If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Mike Smith Tel: 020 8583 2069 or email: mike.smith@hounslow.gov.uk.

ISLEWORTH AND BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING)

A meeting of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) will be held in the Brentford Free Church, Boston Manor Road, Brentford on Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 7:30 pm

MEMBERSHIP

Councillor Hardy- Chair Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Cadbury, Carey, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Harmer, Hibbs, O'Reilly and Reid.

AGENDA

Addendum report added to item 4 on 15 May 2009

Communications and Formal Business

1. Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest under the Council's Town Planning Code and Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests as defined by the National Code of Conduct

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2009 & Matters Arising (Pages 1 - 11)

3. Items on which there are speakers

Planning Applications for Decision Items that have been received under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

4. Land rear of 135 Jersey Road, Osterley (Pages 12 - 29)

5. Overflow Car Park, Great West Road, Brentford (Pages 30 - 40)

6. 168 Thornbury Road, Isleworth (Pages 41 - 48)

7. 44 The Ride, Brentford (Pages 49 - 55)

8. River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quays and Soaphouse Creek Moorings, (Pages 56 - 125) Brentford

Reports for Comment by Members

9. Kew Bridge, Scottish Widows site (Pages 126 - 167)

Planning Enforcement

10. 1 Hornbeam Crescent, Brentford (Pages 168 - 175)

Traffic and Highways Matters

11. Ivybridge Traffic Calming Scheme - Report to follow

12. Highways Planned Maintenance Programme (Pages 176 - 182) Report taken from April Planning Meeting - Decision on the sub-committee’s recommendations by the Area Committee.

Information Monitoring Items

13. Enforcement Review 2008/09 (Pages 183 - 205)

14. Delegated Decisions Report (Pages 206 - 209)

15. Urgent Business Any other items, which the Chair accepts for consideration on the grounds of urgency

16. Addendum Report If required, an addendum report will be published shortly before the meeting with any additional information relating to agenda items, not available at the time of publication of the main agenda.

Protocol for Speakers i) Members of the public or applicants must contact the Committee Administrator, Kay Duffy on 020 8583 2071 with details of the proposed submission no later than 5 PM, on the Thursday of the week before the meeting. The Chair will decide whether or not to grant the request to speak and notification will be given of the decision. ii) For planning applications, the applicants will only be allowed to speak if there is an objector who wishes to address the Area Committee. In exceptional circumstances the Chair may agree that an applicant who would significantly add to the information already available will be allowed to speak at the Area Committee in the absence of an objector. If refusal were recommended, then speakers would not normally be permitted. iii) For all highways matters, if there are members of the public with opposing views regarding the proposal the chair will allow both sides to speak. Generally, speakers will only be allowed to speak on issues where funding is available. iv) With regard to planning applications, where both parties address the Area Committee, the order of speaking will be the applicants followed by the objectors. v) Each party will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak. vi) The Area Committee will consider submissions on up to 6 items per meeting: 3 planning applications and 3 highways matters. vii) Written submissions should be made to the Committee Administrator no later than 4pm on the day of the meeting.

DECLARING INTERESTS

Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter. If applicants or objectors on any application have contacted Members, they must also declare this fact.

T.WELSH, Director of Legal Services London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN

15 May 2009

Agenda Item 2

At a meeting of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) held on Thursday, 16 April 2009 at 7:30 pm at Brentford Free Church, Boston Manor Road, Brentford.

Present:

Councillor Hardy (Chair)

Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Cadbury, Carey, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Harmer and Reid.

Apologies for Absence

Councillors Hibbs and O'Reilly.

124. Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest under the Council's Town Planning Code and Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests as defined by the National Code of Conduct

The following declarations were made: • Agenda Item 5 & 6 – Tesco wind turbines: Councillor Harmer declared that his current employers worked for a subsidiary of Tesco and that he would be leaving the room for the duration of the discussion. • Agenda Item 9 – Enfield Road: Councillor Harmer declared a non prejudicial interest in this item.

125. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2009 & Matters Arising

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2009 were agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

Minute 115 – Capital Funding bids approved: Councillor Paul Fisher drew attention to the £24,000 capital funding towards the 20MPH traffic calming scheme at Ivybridge and reminded members that £11,040 S106 funding had also been agreed by members towards this scheme.

Minute 115 – Brentford High Street Car Park (2nd paragraph): Councillor Paul Fisher drew attention to the decision to take a report to Executive and reminded members that the purpose of taking the matter to Executive had been to endorse the decision made on the car parking charges.

Executive members had agreed the following tariff for the temporary car park: Free for the first hour, 30 pence for 2 hours and 60 pence for 3 hours, with a maximum duration of stay of 3 hours. Councillor Fisher informed members that new chips for the machines and signage had been ordered and would be implemented in the coming week.

Minute 122 – Urgent Business/ Discussion on the move to electronic access to all planning applications (3rd paragraph): Committee Administrator, Kay Duffy, detailed the following correction to the final paragraph, which she explained provided better clarification on the points made:

“Councillor Dakers asked how close the Authority’s leisure providers were to the installation of large viewing screens in libraries, which would aid the examination of larger detailed plans. Although unable to give a definite date for installation, Ms Gallagher assured members that it was proposed to install large screens in the Civic

1 Centre’s reception area. She assured members that the guidance to the new system would be very clearly laid out within the Planning Search web pages on the Authority’s website.

It was suggested that members of the Area Committee could also lobby the Authority’s leisure provider to speed the installation of similar screens in local libraries.”

Matters Arising:

Minute 117 – Hillary Drive, Isleworth: Councillor Paul Fisher informed members that the overgrown vegetation and litter identified on the estate would be cleared by Continental Landscapes staff working together with the Payback Team in the coming week.

Minute 118 – North Brentford and Boston Manor Controlled Parking Zone: Councillor Harmer asked for an update on the situation for Clitheroe Road residents. Satnam Sahota, Team Leader of Developments & Parking, informed members that draft proposals had been prepared and would be sent out to ward councillors on 17 April 2009 for consultation before being sent to residents of Clitheroe Road.

Minute 122 – Urgent Business/ Discussion on the move to electronic access to all planning applications: Councillor Paul Fisher noted concerns at the fact that libraries were not holding paper copies of plans for large planning schemes such as the Isleworth Hub development. The plans for this development (51 pages) had been saved incorrectly on the Authority’s web pages so that they appeared on screen sideways and there was no facility to correct the pages when viewing. Councillor Fisher highlighted the ongoing consultation on the Isleworth Hub and the need to have copies available in local libraries to facilitate consultation. In respect of this particular case, Marilyn Smith, East Area Planning Manager, suggested that officers could look at hand delivering plans to libraries on 17 April 2009. She would keep members informed.

He referred to an email sent by the Leader today to a local resident containing mention of a 3 month transitional period but stated that queries to library staff had shown them to be unaware of any such transitional period. Members supported Councillor Fisher’s concerns and it was suggested that funding from the Planning Delivery Grant could be used towards the installation of large screens in the borough’s libraries.

Ms Smith confirmed that there was a 3 month transitional period in place for major planning applications from the beginning of April 2009. She stated that developers should also be going out to consultation separately with community groups and societies and providing paper copies of the proposed schemes. Councillor Fisher thanked the officer for her assurances and cited an occasion where a resident had been advised by an Environment Department officer to approach the developer direct but that the developer had refused to produce plans.

Councillor Dakers suggested the need to monitor progress on this issue and to be explicit with developers on what was expected of them. The Chair added that an extended transitional period could be considered. Ms Smith informed members that progress could be reviewed 2 months into the transitional period (end May/ beginning June). Councillor Phil Andrews acknowledged that it had been a member-led initiative to go electronic but that this had been on the condition that community engagement would

2 not be sacrificed. He supported the option to extend the transitional period, should the electronic switchover be found to be lacking following the review.

The Chair requested that the item be included on the agenda for the May and June planning meetings so that members could engage with local community groups on the matter and decide whether an extension to the transitional period would be necessary at the June meeting. He asked Ms Smith for a copy of the operating protocol detailing the expectations of both the Environment Department and developers under the new electronic system.

126. 69 Lionel Road North, Brentford

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 7.

With the permission of the Chair Ms Tyack of 71 Lionel Road North spoke in opposition to the submitted application, which she suggested would cause loss of light to her kitchen/ dining areas, particularly in the winter months. She asked that the height of the proposed rear extension be lowered by approximately 6.5 inches to the string line of the houses to help mitigate this.

Ms Tyack provided photographs taken from her house in the direction of the application site for members’ consideration and added that she would lose the current outlook across the application site’s rear garden to the park beyond as a result of the proposed development. Ms Tyack concluded by saying that she had no objections to the principle of the development but asked members to consider her request for more light to her property.

Again with the permission of the Chair Mr Martin Evans, agent for the applicant, addressed the meeting. He expressed his hope that the rear extension would not take too much sunlight from the neighbouring property and noted that he had already had several meetings with the case officer and pointed to the steps already taken to mitigate the impact on Ms Tyack’s property. Mr Evans explained that the rear extension would include a parapet wall, which he said could be reduced in height at the boundary side by approximately 6 inches if members felt this was necessary.

Ms Smith introduced the submitted report and informed members that, whilst it was not completely in accordance with the guidelines it was judged to be acceptable, having been reduced in size from the original application submission. It was not considered that the current proposals would have any further detrimental affect over and above what would be allowed under Permitted Development (PD). Ms Smith acknowledged that Ms Tyack’s property would lose very early morning light but reminded members that there was nothing in the guidelines specifically relating to heights. She reiterated the fact that the proposal would fall under PD rights, should it be reduced slightly in height by approximately 30cms (12 inches).

Councillor Reid formally moved approval of the recommendation, subject to the proposed reduction of height of the rear extension to below the string line of the houses and subject to the submission of amended plans to the Director of Environment. Members agreed that the final decision would be taken under delegated authority by the Director of Environment, subject to the submission of amended plans showing this reduction in height.

3 Resolved: That the application number (00703/69/P1) (P/2009/0010) for the erection of side and rear dormer roof extensions and erection of a single storey rear extension to the house be approved, subject to the conditions within the submitted report and to the submission of amended plans reducing the height of the rear extension to below the string course to the Planning Department. That the Director of Environment be authorised to approve the amended plans using his delegated authority.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, C. Andrews, P. Andrews, Dakers and Hardy Against: None Abstain: None

127. Big Yellow, Twickenham Trading Estate, Isleworth

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 4. See also the Addendum Report, Agenda Item 12.

Members queried whether conditions had not been imposed specifically relating to the size and detailing of the scheme when the facility was approved in 2007. The officer confirmed that signage had not been part of the original application and that, due to the size of the current application they would fall under advertising regulations.

Councillor Phil Andrews asked what the protocol was when the application site was situated in one borough and those affected by the development fell under the jurisdiction of the neighbouring borough, as in this case. The officer confirmed that London Borough of Richmond upon Thames had been consulted and that the two boroughs shared feedback on their findings in such cases.

Councillor Cadbury expressed the view that, although members might be unhappy with the size and impact of the proposed signage on neighbouring properties, this was a commercial development and as such no different from many other businesses located in similar environments. She therefore moved approval of the officer’s recommendations, seconded by Councillor Harmer.

Resolved: That application number (00967/F/AD2) (P/2009/0081) for the installation of four internally illuminated fascia signs to the building be approved, subject to the conditions in the submitted addendum report.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, Dakers and Hardy Against: None Abstain: Councillors C. and P. Andrews.

128. Tesco Store, Mogden - Wind Turbine

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 5.

8.20pm - Councillor Harmer left the meeting, having declared interest in this item.

4 Due to the similarity of the applications, members agreed to discuss both Agenda Item 5 and 6 together.

Members considered the proposed turbines to be visually intrusive to the car parks, by way of their size, position and appearance. They queried the anticipated noise levels generated by the proposals Members requested further information as to how useful the turbines would be in electricity generation in light of the low wind speeds expected at the chosen locations.

Members noted concern at the perceived environmental benefits of the proposals in comparison to the energy required to produce, install and maintain them. A cost benefit analysis of the proposals was requested so that the proposals could be taken before committee for further consideration in June. Members also requested information on the comparative energy capacity of photovoltaic cells, should they be installed on the roof.

Adam Glass, Environmental Projects Officer, drew members’ attention to paragraph 2.3 of the covering report, which referred to Section 20 of PPS 1 Climate Change supplement. Although he expressed the view that the turbines would probably produce a net energy output over their lifespan, output would depend on the wind speeds and measuring it would require the installation of an anemometer (wind speed gauge). Responding to the question on the photovoltaic cells, Mr Glass indicated that the ability of the current roof structure to take the additional weight of the cells would have to be taken into consideration. He added that installations of wind turbines helped to develop the technology and increase public awareness.

Again responding to members’ questions Mr Glass noted that the current anticipated noise levels of the proposed turbines would be approximately 35 decibels and that, should the turbines be positioned at a higher level, they would produce more energy, which would in turn increase noise output.

Members commented about the visual amenity of the proposals and asked whether other designs and locations within the site had been considered. The officer explained that the vertical access wind turbine design, as proposed, cut down on flicker and wind resistance and was therefore considered to be a more efficient model.

Members wished to know whether any approval could include a condition to ensure that the turbines were never used to display advertising, particularly illuminated advertising. Jimmy Walsh, Borough Solicitor representative, cautioned that the Authority should not anticipate what might in future be a breach of planning control and therefore should not include a condition, which permanently restricted advertising, as this would not pass the test for enforceable conditions set out in the Government guidance on these matters. Members were informed that illuminated advertising panels would need a separate consent.

Councillor Cadbury suggested that, should the applications be refused on grounds that there would be an imposition on the landscape with no material energy gain, any appeal would expose the weaknesses of the planning system and the weight of the issue on the Government agenda. Mr Walsh compared Government guidance on using health risks as a reason for refusal for telecommunications masts with the guidance regarding the application in front of members. Councillor Cadbury added that the science was much more straightforward in this particular area than telecommunications masts and illustrated a direct contradiction to Government policy on public body decisions. Mr

5 Walsh advised members that the Authority would have to employ the services of an expert in the field of renewable energy to act on behalf of the Authority in any appeal case. Members were also informed that any appeal would have to be considered in respect of cost implications for the Authority.

Ms Smith also highlighted new Government guidance, which now meant that applicants who submitted a planning application after 6 April 2009 and wished to appeal the Authority’s decision on that application could now appeal under the written representations procedure for costs from the Authority. She confirmed that the application under discussion tonight had been submitted before 6 April but cautioned members to ensure that any decision to overturn the officer’s recommendation should be backed up with robust reasons in accordance with planning policy.

The Chair expressed the view that the proposals represented “greenwash”, where the company was attempting to flaunt green credentials it didn’t possess. He acknowledged the attempt to broaden public awareness of renewable energy but highlighted concerns that other more credible applications might face resistance in light of this weaker application. It was suggested that the applicant could do a lot more to reduce the amount of packaging and promote recycling. He proposed deferral of the application in order to obtain further information from the applicant, including a cost benefit analysis of the proposal for the period of the anticipated lifespan of the proposed equipment. Mr Glass suggested that the wind speed gauge currently installed on the Civic Centre roof could be used as a comparison gauge.

Councillor Cadbury requested a copy of the policy guidelines to be included in the report when the application was brought back to Area Committee.

The Chair called for a vote on the motion to defer the application to the June 2009 Planning meeting.

Resolved: That the item be deferred to the June 2009 Planning Area Committee to allow officers seek additional supporting information including a cost benefit analysis of the proposals and from the applicant.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, Dakers, C. Andrews, P. Andrews and Hardy Against: None Abstain: None

129. Tesco Store, Osterley - Wind Turbine

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 6.

Councillor Harmer had left the meeting, having declared interest in this item.

As this item was discussed together with Agenda Item 5, please see the minutes for that item.

6 Resolved: That the item be deferred to the June 2009 Planning Area Committee to allow officers seek additional supporting information including a cost benefit analysis of the proposals and from the applicant.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, Dakers, C. Andrews, P. Andrews and Hardy Against: None Abstain: None

8.50pm – Councillor Harmer returned to the meeting at this point.

130. Highways Planned Maintenance Programme

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 8.

Councillor Harmer declared an interest in Priority 4 of the submitted carriageways priority list, as he was a resident there. Councillor Cadbury declared an interest in Priority 15 of the same list, as she was resident there.

Sonny Pham, Area Engineer, introduced the submitted report and drew members’ attention to the total budgets detailed in paragraph 6.1. Members sought further clarification on the criteria used for measuring the relative demand/ use of the borough’s roads and the extent to which this was taken into account when drawing up the priority lists. The officer explained that a technical survey was carried out annually by a consultancy. He provided the example of a ‘road of more than local importance’ as including either a bus route or school for example.

Members were informed that where the available budget was insufficient to complete a nominated road officers would complete as much of the road as the available budget would allow and leave a section incomplete until further funding could be secured. Members were of course able to nominate a road lower down on the priority list, which fell within the available budget. Mr Pham informed members that the costs submitted with the priority lists were estimations based on £30 per m2 resurfacing cost. The actual costs would be calculated only when members had made their decisions.

Councillor Paul Fisher referred to Worton Road (Priority 9 – carriageways), which stretched between this and the Central Hounslow Area Committee. Noting that he had been of the opinion that roads, which crossed area boundaries, needed approval of both sets of members to be completed, he asked that the section of Worton Road within this Area Committee now be completed, including Ruskin Road to match the already resurfaced Central Hounslow section.

Councillor Reid reminded members that work on Isleworth Crown Court had prevented Osterley Road from being completed. She asked whether attempts had been made to recoup funding from the developers of the site to maintain the road. Councillor Harmer added that Ealing Road had been dug up by Thames Water for mains replacement work.

Councillor Reid suggested that discussions in previous years had been undertaken in detail by a nominated sub-committee of the Area Committee and sought members’ opinions on this course of action. 7

Referring to Clifden Road, Councillor Cadbury informed officers that the entrance to the school was no longer the primary school entrance and the zig-zag painted lines should now been removed from the site. She added that Priority 7, St Paul’s Road, was a very minor road and the speed table next to the church had become a trip hazard for pedestrians and needed urgent attention. Referring to Priority 8, Windmill Road north of the A4, Councillor Cadbury asked for remedial action to be taken on the extra large London Plane trees, which impeded the footpaths.

Councillor Phil Andrews requested that officers reviewed the criteria and provide members with the technical data and details on how this was used. He supported the establishment of a sub-committee, which he suggested should then submit its recommendations to the May Planning Committee for approval. He asked whether the available budgets could be used to patch up a number of roads, which would then last until the PFI (Private Finance Initiative) funding became available in the coming years. Councillor Cadbury supported this suggestion, adding the importance of retaining priority for those roads of ‘more than local importance’.

When called to a vote on the establishment of a sub-committee to consider priorities for spreading the available budgets across a number of the area’s roads, members gave their unanimous approval.

The following members were nominated to the sub-committee: Councillors Cadbury, O’Reilly, Hardy and Paul Fisher. It was agreed that the sub-committee would meet with Mr Pham to discuss both the priority listings and the suggested list for Micro-Asphalt trials (Section 5 of the submitted report) and report their recommendations back to the May Planning Committee.

Resolved: • That the submitted priority for roads (carriageways) and pavements (footways) as set out in the report be noted by the Area Committee. • That the trialling of Micro-Asphalt surfacing as detailed in Section 5 of the submitted report be noted by the Area Committee. • That the available Planned Maintenance funds be used to repair a number of roads and pavements within the Isleworth & Brentford area, rather than completely resurfacing one of the priorities from each of the submitted priority lists. • That a sub-committee of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee be established comprising one member from each ward as follows: Councillors O’Reilly (Osterley & Spring Grove), Hardy (Syon), Paul Fisher (Isleworth) and Cadbury (Brentford). • That this sub-committee meet with officers to compile a list of roads and pavements for repair and to review the recommended roads for Micro-Asphalt trials, as set out in 5.2 of the submitted report. • That this sub-committee then report their recommendations back to the main May 2009 Area Planning Committee meeting for approval.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, Dakers, C. Andrews, P. Andrews and Hardy Against: None Abstain: None

9.15pm – Councillor Carey left the meeting at this point.

8 131. Enfield Road - Objections to Traffic Order

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 9.

Satnam Sahota, Team Leader of Developments & Parking, introduced the submitted report and provided photographs of the section of pathway in question, together with copies of the original letters of objection received for members’ perusal.

Councillor Cadbury asked that the installation of further posts for the signage associated with the proposed line waiting restrictions be avoided to prevent further street clutter in an already congested area. The officer confirmed that the sign could be fixed as a tie plate to an existing drainpipe attached to one of the residences.

Referring to paragraph 3.2 of the submitted report, the officer confirmed that the parking control contribution from the Paragon development site would be used to finance this proposal. In response to members’ queries on the use by a number of objectors of a identical wording in their objection letters, the officer assured members that each objection was considered on its own merits.

Councillor Cadbury noted from her reading of the objectors’ letters that the bollards on the footway outside The Lord Nelson public house had forced residents to park closer to homes on the opposite side of the road. The officer assured members that, even if the bollards were to be removed, residents’ parking would not greatly reduce the width of that section of the road.

Councillor Harmer expressed the view that some of the objectors’ letters had been the result of scaremongering about double yellow lines being put in along the entire length of the road. He called for better consultation in the form of individual letters to residences to avoid this where possible in future such consultations across the borough. The Chair supported Councillor Harmer’s views on the need for better consultation and moved approval of the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Harmer.

Resolved: • That the objections to the Traffic Order be overruled for the reasons given in the submitted report and the scheme shown at Appendix A be implemented. • That the statements of reasons to be “to control parking and to improve access” and • That the objectors be advised accordingly. • That the funding required for the implementation of the proposed yellow line restriction be approved from the Section 106 contribution detailed in paragraph 3.1 of the submitted report.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, Dakers, C. Andrews, P. Andrews and Hardy Against: None Abstain: None

132. Delegated Decisions Report

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 10.

Resolved: That the submitted report be noted. 9

133. Urgent Business

St Lawrence’s War Memorial: Members requested a report detailing the timescales and available budget funding for the relocation of the St Lawrence’s War Memorial from the Environment Department to be brought to the May 2009 Area Planning Committee. A response was requested from the Authority’s Historic Conservation and Urban Design Officer, Maggie Urquhart.

King’s Arms Public House, Isleworth: Councillor Paul Fisher sought information on the listed status of the now derelict Kings Arms public house building in Isleworth, which he described as a building of townscape importance. He asked whether the Authority could request necessary renovation works to be carried out by order of the Secretary of State under Section 76 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Ms Smith indicated that this particular building was not Grade 1 or Grade 2 listed but only protected by local listing status and, as such, not applicable under that section. However she advised members that she would consult the Authority’s Historic Conservation and Urban Design Officer, Maggie Urquhart, and report back to the Area Committee.

Motion proposed by Councillor Hardy: The following motion was proposed by Councillor Jon Hardy, seconded by Councillor Dakers, and approved by the Area Committee (a copy of the motion and background material provided to members at the Area Committee was later attached to the electronic version of the agenda for this meeting):

“Ensuring the economic sustainability and renewal of Brentford High Street. This committee notes our local area Hounslow Plan commitment: “Special Project 2: Ensuring the successful redevelopment of Brentford High Street including promoting and supporting community participation.”, as well as our intent that in the plan that “the Area Committee will deliver on this priority during 2007-10…by developing and implementing a short term action plan with High Street Steering group to tackle impacts of development blight.

This committee believes the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP) should be seen as a useful tool to take forward the aspirations of the Community and not as a straitjacket limiting them. We acknowledge that the BAAP, being created at a time when conditions were considerably more favourable than they are now, may require increased definition, supported by ‘special project 2’, in order to respond to the current challenges with a view to achieving the long term aims stated in both the BAAP and the local Area Plan.

To take this work forward and support local small businesses we therefore move that the: 1. Economic Development Unit, along with the Strategic Property Unit (SPU), and Highways and Parking Department form a working party with interested Members to create and deliver by the end of June, proposals for consideration by IBAC to sustain Brentford Town Centre over the medium-term future so that the BAAP and Hounslow Plan special project have a reasonable chance of being achieved.

2. Working party proposals should include, but not be limited to: • Plans for rents on Council-owned properties to be set on the basis of sustaining tenancies - and thereby sustaining and maximising rents to the

10 Council in the long term - rather than simply obtaining maximum income in the short term (see background note below); • Nominating an officer within Economic Development to report to IBAC and assume overall responsibility of ensuring that those proposals adopted by IBAC are implemented.”

Councillor Reid supported the motion but suggested that such lengthy motions be provided to members in good time before the meeting to allow them to fully digest the content. The Chair acknowledged the short notice given but reminded members that this issue had been a matter for member discussion at Area Committee in the recent past. Councillor Dakers added that the Brentford Chamber of Commerce and the Brentford Community Council had written to members. He referred to the background information on what had been achieved and highlighted the need to recognise that times had gotten worse.

Councillor Cadbury supported the motion but expressed the view that members needed to be more ambitious and view regeneration as a holistic approach. She referred to the recent Executive report on the car parking charges for Brentford High Street car park, which she said made no mention of the reasons members of this Area Committee had fought for it and the need for its regeneration. Councillor Cadbury called for consideration of the principles of regeneration and overall policies. She suggested including the Leader of the Council, Councillor Thompson, in the discussions.

Whilst acknowledging that the motion was an attempt to get officers and members to engage in a meaningful way to try and facilitate the economic sustainability of the high street, Councillor Harmer cautioned against duplicating working groups, which may already be in place and which could usefully be used as an existing resource. In response Councillor Dakers suggested that what was proposed in the motion was a discreet piece of work, which was distinct from what might already be in existence.

Councillor Phil Andrews supported the tone of the motion, which he suggested could be bought into by each of the four political parties on this Area Committee.

For: Councillors Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, S. Fisher, P. Fisher, Dakers, C. Andrews, P. Andrews and Hardy Against: None Abstain: None

134. Addendum Report

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 12.

Resolved: That the submitted Addendum Report be noted.

The meeting finished at 9:45 pm.

11 Agenda Item 4 ISLEWORTH & BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (Planning) 14th May 2009 Mark O’Leary: Tel 020 8583 4993 e-mail: mark.o’[email protected] References: Application A) P/2008/2624 00647/135/P4 Application B) P/2009/0283 00647/135/L2 Address: Land rear of 135 Jersey Road, Isleworth Ward: Osterley and Spring Grove Proposal: Application A) Erection of two four bedroom two-storey semi- detached houses with associated parking and amenity space. Application B) Erection of two four bedroom two-storey semi- detached houses with associated parking and amenity space (Listed Building Consent). Drawing numbers: Revised drawings 707A/RDP/P01 Rev B, 707A/RDP/P02 Rev C, 707A/RDP/P03 Rev B, and 707A/RDP/P04 Rev C received 23rd February 2009 Application received: Application A received 13th August 2008 and application B received 19th February 2009

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The proposal seeks to construct a pair of semi-detached houses adjoining a listed building within the Osterley Park Conservation Area. It would provide satisfactory living accommodation, cause no undue harm to neighbours, would not harm the setting of the Listed Building to the north and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is considered to comply with relevant policies and guidelines.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is part of the rear garden of 135 Jersey Road and is on the corner of Jersey Road and Cranmore Avenue. The house on this site, fronting Jersey Road, is a part two-storey and part single-storey detached house. It is a Grade II Listed Building and the whole of the site is within the Osterley Park Conservation Area, designated on 19th April 1988.

2.2 It is set within a large plot measuring some 60m in depth and 29m wide. The house is mainly two-storey and is made up of four parts, each element having pitched roofs. The rear part is single storey. It is ‘L’ shaped and set back from the boundaries fronting Jersey Road and Cranmore Avenue with open grassed areas surrounding all sides of the building. At the back, a distance of 1.5m away from the house, it has a detached double garage with access from Cranmore Avenue. Attached to the side of this garage a timber structure has recently been added. It has a large rear garden area that adjoins Cranmore Avenue that has an area of some 906 square metres and is enclosed with a 1.8m high timber fence along the south and east boundaries. The trees in this garden are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The proposed development, the subject of this application, would be in the back of this garden area (southern part of the site) fronting Cranmore Avenue. There would be a distance of 16m between the development and the rear wall of No 135. There are no structures in this part of the garden. 12 2.3 To the east, on the opposite side of Cranmore Avenue, are No’s 1 and 3. The front walls of these houses are 17m away from the boundary of the application site (and 23 m from the propose houses).

2.4 The rear garden of 133 Jersey Road adjoins the west boundary. It has a large rear garden of over 600 square metres.

2.5 No 2 Cranmore Avenue adjoins the southern boundary of the application site. It is a 1930’s two-storey semi-detached house that has been extended with a two-storey side and single storey rear extension. It has a detached garage, positioned at the front of the house and built up to the boundary with the application site.

2.6 The properties in Cranmore Avenue are mainly 1930’s two-storey semi-detached houses. They are uniform in size, scale and design, and their building lines, on both sides of this part of Cranmore Avenue, are staggered.

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 00647/K/P1 Erection of a five-bedroom detached house.

This application was reported to the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee on 21/10/04 and granted permission subject to conditions.

3.2 00647/K/L1 Erection of a five-bedroom detached house (Listed Building Consent)

This application was reported to the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee on 21/10/04 and was granted permission subject to conditions.

3.3 00647/P3 Erection of two four bedroom two-storey semi-detached houses with associated parking and amenity space.

This application was withdrawn on 7th July 2008 as there were concerns with the design of the building that required further detailed negotiation.

4.0 DETAILS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SCHEME 4.1 A two-storey detached house to the rear of 135 Jersey Road was granted permission in 2004. This permission is still valid. The position of this building and its height is similar to the pair of houses now proposed. However, its depth is longer on its southern side, 1.2m more, than the proposed semi-detached houses, and has the same width. It is set within a larger plot with a width of 19.4m, which is more than the current proposal, in order to accommodate a double garage on the north side of the house. Approximately 75% of the frontage would have been hard surfaced to provide further off street parking.

4.2 The internal accommodation for the approved house comprises a lounge, dining room, family room, study, kitchen and utility room on the ground floor and four double bedrooms and one single bedroom (all with en-suite bathrooms) on the first floor. Within the roof space there is a hobby room and store and a basement level approved on the south part of the building to provide a snooker room and a gymnasium. 13 4.3 The most significant difference between that approval and this case is the provision of an extra dwelling, resulting in the alteration to the design of the building, and a reduction in the width of the site and hard surface to the frontage.

5.0 DETAILS 5.1 The proposal seeks to construct a pair of two-storey semi-detached houses at the end of the rear garden of the site, fronting Cranmore Avenue. This rear garden to 135 Jersey Road would be split into two separate plots. The plot size for the proposed development would have a width of 12.4m at the front, increasing to 16.8m at the rear, and have a depth of between 26m and 29m. It would have vehicle access from Cranmore Avenue.

5.2 The proposed building would be set back between 6.2m and 6.5m from the east boundary, inset between 800mm to 1.6m from the south boundary, inset 1m from the north boundary of the application site, and set between 7.8m and 9.8m from the rear (west boundary). It would have a depth of 11.80m at ground level and 10.4m at first floor level, have a width of 11.2m, and have a pitched roof with a height of 5.2m to eaves and 7.8m to the ridge. It constitutes a pair of semi-detached houses, with a two- storey front bay feature and a pitched roof with hipped ends to reflect the appearance of the houses in Cranmore Avenue. This new building would be a distance of approximately 17m away from the rear wall of No 135.

5.3 The internal accommodation for each unit would comprise a lounge/dining room, kitchen, WC, and study on the ground floor and two double bedrooms (one with en- suite bathroom) and one single bedroom and a bathroom on the first floor. A fourth bedroom with an en-suite bathroom would be within the roof space. They would both have a total floor area of 112 square metres. The size of the rooms would be as follows:

Proposed rooms Size (m2) Minimum Supplementary Planning Guidance requirement (m2)

Lounge/dining room 23 16 (met)

Kitchen 7.5 7.5 (met)

Study 10.4 No requirement

Bedroom 1 (with en-suite) 20.3 12 (met)

Bedroom 2 10.4 10 (met)

Bedroom 3 5.9 6.5 (not met)

Bedroom 4 (with en-suite) 17.7 10 (met)

Bathroom 4.2 3.7 (met)

Total 99.2 65.7

14 5.4 Each house would have a private rear garden area of 76 square metres and one off- street parking space with one shared crossover positioned on the centre part of the front of the site.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Ten neighbouring residents were notified on 21st August 2008 and 4th March 2009. The applications were also advertised in the local press, two site notices were displayed at the front of the site, and plans were made available for inspection at the local library. Four letters of objection have been received, one containing the signatures of 22 residents in Cranmore Avenue. They have raised the following summarised comments:

Comment Response

The development would cause loss of See paragraphs 8.12 and 8.13 light. The appearance of the development See paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 would change the character of Cranmore Avenue. The development would infringe See paragraphs 8.12 - 8.17 privacy. The development would have a See paragraph 8.8 - 8.10 terraced appearance. The appearance of the street would See paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 become cramped and disorientated and the uniformity of the houses would be lessened. The appearance and style of the See paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 buildings would have a detrimental effect on the area. Traffic and congestion would be See paragraph 8.18 increased. They doubt that the houses can See paragraph 8.11 coexist with the protected trees on the site.

6.2 Osterley and Wyke Green Residents’ Association were notified. No response has been received.

7.0 POLICY Determining applications for full or outline planning permission 7.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

15 The Development Plan 7.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’), the Employment Development Plan Document, the Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

7.3 The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) was adopted in February 2008. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by Direction from the Secretary of State.

7.4 The Employment Development Plan Document was adopted on 25 November 2008 and superseded the Employment Policies contained in the UDP Chapter 7 and the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP chapter 2: IMP.4.1, IMP.4.2, IMP.4.3, and IMP.4.4.

7.5 The Brentford Area Action Plan was adopted on 27 January 2009 and has superseded the following Policies contained in UDP chapter 2: IMP.2.1 and IMP.3.1.

Supplementary Planning Documents 7.6 Planning Obligations and Air Quality. These SPDs were adopted on 11/03/08, following public consultation in July and August 2007. The documents form part of the Local Development Framework.

Supplementary Planning Guidance 7.7 1997 Supplementary Planning Guidance- The guidance contained within the Supplementary Guidance was subject to formal public consultation and unlike normal SPG were subject to an inquiry process and consideration by a government inspector. The Inspectors report recommended the appendices be removed from the plan, as they added to its bulk, cost and complexity and may well have consumed further resources at the first review of the UDP. He also considered that they could stand alone away from the main plan as SPG. This was the course of action to be taken by the Council. During the consultation process, objections were received from individual house builders and the HBF. The guidance was amended as part of the process. The Council did not therefore consider it necessary to re-consult on this proposed guidance, but simply to use the guidance in light of the suggested amendments and the Inspector’s comments.

7.8 Conservation areas and determining applications for Planning Permission or Conservation Area Consent In considering whether to grant consent with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, the authority shall pay special attention to desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

7.9 Listed buildings and determining applications for Planning Permission or Listed Building Consent In considering whether to grant consent for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

7.10 Conservation Area Character Appraisals- This appraisal was created as a response to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which required that the current 16 UDP be replaced by a Local Development Framework, which is group of policy documents, including conservation area character appraisals. The current UDP contains saved policy on (insert) Conservation Area, as detailed in the paragraph above. The appraisal was also a response to Section 71 of the Planning and Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, which requires that conservation area appraisals be reviewed. English Heritage is also encouraging Councils to provide up-to- date management guidance for every conservation area. Hounslow Council began this process in reports to Area planning committees in January 2006, which included appraisals for all the borough’s conservation areas, the effects of designation and draft management guidelines. The appraisals for each document were adopted at Committee on 21/03/06. Public consultations with interested groups and local residents are taking place over three years to finalise the management guidelines for the various conservation areas.

7.11 Unitary Development Plan

ENV-B.1.1 New Development ENV-B.2.2 Conservation Areas ENV-B.2.5 Development Affecting the Setting of Listed Buildings ENV-P.1.3 Surface Water Run Off ENV-P.1.6 Air pollution ENV-P.2.4 Recycling Facilities in New Developments H.4.1 Housing Standards and Guidelines T.1.4 Car & Cycle Parking & Servicing Facilities for Developments

7.12 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Additional Standards and Controls Conservation Areas – Osterley Park Conservation Area General Standards and Controls Section 1 Design & Layout Section 4 Daylight and Sunlight Section 9 Form and Design Residential Standards and Controls Section 10 Private Amenity Space Section 12 Internal Space Provision

Osterley Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal 7.13 The Osterley Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal states that the following guidelines special to the area will be included in those to be evaluated: • New development, backland development and large side roof extensions can have an effect on the park. • Boundary treatments should be carefully considered and not over-formalised. 17 • New development should respect size and scale of the area and consider architectural quality.

• Open spaces between buildings and scrub areas form part of the setting.

7.14 London Plan

3A.1 Increasing London’s Supply of Housing 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets (Table 3A.2) (Density Matrix) 3A.3 Maximising the Potential of Sites 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4A.7 Renewal Energy 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.8 Respect Local Context and Communities 4B.11 London’s Built Heritage 4B.12 Heritage Conservation

7.15 National Guidance

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning and the Historic Environment

8.0 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 The main planning issues to consider are: • The principle of the development • Whether the development would provide suitable living accommodation • The effect that the development would have on the appearance and character of the site and Osterley Park Conservation Area • The effect that the development would have on neighbours’ living conditions • Parking and access • Sustainability

Principle of the development 8.2 Permission has previously been approved for a two-storey detached house on this site within a similar position, similar size of footprint and height. This permission is currently valid and is a material consideration in considering this application. The principle of building on this site has therefore been established.

8.3 Policies ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 require that new development should relate well to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing, and character, and enhance the townscape through good urban design. Policy ENV-B.2.2 specifies that any development within a conservation area should respect the character of the existing architecture in scale, design and materials, and either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Policy ENV-B.2.5 has regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building.

18 8.4 In accordance with these policies and PPS 3, infill housing is acceptable in principle, in a conservation area or elsewhere, provided these criteria are met. This is discussed further below.

Proposed living accommodation 8.5 Each of the units would have a good layout and, apart from bedroom 3 in each unit, the room sizes would meet the minimum that Supplementary Guidance for internal space provision requires. That room would be below the guidance by 0.6 square metres, but in the overall context of a four-bedroomed house where all other rooms meet, or generously exceed the standard, this deficiency is considered negligible. They would also have their own individual garden areas that, at 76 square metres each, also meet the minimum requirement specified (75 sq m) in the private amenity space guidelines.

8.6 The existing house on this site, No 135 Jersey Road, would have a reduced garden area as a result of the development. However, a large amount of garden space (approximately 300 square metres) would remain, well in excess of the minimum 75 square metres area the guidelines specify.

Impact on the appearance and character of the area 8.7 No 135 Jersey Road is a Grade II Listed Building on the corner of Jersey Road and Cranmore Avenue. This is a seventeenth century building that appears to have been greatly altered and extended in the nineteenth century. Its character derives from its design and its detached nature, set within a large plot. This building would not be altered by the development, although the size of the rear garden would be reduced and the Cranmore Avenue street frontage would be more built up. However, the proposed houses would be positioned at the back of the site a distance of approximately 17m away from the rear wall of No 135 and 9m away from its detached double garage. The scheme has been revised to show the north boundary of the application site set back further away from the house, and still retain a large open garden area around it (some 300 square metres) and a condition (19) is recommended to secure the removal of the unauthorised extension to the garage in order to retain a reasonable sense of space to this frontage. Given this, the development would have no unacceptable effect on the setting of this Listed Building.

8.8 The proposed building would be similar in size and design to the previously approved detached house on this site. As the proposed pair of semis would be similar in size and scale to the 1930’s houses in Cranmore Avenue and reflect their design, by having a two-storey front bay feature, it would not be out of character with the surroundings. The plot is of a sufficient size to accommodate the development with acceptable gardens areas and therefore not to have the appearance of a cramped development on this prominent corner property. Moreover, the rear garden of No 135 is disproportionately large compared to many of the neighbouring houses, so the reduction in its size would not cause the site or area to look cramped or overcrowded.

8.9 The design of the building has been revised to reflect the style and character of the 1930’s semi detached house in Cranmore Avenue. With good quality materials, a condition is recommended requiring that the details of the materials be submitted for approval, the development would be an improvement on the current permission for one large house. It would result in the loss of garden space to No 135 but, given the good design now achieved, set against the loss of some space at the rear of the listed building (mitigated by the removal of the structure attached to the garage (Condition 19)), it is considered that the development would, on balance, preserve the character 19 and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building.

8.10 The properties on both sides of Cranmore Avenue at this point have a staggered building line, which is part of the character of this part of the street. The proposed pair of semi-detached houses by being positioned forward of No 2 Cranmore Avenue would retain this relationship with the adjoining properties and reflect the street scene.

8.11 Concerns have been raised about the impact that the development would have on a sycamore tree covered by a Tree Preservation Order that adjoins the north side of the proposed building. This was also a concern on the previous application but it was considered that the building was a sufficient distance away, of 4m, in order to avoid any damage to the tree. The scheme has been revised so that the building would be the same distance away from the tree as the approved scheme. Furthermore, no other building is proposed near the tree, unlike the approved application that has a detached double garage close to the tree. Therefore there would be sufficient space around the tree in order to avoid any damage to it or to its root system. A condition is recommended requiring that the tree is protected when construction takes place.

Impact on neighbours 8.12 The proposed development would have no impact on the sunlight and daylight to the existing house on the site which is positioned some 17m away from the proposed building. Staircase windows would be installed in both side walls of the proposed building facing the gardens to the north and south. A condition is recommended (8) requiring that they be obscure glazed in order to avoid overlooking. Given this, and because the scheme has been revised to show the boundary of the site set back further from the house, it would not have an overbearing appearance on No 135 Jersey Road.

8.13 No 2 Cranmore Avenue, adjoining the south boundary, is not in line with No 135 and its site, due to the staggered building line. This property has been extended to the side and rear, close up to the boundary with the application site. It has a first floor window in its side wall facing the site but this is to a hallway and not a habitable room. It also has a detached garage to the front of this house that is built up to the boundary of the application site. The proposed building would be inset from this boundary by between 800mm and 1.6m and, while it would project forward of its front wall, it would cause no undue harm to residents’ living conditions at that neighbouring house. This is because this adjoining house has windows in its front wall that would fall outside a horizontal 45- degreee line measured from the front wall of the proposed house and because that house is to the south.

8.14 It is therefore considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of outlook and no noticeable effect on daylight, particularly. This is the same conclusion as was reached by Committee in 2004.

8.15 The obscure glazed side would avoid any overlooking.

8.16 Directly to the east are properties No’s 1, 3 and 5 on the opposite site of Cranmore Avenue. As these houses are on the opposite side of the road and would be a distance of some 23m away from the front wall of the proposed building, there would be no unacceptable overlooking into the front windows to these properties nor any noticeable effect on their daylight. 20 8.17 Adjoining the west boundary of the site is the rear garden of No 133 Jersey Road. As this neighbouring house is positioned to the north west of the site, a distance of 21m away from the proposed development, and screened along the boundary with mature trees, there would be no reduction in the sunlight or daylight to this property, no overlooking, and the scale of the development would not be overbearing.

Access and parking 8.18 The Council’s parking standards require that houses with three or more bedrooms should provide parking with a maximum provision of two parking spaces. One off street parking space is proposed for each of the houses in compliance with the guidelines. Cranmore Avenue is within a controlled parking zone because of the nearby Tube Station. As a result there is otherwise ample on-street parking for residents particularly close to the corner with Jersey Road. Therefore the proposed houses with the proposed parking provision would have no unacceptable impact on the traffic or parking in this locality.

Sustainability 8.19 Sustainability underpins many of the UDP policies and the London Plan. Overall these require developments to be sustainable in transport terms; to include appropriate recycling facilities and to minimise waste; to include energy efficiency measures and promote the use of renewable energy; and not to significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

8.20 Policies ENV-B.1.1, ENV-P.1.3 and ENV-P.2.4 require that all developments should include recycling facilities and minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures, and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage. The site is in a sustainable location for housing as it would make the best use of this land. Conditions are recommended requiring a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 20% is achieved from onsite renewable energy, management of surface water run off from the roof, that NOx boilers be installed, and that there is provision for appropriate recycling facilities.

9.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 9.1 The proposal does not raise any equal opportunities implications.

10.0 CONCLUSION 10.1 The proposed development of the site would provide a pair of semi-detached houses that would be in compliance with all policies and guidance relevant to this case. Due to the size, scale, position and form of the development it would cause no harm to the appearance and character of the area and would preserve the special character and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area and also the setting of the Listed Building on this site. It would also cause no harm to neighbours’ living conditions and would provide good living accommodation. This is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Comparable to the previous approval, it is considered that the provision of two dwellings rather than one would not harm the street scene or neighbours’ living conditions.

21 11.0 RECOMMENDATION: Application A

GRANT Reasons: With appropriate safeguarding conditions the development would cause no harm to neighbours’ living conditions, would preserve the appearance and character of the Osterley Park Conservation Area, would preserve the setting of the Listed Building (135 Jersey Road), and would provide satisfactory living accommodation. This is in compliance with adopted policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas), ENV-B.2.5 (Development Affecting the Setting of Listed Buildings), ENV-P.1.3 (Surface Water Run Off), ENV-P.1.6 (Air pollution), ENV-P.2.4 (Recycling Facilities in New Developments), H.4.1 (Housing Standards and Guidelines), and T.1.4 (Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments), and the General Standards and Controls of the Hounslow Unitary Development Plan:

1 A1 Time Limit 2 B4 Materials to match/samples 3 B5 Detailed Applications 4 C5 Restriction of Permitted Development Rights (Residential) 5 C6 Restriction of Permitted Development Rights (Residential) 6 C8 Restriction of Permitted Development Rights (Residential) 7 C29 Hours of Construction ‘8am to 6pm’ ‘8am to 12pm’ 8 D1 Obscure Glazing ‘side’ 9 D9 Acoustic Insulation The development shall provide acoustic insulation and any associated ventilation to ensure the maximum noise level to be permitted within the dwelling with windows shut and any other necessary means of ventilation provided shall not exceed the "good" limits contained in BS8233:1999. These being LAeq, 16hour = 30 dB in living rooms, and a night (07:00-23:00) LAeq, 8hour = 30 dB and LAFMAX = 45 dB in bedrooms, and a night LAeq, 1hour = 45 dB in kitchens, bathrooms and utility rooms.

Reason: To provide a reasonable standard of living conditions for future occupiers in accordance with policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), H.4.1 (Housing Standards and Guidelines), and ENV- P.1.5 (Noise Pollution) of the adopted Hounslow Unitary Development Plan. 10 E1 Landscape design proposals 11 E2 Landscape works implementation

22 12 E5 Boundary treatment 13 G1 Parking – Private Dwelling ‘707A/RDP/PO1’ 14 Protection of trees during construction The sycamore tree adjoining the north wall of the approved building, covered by a tree preservation order (TPO), shall be protected by stout exclusion fencing, including the root system of the tree, until completion of the development. The area beneath the spread of the branches of the tree shall not be used for the storage of building materials, plant, machinery or other items, or burning of materials of any kind, and no excavation works within this area. Reason: To safeguard the tree in the interest of visual character and appearance of the area in accordance with Hounslow Unitary Development Plan policy ENV-B.1.1 (New development). 15 Sustainable drainage Before the development is commenced details of measures for the harvesting of rainwater, the minimisation of water run-off from the building and the conservation and re-use as appropriate of other water supplies in the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development. Reason: In order to enhance the environmental sustainability of the development in accordance with Hounslow Unitary Plan policy ENV- P.1.3 (Surface Water Run Off) and London Plan policy 4A.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction). 16 Installation of boilers

All boilers installed must be low NOx boilers, conforming to at least NOx class 3 or better. Reason: To ensure satisfactory environmental conditions for the occupiers of the residential accommodation, in accordance with Hounslow Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), and ENV-P.1.6 (Air Pollution) and London Plan policy 4A.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction). 17 Refuse storage Before both dwellings hereby approved are first occupied, the developer shall provide them with a green box container and any other type of containers required at the time of development for household use for the storage and collection of recyclable materials for the purposes of the Council's kerbside recycling service, to the specification then in use by the local authority's recycling collection service (or to such other specification as shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority) and shall notify the Council's refuse and recycling services when the development is first occupied. They shall also be supplied with a garden waste composting bin of at least 220 litres capacity at the

23 same time. Reason: To ensure that waste from the development is properly dealt with in the interests of neighbours' living conditions, the appearance of the area, and sustainability. This is in accordance with policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), and ENV-P.2.4 (Recycling Facilities in New Developments) of the adopted Hounslow Unitary Development Plan. 18 Sustainable construction Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for a scheme of reducing carbon emissions from the total energy needs (heat, cooling and power) of the development by at least 20%, by the on-site generation of renewable energy. The details shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To minimise the impact of the development and to contribute to meeting renewable energy targets in accordance with London Plan policy (4A.7 Renewal Energy). 19 Removal of Unauthorised Building The unauthorised timber extension, attached to the south (side) wall of the detached double garage to the rear of No 135 Jersey Road, shall be removed before the approved development is implemented. All resulting debris from the demolition shall be removed from the site. Reason: To secure the removal of the unauthorised extension in the interests of preserving the special character and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Building in accordance with adopted policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas), and ENV-B.2.5 (Development Affecting the Setting of Listed Buildings) of the Hounslow Unitary Development Plan.

Application B

GRANT Reasons: With appropriate safeguarding conditions the development would preserve the setting of the Listed Building (135 Jersey Road), in compliance with adopted policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas), and ENV- B.2.5 (Development Affecting the Setting of Listed Buildings), of the Hounslow Unitary Development Plan:

1 A1 Time Limit 2 B5 Detailed Applications

24 25 26 ISLEWORTH & BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 14th May 2008

ADDENDUM REPORT

AGENDA ITEM 4 Pages: 12-26

Land rear of 135 Jersey Road, Isleworth

1. Revised drawings received 12th May 2009. The revised drawings show minor revisions to the design of the front and rear to improve its overall design.

2. There are no planning records for the timber addition to the double garage, at the rear of the site. The 2006 aerial photograph for this site show that it did not exist at that time. As it was constructed less than four years ago it is unlawful. The applicant has confirmed in writing, on 12th May 2008, that they will remove the structure.

3. The following to be added to paragraph 8.9 relating to the setting of the Listed Building.

Part of the character of this site is the openness of its large rear garden that is clearly seen from the north and south sides of Cranmore Avenue. The proposed building would occupy a large area of this garden. However, it would be built on the southern end of the site, set back from the boundary with Cranmore Avenue, and retain a distance of some 17m between the development and the nearest rear wall of No 135, single storey part, and 21m between the development and two- storey element of No135. As it would retain a large amount of open garden area with a substantial gap between the development and existing house, and retaining the existing tree, it is considered that the development would preserve the setting of the Listed Building.

4. Paragraphs 8.13 to be corrected as follows:

A first floor window to the front of the side extension to No 2 Cranmore Avenue would fall within a 45-degree line measured from the front of the proposed building. The daylight to this window would not significantly be affected as it is at floor level and the proposed building being inset 800mm to 1.6m from their boundary. There would be some reduction in the outlook from this window. However, this is a window to an extension and the majority of the outlook to the east side remain. This is the same situation with the current valid permission for one house.

5. Condition No 19 to be amended as follows:

27 The development shall not start until the unauthorised timber extension, attached to the south (side) wall of the detached double garage to the rear of No 135 Jersey Road, has been removed before the approved development is implemented. All resulting debris from the demolition shall be removed from the site.

Reason: To secure the removal of the unauthorised extension in the interests of preserving the special character and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Building in accordance with adopted policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas), and ENV-B.2.5 (Development Affecting the Setting of Listed Buildings) of the Hounslow Unitary Development Plan.

6. Four letters of objection have been received one of which contains the signatures of 30 residents in Cranmore Avenue. A letter of objection has also been received from Osterley and Wyke Green Residents’ Association. They raise the following summarised concerns:

Comment Response

The proposed development is not See paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 consistent in appearance with the surrounding area.

The development is not in keeping with See paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 the existing style of houses and rural setting in this attractive Osterley location.

The staggered line of buildings cannot See paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 serve as an excuse to place a block in the knee-end of Cranmore Avenue. The development would be positioned so far out of line with other houses that it would turn into a new landmark, changing the street scene in a negative way.

The development would result in See paragraphs 8.18 increased traffic.

The development appears to be much See paragraphs 8.11 closer to the road and impinge on the

28 well established tree.

The development would result in loss See paragraphs 8.12 - 8.17 of light and view from adjacent houses.

There is nothing in this new See paragraph 8.2 - 8.18 application that offers any improvement to the approved scheme. The land is not available is not sufficient to accommodate such a large development.

Inadequate garden space. See paragraph 8.5

The drawings do not show the side This extension is not shown on extension to No 2 Cranmore Avenue. the drawing. However, the impact on this property has been fully assessed and the impact on the appearance of the development in relation with this adjoining house.

They request that the committee not The adjoining neighbours’ were decide the application to give them notified of the planning the opportunity for more time to application when received on further comment on the 13/08/08. The scheme was development. revised showing the parking reduced and the boundary set back further away from the mature tree on the site, and with alterations to the design. They were notified of the revised scheme at the time the application for Listed Building Consent was submitted. Since, then there have been no significant alterations to the scheme other than revisions to the design and not required to re-notify. However, they were informed on the 1st May 2009 to make them aware of the final alterations.

29 Agenda Item 5 ISLEWORTH & BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (Planning) 14th May 2009 Lorna Gilbert: Tel 020 8583 4944 [email protected] References: P/2009/0214 00505/Q/P8 Address: Overflow Car Park, Great West Road, Brentford, Ward: Brentford Proposal: Change of use to vehicle rental with a modular building and canopy. Drawing numbers: Site plan, Carapax canopy plan, design and access statement. Received 9.2.2009. FL/2009/0295088-1 A. Received 8.4.2009. Site plan, proposed planting. Received 15.4.2009. Email confirming the colour of the modular building. Received 16.4.2009 Application received: 9.2.2009

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The site is currently a car park and the proposal is to change its use to a vehicle rental business with the erection of a single storey office building and canopy to be used as a washing bay. The parking provision would remain unchanged with 47 parking spaces. It is considered that the proposed building, canopy and change of use of the site would not visually harm its surroundings. Providing an obscure glazing condition is attached to windows along the northwestern elevation office building, it is considered there would be no harm to neighbouring amenities. The site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone, which helps to reduce parking pressures along the street. Therefore the recommendation is for approval, subject to conditions.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is located along the northern side of the Great West Road. The northern and south western sides of the site are bordered by Boston Park Road. The site is currently used as a car park, located beneath an elevated section of the M4, and laid to tarmac. It was originally intended as an overflow car park for the office block 1000 Great West Road.

2.2 The site is not within a conservation area. It is within the Brentford Area Action Plan but is not covered by a specific designation. The site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone.

3.0 HISTORY 00505/Q/P7 Erection of a free standing advertising tower to eastern corner of existing building. Refused 11.09.2006 Appeal dismissed 15.5.2007 00505/Q/P6 Erection of free standing structure to existing site. Approved 02.12.2004 00505/Q/P5 Erection of a single 23 metre high display tower Refused 13.07.2004 30 00505/Q/P4 Erection of a 28.5m high single pole tower structure to support two internally illuminated advertising panels with associated landscaping. Refused 04.12.2003 00505/Q/P3 Erection of warehouse with associated parking and service area. Refused 22.12.1987 00505/Q/P2 Use of land for display of glass-reinforced plastic yacht hulls for export and home delivery. Refused 13.1.1981 00505/Q/P1 Use of land for open storage. Refused 3.11.1978

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The proposal is to use the car park as a vehicle rental business and to erect a modular building and canopy. The site would be used by Enterprise Rent-a-Car, who specialise in renting replacement cars to customers whose own cars are being serviced or repaired. Most vehicles would be delivered to and collected from the customers’ premises so customers do not return cars after hours. Deliveries and collections would be made within the operating hours. Rental cars would be valeted on site, but no repairs or mechanical maintenance would be carried out. Vehicles are not routinely carried by transporters, but once or twice a year one may bring a batch of new vehicles.

4.2 Based upon Enterprise’s experience, no more than 15% of rental vehicles should ever need to be stored on site at any one time. If rental vehicles did have to be parked, they would be spread among other branches nearby or sent to the company’s regional overflow parking facilities.

4.3 The proposed modular building would measures 12.4m (length), 6m (wide), and 3.7m (high with a flat roof). It would provide space for an open plan area, manager’s office, rest room, and toilet.

4.4 The aluminium windows, doors and canopy would be in black. According to the email dated 16th April 2009 the modular building would be painted in a beige colour (Dulux 40YY 75/084).

4.5 A Carapax Canopy coloured silver/grey is proposed that measures 6.95m (length), 4.85m (wide), and between 2.1m and 3.189m (high). It would be constructed from galvanised steel support posts. It has a curved polyester roof. The sides of the canopy would be left exposed. The purpose of the canopy is to provide staff with shelter from the weather whilst they valet vehicles. This entails vacuuming inside the cars and washing the outside.

4.6 The proposal would create five full-time and three part-time jobs. It would open Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm, Saturday between 9am and 12 noon, and be closed on Sunday and Bank Holidays.

4.7 The site has 47 existing car/light goods vehicles/public carrier vehicle spaces. The proposed parking provision would remain unchanged with one space designed to be a disability parking space. 31 4.8 Planting is provided besides the northeastern site boundary. The proposal is for Euonymus and Bearberry cotoneaster shrubs. Euonymus is an evergreen shrub, it grows to 100cm and can spread for 150cm. Bearberry cotoneaster grows to 60cm high and can spread for 200cm. The planting is located on the exposed part of the site not covered by the elevated motorway. The amount of planting is restricted to ensure there is adequate manoeuvring space for vehicles.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Neighbouring residents were notified on 24th February 2009. Two objections were received which are summarised in the table below;

Objection Comment Severe parking problems during the week See paragraphs 6.28 and 6.29 and weekends. Many people who attend the church travel by car as it is not possible for them to use public transport. Concern whether the hearse and mourner cars are able to park close to the church.

Boston Park Road is the only road that See paragraphs 6.28and 6.29 provides vehicular access to Our Lady’s & St. John’s RC Primary School. Parking difficulties. Significant congestion and inconvenience to parents bringing and collecting their children from the school.

Increased vehicular activity will be See paragraphs 6.28 and 6.29 prejudicial to the health and safety of pupils, parents and staff.

5.2 Transport for London (TfL) 5.3 Tfl do not believe that the development would have an adverse impact on the TLRN and therefore have no objection to the application. However, Tfl would recommend that the developer move the location of the access gates to the site back from the road a distance of one car length. This would prevent vehicles waiting to enter the site from causing any obstruction of the traffic using Boston Park Road.

5.4 The applicant submitted a revised site plan on 15th April 2009 that addressed TfL’s concerns and set back the access gates by one car length.

6.0 POLICY Determining applications for full or outline planning permission 6.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

32 The Development Plan 6.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’), the Employment Development Plan Document, the Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

6.3 The London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2004) was adopted in February 2008.

6.4 The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by Direction from the Secretary of State.

6.5 The Employment Development Plan Document was adopted on 25 November 2008 and has superseded the Employment Policies contained in UDP Chapter 7 and the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.4.1, IMP.4.2, IMP.4.3, and IMP.4.4.

6.6 The Brentford Area Action Plan was adopted on 27 January 2009 and has superseded the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.2.1 and IMP.3.1.

Supplementary Planning Documents Planning Obligations Air Quality

6.7 These SPDs were adopted on 11/03/08, following public consultation in July and August 2007. The documents form part of the Local Development Framework.

Supplementary Planning Guidance 6.8 1997 Supplementary Planning Guidance- The guidance contained within the Supplementary Guidance was subject to formal public consultation and unlike normal SPG were subject to an inquiry process and consideration by a government inspector.The Inspectors report recommended the appendices be removed from the plan, as they added to its bulk, cost and complexity and may well have consumed further resources at the first review of the UDP. He also considered that they could stand alone away from the main plan as SPG. This was the course of action to be taken by the Council. During the consultation process, objections were received from individual house builders and the HBF. The guidance was amended as part of the process. The Council did not therefore consider it necessary to reconsult on this proposed guidance, but simply to use the guidance in light of the suggested amendments and the Inspector’s comments.

London Plan (2008)

3B.1 Developing London’s Economy 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction

Unitary Development Plan

ENV-B.1.1 New development T.4.3 Traffic Implications of New Development T.4.4 Road safety

33 Employment Development Plan Document

E2 Locations for Employment

Brentford Area Action Plan

BAAP1 Sustainable Development BAAP2 Urban Design

PLANNING ISSUES

6.9 The main planning issues to consider are: • The principle of the development. • The impact on the site and surrounding area. • The impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. • Traffic and Parking.

The principle of the development 6.10 London Plan policy 3B.1 (Developing London’s Economy) seeks a range of premises of different types, sizes and costs to meet the needs of different sectors of the economy.

6.11 The Council will consider all development proposals in terms of how it relates to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing, character. It needs to respect the proportions of existing neighbouring buildings where there are strong uniform design characteristics, enhance the townscape value of an area through good urban design, impact upon neighbouring amenities, incorporate good quality, landscape design including boundary treatment, be designed so it is fully accessible to people with disabilities or impaired mobility, address traffic and parking issues in order to comply with the requirements of Policy ENV-B.1.1 of the adopted UDP.

6.12 According to the Employment Development Plan Document (EDPD) Policy E2 (Locations for Employment) the Council will assess the impacts on the environment, economy, community and transport network, and ensure there is no harm on surrounding uses.

6.13 The site falls under the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP) designation and therefore the policies in this document are relevant to the proposal. Policy BAAP1 (Sustainable Development) addresses air and noise pollution, flood risk and provision of social and community infrastructure and services. The site is currently a car park and its proposed change of use to a rental car company will not significantly alter the air and noise pollution levels. The site is not affected by a flood risk designation. A Sustainable Urban Drainage System condition would be included to comply with the policy requirements.

6.14 Policy BAAP2 (Urban Design) seeks high quality redevelopment of all proposal sites in order to enrich existing areas of distinctive local character, rejuvenate those areas that lack a positive identity, and improve the overall quality of Brentford’s urban form. New development proposals along the Great West Road should enhance this ‘Gateway’ location and respond to its strategic role with high quality designs. All development

34 should deliver improvements to the public realm whilst respecting the scale and amenity of surrounding residential areas and open spaces.

6.15 London Plan Policy 4A.3 tackles sustainable design and construction, and addresses the importance of designing buildings for flexible use throughout their lifetime, to make effective and sustainable use of water and resources, and minimise energy use. As the applicant has not submitted detail of how the proposed scheme meets this policy requirement for construction, it is felt that if the scheme were to be approved then a condition should be attached to ensure sustainable development measures are put in place. In this case, the consideration of these issues would relate as much to the surfacing and layout of the car park as to the buildings.

The impact on the appearance of the site and surrounding area 6.16 The proposal involves the erection of a modular office building and canopy, with the majority of the site retained as a car park. The building and canopy would be located towards the Boston Park Road side of the site. Planting of shrubs is proposed along part of the northern boundary adjacent to Boston Park Road. The proposed change in site layout and use does not greatly differ from the current use. The site is surrounded on three sides by roads including the Great West Road and Boston Park Road, and the elevated M4 road runs above the site. It is considered that the proposed modular building and the proposed use would be coherent and harmonise with its surroundings. There is an example of a modular style building on the opposite side of the street at No.1-42 Boston Park Road, shown in the photograph below. Moreover, the style and finish of the building are comparatively good quality for a structure of this type (see paragraph 6.18). Therefore the proposed modular building would not look out of context in the area.

Photograph 1: Modular building at 1-42 Boston Park Road

6.17 The existing site was intended as an overflow parking facility for the office block at 1000 Great West Road. A covering letter supplied by the agent explained that the car park has been redundant in this capacity for some time and that the owners wish to lease it to Enterprise Rent-a-Car. It was evident from the Planning Officer’s site visit on 31st March 2009 no office parking was taking place on site. Boston Park Road is part of the Controlled Parking Zone, therefore the loss of the existing car park would not have harmful implications on the appearance of the area through increased on-street parking.

35 6.18 The modular office building and is the standard design used by Enterprise Rent-a-Car. It would be constructed from painted plastisol steel walls, fascia and skirt, painted in beige. The windows, doors and canopy would be black aluminium. For the reasons given here, the proposed erection of the modular building and the site’s use for a car hire business would help enhance the site’s appearance by bringing it into beneficial use and managing it actively. The proposal would retain the site primarily for parking use, however it would also incorporate landscaping on the northern site boundary adjacent to Boston Park Road, which would improve the appearance of the site. The potential to use the site for other purposes is restricted by the elevated road above.

6.19 Visually, because the bulk of the site would still be given over to car parking, because of its location adjacent to the busy Great West Road, because the proposed building would be comparatively small and unobtrusive in its setting and because landscaping would be introduced where none presently exists and the site would be brought into more active use, it is considered that the proposal as a whole would enhance the site’s appearance. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be consistent with the requirement of policy ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) in respect to its appearance and enhance the townscape. BAAP 2 (Urban Design) seeks high quality redevelopment of all proposal sites and improve the quality of Brentford’s urban form and it is considered that the proposal would comply with this criterion.

The impact on neighbour’s living conditions 6.20 The proposed building would be opposite a cul-de-sac road and therefore the windows on its northern elevation do not directly face nearby properties. The structure would be positioned between 16m and 17m from the properties of No.41d and 43a Boston Park Road. The positioning of the proposed office and its angle in relation to No.41d Boston Park Road, would result in this neighbouring house having an oblique view of the office. This in turn limits the proposal’s impact on this neighbour’s privacy because windows would not directly face one another. As the proposed building would be used as an office it would not contain habitable rooms. Appendix 1 of the UDP explains that in the case of windows of non-habitable rooms, within 21m of another facing window, obscured glazing would be considered acceptable. Therefore a condition would need to be attached to ensure the windows along the northern elevation are obscure glazed to ensure adequate privacy for neighbours.

6.21 The building proposed is a single storey structure and its position and scale avoid it from causing a loss of light or outlook to nearby residents.

Traffic and Parking 6.22 UDP Policy T.4.3 (Traffic Implications of New Development) describes how development will not be permitted if the traffic movement directly associated with it would increase danger, cause unacceptable, noise, congestion or environmental intrusion. Policy T.4.4 (Road Safety) addresses the implication of the proposals for the safety of drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians.

6.23 The application proposal would not alter the number of parking spaces on site. The car park is no longer used as an overflow car park for 1000 Great West Road. As Boston Park Road is in a Controlled Parking Zone, the change of use would not increase on-street parking. Transport for London (TfL - commenting because this is on the London Strategic Road Network) have no objection to the proposal. TfL asked for the access gates to the site to be set back from the road a distance of one car length. An amended site plan was received on the 15th April 2009 that shows this. 36 6.24 The site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone, which restricts vehicles associated with the proposed development from parking along the street. Supporting information submitted as part of the application explains that most vehicles are delivered to and collected from the customers’ premises and this would avoid customers routinely returning cars outside the opening hours. It also explains that if more rental vehicles need to be parked, they would be spread among other branches nearby or sent to the company’s regional overflow parking facilities. A condition (5) is also recommended to ensure that parking of rental vehicles does not occur on the highway.

6.25 Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not lead to adverse traffic congestion or problems along the street and the proposal would comply with the requirements of policies T.4.3 and T.4.4 of the UDP.

7.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS • There would be level access to the building and the entrance door would be 1m wide. A disabled toilet is included in the office building. The proposal complies with disability standards.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE Subject to safeguarding conditions, it is considered that the change of use of the car park to a vehicle rental use with a modular building and canopy would be acceptable in terms of its appearance, would harmonise with its surroundings. It would not harm neighbours’ living conditions. It is therefore in accordance with adopted London Plan Policy 3A.1 (Developing London’s Economy), adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), T.4.3 (Traffic Implications of New Development) and T.4.4 (Road Safety) Employment Development Plan Document, Policy E2 (Locations for Employment) and Brentford Area Action Plan policies BAAP1 (Sustainable Development) and BAAP2 (Urban Design)

Conditions:

1 A1a (Time limit) A1R 2 B4 (Materials samples) B4R 3 B5 (In accordance with plans) B5R 4 D1 (Obscure glazing) D1R The windows formed in the north west elevation shall be obscure glazed, hinged to open inwards and shall not be repaired or replaced otherwise than with obscured glazing. 5 Street parking Reason: To avoid traffic congestion and parking problems along the nearby Rental vehicles brought to the site streets. shall be parked only on the site and not on the adjoining highway. 6 Sustainable Construction Reason: In the interest of sustainability and 37 No development shall take place comply with essential standards in the until details have been submitted to London Plan and in the London Plan Policy and approved by the Local Planning 4A.3. Authority, for a sustainable construction scheme, to comply with the "essential" standards for materials in the London Plan and Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. These being - 50% timber and timber products from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) source and balance from a known temperate source. - Insulation materials containing substances known to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion or with the potential to contribute to global warming must not be used. -Minimize use of new aggregates -Reduce waste during construction and demolition phases and sort waste stream on site where practical -Specify use of reused or recycled construction materials 7 Soft Landscaping Reason. To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the site and improve the visual No development shall take place amenities of the locality in accordance with until full details of soft landscape policy ENV.B.1.1 New development. works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Soft landscape works shall include (planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme)

Informative:

1. This planning approval does not include consent for signage on the office building. The applicant would require advertisement consent for the signage.

38 39 40 Agenda Item 6 ISLEWORTH & BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 14 MAY 2009 Nikolas Smith: Tel 020 8583 4996 e-mail: [email protected] References: P/2009/0249 01119/168/P1 P/2009/0250 01119/168/AD1 Address: 168 Thornbury Road, Osterley Ward: Osterley and Spring Grove Proposal: Use of house as a professional and financial services office (A2) Display of non-illuminated advertising board on front facade Drawing numbers: Un-numbered site location plan, bga/168-1 received 09 January 2009 Application received: 01 April 2009

Cllr O’Reilly called these applications to Committee in order that the applicants were able to make representations in support of the applications and in order that a general discussion relating to use classes within the parade could take place.

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 It is proposed to change the use of the building from a house (use Class C3) to an accountancy office (Use Class A2) that would reduce the existing stock of housing in the Borough. Furthermore, no information is provided to demonstrate how the building would provide inclusive access. It is also proposed to display a non-illuminated fascia sign on the building that would appear inappropriate and unusual on a dwelling and would harm the appearance of the building and the character and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area.

1.2 Refusal is recommended.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 This is a two-storey, attached building on the west side of Thornbury Road immediately north of the Piccadilly Line in the Osterley Park Conservation Area. It was formerly the Osterley Underground station before that was moved to the Great West Road.

2.2 It is a three-bedroom house (Use Class C3) with a rear garden of approximately 170 square metres and a floor area of roughly 100 square metres. It is not occupied. The applicant suggests that it has not been for some time. The applicant also states that it was formerly used as staff accommodation by British Rail

2.3 The site is on the edge of a small shopping centre, from which it is mostly separated by the railway and the larger residential area to the north.

2.4 To the northwest are houses and these are separated from the application site by two garages.

2.5 To the southwest are an attached bookshop (formerly interconnected by a door now bricked up) and a parade of shops.

2.6 An estate agency and a vacant shop are opposite the site.

2.7 This is a Controlled Parking Zone. 41 3.0 HISTORY 3.1 There is no planning history on the site.

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The application is by a firm of Accountants, which officers believe is based in a first floor flat in Cromwell Road, Hounslow, without the benefit of planning permission. Council Tax records show that the ground floor flat at the address is being used as a residential dwelling and Business Rates records show that a business is being run from a first floor flat at the property.

4.2 The use of the building (168 Thornbury Road) would change from C3 (residential) to A2 (professional and financial services).

4.3 Rooms on the ground floor would be used as a meeting room, an admin office, a bathroom, a storeroom and a kitchenette. Rooms on the first floor would be used as three offices and a bathroom.

4.4 A non-illuminated fascia sign would be displayed on the front elevation of the building and this would be 1m high and 5.6m wide.

4.5 No plans have been provided to show car parking.

4.6 The applicant states that the property has been unoccupied for about 18 months. It is said to be in need of extensive updating and repair and is currently uninhabitable.

4.7 Correspondence received from the applicants, but not part of the application, makes the following statements in support of the application

We are a small firm, we employ local Hounslow residents; we contribute taxes to the local area; we employ staff who also wish to move into the borough…

We have grown too big for our current premises…

We would be vacating our current commercial property and converting this back into residential.

The very nature of our firm is such that there will be a negligible external effect of our activities; clients rarely come to see us, as we are willing to go and see them. Correspondence is done primarily through the post, telephone calls, e- mails etc.

If you look at the property, it opens out straight onto the street, unlike the residential properties down the road which are set back from the road and have front gardens. There is a clear and unarguable demarcation that dictates that the property in question is part of the commercial area that surrounds it and not the residential area that encroaches on the one side.

The history of the building is that it was originally the station masters home. It was linked to the station next door. It is also opposite commercial properties. Given the proximity to the train station and the very busy Piccadilly line, it could be argued that it does not make for a good residential property due to the noise and the rumble from the trains as they go by. 42 Given the recession we are now in, I cannot see why a business would be discouraged in this way from moving to this area. A firm of Chartered Accountants would compliment (sic) the business on the road. If some businesses fold this would affect the look of the local area; keeping this area busy should be encouraged….

We prefer Osterley because of the access to the A4 and the tube line. If we do not get planning, we may consider leaving the area.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Eight neighbouring residents were notified on 02 March 2009. Press and site notices were also posted on 12 March 2009. One letter of support was received from the adjacent neighbours as follows:

Comment Response

The building has been empty (and See Paragraph 7.15 subject to vandalism) for several years now and its occupation by a company will add life and security to the parade.

No changes should be made to the See Paragraphs 7.15 and 7.16. exterior character of this building in this Conservation Area

6.0 POLICY Determining applications for full or outline planning permission 6.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan 6.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the London Plan. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by direction from the Secretary of State. The 'London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)' was adopted in February 2008.

Local Development Framework As part of its prospective Local Development Framework, the Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Planning Obligations and Air Quality, which are statutory material considerations and will be applied alongside the Development Plan.

43 6.3 The Council has prepared two development plan documents – the Employment DPD and the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP) as part of the Council’s Local Development Framework. The former is relevant to this case because it involves and employment use

6.4 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 stipulate that advert applications must only be determined on public safety and amenity grounds. The Council’s planning policies interpret this in a Borough context.

Determining applications in Conservation Areas 6.5 In considering whether to grant planning permission with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

6.6 Unitary Development Plan ENV-B.1.1 New Development. ENV-H.3.1 Presumption Against Loss of Residential T.1.4 & Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing for Appendix 3 Developments ENV-B.1.4 Advertisements ENV-B.2.2 Conservation Areas 6.7 Employment Development Plan document EP1 Location of new office based employment EP9 Small and medium sized enterprise

6.8 Planning Policy Guidance PPG19 Outdoor Advertisement Control (March 1992)

6.9 Character appraisal of the Osterley Park Conservation area 6.10 This says that the area was developed around 1883 when the District Line ran between Hounslow and Acton Town. The character of this area together with its mature trees is more akin to the Spring Grove Conservation Area but the Great West Road has significantly separated them. However the small-scale commercial nature of the buildings lining the Park side of Thornbury Road is not repeated on the south, and with the old railway building and the rising ground to cross the railway line it has a particular charm of its own as of a small village street.

6.11 London Plan 4B.5 Creating an Inclusive Environment

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 The main planning issues to consider are: • The acceptability in principle • The loss of the existing residential unit balanced against the provision of local employment • The impact on neighbouring living conditions

44 • The impact on the building and the wider street scene and the Conservation Area. • The fascia sign • Parking

Principle 7.2 Policy ENV-B.1.1 of the Unitary Development Plan states that new development should be compatible with, seek to enhance the character of the area in terms of size, scale, materials and design and protect neighbours’ living conditions.

7.3 Policy ENV-B.2.2 seeks to protect and enhance the special character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

7.4 Policy H.3.1 seeks to resist the loss of buildings in residential use.

7.5 Policy T.1.4 seeks to ensure that all development provides parking and servicing facilities in accordance with the Council’s standards.

7.6 PPG19 sets out the Government’s planning guidance on the display of outdoor advertising. In accordance with PPG19, in assessing an advertisement’s impact on amenity, consideration should be given to the effect of an advertisement on visual amenity in the immediate neighbourhood where it is to be displayed. Relevant characteristics of the neighbourhood; including the scale and massing of existing structures. When assessing the impact of an advertising display on public safety, the Annexe recognises that advert displays are intended to draw attention and that ‘the vital consideration is whether the advertisement itself, or the exact location proposed for its display, is likely to be so distracting, or so confusing, that it creates a hazard to, or endangers, people in the vicinity who are taking reasonable case for their own and others’ safety’.

7.7 Policy ENV-B.1.4 seeks to ensure that all advertisements are aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area and do not detract from the appearance of a locality. Advertisement consent will be refused if the advert would adversely affect pedestrian safety or the safety and free flow of traffic.

7.8 Policy 4B.5 of the London Plan requires all development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion.

Loss of a residential unit and use for employment 7.9 Whilst the house is not currently occupied, there is no obvious reason why it could not be. It has a good size garden and three bedrooms. While proximity to the railway is a disadvantage, the effect on residents’ living conditions is not so great as to be a deterrent to future occupation. No information has been submitted to suggest that its current use is not a viable one and so it must be considered that this is a building suitable for use as a family dwelling. There is a shortage of family houses in the Borough and in the absence of any strong mitigating factors to support the loss of this building as a dwelling this use should be protected. Furthermore, it is considered that a number of other sites in the area and the Borough could suit the applicants’ requirements without resulting in the loss of a family dwelling.

7.10 The Employment DPD says proposals for small business units will be considered favourably. However, whilst it is accepted that the applicant may provide valuable local

45 employment, there is no shortage of suitable vacant commercial premises that might be occupied without loss of residential accommodation.

7.11 The applicant has not formally offered to revert the present accommodation to residential use. In fact, the accommodation in question does not have the benefit of planning permission in any event. It is a flat.

7.12 Any such arrangement would have to be achieved by a S106 legal agreement

7.13 In the absence of such an offer and of any information about what would be available as a result, it cannot be assessed to establish if such an arrangement would appropriately mitigate the loss of this small family house.

Neighbours 7.14 Owing to the nature of the proposed use, the likely opening hours and its location next to a shopping parade and separated from the residential development to the northwest it is not considered that the proposed use would result in any harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

Conservation Area 7.15 Whilst it is not considered that the change of use would harm the character or appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area in itself, it is considered that, given the unacceptability in principle of the change of use, the proposed fascia sign would appear an usual and inappropriate feature on a dwelling and that this would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. This is discussed further below. That said, it is accepted that bringing a vacant building back into use would be beneficial to the local environment. Nevertheless, the proposed use is considered inappropriate and this benefit does not override the objection in principle to the loss of housing.

Fascia Sign 7.16 Given the fact that the change of use of the building from C3 to A2 is unacceptable in principle, the display of a fascia sign would appear unusual and inappropriate on a dwelling. It is considered that the display of this sign would cause unacceptable harm the amenity of the area in that it would constitute an obtrusive feature that would appear out of place and odd on the host building.

Parking 7.17 Appendix 3 (parking standards) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that 1 parking space should be provided for every 200m2 floor space. Whilst the 1 space required has not been shown on a submitted plan, it is considered that this space could be provided. The area outside of the building is controlled by way of a pay and display scheme and parking permits are also available for purchase. Public transport in the area is poor and the site has a PTAL rating of 2. Notwithstanding that, it is considered that given the nature of the proposed use, access to the site would be sufficient.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS • No information has been submitted to show how the building would provide inclusive access. It is not currently accessible.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed change of use of the building from C3 (residential) to A2 would reduce the housing stock within the Borough. No information has been submitted to suggest 46 that this building is not a viable dwelling or that the applicant has considered other sites for their business, which would not reduce the Borough’s housing stock. Furthermore, no information has been submitted to show how the building would provide inclusive access. Given the unacceptability of the change of use of the building, the proposed fascia sign would present an unusual and inappropriate feature on the dwelling that would harm the visual amenity of the area and the character and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL Reasons:

Planning application The proposed change of use of the building from C3 (residential) to A2 (professional and financial services) would reduce the housing stock within the Borough and no information has been submitted to show how the building would provide inclusive access and so is contrary to Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.3.1 (Presumption Against Loss of Residential) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 4B.5 (Creating and Inclusive Environment) of the London Plan.

Advertisement application The proposed display of a non-illuminated fascia sign would represent an unusual and inappropriate feature on a dwelling and would harm the appearance of the house and the wider area and thus the character and appearance of the Osterley Park Conservation Area and is contrary to Policies ENV-B.1.4 (Advertisements) and ENV- B.2.2 (Conservation Areas) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and PPG 19 (Outdoor Advertisement Control).

47 48

Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee 14th May 2009 Agenda Item 7 Sam Collins Tel: 0208 583 5186 E-mail: [email protected] References: P/2009/0212 00938/44/P8 Address: 44 The Ride, Brentford Ward: Brentford Proposal: Detached Guest House Drawing numbers: 02, 03, 05, 06, 07 Received: 30th January 2009 Application received: 29th January 2009

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 This application is for the erection of a detached guest house upon the site of an existing double garage, which would be ancillary to the use of the dwelling as a single family house. It is considered that the proposed outbuilding would be acceptable in terms of appearance and would preserve the amenity of the adjoining properties. As such, the proposal would be in accordance with relevant UDP policy and approval is recommended subject to conditions controlling its use.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located to the rear of 42-60 The Ride, Brentford and is accessible via a narrow drive between nos. 42 and 46. The driveway has an electric, sensor operated gate fronting onto The Ride.

2.2 The site contains a detached bungalow, with a large rear garden containing a summer house. There is currently a double garage on the northern boundary of the property, which is accessed from the main drive area.

2.3 To the south, the site adjoins the rear garden areas of properties on The Ride, to the north the site adjoins Durston House School Playing Fields.

2.4 The site is not in a Conservation Area.

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 The most recent planning history is as follows;

3.2 00938/44/P6 Retention of outbuilding to existing dwellinghouse Approved 27th October 2000

3.3 00938/44/P7 Erection of single storey rear extension, alteration to side elevation incorporating internal alterations to house Approved 16th November 2006

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The detached guesthouse would be positioned to the north west corner of the site and would require the demolition of the existing double garage.

4.2 The plans show that the proposed outbuilding would be divided up into a bedroom, a further bedroom / lounge and a shower room with toilet facilities for use as a guesthouse for visitors.

49 4.3 The structure would measure 11.25 metres in width, 5.10 metres in depth, 2.97 metres at gutter and 3.14 metres at the pitch of the roof. It would be finished with a (virtually) flat roof and a smooth render finish to the exterior walls. The building would have a door and window to the front elevation and a further bay window providing light to the proposed bedroom / living room.

4.4 The proposed bedroom would measure a total of 12.4m2 with the additional bedroom / living room measuring 22.3m2. The proposed bathroom would measure 4.5m2. There would be no provision for private amenity space or parking.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 A total of 3 neighbouring properties were consulted on 24th February 2009. One objection was received from a neighbouring property and can be summarised as follows;

Objection Response

Access is limited and extra vehicles The use of the outbuilding is considered would create additional noise and to be ancillary to the main house and disturbance, in part due to the electric therefore it is not considered that there gate would be an undue increase in noise and disturbance

Concerns regarding a breach of the This is a civil matter and not of concern in party wall act the determination of this application

The proposed outbuilding would The use of the application would be used as effectively create an additional property a guesthouse for visitors to the main house at the premises and therefore the use is considered ancillary to the main house. This is controllable by condition.

6.0 POLICY 6.1 Determining applications for full or outline planning permission When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The Development Plan The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the London Plan. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by direction from the Secretary of State. The 'London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)' was adopted in February 2008.

ENV-B.1.1 New Development. H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations

50 Residential Extension Guidelines (2003

Section 7 Detached Outbuildings

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 The main planning issues concerning the case are: o The acceptability, in principle. o The impact on the street scene and character of the area. o The impact on the living conditions at neighbouring properties.

The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal. 7.2 The proposal seeks permission for the erection of a single storey detached outbuilding for use as a guesthouse, ancillary to the main house. The outbuilding would be located to the northern boundary of the site, and accessed via the existing driveway. It would require the demolition of the existing double garage.

7.3 New Residential Developments are acceptable in principle provided they comply with relevant UDP Policy. Policy ENV-B.1.1 of the Unitary Development Plan states that new development should be compatible with, and seek to enhance the character of the area in terms of size, scale, materials and design.

7.4 Policy H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance (Residential Extension Guidelines) state that proposed extensions and alterations should complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the general street scene.

7.5 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines state that all outbuildings should be positioned as far away from the main building as possible and should be set in from the boundaries by at least one metre. External materials should be similar to the ones used in the rear of the main building.

7.6 The section also states that an outbuilding with a flat roof should not exceed 3 metres in height, the windows must only face the main dwelling house and the outbuilding should leave at least 60% of the rear garden open and undeveloped.

7.7 The proposed outbuilding would be located on the site of the existing double garage within the front driveway area of the property. As such it would not encroach upon the existing rear garden area of the property and the windows of the outbuilding would not look onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of the outbuilding would be 3.14 metres at the pitch of the roof, which exceeds the recommended guidelines by 0.14 metres.

7.8 The proposed outbuilding generally complies with the guidance set out in the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines. The overall size of the outbuilding is considered acceptable in relation to the total area of the site. The overall scale of the building is not considered excessive within the context of the site.

7.9 Therefore the outbuilding for use ancillary to the main family house is considered to be acceptable in principle. This is discussed further in the following sections.

51 The impact of the proposal on the street scene and character of the area 7.10 Policy ENV B.1.1 states that the Council will consider all development proposals with regard to ensuring that proposals make a positive contribution to overall environmental quality. In particular development should relate well to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing, character and use of the adjacent townscape.

7.11 The proposed outbuilding would be located to the north western corner of the site adjoining the boundary with Durston House Playing Fields. Due to the overall bulk and scale of the proposed outbuilding it would not be visible from the public highway and it would not present an excessive form when viewed from neighbouring properties.

7.12 The outbuilding would be located on the site of the existing garage on the northern boundary of the site and would extend towards the summerhouse to the east. The height and width of the proposed building would be in keeping with the existing property and summerhouse, which are both single storey.

7.13 The outbuilding would have the appearance of a flat roofed building and would have a smooth render finish. Therefore the overall design would be in keeping with the existing dwelling at the site and is considered acceptable.

The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring properties 7.14 Policy Env-B1.1 states that in assessing a new development the Council must ensure that adequate daylight and sunlight reaches adjoining properties and minimise any detrimental impact on adjoining properties by the applying the Council’s adopted standards.

7.15 The resulting building is located less than 1.0 metre away from the original house. The front elevation of the building faces directly onto the front of the existing house at an oblique angle. The use of the outbuilding as a guesthouse associated with the main house would not lead to a loss of privacy or amenity to the main house as it is not considered as a separate residential unit.

7.16 The parking provision for the house would be reduced by the loss of the garage. It is considered however, that the existing large driveway would still provide adequate parking provision to both the existing house and proposed outbuilding as it provides parking for at least 3 cars.

7.17 The proposed guest house would be located to the northern west boundary of the property, therefore there would be no impact upon the amenity of the properties to the south or east of the property. To the north of the property lies Durston House School Playing Fields and immediately to the rear of the proposed guest house is sited a large corrugated metal storage facility associated with the playing fields. As this building is solely for storage and contains no openings to the southern elevation, there would be no impact in terms of amenity. Similarly to the west of the proposed guest house lies the GSK Playing Fields and more specifically the Tennis Courts. As such, the guest house would have no impact upon amenity.

7.18 Concerns have been raised regarding the increased use of the driveway to the property and the intensification of the use of the site. These include the movement of vehicles at unsociable hours, which is further exacerbated by the electric gate that has been installed at the foot of the driveway. It is considered that the addition of an 52 outbuilding for use as a guest house would not significantly intensify the use of the driveway, or create significant additional movement. It is therefore considered that it would not lead to an unacceptable level of increased noise and disturbance to adjoining properties.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 8.1 There are no equal opportunities implications.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 With reference to the previous sections, it has been demonstrated that the proposal succeeds in preserving the appearance of the existing property and the wider character of the area, it is also considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. The proposed therefore satisfies Policy ENV B1.1 and H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2003) and supplementary planning guidance. Approval is therefore recommended.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approval

10.2 REASONS: 10.3 The proposed erection of a detached outbuilding for use a guesthouse, which is ancillary to the use of the main house would preserve the appearance of the existing property and the character of the wider area and would have an acceptable impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties. On balance, the development is in accordance with Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and alterations) of The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan, (2003) and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

CONDITIONS: 1 A1A Time limits 2 B3 Matching Materials 3 B5 Strictly in accordance with plans 4 D2 No additional windows in the flank walls 5 NON- Construction Times STD No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm on Mondays to Friday, and 9.30am to 12.30pm on Saturdays, and none shall take place on Sundays and public holidays without prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties. 6 NON- Granny Annexes STD The outbuilding shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the property at 44 The Ride, Brentford and shall not be used as a separate unit of living accommodation or for business purposes. REASON: NON-STD. The outbuilding, by reason of its lack of natural light, amenity space and proximity to the main house is unsuitable as a separate unit of living accommodation.

53 54 55 Agenda Item 8 ISLEWORTH & BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 14 May 2009 Burnetta van-Stipriaan/Shane Baker e-mail: [email protected] Reference Application A: P/2007/2900 00443/U/P4 Reference Application B: P/2007/2975 01128/G/P2 Address Application A: Soaphouse Creek, Ferry Lane, Ferry Quays, Brentford Address Application B: River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quays, Brentford Ward (both applications): Syon Proposal Application A: Proposed fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings (Amended description) Proposal Application B: Proposed fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings

Drawing numbers Application A: 3071D(--)1101 Rev B received 11 September 2007; 3071D(--)1108 Rev C, 3071D(--)1249 Rev C, 3071D(--)1250 Rev B, 0525-01-201 Rev B & 0525-01-202 Rev A all received 16 April 2009. Hither Green Developments Ltd Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays Operational Management Plan, November 2008 Soaphouse Creek, Brentford Design & Access Statement 3071/A34.1, November 2008, Rev. B ‘Ecological Impact Assessment of Proposals for Moorings on the River Brent at Ferry Quays, Brentford’ dated 3rd July 2007

Drawing numbers Application B: 3071D(--)2101 Rev B, 3071D(--)2108 Rev D, 3071D(--)2249 Rev C &3071D(--)2250 Rev B; all received 27 May 2008; 0525-01-101 Rev B & 0525-01-102 Rev B, received 16 April 2009. Hither Green Developments Ltd Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays Operational Management Plan, November 2008 River Brent Moorings, Brentford Design & Access Statement 3071/A34.1, November 2008, Rev. B ‘Ecological Impact Assessment of Proposals for Moorings on the River Brent at Ferry Quays, Brentford’ dated 3rd July 2007 Application A received: 11 September 2007 Application B received: 19 September 2007

56 Summary: (i) Two planning applications have been submitted for moorings at Ferry Quays; one for moorings within Soaphouse Creek (00443/U/P4) and the other for moorings on the northern bank of the Grand Union Canal/River Brent (01128/G/P2). Both applications were deferred at the December 2007 meeting of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning). (ii) At the March 2008 meeting of the Committee Members resolved to grant consent to both applications, each subject to the imposition of conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. (iii) Subsequently the applicant sought to vary the wording of one of the conditions for the Soaphouse Creek planning permission and amend plans for the River Brent application. Consequently thee applications were brought back to Committee for re-consideration. (iv) Both applications were deferred at the August 2008 IBAC, with Members asking for them to be reported back in September 2008 and agreeing on the need for a planning consultant with waterways expertise. (v) At the September 2008 IBAC meeting members authorised officers to appoint Captain Capon to prepare an independent report on the planning applications, with particular attention to navigation and obstruction issues. (vi) At the November IBAC, the Committee considered a report summarising Captain Capon’s findings and recommending amendments to both applications in accordance with those findings, before they are reported back to the Committee for approval, subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. (vii) In December 2008, two separate applications (0043/U/P5 and 01128/G/P3) were lodged for new moorings at the site, the applications proposed moorings that amended the scheme to incorporate earlier recommendations, with the Soaphouse Creek proposal now not including any commercial berths and the length of leisure moorings decreasing from 145m to 120m, and a revised Operational Management Plan (OMP) and Navigational Risk Assessment being submitted. (viii) These two new applications were subject to consultation and were submitted to the Council’s expert consultant, Captain Capon, for comments. The plans for the amended applications were assessed by officers taking into account consultation responses and Captain Capon’s comments, and it was concluded both applications would be satisfactory subject to safeguarding conditions and a legal agreement, and so approval would have been recommended to the committee. However before that could occur the applicant appealed both of these last applications on the grounds of non-determination. Appeal statements have been submitted and a hearing is likely to be held soon (no date set). (ix) Since these appeals have been made the applicant has also submitted amended plans for the applications 00443/U/P4 and 01128/G/P2 (the subject of this report). These amended plans are identical to the plans for 00443/U/P5 and 01128/G/P3. (x) This report considers these amended proposals and recommends that planning permission be granted to both applications, as subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement, the proposed moorings as shown on the amended plans are acceptable, as they would provide new facilities consistent with the intent of original Ferry Quays development and the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ for London. Additionally, they would not adversely affect safe navigation, biodiversity, or the living conditions of nearby residents, and would help animate the waterway and add positively to the riverside character of the site and the area.

57 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 These two planning applications for new moorings at Ferry Quays were first submitted in September 2007 being for:

A: Planning application 00443/U/P4: Fully serviced leisure moorings, two visitor moorings and one commercial (Use Class B1 (Business)) mooring as a Marina Management Office within Soaphouse Creek; and

B: Planning application 01128/G/P2: Fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings on the northern bank of the Grand Union Canal/River Brent.

1.2 Both applications were deferred at the December 2007 meeting of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) (IBAC), with Members requesting further information on the impact of the River Brent application on navigation, to cover both a technical assessment of whether the proposals would limit the ability of potential future use by commercial barges and the legal situation regarding navigation rights. They asked that British Waterways be invited to attend the future Committee meeting.

1.3 The IBAC considered these applications on 27 March 2008. Members resolved to grant permission to both applications subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement

1.4 Subsequently the applicant sought to vary the wording of condition 13 to be imposed on the Soaphouse Creek planning permission. With the March 2008 resolution on the basis of the commercial mooring being used as a Marina Management Office with an ancillary education resource, the application was brought back to Committee for re- consideration1.

1.5 The applicant also sought to substitute plans for the River Brent application; specifically, for 125m of leisure moorings (reduced from 180m)2 and the movement of an access point and service bollard. As the Committee’s resolution was on a different set of drawings, the River Brent application was also brought back to the August 2008 IBAC for re-consideration.

1.6 Both applications were deferred, with Members asking for them to be reported back in September 2008 and agreeing on the need for a planning consultant with waterways expertise. Members asked that the consultant attend on the night, to answer any questions they might have.

1.7 In September 2008 IBAC members authorised officers to appoint Captain Capon to prepare an independent report on the planning applications with particular attention to navigation and obstruction issues and to attend the October 2008 meeting of the Committee to answer any questions.

1.8 At its meeting on 13 November 2008, the IBAC considered a report summarising Captain Capon’s findings and recommending that the Committee authorise amendments to both applications in accordance with those findings, before they are reported back to the Committee for approval, subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. In regards to Soaphouse Creek it was

1 Officers do not have authority to grant planning permission without the imposition of conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, as reported.

58 reported that there would be no serious risks to the safety of navigation. It was suggested that the Operational Management Plan and the design should meet the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours as rewritten in 2007. In respect of the River Brent, Captain Capon sought further information regarding use of the river by large commercial barges or trains of barges and also suggested that the Operational Management Plan and the design should comply with the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours.

1.9 The Committee resolved the following:

That officers: • Be authorised regarding Soaphouse Creek application (00443/U/P4) (P/2007/2900) to seek amendments to the Operational Management Plan and the design so as to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours as rewritten in 2007. • Be authorised regarding the River Brent application (01128/G/P2) (P/2007/2975) to seek via the applicant, details of the type and size of vessels that use the River Brent and a formal risk assessment of the impact of the proposed moorings. o Amendments to the proposal (design and management) so as to meet (with a degree of practicality and proportionality) the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours as rewritten in 2007. • And, in respect of both applications, then be required to report back on the applications with a recommendation (in respect of each) for approval subject to the imposition of conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or for refusal.

1.10 In December 2008, two further applications (0043/U/P5 and 01128/G/P3) were lodged for new moorings at the site, the applications being amended to incorporate earlier recommendations, with the Soaphouse Creek proposal now not including any commercial berths and the length of leisure moorings decreasing from 145m to 120m, and a revised Operational Management Plan (OMP) and Navigational Risk Assessment being submitted.

1.11 These two applications were subject to consultation and submitted to the Council’s expert consultant, Captain Capon, for comments. The plans for the amended applications have been assessed by officers taking into account consultation responses and Captain Capon’s comments, and it was concluded both applications would be satisfactory subject to safeguarding conditions and a legal agreement, and so approval would have been recommended to the committee.

1.12 The applicant has appealed both of these last applications on the grounds of non- determination. Appeal statements have been submitted and a hearing is likely to be held soon (no date set). 1.13 Since the appeals have been made the applicant has also submitted amended plans for the applications 00443/U/P4 and 01128/G/P2 (the subject of this report). These amended plans are identical to the plans for 00443/U/P5 and 01128/G/P3.

59 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Application A relates to Soaphouse Creek, a mooring basin with a half-tide lock, adjacent to the convergence of the Thames and Brent Rivers. It lies southeast of Soaphouse Lane and is triangular in shape. Residential and commercial buildings that are part of the contemporary Ferry Quays development adjoin the basin. A residential building, No. 1 Point Wharf Lane lies to the south, between the basin and the River Brent. To the north, there is a mixed use building with restaurants to the ground floor and residential above. A Grade II Listed Building (Peerless Pumps) fronts the northern side of the basin.

2.2 Soaphouse Creek was subject to dredging and reprofiling as part of the Ferry Quays redevelopment. The lock gate maintains its water level, with the gate usually only operated at high tide.

2.3 Application B relates to a stretch of water along the northern bank of the River Brent, near to its convergence with the Thames. This part of the river is tidal. The River Brent is part of the Grand Union Canal. A residential building, No. 1 Point Wharf Lane, extends parallel to the River Brent, adjoining the northern side of the site. To the south, on the opposite bank, there are multi-storey residential flat buildings (Julius Court and Numa Court).

2.4 Both sites are within Brentford Town Centre, the Thames Policy Area and the Brentford Regeneration Area as designated by the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The UDP also designates the site as part of a Nature Conservation Area whilst the Thames Riverside is classed as Metropolitan Open Land. The River Brent site also falls within the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area.

2.5 Boats are moored further upstream on the River Brent and downstream along the Middlesex bank of the Thames. Historically both sites were used for mooring of boats associated with industry and transport. No boats are moored at either site at present.

Image 1: Aerial photo of site (N.B. Ferry Quays under construction)

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 The Ferry Quays development has a complex planning history, with a number of planning permissions and associated legal agreements. Planning permissions 00443/G/P3 and 00443/G/P4, both granted in 1999 following the completion of legal 60 agreements, approved redevelopment of the site with a mixed-use development comprising flats, a hotel, restaurants, moorings, works to Soaphouse Creek, car parking, access and landscaping. Application P4 was amended by P7 in 2000 with the addition of extra residential flats to the development. There are two legal agreements relating to the site, one relating to outline permission for the full site (P3) and the other relating to full planning permission (P7) for a smaller part of the site.

3.2 The relevant planning history for the Ferry Quays site is given in the following table.

3.3 00443/G/P3 Outline application (siting and access) for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 353 flats, hotel, boat storage area, retail and restaurant units, new vehicle accesses, basement car park, museum, new pedestrian bridge to Lots Ait, use of Lots Ait for boat storage/repairs, leisure club, reduction in size of Ferry Wharf to create new inter- tidal area, enlargement and works to Soaphouse Creek with new lockgate, pedestrian footbridge, visitor moorings and services, and mooring facilities at Point Wharf.

Granted (legal agreement completed) 2 July 1999

This was later amended through variation of a condition to permit car parking on one level only (00443/G/P5).

3.4 00443/G/P4 Detailed planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 191 flats, 93-bedroom hotel with restaurant, boat storage area, 9 retail and 10 restaurant units along Ferry Lane and Soaphouse Creek, Thameside path, vehicular access from Goat Wharf, change of use of Peerless Pumps building to a restaurant and manager’s flat, underground car parks and landscaping including public spaces.

Granted 2 September 1999

This was also later amended to permit car parking on one level only (00443/G/P6).

3.5 00443/G/P7 Additions and alterations to approved planning scheme (00443/G/P4) by the addition of 42 flats and 53 hotel bedrooms, and widening of the inter-tidal inlet.

Granted (legal agreement completed) 28 July 2000

3.6 Planning History for moorings applications

3.7 00443/U/P1 Soaphouse Creek – Outline application for the provision of residential and visitor moorings

61 Refused 14 April 2005

Reasons:

1. The high number and layout of the residential berths would appear to be unworkable and would likely prejudice the potential of Soaphouse Creek to accommodate visitor mooring and thus interfere with other uses of the area and cause harm to the character of the area.

2. The application is inadequate in respect of the following:

(i) No details of service facilities have been provided or whether there would be any provision for service vehicles and car parking; so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to fully consider and assess this development. In the absence of further details, it is considered that the proposal would give rise to a development that would interfere with other uses of the area and cause harm to the character of the area and neighbours would likely suffer unacceptable noise and disturbance, including air and light pollution.

3.8 00443/U/P2 Soaphouse Creek – Installation of residential and B1 (employment) moorings, incorporating visitor moorings with ancillary support areas

Withdrawn 10 May 2006

3.9 00443/U/P3 Soaphouse Creek – Installation of residential and B1 (employment) moorings, incorporating visitor moorings with ancillary support areas

Withdrawn 11 May 2007

3.10 00443/U/P4 Soaphouse Creek – Proposed full serviced leisure moorings, one visitor mooring and one commercial mooring (B1 – Marina management office)

Not determined – Subject of this report.

3.11 01128/G/P2 River Brent – Proposed fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings

Not determined – Subject of this report.

3.12 00443/U/P5 Soaphouse Creek – Proposed fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings

Not determined. APPEAL in progress (non-determination).

3.13 01128/G/P3 River Brent – Proposed fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings

Not determined. APPEAL in progress (non-determination).

62 4.0 DETAILS 4.1 There are two separate planning applications proposing new fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings at Ferry Quays:

Application A: 00443/U/P4 (Soaphouse Creek)

Application B: 01128/G/P2 (River Brent)

4.2 The proposed moorings would be located on publicly navigable waters. In both applications the boats shown are only indicative and permission is not sought for boats of a specific size. The boats berthed at the facility will change over time and different types and sizes of boats will come and go. The visitor berths in particular can be expected to have a high turnover of boat sizes, possibly with a number of boats of different sizes occupying the same berth during a single week. Details of each planning application are given separately below.

Planning application (A) 00443/U/P5 (Soaphouse Creek)

4.3 This application proposes fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings in Soaphouse Creek, with new timber rise and fall pontoons to be provided along its water frontages. The amended plans submitted have deleted the formerly proposed commercial mooring.

4.4 There would be 120m of leisure moorings and 22m of visitors moorings, with a 17m diameter turning circle. There are eight mooring spaces, seven for leisure craft and one for visitors, the latter possibly accommodating two boats where it is shown navigation is not obstructed.

Image 2: Proposed Moorings – Soaphouse Creek

63 Planning application (B) 01128/G/P3 (River Brent)

4.5 This application proposes fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings on the northern bank of the Grand Union Canal/River Brent, at its confluence with the River Thames. There would be 124m of leisure berths and 23m of visitor berths that would be dry at low water. At low water they would be supported on timbers placed on the river bed.

Image 3: Proposed Moorings – River Brent

Management

4.6 The leisure moorings are for the long-term storage of leisure vessels between use on the waterways. Users may stay on onboard for short periods (as per restrictions on their mooring license). The boats will be there most of the time and people will come to visit and take the boat out sometimes. It is envisaged that these moorings will be let on long-term contracts. Visitor moorings would be available for short visits from transient vessels (less than 7 days). The moorings would be managed from the existing Ferry Quays Management Office on Ferry Lane.

64 4.7 Both applications include an Operational Management Plan for the moorings. This document states all vessels would have to meet the following criteria to be eligible for consideration for a berth3:

Evidence that users are appropriately experienced in handling their vessels and can arrive, and remain able to depart at any time, under their own power; Appear seaworthy and appropriate for the marina’s location in the opinion of the management; Be equipped with the necessary fire fighting and lifesaving equipment;

Hold current licenses from the relevant navigational authority; and Be capable of mooring in such a way as to not encroach beyond the authorised limits at whichever berth is to be used.

4.8 River Brent pontoons have additional restrictions on the vessels permitted to moor. All vessels must:

Be able to ground; Not have a beam exceeding 5.1m; Be designed and capable of speeds up to 8kts (4.5m/s) to allow for flood flow events; and All vessels where persons remain onboard overnight must have their own sanitary facilities.

4.9 The Soaphouse Creek berths have additional restrictions on the vessels permitted to moor. All vessels must:

Not have a beam exceeding 5.1m;and Not have a length overall exceeding 20m

4.10 The proposal includes a notice board, to be erected in a public location, displaying the following information:

Weekly tidal forecasts; Flood warnings; Notices to mariners; Name and details of marina management staff; Marina regulations; Health and safety policy; Emergency contact numbers (incl. Environment Agency); Price lists; and Local services, taxis and other amenities as appropriate.

3 Hither Green Developments Ltd Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays Operational Management Plan, November 2008 65 Car parking, access and facilities

4.11 No additional car parking is proposed. Limited car parking would be available for users of the moorings in the existing Ferry Quays public car park. Drop off vehicular access would be possible, by prior arrangement with management. New navigation aids, comprised of a daymark and a navigation light would be installed at the end of the lead-in structure to the moorings. They would be to Port of London/British Waterways requirements.

4.12 The moorings would be accessible via secured access points leading to a timber and steel pontoon walkway, including steps and ramps. Each mooring would have full service facilities comprising of electric, mains water, meters, vacuum foul water pump system, telephone and cable television. All utilities would use a pre-pay card system, purchasable from the management office4.

4.13 Bin compounds would be provided, the Operational Management Plan setting out that waste facilities would be provided in the existing basement car park. Refuse collection would be managed as existing residential collections via a trolley train which takes bins to Goat Wharf for collection by the Council.

Summary of amendments

4.14 The amendments from the originally submitted proposals are as follows:

Soaphouse Creek

• Deletion of commercial mooring (with management office to now be in the existing Ferry Quays Management office), changing the scheme from 127m of leisure, 22m visitor and 25m of commercial moorings to 120m of leisure and 22m of visitor moorings.

• Revised Operational Management Plan to omit references to now deleted commercial mooring and incorporate amendments sought by the Committee so as to meet the Code of Practice for Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours 2007.

River Brent

• Revised Operational Management Plan to omit references to now deleted commercial mooring and incorporate amendments sought by the Committee so as to meet the Code of Practice for Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours 2007.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The originally submitted applications were subject to consultation of neighbours, amenity groups and statutory consultees as described below. The revised drawings and supporting information submitted for each application are identical to those

4 Paragraph 5.1 of the Operational Management Plan. Paragraph 5.2 sets out that electrical power would be provided to all berths via the service bollard and that all bollards would be fitted with meters. Paragraph 5.3 similarly sets out that fresh water would be provided to all berths via the service bollard and that all bollards would be fitted with meters. As set out at Paragraph 5.4 a vacuum foul water pump out system would be provided at all berths via the service bollard. 66 submitted with the subsequent applications 00443/U/P5 and 01128/G/P3. These latest applications were also subject to consultation with all persons originally consulted and objectors being advised of the new application. Responses from statutory consultees were the only submissions made in respect of the latest applications.

5.2 The consultees and responses received in respect of each application, commencing with regard to the original plans submitted is given in the following sections. Noting all consultees have already been consulted on the identical plans submitted with application 00443/U/P5 and 01128/G/P3 no further consultations were considered necessary in respect of the amended plans.

Application A (Soaphouse Creek)

Consultees

5.3 By letter dated 13th or 27th September 2007 the Council consulted the following:

• Inland Waterways Association • Port of London Authority • Friends of the Earth Hounslow • River Thames Society • The Regents Network • British Waterways • Environment Agency • London Borough of Richmond • West London River Group • Brentford Community Council • Ferry Quays Residents Association • 360 owner/occupiers, including flats at Ferry Lane, Town Meadow, Point Wharf Lane and Soap House Lane.

5.4 In addition, four site notices were erected on 28th September 2007.

Representations

5.5 The Environment Agency (by letter dated 4th October 2007) has no objection to the proposed development provided that the following conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted:

“Condition 1: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a programme of management of moorings and types of vessels to be moored has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason 1: To maintain integrity of flood defence against inappropriate use of moorings.

Condition 2: No development shall commence before a detailed scheme of how the proposed pontoons will be secured against the flood defence walls is supplied to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Reason 2: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence walls.

67 Condition 3: No development shall commence until a detailed scheme of scour protection of the foreshore is supplied to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Reason 3: To protect the integrity of the foreshore and the stability and integrity of the flood defence walls.

Condition 4: No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of timber fendering has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Reason 4: To enhance the ecology of the site.

Condition 5: No development shall take place until a detailed plan for the removal, storage and disposal of liquid and/or hazardous wastes (including fuels, oils and general residential boat effluent) arising from the works is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason 5: To protect the water environment from pollution.

Planning Informatives

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures either affecting or within 16m of the tidal defence structure or affecting or within 8 meters of the watercourse.

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. Contact the Consent Department on 08708 506506 for further details.

Note for Local Planning Authority

With regard to condition 5, no details have been provided regarding the management of wastes arising from the moorings will be dealt with. It is crucial that no pollution is generated by the development and that the waste is collected, stored and disposed of in accordance with relevant legislation.

5.6 Port of London Authority (by letter dated 16th October 2007) has no objection in principle but raises issues about the proposed marina management mooring, recommending that conditions be imposed on any planning permission granted, writing:

“…The PLA has no objection in principle to moorings being provided in Soaphouse Creek and the applicant the applicant is advised that a licence for the works will be required from the PLA.

It is however unclear as to what exactly the ‘marina management mooring’ would be. The design and access statement classes it as a commercial B1 office mooring. However it is also stated in the design and access statement that the moorings supervisor would allow for 24 hour on site supervision and that ‘accommodation’ would be in the marina management office. It is suggested that final details relating to this 68 vessel and the services that it will house/provide are required to be submitted by condition. It is also suggest[ed] that a planning condition should ensure that the use of this vessel is solely for the moorings manager to prevent the vessel from being used for a more general B1 office use which is unrelated to the leisure and visitor moorings. This will ensure that the mooring is essential and that it does not become used as an extension of developable land in London contrary to planning policy.”

5.7 British Waterways London (by letter dated 21st September 2007) has no objection.

5.8 London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (by letter dated 20 September 2007) acknowledged receipt of notification advising that their observations will be sent in due course.

5.9 Inland Waterways Association (by letter dated 15th October 2007) advises of having had direct discussions with the applicant, as a result of which the applicant has now submitted (Mr Beadnell’s letter of 3rd October refers) a number of clarifications and corrections that “…largely meet our [the Association’s] concerns. Specifically, we would like to draw your attention to the ‘definition’ of ‘leisure’ and ‘visitor’ moorings which reflect the actualities of the situation”. The Association further writes:

“We particularly welcome the provision of a very suitable vessel in Soaphouse Creek as a floating management office, and note with satisfaction that tight mooring agreements are proposed. However, the present applications for leisure moorings still fall short of fully managed residential mooring which we would see as the most appropriate use… Additionally the presence of occupants of residential craft would increase the security above that capable of being provided by the floating management office, not only of the moored craft but also of the area more generally.”

5.10 The Ferry Quays Residents Association (by letter dated 14th October 2007) states that they represent the occupants of 400 apartments at Ferry Quays. The Association writes:

“…We welcome the bringing back into use of Soaphouse Creek, the centrepiece of Ferry Quays.

We are pleased that apart from the single commercial moorings (B1 Marina Management Office) this proposal has been designated as leisure moorings and visitor moorings.

We have been advised by DLG Architects (the applicants Architect) that the definition of “Leisure Moorings” and “Visitor Moorings” is as follows:

“Leisure moorings are for the long term storage of leisure vessels between use on the waterways. Users may stay on board for short periods as defined in the mooring license.

Visitor moorings are usually available for less than one week for short visits by transient vessels.”

However, we have concerns that an application for change of uses may follow…seek assurance…that if approval is given that…the type of use proposed is a condition of the planning consent. 69 What limits would there be on the size of boats using the moorings? At high tide, tall vessels would compromise the privacy of those living close to the waterside.

…management…We request that regulations on all the usual stipulations such as noise, conduct, appearance, maintenance work, fire safety, refuelling etc be lodged with the planning application…Furthermore we seek assurances…that both the Operational management plan and the Mooring licence are in line with the Borough planning office, expectation for Moorings of this nature and uses and that both can be enforced effectively if required.

The provision of rubbish bin storage as shown is not acceptable. We would request that there be extended provision to that currently used by the Commercial units in order to store refuse out of view and to minimise disturbance from collections.

…Consideration should include the aesthetic and historical values of the proposed vessels. In the absence of any detail of the appearance of the boats we are concerned that an opportunity to display historic boats (like the Stumpie Barge envisaged on page 10 of the Waterspace Strategy) could be lost…”

5.11 Twelve representations/objections from owner/occupiers have been received. A summary of the issues raised is set out below except where the issues raised are the same as those raised by the Ferry Quays Residents Association, reproduced above.

Comment Response Principle “…disappointed…your authority…now The previous two applications were not prepared to permit…residential withdrawn (see paragraphs 3.8 and mooring use. …The former ICI 3.9). Planning application Weaver flat ‘Davenham’, now moored 00443/U/P1 was refused for reasons on Point Wharf while not an including the high number and layout indigenous craft…is a striking of the residential berths, not because landmark and most suitable for the of the proposed provision of location. …regrettable that just residential berths. downstream numerous craft…have found unauthorised moorings. …”

“Lack of any provision for Ferry Quays The present application proposes residents…Permanent nature of fully serviced leisure and visitor mooring, with no possibility of moorings available to the public. movement once installed…”

“Commercial use would conflict with The mooring of boats is compatible residential nature of area”. with the riverside character of the area. The commercial mooring has been deleted from the proposal. “…very pleased that the application The commercial mooring has now differs substantially from previous been deleted from the scheme and applications for the same location, the marina would be managed from being more in keeping with the small the existing Ferry Quays scale of this enclosed area of water management office. 70 which forms the inner focus of Ferry Quays. The location of a vessel within the Creek for use as the Marina Management office seems particularly appropriate. …There is a genuine need for visitor moorings in this area of the Thames and I would have preferred to see a more favourable balance of visitor to leisure moorings…”

“…pleased that…visitor and leisure moorings – this seems a good use for the Creek and hopefully this will help bring more life to Ferry Quays.” Layout/cumulative impact and navigation: “The pontoon [proposed under See paragraphs 7.23 – 7.39. planning application 01128/G/P2] appears to stretch beyond the line of the river wall near Soaphouse Creek and could cause problems for boats navigating to and from Soaphouse Creek as well as entering and leaving the River Brent.” “Overdevelopment with potential for A Marina Operational Management large numbers of additional visitors” Plan has been submitted. The applicant states that the Marina Operational Management Plan “…concern that, as shown, the leisure (OMP) would be enforced. Should boats might be over-large for such a planning permission be granted it is small area of water and that their recommended that a condition be effect on nearby residents could be imposed requiring implementation in overbearing, especially as they rise on accordance with approved plans and the tide. Could some size limit be that there is a legal agreement imposed as a condition of consent? A requiring implementation of the OMP. greater number of smaller boats would give potential for more movement…will bring back life to this little area…” Regulations and facilities/services “No indication of proposed facilities See paragraphs 7.47 – 7.50. e.g. sewage, electricity, water, refuse, fire hydrants, marina office”. These matters are addressed by the OMP. “No indication of service provision”.

“Health & Safety e.g. fire risk, explosion, sewage and fumes”.

71 “Security and vandalism risk”.

“No indication of proposed restrictions i.e. the lease which applies to residents”.

Assurance sought that the moorings plan/management plan would be enforced including comment: “Some responsibility for the control over the state of the boats to be moored in the Creek must be placed on the applicant…”. Access and parking “Vehicular access and parking See paragraph 7.49. issues”. “Problems of access from Point Wharf No parking is/would be permitted Lane” adjacent to the marina, other than at designated times (between 8am and 12pm, as is the current regime) (see paragraph 7.49).

Application B (River Brent) Consultees

5.12 By letter dated 24th or 27th September 2007 the Council consulted the following: • Inland Waterways Association • The Royal Parks • Port of London Authority • Friends of the Earth Hounslow • Historic Royal Palaces • River Thames Society • The Regents Network • British Waterways • Environment Agency • Transport for London • Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew • London Borough of Richmond • West London River Group • English Heritage • Brentford Community Council • 97 owner/occupiers, including flats at Ferry Lane, Town Meadow, Goat Wharf and Point Wharf Lane.

5.13 In addition, four site notices were erected on 28th September 2007.

72 Representations

5.14 The Environment Agency (by letter dated 24th October 2007) has no objection to the proposed development provided that the following conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted:

“Condition 1: No development shall commence before a detailed drawing showing how the proposed access brow will bridge over the flood defence wall is submitted to and agreed in writing by the EA. We ask that a clear distance of at least 300mm is provided between the bottom surface of soffit of the brow and the crest of the defence wall.

Reason 1: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall.

Condition 2: No development shall commence before a detailed schedule of the proposed leisure mooring on the pontoons within the basin is submitted to and agreed in writing by the EA.

Reason 2: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall.

Condition 3: No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of timber fendering has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Reason 3: To enhance the ecology of the site.

Planning Informative:

Under the terms and conditions of the Water Resources Act and the Thames Land Drainage Bylaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Agency is required for any works either affecting or within 16m of the flood defence structure and any works either affecting or within 8 m of the watercourse.”

5.15 Port of London Authority (by letter dated 23rd October 2007) has no objection, writing:

“…The PLA has no objection in principle to moorings being provided along the north side of the River Brent. It is noted that an operational management plan accompanies the application and that there will be no discharges to the river.

The area for the proposed moorings is outside of the PLA’s navigational jurisdiction however it is within the PLA’s ownership. As such consent for the works will be required from the PLA. The applicant is advised to contact the PLA’s Head of Property…on 01474 562358 to discuss this matter further.”

5.16 British Waterways London (by letter dated 5th October 2007) has no objection subject to a Section 106 Deed to secure:

“…the installation of, or financial contribution towards, a day mark on the port-hand side of the entrance to the R[iver] Brent. The details of which should be agreed in consultation with British Waterways.”

A day mark is an aid to navigation or vessel during daylight hours. 73 British Waterways London also seeks that a condition be imposed and informatives are attached to any planning permission granted:

“Condition:

“Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of a proposed lighting scheme to ensure the moorings are clearly visible to any inbound vessels at night shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with British Waterways. The approved lighting should be implemented prior to first occupation of the development. Reason: In the interest of navigational safety, ecology, and visual amenity.”

Informatives:

“The applicant/developer is advised to contact third party works engineer…(020 7985 7268) in order to ensure that any necessary consents are obtained and that the works comply with British Waterways’ “Code of Practice for Works affecting British Waterways.”

“In light of the encroachments into British Waterway’s airspace, land or water, the applicant must enter into an appropriate commercial agreement with British Waterways before development commences. Please contact…(Property Manager) on 020 7985 7284 for further information.”

“The applicant is advised that any discharge of surface water into the waterways requires British Waterway’s written permission before development commences. Please contact… (Property Manager) on 020 7985 7284 for further information.”

5.17 The Royal Parks (by letter dated 26th September 2007) has “no comments to make”.

5.18 Inland Waterways Association (by letter dated 15th October 2007) advises of having had direct discussions with the applicant, as a result of which the applicant has now submitted (Mr Beadnell’s letter of 3rd October refers) a number of clarifications and corrections that “…largely meet our [the Association’s] concerns. Specifically, we would like to draw your attention to the ‘definition’ of ‘leisure’ and ‘visitor’ moorings which reflect the actualities of the situation”. The Association further writes:

“We particularly welcome the provision of a very suitable vessel in Soaphouse Creek as a floating management office, and note with satisfaction that tight mooring agreements are proposed. However, the present applications for leisure moorings still fall short of fully managed residential mooring which we would see as the most appropriate use… Additionally the presence of occupants of residential craft would increase the security above that capable of being provided by the floating management office, not only of the moored craft but also of the area more generally.”

5.19 Ferry Quays Residents Association (by letter dated 16th October 2007) states that they represent the occupants of 400 apartments at Ferry Quays. The Association writes:

“…We are pleased that this proposal has been designated as leisure moorings and visitor moorings.

74 We have been advised by DLG Architects (the applicants Architect) that the definition of “Leisure Moorings” and “Visitor Moorings” is as follows:

“Leisure moorings are for the long term storage of leisure vessels between use on the waterways. Users may stay on board for short periods as defined in the mooring license.

Visitor moorings are usually available for less than one week for short visits by transient vessels.”

However, we have concerns that an application for change of uses [use] may follow…seek assurance…that if approval is given that…the type of use proposed is a condition of the planning consent.

What limits would there be on the size of boats using the moorings? At high tide, tall vessels would compromise the privacy of those living close to the waterside.

In addition what controls would be put in place as to the condition of the boats moored…over the nature (size and condition) of boats moored.

Although not labelled on the plan, the developer has advised us, that the 2 mooring spaces at the entrance to the River Brent, adjacent to residences in One Point Wharf, has [have] been allocated as visitor moorings. We would like assurance…that this area will be clearly designated and clearly marked for this purpose.

We would also ask that a consideration should be made as to the need for the pontoon to extend beyond the line of the River wall as this may cause navigational issues for boats heading to and from Soaphouse Creek as well as boats wishing to enter or depart from the River Brent.

With regards to the 3 boats shown on the “location of proposed mooring plan” on the inside of the pontoon, as Point Wharf Lane narrows to a single pedestrian footpath: We strongly believe that these boats are far too close to the flats in Two Point Wharf Lane thus detrimentally affecting the Outlook, light and privacy of Residents on the ground floor apartments.

In addition the safe and free navigation of boats in and out of this tight channel will be unworkable, particularly when you take into accounts [account] the existing mooring of boats a little further down the River Brent.

There seems to be doubt as to the validity of the Certificate A that accompanies the Application.

…management…We request that regulations on all the usual stipulations such as noise, conduct, appearance, maintenance work, fire safety, refuelling etc be lodged with the planning application…Furthermore we seek assurances…that both the Operational management plan and the Mooring licence are in line with the Borough planning office, expectation for Moorings of this nature and uses and that both can be enforced effectively if required.

The provision of rubbish bin storage as shown is not acceptable. We would request that there be extended provision to that currently used by the Commercial units in order to store refuse out of view and to minimise disturbance from collections. 75 5.20 Sixteen representations/objections from owner/occupiers have been received. A summary of the issues raised is set out below with the exception of where issues raised are the same as by the Ferry Quays Residents Association, which have been reproduced above.

Comment Response Principle “…disappointed…your authority…now The previous application, which not prepared to permit…residential proposed 10 new fully serviced mooring] use. …The former ICI residential moorings, was withdrawn Weaver flat ‘Davenham’, now moored (see planning history above). on Point Wharf while not an indigenous craft…is a striking landmark and most suitable for the location. …regrettable that just downstream numerous craft…have found unauthorised moorings. …”

“…seems to be no clear definition of The present application proposes what constitutes a “leisure” mooring, fully serviced leisure and visitor and also no information on the control moorings. The different moorings are regime or any constraints or defined and restrictions are given in regulations on the “visitor” moorings” the Marina Operational Management Plan.

“…pleased that progress is being Noted. made in bring[ing] life back to the river around the development…” “I am aware of the Planning Condition The applicant has advised the for there to be boats alongside the proposed number of moorings is river outside Ferry Quays. …no required to make the proposals objection to this in principle but in this financially viable and notes w that case the density proposed is many of the moorings are for visitors excessive…would hope…for one line therefore the marina will not be only of non-residential boats for always filled to capacity. leisure purposes.” “…do not believe that there should be Further planning permission would any moorings…whether permanent or be required for any change of use to tourist. I am concerned that the residential moorings. applicants…are requesting tourist moorings this time as a first stage to subsequently seeking permission for residential moorings…would provide a steady income for them once they had invested in the necessary infrastructure unlike the possible fluctuating income from tourist moorings.” 76 Layout/cumulative impact and navigation: “There is a significant navigation issue See paragraphs 7.23 – 7.39. due to turbulent currents at the mouth of the creek where the River Brent meets the Thames. When a single line of boats were moored on this corner collisions occurred and as a consequence two small boats were sunk on separate occasions.

British Waterways have previously refused permission for boats to moor at the end of the Creek because of this navigational issue.

This is a major thoroughfare from the Thames to the entrance to the Grand Union Canal.

…Boatyard business is dependent on navigable waterways…using this stretch of the river for getting safe access in and out of the Boatyard…

It is questionable that the cost of the infrastructure for fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings could be met on this tidal stretch as low tide prevents moorings 50% of the time.” “…due to the very tidal nature of the See paragraphs 7.23 – 7.39. river, I wonder the extent to which such moorings would impede the traffic to and from the Grand Union Canal which can be very busy at times, also get in the way of the activities of the local boatyards who often have to use the stretch of the river to move and manoeuvre the crafts they are building and repairing…I would also hope that consideration will be given to the safety of possible novice canal boat users mooring in a very tidal place…fluctuating and rapid tide swells… ” “Must be less boats. The pontoon is See paragraphs 7.23 – 7.39. too long…” Harm to area’s character and neighbours’ living conditions: 77 Noise (e.g. from engines, generators See paragraphs 7.51 – 7.55. and waste pump-outs; comment that “Being transient, the boat owners may not [be] committed to maintaining a quiet environment…would want to enjoy their holiday to the full…” and query as to “…what controls would there be on permitted levels of noise and times of operation”)

Outlook, privacy and light See paragraphs 7.51 – 7.55.

“I also need to be assured that access See paragraphs 7.51 – 7.55. to and from the boats will not have a detrimental impact on residents in Point Wharf Lane and no household refuse bins on public right of way.”

“No rubbish bins should be provided See paragraphs 7.47 – 7.50. along this stretch of the river and steps should be implemented to ensure that all waste is removed with the minimum of noise and nuisance…” “…engines will generate See paragraphs 7.51 – 7.55. fumes…pollution” “The site should not be fenced off (eg There would be no security fencing by erecting security fencing) other alongside the moorings. than by using the fencing design used throughout the site as this would be very detrimental to the look of the area.” Regulations and facilities/services: Assurance sought that the moorings A Marina Operational Management plan/management plan would be Plan has been submitted (see enforced by the operators and the Section 4.0). The applicant states Council including comment: that the Marina Operational Management Plan would be “Usage must be confirmed and enforced5. Should planning enforced” permission be granted it is recommended that a condition be “permitted size, length and height imposed requiring implementation in of moored boats – how are these accordance with the approved plans. to be controlled, and what sanctions are there if boat owners breach the agreed conditions

…rubbish disposal – again what sanctions would there be if boat

5 See footnote 17 78 operators do not keep to their agreed conditions of using the moorings”

“…The developer must be given a See above and paragraphs 7.47 – clear duty to ensure no unsightly 7.50. vessels are moored in the area and that work on boats should be no more than the occasional maintenance…”Seek assurances that the moorings plan/management plan would be enforced including comment “Some responsibility for the control over the state of the boats to be moored in the Creek must be placed on the applicant…”

“Sewage. …understand that the sewage from the boats will be piped through the garage. There is a seepages problem in the garages which has not yet been solved. …concerned that the pipes and drains will be unable to cope with the extra loads from the suggested boats.”

“…access to and from the boats?"

“Where will the people gain access?”

“Where will the rubbish be stored and when will it be collected?” Detrimental effect on wildlife: “…ecological damage such a See paragraphs 7.40 – 7.43. development would cause. A range of birds particularly herons and a kingfisher regularly congregate along the river bank alongside the taller block by the two large outflow drains. I have noticed that when the local Marine companies use this space from time to time, the usage by the birds reduces.”

“…could affect the inter tidal muds and possible pollution of the water environment. In addition increased boat use could have a significant impact on sensitive bird species and the adjacent Thames foreshore. This could affect the nature conservation 79 value of the River Brent by increasing boat usage, increase of noise and increase of pollution.”

5.21 Further comments were made in respect of each application by British Waterways and the Port of London Authority following the reporting of Captain Capon’s comments as follows:

5.22 British Waterways: (6th November 2008): “We have reviewed your email and the attachments. We were surprised that the Council appointed ‘a planning consultant with waterways expertise’ given that both the relevant navigation authorities, British Waterways and the Port of London Authority, raised no objections. Further to our formal consultation response dated 18 January 2008 and our participation in the discussion at the Planning Committee on 27 March 2008, we reiterate that we have no objections to either scheme on any grounds, including navigation safety.”

5.23 The Port of London Authority (6th November 2008): “…the Harbour Master…has confirmed that he continues to have no objection to the proposed development. As you will be aware the PLA is not responsible for navigation in the River Brent and British Waterways as the navigational authority will therefore comment on the proposals for the River Brent.

With regard to Soaphouse Creek, the PLA remains content that the turning circle is tight for larger vessels but it is probable that these vessels would only move very occasionally and could be squeezed out astern when necessary. As identified by Beckett Rankine, fenders can be used to prevent damage to the vessels when they are being manoeuvred within Soaphouse Creek.”

5.24 Soaphouse Creek – Amended Plans

5.25 The amended plans submitted in respect of this application are identical to those submitted in application 00443/U/P5, which received the following consultation responses:

5.26 Inland Waterways Association – No objection.

5.27 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames – No objection.

5.28 Port of London Authority – No objection. The PLA remains content that whilst the turning circle is tight for larger vessels, it is probable that these vessels would move very occasionally and could be squeezed out astern when necessary. If changes are proposed to the operation of the lock gates then an amendment to the existing River Works Licence will be necessary.

5.29 River Brent – Amended Plans

5.30 The amended plans submitted in respect of this application are identical to those submitted in application 01128/G/P3, which received the following consultation responses:

80 5.31 Environment Agency (5/2/2009) – Object for two reasons: 1. Proposed structure is unacceptable as it would be built over a flood defence structure and would be likely to affect its stability and increased the risk of flooding – more details are required.

2. The moorings would cover a significant area of tidal mudflat habitat and as such mitigation for the potential degradation and loos of habitat should be included.

5.32 Environment Agency (21/3/2009) – A letter from EA to the agent for the development was received by the Council on 21/3/20089. The letter withdraws the above objections and recommends conditions as follows:

“I can confirm that if we were to receive the information contained in your email, dated 11 March 2009, via the Local Planning Authority through the statutory consultation process, we would withdraw our previous objection in relation to ‘the adverse affect to the construction and stability of the flood defence structure’, as stated in our letter of objection dated 5 February 2009, provided that the following planning conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted:

Condition 1: No development shall commence before a detailed drawing showing how the proposed access brow will bridge over the flood defence wall is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Environment Agency. We ask that a clear distance of at least 300mm is provided between the bottom surface of soffit of the brow and the crest of the defence wall.

Condition 2: No development shall commence before a detailed schedule of the proposed leisure moorings on the pontoons within the basin is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Environment Agency.

Reason: 1. To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall.

I can also confirm that if we were to receive the information contained in your email, dated 12 March 2009, via the Local Planning Authority through the statutory consultation process, we would withdraw our previous objection in relation to ‘ecological impact’, as stated in our letter of objection dated 5 February 2009, provided that a planning condition is imposed requiring a scheme to be agreed to compensate for the impact of the proposed development on the River Thames is placed on any planning application granted.

Condition 3: No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory habitat creation has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and implemented as approved. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason : Development that encroaches on the River Thames has a potentially severe impact on its ecological value. Government policy in Planning Policy Statement 9 states that 81 where proposed development would cause significant adverse impacts on biodiversity interests, which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensatory measures should be sought”.

5.33 Inland Waterways Association – Support the provision of controlled moorings at this site. Artificial narrowing of the channel is undesirable but not necessarily hazardous. Comments are provided on navigational risks from movement of craft and the tidal nature of the waterway. These comments were included with the questionnaire.

5.34 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames – No objection.

5.35 English Heritage – No further archaeological work is necessary.

6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNING POLICY

6.1 Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

6.2 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.3 The Development Plan 6.4 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’), the Employment Development Plan Document, the Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

6.5 The London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2004) was adopted In February 2008.

6.6 The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by Direction from the Secretary of State.

6.7 The Employment Development Plan Document was adopted on 25 November 2008 and has superseded the Employment Policies contained in UDP Chapter 7 and the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.4.1, IMP.4.2, IMP.4.3, and IMP.4.4.

6.8 The Brentford Area Action Plan was adopted on 27 January 2009 and has superseded the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.2.1 and IMP.3.1.

6.9 Supplementary Planning Documents

Planning Obligations Air Quality 6.10 These SPDs were adopted on 11/03/08, following public consultation in July and August 2007. The documents form part of the Local Development Framework.

6.11 Supplementary Planning Guidance

82 6.12 1997 Supplementary Planning Guidance- The guidance contained within the Supplementary Guidance was subject to formal public consultation and unlike normal SPG were subject to an inquiry process and consideration by a government inspector. The Inspectors report recommended the appendices be removed from the plan, as they added to its bulk, cost and complexity and may well have consumed further resources at the first review of the UDP. He also considered that they could stand alone away from the main plan as SPG. This was the course of action to be taken by the Council. During the consultation process, objections were received from individual house builders and the HBF. The guidance was amended as part of the process. The Council did not therefore consider it necessary to reconsult on this proposed guidance, but simply to use the guidance in light of the suggested amendments and the Inspector’s comments.

6.13 London Plan 2008

I.1 The Mayor’s objectives 2A.7 Areas for regeneration 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities 3B.9 Tourism industry 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling 3D.7 Visitors accommodation and facilities 3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.12 Flooding 4A.13 Flood risk management 4A.17 Water quality 4A.19 Improving air quality 4A.20 Reducing noise 4B.3 Enhancing the public realm 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.11 London’s built heritage 4B.12 Heritage conservation 4B.13 Historic conservation-led regeneration 4B.15 Archaeology 4C.6 Sustainable growth priorities for the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.10 Increasing sport and leisure use on the Blue Ribbon Network

83 4C.11 Increasing access alongside and to the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.12 Support facilities and activities in the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.13 Moorings facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.14 Structures over and into the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.15 Safety on and near to the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.17 Thames Policy Area 4C.20 Development adjacent to canals 5F.1 The strategic priorities for West London 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations 6A.5 Planning obligations

6.14 Unitary Development Plan 2003 (as amended 2007)

IMP.2.1 Regeneration of Brentford Town Centre and Riverside IMP.3.1 Brentford Regeneration Area IMP.5.2 Thames Policy Area IMP.6.1 Planning Obligations ENV-N.1.16 Historic parks and gardens ENV-N.2.3 Promotion of nature conservation management ENV-N.2.3A Species protection ENV-N.2.4 Habitat protection ENV-N.2.5 Habitat reconstruction ENV-N.2.6 Landscape features ENV-B.1.1 New development ENV-B.1.5 Environmental improvements ENV-B.1.9 Safety and security ENV-B.2.2 Conservation Areas ENV-B.2.8 Views and landmarks (local view 10. Grand Union Canal and views from outside the Borough ii. Kew Bridge and viii. Kew Gardens) ENV-B.3.2 Sites of archaeological importance ENV-W.1.1 Design in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.2 Mixed uses in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.3 Important views and structures in the Thames Policy Area (e.g. Peerless Pumps, Ferry Lane) ENV-W.1.5 Nature conservation in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.6 River related infrastructure and other facilities

84 ENV-W.1.9 Use of the River Thames for recreational facilities ENV-W.10 The Thames Path National Trail and access to the river ENV-W.2.1 Tidal defences – River Thames, Crane, Brent and the Duke of Northumberland’s River ENV-W.2.2 The Grand Union Canal and towpath ENV-W.2.6 Stationary or floating structures in or over the waterways ENV-P.1.1 Environmental sustainability: environmental impact statements ENV-P.1.2 Water pollution and water quality ENV-P.1.4 Waste water management ENV-P.1.5 Noise pollution ENV-P.1.6 Air pollution ENV-P.1.7 Light pollution ENV-P.2.1 Waste management ENV-P.2.4 Recycling facilities in new developments T.1.4 Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments T.2.1 Pedestrian access T.2.2 Pedestrian safety and security T.2.3 Strategic and local cycle networks T.2.4 Public transport infrastructure

Supplementary Planning Guidance

6.15 Accessible London: Achieving and Inclusive Environment (April 2004) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance)

6.16 Thames Landscape Strategy: Hampton to Kew (UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (see Appendix 5 of the UDP))

6.17 The Thames Landscape Strategy: Hampton to Kew takes a long view of the landscape, looking forward over the next 100 years and operating at two levels, sub- regional and detailed. Commissioned and guided by the Thames Steering Group, composed of representatives from principal environmental agencies and the London Boroughs of Hounslow, Richmond upon Thames, Elmbridge and the Royal Borough of Kingston, and published in June 1994, it has been adopted by the London Borough of Hounslow as Supplementary Planning Guidance and is cited within UDP policies IMP.5.2 and ENV-W.1.1. The strategy refers to Brentford/Kew as Landscape Character Reach No. 12.

Other relevant documents

6.18 Waterside Strategy 1993 (UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (See Appendix 5 of the UDP). 85 6.19 The Blue Ribbon Network The Heart of London, January 2006 by the Greater London Authority.

6.20 London Canal Committee’s Guidelines for Canalside Development (see UDP policy ENV-W.2.2)

Local Development Scheme

6.21 The Local Development Scheme (LDS) is a project plan for the production of the Borough’s Local Development Framework (LDF). The Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP) is a policy document that will form part of the LDF and will replace all ‘Brentford specific’ policies and proposals in the UDP.

6.22 Objective 5 of the BAAP reads “To support Brentford’s distinctive role for the provision of waterside industries and support facilities, and reconnect the area with its unique waterside location including the river and canal banks and foreshore”. Under this objective, moorings, specifically off-line moorings (marinas etc), will be promoted and supported within waterside development sites. It is stated that support for further on- line moorings (boats moored in a single line along waterway) will only be considered appropriate in locations that will not impede navigation and/or visitor moorings.

6.23 Policy BAAP1 (Sustainable Development) sets out criteria that “In view of local circumstances, specifically relating to air and noise pollution, flood risk, and provision of social and community infrastructure and services” will be taken into account when considering new applications.

6.24 Amongst other things Policy BAAP5 (Regeneration and Protection of Brentford’s River Canal Support Facilities, Infrastructure and Activities) states that the Council will encourage future use of Brentford’s waterside for those uses that have interdependence with the water, offer access, and support greater use of the waterways for passenger and freight transport, recreation and education uses.

6.25 BAAP Development Site Policy RR1-Ferry Wharf, Point Wharf, Goat Wharf, and Soaphouse Creek seeks, with regards to Soaphouse Creek, “The provision of moorings of an appropriate nature, number and scale”. The supporting text states that in considering any new proposals, the Council will need to be satisfied that moorings are appropriate in scale and nature and are supported by adequate infrastructure and servicing.

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• The suitability of the site for development and whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable; • Whether the proposed scheme has regard for the approved scheme of the overall Ferry Quays redevelopment; • Whether the proposal would affect safe navigation; • Whether the proposal would impact on biodiversity; • The impact on the character of the area; • Whether the proposal incorporates appropriate facilities; and 86 • The impact on neighbours’ living conditions.

The suitability of the site for development and whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable

Planning policy framework

7.2 The London Plan and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) have specific policies regarding the use, protection and enhancement of waterways and canals.

7.3 The London Plan sets out policies for the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’, which covers London’s waterways. There is a range of policies that seek to protect its natural environment, increase activity on the water for sporting, recreation and economic uses and improve access to it. Policy 4C.13 of the London Plan says that boroughs should protect and improve existing mooring facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network. New mooring facilities should generally be in basins or docks but may be appropriate in other areas of deficiency or as an aid to regeneration, where the impact on navigation, biodiversity and character is not harmful.

7.4 The supporting text for policy 4C.13 says that moorings for visitors and residents are a key support facility that are currently in short supply and that moorings can add to the activity, diversity and safety of canals and parts of the river network.

7.5 London Plan policies 4C.14 and 4C.15 state that proposals for new structures along the network need to be accompanied by safety and risk assessments detailing their impact on navigation, hydrology, biodiversity and safety.

7.6 As the Thames riverside is Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), London Plan policy 3D.10 and UDP policies ENV-N.1.5 and ENV-N.1.7 are relevant. These policies seek to protect MOL from inappropriate development and to safeguard its permanence and integrity, with special regard to conserving its particular character, appearance, historic and cultural value and its ecological value, whilst increasing access to and enjoyment of it. UDP policy ENV-N.1.7 requires development near the MOL boundary and conspicuous from it to be designed so as not to detract from the open aspect or visual amenities of the MOL.

7.7 Policy ENV-W.2.2 of the UDP is specific to the Grand Union Canal and towpath. It states the Grand Union Canal/ River Brent is an important water feature and that the Council will encourage improvements to and promote the use of the Canal and towpath for recreation, leisure and nature conservation consistent with requirements for navigation.

7.8 Policy ENV-W.2.6 of the UDP states that planning permission will normally be granted for stationary or floating structures other than residential moorings if the following criteria are met:

(i) The proposed development is associated with the waterway and relates to the uses and features on the bank;

(ii) The development reflects the particular character of the stretch of water in which it is located;

87 (iii) It does not interfere with the proposed or existing waterways or access to the waterway nor impede navigation, the free flow of tidal or flood water or cause siltation problems along the river;

(iv) The development is accessible to the public, if appropriate, and adds to their enjoyment of the waterways;

(v) The development is necessary to the movement of goods or passengers, or contributes positively to the recreational use of the waterway by the public;

(vi) The proposal incorporates appropriate facilities to allow safe and secure access between vessels and the riverbank, without interfering or endangering those using riverside walkways;

(vii) The height, scale, bulk, and position of any permanently moored vessels must be in sympathy with, and relate to the character of the locality;

(viii) Any proposal should not prejudice the river, its foreshore or banks as a nature conservation resource;

(ix) Structures should incorporate design features to ensure that vessels are safely and securely moored.

(x) Structures should be of a size to serve their intended purpose.

7.9 Additional policies apply to the River Brent site as it falls within the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area. Policy ENV-B.2.2 of the UDP says that development within the Conservation Area should preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the conservation area.

Relevant planning history

7.10 The overall Ferry Quays development site covers 4.7 hectares at the junction of the Grand Union Canal and the River Thames, to the south of the High Street. The majority of the redevelopment of Ferry Quays has been completed however there are a number of elements of the scheme that have not been carried out, including the provision of mooring facilities6.

Soaphouse Creek

7.11 In respect of proposed moorings in Soaphouse Creek, it is noted that paragraph 5.16 of the officer’s report for outline planning permission 00443/G/P3, which was granted on 2 July 1999, states:

6 The description of the development from planning permission 00443/G/P3 includes “visitor moorings and services, and mooring facilities at Point Wharf”. The legal agreement associated with planning permission 0443/G/P3 required a Water Space Strategy to be submitted for approval and for the works detailed in the approved Water Space Strategy to be carried out prior to practical completion of the development. The Water Space Strategy Report sets out a strategy for the use and environmental improvement of the waterside areas of the site so as to facilitate and enhance the use and environmental setting of the river and the Canal and includes provision of moorings (long term/short term visitor trade boats etc) services and security for moorings management of craft, details of boat movements, pedestrian movements, and servicing of these new areas, new waterside structures (e.g. bridges, boat servicing, bollards etc) works to the river and canalside walls. 88 “Soaphouse Creek would be widened on the Point Wharf side and impounded with water. The proposed 2.7m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) retained water level in Soaphouse Creek has been set to allow access into and out of the creek for 2-4 hours at high tide, i.e. twice a day. Therefore the lock gates will only operate when the water level outside the creek is at or above 2.7m AOD. Visitor moorings and service points are indicated within Soaphouse Creek”.

7.12 Paragraph 8.23 of the same report states:

“Soaphouse Creek would be widened and impounded with water to create a permanent water body with moorings to create a waterscape feature within the main body of the development. A footpath would skirt around Soaphouse Creek and Point Wharf”.

7.13 It is also noted that the approved Water Space Strategy for the overall Ferry Quays redevelopment (00443/G/P3) sets out that:

“The enlargement of Soaphouse Creek Waterspace enables a number of mooring opportunities”.

and continues:

“For example, it could be a location where traditional Thames and Canal sailing barges could be based. In particular the sailing craft known as Stumpie Barges have a very interesting history associated with this area and are very attractive and colourful…British Waterways envisage that a group of Stumpie barges at Soaphouse Creek could be a visitor attraction and add enormous interest and value. Stumpie Barges at Soaphouse Creek could be used for trip boats, art galleries, conference and business facilities, floating classrooms and other appropriate uses set within a traditional context”.

7.14 A further reference to Soaphouse Creek in the same document is:

“It is proposed that Soaphouse Creek will become the heart of the Ferry Lane development. This will require the impoundment of the tide to create an attractive mooring basin…”

7.15 Given the original intent of the Ferry Quays redevelopment, as discussed above, the principle of the proposed fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings for Soaphouse Creek (as proposed by application 00443/U/P4) is acceptable. The provision of the moorings was envisaged in the original development and would be consistent with policies of both the London Plan and the UDP that encourage increased use and access to waterways including leisure use and disabled access. Unlike the originally submitted proposal, the amended scheme does not propose a commercial mooring, and no residential moorings are proposed in either application.

River Brent/Grand Union Canal

7.16 The principle of moorings located on the northern bank of the River Brent (as proposed by application 01128/G/P2), at its confluence with the Thames is established and supported by the Council as the approved Water Space Strategy for the overall Ferry Quays development (approved under permission 0443/G/P3) states, “British 89 Waterways would wish to see fully serviced, high quality moorings on rise and fall floating pontoons along the length of the Grand Union Canal Waterfront”. No commercial or residential moorings are proposed at this location.

Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP)

7.17 Both areas of proposed moorings would also be consistent with objectives of the BAAP, which amongst other policies, seeks to promote new moorings at waterside developments to “support Brentford’s distinctive role for the provision of waterside industries and support facilities, and reconnect the area with its unique waterside location including the river and canal banks and foreshore”.

Whether the proposed scheme has regard for the approved scheme of the overall Ferry Quays redevelopment

7.18 The approved scheme included “visitor moorings and services, and mooring facilities at Point Wharf...”

7.19 The approved Water Space Strategy for the overall Ferry Quays redevelopment states that the terms and requirements of the Section 106 Deed associated with planning permission 00443/G/P3 encompassed, amongst other things: • provision of moorings for: . long term . short term . visitor and trade boats • services and security for moorings • management of craft • boat movements • new waterside structures, e.g. bridges, boat services, bollards, etc

7.20 The approved Water Space Strategy shows a rise and fall pontoon on the northern bank of the Grand Union Canal/River Brent, at its confluence with the River Thames with residential berths proposed. It also shows two areas of rise and fall pontoons within Soaphouse Creek, with one area providing commercial berths and the other residential berths. A turning circle is also shown.

7.21 Therefore the principle of fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings is considered acceptable with reference to the development plan policies discussed at paragraphs 7.3 to 7.8, and this is also consistent with the original intent of the Ferry Quays development (planning permission 00443/G/P3).

7.22 As noted above, no residential and commercial moorings are proposed in the current applications. Mooring licences that would be issued by the managers of the development prohibit the use of the boats using them for any commercial use or full time residential purposes.

Whether the proposal would affect safe navigation

7.23 The applications would provide new boat moorings and pontoons to Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent. Policy ENV-W.2.6 of the UDP says that proposed stationary and floating structures should not interfere with the proposed or existing waterways or access to the waterway nor impede navigation, the free flow of tidal or flood water or 90 cause siltation problems along the river. London Plan policies 4C.14 and 4C.15 state that proposals for new structures along the network need to be accompanied by safety and risk assessments detailing their impact on navigation, hydrology, biodiversity and safety.

7.24 The applicant has prepared a revised Marina Operational Management Plan7 (OMP) as well as a Navigational Risk Assessment8 (NRA) in respect of the proposed moorings, as part of the amendments to these planning applications.

7.25 The OMP governs the management, including safe operation, of the proposed moorings. It has been prepared with regard to the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours9

7.26 The NRA defines and assesses the potential risk to safety of navigation on Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent from the proposed moorings. It has incorporated comments from the Port of London Authority (PLA) and British Waterways (BW) and consultation responses including the Inland Waterways Association and the expert waterways consultant appointed by the Council.

7.27 The Soaphouse Creek moorings are located entirely within the existing basin. Soaphouse Creek is a publicly navigable body of water connected to the River Thames and is wholly within the navigational jurisdiction of the PLA. The River Brent moorings are located in the River Brent at its confluence with the River Thames. Both these rivers are publicly navigable bodies of water within the navigational jurisdiction of BW in the River Brent and the PLA in the River Thames.

7.28 The PLA and BW have both commented on the amended plans as part of the consultation of the latest applications (00443/U/P5 & 01128/G/P3), with neither objecting to the proposals. BW requests a condition requiring the installation of suitable navigational aids marking the entrance to the River Brent and the moorings, with these details to be agreed in consultation with them, to ensure risk is as low as reasonable practical10. This condition is included in the recommended conditions.

7.29 It is noted that at the September 2008 IBAC, Members authorised the preparation of an independent report on the earlier planning applications, with particular attention to navigation and obstruction issues. Subsequently an independent marine expert, Capt. Capon of Marine Enforcement Ltd and regs4ships Ltd was engaged by the Council to assess the applications and his findings were reported to the Committee. Captain Capon has also assessed the amended plans including the OMP and NRA. This assessment has concluded that neither of the mooring proposals would provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the slow vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved.

7.30 Additional comments and recommendations are made in respect of the ease of navigation in Soaphouse Creek, marina management and facilities. The report is given

7 Clauses 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of prohibitions of Mooring licences, ‘Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays, Operational Management Plan’ November 2008, Hither Green Developments Ltd 8 ‘Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays: Navigational Risk Assessment’ December 2008, Hither Green Development Ltd 9 Yacht Harbour Association Ltd & British Marine Federation 2007. 10 Letter from British Waterways received 16 January 2009. 91 in full in the appendices to this report11. As per Captain Capon’s previous comments, in respect of Soaphouse Creek the report comments that the proposed berthing arrangements (as drawn) would make it difficult to use the space as a working marina. This comment is noted but the PLA has accepted the proposed arrangements for Soaphouse Creek, stating12:

“The PLA remains content that whilst the turning circle is tight for larger vessels, it is probable that these vessels would move only very occasionally and could be squeezed out astern if necessary”.

7.31 The applicant has responded to Captain Capon’s comment as follows13:

“Captain Capon's comments on the berthing arrangements in Soaphouse Creek are noted and we agree that the available space in the basin is less than one would ideally like; the consequence of this is likely to be that the more restricted berths at the western end of the creek will not be favoured by boat owners who like to take their boats out frequently. While this is a constraint it should be borne in mind that the majority of leisure boat owners do not take their boats out very often and even on the busiest of days, such as August Bank Holiday, 90% or more of an average marina's boats will remain at their berths. The western berths in Soaphouse Creek would be ideal for boat owners who only wish to take their boats cruising a few times a year. A marina is working when it is providing safe mooring for vessels and safe access to those moored vessels; Soaphouse Creek will certainly do that. The vessels do, of course, also need to be able to enter and leave the marina although restrictions on entering and leaving are common, particularly when the marina is located behind a lock gate as Soaphouse Creek is. In the proposed scheme for Soaphouse Creek any of the berth holders' vessels can enter or leave its berth without moving any other vessel. A visiting vessel may have to ask another visitor vessel to move but this is common practice on visitor berths where boats are often rafted up”.

7.32 The NRA recommends measures to ensure safety is maintained and that risk is minimised with:

• Moorings to be managed to ensure no incursion beyond authorised limits; • Maintenance of lead-in structure and navigation lights; • PLA/BW assessment of any multiple tow operations; • Revised BW guidance for users of the Grand Union Canal to be disseminated at the Thames Lock and online.

7.33 In respect of the River Brent moorings, for which there had previously been concerns regarding navigational safety, Captain Capon concludes that:

“In the Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) submitted by the applicants it states that the use of the Thames Lock (which is just upstream of the proposed moorings) by freight vessels is “negligible” and that there are no freight facilities which currently use the river Brent for freight transport and there are no known proposals which would introduce freight use to the river. On this basis and with due regard to the NRA and

11 Reports from Marine Enforcement dated 14 January 2009 & 12 ebruary 2009 (Appendix 1 & 2). 12 Letter from Port of London Authority received 30 January 2009. 13 Email from applicant received 20 March 2009. 92 subject to any adverse comments made by either of the two appropriate navigational authorities (PLA and British Waterways) we are now able to state the following:

The application to develop the River Brent Moorings does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the slow vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised”.

7.34 The NRA recommends measures to ensure safety is maintained and that risk is minimised with:

• Moorings to be managed to ensure no incursion beyond authorised limits; • Maintenance of lead-in structure and navigation lights; • PLA/BW assessment of any multiple tow operations; • Revised BW guidance for users of the Grand Union Canal to be disseminated at the Thames Lock and online.

7.36 Therefore, in light of the approval of the PLA and BW, who are responsible for navigational safety on the waterways, and the conclusion of Captain Capon’s assessment, neither of the proposed moorings, as amended, would be likely to adversely impact the safe navigation of the waterways in question.

7.37 In respect of potential impacts on the free flow of tidal or flood water and siltation, the applicant has submitted an assessment of the impact of the moorings on the hydrodynamic and sediment regimes of the waterways as follows.

7.38 In Soaphouse Creek the proposed moorings would result in new boat movements that may increase movement of silty sediments but there will be little long-term effect with maintenance dredging required from time to time, as would be necessary now. For the River Brent the design of moorings and pontoons would need to be robust to withstand potential fast and turbulent flows. Under normal conditions the proposed pontoon moorings will slow down flows on the north side and speed up flows on the south side of the river by up to 10%. It is possible that limited local scouring would occur in the vicinity of new piles but the size and the depth of scour would be small.

7.39 Therefore, in light of the approval of the PLA and BW, who are responsible for navigational safety on the waterways, and the conclusion of Captain Capon’s assessment (paragraph 7.29), neither of the proposed moorings would be likely to adversely impact the safe navigation of the waterways in question.

The impact on bio-diversity

7.40 The UDP designates the site (waterways) as part of a Nature Conservation Area. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Impact Assessment and a Flood Risk Assessment. The proposal would result in new mooring piles and pontoons on the river whilst, during low tide, some boats would sit on the riverbed. Vessels where people intend mooring overnight would have onboard sanitary facilities and holding tanks, meaning there would be no discharges into the waterways

93 7.41 Ecological surveys of the local environment and an ecological assessment of the impact of the proposals were undertaken by the applicant14. The ecological assessment concludes that the proposed moorings would have a low environmental impact and are not expected to have an adverse impact on designated sites, habitats, terrestrial invertebrates, fish or bats. Although some impact may occur from loss or shading of intertidal habitat in the River Brent, the pontoons would provide additional habitat for colonisation by plants and invertebrates, minimising impacts on intertidal fauna and fish. Disturbance of birds during construction can be minimised by careful timing of the works to avoid the breeding season.

7.42 The Environment Agency (EA) has considered both applications and has considered them to be satisfactory subject to conditions to protect existing flood defences and enhance the bio-diversity of the site. The EA’s conditions are included in the recommendation.

7.43 Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not harm biodiversity, subject to the conditions from the EA the recommendations of the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment.

The impact on the character of the area including whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the Conservation Area

7.44 The supporting text for BAAP Development Site Policy RR1-Ferry Wharf, Point Wharf, Goat Wharf, and Soaphouse Creek states, in part,

“The Ferry Quays development remains incomplete and the provision of appropriate uses that support the use of the river and canal, together with the provision of high quality facilities for people to enjoy and visit this waterside location, as well as appreciate its historic significance, are considered both desirable and deliverable.”

7.45 The proposal would help animate the waterspace and add to the riverside character of the site, which is compatible with the intent of development plan policy and the BAAP. The moorings would be comprised of timber pontoons with stainless steels service bollards, as typical of other moorings and marinas along the Thames. Given the restrictions on mooring dimensions and their layout, excessively sized vessels that would be potentially dominant and not in keeping with the development would not be able to moor at either site. The managed moorings would be compatible with the historic character of Brentford and the river that has a very long association with the two rivers. With regards to the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area, the Conservation Area Appraisal states, under the heading ‘Special Architectural and/or Historic Interest’:

“The canal is important for its topographical effect and as a historic feature within the landscape, in its own right, as well as for its structures of architectural interest…Boston Manor is linked historically with the Grand Union Canal because a section of the Manor’s grounds were compulsorily purchased to form the canal and associated flood plains, and these now form part of its open setting.”

14 ‘Ecological Surveys of Ferry Quays and Surrounding Area, Brentford 2004-2005’ by RPS, 21 November 2008 & ‘Ecological Impact Assessment of Proposals for Moorings on the River Brent at Ferry Quays, Brentford’ by RPS, dated 21 November 2008. 94 7.46 The proposal would not harm the open setting of the Grade I listed Boston Manor House, which is over a mile away. Subject to safeguarding conditions including with regards to management, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area.

Whether the proposal incorporates appropriate facilities

7.47 The proposed moorings would be accessible via secured access points leading to a timber and steel pontoon walkway, including steps and ramps. Each mooring would have full service facilities provided by service bollards providing electricity, mains water, meters, and a vacuum foul water pump-out system. All facilities are to operate on a pre-pay card system, charged on single use or overnight system. Storage, washing, and parking facilities are not necessary as no residential berths are proposed. All vessels where users stay overnight must be fitted with onboard sanitary facilities.

7.48 Waste and recycling would be stored in the existing facilities located in the Ferry Quays basement car park.

7.49 The marina management offices would be in the existing Ferry Quays Management office on Ferry Lane15. Signs to the management offices will be provided at the access points to the berth. Pay and display car parking spaces are available at Ferry Quays in the existing basement car park including disabled provision. The original size of the Ferry Quays basement car park allowed for the capacity necessary for these boat moorings. Cycle racks are also available in this area. Access will be via an existing entrance on the podium at Soaphouse Lane.

7.50 These arrangements, which are detailed in the OMP for the development, would ensure adequate facilities are provided for users of the moorings.

The impact on neighbours’ living conditions

7.51 The proposed moorings were envisaged with the original Ferry Quays development and the mooring of boats in Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent would be compatible with the character of the area and neighbouring land uses. Similar moorings are found throughout Brentford on the Thames as well as alongside new residential development further upstream on the River Brent.

7.52 The moorings are for leisure use and visitors only with no residential or commercial moorings proposed, meaning there would be no permanent residents. The areas between the proposed moorings and nearby residential buildings of Ferry Quays are all presently accessible to the public and would remain so. As such, the existing level of privacy for nearby residents would not be significantly changed.

7.53 The OMP prohibits the use of generators and foul water would be pumped out to existing infrastructure. The marina management would monitor moorings with to ensure there is not excessive noise.

15 Marina Operational Management Plan (paragraph 4.1). 95 7.54 Proposed lighting on the pontoons is not excessive and would be controlled to ensure it is off when no one is on them. New navigation lights would be fixed (not flashing) and only visible to river traffic and not surrounding residents.

7.55 Therefore the proposed moorings are not considered likely to unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORUNTIES IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The proposed pontoons rise and fall with water levels. Access to them would be via stairs and ramps. Further assistance would be provided for disabled visitors if necessary by the moorings supervisor. The structures would not unduly impede access to and along footpaths alongside either Soaphouse Creek or the River Brent.

9.0 SUMMMARY

9.1 There are two applications for leisure and visitor moorings at Soaphouse Creek (00443/U/P4) and the River Brent (01128/G/P2) at Ferry Quays.

9.2 The proposals have been amended to:

Soaphouse Creek

• Delete the commercial mooring (with the management office to now be in the existing Ferry Quays Management office, changing the scheme from 127m of leisure, 22m visitor and 25m of commercial moorings to 120m of leisure and 22m of visitor moorings.

• Revise the Operational Management Plan to omit references to now deleted commercial mooring and incorporate amendments sought by the Committee so as to meet the Code of Practice for Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours 2007.

River Brent

• Revise Operational Management Plan to omit references to now deleted commercial mooring and incorporate amendments sought by the Committee so as to meet the Code of Practice for Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours 2007.

9.3 The principle of new moorings at the site was established as part of the overall Ferry Quays development. New moorings would be consistent with ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ policies of the London Plan and waterway/canal policies of the UDP. In this regard new moorings would increase activity on the water and improve access and facilities for river users and would add to the character of the area.

9.4 The Port of London Authority and British Waterways, who share responsibility for navigational safety on the waterways, have no objections to the proposed moorings. An expert consultant has also reviewed the proposals, including the applicant’s Navigational Risk Assessment, and has concluded that neither of the proposed moorings would be likely to adversely impact the safe navigation of the waterways in question. The proposal would also not harm the biodiversity of the river. 96

9.5 The proposal would help animate the waterspace and add to the riverside character of the site, which is compatible with the intent of development plan policy and the BAAP. Subject to safeguarding conditions including with regards to management, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area.

9.6 Adequate facilities for users of the moorings are provided and the OMP would provide satisfactory management arrangements.

9.7 The proposed moorings are not considered likely to unduly impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The proposed leisure and visitor moorings at Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent are acceptable, as they would provide new facilities consistent with the intent of original Ferry Quays development and the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ for London. Additionally, they would not adversely affect safe navigation, biodiversity, or the living conditions of nearby residents, and would help animate the waterway and add positively to the riverside character of the site. Accordingly, it concluded that planning permission be granted to both applications, subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement as follows.

11.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

11.1 UDP policy IMP6.1 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a developer enters into a planning obligation to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development. Government Circular 05/2005 provides guidance on the use of planning obligations,

11.2 The Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations 2008, outlines the Council’s policies and procedures for determining planning obligations. Such obligations may prescribe the nature of the development, impose a restriction or requirement, or provide for payment of money from the developer to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate the impacts of the development.

11.3 For both these applications it would be necessary to secure the operation of the Marina Operational Management Plan to ensure the proposed management or the moorings is satisfactory. Furthermore the application site is part of a larger development for which there is also a s106 legal agreement and so there should be an obligation to ensure that the land will continue to be bound by the planning obligations secured in relation to the original planning permission. Additionally, for the River Brent application, it would also be necessary to secure the installation of navigational aids to mark the entrance to the River Brent and the moorings as required by British Waterways.

11.5 Therefore the recommended planning obligations for each application are listed below:

Application A: 00443/U/P4 (Soaphouse Creek)

97 (i) Operational Management Plan: Implementation of ‘Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays, Operational Management Plan’ November 2008, Hither Green Developments Ltd.

(ii) To ensure that the land will continue to be bound by the planning obligations secured in relation to the Ferry Quays outline planning permission referenced 00443/G/P3.

Application B: 01128/G/P3 (River Brent)

(i) Operational Management Plan: Implementation of ‘Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays, Operational Management Plan’ November 2008, Hither Green Developments Ltd.

(ii) Navigation Aids: Installation of navigational aids to mark the entrance to the River Brent and the moorings, in accordance with British Waterways requirements and specifications.

(iii) To ensure that the land will continue to be bound by the planning obligations secured in relation to the Ferry Quays outline planning permission referenced 00443/G/P3.

12.0 RECOMMENDATION

12.1 That both applications be approved separately, subject to the following wording and reasons, with conditions as given below.

RECOMMENDATION A: 00443/U/P4 (Soaphouse Creek)

&

RECOMMENDATION B: 01128/G/P3 (River Brent)

12.2 That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Borough Solicitor.

98

12.3 The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 18 June 2009 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or Borough Solicitor’s Office.

12.4 If the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above (or any agreed extended period), then the Director of Environment or Divisional Head of Regulatory & Development Services be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Circular 05/05, relevant policies in the development plan and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in section 11.0 of this Report.

12.5 If planning permission is refused (for the reasons set out above), the Director of Environment or Divisional Head of Regulatory & Development Services (in consultation with the Chair of SDC) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it (a) duplicates the planning application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and (c) that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time.

Reasons:

12.6 The leisure and visitor moorings would provide new facilities consistent with the intent of original Ferry Quays development and the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ for London. Additionally, they would not adversely affect safe navigation, biodiversity, or the living conditions of nearby residents, and would help animate the waterway and add positively to the riverside character of the site and the Grand Union Canal and Boston Manor Conservation Area. The development would be consistent with relevant policies of the Borough’s Unitary Development Plan, including policy ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), IMP.2.1 (Regeneration of Brentford Town Centre and Riverside), IMP.5.2 (Thames Policy Area), ENV-W.1.5 (Nature conservation in the Thames Policy Area), ENV-W.1.6 (River related infrastructure and other facilities), ENV-W.1.9 (Use of the River Thames for recreational facilities), ENV-W.10 (The Thames Path National Trail and access to the river), ENV-W.2.1 (Tidal defences – River Thames, Crane, Brent and the Duke of Northumberland’s River), ENV-W.2.2 (The Grand Union Canal and towpath), ENV-W.2.6 (Stationary or floating structures in or over the waterways), and ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas); as well as the London Plan 2008, including policies 4A.13 (Flood risk management), 4B.8 (Respect local context and communities, 4C.10 (Increasing sport and leisure use on the Blue Ribbon Network), 4C.13 (Mooring facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network), 4C.14 (Structures over and into the Blue Ribbon Network), 4C.15 (Safety on and near to the Blue Ribbon Network), and 4C.17 (Thames Policy Area).

12.7 Conditions and Reasons: 00443/U/P5) Soaphouse Creek

1 Time limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 99 Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 Access Development shall not commence until details of the access points, including steps and ramps, and showing how the proposed access brow will bridge over the flood defence wall with a clear distance of at least 300mm between the bottom surface of soffit of the brow and the crest of the defence wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no boats shall be moored until the approved details have been fully implemented, and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure satisfactory access; and to protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall. 3 Leisure Development shall not commence until a detailed schedule of the moorings proposed leisure moorings on the pontoons has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule, and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall; and to ensure that 120m of leisure berths and 22m of visitor berths are provided in accordance with the submitted planning application. 4 Fendering Development shall not commence until a scheme for the provision of timber fendering has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no boats shall be moored until the approved details have been fully implemented, and maintained thereafter. Reason: To enhance the ecology of the site. 5 Bollards Development shall not commence until details of the proposed bollards have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be completed before any boats are moored, and maintained thereafter. Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the opportunities for mooring in accordance with the submitted planning application. 6 No None of the moorings shall be used for residential purposes. residential Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of moorings the development and to ensure that any development that is carried out is in accordance with the submitted planning application. 7 Information No boats shall be moored until a scheme of signage (for mooring signage information) to be displayed (including the proposed notice board) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any boats are moored, and retained and maintained thereafter unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of 100 the development and to ensure that any development that is carried out is in accordance with the submitted planning application. 8 Hours of No demolition or construction work shall take place during the bird work breeding season for Heron (March – mid May) and none shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with the timing of piling works to coincide with either the middle of the day or during low tide. No demolition or construction work shall take place on Sundays and public holidays without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development) and ENV-P.1.5 (Noise pollution) of the UDP and to mitigate construction disturbance impacts on birds in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment. 9 Hazardous No boats shall be moored until a scheme for the removal, storage and waste disposal of liquid and/or hazardous wastes (including fuels, oils and general residential boat effluent) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall then be managed as approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the water environment from pollution. 10 Phasing The visitor moorings shall be made available for use prior to the leisure moorings being made available for use unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and retained and maintained thereafter as visitor moorings. Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development and to ensure that any development that is carried out is in accordance with the submitted planning application. 11 Sewage Development shall not commence until foul water drainage details, including a timetable for implementation of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Onboard sanitary facilities shall include a sewage holding tank. Development shall be carried out with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the foul drainage system has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand arising from the development so as to prevent increased risk of flooding and water pollution. 12 Marina No boats shall be moored until: Management (i) A Safety Policy and a Safety Management System that at least meets the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (ii) Details of the visitor’s moorings, showing them to have a minimum width of 2.5 metres has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and those details are implemented with any approval from the 101 Local Planning Authority. (iii) The Marina Operational Management Plan (OMP) for the development is amended to either restrict the length of vessels using the visitor moorings to a maximum length of 11m, or if vessels longer than 11m are to be moored, then the finger piers are to be 16.5m in length. Details of amendments to the OMP and the piers are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those details are implemented with any approval from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of navigational safety.

Informatives:

1. Under the terms and conditions of the Water Resources Act and the Thames Land Drainage Bylaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures either affecting or within 16m of the flood defence structure and any works either affecting or within 8 m of the watercourse.

2. Under the terms and conditions of the Water Resources Act, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. Contact the Consent Department on 08708 506506 for further details.

3. You are advised that a licence for the works will be required from the Port of London Authority (PLA). Please contact the PLA’s Head of Property on 01474 562358 to discuss this matter further.

4. You are advised that any discharge of surface water into the waterways requires British Waterway’s written permission before development commences. Please contact British Waterways’ Property Manager on 020 7985 7284 for further information.

12.8 Conditions and Reasons: (01128/G/P3) River Brent

1 Time limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Access Development shall not commence until details of the access points, including steps and ramps, and showing how the proposed access brow will bridge over the flood defence wall with a clear distance of at least 300mm between the bottom surface of soffit of the brow and the crest of the defence wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no boats shall be moored until the approved details have been fully implemented, and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure satisfactory access; and to protect the stability and 102 integrity of the flood defence wall. 3 Leisure Development shall not commence until a detailed schedule of the moorings proposed leisure moorings on the pontoons has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule, and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall; and to ensure that 125m of leisure berths and 22m of visitor berths are provided in accordance with the submitted planning application.

4 Fendering Development shall not commence until a scheme for the provision of timber fendering has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no boats shall be moored until the approved details have been fully implemented, and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To enhance the ecology of the site.

5 Bollards Development shall not commence until details of the proposed bollards have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be completed before any boats are moored, and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the opportunities for mooring in accordance with the submitted planning application.

6 No None of the moorings shall be used for residential purposes. residential moorings Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development and to ensure that any development that is carried out is in accordance with the submitted planning application.

7 Information No boats shall be moored until a scheme of signage (for mooring signage information) to be displayed (including the proposed notice board) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before any boats are moored, and retained and maintained thereafter unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development and to ensure that any development that is carried out is in accordance with the submitted planning application.

8 Hours of No demolition or construction work shall take place during the bird work breeding season for Heron (March – mid May) and none shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with the timing of piling works to coincide with either the middle of the day or during low tide. No 103 demolition or construction work shall take place on Sundays and public holidays without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason In order to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development) and ENV-P.1.5 (Noise pollution) of the UDP and to mitigate construction disturbance impacts on birds in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment.

9 Hazardous No boats shall be moored until a scheme for the removal, storage and waste disposal of liquid and/or hazardous wastes (including fuels, oils and general residential boat effluent) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall then be managed as approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the water environment from pollution.

10 Phasing The visitor moorings shall be made available for use prior to the leisure moorings being made available for use unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and retained and maintained thereafter as visitor moorings.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development and to ensure that any development that is carried out is in accordance with the submitted planning application.

11 Sewage Development shall not commence until foul water drainage details, including a timetable for implementation of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Onboard sanitary facilities shall include a sewage holding tank. Development shall be carried out with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the foul drainage system has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand arising from the development so as to prevent increased risk of flooding and water pollution.

12 Marina No boats shall be moored until a Safety Policy and a Safety Management Management System that at least meets the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of navigational safety.

13 Flood No development shall commence before a detailed drawing showing Defences how the proposed access brow will bridge over the flood defence wall is (EA) submitted to and agreed in writing by the Environment Agency. A clear distance of at least 300mm is to be provided between the bottom surface of soffit of the brow and the crest of the defence wall. 104

Reason: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall.

14 Schedule No development shall commence before a detailed schedule of the (EA) proposed leisure moorings on the pontoons within the basin is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Environment Agency.

Reason: To protect the stability and integrity of the flood defence wall.

15 Habitat (EA) No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory habitat creation has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and implemented as approved. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: Development that encroaches on the River Thames has a potentially severe impact on its ecological value. Government policy in Planning Policy Statement 9 states that where proposed development would cause significant adverse impacts on biodiversity interests, which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensatory measures should be sought.

16 Navigation Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full Light (BW) details of a proposed lighting scheme to ensure the moorings are clearly visible to any inbound vessels at night shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with British Waterways. The approved lighting shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interest of navigational safety, ecology and visual amenity.

Informatives:

1. Under the terms and conditions of the Water Resources Act and the Thames Land Drainage Bylaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures either affecting or within 16m of the flood defence structure and any works either affecting or within 8 m of the watercourse.

2. Under the terms and conditions of the Water Resources Act, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. Contact the Consent Department on 08708 506506 for further details.

3. You are advised that a licence for the works will be required from the Port of London Authority (PLA). Please contact the PLA’s Head of Property on 01474 562358 to discuss this matter further.

4. You are advised that any discharge of surface water into the waterways requires British Waterway’s written permission before development commences. Please contact British Waterways’ Property Manager on 020 7985 7284 for further information.

105 Information relevant to this agenda item:

• 13 December 2007 reports (agenda reports and addendum report) on the applications: See Agenda Items 101 (addendum report), 104 and 105 http://213.210.33.3/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=236&MId=4194&Ver=4&J=4

• 27 March 2008 reports (agenda reports and addendum report) on the applications: See Agenda Item addendum report and 146 http://213.210.33.3/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=236&MId=4197&Ver=4&J=4

• Minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2008 (IBAC 27 March 2008): Copied and pasted below as ATTACHMENT A

• Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2008, subject to amendments/additions and with matters arising (IBAC 24 April 2008): Copied and pasted below as ATTACHMENT B

• 14 August 2008 reports (agenda reports and addendum report) on the applications: See Agenda Item 4 and 12 (addendum report) http://213.210.33.3/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=236&MId=4202&Ver=4&J=1

• Minutes of the meeting held on 14 August 2008, subject to amendments/additions and with matters arising (IBAC 14 August 2008): Copied and pasted below as ATTACHMENT C

• Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 14 August 2008 (IBAC 25 September 2008): Copied and pasted below as ATTACHMENT D

• Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2008 and matters arising (IBAC 23 October 2008): Copied and pasted below as ATTACHMENT E

• Reports from Marine Enforcement dated 14 January 2009 and 12 February 2009 - Appendix 1 and 2 respectively.

106 ATTACHMENT A: Minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2008 (IBAC 27 March 2008)

Ferry Quays Soaphouse Creek PDF 239 KB

Additional documents:

• Soaphouse Creek (moorings FERRY QUAYS)(FINAL), item146. PDF 104 KB • River Brent (moorings FERRY QUAYS report for IBAC)(FINAL), item146. PDF 102 KB • IBAC ADDENDUM FROM 13 DEC 2007, item146. PDF 15 KB • FERRYQUAYSmap, item146. PDF 402 KB

Decision:

Approved

Minutes:

See the report of the Director of Planning Agenda Item 4.

Members noted that an addendum, which was tabled at the meeting, provided some additional information in relation to the application.

Burnetta Van Stipriaan also advised members that (in addition to the s106 obligations set out in the report) that the developer had agreed to enter into an s106 agreement that would ensure that the 1999 planning obligations would be carried over. 146. Ferry Quays Soaphouse Creek – Application (A) Planning Applications 00443/U/P4

With permission of the Chair, Mr D Brenner representative from Regents Network (RN) addressed the committee.

In summary he raised the following key concerns: -

Soaphouse Creek would be an ideal location for the development of ‘off line’ mooring

RN were not satisfied with the suggested layout

They [RN] were unhappy with the proposal for the commercial moorings and suggested that the case had not been made for 24 hour staffing on site, for a small number of boats. This was a departure from custom and practice plus there was already a 24-hour concierge on site for the residents of the overall Ferry Quays development.

The application was a departure from the norm and it was stated that there was no need for a commercial mooring in this location. Mr Brenner suggested that RN would be happier if the commercial aspect of the application was removed. He suggested it would be quite sad if the application were to fail, because the applicants were pursuing a commercial mooring, in this location.

107 He called for the provision of additional visitor moorings and static moorings.

He reminded that the Soaphouse Creek was located in public navigational waters, not private waters.

In response a representative of Hither Green (HG), advised that there was no suggestion that the commercial mooring would be used twenty-four hours a day and he spoke about the viability of a 24-hour operation. HG advised members that a brokerage firm has expressed interest in the commercial mooring. HG advised on the tidal dependency for visiting the moorings and stressed that it was his company’s wish to see the marina populated and re-invigorated

The planning officer advised that this was an application for a fully serviced leisure mooring, two visitor moorings, and one commercial mooring as a Marina Management Office. She reminded that the application had been presented to Members at the December planning meeting and was deferred to allow officers to obtain further information on the issues set out within point No 7, page 19 of the December report. Members were advised that following further consultation with British Waterways (BW) and Port of London (PLA) they continued to have no objection to the application. Attention was drawn to the responses from the consultees set out in the body of the March 08 update report.

Questions / Comments and responses.

In discussion the comments made by HG around the alternative use of the barge as a brokerage business were referred to. Representatives from RN suggested there was a likelihood that the commercial mooring would be used to provide mooring for a business barge and this would be contrary to the use outlined in the submitted application. This was not a welcome feature and would be considered contrary to the wishes of residents and the various consultees. Officers confirmed that the necessary safeguarding conditions were encapsulated in the report that came to the December 2007 committee, if planning were to receive details for non water related use at the site other than expected (as a Marina Management Office, including the ancillary education resource called for), they could refuse it.

Members queried the acceptable size of visiting boats, and the relevant criteria for eligibility for consideration of a berth at Soaphouse Creek. Officers confirmed the eligibility criteria were as set out in paragraph 4.7, page 71 of the report. The location and use of the commercial mooring was discussed in great detail. Clarification was provided on the necessity for staff to be on site 24 hours a day namely; to facilitate boat owners arriving throughout the 24-hour period and as the Marine Management Office would be expected to be utilised as an education resource.

HG were questioned on their credentials and experience for delivery of this type of project; about the expressions of interest in the commercial mooring, and the ancillary education resource provision. In relation to the commercial mooring Hither Green suggested they had carried out the wishes of the planners, there was a need to engender sufficient activities / ancillary use at the site to warrant the 24-hour staffing provision and Members were advised of the approach by a boat manufacturer enquiring about the alternate use of commercial mooring. With regard to the education resource provision S106 funding has been set aside was relevant to other ‘associated’ S106 108 provision. The History Wall project was given as an example of this work. Hither Green stated that they were planning to sponsor a local school to come up with various themes for the education provision, however, they were clear that until the facility was up and running and the boats were populated it was difficult to communicate the educational use. HG set out their record of accomplishment on this type of application. Responding to questions from Members on the alternate use of the commercial mooring site, HG also clarified the option (following an expression of interest) that the mooring be used as a base for a boat manufacturer.

Comments were made about the location of the pontoons and the suggestion was made that they could be located on the north side and this would free up waterway space on the south side. Members were advised on the duality of use of the vessels and confirmation was given that the application was for a B1 Marine Management Office and that the application had been registered and consulted upon in the same way. In response to the proposal to relocate the pontoons members were advised that they could alter the location and put in the necessary condition. [HG] advised on the safety characteristic of pontoons and the support they offered while boat users were alighting / exiting boats.

The hours of operation came under scrutiny and representatives from British Waterways explained their remit and also outlined the tidal hours of operation and window of use.

Members questioned the relationship this application had to the complex planning permissions for Ferry Quays. Planning Officers advised that the planning report submitted to IBAC in November 2006 and its December update both outlined the outstanding Ferry Quays S106 obligations and issues. Referring to the History Wall, this formed part of a list of outstanding obligations, which officers were in discussion with the developers on. Officers would be coming back to committee with specific pre-application proposals from HG to try to address the breaches of planning control.

Members discussed the constraints of the turning circle for larger vessels and various suggestions were put forward, including the removal of some of the pontoons that would make the turning circle larger. Concern about the noise generated by boat engines revving to make the turn was expressed. A representative from HG spoke about low speed manoeuvring and ‘walking in’ boats. HG were steadfast in their view that some noise was usual, and advised that the noise would not be significant. Members challenged the assertion, commenting on the noise nuisance for residents if boats were accessing / exiting the quays very early/ late at night.

Members welcomed the educational resource provision on the commercial barge and embraced the idea of school children visiting the barge for educational purposes. They considered access arrangements and considered that access for disabled / non-disabled visitors would be improved by the installation of the pontoons. They were keen that the hours of operation be secured as part of the Operational Management Plan.

The following key pointes were outlined by members:-

a) In relation to an education resource S106 members were keen to ensure that the provision was fully funded – they were unwilling to have an empty / non- productive boat in the quays.

109 b) An example of best practice in the education field [for boats] was West London Floating Classroom and officers were encouraged to review their practice to inform this piece of work

c) There was a need for further and better particulars in relation to space/ accessibility, and funding for experts – Librarians/ Historians

d) Members wished a further report when the S106 education bid had been worked up.

A view was expressed about the provision of residential moorings versus leisure moorings and the suggestion was made that leisure moorings lead to empty boats being tied up which was not conducive to reinvigorating the area.

For Cllrs Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, O’Reilly, S Fisher, Dakers, and Hardy. Against Cllrs C and P Andrews Abstain Cllr G Hibbs

Resolved –

That planning application 00443/U/P4 for the introduction of fully serviced leisure moorings, one visitors mooring and one commercial (Class B1 Business), as a Marina Management Office in Soaphouse Creek be approved subject to the conditions set out in the officers report and the satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106 Deed.

Ferry Quays - Grand Union Canal / River Brent Decision:

Approved

Minutes:

See the report of the Director of Planning (Agenda item 4)

Ferry Quays – northern bank of the Grand Union Canal/ River Brent moorings Application (B) Planning Application P/2007/2975 01128/G/P2 147. With permission of the Chair, Mr D Brenner, representative on behalf of Regents Network (RN) addressed the committee. His key concerns were as follows:-

Commenting on the greater use of the waterways Mr Brenner drew Member’s attention to the Marine Enforcement Limited (MEL), British Waterways report entitled 'Grand Union Canal Brent Creek A report on the safety implications of mooring vessels in Brent Creek' from 2003. He described it as the only professional report on safety implications of mooring vessels in the River Brent.

Mr Brenner suggested that the content of the MEL report verified RNs concerns which were raised at the December 07 meeting.

110 Concerns about collisions between vessels; the safety implications for the general public with boats moored along this stretch of river were also raised

Mr Brenner questioned the layout for the moorings and suggested that the proposed layout could be revised.

British Waterways (BW) representatives confirmed that they were the navigational authority for the River Brent. They advised that the report was commissioned in response to action that BW was taking against illegally moored vessels in Brent Creek. BW advised that some of the vessels were moored up to 4 vessels abreast and that action unacceptably reduced the effective width of Brent Creek. BW looked at and secured other options for mooring in the area. BW was in support of the application and confirmed that following discussions with the applicant previous concerns had now been addressed satisfactorily.

The Planning Officer introduced the report, which set out proposals for fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings on the northern bank of the Grand Union Canal/ River Brent. The December 2007 report was also attached to the agenda to aid the discussion. An addendum was tabled that provided information on the response to consultation; an update from BW on the MEL report and an update on the S106 Deed for each mooring application.

Members questioned the requirements for the turning circle, and enquired if the submitted plans met the statutory guidelines. The PLA, Planning Officer, and representatives from BW confirmed that they were happy that the turning circle was appropriate for the safe manoeuvring of boats. There was no statutory minimum/maximum width for navigating a turning circle. The current application allowed safe passage for two-way navigation on this stretch of the river and pontoons will be safely attached to the wall to ensure that they don’t encroach on the boats / barge navigation.

A discussion took place on the proper management of boats both leisure and residential, and Members questioned the manageability of boats, and in particularly those using this stretch of the River Brent. Members were concerned that some inexperienced captains would struggle to deal with the ebbing tides prevalent in this stretch of river. BW representatives expressed the view that with regard to the River Brent (at this point), it was safe for vessels to make a turn on the ebbing tide. Members were advised that the captain / skipper was responsible for manoeuvring the vessel/ boat. To assist BW advised that they also publish advice, and introduced signs on going out on the tidal Thames.

Officers discounted the possibility of locating boats on the western side of the jetting because of the proximity to the blocks of flats.

Members were in the main supportive of the application. They were most grateful for the attendance of representatives of British Waterways, and were disappointed at the lack of take up of the invitation to attend sent to the Port of London Authority. They stressed that BW had provided quick and unambiguous responses to their questions and this was most helpful in determining the application.

There were a number of areas they would have liked to have further and better 111 particulars on namely:-

a) the provision of residential mooring in the area

b) they wanted to broaden the discussion to encompass a debate on the ‘wider’ needs of this particular area

For Cllrs Harmer, Cadbury, Reid, Carey, O’Reilly, S Fisher, and Dakers Against Cllrs C and P Andrews and Hardy. Abstain Cllr G Hibbs

Resolved –

That planning application 01128/G/P2 for the provision of fully serviced leisure and visitor moorings on the northern bank of the Grand Union Canal / River Brent be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106 Deed.

ATTACHMENT B: Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2008, subject to amendments/additions and with matters arising (IBAC 24 April 2008)

Minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2008 & Matters Arising PDF 56 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 March 2008 were confirmed, subject to the following amendments/additions and with the following matters arising:

Items 146 and 147, pages 2-6: Ferry Quays (Item 4 and Item 5 on the agenda)

Councillor Hibbs wished to clarify her position in respect of what was recorded for these items and read out a prepared statement. The Committee agreed that the statement should be recorded in the minutes. 160. “Cllr Hibbs Item 5.It was noted that this planning application has been withdrawn. Item 4 - non-prejudicial interest, however, Cllr Hibbs advised she would not be taking part in voting on this scheme.

For clarification. I was approached shortly before the meeting. The significant addendum had been placed but I had not read it.

It was put to me that I could be thought to have prejudged the issue because of what I had said when the December minutes were taken. I then had the choice of making a statement at the beginning of the items and withdrawing or sitting in the debate but not participating. I had not prepared for such an eventuality. In my opinion, permitting the encroachment of the historic public navigations rights is a very serious matter. The 112 committee was not given adequate information on which to make that judgment.

With the meeting impending there was no time to read the addendum and respond appropriately. In my view the issues were far too important for me not to hear the debate. Because the challenge was not within the meeting other members and the public did not know what had happened.”

Item 147, page 6: Ferry Quays Councillor Dakers had voted against the recommendations of the report for the Brentford Moorings.

Councillors Caroline and Phil Andrews were shown as voting against for Items 146 and 147, pages 4 and 6, but advised that Councillor Phil had abstained on both votes. Councillor Caroline Andrews had voted against.

…Members discussed the following matter arising:

Item 146, page 3: Ferry Quays

Councillor Harmer referred to emails in respect of the Ferry Quays application and suggested that next time members considered a major waterside application it would be helpful if officers had knowledge of some of these wider issues.

The Chair had requested, received and read a report from Green England Ltd as independent assessors of Brent Creek. Having read this report he had grave concerns since the British Waterways’ testimony contradicted Hounslow’s own report. The report author was currently looking at the report to consider the contradictions. The Chair suggested that if it were established that there were indeed conflicting information, he would be inclined to refer the matter to Legal Services to see whether the application could be called back to Committee.

The Chair reported that he had approached the Waterways Commission with a view to a members’ briefing and would invite all IBAC members with a view to members educating themselves with regard to waterways issues, prior to considering any other applications.

Jimmy Walsh, Legal representative, advised the Committee that they were not in a position to revisit decisions on Ferry Quays, even if there was an error. The decision had been made. However, he took the point for future applications.

Councillor Harmer recognised the worth of the Waterways Commission but pointed out that they did have a vested interest. The Chair believed that the Waterways Commission represented a wide spectrum, but Councillor Harmer disagreed and felt that the Commission had a vested interest. He stressed that it was the job of the planning officers to weigh competing claims and make an honest judgement, whilst the Waterways Commission was speaking from a particular point of view. The planning officer could not be expected to have the depth of knowledge so he accepted that it was worth inviting expert parties to comment for particular applications. The Chair confirmed that he did not see one officer holding specialist knowledge but of establishing a toolkit of knowledge to apply where appropriate, rather than dealing with such matters ‘on the hoof’.

Councillor Hibbs suggested the need to look at what the Waterways Commission 113 actually was. She advised that it had been established through the Mayor of London’s office with invitations to people with appropriate knowledge. Councillor Hibbs advised that this was not a vested interest.

However, Cathy Gallagher advised that the Waterways Commission had been the objector and Jimmy Walsh agreed that the public would see this as a vested interest. Cathy Gallagher explained that in respect of a planning application, consultancy and expertise were very different entities and that the Waterways were statutory consultees.

The Chair saw no harm in considering a variety of views, not just one view. He was mindful of the problem as one of the greatest experts, Nigel Moore, was a local resident and hence might be perceived as having a degree of prejudice. Councillor Reid stressed the need for members to be very conscious of being seen to be impartial and not to take information from anyone who might be seen to be prejudiced.

ATTACHMENT C: Minutes of the meeting held on 14 August 2008, subject to amendments/additions and with matters arising (IBAC 14 August 2008)

Minutes:

See the report of the Director of Environment – Agenda Item 4

See also the Addendum Report – Agenda Item 12

The Chair invited Nigel Moore, a local resident and member of the Brentford Waterside Forum, to address the committee. Mr Moore said that the Brentford Waterside Forum had discussed the two applications at length over two formal and several informal meetings including a meeting attended by Hither Green, the applicant.

Mr Moore reminded the committee of his earlier concerns regarding the desirability of having due regard to the independent expert analysis of the River Brent moorings proposals in terms of their navigational impact. Mr Moore drew attention to the PLA toolkit example of such risk analysis, so that the importance of the report could be realised more clearly. Mr Moore said that the MEL report had classified British Waterways earlier, less protuberant pontoon schemes, as having risk factors of 15 and 16 for 3 out of 5 categories of risk.

Mr Moore commented that his principal concern was the commercial barge use, which was the cause of revisiting the Soaphouse Creek scheme again. He felt that the planning officer’s report had made clear that the business barge concept of floating offices/shops/ was contrary to the BRN policies of the London Plan. He also said that he endorsed the comments made by the PLA.

Mr Moore referred to the Examination in Public of the draft London Plan in 2003. He highlighted paragraph 4.118, content, which insisted that proposals to use moorings for other uses should only be permitted where they can be shown to be of wider benefit to the Blue Ribbon Network, such as an education resource. Mr Moore said that the Brentford Waterside Forum shared the PLA’s concerns over the obvious manoeuvring to translate consent for an acceptable use of waterspace into consent for unacceptable use. Thus, Mr Moore agreed with the planning officer’s recommendation.

114 The Chair asked Mr James Beadnell, agent representing the applicant, Hither Green, to address the committee. Mr Beadnell indicated that he wished to withdraw the amendments to the originally submitted application and was happy with the previously granted permission for application A at the committee in March 2008. Mr Beadnell said that the applicant was happy to enter into the S106 legal agreement and adhere to the conditions as approved by Members at the meeting of this Committee in March 2008. Mr Coomber, Area Planning Manager, advised that application A for the Soaphouse Creek was before the committee as the applicant had objected to entering into a s106 agreement in the approved terms and had also objected to the imposition of approved condition 13, having asked that the vessel could be used as a marine management office with other uses. Mr Coomber informed the Committee that the applicant has now agreed to condition 13 and to enter into a s106 agreement in the approved terms, and he advised that if the agent had sooner advised planning officers that they had withdrawn that request, the application would not have been put to the committee for decision. Mr Coomber clarified that application A, for the Soaphouse Creek, Ferry Lane, was unchanged from the application that was presented to the committee in December and in March 2008. He explained that planning permission for application A was approved in March 2008 subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Mr Coomber advised that Application B varied from the original approved application in that the main issue was where the boats would be moored. It ensured that any activity was positioned further away from the residential housing.

Councillor S Fisher asked Mr Coomber to clarify whether the commercial mooring would be used as a management office and an educational resource and whether it would be in operation 24 hours. Mr Coomber said that he was not aware of any time restrictions. However, he understood the concerns in terms of the use as a residential educational resource.

Councillor Reid questioned whether the educational use could also be residential use. Mr Coomber advised that it was possible to have a residential element to the proposal, however, it would require a further application.

The Chair referred to a report that was written by Captain Capon, from Marine Enforcement Ltd. He reminded that Members of the Committee were shown a copy of the report at the IBAC meeting in March. The report was cautionary and it looked at the safety implications of mooring vessels in Brent Creek. The Chair informed Members that Captain Capon had commented that the report presented to the committee had drawings attached that did not form part of his original report and he felt that the drawings had misled members of the committee.

Councillor Hardy expressed concern that an inaccurate report was presented to the Committee and that it might have assisted the committee in reaching an informed decision. Councillor Hardy suggested that the committee might have been misled. Councillor Carey felt unclear about how the committee was misled and he asked Councillor Hardy to clarify the situation further.

Councillor Hardy referred to the last page of Mr Moore’s report, and advised that the report outlined a number of risks that were not highlighted within the report from Captain Capon. He felt that the committee might have made a decision based on the content of the report from Captain Capon.

115 Councillor Harmer felt unsure whether the committee could change their decision and expressed concerns at the possibility that the Council may have to apply to the court to judicially review its own decision. Councillor Hardy felt that if the committee were unable to review the decision then it could emphasise that the MEL report was supposed to be an independent report and felt disappointed that it may have been altered before it was presented to the committee.

Mr Coomber explained that the report was written in 2003 and that it had four diagrams attached. He explained that the body of the report referred to the four diagrams attached. Mr Coomber was clear that staff would not seek to tamper with a third party report. Tim Beckett, a marine engineer, said that the report was prepared before the application was submitted. He advised that the applicant had consulted with the PLA and British Waterways and that the scheme was adjusted in accordance with their requests. He emphasised that the navigational authorities had not objected to the submitted application.

Benita Edwards, Legal Advisor, said that application B was an amended application and therefore varied from that approved in March. It was open to Members to reconsider the application and, so long as there were good planning reasons for doing so, Members might come to a different conclusion. She advised that procedurally a decision was not made until planning permission had been issued. As appropriate, Members might also call-back the previous application in order to consider the issue of Captain Capon’s report and diagrams and, if necessary, to reconsider the application. Ms Edwards clarified that in this case as planning permission had not been issued, there was no question of the Council be required to judicially review its decision or necessarily to re-open it.

In light of the discussion, Councillor P Andrews felt unhappy about the committee determining the applications at this meeting. He felt that there were several irregularities and felt that the applications should be deferred to the planning meeting in September. Councillor Harmer stated that if the item was deferred he wished the planning department to ensure that a planning consultant with knowledge of marine/waterways experience be present when it made a reappearance at committee.

Councillor Hardy proposed that the applications be deferred until the meeting in September. Councillor P Andrews seconded the motion to defer and a vote was taken as follows:

For Cllrs C. Andrews, P. Andrews, Carey, P. Carried 8/0 Fisher, S. Fisher, Hardy, Harmer and Reid.

Against None

Abstained None

Resolved:

That the application number (00443/U/P4) (P/2007/2900) for the Soaphouse Creek, Ferry Lane and the application number (01128/G/P2) (P/2007/2975) for the River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quays be deferred until the September planning meeting.

116 ATTACHMENT D: Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 14 August 2008 (IBAC 25 September 2008)

Minutes of the meeting held on the 14 August, 2008 Minutes:

(Agenda Item 2)

The minutes of the meeting held on the 14 August 2008 were agreed subject to the following amendment; 38. Minute 28 – Ferry Quays

Paragraph 9, insert ’ “the Chair” felt that the drawings had misled members of the committee.’

Matters Arising Minutes: i) Minute 28 Ferry Quays

39. It was noted that a further report would not be available until October, not September’s planning committee, as stated in the minutes. It was noted that the Chair, Councillor Hardy, had expressed a preference for the appointment of Captain Capon to advise on the planning application only; in view of his expertise with regard to the waterways. It was noted that his advice would relate exclusively to the issue of navigation safety.

ATTACHMENT E: Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2008 and matters arising (IBAC 23 October 2008)

Ferry Quays:

Captain Mark Capon presented members with a short presentation on his report on the planning applications for moorings in Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent, after which he fielded members’ questions.

117

FERRY QUAYS

BRENTFORD

A Further Report on Planning Applications for Moorings

in Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent.

This report should be read in conjunction with the previous report on the same matter dated 21st October 2008.

14th January 2009.

© Marine Enforcement

A Further Report on Planning Applications for Moorings in Soaphouse Creek and the River Brent.

This report considers 2 planning applications presently before the London Borough of Hounslow;

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Soaphouse Creek, Ferry Quays, Brentford (00443/U/P4) River Brent Moorings, Ferry Quays, Brentford (01128/G/P2)

For the avoidance of doubt this report only deals with the above two applications and not any other applications regardless of whether they are similar.

In preparing this report the following plans and documents have been considered.

Brentford Moorings Soaphouse Creek General Arrangement Drawing Number: 0525-01-201 Revision A.

Brentford Moorings River Brent General Arrangement Drawing Number: 0525-01-101 Revision A.

Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays Operational Management Plan Revision B November 2008.

This report should be read in conjunction with the previous report on the same matter dated 21st October 2008.

For completeness this report repeats some of the comments that we made in our previous report.

118 Marine Enforcement Ferry Quays - Brentford

1. SOAPHOUSE CREEK 1.1 The application to develop Soaphouse Creek does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the very low vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised.

1.2 However, the design of the berthing arrangements as drawn would, in our view, make it very difficult to effectively use this space as a working marina. In short the “ease of navigation” would be severely compromised.

1.3 It is a matter for IBAC whether it is appropriate for the planning authority to consider the practicality of the marina given that vessels using the marina are prohibited from “residential use”. We say this because the vessels using this marina must be used for “recreational purposes” and it is reasonable to expect they will wish to depart and enter the marina.

1.4 In our previous report we suggested that IBAC may wish to be assured that Soaphouse Creek will be used for vessels that are used on the adjacent waterways by requesting the applicant to clearly define “leisure moorings” and “visitor moorings” so that the moorings are not used as permanent mooring sites for static vessels; if that is the desire. The definitions included in the revised Operational Management Plan (OMP) state the vessels using the marina (apart from the commercial mooring) must be used for recreational purposes but this does not preclude the possibility that once a vessel takes a permanent mooring it becomes static although it is used for “recreation purposes” but not for “residential purposes”. We acknowledge that this issue is not one of navigational safety.

1.5 We raised some comments on the OMP in our previous report and some of them have been dealt with by correspondence with the architects and in amending the OMP. We also acknowledge that a Navigational Risk Assessment has been completed. What is clear is that the OMP is considered a high level document which establishes the overall operating principles for the marinas and that it is expected that the Directors of the marina company will produce a Safety Policy and a Safety Management System (which must also deal with pollution control). It is these separate documents that will deal with the details of the safe operation of the marinas including the operation of the lock gates by trained marina staff. We suggest that these issues are incorporated in a condition along the lines of the following.

NON-STD (Marina Management) No boats shall be moored until a Safety Policy and a Safety Management System that at least meets the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

1.6 Whilst not an issue of navigational safety we merely remark that the Code of Practice referred to above requires that toilet facilities are provided at inland waterway marinas even if the marina has a pump out and chemical disposal facility. We note that that the OMP states that no on site toilet or shower facilities will be provided. We do note that the OMP requires all vessels where users stay overnight must be fitted with onboard sanitary facilities and we would suggest that such onboard sanitary facilities should include a sewage holding tank. (We note

2

119 Marine Enforcement Ferry Quays - Brentford

the requirement of condition 10 which requires the approval of a scheme for the removal of waste including “general residential boat effluent” and we suggest that consideration ought to be given to insisting vessels fitted with toilets discharge to a holding tank before disposal of the waste ashore.)

1.7 In our previous report we commented on the inadequate length of the finger piers between the two visitor’s berths and the commercial berth. The plan that accompanies application Brentford (00443/U/P4) has not been amended in this regard since our last report (although a further revision of this plan that accompanies another application which is not subject to this report does show a different arrangement). We accept that the actual length of vessels that will visit the marina is unknown. Therefore a precautionary principal should be adopted and the finger piers should be constructed so that the longest vessels can be accommodated within the visitor’s moorings. If the longest vessels reasonably expected to use the visitor’s moorings are 22m long then the finger piers should be 16.5m long and 2.5 meters wide. The alternative is to restrict the length of visiting vessels to about 11m although, in any case, the width of the finger piers should be increased to 2.5 m.

1.8 CONCLUSION We are not experts in planning law and have been instructed to comment on this application with particular attention to navigation and obstruction issues.

We conclude that: 1. The application to develop Soaphouse Creek does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the very low vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised. 2. The design of the berthing arrangements makes it very difficult to effectively use this space as a working marina especially as all vessels are to be used for “recreational purposes”. 3. Not all the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours have been met, notably the design of the finger piers and the provision of toilet facilities. 4. Vessels where users stay overnight should be fitted with onboard sanitary facilities that include a sewage holding tank. 5. A Safety Policy and Safety Management System are yet to be produced and same should be approved by way of a condition.

On the basis that IBAC duly consider these conclusions and include conditions as they think fit we cannot see any reason (within our areas of knowledge and expertise) why planning permission should be refused.

2. RIVER BRENT MOORINGS 2.1 In our previous report we were unable to determine whether the safety of navigation would be compromised because there was conflicting information regarding the use of the River Brent by commercial vessels that may have included trains of barges. In the Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) submitted by the applicants it states that the use of the Thames Lock (which is just upstream of the proposed moorings) by freight vessels is “negligible” and that

3

120 Marine Enforcement Ferry Quays - Brentford

there are no freight facilities which currently use the river Brent for freight transport and there are no known proposals which would introduce freight use to the river. On this basis and with due regard to the NRA and subject to any adverse comments made by either of the two appropriate navigational authorities (PLA and British Waterways) we are now able to state the following.

2.2 The application to develop the River Brent Moorings does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the slow vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised.

2.3 We raised with the applicant the issue of the straight run of pontoons which creates an area of dead water some 55.3m long x 6m wide inside of the pontoons. We do not agree with the applicants that because the River Brent is tidal the accumulation of flotsam is unlikely because our observations indicate whilst the level of the River alters with the tide there is very little tidal flow. However we are comforted by the confirmation given by the applicant that “they will indeed be happy to undertake to ensure this area is kept clean” (email, dlg architects to Mark Capon 08 January 2009).

2.3 CONCLUSION We are not experts in planning law and have been instructed to comment on this application with particular attention to navigation and obstruction issues.

We conclude that: 1. The application to develop the River Brent Moorings does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the slow vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised. 2. Not all the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours have been met, notably the provision of toilet facilities. 3. Vessels where users stay overnight should be fitted with onboard sanitary facilities that include a sewage holding tank. 4. A Safety Policy and Safety Management System are yet to be produced and same should be approved by way of a condition.

On the basis that IBAC duly consider these conclusions and include conditions as they think fit we cannot see any reason (within our areas of knowledge and expertise) why planning permission should be refused.

Respectfully submitted

Mark G Capon LLB Master Mariner

14th January 2009

Managing Director, Marine Enforcement

4

121 BRENTFORD MOORINGS SOAPHOUSE CREEK

1 A Report on the Planning Application for Moorings in Soaphouse Creek.

This report should be read in conjunction with the reports dated 21st October 2008 and 14th January 2009 which dealt with a previous application at the same site.

12th February 2009. © Marine Enforcement

A Report on the Planning Application for Moorings in Soaphouse Creek.

This report considers a planning application presently before the London Borough of Hounslow;

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Soaphouse Creek, Ferry Quays, Brentford (00443/U/P5)

In preparing this report the following plans and documents have been considered.

Brentford Moorings Soaphouse Creek General Arrangement Drawing Number: 0525-01-201 Revision B.

Brentford Moorings – Ferry Quays Operational Management Plan Final November 2008.

This report should be read in conjunction with the reports dated 21st October 2008 and 14th January 2009 which dealt with a previous application at the same site.

For completeness this report repeats some of the comments that we made in our previous reports that relate to planning application 00443/U/P4.

122 Marine Enforcement Ferry Quays - Brentford

BACKGROUND This application is similar to application 00443/U/P4 save that it does not include any commercial berths and that the provision of leisure berths has decreased from 145m to 120m. Other than that there are no substantial changes so that what we have said in our previous reports that relate to the similar application 00443/U/P4 equally apply to this application.

1. SOAPHOUSE CREEK 1.1 The application to develop Soaphouse Creek does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the very low vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised.

1.2 However, the design of the berthing arrangements as drawn would, in our view, make it very difficult to effectively use this space as a working marina. In short the “ease of navigation” would be severely compromised.

1.3 It is a matter for IBAC whether it is appropriate for the planning authority to consider the practicality of the marina given that vessels using the marina are prohibited from “residential use”. We say this because the vessels using this marina must be used for “recreational purposes” and it is reasonable to expect they will wish to depart and enter the marina.

1.4 In our previous reports we suggested that IBAC may wish to be assured that Soaphouse Creek will be used for vessels that are used on the adjacent waterways by requesting the applicant to clearly define “leisure moorings” and “visitor moorings” so that the moorings are not used as permanent mooring sites for static vessels; if that is the desire. The definitions included in the revised Operational Management Plan (OMP) state the vessels using the marina must be used for recreational purposes but this does not preclude the possibility that once a vessel takes a permanent mooring it becomes static although it is used for “recreation purposes” but not for “residential purposes”. We acknowledge that this issue is not one of navigational safety.

1.5 We raised some comments on the OMP in our first report on the previous application and some of them have been dealt with by correspondence with the architects and in amending the OMP. We also acknowledge that a Navigational Risk Assessment has been completed. What is clear is that the OMP is considered a high level document which establishes the overall operating principles for the marina and that it is expected that the Directors of the marina company will produce a Safety Policy and a Safety Management System (which must also deal with pollution control). It is these separate documents that will deal with the details of the safe operation of the marinas including the operation of the lock gates by trained marina staff. We suggest that these issues are incorporated in a condition along the lines of the following.

NON-STD (Marina Management)

No boats shall be moored until a Safety Policy and a Safety Management System that at least meets the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2

123 Marine Enforcement Ferry Quays - Brentford

1.6 Whilst not an issue of navigational safety we merely remark that the Code of Practice referred to above requires that toilet facilities are provided at inland waterway marinas even if the marina has a pump out and chemical disposal facility. We note that that the OMP states that no on site toilet or shower facilities will be provided. We do note that the OMP requires all vessels where users stay overnight must be fitted with onboard sanitary facilities and we would suggest that such onboard sanitary facilities should include a sewage holding tank. (We note the requirement of condition 10 which requires the approval of a scheme for the removal of waste including “general residential boat effluent” and we suggest that consideration ought to be given to insisting vessels fitted with toilets discharge to a holding tank before disposal of the waste ashore.)

1.7 In our first report we commented on the inadequate length of the finger piers between the two visitor’s berths and what was then the commercial berth. The plan that accompanies application Brentford (00443/U/P5) still shows finger piers 8m long by 1m wide. We accept that the actual length of vessels that will visit the marina is unknown. Therefore a precautionary principal should be adopted and the finger piers should be constructed so that the longest vessels can be accommodated within the visitor’s moorings. If the longest vessels reasonably expected to use the visitor’s moorings are 22m long then the finger piers should be 16.5m long and 2.5 meters wide. The alternative is to restrict the length of visiting vessels to about 11m although, in any case, the width of the finger piers should be increased to 2.5 m.

1.8 CONCLUSION We are not experts in planning law and have been instructed to comment on this application with particular attention to navigation and obstruction issues. We conclude that: 1. This application to develop Soaphouse Creek does not provide any serious risks associated with marine operations or the safety of navigation because of the sheltered waters, the very low vessel speeds anticipated and the type of vessels involved. In short the “safety of navigation” is not compromised. 2. The design of the berthing arrangements makes it very difficult to effectively use this space as a working marina especially as all vessels are to be used for “recreational purposes”. 3. Not all the requirements of the Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours have been met, notably the design of the finger piers and the provision of toilet facilities. 4. Vessels where users stay overnight should be fitted with onboard sanitary facilities that include a sewage holding tank. 5. A Safety Policy and Safety Management System are yet to be produced and same should be approved by way of a condition.

On the basis that IBAC duly consider these conclusions and include conditions as they think fit we cannot see any reason (within our areas of knowledge and expertise) why planning permission should be refused.

Respectfully submitted Mark G Capon LLB Master Mariner 12th February 2009 Managing Director, Marine Enforcement

3

124 125

Agenda Item 9

ISLEWORTH AND BRENTFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 14th May 2009 George Murphy: Tel 020 8583 4968 e-mail: [email protected]

References: P/2008/1921 00657/P/P13 P/2008/1922 00657/P/CA1 Address: Land at Kew Bridge, Kew Bridge Road, Brentford Ward: Brentford Proposal: (Application for Conservation Area Consent) Demolition of Waggon & Horses Public House, boundary walls and associated structure walls and removal of 6 trees to enable the proposed mixed use development comprising: (Planning Application) 164 residential units, ancillary fitness suite and business centre, retail (Class A1 use), café/restaurant (Class A3 use) office (Class B1 use) and Public House (Class A4 use) together with access, public and private open space, basement car and cycle parking provision, public convenience, provision of a pontoon and use of arches 4 & 5 under Kew Bridge for boat club (Class D2 Use) (Amended application) Plan Nos: SG.KBR 001C,102B, 103B, 002D, 003E, 004E, 005E, 006D, 007D, 008D, 009D, 010D, 012C, 120, 150, 170, 171, 180B, 181B, 201C, 202C, 203C, 204C, 205C,206A, 207A, 210B, 211B, 301C, 302C, 303C, 304C, 311C, 312C, 313C, 314C,401C, 402B, 403C, 404C, 405B, 406D, 411C, 412B, 413C, 414C, 415B, 416D, and landscape drawings: D0029- 004B, 005B, 007A, 008B, 009B, 010B, 012B,013C, 019B, 020N, 022D, 023D, 024B & 024-100Btogether with Environmental Statement, Sustainability Statement, Planning Statement, Design & Access Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Energy assessment, Transport Assessment and Statement of Community Involvement. Date received: 19th June 2008 (Amended 10th March 2009) Application for Listed Building Consent received 16th March 2009 for upgrade of walkway under Kew Bridge.

The applications are being submitted to Chiswick Area Committee and Isleworth & Brentford Area Planning Committee for comment. If an acceptable scheme can be negotiated, then the proposal can be recommended for approval at Sustainable Development Committee. If no acceptable scheme can be negotiated, then the application can be refused under delegated powers.

126

Amended Scheme view from Chiswick

Amended Scheme view from Brentford

127

128

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 This report deals with a planning application accompanied by an Environmental Statement and an application for Conservation Area Consent in respect of a proposed development of a site adjacent to Kew Bridge, which is within the Kew Bridge Conservation Area. The proposals are substantially different to the scheme that was refused in March 2005 and a subsequently dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State on 9th March 2006.

1.2 Conservation Area Consent is sought for demolition of the Waggon and Horses Public House, boundary walls and associated structure walls and the removal of six trees.

1.3 Listed Building Consent is sought for alterations within arch No 6 to provide an improved, ramped walkway incorporating wheelchair access along the towpath.

1.4 The proposed development would provide: • Basement parking and servicing area including 155 car-parking spaces and 170 secure cycle parking spaces. • Ground floor commercial units: retail, food & drink and offices (Class A1/A3 and B1) 1,645 sq m. • Two storey Public House and cellar (Class A4) 511 sq m. • Boat Club and Kayak Club (Class D2) 206sq m within arches 4 & 5 of Kew Bridge together with a pontoon.

129 • 164 residential units (none affordable). • Ground floor residents’ fitness suite. • First floor residents’ business centre • Public and Private Open Space • Public convenience

1.5 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which is comprehensive in its range of topics.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site occupies an area of land some 0.968 hectares in extent and lies on the north-west side of Kew Bridge at the junction of Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road. The site comprises vacant land that was formerly occupied by Kew Bridge House (an office building, which was demolished in the late 1980’s) and the Plough Public House, demolished more recently. The application site also includes the Waggon and Horses Public House, which is still operational. There is a bus stand, which occupies much of the public highway along the Kew Bridge Road frontage.

2.2 The site lies to the south of Kew Bridge Road and immediately to the west of Kew Bridge, which is a Grade II Listed Building. The Thameside Centre office development lies to the west of the site and comprises 4-5 storey red-brick buildings with pitched roofs. The River Thames and towpath run along the southern boundary, with the River Thames designated as Metropolitan Open Land and Nature Conservation Area (UDP Proposals Map 3). The site lies within the Thames Policy Area and the Kew Bridge Conservation Area. To the east of the Bridge lies the Strand on the Green Conservation area.

2.3 The Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew Gardens), lies on the opposite side of the river, as does the Kew Green Conservation Area. Kew Gardens is a World Heritage Site and is designated Grade I on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. The Grade I Listed Kew Palace lies within Kew Gardens. The application site falls within the buffer zone for Kew Gardens World heritage Site.

2.4 To the north of Kew Bridge Road the surroundings are a mixture of residential and commercial buildings 3-4 storeys high. Kew Bridge Station is a Grade II Listed identified as Buildings of Local Townscape Character. The Kew Steam Museum, with its Grade I Listed buildings including the ‘Campanile’ tower, lies some 50m to the west.

2.5 The application proposes development of the combined site of the former office block and the demolished Plough public house together with the Waggon and Horses. The site boundary as shown in the planning application includes the roadway along the eastern side of the vacant land and two arches beneath Kew Bridge. It also includes part of the Thames towpath to the south and part of the access road and parking area of the Thameside Centre to the West. In addition, the pavement and bus shelters along the Kew Bridge Road frontage are also included within the application site boundary.

130 2.6 The vacant land is designated in the UDP as proposals site M20, and is identified for mixed business and community use or mixed business and residential use in accordance with the planning brief, which was adopted in 2001. It is also identified as a Landmark Site on Map ENV-B2.

2.7 The combined Building, which is in a poor state of repair, and the adjacent terrace has been vacant area and Waggon & Horses site is identified for mixed-use development in the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP).

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 Following the demolition of the former office building planning permissions were granted in 1989, 1991 and 1992 for various office and mixed-use developments. None of these were implemented and are now time-expired.

3.2 A Planning and Urban Design Brief for the site was adopted in September 2001.

3.3 An application for mixed-use development comprising 238 residential units and 1,940 sq m commercial floorspace was refused in March 2005 and dismissed on appeal in March 2006.

3.4 In dismissing the appeal the Secretary of State concluded that the scheme offered a number of benefits, including a contribution to housing needs on a site that has remained derelict for many years. However, he felt that the poor quality of the design would cause considerable harm to conservation interests, the world heritage site at Kew Gardens and the riverside. Furthermore, additional harm would result from poor living conditions, increased risk to highway safety and inadequate open space provision.

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 Compared to the previous, appealed scheme this current proposal would increase the site area and alter the built form of the proposed development, and there would be a reduction (by 74 units) in the amount of residential accommodation proposed.

Amendments to the submitted application 4.2 The following changes have been made since the planning application was reported to the area committees in August 2008:

4.3 The number of residential units has been reduced from 170 to 164 and the proportion of three-bedroom dwellings has been increased to 31% of the total. There is no affordable housing in the revised proposal. Parking provision has been reduced from 160 to 155 parking spaces. The commercial floorspace has been reduced from 1,761 sq m to 1,645 sq m and a small business centre has been introduced for residents.

4.4 The building footprint has been reduced at the western end (providing an increase in ground level amenity space) and the north-west corner has been re-designed. The central and tallest building form has been re-designed with glazing introduced to elevations so as to separate and emphasise the solid building segments. Structures at roof level have been reduced in number and

131 the roofline has been rationalised and simplified in appearance. The glazed prow at the south-eastern corner has been reduced in height.

4.5 The internal layout of the residential units has been improved so as to provide improved circulation, increased privacy, enhanced daylight and outlook for future residents.

4.6 Access arrangements have been altered and a management plan has been provided. Provision has been made for widening the carriageway of Kew Bridge Road so as to incorporate provision for cyclists.

Details of the revised scheme 4.7 The proposed building would front onto Kew Road to the north and Kew Bridge Road to the east. It would have a flank frontage towards the Thameside Trading Estate to the west and would face the River Thames to the south. The development would rise from two storeys at the southern side to nine storeys, in part, at the northern side. The eastern elevation, facing Kew Bridge is five storeys high with a further ‘penthouse’ storey. Similarly, the western elevation is five storeys with a further ‘penthouse’ storey.

4.8 The proposed riverside public house would be two storeys high with a pitched roof; behind this the central part of the development would rise in stages from five storeys up to eight storeys with an additional ‘penthouse’ floor at the northern end, facing onto Kew Bridge Road. The building would step down to five storeys above a central, covered entrance facing Kew Bridge Road.

4.9 The proposal features a curved ‘turret’ in the north-eastern corner where Kew Bridge Road meets Kew Road at the northern side of the bridge. A similar (prow-fronted) feature is proposed at the western end of the Kew Bridge Road frontage. The southern end of the building, adjacent to Kew Bridge, features a glazed, curved ‘prow’ structure rising to seven storeys in height.

4.10 A public square of 1,456 sq m is proposed in the south-east segment, adjacent to Kew Bridge and the towpath. Pedestrian routes within the site include a colonnade along the eastern flank and a 7m wide opening at ground level between the six-storey building facing Kew Bridge and the curved feature at the north-eastern corner. A raised pedestrian walkway is also featured around the northern and western sides of the public square. The application includes proposed alterations to the Thames towpath including the provision of a ramped walkway to replace the stepped footpath through archway 6 beneath Kew Bridge.

4.11 Parking and servicing for the development (including refuse and recycling) would be located within a basement, accessed from the Thameside Centre. The forecourt facing Kew Bridge Road would provide a drop-off point, with vehicular access at either end. The ground floor accommodation would comprise commercial units along the eastern and northern frontages with residential accommodation facing west and south. The two-storey public house would be free-standing and a commercial unit would be located in the adjacent building at ground floor level. The commercial floorspace within the scheme is identified for a mixture of retail, café/restaurant and office uses and a small health suite is included for residents of the scheme.

132 4.12 The upper storeys are all proposed for residential use, providing a range of one, two and three-bed units. There is no affordable housing provision in the revised scheme. The breakdown of residential accommodation would be as follows: 14 x one-bed units (9% of total) 99 x two-bed units (60% of total) 51 x three-bed units (31% of total)

4.13 Private amenity space is proposed adjacent to ground floor dwellings on the southern side of the building. Additional areas are identified at various roof levels throughout the scheme and many units would have balconies. The rooftop areas would provide private terraces as well as communal garden areas.

4.14 A kayak club has been established within archway 5 beneath Kew Bridge and a boat club is proposed within archway 4. The existing toilet block, which abuts the bridge, is to be removed and replaced with a purpose made public convenience. A pontoon is proposed, extending 24m from the towpath into the river, for use by the boat club and kayak club to launch their vessels.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Statutory and non-statutory consultations were sent on 20th June 2008. Notification letters were sent to 770 nearby properties. The application was advertised by way of site and press notices and copies of the application were made available at Brentford and Chiswick libraries. Exhibitions took place at St Paul’s Church, Brentford on 1st July 2008 and Fountain Leisure Centre in Chiswick on 3rd July 2008. Exhibition boards of the proposed development were also displayed in the foyer at Hounslow Civic Centre from 30th June to 18th July 2008.

5.2 In addition to the consultation by the Council the applicant mounted an exhibition within one of the arches beneath Kew Bridge on 11th and 12th July.

5.3 Twelve letters of objection were received. The following comments have been made:

Comment Object to loss of Waggon & Horses, one of the few buildings of character in Brentford Object to felling of trees Loss of light and outlook from Green Dragon Lane Loss of privacy Interference with TV reception Increased traffic, noise and pollution at busy junction No provision to improve the junction Inappropriate development for a landmark site in a Conservation Area Inappropriate design and materials

133 Detrimental to setting of nearby listed buildings, the riverside and Conservation Areas Height and dominance out of keeping and out of scale with surroundings and too close to Kew Bridge Road frontage Detrimental to views from Kew Gardens World Heritage Site and dominates the adjacent Grade I Listed pumping station and Kew Bridge Housing density is inappropriate to the area Risk that apartments would remain vacant, especially during recession Inadequate infrastructure, e.g. water, sewerage, traffic, healthcare, etc. Light pollution Development overhangs public highway Inappropriate development on flood plain leading to flooding and drainage issues; fails to improve flood capacity or deal with projected climate change issues No boathouse provided within the development Does not respect the riverside environment, habitats or bio-diversity Restriction of public access to the foreshore Pontoon would be unsightly and a potentially hazardous obstruction to river users Noise and rowdiness from pub, café and restaurants as well as rubbish such as broken glass/bottles on riverbed Supervision/surveillance of public square Concern that bus-stop is to be moved westward, which would inconvenience bus users from Strand on the Green Suggestion that developer should fund improvement to slipway on eastern side of Kew Bridge Suggestion that developer should fund replacement decorative lanterns on Kew Bridge

5.4 Nine letters of support were received making the following comments:

Response from ‘The Hollows’: The design makes excellent use of a potentially awkward space and although there's a lot going on, it doesn't look cluttered. Provided the developers actually stick to the plan outlined it will make an excellent development.

Regarding the plan to level the steps leading down to the Thames off the end of The Hollows, because of the shape of the river in that area, a lot of floating trash collects there. This may get caught up in the pontoon or end up over the new lowered level and may need to be dealt with (whether with creative planting, street cleaning or some other measure).

134

The proposed removal of two trees is a shame, as the trees are attractive and provide needed privacy for the residents of the houseboats, as well as sustaining an ecologically important area. The trees in this area are used by a wide variety of birdlife during the day and bats at night, and the riverbank provides a habitat for a wide variety of flatworms and snails. However, in support of Canoeing Club and the development of their facilities. It's an excellent addition to the community. Need to ensure that no more than two trees will be lost, and strictly for the purposes of the boating pontoon and not to change the views for residents of the development or users of the pub.

Five letters from local resident/owners: • One letter supports the demolition of the Waggon & Horses Public House, which is considered to be an eyesore and is in full favour of the proposed development plans. • One letter states this is an opportunity to do something with a derelict site, which will provide jobs and give the area back some dignity and focus. • One letter expresses total support for the scheme, looking forward to long- awaited regeneration of Brentford High Street and supports any development that supports this process. • One letter expresses support for an exciting design, welcomes the provision of a pub, square, shops and cafes promoting a safe environment and happy about the proposed boating activities. • One letter supports the excellent mix of uses.

5.5 The Thames Explorer Trust supports the application, which recognises the continuing change and evolution in the use we make of the river, including today’s rowers and canoes, and encourages public access to London's largest natural space, the Thames foreshore with it's wealth of history and wildlife.

5.6 The managing agents for other St George developments, including Brentford Lock, have written in support of the application stating that the development would improve the local area and benefit the affordable housing sector. They are very impressed with the standard of developments that St George build and the continuing care and maintenance.

5.7 The applicant mounted an exhibition in archway 5 of Kew Bridge on 11th and 12th July and has supplied 51 comment cards received in response. These are generally supportive of the scheme and indicate that it represents an improvement compared to the appeal proposal. Comments include support for the design and riverside improvements, pleased that the site will now be developed in order to make use of vacant space, welcome mixed-use scheme with affordable housing and consider that the proposals will improve the area.

However, the following issues are raised: • Traffic/junction improvements • Car-parking issues • Concerns about building height

135 • Design/materials • Commercial units would be an eyesore if not occupied • Cleansing of public square following high tides • More soft landscaping for public square • Landing rights on pontoon

5.8 Brentford Community Council has made the following comments:

Question the accuracy of the submission, e.g. reference to distance from Brentford Town Centre and building heights

Pleased to see that no building is now proposed on the flood plain, that the ‘glass ziggurat’ on the roof has been modified, and that the major access to the site is now from the adjacent property. However major issues of concern remain: 1. The inappropriate density and scale. 2. An Urban Design not worthy of this site. 3. The lack of family accommodation. 4. Inadequate recognition of the river. 5. Parking and service access.

Consider that this scheme fails to meet the criteria of the current London Plan and the reasons for refusal by the First Secretary of State, and fails to meet the currents needs of Brentford. Request the Council to refuse this application because:

• It is an unacceptable design for the most conspicuous site in Brentford • It does not enhance the Kew Bridge Conservation Area or the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. • The building is too high, too massive and too monumental. • It does not allow views of the river through the site. • It does not provide adequate family accommodation (either for sale or as affordable housing) nor the amenity space required for families. • The proportion of affordable habitable rooms is inadequate. • It is an unacceptable design for a river-side site. • It will create parking problems for existing residents • The proposed forecourt is likely to be cluttered by service vehicles. • The proposed landscape treatment is bleak and does not allow for controlled run off of heavy rain.

Consider that many of these problems could be addressed in a redesign and urge the Council to invite the appellant to take the opportunity to revise the scheme

5.9 The Strand on the Green Association has made the following comments:

Considerable improvements over KBR1, in terms of exterior design, context sensitivity, vehicular access, provision of public open space and many other features in which the previous design was deficient. However, still a number of concerns, which should lead to the rejection of this application.

136 Density and Scale Despite the improvements this development is too big a scale and too dense for this site. Proposed density exceeds what was suggested by the Appeal Inspector and the range identified in the London Plan. The building scale should not be markedly different from its adjacent buildings, and thus should be limited in height by removing at least one of the full-footprint floors (e.g. the third floor). This would have the effect of bringing the density closer to the range deemed “appropriate” by the quoted authorities and more closely meet the policies set out in the Brentford Area Action Plan.

Building Height Concerned that the submitted drawings do not have the heights of roofs, etc, clearly expressed in heights above OD. This makes enforcement of the plans difficult, if not impossible.

Historic Views The Inspector placed great emphasis on the preservation of historic views, in particular of the Kew Steam Museum stand-pipe tower. The views from the Strand on the Green riverside footpath, are not preserved to an adequate degree.

Restoration of Boat House The conversion of one of the Kew Bridge arches to a canoe club is to be welcomed, but does not satisfy the requirement to replace the old boathouse within the development site.

Parking Very concerned at the impact on the already problematic parking in Strand on the Green, Spring Grove, Hearne Road and Green Dragon Lane. No parking provision for users or staff of the commercial premises, or for visitors to the residential accommodation. Repeat request that when, in due course, CPZs are introduced in these areas, no provision should be made for occupants of or visitors to this development.

Accommodation Provided Support the points made by the Brentford Community Council regarding the lack of larger units of four bedrooms and above. Surprised that a number of the units, in addition to being of very small size, appear to have very inadequate window provision.

In summary, although this proposal shows great improvements over that submitted in the earlier application, still of the view that it should be refused.

5.10 The London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies has made the following comments: • The application contains references to the 2004 London Plan, which are inaccurate as the plan was up-dated in 2008. • The scheme is too tall and dense, and fails to meet London Plan criteria in terms of respect for surroundings and Thames-side setting. • The proposal fails to meet GLA requirements for units with four bedrooms or more and would deliver less than the 50% expected affordable housing.

137 • The proposed density is much higher than allowed for in the London Plan or indicated by the Inspector in the previous appeal. • Inadequate play facilities and amenity space. • Unacceptable views from Kew Gardens (now more apparent because of the recently completed tree walk). Too close to Kew Bridge and lack of stepping down to the Thames. • The inclusion of Waggon & Horses pub provides more room for development. Hounslow Council should seek reduction in bulk and height.

5.11 The Kew Society objects to the development.

Should be of scale and character to respect this sensitive site and reflect the riverside character, which was landscaped in the18th century.

• Deleterious impact on Kew Bridge and its setting. The six storeys facing Kew Bridge would not only destroy the spaciousness and the balance between the two sides of the bridge, but also cast a long shadow over the bridge for much of each day as well as over the houses on the opposite side of Kew Bridge Road to the North of the site.

• Given the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area considerations, the section of the building adjacent to Kew Bridge should be greatly reduced in height.

• The scheme appears to take no account of the Thames Landscape Strategy. In that document it states at page 170, Policy proposal 12.3:“Prevent any further flat-roofed high-rise buildings from intruding into the Brentford Waterfront massing. When the Kew Bridge office block comes up for re-development it should be replaced with a lower building of a form, massing and materials which complements the surrounding townscape”. (That building was lower than the proposed development and is set well back from the river).

• In this case, it would be appropriate for the height of the proposed development to be below the height of the mature trees around the site.

• Design is out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings with its far greater mass and odd mixture of utilitarian designs. Wholly out of scale with its surroundings and the design takes little account of the views expressed by the inspector on the appeal relating to the previous application.

• No allowance for any parking space for non-residents. Although 160 parking spaces for residents is planned in the underground car park, temporary parking for visitors as well as parking for occupiers of the commercial units is going to be needed. Without it, many visitors will no doubt seek to park on Kew Green, which has too little space for the current level of visitors. In addition, the development will generate a lot of traffic in an area where traffic congestion is already a serious problem seven days a week.

138 • The proposal is an over-development of the site, adjacent to one of the busiest roads in London, this new development will put undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

Therefore hope that the application is rejected.

5.12 Greater London Authority On balance the application does not comply with the London Plan. However changes to address the following deficiencies could possibly lead to compliance with the London Plan. The applicant provided further information and the GLA made a supplementary officer level response shown in brackets below:

• Proportion and mix of affordable housing provision (the proposed mix of affordable housing is considered to be acceptable) • Play space provision (details of on-site play space provision and contribution to off-site provision should be provided) • Design – high quality materials and seek reduction in proportion of single aspect dwellings (the applicant has confirmed that the number of single aspect units cannot be reduced without significant alteration to the design and that sustainable design principles such as passive design measures will address issues of overheating) • Disabled access ( the proposal meets Part M of the Building Regulations and ‘Lifetime Home’ standards and suitable access provision could be secured by conditions) • Biodiversity and ecology (the information included in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement complies with policy 3D.14 of the London Plan) • Energy efficiency,changes\ renewables and water management plan (further consideration to be given to provision of a single energy centre, foul and surface water strategy should be secured by conditions) • Consider reducing the number of car-parking spaces, include cycle parking for commercial units and provision of a service management plan ( car club and additional cycle parking are to be provided, access to the adjacent cycle network to be assessed by TfL)

The supplementary response concludes that play space, energy and transport need to be addressed either before referral back to the Mayor or by condition. However, the additional information in relation to affordable housing, urban design, access, biodiversity and climate change demonstrates that the application now complies with London Plan policy in these respects. These comments relate to the original application, which included affordable housing provision. Response to the current proposal is awaited.

5.13 Transport for London No objection in principle. Further information required in relation to pedestrian and cycling facilities and clarification of site boundary.

139 Section 106 contributions may be required for bus stop upgrades, pedestrian improvements and improvements to Kew Bridge Station. A workplace travel plan should also be provided.

Response to revised application:

A satisfactory solution has been reached in respect of the proposed vehicular access points.

Considers that the parking provision is still too high but accepts that it does not exceed the maximum London Plan standards.

The proposed cycle parking provision is welcomed.

Supports the proposed extension of the westbound cycle route along Kew Bridge Road.

Wish to see PERS audit undertaken by the applicant and upgrading of footways surrounding the site.

Seek financial contribution towards improvements to Kew Bridge Road junction.

Welcome proposed replacement bus shelters, may require contribution to bring bus stops to accessibility standards.

Further work is needed on travel plans and servicing management plan, which can be addressed through planning conditions or S106 agreement.

5.14 Highways agency No objection

5.15 Head of Traffic and Parking Preliminary comments on the proposed layout:

The application does not provide the property line setback of about 1.5m that was requested in order to get more traffic space past the bus stop and join up with the new cycle lane that starts just west of site.

The plan showing the road lanes on Kew Bridge Road is incorrect and doesn’t reflect the current line marking especially with regards the right turn bays into Thameside and Green Dragon lane.

More detail required in relation to access arrangements

5.16 Housing Strategy See no reasonable constraints to providing a higher proportion of affordable housing on this site. Although the economic viability toolkit states that 26% is the maximum amount of affordable housing that can be supplied on this scheme, if the scheme was appraised to include grant, the proportion of affordable housing could be increased.

140 Would like to see an increase in 3bed units in line with the Borough’s target to provide 35% of all units to be 3bedroom units or larger for affordable rented and shared ownership. As there is no RSL on this site, the Borough reserves the right to approve the RSL

5.17 Director of Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning The development is likely to generate 44.3 children (11.08 pre-school age, 19.49 primary and 13.73 secondary school age). Therefore seek from the developer: £255,611 to fund the primary and £271,332 funding for the secondary school places (approx £527K in total).

5.18 Metropolitan Police More detail required in order to achieve Secured by Design

Advice concerning security measures

Potential disturbance and anti-social behaviour related to proposed public house

5.19 Pollution Control Advice concerning noise, air quality and energy strategy.

5.20 The Countryside Agency Response awaited

5.21 Natural England Support improvements to Thames Path but would normally request a width of 6m with a segregating landscape strip.

Mitigating measures are necessary to support roosting bats and further information is required in relation to lighting.

Support the enhancement measures, which are discussed in the Environmental Statement, and advise that biodiversity enhancement measures be included as planning conditions or obligations, as appropriate.

5.22 Environment Agency The site has been allocated for development to provide wider sustainability benefits such as the reinstatement of the former boathouse and the opening up of the waterfront to the public as it is included within the submitted Brentford Area Action Plan (AAP). For regeneration purposes and wider sustainability benefits we accept that development in this location may be exceptionally necessary.

We accept that Part C of the exception test has been met as the development: • creates more flood storage; • ensures safe access and egress from the development; • sets floor levels of buildings at a level that will be unaffected by either fluvial or tidal flooding taking climate change in to consideration.

141

We must accept that the rationale behind PPS25 policies are to prevent an increase in flood risk. In this case, the site specific FRA submitted by the applicant has shown that increased flood storage can be provided on the site and that it can be developed without an increase in flood risk to the site or to adjacent areas. As such, as no demonstrable harm is shown and after much pre-application discussion, we feel that the meaning and intent of PPS25 policies are being met and achieved. Had the submitted information shown otherwise we would have objected to this application, and this would have remained indefinitely.

5.23 Thames Water Advice concerning drainage, sewerage and water supply

5.24 English Heritage Do not wish to offer any comments on either application. Recommend that they be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the council’s specialist conservation advice.

5.25 English Heritage (Archaeology) An archaeological investigation has been carried out at the cleared area of the site. The Waggon and Horses PH is a former Coaching Inn dating from 1750 and of historic interest to Brentford. Recommend a condition to secure a programme of recording and historic analysis prior to development taking place.

5.26 CABE No objection to principle of residential and commercial use and a building of this height could be acceptable. However, concerned that impermeable megablock nature of this development is at odds with its immediate surroundings.

The original concept of interlinking blocks of different dimensions has been lost to development that is more representative of one large building, out of character with surrounding buildings that have a more permeable arrangement. The central block is bulky and inelegant and will be over- dominant on Kew Bridge Road.

More needs to be done to make the development less monolithic and planning consent should not be considered until these concerns have been resolved.

The developer has met with CABE and the revised scheme seeks to address these issues.

5.27 PLA Further information required in respect of environmental assessment and mitigation measures.

Inadequate information about the proposed pontoon

Occupiers of existing moorings should be consulted (this has been done)

142 River works licence is required

Recommend provision of riparian life-saving equipment

Details of improvements to slipway required

Details of proposed lighting required

PLA is not responsible for removal of flotsam and jetsam

5.28 British Waterways Board Response awaited

5.29 Inland Waterways Association No objection – welcome the use of spaces under the arches of Kew Bridge for boating purposes.

5.30 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Satisfied with the proposals subject to installation of Dry Rising Mains and inlet valves and access for fire fighting to be agreed prior to construction

5.31 BAA No objection

5.32 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew ` Identify two broad areas of concern:

Height, mass and bulk The proposed retention of key views across the site, which has broken the design into smaller elements and given the appearance of a “collection” of related buildings combined with an overall reduction in units compared to the previous scheme, has gone some way to reducing the impact of the proposed building.

However, the overall impression is still one of a single built form rising to a high point, for example as seen emerging form Kew Bridge Station.

The bulk of the building is particularly evident on Kew Bridge Road, as one continuous wall of development without gaps offering views or ways through to the river. Elsewhere, gaps between different parts of the scheme are relatively small.

The proposed building is still quite bulky and taller than buildings in the Kew Bridge and Strand on the Green conservation areas. The building would also restrict views across the river to Kew Green and the Kew Gardens World Heritage Site.

From the tow path on the opposite bank the high point of the proposed building will be clearly visible, rising to a similar height as Prospect Point to the west and Rivers House to the east. The effect will be of a wall of larger development, defined by these taller slab blocks

143 Improvements to the public realm The proposed public square, offering views across to Kew and various facilities to visitors and local residents, is to be welcomed.

We had envisaged that the redevelopment of this site would bring with it some much-needed improvements to the public realm in the vicinity of the site, which is characterised by an extremely hostile environment for pedestrians, with poor traffic management, poor pavements and signage, and the almost complete absence of landscaping and trees.

(It is interesting to compare the traffic situation here with Kew Green, which the South Circular also traverses. At Kew Green, whilst the volume of traffic is the same, the impact of the traffic artery is considerably lessened by the presence of trees and planting.)

We were hoping therefore to see some proposals to be carried out concurrently with the scheme that would improve the experience for our visitors arriving at Kew Bridge Station as well as visitors to attractions in Brentford, such as the Steam Museum, and local residents.

Disappointed that the application does not include these improvements to the public realm. So, for instance, the road junction between Kew Bridge Road and Kew Bridge will remain as it is. The pavement onto Kew Bridge will remain very narrow and uneven.

We appreciate that there are competing claims for funding. However these areas are adjacent to the site and it would seem reasonable to expect enhancements to be carried out concurrent with the redevelopment to achieve a unified scheme.

5.33 Kew Royal Palace Response awaited

5.34 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Objects for the following reasons:

Design: height of buildings in a sensitive location, the nine-storey portion is particularly obtrusive. The public square would benefit from further tree planting along the riverside.

Transport: conflicting traffic movements close to Kew Bridge, pressure on parking around Kew Green.

5.35 West London Business The proposed high quality development matches the policy objective in the Inward Investment and Business Growth Strategy to ensure that there is sufficient development of areas to meet the investment needs of West London.

Aesthetically pleasing quality and affordable housing will revitalise this high profile area, employment at the site will increase prosperity and the

144 development will be beneficial for the future social and economic development of the Borough

The Growth Strategy encourages mixed-use developments and sustainable development of appropriate strategic sites.

Development will be a boost for business in the West London. WLB will promote awareness of the plans, promote the business space and encourage companies and investors to move into the Borough.

The proposal will transform the area and showcase Brentford’s potential for high quality development.

5.36 West London River Group

Inadequate information. The applications contain too many mistakes, and omit significant details. Examples of mistakes are:

a) The statement that the site is in “close proximity to Gunnersbury Station”. The site is about 0.92km (2/3rds of a mile, or 1,164 yards) from Gunnersbury Station.

b) The statement that the site is “620 metres east of Brentford Town Centre”. The site is about 1,377 metres from The Beehive at Half Acre, and quite a bit further from the Market Place. Even the Watermans Centre is more than 620 metres from the site.

c) The statement that there are 3,294 sq. m. of private amenity space on the roof of Block F, with 1,143 sq. m. of affordable amenity space around it. The application drawings do NOT show any of the necessary safety netting that roof space in such use would require, The claim should be corrected, or the drawings amended.

d) The references to The London Plan fail to distinguish the current 2008 edition from its predecessor, with consequent confusion.

Examples of omissions are: e) The drawings do NOT give proposed (and therefore verifiable) roof heights above Ordnance Datum, and are therefore unenforceable in this respect. On the Kew Riverside site on the other side of the River, the tallest building was built about two metres higher than permitted on Appeal because of just such a discrepancy within the application/appeal drawings.

The proposals omit the restoration of the boathouse, with provision of facilities for a rowing club.

Therefore the Council is urged to defer consideration of the applications until all defects have been made good.

145

Grounds for Refusal. The Council is respectfully urged to REFUSE these applications on the following grounds:

• The proposals fail to preserve and enhance the Brentford and Strand on the Green Conservation Areas, by ignoring their setting and site-context. • They ignore their Thames Policy Area location and context, by having no regard to River and Riverside views and landscape, for example the view upstream from above Kew Railway Bridge; and take no account of the Kew Gardens World Heritage Site Buffer Zone. • They fail to conform to the Blue Ribbon Network principles of The London Plan. • They damage the settings of neighbouring Listed Buildings, Kew Bridge and the Kew Steam Museum. • They block most landward views of the Steam Museum building and ‘campanile’, forexample leaving only two narrow vision slots from Strand on the Green. • They ignore the traffic context of the site, on the very complex road junction of Kew Bridge/Kew Road, Kew Bridge Road, Chiswick High Road and Strand on the Green. The proposals impose a large extra traffic load without making any contribution whatsoever to fitting the new traffic into the existing pattern, let alone seeking any improvement to an already overloaded traffic junction. • They fail to maintain the existing vehicular access and parking for the existing businesses inthe arches under Kew Bridge. • They encroach into and over the public realm with overhanging balconies, over land NOTin the ownership of the applicant, and to the detriment of the users the general public. • They fail to restore a boathouse to this site.

We welcome the addition of a pontoon. Detail of its construction and operation is not available, so if the Council were to approve these applications we would expect there to be conditions requiring the provision of such information, and for it to be assessed and approved by the Port of London Authority, the Amateur Rowing Association and any other relevant authority. However the provision of suitable pontoon arrangements is not sufficient in itself. The two arches do not provide adequate storage facilities for boats. The spaces are not long enough for racing VIIIs, and a Club would need rack storage for several boats of differing sizes. Nor is there any provision for changing rooms, shower facilities, and a club room. Without such facilities, a Rowing Club is not sustainable.

If the Council is minded to approve the applications. The Council is respectfully urged to impose Conditions on any Permissions, including the following matters:

1. The proposed pontoon should be included in the Section 106 Agreement, with a requirement that the pontoon must be installed, operational and

146 available to all without charge or other condition, BEFORE any of the residential units are occupied. 2. Existing vehicular access and parking on the upstream side of Kew Bridge for the existing businesses in the arches under Kew Bridge, and for the two boats ‘Van Tromp’ and ‘Jacarna II’ berthed upstream of Kew Bridge, should be maintained free of charge at all times. 3. Pedestrian access along the Tow Path/Riverside Walk between the site and the River should be maintained free and unobstructed at all times. 4. The existing trees and plants along the Riverside between the site and the River should be protected throughout the works, and should NOT be pruned, pollarded or felled.

Conclusion. The West London River Group supports the comments made on these proposals by our member-Groups and Associates, the Brentford Community Council, the Brentford Waterside Forum, the Strand on the Green Association, the Chiswick Protection Group and others.

The West London River Group respectfully urges the Council to REFUSE these applications on the grounds described above; or if minded to approve the applications, to impose conditions including those described above.

5.37 The West Chiswick & Gunnersbury Society object to the application for the following reasons: • Would not enhance or promote the Strand on the Green Conservation Area or the nearby Listed Buildings. • Would restrict access to the riverside for the general public • Design is inappropriate and out of character for the area and does not accord with the blue ribbon principles of the London Plan • Inadequate parking provision, thereby increasing parking congestion and traffic flows • Building still too high and is an over-development in terms of mass and scale • Would damage views of Kew Gardens World Heritage Site and views from the south side of the river • Inadequate affordable housing provision and segregation of affordable from private flats • Insufficient recreation and amenity space for residents 5.38 Chiswick Area Committee Considered the application on 6th August 2008 and raised the following concerns: • Concerned at the low proportion of affordable housing provision and no key-worker housing identified • Density is still too high and inappropriate mix of units • Inappropriate design in a historical area • Improved access to foreshore and along riverside path is needed • Much effort has gone into improving the design • Some views are protected but not all • Vehicular access has been improved but issues still remain such as access for large vehicles

147 • Inadequate parking provision Members instructed officers to seek improvements to the scheme rather than refuse under delegated powers.

5.39 Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee Considered the application on 14th August 2008 and made the following comments: • Concerns about highways, access and transport; more information required • Insufficient parking provision • Unattractive design, inappropriate to the location

Members instructed officers to seek further information and improvements to the scheme and refer back to IBAC before presenting to Sustainable Development Committee.

Consultation on the revised application 5.40 Statutory and non-statutory consultations were sent on 19th March 2009. Notification letters were sent to 144 nearby properties. The application was advertised by way of site and press notices and copies of the revised application were made available at Brentford and Chiswick libraries.

5.41 The applicant mounted an exhibition within one of the arches beneath Kew Bridge on 27th and 28th March 2009.

5.42 Nine letters have been received raising objections to the revised application as being out of keeping with the character of the area and not substantially different from the original submission in June 2008. Many of the original objections have been repeated and additional comments are summarised below:

Suggestion that developer should fund improvement to steps onto foreshore

Inadequate on-site parking would lead to parking around Kew Green, causing nuisance to residents and visitors to Kew Gardens

Concern about potential nuisance from public house located close to residential mooring on the riverbank

5.43 One letter has been received in favour of the application, expressing particular support for the existing canoeing and proposed expanded boating facilities including the pontoon, which will improve access to the river for all.

5.44 Chair of Holland Gardens Residents Community Re-iterates request that developer should fund replacement decorative lanterns on Kew Bridge

148 5.45 Strand on the Green Association Continue to oppose the application as the minor changes do not resolve issues that were raised in response to the original application. Additional comments include:

The Kew Bridge traffic junction is dangerous and inefficient and the traffic generated by this scheme will make matters worse.

Amenity space provision appears to be inadequate.

Density remains excessive

Overbearing bulk, scale and appearance of the proposal continue to give rise to concern

The Association does not consider that the present scheme either preserves or enhances the character of the area and questions whether pastiche on this scale is really appropriate in this area of unpretentious architectural quality, genuine variety and modest domestic scale

5.46 Brentford Community Council Welcome the amendments that have been made to the scheme, but consider they still do not meet the objections raised by the inspector to the scheme submitted to the public inquiry nor the objections raised by the BCC in 2008. Therefore re-iterate the objections raised to the original proposal.

The articulation of the current proposal is welcomed. However, it is inadequate to relate the scale and character of the proposed building satisfactorily to the listed buildings and to the conservation area.

To achieve this, the whole building should be reduced by one floor in height.

Re-iterate request that the building should allow views through the building from the High Street/Kew Bridge Road to the river.

The application remains an un-inspired design, which is considered unworthy of a site of such exceptional importance.

In respect of Urban Design, ask that the application be rejected

A scheme with inadequate family accommodation and no affordable housing should be refused

Even without the possible development of the Brentford Community Stadium this scheme provides further pressures on the over-crowded road system, inadequate on-site parking for cars and cycles and an access pattern which could exacerbate congestion around Kew Bridge.

149 Ask that the public house building should be re-designed to incorporate a rowing club.

Consider that the amended scheme fails to meet the BAAP brief for the site and should be refused.

5.47 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew The changes are generally very minor so reiterate objections to the application as follows:

i) Height, mass and bulk of the proposed building In terms of its overall bulk and appearance, the amended scheme is virtually identical to the scheme submitted in July 2008.

Although the design intention was to create the effect of a group or “family” of buildings - reducing the apparent bulk of the scheme and preserving key views across the site – the impression is still of a single large building, for instance as seen from Kew Bridge Station.

The bulk of the building is particularly evident on Kew Bridge Road, which is one continuous wall of development, without gaps offering views or ways through to the river. Elsewhere, gaps between different parts of the scheme are relatively small.

In general, the proposed building is taller than buildings in the Kew Bridge and Strand on the Green conservation areas. The building would also restrict views across the river to Kew Green and the Kew Gardens World Heritage Site.

From the tow path on the Kew side, the proposed building would be seen to rise to a similar height as Prospect Point to its west and Rivers House to its east. The effect will thus be of a wall of larger development, defined by these taller slab blocks.

ii) Related improvements to the public realm The public realm in the vicinity of the site is extremely hostile for pedestrians, with poor traffic management, poor pavements and signage, and an absence of landscaping. A significant number of visitors to Kew and staff have to cross this space in order to reach Kew Bridge.

Disappointed therefore that the current application still does not propose improvements here, although these might reasonably be expected with a scheme of this size. For instance there are no proposals to improve the road junction between Kew Bridge Road and Kew Bridge or to improve the pavement onto Kew Bridge, which is narrow and uneven.

The road junction is the responsibility of TfL,which is planning improvements, as part of an ongoing upgrade to the North/South Circular. However no date is set for these works and they will not apparently be coordinated with the redevelopment. Have written to TfL to express concerns, and to ask that works here can be prioritised so that they can be better related to the

150 redevelopment. Hope that the Highways Dept could use their influence with TfL to make a similar request.

5.48 The applicant has provided 28 comments cards that were completed in response to the exhibition that was mounted to explain the amendments, which had been made. The majority are generally supportive of the amended scheme. Positive comments include support for the improved design and more unified appearance and an ideal solution for a derelict site, in favour of public square, pub and cafes and encourages use of public transport. One reply prefers scheme without affordable housing.

However the following concerns are also raised: • Traffic congestion • Impact of parking • Balconies overhanging public areas • Already too much new residential development in the area • Density and height • View impaired • Impact on Conservation Area • Public convenience not permanently available • Seek improvements to slip road at Strand on the Green • Outside seating and artwork should be provided • Seek improvements to moorings • Seek replacement lamp-posts on Kew Bridge • Lack of affordable housing

5.49 The Kew Society Objects to the proposed development for the reasons set out in previous response.

5.50 West London River Group Strongly support comments made by member-groups, with particular note of concerns in respect of urban design, access, parking and riverside uses.

1. Ensure that the pontoon/landing-stage is included in any permission, with the condition and Section 106 item requiring public availability of the pontoon/landing-stage BEFORE any residential units are occupied.

2. The same comment applies to the "Boat House" part of the scheme. Any permission should include the replacement Boat House on the site itself, as required by the Site Design Brief, even if it has to be part of the Riverside building which would also include a pub.

3. Ensure that the permission drawings INCLUDE the spot-heights above Ordnance Datum of all new roofs, and of the main existing buildings nearby (e.g. Rivers House, Kew Steam Museum and Regatta Point). It is essential that all the existing building heights be independently verified BEFORE permission is granted, in order to avoid what happened at Kew Riverside, where the existing PRO buildings were drawn NOT to scale, but about two metres higher than they actually are, with the result that the new buildings

151 have been built about two metres higher than was intended in the approval of that scheme, to the detriment of the River and Riverscape.

4. Ensure that any scheme includes adequate measures to prevent light- pollution and light-trespass at night over and across the River from 'glass boxes' on its roofs.

Urge the Council to REFUSE the scheme in its current form, and hopes that it may prove possible to persuade the applicant to change their proposals to accommodate the suggestions put forward by the local communities

5.51 The following organisations have also been consulted and comments are awaited: The Isleworth Society River Thames Society Thames Landscape Strategy Brentford Waterside Forum Chiswick Protection Group Green Dragon Lane Residents’ Association West Play

6.0 POLICY 6.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan 6.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’), the Employment Development Plan Document, the Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

The London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2004) was adopted in February 2008.

The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by Direction from the Secretary of State

The Employment Development Plan Document was adopted on 25 November 2008 and has superseded the Employment Policies contained in UDP Chapter 7 and the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.4.1, IMP.4.2, IMP.4.3, and IMP.4.4..

The Brentford Area Action Plan was adopted on 27 January 2009 and has superseded the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.2.1 and IMP.3.1.

6.3 Central Government Guidance

PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 6 Town Centres and Retail Development

152 PPS 3 Housing PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 12 Local Development Frameworks PPG 13 Transport PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning PPG 17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS 22 Renewable Energy PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk

6.4 Unitary Development Plan (as amended and saved 28th September 2007)

IMP 1.1 Integrating Patterns of Land use and the Provision of Transport IMP 1.2 The Re-use and Recycling of Urban Land. IMP 6.1 Planning Obligations ENV-N.1.7 Development near Metropolitan Open Land ENV-N.2.4 Habitat protection ENV-B.1.1 New Development. ENV-B.1.2 High Buildings or structures affecting sensitive areas ENV-B.1.5 Environmental Improvements ENV-B.1.9 Safety and Security ENV-B.2.2 Conservation Areas ENV-B.2.8 Views and Landmarks ENV-B.3.2 Sites of Archaeological Importance ENV-W.1.1 Design in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.2 Mixed uses in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.3 Important views and structures in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.5 Nature Conservation in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.9 Use of the River Thames for recreational facilities ENV-W.1.10 The Thames Path National Trail and Access to the River ENV-W.1.11 Access to the Thames foreshore ENV-W.2.6 Stationary or floating structures in or over the waterways ENV-P1.1 Environmental Impact Statements and Assessment ENV-P1.3 Surface water run off ENV-P1.4 Waste water management ENV-P1.5 Noise Pollution ENV-P1.6 Air Pollution ENV-P1.7 Light Pollution ENV-P2.1 Waste management ENV-P2.4 Recycling facilities in new development H.3.3 The use of upper floors above shops and in town centres H.3.5 Release of employment uses to residential H.4.1 Housing Standards and Guidelines H.4.4 Provision for children’s play in housing developments C.1.3 Existing social and community facilities S.1.1 Main Shopping Areas S.3.1 New Retail Development S.4.5 Servicing arrangements T.1.2 The Movement Implications of Development T.1.4 & Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing for Developments Appendix 3

153 T.2.1 Pedestrian Access T.2.2 Pedestrian Safety and Security T.3.3 Special Parking facilities for People with Disabilities T.4.3 Traffic implications of new development T.4.4 Road Safety T.4.5 On-Street Parking T.4.6 Off-Street Parking T.5.1 Air Quality Implications of Traffic

6.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG1 Design and layout SPG 2 Ecological/Landscape SPG3 Safety and Security Guidelines SPG 4 Daylight &sunlight SPG 5 B1 units SPG7 Conservation Areas SPG9 Form & Design SPG10 Private Amenity Space SPG11 Roads, footpaths parking & servicing. SPG12 Internal Space Provision SPG13 Housing for People with Disabilities

Thames Landscape Strategy

Planning Obligations SPD

6.6 Design Brief A Design Brief was adopted for this site in September 2001. The Brief sought a high level of architectural quality, design and character appropriate to this busy junction and riverside location. The principles of the Brief have been up- dated and incorporated into the Brentford Area Action Plan.

6.7 Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP) The Brentford Area Action Plan was adopted on 27 January 2009 and has superseded the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.2.1 and IMP.3.1. It was prepared in advance of the Core Strategy, primarily in response to continuing pressure for development within the area and will guide development over the next 10 years. The BAAP identifies the application site (M3) for mixed-use development including residential and commercial and re-provision of a boathouse, together with riverside path and open space. The following policies are relevant:

BAAP1 Sustainable Development BAAP2 Urban Design BAAP5 Regeneration and protection of Brentford’s river and canal support facilities, infrastructure and facilities M3 Kew Bridge Site, Kew Bridge Road

154 6.8 London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004)

2A.1 Sustainability Criteria 2A.8 Town Centres 2A.9 The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities 3A.1 Increasing London’s Supply of Housing 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites Table 3A.2 Density matrix 3A.5 Housing Choice 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision 3A.8 Definition of affordable housing 3A.9 Affordable housing targets 3A.10 Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed use schemes 3A.11 Affordable housing thresholds 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities 3B.1 Developing London’s Economy 3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling 3C.23 Parking Strategy 3D.13 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies 3D.14 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation 4A.1 Tackling Climate Change 4A.2 Mitigating Climate Change 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.5 Provision of heating and cooling networks 4A.6 Decentralised Energy 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4A.9 Adaptation to Climate Change 4A.10 Overheating 4A.11 Living roofs and walls 4A.12 Flooding 4A.13 Flood risk management 4A.14 Sustainable drainage 4A.16 Efficient use of water 4A.17 Water supplies and resources 4A.19 Improving air quality 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4A.28 Construction, excavation and demolition waste 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.2 Promoting world-class architecture and design 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.6 Safety, security and fire prevention and protection

155 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.9 Tall Buildings – Location 4B.10 Large scale buildings – design and impact 4B.11 London’s Built Heritage 4B.12 Heritage Conservation 4B.13 Historic Conservation-led regeneration 4B.14 World heritage sites 4B.15 Archaeology 4C.1 The strategic importance of the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.2 Context for sustainable growth 4C.3 The natural value of the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.4 Natural landscape 4C.6 Sustainable growth priorities for the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.10 Increasing sport and leisure use on the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.11 Increasing access alongside and to the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.12 Support facilities and activities in the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.13 Moorings facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.14 Structures over and into the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.15 Safety on and near to the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.16 Importance of the Thames 4C.17 Thames Policy Area 4C.22 Rivers, brooks and streams 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations 6A.5 Planning obligations

London Plan Supplementary Guidance

Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment

Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 The main planning issues to consider are: • The principle of the development and the proposed mix of uses • The density of development • The scale, bulk and design of the development • The effects on adjacent buildings and impact on neighbouring occupiers • The quality and nature of the proposed accommodation • Proportion, mix and tenure of the affordable housing provision • Access and public transport • Parking provision. • Impacts on the Riverside environment, ecology, archaeology etc. • Flooding • Sustainability and Energy. • Potential to secure planning obligations

156 The principle and proposed mix of uses 7.2 The site is identified for a mixed-use development in the UDP and BAAP. The principle of mixed-use development was not resisted at the appeal or found to be unacceptable by the Secretary of State. However, UDP policy C.1.3 states that the loss of existing social and community facilities will be resisted. Therefore the potential for alternative community use must be fully explored before the loss of another public house can be considered. In this case a replacement for the Waggon & Horses is proposed close to the riverside and public square. Café/restaurant uses are included within the scheme and a boat and kayak club are being established within the arches of the bridge.

7.3 The BAAP states that a new public house should be included and provision made for reinstatement of the former boathouse. Additional river-related uses would also be appropriate. The development must incorporate a lively riverfront, riverside open spaces available to the public and public uses should be provided along pedestrian access routes to the river. Flooding issues are discussed separately below.

7.4 The site is within an area that experiences high levels of road traffic noise and poor air quality. The proposed residential accommodation will need to be protected against these environmental conditions by means of suitable glazing and ventilation. The assessment provided in the Environmental Statement is inadequate in this respect and further information will be required.

Density 7.5 Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) and the London Plan both encourage more efficient use of land in order to provide sustainable communities and to meet housing needs in the local area and within the broader London context.

7.6 In the Inspector’s Report on the dismissed appeal proposal for this site, the inspector suggested that the applicable density range from Table 4B.1 of the London Plan would be ‘the lower end of the range of 450-700hrha’. The Secretary of State, in dismissing the appeal, stated that density should not be a determining factor but that the design should seek to maximise density whilst being acceptable in all other regards. The London Plan has been modified since the appeal decision and the relevant density matrix now appears at Table 3A.2. The density range for an urban setting with a PTAL of 2-3 is 200-450hrha. A density range of 200-700hrha is identified for sites with a PTAL of 4-6. The application site has a PTAL of 3, so the Inspector’s assessment is still relevant in the context of the revised policy.

7.7 The applicant has provided calculations, which identify the revised scheme as having a density of 537hrha based on gross site area or 630hrha based on site area minus the proposed public square. However, using the net density method put forward in the London Plan (net residential area) the density figure is 824hrha or 700hrha including the public square. Whilst this is significantly above the relevant London Plan threshold it is not alone a reason to refuse the scheme but must be assessed in terms of potential shortcomings as a result of the high density proposed.

157 Scale, Bulk and Design 7.8 The site is the heart of the conservation area. The CA is itself based on the confluence of historic thoroughfares and the river, together with domestic, commercial and mixed use buildings in a mostly classical design. Some of the buildings are individually attractive (if neglected to varying degrees) including some of recognised quality. These form a reasonably long and consistent backcloth street edging. The Steam Museum buildings form a group at the western end, connecting individual large buildings of very high historic and visual quality. Its campanile tower forms a punctuation point on the street and a widely visible landmark. The bridge forms another dramatic but horizontal landmark in the scene

7.9 The scale and bulk of the proposed development is substantial and will appear more so because of the openness of the site at present and the prominence of its location. The site is visible over many and long views, and the development will inevitably mask to a greater or lesser extent buildings and places, including the River Thames, which are of local and nationally designated character in many of those views. Therefore the building will represent a major visual feature and a significant presence at this sensitive place.

7.10 The design has evolved, taking references from other riverside buildings and materials featured in nearby development together with input from an extensive public consultation carried out by the developer. The outcome is an idiosyncratic design tailored to the site. Perhaps more complex than might have resulted from a less contextual approach, this has required a balancing simplicity of styles and typology.

7.11 Policy ENV-B 2.2 (echoing statutory requirements) seeks to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas by ensuring that any development is appropriate in terms of scale, design and materials. UDP policies ENV-B2.8 (Views and Landmarks) and policies ENV-W1.1 – ENV-W1.11, which relate to the Thames Policy Area are relevant as are London Plan policies 4C.1 – 4C.22 in relation to the Blue Ribbon Network. Policy 4B.3 of the London Plan seeks a high quality of design for all waterside development and states: ‘Water space should be at the heart of consideration of development along the waterside - the water must be the starting point.’ The BAAP guidance for the site effectively overrides the former design brief, which was adopted prior to the CA designation.

7.12 The design must be assessed against a number of criteria because of the site’s sensitive location and the fact that nearly all the elevations are on public display. The matrix below identifies some of the key design objectives:

Key views Sensitivity Objective: Generally an appropriate scale, typology, proportion, materials, variety, hierarchy; legibility of a Family of buildings; not to over-dominate; not to be over- reflective; interesting but elegant sky-line

158 From the Setting from within Kinetic interest of sympathetic views from Richmond historic river and bank; river side: Conservation area / WHS of high quality / attractive buildings and landscape And from Setting of Thames Ditto the river itself Provide attractive views and destination

Relationshi Kinetic interest deferentially taking eye p with / from the distant unfortunate vista of from listed Vantage West (former Flyover House) bridge Not obscuring steps but adding to waymarking Retaining family of proportion and materials with itself and local scale seen beyond Enjoyable sequence of small and major spaces of character between natural/informal and artificial/formal From Near and more Allow landmark views of listed Steam Strand on distant tower the Green Conservation area of small-scale historic buildings and intricate riverside charm Create kinetic interest From Setting of LB Need for multi-layered way-marking and outside enhanced townscape value / spatial Kew sequences Bridge station Legible and interesting buildings at differing heights, eye levels / foreshortening Logical relationship between uses and building forms / positions Use of solid, void and mass for interest and integrity From along Conservation area Not obscuring recognition or enjoyment of Kew of elegant historic the design of the historic buildings Bridge buildings and Road curving frontage of similar domestic scale of former

industrial /

159 residential / commercial Horrendous Actual pedestrian short-cut and building- junction for vehicles use as a destination for the “land-mark” and pedestrian nightmare Layers of buildings in plan and height to help pedestrian scale and interest Enhance views of campanile tower Interesting skyline Recognisably logical typology Creating legible sequence of public / private access, use and waiting Enable opportunity for soft landscaping

7.13 The BAAP identifies this as an extremely sensitive site where urban design issues will be considered key to a successful scheme. Members’ comments are sought on the scale, bulk and design of the proposed development.

Effects on neighbours 7.14 The visual impact of the proposed building in terms of scale, bulk and design are discussed above.

7.15 The shadow path diagrams that accompany the application indicate some shadowing of the Thameside Centre offices in the morning. The nearest residential premises are located on the northern side of Kew Bridge Road (Green Dragon Lane). Those residential properties are four storeys high and positioned some 34m from the five-storey feature, 40m from the nine-storey feature, at the frontage. The shadow diagrams indicate that there would be no overshadowing of those properties. The amended Environmental Statement indicates minor adverse effects on daylight with negligible effects. The proposed building would dominate the outlook from those properties compared to the current open view.

7.16 The proposed development would not directly overlook any habitable room windows of any neighbouring dwellings within 21m. However, there would be mutual overlooking between proposed residential units at the western side of the site and Thameside Centre offices.

Quality of accommodation 7.17 The proposed unit sizes meet the requirements of Policy H.4.1 and SPG 12. Several units within the scheme provide extremely generous room sizes. The proposed layout incorporates dwellings accessed from long internal corridors and areas within units without natural daylight. Amenity space is provided adjacent to the proposed building and at rooftop levels.

7.18 The submitted plans indicate the provision of private and communal gardens adjacent to the new building comprising 1028sq m with additional planting and landscaped areas located around the site. Large areas of roof terraces and gardens are also provided, amounting to 2380sq m (3430sq m in total).

160 SPG 10 (Private Amenity Space) sets a standard of 25sq m/unit for one and two-bedroom flats and 30sq m for each of the three-bedroom flats, equating to 4355sq m for this development, so there is a shortfall in overall amenity space provision. This is partially compensated by the provision of balconies providing a further 895sq m of private outdoor space.

7.19 The distribution of amenity areas is such that some dwellings have access to generous rooftop gardens while the accessibility from other units to useable amenity space is limited. The proposed public square provides additional open space but there is no direct access from the housing at the western side of the site to the public square.

7.20 There are some windows facing each other at less than 21m within the scheme layout. Privacy screens are proposed in order to minimise overlooking but some opportunities for oblique overlooking within the scheme would remain.

7.21 Some of the proposed dwellings would experience limited daylight and outlook. The developer has provided a technical appraisal to demonstrate that windows and rooms would achieve the minimum standards of daylight contained in BRE guidance. However, the lower storey units in corner locations would be shaded. Those within the main courtyard, facing south, would be compensated to some extent by the southerly aspect and river views. However, some of the north-facing flats would have poor outlook and daylight as well as aspect onto a busy street. The proposed dwellings at the western side of the site would overlook and be overlooked by the offices of the Thameside Centre and some shadowing would occur to the western side of the application site.

Affordable Housing Provision 7.22 London Plan policy 3A.11 requires affordable housing provision on sites providing 10 or more homes. Within the target of 50% there should be a proportion of social housing (70%) and intermediate housing (30%). The application makes no affordable housing provision and the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate why providing affordable housing on a development of 164 units is not viable, if this is the case. The applicant has submitted a financial appraisal, which concludes that the scheme is unable to support the inclusion of any affordable housing. Further assessment is required on this aspect of the scheme.

7.23 London Plan Policies 3A.8 & 3A.9 aim to secure the highest achievable provision of affordable housing and a mix of housing types and sizes having regard to local need. The BAAP states that residential development should provide a mix of units including affordable and family units.

7.24 The current proposal includes a range of housing choices but does not include any units that are larger than 3 bedroom. It does not meet the borough’s housing priorities under the Hounslow Plan, which seeks a minimum of 35% of new units to be 3 bedroom or larger in order to address a continuing need for 3 and 4 bedroom units. Whilst family accommodation is provided in the form of two and three-bedroom dwellings there are no larger family units. Members comments are sought on this aspect of the scheme.

161 Access and Public Transport 7.25 The BAAP states that this site lies at one of the busiest road junctions in the Borough at the intersection between the North and South Circular Roads and that vehicular access should be from Kew Bridge Road, away from the junction with Kew Bridge.

7.26 The site is well located in relation to public transport facilities and has a PTAL rating of 3-4. Bus routes pass along Kew Bridge Road and across Kew Bridge. There is a bus stand immediately in front of the site and Kew Bridge Station is a short walk on the opposite side of the road.

7.27 Vehicular access into the forecourt of the site is proposed towards the eastern end of the Kew Bridge Road frontage. Larger goods vehicles could only access the site at this point while travelling westbound. Egress from the forecourt would be provided near the western end of the frontage. Access into the basement car park would be from the existing access road serving the Thameside Centre immediately to the west of the site. Provision is made for service vehicles and refuse collection vehicles to access the site from this point.

7.28 The layout of the proposed forecourt has been altered to enable provision to be made for cyclists travelling along Kew Bridge Road and the relocation of a bus shelter.

7.29 The revised access layout has been presented to the head of traffic and parking and is being assessed.

Parking Provision 7.30 All parking is provided at basement level, within the maximum range identified in Policy T.1.4 and Appendix 3 of the UDP. A total of 155 parking spaces is proposed, predominantly for residents. However 8 permits will be provided for employees of the commercial units and the public house. 10% of the spaces are designed for wheelchair access and the lobby entrance at the front of the site will be available for drop-off/pick up of disabled residents or visitors. 170 secure cycle racks are proposed within the basement and seven Sheffield cycle stands are proposed, providing space for 14 cycles at surface level.

Environmental Impacts 7.31 Environmental impacts, including those on the riverside and neighbouring Conservation Areas, have been assessed through consideration of the Environmental Statement and other supporting documents. The design and Access Statement provides analysis of near and distant views. Some aspects of the proposed building form would intrude into the historic, riverside landscape and the buffer zone around the World heritage Site at Kew Gardens.

7.32 London Plan policies 4C.1 – 4C.18 contain policy guidance in relation to the Blue Ribbon Network and the Thames Policy area. Policy 4C.10 seeks to increase sports and leisure use and policy 4C.11 encourages improved access alongside and over the Blue Ribbon Network. The location of a kayak

162 and boating club within the arches of Kew Bridge and the provision of level/ramped access alongside the riverbank accord with these aims.

7.33 The site adjoins the River Thames Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. London Plan policy 3D.14 seeks to ensure that development does not impact upon the species or nature conservation value of the site. Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement provides information in relation to the impacts of the scheme on biodiversity and ecology. Protection of wildlife habitats and riverside plant life as well as control of light pollution will be necessary as will suitable drainage measures to sustain the nature conservation value of the riverbank and adjacent areas.

7.34 The Waggon and Horses public house has the potential to provide roosting habitat for bats. Proposed mitigation measures include: survey and assessment prior to demolition, avoidance of disturbance during demolition and possible provision of bat boxes.

7.35 Proposed measures for ecological enhancement include diversification of the river margin habitat, utilisation of native plant species in landscape proposals, provision of bat boxes and bird boxes and ornamental planting that maximises nature conservation interest.

Flooding 7.36 PPS25 was published in December 2006 and provides a material policy change for the consideration of flooding issues since the previous scheme was determined. The Council has also completed a Strategic Flood Risk Analysis (SFRA) which identifies parts of the site to be at high risk of flooding. In accordance with the SFRA and PPS25, policy BAAP3 states that all proposals should restrict new development to the permissible land uses identified in PPS25. It is recognised that the previous site brief, prepared prior to the publication of PPS25, did support the provision of a riverside pub. However, the brief has now been superseded by policy BAAP3.

7.37 As the mapping currently stands the proposed public house is in the functional floodplain, which is not a permissible use, and is to be resisted. However the EA has confirmed that the site specific FRA submitted by the applicant has shown that increased flood storage can be provided on the site and that it can be developed without an increase in flood risk to the site or to adjacent areas. As such, the meaning and intent of PPS25 policies of not increasing flood risk as a result of new development are being achieved and no demonstrable harm has been shown.

Sustainability and Energy 7.38 Sustainability underpins many of the UDP policies and the London Plan. These require developments not only to be sustainable in transport terms; but also to include appropriate recycling facilities and to minimise waste; to include energy efficiency measures and promote the use of renewable energy; and not to significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.39 Policy ENV-P.1.1 considers whether an environmental impact statement is needed and encourages the use of a Sustainability Checklist. The application

163 is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which is comprehensive in its range of topics and makes reference to both the construction and the completion phases of the proposed development. The statement submitted by the applicant’s agent includes the relevant topic areas that were identified in the pre-application scoping.

7.40 UDP policies ENV-B.1.1, ENV-P.1.3, ENV-P 1.4, ENV-P.2.1 and ENV-P.2.4 and London Plan policies 4A.1 to 4A.7 require that all developments should include recycling facilities and minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures, be sustainable in design, construction and transport terms, promote the use of renewable energy and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage. As a large new building, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognises and adopts sustainable development principles.

7.41 The application includes information on sustainable development and opportunities for renewable energy. As a strategic development (more than 25 metres tall and located within the Thames Policy Area) the proposal is expected to meet the requirements of the London Plan policies 4B.10 and 4A.3 – 4A.11 with regard to sustainable design and construction, energy efficiency and demonstrating the feasibility or otherwise of providing 10% of energy needs from on-site renewable energy sources.

7.42 Policy 4A.7 of the London Plan and the emerging Local Development Framework (Brentford Area Action Plan - policy BAAP1) seek a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions of at least 20% from on site renewable energy. Paragraph 5.71 of the applicant's revised Planning Statement proposes a gas-fired district heating system will only result in a 5.7% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Paragraph 5.72 of the Planning Statement concludes that adding on-site renewable energy sources would not significantly increase the total saving. However, gas is not classed as a renewable technology and the applicant will need to provide renewable technologies or demonstrate why a combination of other available renewable energy technologies were not considered feasible.

7.43 BAAP1 (as amended) also requires all new residential dwellings to achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of at least 3 and for all new developments to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Neither of these issues are addressed in the applicant's current Planning Statement.

7.44 Further assessment is required in respect of sustainability and energy efficiency.

Planning Obligations 7.45 See paragraphs 9.1 & 9.2

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The provision of Lifetime Homes

8.2 Wheelchair access

164 9.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS 9.1 UDP Policy IMP.6.1 and London Plan Policies 6A.4 & 6A.5 seek planning obligations to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development. The applicant has listed the obligations that were identified in the appeal application and indicates a willingness to enter further negotiations.

9.2 If approval were to be considered, the potential areas for inclusion into any S106 agreement would be: • Affordable Housing Provision • Provision of cycle lane • Improvements to the Kew Bridge / Kew Bridge Road junction • Improvements to bus stand and shelters • Improvements to Kew Bridge Station • CPZ • Travel Plan • Parking management plan • Car and Cycle Club • Contribution towards education provision • Contribution towards health care services • Improvements to Riverside and Public Access • Public Open Space (to secure public access and the layout and ongoing management of the open space) • Retention of Boat Club and Kayak Club • Provision and retention of pontoon • Contribution towards off-site play equipment • Contribution towards off-site public open space • Public Art Work • Contribution to environmental improvements

165 166 167 Agenda Item 10

Contact: Rupinder Dhaliwal Tel: 020 8583 5173 E-Mail: [email protected]

Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) 14th May, 2009 Syon 1 Hornbeam Crescent, Brentford (377996)

Report by: Director of Planning

Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the erection of a canopy at the front of 1 Hornbeam Crescent, Brentford without the benefit of planning permission.

1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 That the Committee considers it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

1.2 All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an enforcement notice in relation to 1 Hornbeam Crescent requiring within three calendar months:

• The removal of the front canopy; and

• Removal of all resultant debris; and for

The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 of the Act in the event of non- compliance with the enforcement notice, including the recovery of the Council’s costs in carrying out such work.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The property is an end of terrace two-storey house on the northwest side of Hornbeam Crescent. The canopy that is the subject of this report is at the front of the property and extends across of whole original part of the house and is attached and over the top of an existing porch. .

2.2 The property has been extended by way of a two-storey side extension (see section 3).

2.3 The attached house (number 2) has a small porch but no canopy. This porch is likely to be permitted development due to its size.

2.4 The porch to the house measures 2.90m in height, 1.75m in width and 1.60m in depth therefore the addition of canopy brings the structure over the requirements of permitted development.

168 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY AND OTHER RECORDS

Planning Records 00624/1/P1 Erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor side and part rear extension, and erection of a rear roof extension to house. Refused: 03/08/2006 00624/1/P2 Erection of a two-storey side extension and erection of single storey rear extension to house. Approved: 11/01/2007 00624/1/P3 Erection of a single storey rear extension to the house Approved: 04/11/2008

3.1 Other Council Records The aerial photographs from September 2006 show that the canopy had not been built.

1 Hornbeam Crescent

4.0 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY, INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENCE. 4.1 The structure is a breach of planning control because it has been in existence for less than four years and is not a porch with a floor area of less than three square metres and less than three metres in height and so is not ‘permitted development’ and does not benefit from planning permission.

4.2 Following a review of front extensions in the borough an enforcement officer conducted a site visit on the 18th February 2009 and established that a porch and canopy had been erected.

4.3 A letter was sent on the 18th February 2009 stating that the porch and canopy combined did not fall within Permitted Development. The letter requested that the owner either submit a planning application in an attempt to regularise the breach, redesign the canopy to comply with Permitted Development limits or remove the canopy.

169 4.4 A letter was received from the owner of the property on the 26th February 2009 stating the size of the porch as being 290cm in height, 175cm in width and 160cm in depth and its proximity to the footpath being 400cm, and that he believed the porch to be within permitted development.

4.5 A further letter was sent to the owner on the 13th March 2009. This letter stated that the porch and canopy combined did not meet the requirements of the General Permitted Development Order (Amended) 2008. The letter requested that the canopy be removed from the site and to ensure that the porch is no more than 3m2 in footprint and no more than 3m high. The owner was also advised that he may wish to apply for planning permission in order to remedy the breach if permission is subsequently given, however he was told that the likelihood of approval for such a scheme was unlikely.

4.6 An enforcement officer re-visited the site on 9th April 2009 and noted that the canopy was still in existence.

4.7 The picture below shows the canopy at 1 Hornbeam Crescent.

170 4.8 The picture below shows the adjoining property number 2 Hornbeam Crescent and the row of terraces

4.9 The picture below shows the porch and canopy when viewing from the west

171 5.0 ANALYSIS 5.1 Under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Council has the power to take enforcement action where it assesses that a breach of planning control has resulted in material harm in planning terms.

5.2 Guidance as to how to apply this power and when a Council should find enforcement action expedient is contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled 'Enforcing Planning Control'. The government urges local planning authorities to use enforcement action as a last resort. Reports are not brought forward to committee unless it has been concluded that there is no other course of action available.

5.3 In addition to Government guidance the statutory Development Plan sets criteria against which to judge whether a breach of planning control is unacceptable

5.4 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.5 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the London Plan. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by direction from the Secretary of State. The 'London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)' was adopted in February 2008.

5.6 As part of its prospective Local Development Framework, the Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Planning Obligations and Air Quality, which are statutory material considerations and will be applied alongside the Development Plan.

Relevant Planning Policy

5.7 The Development Plan policies relevant to this case are:

ENV-B.1.1 New Development In relation to the context, form and layout of the buildings and spaces, new development should:

Relate well to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing, character and use of the adjacent townscape.

Respect the proportions of existing neighbouring buildings where there are strong uniform design characteristics, such as doors, windows and roofs

Use durable and high quality materials, that relate satisfactorily to its surroundings in terms of colour, scale, texture and pattern

H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations Extensions should normally be consistent with the Council’s guidelines on house extensions and meet the following criteria:

Position: Extensions should respect property boundaries and be positioned to avoid loss of light to adjoining properties.

172 Materials: Proposals should aim to match the type of materials and colour to both the existing building and surrounding area.

Details: Attention should be paid to design details, such as position and style of windows and doors and must complement the existing building and respect the character of the area.

Policy H.6.4 is Supplemented by the Residential Extension Guidelines Which state that a front extension must only be built in front of the original doorway to the house. Permission will normally be refused for porches that extend sideways and are linked to a side extension or attached to a bay window

The key planning issues in this case are therefore: • Acceptability of the development in principle • Appearance

Principle 5.8 The Unitary Development Plan policies seek to ensure that any development is compatible with the character of the area, and seek to enhance it in terms of size, scale, materials and design and should comply with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

5.9 As described above, the Residential Extension Guidelines establish design criteria for front extensions. They require that changes to the front elevation must be minor and not alter the overall appearance of the house, nor dominate the character of the street. The residential extension guidelines state that over hanging canopies are not acceptable on front extensions except when they are used as an alternative to a porch; therefore the canopy is unacceptable in principle

Appearance 5.10 As the canopy extends sideways across the width of the property, it is highly visible along the Hornbeam Crescent streetscene. Its shape, proportion and design are unsympathetic to the house against which it is set. The position, bulk and design of the canopy are out of character with the house, the block of terrace houses and indeed out of keeping with the wider street scene.. The canopy is therefore considered to be in conflict with Council policies requiring that development makes a positive contribution to overall environmental quality, complements the original building, harmonises with adjoining properties and maintains the general street scene

5.11 Recent appeal decisions for similar structures have supported these principles and upheld the enforcement notice and required the demolition of the canopy. Photographs of four comparable properties where there have been recent appeal decisions in the Council’s favour can be seen below.

173

17 The Crossways, Heston 74 Bath Road, Hounslow

226 Whitton Dene, Hounslow 11 The Green, Heston

Proposed action 5.12 Demolition of the canopy and removal of all resultant debris

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 6.1 Overall it is considered that the existing canopy in terms of its design, size and position is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original house and the surrounding street scene and would therefore be contrary to policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Section Six of the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

6.2 Based on the information in this report it has been concluded that no action short of the proposed enforcement action described in this report can remove the harm caused by this breach of planning control. In these circumstances, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action.

Background Papers: Relevant UDP polices are ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations), Residential Extension Guidelines section 6. The policy documents can be viewed online, at the Civic Centre and at local libraries. Planning application references 00624/1/P1, 00624/1/P2 and 00624/1/P3.

174 175 Agenda Item 12

Contact: Satbir Gill Tel: 020 8583 4904 E-Mail: [email protected]

Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee (Planning) – 16th April 2009

HIGHWAYS PLANNED MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME – 2009/2010

Report by: Michael Jordan, Director of Environment

Summary This Report seeks Area Committee Members’ approval for Highways Infrastructure Planned Maintenance Programme for 2009/10.

1.0 RECOMMENDATION The Area Committee Members are recommended to: 1.1 Note and approve the priority for roads (carriageways) and pavements (footways) requiring Planned Maintenance in order to establish an Area Programme of Work for the financial year 2009/10 (developed on the principle mechanism agreed by the Executive on 1st May 2007) as set out in this Report.

1.2 Note and approve the trialling of Micro-Asphalt surfacing as detailed in Section 5 of this Report.

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Executive, on 1st May 2007, agreed: 2.1.1 The Planned Maintenance funds are allocated on the principle of the total estimated cost of the ‘backlog’ in each Area expressed as a percentage of the Borough’s total ‘backlog’, calculated each year on local Roads (carriageways) and Pavements (footways) that are of ‘More Than Local Importance’ (see Section 3);

2.1.2 That the apportionment of funding between local Roads (carriageways) and Pavements (footways) to remain on a ratio of 48:52 as before; and

2.1.3 That Area Committees are consulted to establish Area Programmes from their implementation priorities (see Section 4).

2.2 Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 imposes a statutory duty on the Council to maintain highways at public expense, and almost all claims against authorities relating to highway functions arise from the alleged breach of this section. Section 58 provides for a defence against legal action relating to alleged failure to maintain on grounds that the authority has taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway in question was not dangerous for traffic.

2.3 The Traffic Management Act 2004 established a new duty for local traffic authorities to manage their road network with a view to achieving, so far as may be reasonably practicable, having regard to their other obligations, policies and the following objectives;

176 • Securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network, and • Facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority

2.4 The Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) version 1 was adopted by the Executive on 4th April 2006, and an updated version 2 of this plan was approved in February 2008. The HAMP sets out objectives, targets for delivery and procedures for efficient management of the asset lifecycle, and a programme of improvements for all parts of the public space which we call the Highway or the Network. The HAMP seeks to balance the needs of customers, who expect a high quality of current service with the desire to preserve the integrity and value of the Street network for future generations. The HAMP is the first step in adopting Asset Management principles for our street network. The full benefits will be realised in the coming years as we develop and implement the actions set out in our improvement programme when adequate resources are identified. An updated report HAMP version 3 will be produced during July 2009.

2.5 As significant capital investment is needed to achieve the desired levels of service, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was identified as the best value option for delivering a ‘step-change’ improvement in the Hounslow street environment. The borough submitted an Expression of Interest (EOI) with ten other local authorities to the Department for Transport (DfT) in September 2006, followed by a supplementary submission in February 2008. Approval was given to the project in March 2008, and work is underway to produce an Outline Business Case (OBC) for submission to the Department for Transport in March 2009. Subject to the DfT approving the OBC, procurement will commence in September 2009, with works starting on the ground in September 2012. Whilst the PFI project will allow us to deal with the backlog and future capital maintenance over 25 years.

2.6 In the interim with the benefits derived from the recently concluded Improvement Programme, it’s anticipated that further budget may be made from £7.0 million set aside for growth 2009/10 as approved by the Borough Council on 3rd March 2009, to improve the roads and pavements in the borough in need of rehabilitation. This additional investment will be allocated in accordance with the options agreed by the Executive on 1st May 2007 (see section 2.1).

3.0 PLANNED MAINTENANCE SCHEME PRIORITISATION – KEY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The maintenance schemes are prioritised on the basis of ranking developed from national standard condition data obtained from the annual survey and technical assessment of the borough’s network of Roads and Pavements undertaken in accordance with the national principles of the United Kingdom Pavement Management System (UKPMS).

In addition the local network hierarchy is broadly supported by a series of ‘other’ inputs into the prioritisation process as follows:

3.1.1 That, with limited resources available, planned maintenance be targeted: • At designated Roads having due regard to traffic flows but also on the basis of Risk Assessment and the functionality of that particular section of the network, and

177 • At Pavements determined by the functionality of the footway and the scale of use. The contribution and the importance of the Pavement to the quality of public space and the street scene. Local factors such as age, distribution of population, proximity of schools or other establishments attracting a higher than normal number of pedestrians to the area need to be taken into account.

3.1.2 The highways inspectors record a wealth of defect data during their routine safety inspections, these are assessed and the information is used to enhance the priority for a street (Roads or Pavements) that is routinely suffering from localised defects. Excessive ad-hoc spending on localised defects is a good indicator that there is a need for planned maintenance,

3.1.3 An assessment of insurance claims received for each street on the network is considered in the prioritisation process as an additional measure of the safety of the street, and

3.1.4 All service requests and complaints received helps to ensure that the views of the local residents are included in the prioritisation process for maintenance.

3.2 The above considerations facilitate the allocation of planned maintenance funds that is likely to optimise the benefits to each Area.

4.0. AREA PROGRAMMES 4.1 The Draft Area Programme for each Area Committee will be extracted from the Maintenance Scheme Prioritisation list and submitted to each Area Committee for approval.

4.2 Area Committees will have the opportunity to either agree to or change the order of priority based on the schemes identified in the Draft Area Programme.

4.3 This allows the Area Committee, for example, to propose substituting Roads and Pavements for others with similar priority within their own Area without impacting on the resources available to other Area Committees.

4.4 This will establish a prioritised list for each Area Committee and those schemes of the highest priority will be implemented as and when funds are made available throughout the financial year.

4.5 As only those Roads and Pavements with a condition index indicating they require renewal/rehabilitation are included in the implementation priorities, the effect of altering the order of priority by each Area Committee therefore will not adversely affect the relevant National or Local Performance Indicators.

4.6 The Maintenance Scheme Prioritisation list for Isleworth & Brentford Area is attached at Appendix A.

5.0 MICRO-ASPHALT TRIALS 5.1 Micro-Asphalt was piloted in 2008/09 and proved a success. Micro-Asphalt is a product of innovation. It not only improves the quality of the wearing course

178 (ride quality), extends the life of the asset but also costs only 20-25% of traditional resurfacing.

5.2 It is intended that as soon as the money is made available as stated in Section 2.6, £40k would be set aside for each Area Committee to extend the pilot and the following roads are recommended for Micro-Asphalt trials in 2009/10, selected from each ward.

Hexham Gardens , Osterley Hartham Road, Syon Burford Road, Brentford Northcote Avenue, Isleworth

6.0 PRINCIPAL ROAD PROGRAMME 6.1 The Borough Principal Road Network (BPRN) is entirely funded by Transport for London (TfL) through the annual Local Implementation Plan.

6.2 The scheme within the Isleworth & Brentford area included in the Principal Road Programme 2009/10 is as follows: A310 Twickenham Road (Borough Boundary to Dawes Avenue) £540k

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 The Head of Finance comments that the London Borough of Hounslow carries out Roads and Pavements maintenance to the local network as part of its own Capital and Revenue Programme and for Principal Roads funded by Transport for London (TfL). In all cases resources are limited and it is increasingly necessary to allocate them to schemes that optimise the benefits to each Area Committee.

7.2 The Council’s Revenue resources for 2009/10 planned works is £776.4k which was approved by the Borough Council when setting the budget on 3rd March 2009.

7.3 From the above, the allocations for Area Committees are as follows: Revenue Budget Committee Item Allocation £k Central Hounslow Roads 66.2 Pavements 71.7 Heston & Cranford Roads 96.0 Pavements 104.1 Chiswick Roads 61.2 Pavements 66.3 West Roads 62.8 Pavements 68.1 Isleworth & Roads 86.4 Brentford Pavements 93.6 Total £776.4k

8.0 COMMENTS OF THE BOROUGH SOLICITOR 8.1 The Council is required to comply with its statutory duties relating to highway maintenance. In addition it is important for the Council to reduce the number of claims based on disrepair of roads and pavements.

179 8.2 The criteria for the decision to divide the limited funds between planned and reactive maintenance appears to be based on relevant data and sound principles.

8.3 Focus on planned maintenance is likely to reduce the long term reactive maintenance.

9.0 EQUALITIES/ DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 9.1 The introduction of a limited but consistent planned maintenance regime into the highways network and its associated structures in Hounslow will positively benefit all sections of the community who live, work, visit and shop in the borough. The scheme will economically benefit the borough and its stakeholders, and help reduce discrimination by enhancing social inclusion through the improvement of mobility, accessibility/availability and movement.

9.2 A relevance test will be prepared but it is considered that there will be no adverse affects on equalities groups arising from a planned maintenance approach to Highways Maintenance and that therefore an Equalities Impact Assessment is not required at this stage.

10.0 NETWORK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 10.1 The Traffic Manager comments that an assessment will be made on each individual project within the maintenance programme with regard to maintaining traffic flow and minimising traffic congestion arising from the works, both on the borough’s roads and on adjoining Traffic Authorities’ road networks.

10.2 Consultation will take place with adjoining Traffic Authorities and effective measures put in place to minimise any disruption to traffic flows on each project as and when appropriate.

Background Papers: Highways Planned Maintenance Programme - 2007/08 and Future Years – Exec 1st May 2007 Highways Asset Management Plan, Version 1 - Exec 4th April 2006 Highways Asset Management Plan, Version 2 – Exec 5th February 2008 Appendix A - Maintenance Scheme Prioritisation List

This report has been or is due to be considered by: Head of Public Realm, Environment Head of Finance Borough Solicitor Head of Streetcare Services

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Isleworth, Osterley & Spring Grove, Syon and Brentford

Approved by: Krishnan Radhakrishnan Date: 23rd March 2009

180 APPENDIX A

Isleworth & Brentford – Carriageway Priorities

PRIORITY ROAD NAME FROM TO WARD £K 1 OSTERLEY ROAD THE GROVE CHURCH ROAD OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 90.0 2 EALING ROAD GREAT WEST ROAD WHITESTILE ROAD BRENTFORD 80.0 3 COLLEGE ROAD RIDGEWAY ROAD LONDON ROAD OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 54.0 4 EALING ROAD HIGH STREET GREAT WEST ROAD BRENTFORD 173.0 5 RIDGEWAY ROAD COLLEGE ROAD GREAT WEST ROAD OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 125.5 6 LIONEL ROAD NORTH GREAT WEST ROAD BOUNDARY BRENTFORD 122.0 7 ST PAUL’S ROAD HALF ACRE LATEWARD ROAD BRENTFORD/SYON 36.8 8 WINDMILL ROAD GREAT WEST ROAD BOUNDARY BRENTFORD 82.0

181 9 WORTON ROAD RIVERSIDE WALK TWICKENHAM ROAD ISLEWORTH 110.0 10 NORTH ROAD HIGH STREET END BRENTFORD 45.4 11 THORNBURY ROAD A4 CHURCH ROAD OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 63.8 12 SPUR ROAD LONDON ROAD BOUNDARY ( RAILWAY) SYON 103.1 13 SYON LANE GREAT WEST ROAD BOUNDARY SYON 60.0 14 ST. MARY’S CRESCENT THORNBURY ROAD RIDGEWAY ROAD OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 47.5 15 CLIFDEN ROAD WINDMILL ROAD BROOK ROAD SOUTH BRENTFORD 52.3

Isleworth & Brentford – Footway Priorities

PRIORITY ROAD NAME FROM TO WARD £K

1 OSTERLEY ROAD GREAT WEST ROAD THE GROVE OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 135.0 2 LINKFIELD ROAD LONDON ROAD TWICKENHAM ROAD SYON 154.0 3 WINDMILL ROAD BOUNDARY GREAT WEST ROAD BRENTFORD 79.2 4 SPUR ROAD LONDON ROAD BOUNDARY ( RAILWAY) SYON 25.0 5 COLLEGE ROAD BOROUGH ROAD LONDON ROAD OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE 63.0 6 WINDMILL ROAD BOSTON MANOR ROAD GREAT WEST ROAD BRENTFORD 87.6 7 ST. JOHN’S ROAD LONDON ROAD TWICKENHAM ROAD SYON/ISLEWORTH 124.0 8. NORTH ROAD HIGH STREET END BRENTFORD 66.4 9 ST PAUL’S ROAD HALF ACRE LATEWARD ROAD BRENTFORD / SYON 26.8 182 10 EALING ROAD HIGH STREET GREAT WEST ROAD BRENTFORD 88.2 11 SYON LANE BOUNDARY GREAT WEST ROAD SYON 50.8

Agenda Item 13

Contact: Gerard McCormack E-Mail: [email protected]

Planning Enforcement 2008/9 Review

Report by: Director of Planning

Summary The purpose of this report is to provide an oversight of the current planning enforcement caseload; advise Members of the new approaches to resolving and handling specific breaches of planning control; report on our appeal performance and highlight where, when necessary, we have taken appropriate legal action

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 That members’ note the contents of the report.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 In February 2007 Members received a report explaining how enforcement worked, the powers available to the Local Authority to enforce, and update on the numbers of new full cases and closures in the Borough – with a more detailed update for the specific cases, which have been determined by the respective area committee. The purpose of this report is to follow on from last years update report presented in April/May 2008: update the information: advise Members of the new approaches to resolving and handling specific breaches of planning control: report on appeal performance and highlight where, when necessary, we have taken appropriate legal action including prosecution.

3.0 CASE LOAD MANAGEMENT WITHIN PLANNING ENFORCEMENT

3.1 Members were informed in the last enforcement update report that due to the enforcement team not having the resources to meet all the demands upon it, temporary measures were introduced to manage the teams caseload. Registers were set up in relation to outbuilding, porches and flats complaints received, the owners written to regarding the alleged breach of planning control and site visits carried out.

3.2 As officer’s caseloads have reduced this year cases have moved from these registers to be directly dealt with by officers. Officers are now dealing with all cases previously on the registers and the register system has been abolished.

3.3 When a new case is received now a letter is sent to the owners of the property and the case allocated to an officer who will deal with the case and we aim to carry out a site visit within 10 working days. The complainants are encouraged to contact the enforcement team within 3 to 4 weeks of making a complaint to receive an update. When a case is closed a letter is sent to the complainant advising them why the case was closed, if the case is still live the complainant is encouraged to contact the assigned officer for an update.

4.0 ENFORCEMENT APPEALS

4.1 If an appeal is lodged against an enforcement notice, the requirements of the notice

183 are held in abeyance until the outcome is determined by the Planning Inspectorate. The grounds of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate are:

• Ground (a) – that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the enforcement notice, or that the condition which is alleged not to have been complied with should be discharged.

• Ground (b) – that the breach of planning control alleged in the enforcement notice has not occurred as a matter of fact.

• Ground (c) - that there has not been a breach of planning control.

• Ground (d) – that at the time the enforcement notice was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action against the matters stated in the notice.

• Ground (e) – the notice was not properly served on everyone with an interest in the land.

• Ground (f) – that steps required to comply with the requirements of the enforcement notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome objections.

• Ground (g) – the time given to comply with the notice is too short.

4.2 The appeal can be by written representations, an informal hearing or public inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate will decide the appeal and can either, dismiss, allow or vary the enforcement notice. On some occasions they make split decisions – part allowing and part dismissing.

4.3 The following table indicates our success rates on appeals overall and by area. A detailed list of the appeals in the Committee area is attached at Appendix 11.

Area Number Dismissed Allowed Part Decision

Central 24 20 (84%) 4 (16%) 0

Chiswick 5 5 (100%) 0 0

H & C 20 18 (90%) 2 (10%) 0

I & B 3 3 (100%) 0 0

West 4 4 (100%) 0 0

Total 56 50 (90%) 6 (10%) 0 2007 - 08 (49) (40 - 82%) (7 - 14%) (1 – 2%)

5.0 PROSECUTIONS

5.1 If the enforcement notice appeal is allowed then no further action will be taken, if the appeal is dismissed then the recipients of the enforcement notice will then have to comply with the requirements of the notice. Below is a list of the successful prosecutions carried out between the 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2009.

184 Enforcement Prosecutions 1st April 2008 - 31st March 2009 Address Breach Fine Costs 90 Sutton Road Outbuilding £500 £750 33 Alexandra Road Roof extension used as a separate residential unit £1,600 £1,225.50

149 Ringway Second rear extension £3,000 £1,372.50

188 Ash House converted into two flats and outbuilding in Grove residential use £36,000 £1,672.50 1 Balfour Roof extension and property converted into 7 self Road contained flats £15,000 £1,785 59 The Crossways Property converted into flats £5,000 £1,758.98

74 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy £500 £1,047 289 Popes Lane Two storey side extension £1,800 £1,100 204 Bedfont Lane Outbuilding in residential use £4,000 £1,000 Total £67,400 £11,712

6.0 AREA SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee 6.1 Along the A4 and M4 elevated section action will continue to be taken against illegal advertisement hoardings. This year we have been successful at a number of appeals and numerous hoardings have been taken down as a result. We aim by the end of this year, to have significantly reduced the levels of illegal advertisements and ensure that authorised adverts are of a good quality and add to the amenity of the area.

6.2 Action will continue to be taken against those satellite dishes in conservation areas, which fail to preserve and enhance the appearance of the area. We will continue to work with Hounslow Homes to ensure that satellite dishes on housing schemes are in appropriate locations and benefit from planning permission.

Heston and Cranford 6.3 In the Heston Village Conservation Area action will be taken to encourage shopkeepers to improve the appearance of their shops and reduce the levels of illuminated fascia advertisements within the village.

6.4 The Green Belt in Hounslow, because of its location on the fringe of London, and its fragmented nature is the subject to intense development pressure and thus very vulnerable. This year the enforcement team is prioritising taking action against the unauthorised developments on Rectory Farm located off Cranford Lane. In relation to

185 St Albans Farm, action will be taken to ensure that the enforcement notices issued in 2008 and subsequently dismissed at appeal are complied with.

Chiswick 6.5 The enforcement team will continue to work closely with conservation officers and residents groups to ensure that action is taken against inappropriate developments in conservation areas, which fail to preserve and enhance the appearance of the area.

6.6 Working with members of the public action will also be taken against properties that display multiple “for sale” signs. A review is also planned of fascia signs and other advertisements along the Chiswick High Road, which should result in, continued improvement of the street scene.

Central 6.7 In order to maintain Hounslow’s housing stock and to retain houses fit for use a single- family use. We will continue to work with other Council departments to identify and take action against properties, which are unsuitable for subdivision into flats or where outbuildings are being, used a separate residential units.

West 6.8 The enforcement team aims to respond quickly to any emerging problems that may occur in the West Area of the borough most notably protecting the greenbelt and conservation areas. This reactive approach was evident early this year when an emergency conservation area notice was served in St Dunstan’s. Efforts will also be made to ensure that neighbours amenity is not affected by second rear extensions, outbuilding and other forms of intrusive developments.

6.9 The paragraphs above simply objectives and local needs that officers have identified in each committee area. If members have other concerns that they feel need addressing then please make the enforcement team aware and this can be discussed and acted upon accordingly.

7.0 COMPLIANCE REGISTERS 2008/9 7.1 The tables below show enforcement cases where a breach of planning control had occurred and the owners of the properties subsequently took action to resolve the breach. In the stage column where it says EN this refers to work having been carried out as a result of an enforcement notice being issued. Full case or FC refers to cases were breaches of planning control were remedied without an enforcement notice having to be issued. More detailed tables outlining breaches at specific properties are attached in the appendices 1 –5 at the end of this report.

Committee Full Cases Compliance following notice West 23 10 IBAC 27 14 Central 63 38 Heston and Cranford 66 36 Chiswick 15 8 Total 194 106

7.2 This year 160 enforcement cases were reported to the area committees the table below outlines the number of cases that went to each committee. A detailed update on

186 cases reported to committee can be found in the appendices 6 –10 at the end of this report.

Committee Area Number of enforcement cases report Chiswick 5 Heston and Cranford 79 IBAC 11 West 16 Central 49 Total 160 Hounslow Plan Target (120)

7.3 In 2007/8 there were 1209 live enforcement cases, which included cases on the outbuilding, porch and flats registers. Currently there are 813 live enforcement cases being dealt with by officers a drop of 296 (24%). It is hoped that by the end of this year officer’s caseloads will be at a level where more pro-active projects can be undertaken.

8.0 Enforcement success in 2008/9 8.1 Despite two successful prosecutions, which resulted in fines totalling over £50,000, the owners of a two-storey outbuilding on Bath Road still refused to comply with an enforcement notice issued against them. As a result the decision was taken that it was in the public interest for the Council to demolish the two-storey outbuilding and reclaim costs back from the owner of the property. The demolition ended years of anti-social behaviour associated with the outbuilding, which had a detrimental impact on many neighbouring properties.

8.2 It is expected that direct action will be taken against other breaches of planning control where enforcement notices have not been complied during 2009/10, and it is in the public interest to take action.

8.3 The pictures below show the outbuilding during the demolition works and at the end.

187

8.4 As a result of increased public awareness through HM magazine and press releases to local newspapers residents who have breached planning control are increasingly remedying the breaches without formal enforcement notices having to be issued. This is reflected in the fact that some 194 cases were remedied without formal action having to be taken.

8.4 Increased public understanding of the penalties involved in failing to comply with enforcement notices has lead to a drop in the number of prosecutions from 26 last year to 9 this year. Although it must be noted that last year there were a lot of prosecutions as officers went through the backlog of outstanding enforcement notices.

8.5 Officers are particularly proud that their hard work is beginning to have an effect on the backlog of outstanding enforcement cases, which is down by 296 (24%). It is hoped that case numbers will continue to fall further this year, allowing officers to be proactive rather than being reactive.

188 Appendix 1

Chiswick Area

Address Compliance Stage 147 Park Road Dormer window FC 15 Cranbrook Road Roof terrace EN 17 Heathfield Gardens Rear extension EN 2 Pleydell Avenue Side roof dormer EN Plastic roofing attached to a 20 Woodstock Road pergola FC 202 Gunnersbury Avenue Roof extension FC 23 Fairfax Road Rear extension EN 23 Spring Grove Roof terrace FC 25 Reckitt Road Estate agent boards FC 265 Chiswick High Road Roof extension EN 267 Chiswick High Road Roof extension EN Felling of trees in a conservation 3 Milnthorpe Road area FC 329 Chiswick High Road Advert FC 34 Silver Crescent Roof extension EN 39 Ellesmere Road Roof terrac FC 43 The Ridgeway UPVC door in article 4 area EN 64 The Ridgeway Roof extension FC 69 Prebend Gardens Satellite Dish FC 7 The Broadway Change of shop front FC 85 Duke Road Estate agent boards FC 9 Sutherland Road Satellite Dish FC Corney Road Advertisements FC Wall Crossing, Hearne Road Unauthorised wall FC

189 Appendix 2

Heston and Cranford Area

Address Compliance Stage 1 Clevedon Gardens Side and rear extension FC 138 Berkeley Avenue Second rear extension EN 14 Waye Avenue Porch and Canopy FC 19 Chaucer Avenue Canopy FC 34 Burnham Gardens Outbuilding in residential use FC 38 Avenue Crescent Outbuilding in residential use EN 41 Chaucer Avenue Outbuilding in residential use FC 43 Chaucer Avenue Outbuilding in residential use EN 9 Avenue Crescent Porch/Canopy FC 93 Byron Avenue Outbuilding FC 1 Berkeley Way Porch EN 134 Northfiled Road Canopy at the rear FC 15 New Heston Road Projecting sign FC 159 Brabazon Road Roof extension and two storey side extension EN 17 The Crossways Front canopy and second rear extension EN 214 Cranford Lane Porch FC 23 Clevedon Gardens Porch/Canopy FC 24 Heston Avenue Porch EN 259 Brabazon Road Porch and Canopy FC 30 Hogarth Gardens Side extension used as a separate residential unit FC 32 Crosslands Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 37 Dorset Waye Single storey side extension FC 43 Summerhouse Avenue Second rear extension EN 46 Clairvale Road Second rear extension and front porch and canopy EN 46 Clairvale Road Second rear extension and front porch and canopy EN 50 West Way Porch/Canopy FC 55 Fern Lane Second rear extension FC 59 The Crossways Property converted into flats EN 65 Sutton Road Canopy EN 66 St Leonards Gardens Property converted into flats FC 72 Burns Way Canopy EN 74 Winchester Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 9 New Heston Road Unauthorised projecting signs FC 98 Orchard Avenue Porch and Canopy FC 152 Cranford Lane Porch, rear extension and loft extension FC 10 Clark Way Property converted into two flats EN 10 Somerset Waye Outbuilding FC 114 Berkeley Avenue Property converted into two flats EN 114 Northfield Road Rear extension used as a separate residential unit EN 12 Queens Gardens Outbuilding EN 122 Great South West Road Outbuilding and loft extension FC 122 Northfield Road Proeprty converted into flats FC 128 Springwell Road Outbuilding in residential use. Canopy at rear FC 190 13 Blossom Waye Porch/Canopy EN 14 Sark Close Outbuilding EN 14 West Way Porch/Canopy FC 16 Brabazon Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 166 Waye Avenue Property converted into flats FC 175 Brabazon Road Property converted into two flats FC 19 Berkeley Waye Porch FC 2 Oak Avenue Porch/Canopy EN Side extension not built in accordance with the 21 Eton Avenue approved plans EN 23 West Way Porch/Canopy FC 23 Woodlawn Drive Outbuiiding in residential use FC 24 Lime Tree Road Property converted into flats EN 264 Ash Grove Porch/Canopy FC 27 Sutton Way Outbuilding FC 3 Church Road Side extension EN 3 John Street Outbuilding in residential use EN 32 Clevedon Gardens Porch/Canopy FC 33 Heston Road Second rear extension FC 34 Haslemere Avenue Extension EN 44 Orchard Avenue Porch FC 47 Firs Drive Rear extension FC 49 Berkeley Waye Porch/Canopy FC 50 Channel Close Property converted into flats EN 52 Great South West Road Property converted into flats FC 55 Walnut Tree Road Property covnerted into flats and canopy at the front EN 56 Ash Grove Outbuilding in residential use FC 66 Orchard Avneue Porch FC 66 Shelley Crescent Porch/Canopy EN 66A Shelley Crescent Unauthorised porch EN 68 St Pauls Close Outbuilding not built inline with approved plans FC 70 Firs Drive Outbuilding EN 72 Chaucer Avenue Canopy FC Balcony not built in accordance with the approved 72 The Crossways plans FC 74 Chaucer Avenue Porch EN 75 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy EN 77 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy EN 78 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 78 West Way Porch/Canopy FC 8 Waye Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 80 Burns Way Front extension EN 81 Brabazon Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 9 Speart Lane Porch FC 184 Wentworth Road Porch FC 186 Wentworth Road Porch FC 227 Wentworth Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 47 Hadley Gardens Outbuilding in residential use FC 191 55 Hadley Gardens Outbuilding in residential use FC 66 Raleigh Road Porch/Canopy FC 7 Ringway Outbuilding FC 73 Crosslands Avenue Canopy EN 98 Wentworth Road Property converted into flats FC

192 Appendix 3

Central Hounslow Area

Address Compliance Stage 11 Wareham Close Outbuilding FC 46 Bell Road Unauthorised illuminated fascia sign FC 1 Balfour Road Property converted into flats.Roof not built in accordance EN

103 Thornbury Road Removal of trees FC Property converted into flats and outbuilding used as a 105 Martindale Road separate residential unit FC Conversion of the property intro flats and second rear 107 Sutton Lane extension EN 111 Kingsley Road Car repairs FC 113A Vicarage Farm Road Unauthorised free standing sign FC 116 Cromwell Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 118 Cardington Square Porch/Canopy FC 12 Elmsworth Avenue Rear extension EN 12 Lichfield Road Property converted into flats FC 121 Spring Grove Crescent Outbuilding in residential use EN 133 Vicarage Farm Road Property converted into flats EN 142 Munster Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 155 Kingsley road Outbuilding EN 156 Pears Road roof extension EN 16 Penderel Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 16 Rosemary Aveune Canopy FC 16 St Dunstans Road Outbuilding FC 172 Wellington Road Property covnerted into flats and outbuilding used as a South separate residential unit FC 189 Heath Road Property converted into flats FC 192 Kingsley Road Property covnerted into flats EN 2 Bell Parade, Bell Road Projecting sign FC 2 Denbigh Road Outbuilding in residential use FC

193 2 Pownall Road Side extension EN 21 Prospect Close Porch and Canopy FC 218 Lampton Road Air conditioning unit FC 25 Manor Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 251 Wellington Road South Second rear extension FC 26 Whitton Road Outbuilding in residential use EN 27 Ivanhoe Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 289 Bath Road Outbuilding EN 29 Cambridge Road Porch/Canopy FC 3 Dalcross Road Running a business from home FC 3 Rosemary Avenue Canopy EN 30 Cranbrook Road Property converted into flats FC 329 Staines road Canopy FC 34 Avondale Gardens The flat (34a Aveondale Gardens) FC 34 Catherine Gardens Property converted into flats FC 34 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy EN 36 Beresford Gardens Property converted into flats EN 37 Ivanhoe Road Property converted into flats EN 38 Bell Road Projecting Sign FC 4 Bulstrode Avenue Outbuilding EN 4 Elmdon Road Outbuidling in residential use FC 4 Kingsley Avenue Second rear extension FC 4 Tennyson Road Extension used as a separate residential unit EN 40 Bell Road Projecting Advertisement FC 41 St Stephens Road Satellite Dishes EN 42 Manor Avenue Canopy FC 46 Bell Road Projecting Sign FC 46 Cambridge Close Front canopy EN 48 Spring Grove Road Second rear extension EN 48 Taunton Avenue Outbuilding FC 5 Clairvale Road Satellite dishes FC 194 51 Bell Road Projecting Sign FC 55-57 Cromwell Road Porch/Canopy FC 57 Barrack Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 59 Myrtle Road Property converted into flats FC 5a St Stephens Road Outbuilding FC Property converted into flats, outbuilding in residential 6 Poole Court Road use EN 6 Wilton Road Porch/Canopy FC 61 Rosemary Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 61 Tiverton Road Single storey rear extension FC 69 Martindale Road Porch and Canopy EN 7 Moulton Avenue Porch/Canopy FC 71 Chaucer Avenue Porch and Canopy EN 72 Bulstrode Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 76 Chaucer Avenue Porch FC 769 London Road Use of garage for car repairs FC 8 Chapel Road Property converted into flats FC 8 Wareham Close Outbuilding FC 80 Grove Road Outbuilding in residential use EN 82 High Street Change of use from office to a self contained residential FC 83 Kingsley Road Car repair business EN 87 Kingsley Avenue Rear Canopy EN 88 Standard Road Property converted into flats FC 9 Maswell Park Road Outbuilding and property converted into flats FC 90 - 92 Ellington Road Canopy FC 90 Cambridge Close Porch and Canopy FC 90 Sutton Road Outbuilding EN 90 Wesley Avenue Outbuilding FC 94 Cambridge Close Porch/Canopy FC 98 Inwood Road Additional front door FC 98 Whtiton Road Property converted into flats EN 142 Grove Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 195 19 Hibernia Road Outbuilding in residential use EN 75 Cromwell Road Porch/Canopy EN 91 Cronwell Road Porch/Canopy FC 117 Martindale Road Property converted into flats EN 17 Marnell Way Porch and Canopy FC 170 Martindale Road Property converted into flats EN 19 Marnell Way Porch and Canopy FC 26 Ivanhoe Road Outbuilding in residential use EN 309 Staines Road Outbuilding FC 33 Legrace Avenue Outbuilding in residential use FC 36 Clifford Road Full Dormer FC 39 Barrack Road Porch/Canopy FC 39 Ivanhoe Road Property converted into flats EN 3D Martindale Road Outbuilsding in residetial use EN 45 Chaucer Avenue Canopy EN 48 Renfrew Road Outbuilding in residential use FC 51 Martindale Road Second rear extension EN 56 Chaucer Avenue Canopy EN 57 Rosemary Avenue Porch and Canopy EN 6 Charter Crescent Property converted into flats FC 74 Bath Road Porch and Canopy EN 9 Manor Avenue Property covnerted into flats EN 94 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy FC 96 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy FC

196 Appendix 4

Isleworth and Brenford Area

Address Compliance Stage 1 Willow Close Outbuilding FC 1 York Road roof of rear extension used as a balcony FC 11 Apple Garth Unauthorised conversion into flats EN 11 Lionel Road North Outbuilding in residential use FC 13 Springvale Avenue Outbuilding in residential use EN 15 Lionel Road Roof extension EN Johnson's Island, Catherine Wheel Road Erection of a brick structural/workshop FC New England Public House Advertisement and scaffolding FC 1 Copper Mill Drive Roof extension EN 104 Woodlands Road Outbuilding FC 109 The Drive Porch FC 109A Jersey Road Single storey side extension FC 116 The Drive Porch FC 142 Spring Grove Road Outbuilding and property converted into flats FC 16 Crane Avenue 1st Floor rear extension EN 161 Hall Road Roof extension FC 17 Mandeville Road Roof extension EN 18 Eversley Crescent Porch and Canopy FC 185-187 Twickenham Road Satellite dishes on a listed building FC 191 Twickenham Road Breach of planning condition FC 22 Church Road Satellite dishes FC Side dormer not built in accordance with the 22 Osterley Crescent approved plans FC 24 Mandeville Road Side extension EN 249 Jersey Road Canopy EN 25 Worton Gardens Outbuilding FC 33 Spring Grove Road Property covnerted into flats EN 33 Woodlands Road Single storey rear extension FC 42 Morris Road Single storey rear extension EN 429 Twickenham Road Second rear extension FC 43 + 45 Sussex Avenue Car repair business EN 43 Harewood Road B&B FC 52 Lynton Close Carport structure FC 542 London Road Tyre fitting and repairs EN 57 Woodlands Road Breach of planning condition FC 658 Great West Road Oubuilding EN 9 Penwerris Avenue Outbuilding EN 99 The Drive Side extension in residential use FC West Middlesex Hospital Removal of vegetation in conservation area FC Wyevale Garden Centre, Windmill Lane Car Wash FC 33 Hartham Road Single storey rear extension FC

197 Appendix 5

West Area

Address Compliance Stage 20 Iverna Gardens Outbuilding in residential use FC 227 Hatton Road Outbuilding EN 319 Hatton Road Second rear extension EN 1 Byward Avenue Property converted into flats EN 1 Hayling Avenue change of use of house to HMO FC 1 Victoria Court, Green Man Lane Roof extension EN 108 Swan Road Outbuilding FC 12 Shaftesbury Avenue Porch and Canopy FC 14 Shaftesbury Avenue Porch and Canopy FC 17 Ellington Road Porch EN 18 Cravan Avenue Outbuilding in residential use EN 18 Harlington Road West Adverts FC 18 Imperial Road Property converted into flats EN 186 Hounslow Road Property converted into flats FC 1A Richmond Avenue change of use FC 2 Cromwell Road Rubbish on front garden FC 2 Unwin Avenue Side extension EN 21 Sparrow Farm Drive Breach of planning condition FC 321 Hatton Road Second rear extension EN 388 Bedfont Lane Change of use of premises FC 39 Craigwell Avenue Second rear extension FC 4 Lansbury Avenue Rear extesion FC 6 Viola Avenue Plant material stored in rear garden FC 653-657 Staines Road Car Wash FC 70 Rochester Avenue Canopy FC 79 Orchard Avenue Unauthorised car repair business FC 9 Gladstone Avenue Second rear extension FC Unauthorised storage of materials on Surrey View, 72 Bedfont Lane greenbelt land FC The New Moon Pub Unitdy Land FC The Shopping Centre, 61-67 Salisbury Road Car repairs FC Turpin Road Estate agent boards FC Vantage Place Estate agent boards FC Flats not being built in accordance with Rear of 26-38 Hounslow Road approved plans FC

198 Appendix 6

Enforcement reports presented to West Area

Date Address Breach Update Prosecuted Fine £400 03/04/2008 204 Bedfont Lane Outbuilding in residential use Costs £1000 12/06/2008 20 Kings Road Front wall Appeal Dismissed 12/06/2008 70 Rochester Avenue Canopy Complied 10/07/2008 40 Rosslyn Avenue Second rear extension Awaiting appeal decision 10/07/2008 169 Bedfont Lane Front and rear extensions Awaiting appeal decision 18/09/2008 40 The Drive Two storey rear extension Awaiting appeal decision 18/09/2008 59 Craigwell Avneue Second Rear Extension Immune Officers Woodperry,Walsham recommendation agreed 16/10/2008 Road Property converted into flats (not to serve notice) 27/11/2008 86 Granville Avenue Outbuilding in residential use Awaiting appeal decision 27/11/2008 40 Staines Road Change of use from A1 to A3 Notice served 08/01/2009 22 Durham Road Outbuilding in residential use Notice served 08/01/2009 25 Rosslyn Avenue Outbuilding in residential use Complied 12/02/2009 17 Rosslyn Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice served 12/02/2009 5 Shaftesbury Avenue Business use of outbuilding Notice served 12/02/2009 225 Staines Road Outbuilding Awaiting appeal decision 12/03/2009 20 Iverna Gardens Outbuilding in residential use Compied 09/04/2009 314 Bedfont Lane Second Rear Extension Notice not yet served 09/04/2009 338 Bedfont Lane Second Rear Extension Notice not yet served 09/04/2009 35 Craigwell Avenue Property converted into flats Notice not yet served

9/04/2009 1 Edward Road Propery converted into flats Notice not yet served

199 Appendix 7

Enforcement reports presented to IBAC

Date Address Breach Update 24/04/2008 18 Eversley Crescent Porch/Canopy Complied 24/04/2008 "Gujo" Smiths Hill Boat converted into 4 flats Notice not yet served 17/07/2008 9 Penwerris Avenue Outbuilding in residential use Awaiting appeal decision 17/07/2008 15 Howard Road Porch Notice served 17/07/2008 880 Great West Road Porch/Canopy Appeal dismissed 25/09/2008 199 Popes Lane Roof extension Appeal dismissed 25/09/2008 265 Popes Lane Roof extension Awaiting appeal decision 23/10/2008 173A Thornbury Road Outbuilding used as two separate units Notice served 13/11/2008 21 Copper Mill Drive Porch Notice served 22/01/2009 83 Boston Gardens Second rear extension Awaiting appeal decision 19/03/2009 15 Lulworth Avenue Second rear extension Notice not yet served

200 Appendix 8

Enforcement reports presented to Central Area

Date Address Breach Update 24/04/2008 105 Martindale Road Property converted into two flats Complied 24/04/2008 29 Cambridge Road Porch/Canopy Complied 24/04/2008 36 Beresford Gardens Porch/Canopy Notice served 24/04/2008 3 Rosemary Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice Served 24/04/2008 85 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy Notice Served 22/05/2008 6 Charter Crescent Property converted into flats Complied 22/05/2008 369 Hanworth Road Front Extension Awaiting appeal decision 22/05/2008 16 Rosemary Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 22/05/2008 69 Martindale Road Porch/Canopy In Court Rear roof extension, Outbuilding in 22/05/2008 44 Park Road residential use Appeal Dismissed Rear roof extension, Outbuilding in 22/05/2008 46 Park Road residential use. Outbuilding not P.D Appeal Dismissed Outbuilding in residential use. 22/05/2008 48 Park Road Outbuilding not P.D Appeal Dismissed 19/06/2008 4 Chatsworth Crescent Property converted into flats Appeal Dismissed 19/06/2008 39 Barrack Road Porch/Canopy Complied 19/06/2008 36 Rosemary Avenue Porch/Canopy Appeal allowed 19/06/2008 41 Cardington Square Porch/Canopy Notice served 19/06/2008 31A Whitton Road Property converted into flats Notice served Officers recommendation 19/06/2008 136 Munster Avenue Porch/Canopy overturned 17/07/2008 38 Cromwell Road Property converted into flats Immune 17/07/2008 14 Dene Avenue Roof extension Notice Withdrawn * 17/07/2008 16 Dene Avenue Roof extension Notice Withdrawn * 17/07/2008 4 Kingsley Avenue Second rear extension Notice not yet served 17/07/2008 119 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy Notice served 17/07/2008 329 Staines Road Porch/Canopy Awaiting appeal decision 17/07/2008 25 Elmer Gardens Roof extension Notice Withdrawn * 17/07/2008 58 Pears Road Property converted into flats Notice served 25/09/2008 61 Tiverton Road Rear extension Complied 25/09/2008 331 Staines Road Porch/Canopy Lawful certificate granted Property converted into flats. Change 25/09/2008 74 Kingsley Road of use. Change of frontage Awaiting appeal decision 25/09/2008 207 Cromwell Road Roof & rear extension Awaiting appeal decision 23/10/2008 57 Rosemary Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice served 23/10/2008 81 Cromwell Road Porch/Canopy Awaiting appeal decision 13/11/2008 2 Shirley Drive Front & Side extension Awaiting appeal decision 13/11/2008 88 Standard Road Property converted into flats Notice not yet served 13/11/2008 49 Manor Avenue Second rear extension Immune 13/11/2008 54 Manor Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice served

201 Property converted into flats. 13/11/2008 9 Maswell Park Road Outbuilding in residential use Notice not yet served 11/12/2008 10 Maswell Park Road Porch Notice not yet served 11/12/2008 3 Beverley Avenue Second rear extension Notice served 11/12/2008 165 Martindale Road Property converted into flats Notice served 11/12/2008 177 Lampton Road Car Wash Notice served 11/12/2008 645 London Road Property covnerted into flats Notice served 22/01/2009 278 Hanworth Road Property covnerted into flats Awaiting appeal decision 22/01/2009 112 Hanworth Road Car Wash Notice not yet served Unuauthorised use of the property as 22/01/2009 70 Kingsley Road an officer Awaiting appeal decision 22/01/2009 28 Taunton Avenue Property converted into flats Awaiting appeal decision 19/02/2009 36 Albion Road Second rear extension Notice served 19/03/2009 84 Catherine Gardens Outbuilding Notice served 19/03/2009 5a St Stephen's Road Outbuilding Complied

Appendix 9

Enforcement reports presented to Chiswick

Date Address Breach Update 07/05/2008 53 Thorney Hadge Road Roof extension Appeal Dismissed Chiswick Roundabout Advert Awaiting appeal 09/07/2008 Tower Advert tower decision 06/08/2008 92 Dukes Avenue Side extensions Notice served 15/09/2008 23 Fairfax Road Rear Extension Complied Satellite dishe and 15/09/2008 9 Sutherland Road television aerial Complied

202 Appendix 10

Enforcement reports presented to Heston and Cranford and SDC

Date Address Breach Update 07/04/2008 1 Berkeley Way Porch Complied 07/04/2008 9 Avenue Crescent Porch Complied Awaiting appeal 07/04/2008 32 Sonia Gardens HMO decision 07/04/2008 45 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 07/04/2008 82 Fern Lane Porch/Canopy Appeal dismissed 07/04/2008 84 Fern Lane Porch/Canopy Appeal dismissed 122 Great South 07/04/2008 West Road Roof extension Complied 07/04/2008 33 Heston Road Second rear extension Complied 07/04/2008 37 Marnell Way Property converted into flats Notice served 12/05/2008 49 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy Awaiting compliance 12/05/2008 128 Waye Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 12/05/2008 28 Wilton Road Porch/Canopy Complied 12/05/2008 74 Berkeley Avenue Second rear extension Immune 12/05/2008 12 Queens Gardens Outbuilding in residential use Complied 14/07/2008 3 Berkeley Way Porch/Canopy Appeal dismissed Awaiting appeal 14/07/2008 4 Fairmead Close Porch/Canopy decision Awaiting appeal 14/07/2008 48 Moulton Avenue Property converted into flats decision 14/07/2008 70 The Alders Roof extension Complied 14/07/2008 91 Byron Avenue Porch and second rear extension Appeal dismissed 14/07/2008 113 Byron Avenue Porch Notice served 240 Great West Residential use of extension & 14/07/2008 Road Outbuilding used as two flats Notice served 34 Clevedon 14/07/2008 Gardens Second rear extension Notice served 14/07/2008 66 Raleigh Raod Porch/Canopy Appeal Allowed 14/07/2008 66 Shelley Crescent Porch/Canopy Complied 66a Shelley 14/07/2008 Crescent Porch/Canopy Complied 14/07/2008 73 Basildene Road Property converted into flats In Court 14/07/2008 75 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy Complied 14/07/2008 77 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy Complied 14/07/2008 94 Basidlene Road Porch/Canopy Appeal Allowed 14/07/2008 96 Basildene Road Porch/Canopy Appeal Allowed 08/09/2008 12 Lichfield Road Property converted into flats Immune 08/09/2008 211 Brabazon Road Porch/Canopy Notice served 08/09/2008 65 Sutton Road Porch/Canopy Notice served 08/09/2008 21 Prospect Close Porch/Canopy Notice served Awaiting appeal 08/09/2008 89 Byron Avenue Second rear extension decision

203 114 Berkeley 08/09/2008 Avenue Property converted into flats Complied 08/09/2008 21 Woodfield Road Shed like structure Notice served 06/10/2008 264 Ash Grove Porch/Canopy Immune 06/10/2008 259 Brabazon Road Porch/Canopy Notice served 06/10/2008 49 Byron Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 06/10/2008 56 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 06/10/2008 57 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 06/10/2008 76 Chaucer Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 06/10/2008 8 Fern Lane Porch/Canopy Notice served Awaiting appeal 06/10/2008 10 Fern Lane Porch/Canopy decision 10 Ashmore Court, Garage converted into a separate 26/11/2008 Heston Road residential unit Notice not yet served 26/11/2008 624 Bath Road Outbuilding and rear canopy Notice served Outbuilding used as two self- 26/11/2008 628a Bath Road contained flats Notice served 54 Burnham 26/11/2008 Gardens Porch/Canopy Notice served 26/11/2008 43 Chaucer Avenue Outbuilding in residential use Notice served 60 Clevedon Property converted into flats. 26/11/2008 Gardens Outbuilding in residential use Notice served 73 Crosslands 26/11/2008 Avenue Porch/Canopy Complied 26/11/2008 105 Fern Lane Porch/Canopy Notice not yet served The Rose & Crown PH, 220 Heston 26/11/2008 Road Car wash Appeal dismissed 26/11/2008 191 The Ringway Second rear extension Notice served 6 plots at St Albans 26/11/2008 Farm Change of use of green belt Appeal dismissed Property converted into flats. 26/11/2008 107 Sutton Lane Second rear extension Notice served 56 Walnut Tree Garage in residential use/Front 26/11/2008 Road porch/Side extension Notice served 56a Walnut Tree 26/11/2008 Road Garage in residential use Notice not yet served 26/11/2008 8 Waye Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice not yet served 26/11/2008 219 Waye Avenue Property converted into flats Notice served 26/11/2008 295 Waye Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice served 26/11/2008 163 Wentworth Road Porch/Canopy Notice served 26/11/2008 177 Wentworth Road Porch/Canopy Notice served Awaiting appeal 08/12/2008 44 St Pauls Close Roof extension decision Heston & Cranford 08/01/2009 14 West Way Porch/Canopy Complied 08/01/2009 228 Beavers Lane Outbuilding Notice served 08/01/2009 181 Wentworth Road Porch/Canopy Notice served

204 08/01/2009 14 Waye Avenue Porch/Canopy Notice served Property converted into flats. Awaiting appeal 08/01/2009 124 Ash Grove Outbuilding in residential use decision 08/01/2009 66 Wesley Avenue Property converted into two flats Notice served Awaiting appeal 08/01/2009 207 Springwell Road Property covnerted into flats decision 12/02/2009 23 The Alders Third rear extension Notice served Outbuilding and first floor rear 12/02/2009 35 The Glen extension Notice served 142 Spring Grove Outbuilding in residential use and 12/02/2009 Road property converted into flats Complied Awaiting appeal 12/02/2009 28 Dorset Waye Outbuilding decision Awaiting planning 12/03/2009 235 Bath Road Outbuilding application Property converted into flats and 12/03/2009 97 Wentworth Road outbuilding in residential use Notice served Side extension, roof extension and Awaiting appeal 12/03/2009 76 St Paul's Close second rear extension decision

205 Agenda Item 14

ISLEWORTH AND BRENTFORD AREA AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

14 May 2009

DELEGATED DECISIONS

Report by: Director of Environment

Summary

List of delegated decisions taken between 4 Apr 2009 ~ 30 Apr 2009

RECOMMENDATION Eight Weeks That Members Note The Report in /out

Brentford 00521/29/P1 P/2009/0456 29 Grosvenor Road, Brentford, TW8 0NW Invalid Application In Rooms in roof space with rear dormer.

00685/28A/P2 P/2009/0475 28A Layton Road, Brentford, TW8 0QJ Full Planning Permission Approved In Construction of a rear dormer window, and rooflights to the front elevation of a residential dwelling.

00133/AP/AD1 P/2009/0634 Holly House Boston Manor Road, Brentford, TW8 0QR Advert Approved In Installation of a double sided advertisement to a bus shelter.

00133/AO/AD1 P/2009/0596 Block H Boston Manor Road, Brentford, TW8 9GB Advert Approved In New shopfront advertisements, fascia signage, roller shutter over the entrance door and an ATM machine (retrospective)

00133/AO/P1 P/2009/0597 Block H Boston Manor Road, Brentford, TW8 9GB Full Planning Permission Approved In New shopfront advertisements, fascia signage, roller shutter over the entrance door and an ATM machine (retrospective)

00409/56/LAW1 P/2009/0419 56 Enfield Road, Brentford, TW8 9PB Lawful (Full Planning Permission Not Required) Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed erection of a single storey outbuilding for use as storage to rear garden of the house.

Isleworth

206 01137/112/AD1 P/2009/0406 112 Twickenham Road, Isleworth, TW7 6DL Advert Approved Display of information banner on the church tower and information display board in front of the presbytery

01563/A/P1 P/2009/0153 Herons Place Lion Wharf Road, Isleworth, TW7 7BE Full Planning Permission Approved In Installation of new railings between riverside walk and the grounds of Herons Place Estate

00768/J/LAW1 P/2009/0417 Tesco Stores Ltd Mogden Lane, Isleworth, TW7 7JY Certificate of Lawful Use Granted In Certificate of Lawfulness for the erection of a mezzanine floor within part of the original store

00262/49/P5(4) P/2009/0372 49 Church Street, Isleworth, TW7 6BE Details Pursuant Approved In Section drawing required by condition 4 of planning permission 262/49/P5 dated 8 January 2008 for the erection of a single storey rear extension and roof extensions on second and third floors and internal alterations to the house.

01142/18/P5 P/2009/0353 Castle Inn 18 Upper Square, Isleworth, TW7 7BN Full Planning Permission Approved In Erection of a single storey kitchen extension to the public house.

00981/C/P72 P/2009/0488 Atfield House Nursing Home St Johns Road, Isleworth, TW7 6UH Full Planning Permission Approved In Erection of four single storey extensions and one two storey extension to provide three additional bedrooms (to create a total of sixty five bedrooms) and associated facilities to care home.

01756/2/P1 P/2009/0295 2 Elizabeth Gardens, Isleworth, TW7 7BD Full Planning Permission Refused In Erection of a detached, single-storey outbuilding to the rear of the house

Osterley and Spring Grove 01481/2/AD7 P/2009/0287 West Cross Centre 2 West Cross Way, Brentford, TW8 9DE Advert Approved Display and installation of a temporary fabric banner on the eastern, southern and western sides of the building.

00523/9/P1 P/2009/0362 9 The Grove, Isleworth, TW7 4JS Full Planning Permission Approved In Conversion of the existing house into one two-bedroom and one three bedroom flat incorporating a side roof extension and removal of the chimney

00081/6/P1 P/2009/0573 6 Bassett Gardens, Isleworth, TW7 4QZ Withdrawn In Alteration of the hipped roof to a gable end and erection of a rear roof extension

207 00505/734/P3 P/2009/0541 734 Great West Road, Hounslow, TW7 5LT Full Planning Permission Refused In Erection of two storey side extension, roof extension (including creation of a crown roof with two domed roof lights) and installation of roof lights and solar panels in the roof slopes.

01119/68/TA1 P/2009/0559 68 Thornbury Road, Isleworth, TW7 4LN Conservation Tree Works Granted In Removal of Eucalyptus tree within a conservation area.

00717/27/P1 P/2009/0404 27 Lulworth Avenue, Hounslow, TW5 0TY Full Planning Permission Approved In Erection of a single storey rear and side extension and front porch and covered area.

00986/14/P5 P/2009/0361 14 St Mary's Crescent, Isleworth, TW7 4NA Full Planning Permission Approved In Demolition of fire damaged garage and erection of a single storey rear extension to the house.

00700/29/P2 P/2009/0355 29 Lingwood Gardens, Isleworth, TW7 5LY Full Planning Permission Approved In Erection of a single storey rear infill extension

01225/63/LAW1 P/2009/0363 63 Wood Lane, Isleworth, TW7 5EG Certificate of Lawful Use Granted In Certificate of Lawfulness for hip to gable roof conversion and rear roof extension with two front roof lights to house.

00423/9/P1 P/2009/0458 9 Eversley Crescent, Isleworth, TW7 4LR Full Planning Permission Approved In Erection of a single storey rear conservatory to the house.

01048/192/LAW3 P/2009/0643 192 Spring Grove Road, Isleworth, TW7 4BG Certificate of Lawful Use Refused In Certificate of lawfulness for an existing rear roof extension.

00523/85/P4 P/2009/0467 85 The Grove, Isleworth, TW7 4JD Full Planning Permission Approved In Single storey rear extension to the house and external alterations to convert the garage into a living room

Syon 00836/27/P2 P/2009/0344 27 Orchard Road, Brentford, TW8 0QX Full Planning Permission Approved In Erection of a part single storey rear extension.

208 00951/35/P1 P/2009/0463 35 Robin Grove, Brentford, TW8 8DG Full Planning Permission Refused In Erection of a single storey rear extension

00707/E/P97 P/2009/0047 Syon Park , Isleworth, TW8 8JF Full Planning Permission Approved Erection of a temporary marquee for five years for daytime and evening private/corporate events from 1st May to 30th September for each year period for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

01759/9/P1 P/2009/0345 9 Primrose Place, Isleworth, TW7 5BA Full Planning Permission Approved Erection of a single storey rear extension

00505/P/P62 & 005 P/2007/0645 Wallis House Great West Road, Brentford, TW8 9AX Withdrawn 00505/P/P62 Amendments to Approved scheme 00505/P/P59 dated 8th December 2006 for the redevelopment of the site- amendments proposed relate to the proposed gallery extension (the gallery proposed to the grade II listed Wallis House building) incorporating:

changes to the internal layouts to provide 2 studio units, 2 one bedroom units, and 2 two bedroom units with revisions to the elevations. (Amended Description )

00505/P/L12 Amendments to approved scheme 00505/P/P59 dated 8th December 2006 for the redevelopment of the site-- amendments proposed relate to the proposed gallery extension (the gallery proposed to the Grade II listed Wallis House building) incorporating:

Changes to the internal layouts to provide 2 studio units, 2 one bedroom units, and 2 two bedroom units with revisions to the elevations (Amended Description )

00505/P/L12 P/2007/0647 Wallis House Great West Road, Brentford, TW8 9AX Withdrawn Amendments to approved scheme 00505/P/P59 dated 8th December 2006 for the redevelopment of the site-- amendments proposed relate to the proposed gallery extension (the gallery proposed to the Grade II listed Wallis House building) incorporating:

Changes to the internal layouts to provide 2 studio units, 2 one bedroom units, and 2 two bedroom units with revisions to the elevations (Amended Description )

Contact: Isleworth Planning Team Telephone: 020 8583 4996

Background papers: This report has been or is due to be considered by: Isleworth and Brentford Area Area Planning Committee

This report is relevant to the Oserley and Spring Grove, Isleworth, Brentford and following wards: Syon

209