belt and as such the proposal does not satisfy the above criteria (and is therefore inappropriate development). PPG 2 notes that there is a presumption against inappropriate development on Green Belt land.

Policy OL1 of the UDP reiterates PPG2, stating that within the Green Belt the Council will not grant permission for new structures other than for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, nature conservation, open air recreational facilities, or cemeteries. In this regard, the application represents a departure from Policy OL1.

PPG2 makes it clear that it is only in very special circumstances, (circumstances which clearly outweigh harm caused to Green Belt land by inappropriate development) that permission can be granted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Advice from the Council’s Policy Department notes that in establishing the Very Special Circumstances, it is noted that the Pump Lane link road route is already safeguarded in the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Additionally the Council’s Policy advisor has advised that the two pedestrian/ cycle bridges are considered key to the delivery of the proposal, and that in view that this scheme has the potential to deliver a significant level of housing of sub regional importance, sufficient very special circumstances have been demonstrated.

In this case, it is considered that there are very special circumstances which justify the development proposed in the Green Belt.

7.01.2 Proposed Range of Uses

Retail The proposed development includes a significant quantum of retail floorspace (20,050 sq.m) including a 6,304 sq.m supermarket. As such the proposal has the potential to compete with and impact upon existing shopping centres.

The application is supported by a retail impact assessment (RIA) which relates to the GVA West London Retail Needs Study (WLRNS). This was commissioned and endorsed by the London Borough of Hillingdon. The study looks at retail need up to 2016 and 2020. The applicant’s RIA updates the GVA assessment.

The RIA considers the impacts on Southall, Ealing, Greenford, Hanwell, Hayes, Fulham and Uxbridge. Information relating to the existing supply of retail space (including vacancy rates) dates from 2006. The Council required that the retail study be revisited to consider current market conditions and the influence of the proposed access arrangements (including bus services along the Pump Lane extension) on spending patterns.

In response, the Applicant undertook further studies of existing centres (in October 2009) to better understand vacancy rates and the general ‘health’ of existing centres.

Additionally, the applicant has provided a submission which makes it clear that the retail study has taken account how shopping habits would change given the proposed changes to access (the Pump Lane extension etc). It acknowledged that the proposed bus services would work in both directions (taking consumers from the site into Hayes and equally from Hayes into the site). As such it is reasonable to assume that some future residents (living in the scheme) may make purchases in Hayes.

The greatest predicted impact would be on the Hayes Town Centre which it is predicted would see a 4.3% reduction in trade through shift to the application proposal. The updated assessment of Hayes District Centre (October 2009), concludes that the centre performs well as a local shopping destination, offering a predominantly independent retail offer. An indicative indication of the strength of Hayes town centre is reflected in the low percentage of vacant shop units.

Council and GLA officers have further considered the potential impact of the scheme on Hayes Town Centre, and are satisfied that while there will be some likely trade draw; this is not considered sufficient to harm the viability of the town centre as a whole.

The retail assessment is now considered to reflect current conditions and estimates of impact are considered accurate. It is also considered that there is a need for the proposed retail space, and that the impact of the development would be acceptable, the scale of development is appropriate and there is no suitable, viable alternative town centre site.

Hotel and Conference Centre The Council’s Policy advisor has advised that Policy T4 supports Tourism development, and that the site is close to Heathrow Airport which is a unique traveller destination. Provided site

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS specific issues are addressed at the detailed design stage, there is not an in principle objection to the hotel and conference centre component.

Cinema According to PPS6 such a high trip generation use should be located in a town centre where there is good public transport access. A town centre extension is being proposed, and as such there is no in principle objection to the cinema. Traffic impacts are considered in Section 7.10 of this report.

Housing The proposal identifies between 3,400 to 3,750 residential units, and there is no objection raised in principle to this land use. Housing mix and tenure are considered in detail in sections 7.11 and 7.13 of this report.

This scheme has the potential to deliver a significant level of housing (a level of sub regional importance) on what is a vacant brown field site. No objection is raised to the principle of developing housing on the site.

7.02 Density of the Proposed Development

While it is recognised that residential density is not considered to be the sole determinant of development acceptability, it can be used as an indicator of the overall character of a proposal. Applicable guidance for residential development density is provided in Policy 3A.3 ‘Maximising the Potential of Sites’ and Table 3A.2 ‘Density Matrix’ of the London Plan.

The density guidance ranges specified in this table are related to the site location setting, the existing building form and massing, the indicative average dwelling size, and the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the site. Table 3A.2 states that in suburban locations with a PTAL of 2/3, densities between 200-450 habitable rooms per hectare or 70- 170 units per hectare.

It is proposed that density would vary across the site, areas to the east closer to public transport would have higher densities than development proposed on the western side of the site.

The main site area (excluding the wider site areas related to the access proposals) is approximately 33 hectares. The provision of 3,750 residential units on the site would result in an overall density across the site of 131 units per hectare, within the density range set out in the London Pan.

7.03 Impact on Archaeology

The application was referred to English Heritage who have advised that the site is one which would have been conducive to settlement in prehistoric periods. Indeed record shows that a number of flint handaxes and other tools, and also possibly teeth and bones, dating to c. 500,000 – 10,000BC have been recovered from within the gasworks site.

Relevant conditions should be imposed on any consent granted to ensure that the each individual development phase does not commence until an archaeological strategy, specific to each phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7.04 Airport Safeguarding

The application was referred to Defence Estates Safeguarding – Northolt, NATS NERL Safeguarding and BAA Airports. These organisations did not raise any objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure: • Buildings do not exceed 94.5m above ground level; • A Bird Hazard Management Plan; • A landscape plan; • Cranes to be limited in height so as not to endanger aircraft.

The maximum height of development, as defined on the submitted scale parameter plans, is 42m. Subject to the imposition of relevant conditions on any consent granted, no objection is raised to the scheme in terms of Airport Safeguarding.

7.05 Impact on the Green Belt, Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook

Saved Policy OL5 resists development which injures the visual amenities of the Green Belt. This policy is relevant given the considerable amount of housing and other development proposed adjacent to Green Belt land west of the site.

Policy BE32 states that when considering proposals for development adjacent to or having a visual effect on the grand union canal, the Council will among other things: • Ensure that buildings are of a design which complements the visual qualities of the canal in terms of scale, bulk, layout and materials; • Take the opportunity to enhance or create views through and from the development, from and towards the watercourse; and • Secure and where possible enhance the role of the canal and its immediate surrounds as a wildlife corridor

Policy BE34 states that when considering proposals for development adjacent to or having a visual effect on rivers the local planning authority will, where appropriate, seek to enhance views from and towards the watercourse.

The outline nature of this application means that details relating to building heights and footprints are specified in maximum and minimum ranges. The residential and mixed use buildings proposed adjacent to the canal could rise to between 4 (minimum) to 8 (maximum) stories in height, and the proposed layout, at its closest point, sets the new buildings back from the eastern edge of Grand Union Canal by 8.5m.

The footprints of the canalside residential blocks have been designed so ‘fingers’ of the development extend towards the canal. The residential courtyard gardens proposed between these ‘fingers’ are in effect, roof gardens over underground parking areas. Comments from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) make reference to the potential for views across the canal (from Minet Country Park) to be compromised by the insensitive handling of exhaust vents from underground parking areas associated with the residential blocks along the canal’s length.

The most significant changes to the landscape character and the greatest urbanisation impact will be towards the western side of the site. Concern is raised in relation to the potential for harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, particularly if buildings proposed adjacent to the canal and Green Belt land were to be developed to the maximum potential height and minimum potential set back.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Proposed buildings would extend along the western edge of the site (adjacent to the canal) from the proposed Pump Lane extension, north to Beaconsfield Road. The proposal would introduce buildings adjacent to the entire eastern edge of the Green Belt land.

While it is noted that only fingers of development would approach the canal and Green Belt land, these would be up to 8 storeys high. The limited set back of buildings from the canal would leave little room for structural landscaping which might have been able to be used to screen and softened the appearance of the proposal. The maximum potential height of buildings means that these will be highly visible and it is considered that this portion of the proposal by virtue of its scale, height and siting would dominate the landscape, and would injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook contrary to Policies OL5, BE32 and BE34 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

7.06 Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area

Policy BE13 notes that new development will not be permitted if the layout and appearance fail to harmonise with features of the area which the local planning authority considers it desirable to retain or enhance.

The open character of Minet Country Park along with the high quality views to and from it are features which the Council seeks to retain and enhance.

Advice from the Council’s Urban Design Officer and from CABE raises concern that because the proposed courtyard developments are all of similar concept and scale, with only a limited number of typologies, extensively repeated throughout the site, the scheme is likely to result in a monotonous urban site with a lack of distinctiveness and poor legibility, both internally and when viewed from the neighbouring Minet Country Park.

Given the scale and siting of buildings adjacent to the canal as well the lack of variety in built form, there is significant concern that the high quality views to and from Minet Country Park will be degraded, and that the scheme will adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. It is not considered that the scheme is sensitive to nor does it harmonise with Minet Country Park. The form of buildings, coupled with the proposed scale and siting would degrade the views to and from the park.

The northern site boundary is the only site boundary which adjoins residential properties. Development along the northern boundary would be largely made up of four storey terrace housing. This housing would provide a scale transition between the existing terrace housing to the north of the site (all of which is located in the London Borough of Ealing), and the larger scale flatted blocks within the proposed development.

To the south the site adjoins the railway and commercial and light industrial uses. Given the separation between the site and development further south of the rail line, it is not considered that the proposal would cause harm to the character or appearance of the area to the south of the site.

7.07 Impact on neighbours

Policy BE21 makes it clear that planning permission will not be granted for development which by reason of their siting, bulk and proximity, would result in a significant loss of residential amenity.

Policy BE24 seeks to ensure new buildings protect the privacy of the occupiers and their neighbours.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS As has been discussed, the northern site boundary is the only site boundary which adjoins residential properties. Window to window distances in excess of 21m would be retained between the existing and proposed terrace housing.

A solar shading assessment in line with BRE Report BR209 was undertaken to assess the impact of the development on the proposed principal public realm area within the site and adjacent sensitive areas. The study focused on Spring and Autumn Equinox, Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice, and was based on the maximum building heights of the parameter plans.

The study found that neighbouring residential properties to the north of the site would receive acceptable solar access throughout the day for spring, summer and autumn.

During the winter months, the scheme would result in solar shading impacts on the Grand Union Canal and Minet Country Park. However, the scale of this impact is not considered excessive, particularly as it is largely limited to the winter months.

7.08 Living Conditions for Future Occupiers

As an outline application, no detail has been provided of residential layouts within the proposed blocks and as such, the assessment of living conditions that would be provided by the development is restricted.

Given the orientation of development, the separation between blocks and the configuration of individual elements of the scheme, it is expected that the detailed design of the development should be able to provide adequate daylight/sunlight to all residential units.

The Master Plan layout has sought to manage the potential conflict between uses within the site through forming areas of distinct character. The western part of the site would be predominantly residential, reflecting the more suburban character of this part of the site, and would not be exposed to such potential sources of disturbance.

An acoustic fence would be constructed on the southern site boundary to attenuate noise from the elevated railway line. The noise assessment submitted with the application identifies the main part of the development site as falling within Noise Exposure Categories A and B, and it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating the proposed noise sensitive through the implementation of proposed noise attenuation measures.

The Master Plan layout provides at least 21m distance between residential facades. Subsequent consideration of any Reserved Matters applications would enable this 21m separation distance to be enforced.

As an outline application, a comprehensive assessment of open space provision is not able to be undertaken at this stage. However, it is apparent that doorstep play will be able to be provided within each building plot. Given the proximity of the development to Minet Country Park, it is considered that the scheme adequately provides for the amenity space needs of future occupiers.

It is considered that the Master Plan layout could provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7.09 Traffic Impact, Car/cycle Parking, Pedestrian Safety

7.09.1 Traffic Related Proposals

Access to the site from the west would be provided through an extension to Pump Lane. Works include connecting the new road to the A312/Hayes By Pass. Provision for pedestrians and cyclists would be included on all of the proposed vehicle accesses. Additional pedestrian/cycle only links are also proposed to the northern, southern and western boundaries.

At the eastern end of the site, access would be created through the demolition of existing properties on The Crescent.

A total of three vehicle access points would be provided along the northern boundary of the site, onto Beaconsfield Road. To the south, the existing Brent Road vehicle access would be closed to traffic and reformed as a pedestrian/cycle link into the site. An existing underpass from Dudley Road, under the railway tracks, into the site would be upgraded to improve accessibility and personal security for users.

On the western site boundary, two bridges are proposed that would provide pedestrian and cyclist access from the site, over the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook into the Minet Country Park.

The internal road layout is based on a central spine road that would run through the site, connecting the eastern and western accesses. A network of secondary and tertiary routes would extend from the central spine route.

7.09.2 Traffic Modelling

This Council wrote to the applicant in September 2009 highlighting a number of concerns in relation to traffic impacts. The applicant has amended the proposed highways mitigation measures in an attempt to overcome the Council’s concerns. The Council’s Highways Engineer has considered the proposed changes and in summary has made the following comments:

Bulls Bridge Junction (A312/ North Hyde Road/ Hayes Road) The application proposes to change the circular roundabout by elongating the junction and increasing the lanes within the junction to create additional capacity. This junction is located with the London Borough of Hounslow and TFL are the highway authority.

With the development and the proposed highways mitigation works in year 2025 the degree of saturation for the A312 North, A312 South, North Hyde Road would be acceptable.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS saturation levels with the resultant increase in queue lengths does not strictly demonstrate nil detriment.

Pump Lane / Bilton Way The revised proposal is to reopen the Bilton Way northbound access to the A 312 and TfL have agreed to this subject to a safety audit.

The applicant has now agreed to remove the roundabout and signalise this junction and has demonstrated that the junction can operate within satisfactory saturation levels.

It is not therefore envisaged that the development traffic would have a material impact on the Hayes Town Centre.

Pump Lane / A312 – New Signalised Junction This junction is shown to operate within capacity with the proposed development and mitigation measures.

M4 Junction 3 The highways works proposed as part of the development include additional lanes to the roundabout and on the approaches to the roundabout.

The Highways Agency have accepted the modelling. This junction is also located in the London Borough of Hounslow.

Ossie Garvin Junction (A312 / A4020) The junction is expected to operate satisfactorily post development. No mitigation measures are proposed.

Transport for London and the Highways Agency have confirmed acceptance of the proposed off-site highway works that affect their respective road networks.

The Council’s Highways Engineer has confirmed that whilst the applicant has undertaken substantive further highways mitigation work to address most of the Officer's concerns, the additional traffic levels on the A312 AM peak are not considered to be acceptable and not in line with the nil detriment. Therefore, objection is raised on Highways grounds.

7.09.3 Parking

Car parking for non residential uses would primarily be provided within a proposed multi storey car park (southern end of the town centre area). Additional car parking would be provided to the cinema, supermarket and hotel uses. A maximum of 950 non-residential car parking spaces are proposed.

Residential car parking would be provided at an average ratio of 0.7 spaces per residential unit (between 2,380 and 2,625 spaces dependant on the eventual residential mix). Fifty car

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS club spaces are proposed to be provided within the development, which would be available for commercial and residential occupiers of the site and surrounding area.

A minimum provision of 1 cycle parking space per residential unit would be provided, and up to 4000 cycle parking spaces would be provided for the commercial uses.

The Council’s Highways Engineer has advised that the level of car parking and cycle provision is considered acceptable.

7.10 Urban Design, Access and Security

7.10.1 Urban Design, Siting and Scale

As has been discussed in Section 7.01, 7.05, and 7.07, there is considerable concern that the excessive scale of buildings proposed on the western edge of the site, coupled with the lack of an adequate set back from the canal to allow for structural landscaping would degrade the high quality views to and from Minet Country Park.

Additionally, advice from the Council’s Urban Design Officer and from CABE raises concern that limited variation in building form would mean the scheme is likely to result in a monotonous urban. The form of buildings, coupled with the proposed scale and siting would degrade the views to and from the park.

7.10.2 Amenity Space

The Master Plan layout has sought to maximise the provision of amenity space directly related to residential units (provided as private gardens to houses or communal space within flatted building plots),

The layout has also been required to provide community open space, to meet the wider needs of future occupiers. As has been discussed in Section 7.08, given the outline nature of the scheme a comprehensive assessment of open space provision is not able to be undertaken at this stage.

It is likely that there would be an overall shortage of amenity space provided on site, however taking account of on site provision and the proximity to Minet Country Park, it is considered that the amenity space needs of future occupiers would be adequately provided for.

Significant capacity enhancements would be required in Minet Country Park to cope with additional usage. Clause B9 of Circular 05/05 states that:

“developers may reasonably be expected to pay for or contribute to the cost of all, or that part of, additional infrastructure provision which would not have been necessary but for their development.”

The detailed costs of required works have been estimated at £2,752,521. The applicant has advised that £1 million would be provided, and that this sum would be sufficient to cover the cost of ecological mitigation and improvements to existing facilities.

The contribution offered by the applicant is not sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the development, and as such the scheme is remains unacceptable.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7.11 Disabled Access

Documentation submitted in support of the application states that residences would be designed to comply with as many of the Lifetimes Homes standards as practicable and appropriate. A greater commitment to Lifetime Homes standards is expected.

Approximately 5 percent of car parking spaces would be designed for use by disabled persons. This level of provision is considered inadequate.

The application was referred to the Council’s Access Officer who advised that given the outline nature of the scheme, the details submitted were satisfactory subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure: • All dwellings accord with Lifetime Homes standards; • 10 percent of all units to be designed to be suitable for wheel chairs users; • 10 percent of all car parking spaces designed to be suitable for wheel chairs users.

Subject to the imposition of conditions on any consent granted to secure the above, no objection would be raised.

7.12 Housing Mix and Provision of Affordable Housing

7.12.1 Housing Mix

Policy H4 seeks to ensure that development proposals provide a mix of housing units of different sizes. Further guidance on housing mix is provided in the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing which provides strategic level guidance on the unit mix for new residential development, to meet the needs of London’s future population.

This unit mix is detailed in the table below, along with the proposed housing mix of the application.

GLA SPG Housing Unit Mix Application Proposal Overall Housing Mix One bedroom 32% 20% Two/three bedroom 38% 70% Four bedroom or larger 30% 10% Social Housing Mix One bedroom 19% 10% Two/three bedroom 39% 80% Four bedroom or larger 42% 10% Market Housing Mix One bedroom 25% 20% Two/three bedroom 75% 70% Four bedroom or larger 10% Intermediate Housing Mix One bedroom 66% 30% Two/three bedroom 60% Four bedroom or larger 34% 10%

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The application specifies a dwelling mix for the proposed affordable and private housing of the development based on a development scenario of a total of 3,475 units, which is set out in the table below.

Bedrooms Social rented Intermediate Private (%) Units (%) Units (%) Units 1 bed 10 52 30 156 20 487 2 bed 49 255 40 209 45 1,095 3 bed 31 162 20 104 25 608 4 bed + 10 52 10 52 10 243 Total 100% 521 units 100% 521 units 100% 2,433

The overall housing mix on the site, across affordable and private tenures would be:

Bedrooms Number of Units 1 bed 695 2 bed 1,559 3 bed 874 4 bed + 347

The applicant has advised that the proposed housing mix is based on an assessment of the local housing market which found that there is demonstrable demand for one and two bedroom units and a more local demand for larger family housing (4/5 bedrooms). It is considered that the mix of housing is appropriate.

7.12.2 Affordable Housing

London Plan policy 3A.9 states that affordable housing targets should be based on an assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply and should take account of the strategic target that 35 % of housing should be for social renting and 15% for intermediate provision (50% overall affordable housing provision target); and the promotion of mixed and balance communities.

Significant costs would be involved in enabling the site to be developed, to address issues such as the existing contamination of the site and the access constraints.

The financial appraisal submitted with the application provides an overview of the wider financial viability assessment of the scheme. The appraisal concludes that the scheme could viably provide a maximum of 20% of the units as affordable housing.

The District Valuation Office was jointly commissioned by the GLA and Ealing Council to undertake an independent assessment of the wider financial viability appraisal. In summary, the DVS advised the GLA and Ealing Council that the development could bear greater than the initial 20% affordable offer but unlikely to achieve the London Plan policy of 50% affordable.

The applicant agreed to increase the affordable housing provision to 30%. The 30% affordable housing provision would be split 50:50 between social rent and intermediate tenures. The GLA raises no objection to the proposed level of affordable housing.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7.13 Trees, Landscaping and Ecology

Minet Country Park is identified on the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies) Proposals Map as being a ‘Nature Conservation Sites of Metropolitan or Borough Grade l Importance’.

Policy EC1 makes it clear that permission will not be given to development which would be unacceptably detrimental to sites of metropolitan or Borough (Grade I) Importance For Nature Conservation. This policy requires that applicants wishing to develop in or near ‘Nature Conservation Sites of Metropolitan or Borough Grade l Importance’ submit an ecological assessment to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have unacceptable ecological effects.

Policy EC3 requires that proposals for development in the vicinity of sites of nature conservation importance to have regard to the potential environmental effects which may arise from the development.

The application was referred to the Council’s Green Spaces team who advised that information submitted in support of the application was considered inadequate to demonstrate that the scheme will not cause harm to the local ecology:

The timing, methodology and scope of the ecological surveys (including surveys of birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates) undertaken was inadequate. Circular 06/2005 requires that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by proposed development, be established before the planning permission is granted. The need to ensure ecological surveys are accurately carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances are not considered to exist.

Approximately 6.4Ha of land will be required to create the Pump Lane extension (including connection to/from the Hayes bypass) and flood water holding area.

While, the landings and footings proposed as part of the pedestrian/cyclist bridges would require less land, they too would impact upon local ecology, acting to fragment wildlife corridors. The EIA sets out measures proposed to off set the loss of habitat: • 4m wide buffer along much of the length of the eastern side of the canal; • A single mammal tunnel beneath the proposed Pump Lane extension; • Bat roosting boxes on bridge abutments; • Flood water holding area serving as a wet land habitat; • Consider enhancements to Yeading Brook.

The proposed 4m wide buffer would be adjacent to the tow path, proposed residential buildings, below ground car parking exhaust vents and retail frontages. It is not considered that the 4m strip provides wild life habitat comparable to that which would be lost. The Application was referred to the Council’s Green Spaces team who noted that a single mammal tunnel and bat roosting boxes would be inadequate to overcome fragmentation of habitat caused by the proposed Pump Lane extension and pedestrian/cycle bridges. The proposed flood water holding area will result in the loss of existing habitat, and it is not considered an adequate mitigation measure to offset the loss of habitat resultant from the development of the Pump Lane extension.

These proposed mitigation measures are considered inadequate.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS If planning permission were to be granted, significant improvements to the facilities in the park would be necessary. The Council has considered the works that would be necessary to mitigate the impact of the proposal, including: • Habitat creation & enhancement as compensation for wildlife habitat fragmented by bridges and lost to the Pump Lane extension and altered and extended flood water holding area; • Security measures; • Access ways, park furniture and facilities; • Maintenance and management; • Removal of waste and invasive species.

A great deal of work has been undertaken by the Council’s Green Spaces team to understand the cost of implementing the above measures. Detailed quotes have been obtained and the cost has been estimated at £2,752,521.

Detailed costs and an explanation of why works are necessary have been provided to the applicant. The Applicant has agreed in principle to provide a contribution of £1 million towards necessary capacity enhancements. It is not considered that £1 million is sufficient cover the costs of mitigating the harmful impacts of the development on the nature conservation area.

7.14 Renewable Energy/Sustainability

A central energy centre is proposed to be incorporated into the development. A site wide heat and power distribution network would be provided as part of the energy strategy. The provision of a decentralised system on the site would enable efficiency gains to be achieved over a conventional power network.

Two options for power generation are proposed: a conventional series of CHP units or a co- generation turbine that would be powered by captured waste heat from an existing industrial gas reduction process occurring on the site.

With regard to the CHP option, this would be combined with a biomass boiler (to provide renewable energy). The renewable energy contribution to the reduction in the CO2 emissions of is less than the 20 percent required by London Plan policy 4A.7. In this case, this shortfall is considered to be acceptable by the GLA given that the overall efficiency of the proposed strategy is considered to meet best practice guidance.

The second energy strategy option is based on power generation from a turbine associated with the operational function of the adjacent gasworks. An existing gas pipe line carries high pressure gas into the site which then goes through a pressure reduction process before entering the storage holder. The pressure reduction process results in dramatic cooling of the gas, which requires the application of heat to prevent systems failing due to the low temperature. Waste heat would be used to heat housing, this option is also considered acceptable by the GLA.

It is considered that both energy options would provide acceptable solutions for the development as such no objection is raised in terms of renewable energy. The applicant has undertaken to ensure that all residential development would meet Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The non-residential component of the scheme would meet with the

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) ‘excellent’ level.

7.15 Flooding Issues

The Yeading Brook and its floodplain, north of the main site are identified as being located within Flood Zones 3a and 3b (functional floodplain). The applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment, which was referred to the Environment Agency, who have a statutory powers on flood risk issues. The Environment Agency raised no objection to the scheme, subject to conditions. The proposals are therefore considered to be in compliance with policies OE7 and OE8 of the UDP.

7.16 Air Quality Issues

The London Borough of Hillingdon has been declared an Air Quality Management Area due to nitrogen dioxide (from traffic emissions). Increased traffic generation arising from the proposal in addition to the potential use of biomass or biodiesel as a fuel source within the proposed energy strategy have implications for the worsening of local air quality, and its use should be viewed with caution.

The majority of the air quality impacts have been identified as arising from the associated increases in traffic, as such measures to reduce vehicle uses have an elevated importance. A planning obligation is sought to cover the cost of additional air quality monitoring made necessary by the development.

7.17 Comments on Public Consultation

With regard to issues raised by residents, points (i) through (x) are dealt with in the main body of the report. Buildings to be demolished are not of historic importance and all are located within the London Borough of Ealing. With regard to item (xiii), it is considered the consultation process has been both extensive and thorough.

Other matters raised (e.g. concerns raised in relation to construction impacts) could be adequately dealt with by way of conditions imposed on any consent granted.

The key issues raised by the various external organisations who provided submission in relation to the scheme have been dealt with in the main body of the report or could be dealt with by way of conditions imposed on any consent granted.

7.18 Phasing

Construction is anticipated to last for approximately 15 years [2010 to 2025] involving 13 phases. The construction phases have been split into 3 five year intervals. Indicative Phasing Programme is outlined in the table below:

Years Phase Development on site

Years Remediation of the northern area of the Site, demolition of the western 2010 to gasholder plus the Pump Lane Bridge and Eastern Access will be 2015 undertaken first, followed by the construction phases described below:

Phase 1 Construction of 192 units along the northern site boundary plus the Energy Centre and some limited retail development. Pump Lane Bridge will be constructed to

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS facilitate this Site development and access.

Phase 2 Construction of further 82 residential units, northeastern area of the Site plus the cinema and further limited retail units. Phase 3 Construction of 370 residential units in the northernmost area of the site and works to facilitate access routes into the Site including the widening of the South Road Bridge and the Hayes Bypass Junction improvement to the west of the Site. Phase 4 Construction of 180 residential units, the town square and retail units in the north of the Site plus construction of the Springfield Road Foot/Cycle Bridge. Improvements to Junction 3 of the M4 will also be undertaken during this phase

Years Remediation of the remainder of the Site (‘Remediation West’) will be 2015 to undertaken at the start of this five year period around the time of Phases 2020 6 to 7. Construction Phases 5 to 9 are planned for the years 2015 to 2025 and are outlined below:

Phase 5 283 residential units, retail, and parking in the eastern area of the Site. Further works to complete the spine road will be undertaken plus off-site works on Bulls Bridge. Phase 6 395 residential units and the hotel Phase 7 Development of school, health centre, and 390 residential units and the park. Phase 8 Construction in this phase is of the Minet Park Bridge and the land adjacent to its landing on-site which will incorporate 303 residential units. Phase 9 Construction of 430 residential units in the central area of the site adjacent to the spine road.

Years The final 5 years of construction include development phases 10 to 13 2020 to with completion of the Scheme, estimated for 2025. These final five years 2025 incorporate the remainder of the residential component on the Site and the development of the western area as outlined below:

Phase 10 200 residential units

Phase 11 297 residential units

Phase 12 249 residential units

Phase 13 122 residential units

The Pump Lane extension would be constructed in Phase 1, and would be the principle site construction access.

7.19 Contamination

The application was referred to the London Borough of Hillingdon’s Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) who noted that it is proposed to bioremediate and reuse much of the soil

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS contamination whilst taking the most heavily contaminated material that cannot be treated off site. The application documentation notes that the main access to and from the site (including for vehicles removing the most heavily contaminated waste) will be via Pump Lane. This matter was discussed with the Council’s Highways Engineer and EPU, who noted the when the location of major access routes and concentrations of existing residential development were taken into account, the proposed use of Pump Lane as the main access to and from the site is appropriate.

Should the Council be minded to approve the application, conditions should be imposed on any permission granted requiring the Applicant to prepare a management plan setting out how traffic leaving site and travelling through the London Borough of Hillingdon (including vehicles transporting contaminated waste) is to be managed to prevent any contaminants from entering the environment.

Remediation works will produce emissions of dust and odours and vapours. These emissions, if not fully controlled at source could affect surrounding occupiers in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

The Council’s EPU recommend that conditions should be imposed to ensure the final Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan include measures to mitigate any effects on the London Borough of Hillingdon from emissions. A condition is also recommended to ensure that adequate monitoring of dust, vapours and odours is undertaken during the remediation works.

Land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union Canal has been excavated historically for gravels, and these soils were replaced with domestic and construction wastes, dredgings and also gasworks waste. Relevant conditions would need to be imposed on any consent granted to ensure remediation works are carried out to clear the unsuitable soil for the bridge and road foundations.

The proposed bridges would not discharge persons onto the highly contaminated land between the canal and Yeading brook. However, the scheme may well be occupied by over 13,000 residents; the access ways would greatly elevate the number of persons using Minet Country Park, which is of concern given the potential for users of the proposed access ways to access heavily contaminated land. British Waterways (who own the majority of this contaminated land) have requested that a planning obligation be sought to ensure sufficient funding is secured to enable remediation of the contaminated land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal. Given the threat to life safety posed by contaminated land, the request from British Waterways is strongly supported.

7.20 Gas Infrastructure

The operational gas works infrastructure on and adjoining the site are listed as major hazards with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which is the statutory consultee for development within specified distances of major hazard installations. The hazard listing includes the now unused gasholders.

The HSE provide guidance on the minimum buffer distances required between hazards and new development. The applicant has sought to address the hazard risk through provision of the required buffer distance to the retained gas holder and gas pipes, including upgrading the gas main through the site as part of the scheme.

The HSE would require any proposed work (removal of the redundant gas holders and upgrade of the gas main) to be completed and the hazards listing then amended. The

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS consultation response does advise that they would not object to the application were the proposals to address the hazards followed.

This matter could be adequately dealt by way of a condition requiring the applicant to satisfy the HSE requirements prior to first occupation of the development.

7.21 Planning Obligations

The proposal represents a substantial mixed use development directly on the boundary of the London Borough of Hillingdon; accordingly it would give rise to significant additional impacts on facilities within the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Planning obligations can only be required where they pass the Secretary of State's tests set out in Circular 05/05. As such all requests for planning obligations made in the various external organisations in response to consultation have been carefully considered and pursued where appropriate.

The development has been assessed in detail and it is considered that the following planning obligations are required to mitigate the impacts of the development: • Financial contribution to implement mitigation measures and capacity enhancements to Minet Country Park made necessary by the proposed development. Financial contribution sought: £2,752,520. • Financial contribution to offset impacts on local educational facilities. Financial contribution sought: £821,000. This represents the cost of additional secondary school aged children, and post 16 year old students who can reasonably be expected to reside in the proposed scheme, but attend educational institutions in the London Borough of Hillingdon. An analysis of school roles and the postcodes in which students live was undertaken, for the last five years, to establish the likely average number of students who could reasonably be expected to attend Hillingdon schools. • Provision of construction training of Hillingdon residents, by enabling them to actively work and receive construction training on the construction site; • Require the Applicant to enter into and abide by the terms of a Sustainable Travel Plan (10 years).

Additionally British Waterways request that the following planning obligations be secured: • Financial contribution towards a strategic master plan for the wider area: £20,000; • Financial contribution towards delivery and implementation of a Waterspace Strategy: £10,000; • Financial contribution towards remediation of land between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal (Minet Tip): £4,000,000; • Financial contribution to implement works to improve access along the canal from Uxbridge Road to Bulls Bridge: £660,000.

The planning obligations sought by British Waterways would help to progress the local Water Space strategy relating to the Grand Union Canal and land uses along its edge. Remediation of contaminated land would protect human health and safety and greatly enhance the quality of wildlife habitat between Yeading Brook and the Grand Union canal. The application site does not extend to include the tow path along the Grand Union canal, and as such necessary enhancements to the tow path must be secured by way of a legal agreement. The Council strongly support the heads of terms set out by British Waterways.

The Applicant has agreed to meet planning obligations relating to education and construction training. With regard to mitigation measures and capacity enhancements to

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Minet Country Park, the applicant has offered a sum of £1 million. This sum is not considered sufficient to mitigate the harm from the development.

The Applicant has advised that the scheme finances are affected by exceptional development costs such as remediation, and as such the imposition of Planning Obligations may well make the scheme financially unviable.

The Applicant’s assertions relating to costs and revenues were tested by the District Valuer's Service (DVS). The Applicant has made it clear to the London Borough of Hillingdon that the findings of work undertaken by DVS would not be released to the Council unless the Council enters into a confidentiality agreement.

Examination of a copy of a draft confidentiality agreement revealed that it is an inflexible document and if signed would not enable this Council to discuss with the DVS the implications of a different inputs relating to planning obligations. The Applicant has not responded to this Council’s request for the terms of the confidentiality agreement to be altered.

A transparent assessment of viability is the essential starting point for any negotiation with Developers in terms of reducing Planning Obligations to assist with scheme viability. In this case there is a considerable lack of transparency. Planning Obligations are necessary to make acceptable the impact of an otherwise unacceptable development. With the exception of construction training and educational facilities, the applicant has not agreed to the obligations. If approved the development would result in unacceptable impacts.

8. OBSERVATIONS OF 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 opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9. 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 at a later stage. 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.

10. CONCLUSION

Located just beyond the eastern edge of the Borough boundary, the development of this brown field site offers various potential regeneration benefits, primarily for the London Borough of Ealing. This is a substantial scheme with the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on the London Borough of Hillingdon.

This is a substantial scheme with the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on the London Borough of Hillingdon. The most significant changes to the landscape character and the greatest urbanisation impact are considered to be towards the western side of the site, adjacent the Grand Union Canal. While it is noted that only fingers of development would approach the canal and Green Belt land, these 'fingers' would be up to 8 storeys high. The limited set back of buildings from the canal would leave little room for structural landscaping (which might have been able to be used to screen and soften the appearance of the proposal). The maximum potential height of buildings means that these will be highly visible and it is considered that this portion of the proposal by virtue of its scale, height and siting would dominate the landscape, and would injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt, the Grand Union canal, and Yeading Brook contrary to Policy OL5, BE32 and BE34.

It is also considered that information submitted in support of the application is inadequate to demonstrate that the scheme will not cause harm to the local ecology. In particular the timing and scope of the ecological surveys (including surveys of birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates) undertaken is considered inadequate.

Approximately 6.4Ha of land will be required to create the western vehicular access way into the site (including connection to/from the Hayes bypass) and flood water holding area. The proposed pedestrian/cyclist bridges would also impact upon local ecology, acting to fragment wildlife corridors. Proposed mitigation measures are considered inadequate to offset the loss and fragmentation of habitat resultant from the development.

Refusal is recommended.

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

(i) The London Plan (ii) Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (iii) Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport (iv) Planning Policy Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise (v) Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001) (vi) Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement – Accessible Hillingdon (vii) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design (viii) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Obligations

Contact Officer : MATT DUIGAN Telephone Number: 01895 250230

Central & South Planning Committee – 10 th December 2009 PART I – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS ´

Notes Site Address LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary Southall Gas Works OF HILLINGDON For identification purposes only. Hayes By Pass Planning & Community Services This copy has been made by or with Hayes the authority of the Head of Committee Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW Services pursuant to section 47 of the Telephone No.: Uxbridge 250111 Copyright, Designs and Patents Scale Act 1988 (the Act). Planning Application Ref: Unless the Act provides a relevant 54814/APP/2009/430 1:12,000 exception to copyright. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Planning Committee Date London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2009 Central and South December 2009