UXBRIDGE PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE 21st APRIL 1998
AGENDA
1. Apologies for absence 2. Minutes of meeting held on 19th March 1998, copy attached 3. Disclosure of ‘any other business’ and urgent items to be considered in public and private 4. Confirmation that all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private 5. Report of the Head of Planning Services, copy attached
PART 1 - PUBLIC
COWLEY WARD
1 Picket Post Erection of a first floor side extension with pitched roof Page 1 36 Station Road over Cowley Recommendation - Approval
2 4 - 5 Cowley Mill Erection of a two storey Muslim Community Centre with Page 5 Road associated car parking (Involving the demolition of two Uxbridge semi-detached houses)
Recommendation - Refusal
3 Land between 65 Erection of 12 flats for the elderly and relocation of Page 14 and 69 St Peters children’s playground Road Cowley Recommendation - Approval
4 Rose Cottage Erection of a single storey rear extension to existing Page 24 Packet Boat Lane dwelling and erection of a detached garage Cowley Recommendation - Approval
HILLINGDON EAST WARD
5 Land at rear of Reserved matters (details of design, landscaping and Page 28 1-23 Cherry Grove, external appearance) in compliance with Condition 1 of 6-28 Morello outline planning permission Ref 36010B/94/1005 dated Avenue and 21/9/94; erection of a pair of semi-detached bungalows 122 - 128 West including garages with access from Morello Avenue Drayton Road Hillingdon Recommendation - Approval
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 1 Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 2 6 Swakeleys School Erection of a single storey teaching block Page 33 Clifton Gardens Hillingdon Recommendation - Approval
HILLINGDON NORTH WARD
7 The Bungalow Renewal of Planning Permission Ref 20398B/96/1640 Page 37 Granville Road dated 8/1/97; change of use from retail Class A1 to Hillingdon place of worship Class D1
Recommendation - Approval
8 96 and 96A Retention of 2 self-contained flats throgh conversion of Page 42 Midhurst Gardens house (Retrospective application) Hillingdon Recommendation - Approval
HILLINGDON WEST WARD
9 Pield Heath School Erection of detached single storey educational and life Page 45 Pield Heath Road skills block (Involving demolition of temporary Hillingdon classroom buildings and wall)
Recommendation - Approval
10 Brunel University Erection of a boundary wall, gates and fencing and the Page 50 Kingston Lane widening of the University perimeter road to create a Hillingdon coach lay-by.
Recommendation - Approval
11 81 Misbourne Road Erection of a single storey side extension Page 55 Hillingdon Recommendation - Refusal
ICKENHAM WARD
12 High Road Service Erection of new petrol filling station, sales building, car Page 59 Station wash and jet wash (involving demolition of existing 55 High Road building) Ickenham Recommendation - Approval Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 3 Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 4 13 21 Milton Road Erection of a rear conservatory Page 65 Ickenham Recommendation - Approval
14 Land at A. Erection of 7 detached four and five bedroom Page 68 88 - 92 Long Lane houses and 4 three bedroom townhouses, plus Ickenham construction of new access (Involving demolition of existing three dwellings) (Duplicate application)
Recommendation - Refusal, had an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions not been lodged.
B. Demolition of three dwellinghouses (Application for Conservation Area consent)
Recommendation - Refusal, had an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions not been lodged.
15 2 Glebe Close Erection of a two storey side extension and a rear Page 78 Ickenham conservatory
Recommendation - Approval
16 35 Highfield Drive Erection of a first floor side extension Page 81 Ickenham Recommendation - Approval
17 269 Swakeleys Road Erection of a single storey side extension and a Page 85 Ickenham detached double garage
Recommendation - Refusal
UXBRIDGE NORTH WARD
18 180 - 181 High Demolition of Nos 180-181 High Street Uxbridge Page 91 Street (Application for Conservation Area consent) Uxbridge Recommendation - Approval
UXBRIDGE SOUTH WARD
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 5 19 27 Manor Waye Erection of a sigle storey rear extension Page 96 Uxbridge Recommendation - Approval
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 6 20 69 Rockingham Continued use by hospice of premises for storage of Page 99 Road furniture with retailing element Uxbridge Recommendation - Approval
WEST DRAYTON WARD
21 Trout Lane Depot Use of land for the parking of 14 lorries and erection of Page 103 Trout Lane 2m high palisade boundary fencing and associated Yiewsley landscaping works
Recommendation - Refusal
YIEWSLEY WARD
22 Station House Use of building for health resource centre (Class C2) Page 107 4 - 8 High Street and retention of third floor residential accommodation Yiewsley Recommendation - Approval
ALL WARDS
23 Tree Preservation Orders confirmed by the Head of Planning Services Page 112 24 New appeals and appeal decisions Page 114 25 Progress report on Enforcement Action Page 116 List of Background Documents Page 130
6. Any other business and urgent items in Part 1
PART 2 - PRIVATE
7. Any items transferred from Part 1 8. Any other business and urgent items in Part 2
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 7 PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE - 21 APRIL 1998 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING SERVICES CONTACT OFFICER: David Gurtler EXTENSION: 7568
Application No. Location Proposal
1. 27631A/97/2163 PICKET POST ERECTION OF A FIRST 36 STATION ROAD FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION COWLEY WITH PITCHED ROOF OVER (Date of receipt: 22.12.97) Drawing No. MB/797/1/Rev A (received 24.3.98) and location plan (received 22.12.97)
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The proposed first floor extension to this detached property would be sited 1m from the rear boundary of properties in Orchard Drive, being over 20m from the rear elevation of the nearest property. The extension would be in keeping with the design of the original dwelling, would not result in significant overshadowing, loss of light or overlooking to the rear gardens of properties in Orchard Drive. The proposal is considered acceptable in planning terms.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard (House Extensions) 3. (D1) No Additional Windows or 3. (D1) Standard Doors (‘facing Orchard Drive’)
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.054 Hectares 0.133 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost: 0 Provided: 2 Required: 2
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 10.9m2
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 8 CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 9 No. of replies: 3 (2 letters of objection received from the same person)
Comments:
1. Overlooking and loss of privacy 2. Potential for further windows in the flank wall
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a two storey detached property on the southern side of Station Road. The property currently has a hipped roof that slopes down in a pitch extending over the ground floor dining room on the west side of the dwelling nearest to properties in Orchard Drive. This pitch matches the sloping roof extending over the porch on the front gable.
The Proposal
The proposal is to erect a first floor side extension over the dining room, to provide an en-suite bathroom and dressing room. This would be achieved by removing the pitched roof, building the flank wall up at first floor level and extending the eaves across with a hipped roof to match the existing roof.
Amended plans show a window to a dressing room in the front elevation, with an obscured glazed window in the rear elevation to the bathroom.
Relevant Planning History
None
Planning Standards and Policies
Policy ULI of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan states that all new development should make a positive contribution to improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy UL3 relates to proposals for extensions and alterations, which should harmonise with scale and proportions of existing buildings. Policy UL8 refers to extensions normally being acceptable if they accord with Design Guidance.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 9 These policies are reflected within the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified (UDP) in Policies BE10 and BE12 and Appendix A ‘Design Guide: Residential Extensions’. In addition, Policies BE13 (sunlight and daylight for adjoining properties), BE14 (loss of residential amenity) and BE16 (adequate levels of privacy ensured) of the Draft UDP are relevant.
Main Planning Issues
The main considerations are the effect of the proposed first floor extension on the appearance of the property, the character of the area and the amenities of the adjoining occupiers.
Although the alteration of the existing roof line over the dining room would change the symmetry of the house, this is a matter of aesthetics, and the first floor extension finished with a hipped roof to match would not be out of character with this property. Neither would the proposed extension detrimentally affect the appearance of the property in the street scene.
The proposal would extend the bulk of the building adjacent to properties in Orchard Drive. However, 36 Station Road is 1m from the boundary and in excess of 20m from the rear elevation of the nearest property, 28 Orchard Drive. Due to the property’s position to the east of this property, there would be a degree of overshadowing of the garden in the morning, however, there is a garage located at the rear of the garden of 28 Orchard Drive which would be within the area that receives most shadow. It is considered that there will not be significant overshadowing of the adjoining gardens.
Originally a small ‘porthole’ type window was proposed in the front elevation, matching other decorative windows in the building, with a roof light provided in the side of the hipped roof to provide additional light to the dressing room. These details have been amended in order to overcome the concerns of adjoining properties in Orchard Drive to the possibility of overlooking from the roof light. Overlooking would not arise from this development, and a condition would ensure that the amenities of residents in Orchard Drive are protected in the future.
Public Consultation
Nine adjoining occupiers were consulted, with three replies received (two from one occupier). The contents of these replies are summarised above. The comments raised are not considered to warrant refusal of this proposal. Conclusion
The proposal accords with the Council’s policies on extensions and the Design Guide: Residential Extensions. The proposed first floor side extension would not detract from the appearance of the street scene, would reflect the scale and character of the existing house and would not detract from the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms.
Background Documents
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 10 The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5 and the Draft UDP as proposed to be modified
In addition the following documents were also used:- a) 5 letters making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report)
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 11 CONTACT OFFICER: David Gurtler EXTENSION: 7568
Application No. Location Proposal
2. 48098D/98/39 4-5 COWLEY MILL ROAD ERECTION OF A TWO- UXBRIDGE STOREY MUSLIM COMMUNITY CENTRE WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING (INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OF TWO SEMI- DETACHED HOUSES) (Date of receipt: 13.1.98) Drawing No. mus01.dwg (sheets 1 - 4)
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
There is general support for the needs of ethnic minorities reflected in the Council’s policies, however, in considering such forms of development it is necessary to take into account the character and appearance of an area, the impact upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers, and traffic generation.
The proposal to replace a pair of semi-detached properties with a new meeting hall covering the full depth of the plot, would unacceptably affect the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers by reason of the height, bulk and size of the new building. The size and scale of the development would be out of character with this predominantly residential area, and the design and appearance would adversely affect the visual amenities of the area. The intensification of the use of the site would result in increased traffic generation, noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of the area.
An earlier planning permission allowing the change of use of the premise to the Muslim community centre, included conditions that sought to control the impact upon adjoining occupiers and the area, these conditions have not been complied with and clearly a proposal of this nature would only serve to exacerbate the existing problems.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL, for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed development would give rise to an over-intensive use of the site with a site coverage and form of development which would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies UL1, UL2 and EM2 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policies BE9, BE12 and R11 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified. 2. The proposed development by reason of its overall size, height, bulk, siting, length of projection, orientation in relation to the adjoining properties would
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 12 constitute an unneighbourly over-dominant form of development resulting in an unacceptable loss of amenity, light, overshadowing and visual intrusion. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EM2 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policies BE13, BE14, and R11 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified. 3. The proposed windows in the flank elevations would result in direct overlooking of the adjoining premises causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to the adjoining occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EM2 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policies BE16 and R11 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified. 4. The proposal does not make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. This is likely to result in on-street parking to the detriment of the free flow of traffic on the public highway and to pedestrian and vehicular safety. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies T12 and EM2 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policies AM15 and R11 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.045 Hectares 0.111 Acres
CAR PARKING: 8 Provided 23-47 Required Based on standards of 1 space/10 people (places of worship) or 1 space/5 people and 1 space/3 staff (community centres)
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 553m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted 16 No. of replies 22
Comments: The replies are summarised below in four main categories:
1. inappropriate size and form of development by reason of: · scale (large building in an area of predominantly small Victorian semi detached, Council policies would limited the extent to which existing properties could extend) · character (large community centre would be visually intrusive in a residential road and proposed materials would be out of character) · intensity of use (floorspace would more than double the numbers using the site - currently condition restricting number of users to 35) · visual impact (height, size and bulk of the centre would result in an adverse effect upon adjoining residential properties) Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 13 · overlooking (with loss of privacy to rear gardens of adjoining residential properties, previously a condition restricting further doors and windows in flank walls to protect privacy of nos. 3 and 6 Cowley Mill Road) 2. traffic implications: · inadequate parking provision (existing provision is inadequate and 6 spaces in the rear have not been provided, whilst increased floorspace will require more than the 8 spaces shown) · parking layout (parking under the building will result in people reversing out into the highway) · hazard (currently parking takes place on the pavement, this will increase and cause problems for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In addition parking in the service road to Hale Hamilton Valve would prevent trucks and emergency vehicles gaining access) · congestion (the road is very busy servicing a post office, trading estate and industry as well as the residential dwellings, this proposal would only add to congestion with people attracted from further afield) · construction traffic (problems will occur with cranes and lorries visiting the site and parking on the highway, whilst large amounts of material will be exported from the site during construction) 3. noise, disturbance and nuisance: · hours of use (existing hours of use are not complied with, the bigger building is likely to be used far more intensively, with resultant noise and disturbance to residential amenities of the area) · noise (from increased comings and goings with doors slamming, cars pulling up and noise from the building - particularly in summer when windows open) · construction nuisance (the site is likely to be contaminated with gas and heavy metals originating from the adjoining gas works, these may be released and cause potential problems for employees of the adjoining factory and residents) 4. other factors: · sewage system (currently unable to cope with existing capacity) · demolition of existing period buildings (their loss would be detrimental to the appearance of the area) · unacceptable precedent · Council shortcoming (insufficient information provided to explain full implications of the proposal and insufficient number of residents consulted in relation to the scale of the application) · safety (risk of more children running into the road as they leave the premises and one fire exit provided is inadequate for the numbers likely to use the premises) · devalue the house prices in the area
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 14 OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Uxbridge Moor Residents Association Consultation should have been wider since more residents will be affected. Consultation is not specific enough as to nature of the development. Plans should be available in the library since not all residents can get to Civic Centre during working hours. Unacceptable precedent and inappropriate since residential extensions could not be of this scale. Parking never provided for original change of use and much greater parking should be provided for this proposal. The area is heavily congested currently and this will add to it. Current restrictions on hours of use are not enforced and the noise/disturbance associated with more extensive use would be greater. Materials are not in keeping with the area, associated with scale of building would result in an eyesore.
Whitehall Residents Association Loss of residential amenity. Traffic congestion in an already overloaded area. Victorian facade should be conserved. Site adjacent to gasometer and not suitable for community centre.
EPU To be reported
Social Services To be reported
Area Engineers Advises refusal
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a pair of semi-detached properties situated on the southern side of Cowley Mill Road (B470), about 100m from its junction with Cowley Road (A408). This pair of properties is currently in use by the Islamic Educational Society as a Muslim community centre.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 15 To the west of the site is a housing association block of maisonettes with their private car parking to the rear. To the east, the site is flanked by a further pair of Victorian semi- detached dwellings. Similar residential properties are located on the opposite side of Cowley Mill Road. To the south of the site, at the rear of the existing gardens, are the gas holders associated with British Gas.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing properties and construct a purpose built community centre.
The new centre would be a two storey building with a pitched roof, rising to 7.9m at ridge level. The front line would follow the main building line of the existing semis, but would project back 32m into the site, taking up the full depth of the plot. The building would be situated 1m off the boundary with the adjoining properties, though the eaves/guttering would reduce this gap, whilst on the eastern side (adjacent to No. 3 Cowley Mill Road) a fire escape would be provided, hard up to the boundary.
In order to accommodate off-street car parking, the first floor is to be built upon pillars with four spaces in front of the pillars and four under the first floor. As a consequence the main entrance to the building is set back approximately 10m.
In the flank walls of the building there are a considerable number of windows at both ground and first floor level (17 and 30 respectively), as well as one door at ground and one at first floor level. The plans show all windows in the flank elevations being of obscure glass.
Internally, at ground floor level, the plans show an entrance lobby leading to a main meeting hall (approx. 22m x 6m able to accommodate at least 80 people on seats), with toilets and a kitchen. At first floor level stairs lead up to a library, administrative office and toilet, with an L-shaped evening education hall taking up the bulk of that floor. If this hall were to be partitioned, two separate halls would be created (approx. 10m x 9m and 22m x 6m accommodating about 70 and 80 people respectively).
Relevant Planning History
In December 1994 planning permission was granted for the change of use of Nos. 4-5 Cowley Mill Road to Muslim community centre (ref. 48098/93/790) replacing the Islamic Education Society’s existing premises at No. 9 Cowley Mill Road.
Conditions were attached to this permission in order to safeguard the amenity of adjoining residents. These included, restricting the use to public worship or religious instruction for a maximum of 35 people at any one time, limiting the hours of use, and requiring parking and landscaping to be carried out.
Planning Standards and Policies
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 16 The relevant policies in the Central Hillingdon Local Plan (CHLP) are T12 (car parking provision), UL1 (new development to make a positive contribution to improving character/appearance of the area), UL2 (development to harmonise with existing features of the area), UL4 (new planting required for new development), UL21 (restrictions on uses which may cause noise nuisance), UL23 (restrictions on uses that may pollute air, land or water), EM2 (religious buildings criteria), EM4 (meeting halls/community centres), and DIS1 and DIS2 (people with disabilities).
Policy BE9 (development to harmonise with existing features of the area), BE12 (new development within residential areas to improve amenity/character of area), BE13 (daylight and sunlight), BE14 (loss of residential amenity through bulk, proximity and siting of new development), BE16 (adequate levels of privacy to be secured), BE30 (new planting required for new development), OE1 (environmental considerations such as noise, traffic generation and congestion), OE3 (restrictions on uses which may cause noise nuisance), OE6 (restrictions on uses that may pollute air, land or water), R11 (religious buildings criteria) and R12 (meeting halls/community centres) and AM15 (car parking provision) of the Draft UDP as proposed to be modified are relevant.
Main Planning Issues
The Council has recognised that there is a need for a Muslim community and cultural facility in this part of South Uxbridge, originally allowing the temporary use of No. 9 Cowley Mill road for this purpose (the Secretary of State subsequently allowed the permanent use of No. 9 on appeal, ref. 9163H/92/269) and subsequently allowing the use of nos. 4-5.
However, Policy EM2 of the CHLP (reiterated in Policy R11 of the Draft UDP) states that in considering new proposals regard should be had to: i) the provision of adequate on site parking ii) complimenting the style and appearance of neighbouring properties iii) not prejudicing the amenities of neighbouring occupiers
These are the main considerations in relation to this application and they are expanded upon below. i) the provision of adequate on-site parking
The Council’s parking standard for places of worship is 1 space for every 10 seats or worshippers, whilst the standard for a community centre is 1 space for every 5 seats or worshippers plus 1 space for every 3 staff. The application does not state the number of worshippers, however, the building would be able to accommodate around 230 people seated in the various halls. In addition two full-time and two part-time staff are proposed, therefore the car parking requirement would be between 23 and 47 spaces.
The plans show eight marked out spaces for the premises, four of which provide a substandard area for manoeuvring and would therefore be unlikely to be utilised. Consequently the proposal is woefully short of off-street parking and given the apparent
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 17 problems with parking associated with the existing premises, it is likely that the proposal would result in further on-street parking, thereby restricting the flow of traffic and causing a hazard to users of the public highway. ii) complimenting the style and appearance of neighbouring properties
The neighbouring properties are predominantly Victorian (19th century) terraces and semi-detached houses, though adjacent to No. 5 there is a modern housing association development. These buildings tend to have hipped roofs with the pitch of the roof sloping away from the road, thereby reducing the impact upon the street.
The scale of the proposed development is not in keeping with the adjoining properties. The building would have a gable-end facing the street, and so the bulk would be greater than the adjoining properties. Whilst the front elevation would appear awkward, with the first floor projecting over the area marked out for parking. The overall appearance from the street would be that of a substantial building, of a commercial appearance out of keeping with the small residential units in the immediate vicinity.
Although there are some industrial buildings in the vicinity, the Hale Hamilton Valve works relates more to Cowley Road being separated from the residential part of Cowley Mill Road by a service road, whilst the gas holders are to the rear of the residential units and do not form part of the Cowley Mill Road frontage. iii) not prejudicing the amenities of neighbouring occupiers
There are a number of factors that need to be considered in terms of the impact of the development upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers. These include the impact of general comings and goings and use of the premises (including noise, disturbance and congestion), and the impact of the physical structure on neighbouring properties (including bulk, height, dominance, loss of light, and overshadowing).
In both the Secretary of State’s decision on No. 9 and the subsequent Council approval on Nos. 4-5, it was considered that restrictions on the numbers using the premises, the limited hours of operation and the quiet nature of the religious and educational operations would ensure that the impact upon this predominantly residential area would not be significant.
The form of development that is now proposed differs significantly from the previously approved change of use of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The earlier approval retained the existing buildings, the internal layout of which restricted the numbers that could use the premises as did a planning condition (no more than 35 people at any one time). In addition, it was considered that activity during the short daily period of use (about 2 hours a day) would be insignificant in comparison to the business of the road and the noise emanating from passing vehicles. However, concerns raised by objectors suggest that the building is being used outside the approved hours and that parking has not been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The new development would only exacerbate these apparent problems and would result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to adjoining residents.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 18 The proposal provides a purpose built centre, of a much larger scale than the existing building and allows a significant increase in the numbers that can use the premises. It is also likely that the various halls would be used more intensively than the existing building, not only for religious worship and education, but other functions such as weddings. It is considered that this would result in increased noise and disturbance, as a result of increased comings and goings, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties. In addition, in warm weather it is likely that the windows to the building would be open, further affecting the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
The Council’s Design Guide on House Extensions would be relevant to any rear extension associated with these former dwellings. This states that ‘the overall size, bulk, massing and siting of an extension along with the positioning of windows should not cause a material loss of amenity to adjoining properties by reason of overshadowing, loss of light, outlook, visual intrusion or overlooking’ (para. A3). The erection of a two storey building situated within 1m off adjoining properties and projecting the full depth of the plot would clearly have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents.
The proposal would be overdominant and visually intrusive when viewed from the adjoining residential properties and result in loss of outlook, in particular to occupiers of Nos. 3 and 6A. In addition the proposal would result in overshadowing and loss of light to No. 6A during the morning and to No. 3 during the afternoon. Although the windows on the side elevation are shown to be glazed, it is likely that during warm weather they would be open, and would therefore result in overlooking and loss of amenity to occupiers of the adjoining residential properties.
Public Consultation
16 adjoining occupiers and two residents associations were consulted. 22 individual replies were received, as well as one reply from a residents association, the contents of which have been summarised above in the report.
Conclusion
The proposal clearly represents an overdevelopment of the site, would be overdominant in relation to the adjoining properties, would be likely to result in an overintensive use of the site, would generate increased noise and disturbance and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the area.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 19 Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5 and the Draft UDP as proposed to be modified
In addition the following documents were also used:- a) 22 letters making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report)
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 20 CONTACT OFFICER : ROB CLARKE EXTENSION :3835
Application No. Location Proposal
3. 51684A/98/473 LAND BETWEEN 65 AND ERECTION OF 12 69 ST PETERS ROAD, FLATS FOR THE COWLEY ELDERLY AND RELOCATION OF CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND (Date of receipt: 3/3/98) Drawing(s) No. 9700128/A/21, 9700128/A/22, 9700128/A/23, 9700128/A/24, 9700128/A/25, 9700128/A/26.
UDP Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan. As such, if members resolve to grant planning permission, the application will have to be referred to the Secretary of State who has the right to call the application in.
In 1997, under reference 51684/97/234, outline planning permission was granted for 12 elderly persons flats on the same site. The previously approved plans detailed two blocks of two storey flats, each in the shape of a letter “L” linked centrally, forming a single building sited centrally within the site. The proposed development was set back so as to respect the building line along St Peters Road – 25 metres from the back edge of the pavement.
The current proposal is for the same number of flats as previously approved, however of a revised design. The principle changes are understood to be as a result of making the units of an “Eco” nature.
The development will utilise 0.67 acres (0.27 hectares) of land, leaving 0.1 hectares of land for a children’s playground. The submitted plans demonstrate that a development achieves acceptable standards of layout and design, whilst ensuring a re-provision of the children’s play area. Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable providing 12 units of affordable housing for the elderly.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 21 2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That members resolve for the purposes of Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, to authorise the carrying out of the development subject to the application being referred to the Secretary of State under the Departures procedures.
(ii) That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning Services to grant planning permission in accordance with the conditions set out below, subject to the Secretary of State not issuing a direction to call the application in.
1. (B1) Standard Time Limit 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B5) New Planting 2. (B5) Standard 3. (B6) New Planting 3. (B6) Standard 4. (B8) Parking Arrangements 4. (B8) Standard 5. Prior to development work commencing, 5. To ensure that the full details of the boundary treatments privacy of adjoining throughout the site shall be submitted to, occupiers is not and approved in writing by, the Local prejudiced and to Planning Authority. The approved ensure a satisfactory boundary works shall be implemented and secure finish to prior to the occupation of any of the the development that dwellings hereby permitted and thereafter will not detract from permanently retained at the height the visual amenities approved. of the adjoining land. 7. (B16) Details/Samples to be submitted 7. (B16) Standard 8. (A37) Dustbin siting 8. (A37) Standard 9. (E5) No additional bedrooms 9. (E5) Standard 10. The flats hereby permitted shall be 10. The scheme does not occupied by at least one person who is 55 afford adequate years or more in age. This restriction shall provision of parking not however apply to any successor and amenity space entitled to a tenancy of a flat who at the for use as general date of succession is under the age of 55 needs housing. years, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 11. Prior to the flats hereby approved being 11. To ensure that occupied, the play area detailed on the adequate play approved drawings shall be implemented provision is made for in accordance with an approved scheme local people. to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. 12. (D1) No additional windows. 12. (D1) Standard Facing ... south or north.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 22 INFORMATIVES
1. (14) Compliance with CPPS legislation. 2. (3) Rights of light. 3. (25) Compliance with legislation administered by Building Control.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.677 hectares 0.27 acres
DENSITY: 17.7 habitable 43 hrp hectare room per acre
CAR PARKING: Proposed: 12 Required:
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT:
CONSULTATIONS: No. consulted: No. of replies: 146 To be reported
THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
A departure from the development plan.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer To be reported. Housing Services Fully support the proposal. Education Services To be reported.
Under the previous application the Director of Education advised: -
That although the development is to provide for elderly accommodation, it may still have an effect upon the demand for school places in the local area. The dwellings that are vacated by the elderly residents may be rehabilitated by families with children who did not previously live in the area, and will therefore require school places.
12 family units vacated will generate an estimated child yield of 17 children - 6 under 5 years of age, 7 of primary age and 4 of secondary age.
Having regard to the availability of school places it is likely that children of junior age could be accommodated, but if children of infant age who did not previously live in the area were to require places, this may prove problematic. The nearest secondary school is Evelyns Community, this does have some spare capacity at present.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 23 (4) REPORT
The Site
The site falls within the ownership of the Council.
The application relates to an area of open land on St Peters Road, Cowley. The site is relatively level and laid to grass with a path crossing it from north to south - linking St Peters Road to St Christopher’s Road. Part of the park is fenced off providing for an enclosed children’s play area with play equipment within it.
To the north, south and west of the site are houses (on the western side between the site and the first house is an electricity substation), to the east is a farm track and open land beyond. On the north-western boundary of the site is the road frontage to St Peters Road. The site is located on a bend in the road.
St Peters Road has a relatively high levels of observed on-street parking, particularly at the weekends and in the evening.
The Proposal
The application is submitted by the Hillingdon Property Consultancy and seeks to provide 12 flats for use by the elderly. The Council Housing Services Department proposes the Development.
This application seeks full planning permission. The application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan and therefore will have to be referred to the Secretary of State if members are minded to grant consent.
The submitted plans detail two detached blocks of flats sited side by side on land to the east of the existing footpath. Access to the flats is via a single point from St Peters Road. To the west of the footpath it is proposed to relocate the children’s play area.
Each of the proposed blocks of flats is in the shape of the letter “T”, the forward most wall aligns with the front wall of the neighbouring residence at 63/65 St Peters Road. Between the flats and the road is proposed a communal parking area accommodating a total of 12 cars, this area is enclosed by landscaping. Both blocks of flats are of the same design, containing 6 self-contained one-bedroom units in each. The flats are for elderly people being built by the Council’s Housing Services. Internally each flat has a bedroom, living room, bathroom and kitchen plus a balcony. The principal windows to the flats face east and west.
In elevation treatment the flats seek to respect the character of surrounding properties by using gable end wall and similar fenestration detailing.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 24 The buildings are designed to an “Eco” standard. This means in other things extra thick walls and insulation to ensure energy efficiency. At present re using water to flush toilets is also being considered.
Relevant Planning History
In 1997, under reference 51684/97/234, outline planning permission was granted for 12 elderly persons flats on the same site. This permission was issued following referral to the Secretary of State, who chose not to intervene in the Council’s resolution to grant planning permission. The previously approved plans detailed two blocks of two storey flats, each in the shape of a letter “L” linked centrally, forming a single building sited centrally within the site. The proposed development was set back so as to respect the building line along St Peters Road – 25 metres from the back edge of the pavement.
Planning Standards and Policies
The adopted development plan for the area is the Central Hillingdon Local Plan (CHLP). On the proposals map for the plan, the application site is shown as falling within the developed area.
The following policies from the CHLP are considered relevant:-
Policy UL1 requires all new development to make a positive contribution to improving the character and appearance of the area.
Policy UL2 require the layout of the development to harmonise with existing features of the area which are desirable to retain.
Policy UL3 relates to landscaping.
Policy UL7 requires reasonable standards of privacy and amenity space to be provided.
Policy UL9 concerns building densities, which are expected to take place at 50 habitable rooms per acre. The prime determinant of an appropriate density is the quality of the housing layout / design having regard to it compatibility with the surrounding area.
Policy T2 provides that the transportation effects of development will be assessed, and permission will not be granted for a proposal which would be detrimental to the efficient and safe functioning of the road hierarchy, or which would prejudice the free flow of traffic or pedestrian or highway safety.
Policy T12 requires parking to be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 25 Policy H3 places a presumption in favour of the residential use of land within the plan area where this would not conflict with other policies.
The Deposit Draft of the Unitary Development Plan has reached a relatively advanced stage in its process, accordingly its policies as proposed to be adopted should be given considerable weight in determining the current proposal. The relevant policies from the plan are: -
R4 The Local Planning Authority will not normally grant planning permission for proposals which involve the loss of land used (or where the last authorised use) for recreational open space (including publicly accessible open space and playing fields, private or school playing fields, private or public allotments,) particularly if there is (or would be) a local deficiency in accessible open space.
In assessing proposals the Local Planning Authority also will have regard to:
(a) Any local deficiency of accessible open space in terms of the hierarchy in table 9.1:
(b) The suitability of the site for other types of open land uses in light of the advice from those departments providing leisure and recreation facilities, the London Council for Sport and Recreation and other representative bodies;
(c) The ecological, structural and other functions of the open space and the extent to which these are compatible with the proposed development.
(d) Whether the users of the facility can be satisfactorily accommodated elsewhere in the vicinity.
Policy BE9 - requires new development to harmonise with the local area, facilitating good standards of layout.
Policy H4 - concerns density requiring that a scheme has to demonstrate it can achieve appropriate standards of layout in design if it is to exceed 125 habitable rooms per hectare.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 26 Policy H9 - states new residential development should include affordable housing, where a residential development of more than 10 units is proposed the Local Planning Authority will enter into negotiations and where appropriate legal agreements with developers to obtain the highest proportion of affordable housing.
Other relevant policies are: - OE5, H6A, BE12, BE13, BE14, BE15, BE16, BE30, AM6 and AM15 .
Detailed standards on layout and design are contained within in the Council’s design guide Residential Layouts and House Design.
Main Planning Issues
The determining planning issues are considered to be: -
(i) The principle of residential development on this area of open space.
(ii) The impact of traffic on St Peters Road.
(iii) The quality of layout and other matters.
The above issues should be considered in the context that there is already a valid grant of planning permission for 12 flats on the site. In effect, the current proposal brings forward changes principally relating to the design.
(i) In light of the previous grant of planning permission, the principle of the development has largely been determined. Notwithstanding this, set out below is the relevant considerations in terms of the policy background.
Policy R4 (see previous text under Planning Policies and Standards) details that planning permission will not normally be granted for the loss of public open space, particularly if there is, or would be, a deficiency in accessible open space.
In considering the proposal it is necessary to have regard to the fact that the development proposes a partial development of the land. The existing open space has a total area of 0.37 hectares, of which 0.27 of a hectare is proposed for development; leaving 0.1 hectare for the re-provision of a children’s play area. As such, it is considered the determining issue relates to the impact of the loss of 0.27 hectare of open space.
In considering policy R4, regard needs be had to points a - d from the policy (which are set out below). After each point the relevant comment in respect of the current proposal is set out in the italic text.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 27 (a) Any local deficiency of accessible open space in terms of the hierarchy in table 9.1:
Within Fig 9 to the Deposit Draft of the UDP, the site is identified as falling within an area which is more than 1.2 km / 0.75 miles from open space of District or Metropolitan significance. From the examples quoted within the plan, these areas range in size from between 19ha and 313ha.
The open space affected by this proposal has an area of 0.37 hectares and, as such, can not contribute to meeting the identified shortfall. Neither would its partial development lead to a further shortfall. The lands principle function - in terms of the local space hierarchy set out in the UDP, is as a “small local park”, essentially serving people living within 400 metres (1/4 mile). The fact that the proposed development maintains a play area, ensures that the proposal will not result in a deficiency locally in the 400m (1/4 mile) distance for properties from a “Small local park”. Of note, there is also a park to the rear of New Peachey Lane. Subject to the re-provision of a play area, the current development will not create a deficiency in the provision of a play area for children locally, a planning condition requiring the re-provision of the play area is recommended.
(b) The suitability of the site for other types of open land uses in light of the advice from those departments providing leisure and recreation facilities, the London Council for Sport and Recreation and other representative bodies;
Recreation Services raised no objections in respect of the previous application.
(c) The ecological, structural and other functions of the open space and the extent to which these are compatible with the proposed development.
The site, at present, is of limited ecological value. As such, the proposed development, subject to appropriate landscaping, should not prejudice aspect.
The principle function of the open space is as a local children’s play area, As such, subject to the re-provision of a fenced play area, it is not considered that the development will undermine the main function of the land. However it is acknowledged that the proposal will result in a reduction of .27 hectares of the amount of open space available for general play and recreation.
(d) Whether the users of the facility can be satisfactorily accommodated elsewhere in the vicinity.
The existing play area is to be relocated to the west side of the site, thereby ensuring existing users are still accommodated. Of note, there is also a local park off New Peachy Lane, which can also be used.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 28 The principle of the loss of part of this area of open space needs to be weighed against the positive benefits, which will flow from the development in the form of achieving affordable homes for local elderly people. Having regard to the fact that the development maintains a play area, the principle of the development providing 12 units of affordable housing for the elderly in the Borough is considered to advance reasonable justification in terms of policy R4.
(ii) The second issue relates to the traffic impact of the proposal. St Peters Road itself is relatively extensively parked, particularly in the evenings and at the weekends, which gives rise to a restricted carriage width.
Given that the proposed development is for elderly person’s accommodation, the traffic generation will be typically lower than that of family housing. The submitted plans propose 12 parking spaces – i.e. one per a flat.
Under the previous application, a standard of 0.75 spaces per a unit was applied. The current proposal exceeds this. However, it falls short of the general needs housing standards of 1.6 parking spaces per a flat. The 12 parking spaces provided are only considered adequate subject to a planning condition restricting the age of people who can occupy the flats to 55 years and over, thereby ensuring that accommodation is for elderly persons only.
Given the previous grant of planning permission for the same number of flats, the current proposal in effect proposes a change in design affording more off-street parking. As such, it is not considered there need be an objection having regard to issues of traffic generation.
(iii) The final issue area relates to the quality of the layout and other environmental matters.
The application has been subject to extensive pre-application negotiations. The flats are sited so as to ensure that the Councils standards on overlooking and overdomination are achieved. Wherever possible, windows are sited in the east and west elevation - thereby minimising the impact on the neighbouring properties.
The scheme allows for sufficient setting to the buildings to accommodate substantive landscaping with usable amenity areas. The amenity areas are supplemented by virtue of each flat having a balcony.
In terms of density the scheme achieves the same habitable room count as the previous scheme, which is 17 habitable rooms per acre. This is relatively low in comparison to the surrounding area.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 29 The proposed built form has been sited to ensure that the building line along St Peters Road is respected. At there closest, the flats are 22m from the back edge of the pavement. This distance ensures that the development does not appear unduly intrusive, maintaining the open aspect of the corner.
The application site covers both the proposed development site and the area over which it is proposed to re-provide the children’s playground. This ensures that a planning condition can be applied requiring the playground’s re-provision. Of note the line of the existing footpath remains unaltered.
The proposed layout is considered to demonstrate that a development of 12 units can be achieved and designed to accord with the Council’s adopted standards for garden area, overlooking distances, parking and overdomination distances. Having regard to all relevant matters, the scheme is considered to achieve acceptable standards of layout/design. Detailed matters of landscaping, materials and boundary treatments are recommended to be dealt with by way of planning conditions.
Public Consultation
Any comments received will be reported at the time of the committee meeting.
Conclusion
The submitted plans demonstrate that a development of 12 units can achieve acceptable standards of layout and design, whilst ensuring a re-provision of the children’s play area. Accordingly the proposal is considered acceptable providing 12 units of affordable housing for the elderly.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are:
Central Hillingdon Local plan. Deposit Draft of the UDP, plus modification. Initial Development Plan for Middlesex.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 30 CONTACT OFFICER: JIM READ EXTENSION: 2397
Application No. Location Proposal
4. 32520D/98/217 ROSE COTTAGE, ERECTION OF A PACKET BOAT LANE, SINGLE-STOREY REAR COWLEY EXTENSION TO EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE (Date of receipt: 5/2/98) Drawing Nos. 112/01 & 112/02 received on 5/2/98
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Green Belt
(1) SUMMARY
A previous application at this site was submitted for the creation of two bedrooms in the roof space involving the raising of the existing roof ridge and the installation of two dormers in the rear and one at front. This was refused and the resultant appeal dismissed on the grounds that the proposal would be detrimental to the scale, form and proportions of the existing building and the character and appearance of the Cowley Lock Conservation Area. The proposal has been redesigned in this submission and is considered to be acceptable for conditional approval to be recommended.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15)External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15)Standard 3. (D1) No Additional windows or 3. To preserve the cottage doors delete ‘facing .....’ and appearance of the dwelling replace with ‘on any elevation’. and to respect the character of Cowley Lock Conservation Area. 4. The caravan currently parked at the 4. To ensure that any front of the dwelling and used as detrimental impact upon the temporary accommodation shall be visual amenity of the Cowley removed and the front garden Lock Conservation Area is reinstated within one year from the minimised. date of this permission or upon completion of the building works, whichever is the sooner. 5. (B8) Parking 5. (B8) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 31 (3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.19 Hectare
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 49.2m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 2 No. of replies: 0
*THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
*(a) being within or affecting a conservation area
Comments:
No replies received.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Canal Locks Conservation Panel Comment awaited
Cowley Tenants and Residents No reply received Association
(4) REPORT
The Site
A triangular-shaped plot of land approx. 0.19ha in size, lying on the north side of Packet Boat Lane between the Frays River and the Grand Union Canal. The site lies within the Cowley Lock Conservation Area. Within the site there exists a simply-constructed single storey cottage which appears to date from the turn of the century and to have been constructed in three stages to provide three main rooms together with a bathroom and scullery in a lean-to section at the rear. The simple proportions, materials and architectural detailing are typical of a modest rural dwelling of this type. The cottage itself occupies a prominent position within the plot and its rural character contrasts strongly with the suburban style of the nearest neighbouring dwellings and makes a positive contribution to the semi-rural character of the Conservation Area.
The Application
Permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension under a pitched roof, plus a detached single garage, also under a pitched roof. The materials will match the existing and the design/elevational treatment will be in conformity with the turn of the century modest rural ‘cottage style’ of the house. The ‘footprint’ of the building is increased only marginally and, in any event, the new building is at the rear of the house. The garage has been sited as close as reasonably possible to the house so that the
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 32 remainder of the site, approximately two-thirds of the total area, will remain open, as the private garden.
Relevant Planning History
A previous application (ref. 32520B/96/1925) was refused permission on 18/3/97 and the resultant appeal dismissed on 23/9/97. The application was for the creation of two bedrooms in the roof space involving the raising of the existing roof ridge and the installation of two dormers in the rear elevation and one long dormer on the front. The proposal was refused on the basis that its design and bulk would be detrimental to the scale, form and properties of the existing building and the character and appearance of the Cowley Lock Conservation Area.
Planning Standards and Policies
(i) Policies GB2, UL1, UL3, UL8 and UL14 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan concerning development in green belts and the need for the design of new development to respect the Council’s policies and guidance in these matters.
(ii) Policies OL4, BE10 and BE4 of the Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified) concerning development in the Green Belt and the appropriate design of extensions in Conservation Areas.
Main Planning Issues
The proposal currently under consideration has taken account of the reasons why the previous application was refused and the appeal dismissed. The modest rural character of the existing dwelling has been reflected in the external appearance of both the proposed extension and detached garage and the amount/scale of new building proposed is not considered to create an unduly built-up appearance within the site which would be contrary to Green Belt Protection Policies.
There is a caravan currently parked in the front garden (close to the place where the garage is proposed to be erected). The caravan has been positioned there to provide temporary accommodation during the refurbishment/building phase. Its temporary use is considered acceptable, but a condition is recommended to ensure that the caravan is removed within one year or upon completion of the building works, whichever is the sooner.
Conclusion
Given that the proposal in this situation has been redesigned to take account of the reasons for the previous refusal, I recommend conditional approval on this occasion.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 33 Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5, UDP as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 34 CONTACT OFFICER: RICHARD PHILLIPS EXTENSION: 3836
Application No. Location Proposal
5. 36010C/97/1517 LAND AT THE REAR OF RESERVED MATTERS 1-23 CHERRY GROVE, (DETAILS OF DESIGN, 6-28 MORELLO AVENUE LANDSCAPING AND AND 122-128 WEST EXTERNAL DRAYTON ROAD, APPEARANCE) IN HILLINGDON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 1 OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REF. 36010B/94/1005 DATED 21/9/94; ERECTION OF A PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED BUNGALOWS INCLUDING GARAGES WITH ACCESS FROM MORELLO AVENUE. (Date of receipt: 19/9/97) Drawing(s) No. 1 and 2 (Last amended plans received on 12/3/98. received: 12/3/98)
Central Hillingdon Local Plan/UDP: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
This is a reserved matters application seeking permission for the design, external appearance and landscaping for a scheme for two semi-detached bungalows on a backland site which has already been approved in principle. It is considered that these details are acceptable.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B16) Details/Samples to be 2. (B16) Standard submitted 3. (B6) New Planting 3. (B6) Standard 4. (B8) Parking Arrangements 4. (B8) Standard 5. (B11) Visibility for Private Access 5. (B11) Standard 6. (B14) Fencing 6. (B14) Standard 7. (D1) No additional Windows or 7. (D1) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 35 Doors facing “Morello Avenue and Cherry Grove” 8. (D9) Enlargement to houses 8. To prevent overlooking consisting of Roof Additions/ of adjoining properties Alterations 9. (E4) Loss of Integral Garage 9. (E4) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. Property rights/Rights of light. 2. Crossings. 3. Legislation administered by Building Control.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.19 Hectares 0.46 Acres
SITE COVERAGE: 12%
CAR PARKING: Lost 0 Provided 4 Required 4
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 222m2
TREES: EXISTING: 0 TO BE RETAINED: 0
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 38 No. of replies: 2
Comments:
1. Proposed development will involve creation of access road immediately to the rear of Council garages in Morello Avenue. As these have rear windows a wall, fence or other form of security is required to prevent vandalism.
2. One letter expresses concern whilst the other objects to the proposal on the grounds that the rear gardens of adjoining properties will be made less secure. Query raised whether plans include new dividing wall between gardens and development.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 36 3. Objection raised to proposal as due to long gardens of properties in Morello Avenue, character of area is one of spaciousness and quiet with no overlooking. More dwellings will alter this character. Already experience additional noise created by alteration of Merryman’s roundabout to a cross-roads.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application site measures approximately 17 by 94 metres deep and being located at the rear of 1-23 Cherry Grove, 6-28 Morello Avenue and 122-128 West Drayton Road, is effectively land-locked. It is presently largely overgrown but presumably forms part of adjoining residential curtilages. The application site also includes part of the curtilage of 6 Morello Avenue which would be utilised to provide the necessary vehicular access. To the south of this property are six garages with a separate access also being taken from Morello Avenue.
The Proposal
This is a reserved matters application seeking approval for the design, landscaping and external appearance of the pair of semi-detached bungalows, the principle means of access and siting of which was granted permission on 21 September 1994 (Application No. 36010B/94/1005 refers).
Relevant Planning History
Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a pair of semi-detached bungalows in December 1985 taking access immediately to the south of the garages (Application No. 36010/85/878 refers). In March 1994, a similar scheme was refused due to modified standards regarding the access (Application No. 36010A/93/1841 refers). Outline permission which forms part of this application, which takes its access to the north of the garages, was granted on 21 September 1994 (Application No. 36010B/94/1005 refers).
Planning Standards and Policies
Central Hillingdon Local Plan Policies H3, T12, UL1, UL2, UL4, UL7 and UL9 Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified Policies BE9, BE12, BE13, BE14, BE15, BE16, H4 and AM13A
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 37 Main Planning Issues
The suitability of the principle of erecting two semi-detached bungalows on this site was established on 21 September 1994 with the granting of outline planning permission. The matters that were reserved for subsequent approval were the design, external appearance and landscaping of the proposal.
This scheme differs from the outline in that the detached garage has been repositioned from the rear of Nos. 3 and 5 Cherry Grove to the rear of Nos. 122 and 124 West Drayton Road. As a result adjoining residents were consulted but no objections to this change were received and it is considered acceptable.
In these circumstances, the relevant matters for consideration with this application are the suitability of the design and external appearance of the bungalows, in terms of their impact upon the visual appearance of this vicinity and the amenities of adjoining residents and the suitability of the landscaping scheme.
In terms of the suitability of the design and external appearance of these proposed properties within their environmental context, this is a backland site. As such, the proposed properties would bear little visual relationship with surrounding houses and would be largely obscured within the street scene. Furthermore, the bulk, proportions and detailing of the bungalows are considered acceptable, producing an attractive staggered front elevation with projecting hipped roofs.
As regards the impact upon surrounding residents, being bungalows, any loss of sunlight from rear gardens would be minimal and the mass of the proposed dwellings would not result in the development appearing as visually intrusive or overbearing from adjoining residential properties. In terms of the potential for overlooking, all windows to the proposed bungalows are positioned on the ground floor, the boundaries of the site, including the access road would be marked by a 1.8 metre high fence or wall. As such, there would be no potential for any loss of privacy and any new windows or first floor extensions are to be controlled by condition.
The landscaping scheme is considered acceptable in order to enable the new bungalows to blend in with their surroundings.
Public Consultation
1. Amended plans have been received which effectively deal with the first point by providing a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence immediately adjacent to the garages. 2. Due to the natural surveillance afforded by the two new bungalows and the 1.8 metre high fencing adjoining rear gardens, it is considered that security would not be adversely affected. 3. In terms of point three, the principle of this development has already been granted.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 38 Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this application is recommended for approval.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:
5
In addition the following documents were also used:
(a) 2 letters making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
(b) Number of statutory consultations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
(c) Draft UDP as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 39 CONTACT OFFICER: DEREK WHITE EXTENSION: 2275
Application No. Location Proposal
6. 3505AT/98/61 SWAKELEYS SCHOOL, ERECTION OF A CLIFTON GARDENS, SINGLE STOREY HILLINGDON TEACHING BLOCK (Date of receipt: 19/1/98) Drawing(s) No. (Last amended info. received: 687/A/01, 9/3/98) 687/A/TB/01D received on 19/1/98 and letters dated 6/3/98, 16/2/98, 11/2/98, 16/1/98 and 16/3/98.
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Green Belt
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey teaching block which will be attached to the existing school buildings. The design of the building is acceptable as it satisfies the criteria for extensions in the Green Belt. The site provides car parking for the existing and the proposed buildings in accordance with the Council’s car parking standards.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B16) Materials 2. (B16) Standard 3. (B25) External openings/ 3. (B25) Standard machinery
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property rights/rights of light 2. (10) Disabled persons 3. (14) Compliance with legislation administered by PPS 4. (15) Compliance with Environmental Health legislation 5. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 40 (3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 6.06 Hectares 14.9 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost 0 Provided 56 Required 43
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 220m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: No. of replies: 0 Site notice only
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection but concern about parking problems during construction and as a result of Sixth Form students driving to school.
Oak Farm Residents Association No objection.
Education Services No objection
(4) REPORT
The Site
Swakeleys School forms part of a large site shared with Abbotsfield School comprising a total area of some 6.06 hectares (14.97 acres). An area of open land used as playing fields forms the northern part of the site and it is bounded to the west by Clifton Gardens from which both schools are accessed.
The whole site forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
The Proposal
Planning application is sought for the erection of a single storey teaching block for the Sixth Form of Swakeleys School. The project is being funded by the Funding Agency for Schools (FAS) and is required for September 1998.
The building measures 24.7m long, 14.4m wide and has a part mono-pitched, part flat roof which rises to a maximum height of 5m to provide an office and 3 classrooms. The total floorspace provided is 220m2.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 41 Relevant Planning History
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the relocation of an existing car park and the erection of a two storey teaching block, new sports hall, together with internal alterations at the school (LPA refs 95/630 and 95/1213). The works have been carried out.
Planning Standards and Policies
Central Hillingdon Local Plan Policies T12 (car parking), UL4 (landscaping/ features of merit).
Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified - Policies: 0L4 (acceptable Green Belt uses), AM15 (car parking), BE10 (design of new development).
Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are:
I) The impact and acceptability of the proposed development in this Green Belt location.
II) The design and position of the proposed buildings in relation to the existing school layout with regard to car parking, circulation and landscaping.
With regard to the first issue, regard must be paid to both National and Development Plans policy governing the Green Belt. The revised PPG2 makes clear that “development by institutions” is subject to the same controls as other development in the Green Belt such that it is not an “appropriate use”. However the draft and Revised Unitary Development Plan recognises that extensions or replacement of buildings on existing sites within the Green Belt are not always inappropriate and suggests a series of criteria to which proposals should conform. In particular, Policy OL4 of the Unitary Development Plan stipulates that any development should not:
1) Result in a disproportionate change in the bulk and character of the original building;
2) Significantly increase the built-up appearance of the site;
3) Having regard to the character of the surrounding area, the development would not injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt by reason of siting, materials, design, traffic or activities generated.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 42 With this in mind, it is clear that the proposed extension is modest in size and acceptable in design when compared to the existing buildings on the site. In addition, the building will be located at the southern end of the site but within the existing built envelope. These factors, coupled with the fact that the extension will be lower in height than many existing buildings on the site, means that the built-up appearance of the site would not be significantly increased or the visual amenities of the Green Belt harmed.
The proposed extension is being funded by the FAS who scrutinise proposals to ensure that adequate teaching space and hard/soft play areas are provided. The proposal will not result in the loss of any trees or landscaping and the site provides off-street car parking in excess of the number required in the Council’s revised car parking standards policy.
The scheme is therefore acceptable.
Public Consultation
No letters have been received in response to the public consultation exercise.
Conclusion
The proposal is acceptable in principle in the Green Belt. The building is acceptable in design terms and would provide adequate off-street parking in accordance with adopted standards.
I recommend accordingly, subject to conditions.
The background document used in the preparation of this report is that numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:
5.
In addition the following document was also used:
Draft UDP as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 43 CONTACT OFFICER: JIM READ EXTENSION: 2397
Application No. Location Proposal
7. 20398D/97/2154 THE BUNGALOW, RENEWAL OF PLANNING GRANVILLE ROAD, PERMISSION REF. HILLINGDON 20398B/96/1640 DATED 8/1/97; CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL CLASS A1 TO PLACE OF WORSHIP CLASS D1 (Date of receipt: 17/12/97) Drawing No. 1:1250 scale plan received on 17/12/97 and letter dated 15/12/97
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Local Shopping Parade
(1) SUMMARY
This proposal was originally considered by the Sub-Committee on 7/1/97 and granted a one year temporary permission to enable its impact to be monitored and the situation reassessed upon renewal. It was considered at that time that the use could be carried out without unduly harming the retail function of Long Lane local shopping centre or causing detriment to the residential amenity of neighbours. Permanent permission is now recommended, with a condition controlling hours of use to ensure that any impacts on amenity and on parking are kept within specified limits.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The premises shall not be used 1. To protect the residential outside the hours of 05.45 and amenity of neighbours and to 16.30 Sundays and 19.30-22.00 avoid any increase in traffic Mondays-Saturdays without the congestion or on-street prior written consent of the Local parking problems which exist Planning Authority. in the vicinity during the working day. 2. The parking areas referred to in 2. To ensure that adequate planning application of facilities are provided. 203988/96/1640 shall be permanently retained and used for no other purpose.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 44 (3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 198m2
CAR PARKING: Lost: - Provided: 4 on site & Required: Considered public car sufficient in view parking nearby of nearby car park
PLOT RATIO:
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 73m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 12 No. of replies: 1
Comments:
Concern about ‘wailing and other spoken sounds’
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Hillingdon Chamber of Trade No reply Commerce & Industry
Oak Farm Residents Association No objection in principle, but reservations expressed about parking
Area Engineer No objection subject to imposition of conditions controlling hours of use.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application site is a single storey bungalow building located on the north side of Granville Road, Hillingdon some 20m east of its junction with Long Lane. The site, which was last used as a shop, lies to the rear of ground floor commercial premises with residential maisonettes above fronting Long Lane and marks the boundary between commercial development in Long Lane and residential housing in Granville Road and Victoria Avenue. The site lies within the Long Lane local shopping parade.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 45 The Proposal
Permission is sought by a Christian denomination known as “The Brethren” to continue to use the premises as a place of worship, originally granted a one year temporary approval by the Sub-Committee on 7/1/97.
A supporting letter was submitted in the original application detailing the proposed use of the site, including its expected traffic generation. Of particular relevance were the following observations:-
“The gatherings are family occasions and therefore the cars arriving are well utilised; from experience, we would expect about 8 cars. The frontage would take 4 or 5 cars, there would be some on-street parking available without obstructing neighbours, and there is a public car park behind, approached through an adjacent alleyway. To complement this the property is well served by public transport.
The normal use pattern of the hall would be as follows:-
SUNDAY - Celebration of the Lord’s Supper at 6.00 am, attended by approximately 45 persons, including children Occasional gospel preaching at 2.30 p.m.
MONDAY - Prayer meeting at 7.15 p.m., attended by approximately 45 persons, including children
The Brethren do not let their halls for other activities, and as musical instruments are not used there is not likely to be any nuisance caused by noise from the building”.
On this occasion the applicants have stated that the parking of cars has caused no problem to themselves and they have not received any complaints from neighbours. They have requested a relaxation of the conditions controlling hours of use by means of the following suggestion:
Sundays 05.45-16.30 Mondays to Fridays 05.45-22.00, excluding 09.00-17.30
This is to allow irregular (i.e. infrequent) use of the premises which sometimes occurs outside the hours cited as the normal pattern of use. The applicants have stated that it would be impracticable to require prior written consent on every such occasion because the meetings concerned are usually arranged at very short notice.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 46 Relevant Planning Standards and Policies
(i) Residential Amenity: Policy UL21 of the CHLP and Policy OE1 of the UDP; (ii) Car Parking Provision: Policies T2 & T12 of the CHLP and Policies AM6 and AM15 of the UDP; (iii) Shopping Function: Policies S1 and S9 of the CHLP and Policies S7 and S9 of the UDP.
Main Planning Issues
(i) Loss of a Retail Unit
Adopted Council policy seeks to prohibit the change of use of shops in Local Parades unless it can be established that the loss of the unit will cause no material loss of retail vitality within the parade or the area generally.
It is considered that this part of Long lane has a sufficiently high percentage of retail uses to ensure that the loss of this one retail unit will have no material detriment to the retail vitality of the centre as a whole. As such, the loss of a retail unit is not considered contentious in this case.
(ii) Residential Amenity
It is proposed to use the premises for religious worship mainly at 6 am on Sunday mornings and by Monday evenings at 7.15 p.m. for up to 45 people. Although the applicants expect that these meetings will generate some eight cars, it is impossible for the Council to impose a condition to ensure that this number of vehicles is not exceeded. For this reason, the major concern is that the level of vehicle generation, particularly at 6 am on a Sunday morning may give rise to noise and disturbance to the detriment or the amenity or surrounding residential occupiers.
In this regard it should be noted that “The Brethren” were given planning permission in 1992 for the erection of a single storey hall for Christian worship on land at 127 Pole Hill Road, Hillingdon. This also is a predominantly residential area. In 1992 this permission was granted for a period of one year only in order the Council could monitor the impact of the use on the residential amenity of neighbours. Permanent planning permission was granted in 1994 as no complaints from residents were received and no noise or disturbance monitored by the Council. No complaints have been received since the grant of permanent permission either.
In view of the manner in which “The Brethren” have used both premises at 127 Pole Hill Road, and the application site, it is considered that a permanent permission should be granted for the Bungalow, subject to a condition controlling the hours at which the premises can be used (see below).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 47 (iii) Parking
The proposal involves provision for 4 car parking spaces at the front of the site and the applicants have stated their intention to use the public car park to the rear of the site. The Area Engineer is satisfied with this arrangement and has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to a condition controlling hours of use.
Public Consultation
One letter has been received from a neighbour and one response received from the Oak Farm Residents’ Association making the comments outlined above (see ‘Information’).
In relation to car parking generation, it is considered that the anticipated vehicle generation is relatively low and four car parking spaces are proposed at the front of the site and there is an existing public car park to its rear. The impact on on-street car parking should be minimal if the use is not carried out during the working day. Furthermore the noise emanating from this level of vehicle generation should also be minimal.
With regard to chanting and wailing noise emanating from the premises, the applicants have confirmed that the type of worship involves no musical instruments and given that this organisation has operated from a residential area in Pole Hill Road, Hillingdon since 1992 without noise complaint from residents, it is considered that this objection is unlikely to be valid.
Conclusion
Given the particular characteristics of this proposal, I consider that a grant of permanent permission is reasonable, subject to a revised condition controlling hours of use. The condition is less restrictive than previously by allowing evening use on weekdays and Saturdays, but represents a reasonable compromise which balances the residential amenity and parking concerns on the one hand, and the needs of the applicants for irregular/infrequent use of the premises outside the previously specified times on the other.
I therefore recommend conditional approval of this proposal.
The documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5 and the UDP (as proposed to be modified)
In addition, 2 letters were received making representations with the application; the contents of which are summarised above.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 48 CONTACT OFFICER: JIM READ EXTENSION: 2397
Application No. Location Proposal
8. 24446D/98/98 96/96A MIDHURST RETENTION OF 2 SELF- GARDENS CONTAINED FLATS HILLINGDON THROUGH CONVERSION (Date of receipt : 6.2.98) OF HOUSE (RETRO- SPECTIVE APPLICATION) Drawing No. PBC/196, un- numbered floor plans and site plan received 6.2.98)
Central Hillingdon Local Plan - Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
A retrospective application for the continued use of a single dwelling house as two self- contained flats was submitted to the Planning Department following discovery of the flat conversion by the Council Tax section of the Finance department. As the use appears to have been continuing for some years, has not caused any complaints by neighbours, and sufficient off-street car parking can be provided, conditional approval is recommended.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following condition:-
1. The parking provision for 4 1. To ensure that the proposal vehicles (2 at the front of the conforms with the off-street property and 2 in the double parking requirements of the garage at the rear) shown in the Local Planning Authority and submitted plans shall be to avoid any additional on- permanently retained for as long as street parking. the property continues to be occupied as two self-contained flats.
INFORMATIVE
1. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: Approx. 225m²
CAR PARKING: Lost: 0 Provided : 4 Required: 4
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 49 CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted 9 No. of replies 0
(4) REPORT
The Site
The site is an end-of-terrace two storey house in Midhurst Gardens, Hillingdon, adjacent to a public open space which fills a gap between houses in Midhurst Gardens, Grosvenor Crescent and Windsor Avenue.
The Proposal
Retrospective permission is sought for the continued use of the dwelling as two self- contained flats, one on each of the floors, with separate entrances to both through a door at the front. Two parking spaces exist at the front garden of the house, with two more available in a double garage sited at the rear of the back garden.
The application was requested by the Enforcement Officer following receipt of a memorandum about the flat conversion by an officer in the Council Tax Section of the Finance Department. The flats appear to have existed for some years, although precisely how long is difficult to quantify as documentary evidence of this is not available on the file.
Relevant Planning History
Planning permission was granted on 6.3.78 for the erection of single storey side and rear extension which were subsequently built and still exist. A condition was attached to that permission stating that the premises should be used solely in connection with the existing house as a single family dwelling.
Planning Standards and Policies
(i) Conversion of Houses to Flats : Policy H5 of the UDP as proposed to be modified : Policy H6 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan (CHLP);
(ii) Provision of Adequate Car Parking : Policy T12 of the CHLP/AM15 of the UDP;
(iiI) Provision of Amenity Space : Policy UL7 of the CHLP.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 50 Main Planning Issues
The proposal satisfies the Council’s requirements as sated in the planning standards and policies above with the exception of the private amenity space (i.e. garden). Strictly speaking this should be of the order of 80m² for a development of this size, whereas the available back garden area is approximately 56m². The Sub-Committee should note the existence of the public open space immediately adjacent.
Given that no complaints have arisen from neighbours and that the conversion has existed for some years, it is considered, on balance, that conditional approval be granted.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report:-
5 and Draft UDP as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 51 CONTACT OFFICER: DEREK WHITE EXTENSION: 2275
Application No. Location Proposal
9. 5383BB/97/1857 PIELD HEATH SCHOOL ERECTION OF DETACHED PIELD HEATH ROAD SINGLE STOREY HILLINGDON EDUCATIONAL AND LIFE (Date of receipt: 10/11/97) SKILLS BLOCK (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF TEMPORARY CLASSROOM BUILDINGS AND WALL) Drawing No. 129/3A, 129/4, 129/5, 129/6A,129/7 Received on: 10/11/97 Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Green Belt
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for the erection of single storey educational/life skills block comprising a floorspace of 1,290 m2. The application is an amendment to a very similar development which was approved in 1996. Existing prefabricated and dilapidated buildings totally 436m2 are to be demolished as part of the works. Existing circulation and car parking will not be adversely affected by the proposals. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in the Green Belt and in relation to existing buildings on the site. Safeguarding conditions will be attached with regard to landscaping and materials in order to safeguard the visual amenities of the site.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B5) New Planting 2. (B5) Standard 3. (B6) New Planting 3. (B6) Standard 4. The existing buildings to be 4. To prevent over- removed as part of the development of this Green application shall be demolished Belt site. prior to the commencement of works on the new build or within a specified period to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5. (B16) Details/Samples to be 5. (B16) Standard submitted. 6. The parking areas including 6. To ensure that adequate where appropriate the marking facilities are provided. out of spaces shown on the approved plans permanently retained and used for no other Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 52 purpose. 7. (B31) People with disabilities 7. (B31) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property rights/rights of light. 2. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control. 3. (14) Legislation administered by EPU. 4. (15) Compliance with Environmental Health legislation.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 4.73 Hectares 11 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost: 0 Provided: 15+ Required: 15
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT:
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: Site notice only No. of replies: 0
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer Concerned about on-street parking in the locality.
Education Services No objection
EPU No objection subject to informatives.
(4) REPORT
The Site
Part of a 4.73 hectare site occupied by Pield Heath School, close to the junction of Pield Heath Road and Kingston Lane. The school caters for the needs of children and young people with moderate learning difficulties and provides facilities for both male and female boarders. The school meets not only their Academic needs but also their Social and Life Skill needs.
The whole site forms part of the Green Belt and is bounded to the west by Pield Heath Nurseries and the main Brunel University Campus to the north, also in the Green Belt.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 53 The Application
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached single-storey educational and life skills centre. The building will comprise a total floor area of 1,290m2 with an open courtyard in the centre. The proposal represents an amendment to an earlier consent granted for an educational/life skills block as part of planning application 5383AZ/96/105. The full schedule of accommodation is as follows:-
· Youth enterprise centre and IT room · Careers centre · Drama studio · Technology workshop · Kitchen · Common room · Arts and textiles · Group tuition rooms · Food technology · Various ancillary facilities.
The proposal also involves the demolition of existing prefabricated classrooms, store, wooden classroom and a barn totalling some 436m2. These will make way for the provision of 12 car parking spaces.
Relevant History
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of an educational/life skills block as part of application 5383AZ/96/105. The building comprised a total area of 1158m2.
Planning Standards and Policies
1) Central Hillingdon Local Plan Policies GB1, GB2, GB3, T12, UL1, UL4, SOC1 and DIS2.
2) Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan Policies OL1, OL2, OL3, OL4, BE30, R12 and AM15.
Main Planning Issues
The acceptability of this type of development in the Green Belt has previously been assessed as part of planning application 5383A2/96/105. The main issue is therefore to assess whether the changes to the proposed educational/life skills block from that approved as part of application 5383AZ/96/105 referred to above are sufficient to withhold permission now.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 54 The originally approved building comprised a total floorspace of 1198m2 and measured 42m long, 32m wide and 6.7m high to ridge. The current proposal has a slightly increased floorspace of 1290m2 and is slightly longer and wider. However, the current proposal has a courtyard in the middle and is not as high as the original scheme.
In summary, the current building is approximately the same length and width as the originally approved scheme but is 0.9m lower in height. In addition, it occupies an almost identical location within the site. It should also be noted that the proposed building occupies land which is lower than the main school site, and together with levelling of the site will ensure that it is on land which is approximately 2m lower. This will reduce their visual impact further.
As far as parking and highway issues are concerned, the proposal will not adversely affect existing circulation or result in the loss of any car parking spaces. Indeed, the removal of the existing prefabricated classrooms will result in the creation of an additional 12 spaces on the site. The applicants advise that there are currently 25 full-time and 15 part-time staff at the site which would generate a car parking requirement of 15 spaces based upon the Council’s car parking standards. Far in excess of 15 spaces are currently provided on the site and the information submitted with the application makes clear that the proposals will not result in any increase in staff or pupil numbers.
Similarly, the proposals will not result in the loss of existing play space and will have the added advantage of removing existing unsightly and sub-standard/makeshift accommodation. The proposed design of the buildings is acceptable in terms of materials and relationship with those existing on the site. A lime tree is to be removed as part of the application. However, conditions will be imposed to ensure that an adequate landscape scheme is submitted to visually enhance this Green Belt site as part of the proposals and to ensure that the building adequately caters for those who may be disabled.
Public Consultation
No letters have been received in response to the public consultation exercise.
Conclusions
The proposal seeks to amend a previous proposal to erect an educational/life skills block which was granted permission in 1996. The building provides a slightly larger amount of floorspace but the physical footpath is almost identical as its height has been reduced. The changes from the original do not give rise to any new issues which would justify refusal now.
I recommend accordingly.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 55 The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5
In addition the following document were also used:-
(c) Deposit Draft UDP as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 56 CONTACT OFFICER: DEREK WHITE EXTENSION: 2275
Application No. Location Proposal
10. 532PF/97/1997 BRUNEL UNIVERSITY ERECTION OF A BOUNDARY KINGSTON LANE WALL, GATES AND HILLINGDON FENCING AND THE WIDENING OF THE UNIVERSITY PERIMETER ROAD TO CREATE A COACH LAY-BY (Date of receipt: 27/11/97) Drawing Nos. (Last amended plans received: 20/3/98) KLG/UX/96/004 Rev. A & KLG/UX/96/002A Rev. A received on 27/11/97 & 20/3/98 and letters dated 18/11/97, 5/2/98 & 17/3/98.
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Green Belt
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for the formation of a coach lay-by, boundary wall, gates and fencing. The boundary works are urgently required to improve security at the site and ‘very special circumstances’ therefore exist to allow what would normally be inappropriate development on this Green Belt site. The materials are a vast improvement on those proposed as part of a similar application which was refused in 1997. The coach lay-by will improve existing circulation on the site and it is not envisaged that the number of coaches or other vehicles at the site will increase.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. The fence hereby approved shall 2. To safeguard the visual be constructed of railings rather amenities of the Green Belt. than mesh. 3. (B16)Samples to be submitted 3. (B16)Standard 4. (B5) New planting 4. (B5) Standard 5. (B6) New planting 5. (B6) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property rights/rights of light. 2. (25) Compliance with legislation administered by Building Control.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 57 (3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 70 Hectares 170 Acres
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 5 No. of replies: 2 individual letters & a petition containing 23 signatures raising the following points:-
Comments:
(1) Boundary wall at gates would ruin open aspect of the area.
(2) Land is green belt and should be left as open space.
(3) Fencing would not increase security of the site - site is accessible from 3 other sides.
(4) University lets out its premises for public functions at weekends which is not in keeping with University’s desire to increase security.
(5) Proposal will reduce ability of Brunel’s own students who travel by bus to access from Kingston Lane. They will use the Hillingdon Road entrance which will result in successful noise and disturbance for residents.
(6) Boundary will become an eyesore - like the other fenced boundary on Kingston Lane adjacent to playing fields.
(7) Lay-by will increase coach traffic on Kingston Lane which is unsuitable for coach traffic.
(8) Lay-by will be dangerous for pedestrians.
(9) Footpath adjacent to Ivybridge Close is very narrow.
(10) There is already heavy traffic on Kingston Lane during peak hours.
(11) Development is a coach park where there may be 20 to 30 coaches coming and going at all hours of the night and day would be a great nuisance to the area.
(12) Object to coach park on the basis that it will increase noises and fumes.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 58 (4) REPORT
The Site
This application relates to the eastern boundary of the Brunel University campus adjacent to Kingston Lane.
The Proposal
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a boundary wall, gates and fencing and the widening of the University perimeter road by 2m to create a coach lay-by. The wall will have 3 gated vehicle accesses and 2 gated pedestrian accesses. It will be constructed of railings for the most part with brick piers and small expanses of wall either side of the gates. The railings and pedestrian gates measure 1.8m high and the vehicle gates measure 3m high.
The wall, gates and fencing will be predominantly set back behind existing areas of landscaping adjacent to Kingston Lane.
Relevant Planning History
On 17 March 1997, permission was refused for the erection of a boundary wall and gates at a coach lay-by in a similar location to the current proposal (L.P.A. ref. 532NT/97/178). The reasons for refusal were:-
1. The proposal constitutes an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been established which outweigh the harm the development would have on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy GB2 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policy OL1 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified (UDP).
2. The proposed development by reason of its discordant and unsympathetic materials and prominent location would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the open character and visual amenity of the area, contrary to Policy UL1 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policy BE12 of the UDP.
The current proposal is the culmination of discussions between officers and the University following this refusal of planning permission.
Planning Standards and Policies
(1) Central Hillingdon Local Plan policies UL1, UL20.
(2) Draft UDP policies OL1, OL2 and OE1 as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 59 Main Planning Issues
The main issue is whether the current proposal satisfactorily addresses the previous reasons for refusal.
The first reason for refusal stated that the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt and that no very special circumstances were put forward which would outweigh the harm that it would have on the openness of the Green Belt.
However, the applicants have put forward a case which argues that the boundary fencing and gates are necessary as part of improved security measures at the site. In particular, they have provided copies of insurance claims for theft, compiled from the last two years, which total £200,245. They advise that the majority of the claims relate to theft of highly sought after expensive computer equipment. In addition, because of the quantity and bulk of equipment involved in the thefts, it is claimed that vehicles are used in such thefts. Hence the requirement for controlled gates.
The creation of the lay-by is to ensure that existing coaches which visit the site can park in the perimeter road without causing congestion and adversely affecting circulation at the site. It is not envisaged that the proposals will involve an increase in such vehicles visiting the site.
The second reason for refusal related to the discordant and unsympathetic materials of the security wall. However, whilst the current proposal shows the wall in the same position, it proposes railings and brickwork which are considered more acceptable and sympathetic than before. In addition, the majority of the wall is set back behind existing planted areas and the portion adjacent to St Johns which is not will be screened by a new hawthorn hedge and other landscaping. For these reasons, the current proposal will not appear incongruous or detrimental to the open character or visual amenity of the area. Moreover, the bulk of the wall measures 1.8 m in height and it should be borne in mind that a 2 m high wall or fence in the same position could be erected as permitted development.
Public Consultation
2 individual letters and a petition containing 23 signatures have been received in response to the public consultation exercise, the contents of which are summarised above. One of the letters and petition is raising objection to the coach lay-by and the other letter is objecting to both.
All matters raised have been carefully considered but none, either singly or cumulatively, amount to sustainable grounds for refusal of planning permission.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 60 Conclusion
The proposal has been revised in the light of a previous refusal and is considered to be acceptable.
I recommend accordingly subject to conditions.
Background Documents
5, Draft UDP as proposed to be modified. 2 letters and a petition of 23 signatures.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 61 CONTACT OFFICER: David Gurtler EXTENSION: 7568
Application No. Location Proposal
11. 3147D/98/171 81 MISBOURNE ROAD ERECTION OF A SINGLE HILLINGDON STOREY SIDE EXTENSION Drawing No. FDB1412.97195 received 30.1.98 (Date of receipt: 30.1.98)
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The proposal relates to a prominent semi-detached property on the corner of Misbourne Road and Glisson Road. Permission is sought for a single storey side extension measuring some 4.5m in width, on a small semi-detached property that is only 5m wide and would give an unbalanced appearance to this property. The other half of the semi has been extended, and a proposal that harmonises with this extension would be more acceptable.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL, for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed single storey side extension by reason of its bulk, width and design would be out of scale and character with this pair of semi-detached properties and would give an unbalanced appearance to the property. As such the proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene on this prominent corner location and would not accord with Policies UL1 and UL3 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policies BE10 and BE12 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified).
INFORMATIVE
1. A single storey side extension reduced in width to 3.65m and with a pitched roof would be more in keeping with the proportions of this pair of semi- detached properties and would have less of a detrimental effect upon the appearance of the street scene.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.032 Hectares 0.079 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost: 1 Provided: 1 Required: 2 Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 62 TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 24.82m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 10 No. of replies: 0
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer Two car parking spaces required
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a two storey semi-detached property, with attached garage, located on the south side of Misbourne Road at its junction with Glisson Road.
The Proposal
The proposal is to provide a single storey side extension some 4.5m wide and 6.8m in depth (full depth of the house) situated to the east of this semi-detached property. The extension would be on the site of the existing attached garage. The existing house has a projecting gable, that would sit proud of this extension by approx. 0.7m.
Relevant Planning History
81 Misbourne Road (application site)
3147A/85/67 Outline planning application for one house. Refused May 1985 3147B/88/2439 Outline planning application for one house and two garages. Refused February 1989.
79 Misbourne Road (adjoining property in Misbourne Road)
41796A/88/894 Two storey side and rear extension incorporating granny annexe and single storey rear extension and porch. Granted October 1988.
48 Glisson Road (other half of this pair of semi-detached properties)
22236B/84/240 Two storey side extension with pitched roof. Granted March 1984. 22236C/88/1828 conversion of existing garage to dining room and erection of replacement garage. Granted January 1989, though enforcement record notes garage not constructed in accordance with planning permission.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 63 58 Weald Road
16736C/86/1572 Erection of double garage and single storey rear extension. Granted December 1986.
Planning Standards and Policies
Policy ULI of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan states that all new development should make a positive contribution to improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy UL3 relates to proposals for extensions and alterations, which should harmonise with scale and proportions of existing buildings. Policy UL8 refers to extensions normally being acceptable if they accord with Design Guidance.
These policies are reflected within the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified (UDP) in Policies BE10 and BE12 and Appendix A ‘Design Guide: Residential Extensions’.
Main Planning Issues
The main considerations are whether the extension would harmonise with the scale, form and proportions of the original building and whether the proposal would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene.
The extension being 4.5m wide would be out of proportion with the existing house, which is itself approx. 5m wide. When viewed from the street, the extension would appear bulky and out of scale and character with the existing pair of semi-detached properties. In addition, on this prominent corner plot, the extension would by reason of its bulk and size be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene.
Although this extension would be in front of the building line of properties on the southern side of Misbourne Road, the neighbouring property (no. 79) has extended its front porch in front of the building line. Consequently the fact that this development does not reflect the building line in Misbourne Road would not be so apparent. However, the extension would appear unduly prominent as one approached the junction of Misbourne Road with Glisson Road.
In addition, the side extension would have a false pitch at the front, to give the impression of a pitched roof, though behind this there would be a flat roof. Although this form of development may be acceptable on many sites, on this corner plot it would be apparent that the extension is flat roofed. The style and appearance would not be in keeping with the existing property and would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene.
The applicant and agent have been advised that if the extension were reduced in width to match the extension that had been carried out on the other half of the semi (48 Glisson Road), such that the properties were balanced, the proposal would be acceptable. However, the applicant following a further site meeting the applicant made it clear that he was not prepared to reduce the width of this extension.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 64 The proposal results in the loss of a garage and does not show replacement car parking. However, there is space in front of the existing garage for one vehicle, whilst to the side of the property there is further space for additional parking - though none is shown. Obviously if the applicant were to appeal the refusal, conditions could be attached to ensure adequate off-street parking were provided (with a landscaping condition to ensure that details of hard surfacing and soft landscaping were provided to ensure that the proposal did not detrimentally affect the amenities of the area).
There are some extensions in the area that should be noted. In addition to the two storey side extension at 48 Glisson Road (other half of the semi), a garage has been placed in front of the building line. This is not in accordance with approved planning permission and is clearly unsatisfactory, however it has been in place for over four years and is exempt from enforcement action.
Although the extensions at 79 Misbourne Road benefit from planning permission, the front extension is unduly prominent and its unsatisfactory appearance reflects the importance of following the building line.
Finally at 58 Weald Road, planning consent was granted for a double garage in 1986. This plot is a corner plot and though the development has tried to turn to match the building line it again demonstrates how unsatisfactory bulky single storey side extensions can be.
Public Consultation
9 neighbours and one residents association were consulted, with no replies received.
Conclusion
The proposal is unacceptable in planning terms, and though the applicant was advised on measures that could be taken to amend the scheme he was unwilling to alter the proposal.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5 and the Draft UDP as proposed to be modified
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 65 CONTACT OFFICER: DEREK WHITE EXTENSION: 2275
Application No. Location Proposal
12. 235AJ/97/460 HIGH ROAD SERVICE ERECTION OF NEW STATION PETROL FILLING STATION, 55 HIGH ROAD SALES BUILDING, CAR ICKENHAM WASH AND JET WASH (Date of receipt: 27.3.97) (INVOLVING DEMOLITION (Last amended plans : 24.12.97) OF EXISTING BUILDING) Drawing Nos. R7211875-93- 01B, R721875-97-02B and R7211875-97-03A received on 27.3.97 and 24.12.97 and letters dated 24.3.97, 4.6.97 and 22.12.97
Ickenham Local Plan: Developed Area
The decision on this application was deferred at the meeting of the Uxbridge Planning Committee on 19 March 1998 to enable members of the Sub-Committee to make a site visit.
(1) SUMMARY
There has been a service station on the site for a number of years. The proposal will be an improvement to the site in visual terms and will result in the extinguishment of the car repair facility at the rear of the sales building. It includes a car wash and jet wash facility which has proved controversial but the Environmental Protection Unit has scrutinised relevant acoustic data and is satisfied subject to conditions that the use will operate without loss of amenity to adjoining residents.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B25) New Planting 2. (B25) Standard 3. (B6) New Planting 3. (B6) Standard 4. (B10) Parking (Commercial) 4. (B10) Standard 5. B25) External Openings/ 5. (B25) Standard Machinery 6. (B14) Fencing 6. (B14) Standard 7. The car wash, jet wash, air 7. To safeguard the amenities of service point and vacuum shall adjoining residents only be used between the hours of 0800 hours and 2100 hours)
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 66 8. The pole mounted floodlight shall 8. To ensure that the lights will not only be illuminated during cause glare and adversely affect delivery of petroleum the amenity of neighbouring residents 9. The external lights hereby 9. To ensure that the lights will not approved shall be so angled and cause glare and adversely affect shielded/hooded so that light is the amenity of neighbouring directed into the site residents 10. The site shall not be used for the 10. To safeguard the amenity of sale or repair of motor vehicles adjoining residents
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Advertisement Regulations 3. (10) Disabled Persons 4. (14) Compliance with Legislation Administered by Public Protection Services 5. (15) Compliance with Environmental Health Legislation 6. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control 7. (26) Notification of Demolition
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.18 Hectares 0.07 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost: 0 Provided: 5 Required: 5
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 390m²
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 37 No. of replies: 6 letters of objection raising the following points:
1. development would increase traffic to the site; 2. the garage is already an eyesore in a residential area with badly kept boundary fences; 3. will cause light pollution to No. 5 Parkfield Road; 4. will result in petrol fumes; 5. building is to be bigger than existing and will be open 24 hours a day; 6. plant room will overshadow garden of No. 2A Parkfield Road; 7. Car wash will be detrimental to amenities of residents especially as garage is open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; 8. car wash is unnecessary - is already such a facility a quarter of a mile away;
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 67 9. new garage will obstruct driveway of existing flats at Nos. 45, 45a, 45b and 45c High Road; 10. noise form car stereos/engines late at night will increase; 11. new neon signs will cause light pollution to adjoining properties; 12. surely no development should go ahead without a high brick wall being built around the site; 13. car wash will be detrimental to the amenity of residents at 47/49 High Road; 14. garage site includes sites of former residential units 51 and 53 High Road which have been demolished. These should have been replaced and have never been; 15. a few years ago, an application to change the use of No. 49 to an office was refused on the basis of loss of residential. The same should apply here and the two demolished houses should be replaced; 16. flank wall of Nos. 47/49 is only 2m from the boundary of the site. But there is consent for the erection of an extra flat which must be taken into account.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Environmental Protection Unit No objection subject to Conditions/ Informatives
Area Engineer No objection
Ickenham Residents Association Object to the proposal for the following reasons:-
1. residents have continued trouble from the garage since 1966; 2. application is very similar to previous application No. 95/1279 which was refused; 3. proposal will be detrimental to amenity of Nos. 2 and 2A Parkfield Road; 4. proposal will be detrimental to amenity of Nos. 47 and 49 High Road which also has consent for an extension; 5. properties will suffer aggravated airborne and audible pollution.
(4) REPORT
The Site
An existing service station on the western side of Ickenham High Road close to the junction with Oak Avenue. It comprises an integral shop with workshops to the rear used for vehicle servicing. The site is presently enclosed to the west by a small wall topped with fencing which forms the boundary with the rear gardens of Oak Avenue and
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 68 the forecourt frontage is bounded by a small timber fence. The open area immediately south of the site was previously leased from the applicants for the display and sale of used cars. It is currently vacant.
The site previously housed two residential properties (Nos. 51 & 53 High Road) which had previously been demolished. No records exist of when the houses were demolished, but planning permission was granted in 1981 to use this part of the site for the sale of cars.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought for erection of a new petrol filling station comprising sales shop, car wash and jet wash. The proposal involves demolition of the existing petrol station on the site. The amended plan shows a sales building/shop and canopy in a central position within the site of a similar size and proportion to the existing. A 2m high brick wall is proposed round the site which encloses a plant room and bin store and separates the site from adjoining properties.
Relevant Site History
(i) In 1970, planning permission was granted, subject to conditions, for the conversion of the forecourt to self service layout with canopy over and an extension to provide a lubrication bay to showroom extensions. (LPA ref: 2350/8809).
(ii) In 1978, a proposal to demolish the then existing car sales showroom and replace it with a new showroom with flats over, workshop extension and garages was refused (LPA ref: 235L/78/0857).
(iii) In 1979, a similar proposal but with a reduction in workshop floorspace was approved subject to conditions (LPA ref: 235N/78/2119).
(iv) In 1981 an application for the use of the area immediately to the south of the site for parking and car sales was approved subject to conditions. Subsequent temporary permissions have been granted for the continued use of this activity.
(v) More recently in 1987 and 1988 applications have been refused for the installation of a car wash/dryer on the site (LPA refs: 235S/87/1252 and 235X/88/309).
(vi) In 1990, planning permission was granted subject to conditions for the demolition of the existing garage and erection of a replacement together with associated car parking and landscaping.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 69 (vii) Most recently, in 1995, planning permission was refused for the redevelopment of the existing garage comprising petrol sales, car wash, jet wash, shop and bakery (LPA 235AF/95/1279). The reason for refusal related to the impact of the sales building on the amenity of residents in Oak Avenue.
Planning Standards and Policies
(i) Ickenham Local Plan - Policies UL3, UL5 and UL14(11) are applicable; (ii) Deposit Draft of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) - Policies BE14 and OE1 are also applicable; (iii) Local Authority adopted car parking standards policy.
Main Planning Issues
There has been a garage/service station on the site for a long period and there can therefore be no in-principle objection to the proposal.
The main planning issues are, therefore, the acceptability of the scheme in terms of its impact on the street scene and any effects on residential amenity.
In terms of visual impact, the proposal would bring certain improvements in that the present rather dilapidated shop unit and unsightly workshop buildings would be replaced by modern facilities. In addition, the sales building and canopy would be of a similar size and position to the existing, such that there would be no adverse impact in the street scene. A separate application will have to be submitted under the Advertisement Regulations for any illuminated signage.
The second issue is the impact of the proposal upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers. The existing workshop at the rear of the premises are close to the rear of properties in Oak Avenue and Parkfield Roads and do not appear to be the subject of any conditions restricting the hours of operation. These uses are to be extinguished as a result of the removal of the existing buildings.
However, the current scheme includes a car wash and jet wash and, as stated above, permission has previously been refused for this type of facility. The current proposal is different from those previously refused. Whereas the previous car wash proposals were to be constructed of thin plastic sheeting with an open top, the current facilities will be housed in a more substantially roofed building, set off the boundary of the site behind a 2m high brick wall.
In short, there have been advances in car wash technology since the refusal of the previous proposals. Moreover, the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit has scrutinised an acoustic report submitted in support of the jet wash and car wash and is satisfied, subject to the imposition of conditions, that these facilities would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining residents. All other potentially unacceptable aspects of the use can be controlled by legislation administered by the EPU or conditions as the information above makes clear.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 70 The application also includes a ‘cafe’/hot drink facility within the main sales building. However, the proposed floor space is small and these facilities would be ancillary to the new sales building and would not operate independently. Again, conditions will be placed upon the hours of operation of the use of appropriate ventilation and ducting will ensure that this aspect of the proposal will not be injurious to residential amenity.
Similarly, conditions will be attached to ensure that the available areas are satisfactorily landscaped and cowlings or similar is fitted to proposed floodlights to prevent light spillage onto surrounding properties.
Public Consultation
Six letters of objection and a letter of objection from the Ickenham Residents Association have been received in response to the application, the contents of which are summarised above. All matters raised have been carefully considered and none are sufficient, either singly or cumulatively, to amount to a sustainable ground for refusal of planning permission.
Conclusions
The principle of the development is acceptable and it will tidy up the existing sales shop and outbuildings and remove the MOT workshops currently at the rear. The design of the main buildings are considered to be acceptable and the imposition of safeguarding conditions will allow it to operate without loss of amenity to adjoining tenants.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5, Deposit Draft UDP (as Proposed to be Modified)
In addition the following documents were also used:-
(a) Six letters making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 71 CONTACT OFFICER: DEREK WHITE EXTENSION: 2275
Application No. Location Proposal
13. 27593J/97/1912 21 MILTON ROAD ERECTION OF A REAR ICKENHAM CONSERVATORY (Date of receipt: 14/11/97) Drawing No. P28864, site plan, block plan Received on: 14/11/97 Letter dated: 13/11/97
Ickenham Local Plan: Developed Area/Ickenham Village Conservation Area
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a rear conservatory. It is of a conventional design and is acceptable in relation to the existing house and the nearest adjoining property at no. 19 Milton Road. As such, it will safeguard the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D1) No Additional windows or 3. (D1) Standard doors ‘facing 19 Milton Road’
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property rights/rights of light. 2. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.08 Hectares 0.03 Acres
CAR PARKING: existing situation unchanged
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 17.2m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 3 No. of replies: 0
*THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 72 *(a) being within or affecting a conservation area
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection
Ickenham CAAP To be reported
(4) REPORT
The Site
A detached property on the south side of Milton Road. The property has previously been extended by means of a two-storey rear extension.
The site forms part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
The Application
Planning permission is sought for the erection of rear conservatory. The plans indicate a structure which is 5m wide, projects 3.37m from the rear of the house and extends 2.3m high to eaves and 3.45m to ridge. It would be set 1m off the eastern boundary of the site.
Relevant Site History
There have been a number of applications on the site, none of which are directly related to the current proposal.
Planning Standards and Policies
(i) Ickenham Local Plan Policies UL2, UL3(ii), UL11.
(ii) Draft UDP Policies BE4, BE10 and BE14 as proposed to be modified.
Main Planning Issues
The main issues are:
· the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area; and
· the impact upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
As stated above, the site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. As such, Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that when considering proposals for development in a conservation area,
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 73 special attention shall be paid to the desirability of enhancing or preserving the character or appearance of that area. The current proposal is located at the rear of the premises and as such will not be visible from the road frontage. Moreover the conservatory is of conventional design and is acceptable in relation to the scale and form of the existing building. As such, it would accord with the Council’s policies aimed at protecting Conservation Areas.
With regard to the second issue, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in relation to the nearest neighbouring property at no. 19 Milton Road. In particular, the conservatory would extend 3.37m from the rear of the house but would be set 1m off the party boundary. In addition, it has solid sides and would only measure 2.3m at its highest point close to the boundary. There is also an existing wall on the boundary of the site which would provide adequate screening. For these reasons, there would be no loss of amenity through overshadowing or overdominance or loss of privacy.
Public Consultations
No letters of objection have been received in response to the public consultation exercise.
Conclusions
The proposal would be acceptable in terms of its design and impact upon the amenity of adjoining residents and would safeguard the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
I recommend accordingly.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5
In addition the following document was also used:-
(a) Draft UDP as proposed to be modified.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 74 CONTACT OFFICER: RICHARD BUXTON EXTENSION: 3606
Application No. Location Proposal
14.(A)52129A/97/1931 LAND AT ERECTION OF 7 DETACHED 88-92 LONG LANE FOUR AND FIVE-BEDROOM ICKENHAM HOUSES AND 4 THREE- BEDROOM TOWNHOUSES, (Date of receipt: 17.11.97) PLUS CONSTRUCTION OF (Last amended plans: 27.1.98) NEW ACCESS (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING THREE DWELLINGS) (DUPLICATE APPLICATION) Drawing No: PD1/PD2/PD3/, 97303/2/A PD1, 97306/1/0 PD6, 96.1407.11 REV.F. received on 17.11.97, tree schedule and letter dated 27.1.98
Local Plan: Ickenham - Developed Area, Conservation Area
(1) SUMMARY (A & B)
The planning application for residential development is unacceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area which forms part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area; impact on existing trees, some of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order; the loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers; and the lack of adequate daylight to the proposed dwellings. The corresponding Conservation Area Consent application for the demolition of the existing dwellings is also unacceptable given the lack of a satisfactory replacement scheme. Both applications are subject to appeals on the grounds of non-determination within the prescribed 8 week period.
(2) RECOMMENDATION -
That had an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions not been lodged, the Council would have refused permission for the following reasons:-
1. The siting, size and quantum of development is not considered to be in sympathy with the prevailing suburban character of the area and, therefore, fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and Policies BE4 and BE12 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (further proposed modifications version).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 75 2. The proposed development at plots 3, 10 and 11 will lead to the loss of several existing trees that make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The proposal would, therefore, be detrimental to the landscape, visual amenity and character of the Conservation Area, and is contrary to Policies UL3 and UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and Policies BE4 and BE30 of the Draft UDP (further proposed modifications version).
3. The proposal makes inadequate provision for the retention and long-term survival and adequate use of important existing trees in the landscape of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. In addition to the removal of several importance tress, the juxtaposition of the houses on plots 4-7, 9-11 to several trees, including oak and ash trees protected by TPO 482A, a mature oak on the Long Lane frontage and a fine beech close to the site - shown to be retained - in unacceptable. Pressure is likely to arise from future occupants to fell or work trees due to their overshadowing of private amenity areas and habitable rooms and their overbearing relationship to the houses. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the landscape, visual amenity and character of this part of the Conservation Area, and fails to comply with Policy UL3 of the Ickenham Local Plan and Policies BE4 and BE30 of the Draft UDP (further proposed modifications version).
4. The proximity of new development at plot 2 to 94 Long Lane, Ickenham, would be likely to lead to a loss of privacy to the adjoining occupiers. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy UL3 of the Ickenham Local Plan and Policy BE16 of the Draft UDP (further proposed modifications version).
5. The proposal fails to comply with Policy BE13 of the Draft UDP (further proposed modifications version) in that the development does not provide for adequate penetration of daylight into and between buildings by reason of the relative juxtaposition of the proposed houses in relation to existing trees on and close to the site.
Application No. Location Proposal
(B) 52129C/97/1976 LAND AT DEMOLITION OF THREE 88-92 LONG LANE DWELLINGHOUSES ICKENHAM (APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION AREA (Date of receipt: 16.12.97) CONSENT) Drawing No: PD1 received on 17.11.97 and letter dated 18.12.98
Local Plan: Ickenham - Developed Area, Conservation Area Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 76 (2) RECOMMENDATION -
That had an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions not been lodged, the Council would have refused permission for the following reason:-
1. On the basis that an acceptable scheme for the development of the site has not been forthcoming, Conservation Area Consent is refused for the premature demolition of the three houses on the site.
(3) INFORMATION (A & B)
SITE AREA: 0.503 Hectares 1.243 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost: 10 Provided: 36 Required: 36
TREES: Existing: 59 To be retained: 40 TPO: 3 (TPO 482A) To be retained: 3 (see report)
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 9 No. of replies: 12
THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS: being within or affecting a Conservation Area.
Comments:
A) Density of housing too high and out of keeping and character with the Conservation Area. Too closely reflects Turnstone Close, Freezeland Way, 77 and 83 Long Lane development.
B) Additional traffic on an already busy and dangerous road on a bend. Increasing accidents.
C) Loss of trees in a Conservation Area is sacrilegious. Change of outlook and pleasant surroundings.
D) Insufficient parking proposed for the site given the limited parking at Douay Martyrs and adjacent housing estate.
E) Loss of property value.
F) Will result in a built up infill with little greenery with the loss of trees covered by a TPO and many beautiful and mature trees.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 77 G) Must maintain the status quo, restrictions and obligations are placed upon Ickenham residents.
H) Excessive degree of development with a new house only 23 metres from our property.
I) Four, 3-storey houses only 15 metres from the boundary would be out of keeping and too high and out of character.
J) Several areas in the neighbourhood have suffered an unpleasant fate at the behest of unsympathetic building developments.
K) Three properties proposed for demolition are far from derelict or in any way out of character with the surrounding residences and they should not be removed in order to infill with a greater modern housing density.
L) Loss of visually attractive houses. Conserve and maintain for future.
M) Insufficient drainage capacity for sewerage and added pollution.
N) May open up Dormy House for development.
O) Ickenham becoming over-developed and it should be kept as a village rather than a sprawling outer suburb of London.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer Sight lines and carriageway width are acceptable.
Ickenham Residents Association Sort of development one would now expect following social housing site and Douay Martyrs expansion.
- plans do not show road alignment opposite social housing site; - additional and unacceptable traffic hazard on an extremely heavily utilised road; - over density; - Association policy object to “in fill”, particularly those that detract from Conservation Area; - gated, walled and railed frontage is contrary to principles of Conservation Areas.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 78 Proposal overpowering to the adjacent sites 2, 2A and 2B Swakeleys Drive, 94 Long Lane and Dormy House.
Contrary to Policies H4, H10, BE1, BE5, BE9, BE12 and BE14 of Draft Unitary Development Plan.
English Heritage (Archaeology) Site lies opposite the Roman farmstead excavated and published recently. An ancient boundary ditch may pass across the site. Development may affect remains of archaeological importance. An assessment of the archaeological implications of the scheme needs to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken.
English Heritage (Historic Buildings) Nos. 88-92 are situated in the Betjemanesque landscape of Metroland; that apparently endless expanses of two-storey houses bounding airy, tree-lined roads throughout Middlesex/ While they will never in the main cause a ripple on the art historical pond, the well-mannered quality of the buildings and their environs, in my view, established a bench-mark from which subsequent design levels should be back referenced. With this basic criteria in mind, it is quite obvious that the creation of a crowded cul-de-sac of indifferently designed houses is a principle which is basically alien to the concept of Metroland, with which we are all familiar.
Consent should be withheld until a satisfactory scheme is submitted.
(4) REPORT (A & B)
The Site
The site comprises the buildings and curtilage of three detached houses, to the north of Swakeleys Drive. To the south and west of the site there exists residential development but the northern boundary of the site abuts the Douay Martyrs Lower School. The site is relatively flat and is within the “developed area” of the Ickenham Local Plan and also the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The characteristics of the site include a predominance of trees on the western and northern boundaries of the site, some of which are the subject of TPO 482A which includes two ash and an oak tree. A
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 79 significant tree belt also delineates the garden boundary of properties 90 and 92 Long Lane such that the overwhelming impression of the site is of a sylvan setting. Whilst many of the trees on the site are not covered by tree preservation orders, they are protected by virtue of being within a Conservation Area. With the exception of the Douay Martyrs school the area is exclusively residential in nature.
The Proposal
Planning application A - 52129A/97/1931
This application seeks planning permission to create a new cul-de-sac in the middle of the site, accessed from Long Lane, incorporating 7 two-storey detached houses and a terrace of 4 three-storey houses. The existing 3 units at 88, 90 and 92 Long Lane will be demolished along with a significant number of trees throughout the site. This application is the subject of an informal hearing.
Planning application B - 52129C/97/1976
This refers to the Conservation Area Consent application to demolish the 3 units on the site. This application is the subject of an informal hearing.
Relevant Planning History
A scheme to redevelop No. 90 Long Lane with 8 houses in the late 1960s was refused on the grounds of over-development (8905/6061).
Planning Standards and Policies
Those within the Ickenham Local Plan of relevance include:-
UL3 - prohibits development unless its design and layout meet specified criteria; UL11 - seeks to prevent environmental changes which detract from the character of Conservation Areas; corresponding policies within the Emerging UDP include:-
BE4 NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OR ON THE FRINGES OF CONSERVATION AREAS WILL BE EXPECTED TO PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THOSE FEATURES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL AND VISUAL QUALITIES; DEVELOPMENT SHOULD AVOID THE DEMOLITION OR LOSS OF SUCH FEATURES. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION SHOULD CONTAIN FULL DETAILS, INCLUDING SITING AND DESIGN, OF REPLACEMENT BUILDINGS. APPLICATIONS FOR CONSENT FOR DEMOLITION WILL DEPEND UPON THE SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF SUCH DETAILS.
BE12 THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL SEEK TO ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS COMPLEMENTS OR IMPROVES THE AMENITY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 80 BE16 THE DESIGN OF NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE OCCUPIERS AND THEIR NEIGHBOURS.
BE30 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WILL BE EXPECTED TO RETAIN AND UTILISE TOPOGRAPHICAL AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES OF MERIT AND PROVIDE NEW PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING WHEREVER IT IS APPROPRIATE. PLANNING APPLICANTS FOR PLANNING CONSENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TREE SURVEY SHOWING THE LOCATION, HEIGHT, SPREAD AND SPECIES OF ALL TREES WHERE THEIR PROPOSALS WOULD AFFECT ANY EXISTING TREES.
Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.
Main Planning Issues
A. Impact of development on the Conservation Area
In a letter to the Local Planning Authority from English Heritage of 9 January 1998 the character of the area and proposal was described thus:-
“Nos. 88-92 are situated in the Betjemaneseque landscape of Metroland; that apparently endless expanses of two-storey houses bounding airy, free-lined roads throughout Middlesex. While they will never in the main, cause a ripple on the art historical pond, the well-mannered quality of the buildings and their environments, in my view, established a bench-mark from which subsequent design levels should be back referenced. With this basic criteria in mind, it is quite obvious that the creation of a crowded cul-de-sac of indifferently designed houses is a principle which is basically alien to the concept of Metroland, with which we are all familiar.”
The site incorporates three detached properties, 2 of which were built in the 1920s and the third having been built in the 1970s, with all of them having rear gardens in excess of 50 metres. Number 90 is the largest plot of the three and is 30 metres wide and 85 metres deep and is set behind an imposing and substantial front wall. The site is in a very pleasant leafy suburb, where mature trees are visible over the rooftops, the streets are lined with trees, and most houses have gardens. The majority of the houses in the locality have substantial gardens which is a legacy of the period when the homes were built in the 1920s and 1930s. More recent development in the locality is illustrated by:-
- Pepys Close; - Gilbey Close; - Turnstone Close.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 81 These reflect the more modern patterns and concentrations of development now permitted.
It is accepted that the current proposal accords with density standards contained within the Ickenham Local Plan and the Emerging UDP. However, the scale and compactness of the proposed houses with the hammerhead layout will introduce an excessive degree of built form that will be visible from many significant public vantage points. The estate road will open up a sizeable access to the site, where non existed before, and with plots 3 through to 8 will present an almost continuous wall of development 50 metres in width. This will, inevitably, harm the secluded, sylvan and undeveloped character of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and create an alien urban setting.
In summary, the quantum of development fails to preserve or enhance this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
(B) The impact of the proposal on the trees within the site
Many of the reasons put forward for refusing this scheme revolve around the impact of the built form on the trees within the site. The proposed units at plots 3 and 11 involve the loss of birch, ash, sycamore and conifer trees which make an important contribution to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. The tree loss that would be caused through the construction of plot 11 is harmful given the trees’ proximity to Long Lane and the considerable public views of the trees. Of similar importance are the trees which would be lost in the south-western corner of the site, with plot 3, which can be received from both Swakeleys Drive and Long Lane.
Officers also consider that the relationship of the three-storey town houses to the three trees 7, 8 and 9 of TPO 482A is unsatisfactory in that:-
- the trees are to the west of the town houses and will overshadow the back gardens of the properties; - the back gardens are of a limited length (15m) and will exaggerate the overshadowing; - there is a strong likelihood of future pressure to have the trees reduced or removed.
Given the proximity and juxtaposition of plots 9 and 10 to the substantial beech trees to the north of the site it is likely that pressure will arise from future occupiers to fell or work trees due to their overshadowing of private amenity areas and habitable rooms and their overbearing relationship to the houses.
The height, size and mass of the three storey townhouses will also obliterate public views of 3 trees covered by Tree Preservation Order 482A which will be harmful to the amenities of the area and this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 82 In summary, the redevelopment of the site for 11 units fails to retain, and will lead to future pressure to fell, a significant number of important trees on the site such that the scheme will harm the character and appearance of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
C. Loss of Privacy to the Adjoining Occupiers
As indicated in the fourth reason for refusal the relationship of the two storey unit (a Claremont) at plot 2 will be likely to cause an undesirable loss of privacy to the rear amenity area and patron of 94 Long Lane, Ickenham. With the proposed plot being at right angles to 94 Long Lane and only 11.2m from the common boundary an unacceptable degree of overlooking will occur.
Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 stipulates that demolition of most buildings within conservation areas is subject to control. In exercising these controls Local Planning Authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. This is the prime consideration in determining a consent application.
Paragraph 4.27 of PPG 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment” advises that the Local Planning Authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. Consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment. It has been held that the decision maker is entitled to consider the merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area.
In the absence of acceptable plans for redevelopment Conservation Area Consent should be refused to avoid the creation of ugly gaps in the Conservation Area because of premature demolition.
Public Consultation
The predominant points raised through public consultation have been addressed in the main body of the report, however, officers do not consider that there is a sustainable reason for refusing the application on traffic and highway grounds.
(E) The loss of property value is not a planning matter.
(M) The issue of drainage would be issued at the Building Regulations Stage.
(N) The proposed cul-de-sac would not open up Dory House for development.
(O) Ickenham is a suburb of London.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 83 Conclusion
The current scheme is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site which will:- a) lead to the loss of an important number of trees on the site that contribute to this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. b) eliminate views of the trees on the site covered by Tree Preservation Order 482A. c) be likely to lead to further pressure to fell or reduce additional trees on the site. d) incorporate too much built form to relate in a satisfactory manner to the surrounding residential properties. e) involve development that would harm the amenities of the adjoining occupier at 94 Long Lane, Ickenham through loss of privacy. g) result in premature demolition and an empty gap site.
For the above reasons the proposals are not considered acceptable.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
4, Deposit UDP (Further Proposed Modifications Version)
In addition the following documents were also used:-
(a) 14 letters making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
(b) One statutory consultation (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 84 CONTACT OFFICER : RICHARD BUXTON EXTENSION: 3606
Application No. Location Proposal
15. 52537/97/2120 2 GLEBE CLOSE, ERECTION OF A TWO ICKENHAM STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND A REAR CONSERVATORY (Date of receipt: 12.12.98) Drawing No. SK97267 (Last amended plans received: 24.3.98) received on: 24.3.98
Central Hillingdon Local Plan/Ickenham: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The proposal has been designed to:- a) accord with design guidance for two storey side extensions and complement the street scene; b) eliminate the possibility of overlooking to No. 3 Glebe Close; c) ensure no demonstrable loss of sunlight or daylight will occur to No. 3 Glebe Close.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D2) Obscured Glazing first floor 3. (D2) Standard front window (‘facing 3 Glebe Close ...’) 4. (B14A) Screen Fencing ..... 4. (B14A) Standard 1 Glebe Close 5. (B38) Single Dwellings Occupation 5. (B38) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property rights/Rights of light 2. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.048 Hectares 0.12 Acres
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 68 m2
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 85 CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 4 No. of replies: 1
Comments:
- May block our right to light; - May prejudice our chances of a two storey extension; - Loss of privacy and light to landing window; - Two storey possibly too close or overpowering? - Loss of car parking spaces to property.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection
(4) REPORT
The Site
No. 2 Glebe Close, Ickenham is a semi-detached property located at the end of the cul- de-sac at right angles to 3 & 4 Glebe Close. The property has a sizeable rear garden which adjoins the side of 3 Glebe Close, 8 & 9 St. Giles Avenue.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a two storey side extension and rear conservatory. The proposal has been amended to incorporate a bigger set-back at first floor level (1.5 m rather than 1 m) to improve the street scene relationship and reduces the impact of the proposal on No. 3 Glebe Close.
Relevant Planning History
None applicable.
Planing Standards and Policies
Those of relevance to this proposal include Policies UL2 and UL3 of the Ickenham Local Plan and Policies BE10, BE13 and BE16 of the Emerging Unitary Development Plan.
Main Planning Issues a) Impact on the character and amenity of the area
The extension has been designed to accord with design guidance on extensions and in subordinate to the original house and set a metre from the boundary. The
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 86 proposal will not be visually intrusive in the street scene or harmful to the character and appearance of the area. b) Impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers
Although the two storey element projects to the rear of the house by 3.25 metres the distance of the built form from No. 1 Glebe Close (6m), the orientation of the properties, and the fact that No. 1 has a small single storey rear extension will ensure that the amenities of No. 1 are not harmed.
Concern about the proposal has been expressed by the occupier at No. 3 Glebe Close, however, the amendments to the scheme, including the installation of obscure glazing to the first floor front window and a set-back from the front of the house by 1.5 metres at first floor level, will allow for the development without causing any undue harm. The mass and bulk of the proposal is sufficiently far from the nearest front habitable window of No. 3 Glebe Close (5 metres) to ensure that sunlight or daylight will not be dramatically reduced. The installation of obscure glazing at first floor level (to the front) will also mean that the occupiers at No. 3 Glebe Close will not suffer a loss of privacy.
Public Consultation
The proposal is not considered to be harmful to the amenities of the adjoining occupier in terms of light, privacy or overdominance. No car parking spaces will be affected by the proposal. Rights to light are not policed by the Local Planning Authority but are a civil matter. The proposal would not prejudice the determination of a future application at No. 3 Glebe Close for a two-storey side extension.
Conclusion
The proposal has been amended to ensure that the development presents a satisfactory relationship to the adjoining occupiers at Nos. 1 and 3 Glebe Close, and given that it will not harm the street scene is considered acceptable.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
4, Emerging UDP.
In addition the following documents were also used:-
(a) One letter making recommendations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 87 CONTACT OFFICER: RICHARD BUXTON EXTENSION: 3606
Application No. Location Proposal
16. 22897D/97/2123 35 HIGHFIELD DRIVE, ERECTION OF A FIRST ICKENHAM FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION (Date of receipt: 12.12.97) Drawing No. 97/24/02 received 12.12.97
Ickenham: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The proposal for a first floor side extension is in accordance with the design guide and will not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. There will be a direct loss of sunlight to the secondary kitchen windows of the adjoining occupier to the north, at 33 Highfield Drive, which is unfortunate but the harm is not considered so significant as to warrant refusal.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D1) No additional windows or 3. (D1) Standard doors (‘facing 33 Highfield Drive’) 4. (D3) Obscured Glazing 4. (D3) Standard (‘bathroom window facing 33 Highfield Drive’)
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property rights/Rights of light 2. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.085 Hectares 0.21 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost 0 Provided 4 Required 2
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 32m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 3 No. of replies: 1
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 88 Comments:
A) Loss of light to side kitchen window and glazed door. B) We claim ancient right to light. C) We have received planning permission this year for the erection of a rear extension of our lounge, which includes a further side window to enhance the light to the lounge. D) Bye-Laws infringed by the sheer size of the 2nd proposed extension? E) Distance of garage to boundary is under 1000mm. F) Will further add to the reduction of light and will seriously impair the character and harmony of both dwellings. G) Dangerous if significant snowfall occurs causing snow/ice slide.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection
(4) REPORT
The Site
35 Highfield Drive is a detached house on a wide, level plot located within a well established residential area that comprises many sizeable properties.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought to construct a first floor side extension above the existing garage with pitched roof over and is shown to be built of materials to match the existing house. At its nearest point to the boundary with number 33 the extension is less than a metre.
Planning History
35 Highfield Drive was extended at ground floor level during the 1970s.
Planning Standards and Policies
Those of relevance within the Ickenham Local Plan include:
UL2 - States that extensions to residential properties will be acceptable, subject to meeting specified design criteria. UL3 - Prohibits development unless its design and layout meet specified criteria.
The corresponding policies within the Deposit Unitary Development Plan include BE10, BE13 and BE14.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 89 Main Planning Issues
A) Impact on the street scene
The proposal will have the effect of filling in a moderate gap at first floor level between numbers 33 and 35 Highfield Drive bringing built form within a metre of the boundary. The adjacent property at 33 is a bungalow, and is set off the boundary with 35, such that there will not be an unacceptable visual coalescence or terracing effect caused by the first floor side extension to 35 and the amenities of the street scene will not be significantly harmed. The extension complies with design guidance for detached houses and will retain the architectural harmony of the property although it is acknowledged that the scale of the property will be increased.
B) Impact on 33 Highfield Drive
Because 33 is to the north of 35, there will definitely be some impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers at 33 Highfield Drive. At certain times of the day and year it is inevitable that direct sunlight to the side kitchen windows of 33 Highfield Drive will be obliterated by the two storey extension. However, the fact that the two side windows to 33 are secondary windows and there is a primary window to the front of the house will mean that an adequate amount of daylight will penetrate the kitchen to ensure that reasonable amenities exist within the room. Officers do not, therefore, consider that a sustainable reason for refusing the application on amenity grounds exists.
Public Consultation
The neighbour at 33 has objected to the proposal on the grounds that it will lead to a loss of light to their kitchen windows in the southern elevation, along with other matters. Loss of light has been addressed in the main body of the report. Loss of light (under ancient right to light) is not a planning matter. Bye-Laws do not relate to the size of an extension as far as the Local Planning Authority are concerned. Point E is accepted, although it is marginally under a metre (0.9m). Potential danger from snowfall is not a planning matter.
Conclusion
In design terms and the impact of the proposal on the amenity and character of the area the proposal is considered to be acceptable. It is acknowledged that there will be a loss of sunlight to the secondary windows in the kitchen but the harm is not considered to be so significant as to warrant refusal. It is, therefore, recommended accordingly.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 90 The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:
4 and Deposit UDP (Further Proposed Modifications Version).
In addition the following document was also used:
(a) 1 letter making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 91 CONTACT OFFICER: DAVID GURTLER EXTENSION: 7568
Application No. Location Proposal
17. 13199A/98/71 269 SWAKELEYS ROAD, ERECTION OF A SINGLE ICKENHAM STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND A DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE (Date of receipt: 19.1.98) Drawing Nos. 9731/1, 9731/2 and 9731/3 (received 19.1.98)
Ickenham Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The side extension would be in line with the existing front building line of No. 269 Swakeleys Road, although this would be in front of No. 267 it would not result in a significant loss of light to that property. In relation to the rear conservatory to No. 267, this already is shaded by No. 269’s garage/store and the main buildings of Nos. 267 and 269, and it is considered that the alterations to the roof would not significantly increase the loss of light or warrant refusal.
The detached garage in the rear garden would not make a positive contribution to improving the character and appearance of the area. Rather if this form of development were to go ahead it would set an undesirable precedent, would alter the character of this residential road and would adversely affect the amenities of residents living in Silver Birch Close.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL, for the following reason:-
1. The proposed garage by reason of its size, bulk and obtrusive appearance would be out of scale and character with this residential area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the residential amenities of the occupiers of properties in Silver Birch Close. As such the proposal would not accord with Policy UL3 of the Ickenham Local Plan and Policies BE10, BE12 and BE14 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.1 Hectares 0.25 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost 1 Provided 5 Required 3
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: Extension 15.5m2 Garage 35m2
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 92 TREES: EXISTING: 2 TO BE RETAINED: 2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted 5 No. of replies 13
Comments:
1. Silver Birch Close is a narrow road and with cars parked on one side it would not be possible to gain access to the garage. 2. The provision of a garage with access to Silver Birch Close would detrimentally affect access, for residents, Council refuse lorries and emergency services, to properties in the Close. 3. Access and egress to and from the proposed garage could result in accidents since the users would be unsighted. 4. The proposed garage sets an undesireable precedent for similar forms of development to properties in Swakeleys Road and is not necessary. 5. Silver Birch Close is already used by commuters/car sharers for parking and is heavily congested, this proposal will exacerbate the problems, resulting in a loss of parking. 6. The proposed garage is too large and out of character with the Georgian style properties of Silver Birch Close and will be detrimental to the amenities of the residents (visual intrusion, noise and disturbance, headlights shining into the living rooms). 7. The proposed garage would result in a loss of privacy to the residential properties opposite in Silver Birch Close. 8. The size of the garage is such that it may be used for other purposes and could result in noise and disturbance to the adjoining residents. 9. There are a number of mature trees close to the garage that are covered by TPO 127/1972, and would be damaged by the proposed garage. 10. The existing garage to 269A Swakeleys Road should not be taken as a precedent since it is infrequently used for parking. Also the residents of Silver Birch Close were not consulted in relation to this development and so had no opportunity to object. 11. The plans that show the garage opening on to a ‘service road’ are misleading since Silver Birch Close is not a service road but rather a residential road. 12. The plans do not show the properties that are most affected by the proposed garage, namely those in Silver Birch Close. 13. The applicant has had materials delivered to the rear garden gate in Silver Birch Close and these have often remained in-situ for long periods of time. This development may result in further rubbish being left next to the garage. 14. The proposed garage would result in a loss of value to properties in Silver Birch Close. 15. The proposed side extension would result in a loss of light to the hall and lounge of 267 Swakeleys Road. 16. The provision of a hipped roof to the side single storey element of the building would result in loss of sunlight to the conservatory (particularly in October to April - when the angle of the sun is much lower).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 93 OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Ickenham Residents Association No planning reason to object to the side extension but have concerns to the garage in the rear garden. The description of Silver Birch Close as a service road is misleading. The Close has parking restrictions (vans and lorries) since it is very narrow. There would appear to be a ransom strip that the Council owns which may prevent access to Silver Birch Close. Entry and exit to the garage could be a source of inconvenience to residents opposite and would be detrimental to their amenities.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a two storey detached property on the eastern side of Swakeleys Road, approximately 100m north of its junction with Warren Road. The site is 15m wide and 65m in depth, extending from the Swakeleys Road frontage to Silver Birch Close in the rear.
To the north of the main house is a single storey attached garage and store room, set back 3.5m from the main frontage and projecting 7.5m beyond the rear line of the existing building. A shed is situated in the rear garden, with an access gate leading out to Silver Birch Close.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension, infilling the area in front of the garage to bring this part of the property up to the front building line. A hipped roof would be constructed over the new extension and the existing garage, replacing the existing sloping roof. This element of the property would then be altered internally, in order to change the use from a garage and store room to a dining room, utility room, bedroom and en-suite bathroom. A window is proposed facing No. 267 Swakeleys Road for the en-suite bathroom, whilst alterations to the fenestration in the side elevation (facing into the site) are also proposed and a new door in the end of the building leading out into the garden.
To replace the garage that is being converted, it is proposed to build a free-standing double garage in the rear garden of the property, with access to Silver Birch Close. This structure would be 5.675m wide, 6.1m deep, with a pitched roof rising to 4.5m in height.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 94 The garage would be set 1.8m off the boundary with No. 267 and 1.8m back from the boundary fence to Silver Birch Close.
Relevant Planning History
In January 1968 outline planning permission was granted for a detached house and garage to the south of No. 169 Swakeleys Road (ref: 6338/4087), this consent was not implemented. Two subsequent applications for a detached house and garage followed, the first of which was approved in October 1979 (ref: 6338A/79/635) with the second approved in March 1982 (ref: 6338B/82/1), and subsequently built. Both these applications detailed a double garage in the rear garden with access to Silver Birch Close (a development of 18 houses built in 1973 [ref: 4388B/13200]).
Planning permission was granted in July 1971 for the erection of a two storey side extension (ref: 13199/10054). This extension was to follow the front and rear line of the main property, with the flank wall adjacent to No. 267 Swakeleys Road respecting the line of the existing garage.
Planning Standards and Policies
Policy UL3 of the Ickenham Local Plan states that all new development should make a positive contribution to improving the character and appearance of the area. Policy UL2 refers to extensions normally being acceptable if they accord with Design Guidance.
These policies are reflected within the Deposit Draft of the Unitary Development Plan in Policies BE10 and BE12 and Appendix A ‘Design Guide: Residential Extensions’.
Main Planning Issues
The main considerations in relation to this application are the impact of the extension upon the amenities of the adjoining occupier at No. 267 Swakeleys Road and the impact of the proposed garage upon the residential amenities of occupiers of properties in Silver Birch Close.
The single storey side extension would be 0.8m off the boundary, but would project approx. 4.5m in front of the main line of No. 267. However, this is the same distance forward of that property to the 1971 approval for a two storey side extension and the current proposal is only for a single storey side extension. Although the application site is to the south of No. 267, it was considered in 1971 that the proposal would not result in a significant loss of light to the adjoining property, the current proposal would have less impact than that previously approved.
With regard to the alterations to the pitch of the roof over the existing single storey element and the impact upon the rear conservatory, it is considered that these would not result in a significant loss of light. The existing building is approx. 2.8m high within 0.8m of the boundary, the proposal would keep soffit level at this height, but then add a pitched roof, rising to 4.5m in the centre (over 3m from the boundary), though the ridge would start 2.5m from the end of the building due to the hipped design. The
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 95 conservatory to the rear of No. 267 is already shaded in the afternoon by the existing single storey extension and by No. 267 itself, the addition of a pitched roof would not significantly reduce the light to the existing conservatory.
With regard to the garage proposal fronting Silver Birch Close, the two main considerations are the acceptability of providing an access for cars from properties in Swakeleys Road onto Silver Birch Close and secondly, the effect of the proposed structure on the residential amenities.
Although Silver Birch Close is a narrow road at this point (approx. 5.5m wide) it should be noted that the Area Engineer has no objection to the proposal on highway grounds. In addition, by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, planning permission is not required for a hardstanding and consequently any of the properties in Swakeleys Road could create vehicular accesses to hardstandings in their rear gardens without the need for planning consent. The section of concrete referred to by the Ickenham Residents Association as a ‘ransom strip’ is in fact part of the adopted public highway. It is therefore considered that a refusal of access to the Silver Birch Close could not be supported.
The second issue relates to the effect upon the amenity of properties in Silver Birch Close. The proposed garage is similar in size and appearance to that approved in the rear garden of No. 269A (the largest difference would be the depth the new garage projects into the garden would be approx. 40 cm greater than the garage in the adjoining property). However, since the approval of that development there have been alterations to the Development Plan which are new material considerations.
The Ickenham Local Plan was adopted in 1985, and the Deposit Version of the Unitary Development Plan has been through two public inquiries. Both of these plans emphasise the need for all new development to make a positive contribution to improving the character and appearance of the area and seeking to ensure that detriment is not caused to the residential amenities of the area.
The proposed garage would have an adverse visual impact upon occupiers of properties in Silver Birch Close. The ground from the road slopes down to the front entrances to these houses, such that the garage would appear over dominant when viewed from the front living room of the properties in Silver Birch Close. In addition, the nature of the development is such that the increased comings and goings of vehicles would result in noise and disturbance to the residents living opposite the garage.
Further developments of this type would change the character of Silver Birch Close and would not compliment or improve the character of the area. Rather the residential amenities of those living in Silver Birch Close would suffer, since the nature of the area would change, with both the visual aspect and character being more akin to a ‘service road’ to a garage forecourt.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 96 Public Consultation
Five neighbouring occupiers were consulted with 13 replies received, as well as a reply from the residents association (the contents of these replies are summarised above).
Conclusion
The side extension would not significantly affect the residential amenities of the adjoining occupier, however, the proposed rear garage would result in detriment to the visual and residential amenities of occupiers of properties living in Silver Birch Close.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
4 and the Deposit Draft UDP
In addition the following documents were also used:- a) 14 letters making representations (the contents of which are summarised in the report)
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 97 CONTACT OFFICER: CHRIS SAWDEN EXTENSION: 3837
Application No. Location Proposal
18. 42966BF/98/506 180-181 HIGH STREET DEMOLITION OF UXBRIDGE NOS. 180-181, HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE (APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT) (Date of receipt: 19.3.98) Drawing Nos. P2706(AL) 01001, P2706(AL) 01002 REV B, P2706(AL) 1018 & P2706(AL) 01019 received on: 19.3.98 and letter dated 18.3.98
Central Hillingdon Local Plan ) Uxbridge Town Centre Draft Unitary Development Plan ) Primary Shopping Area (as Proposed to be Modified)
(1) SUMMARY
Consent is sought for the demolition of Nos. 180-181 High Street. Planning permission exists for the comprehensive redevelopment of this site which envisages the loss of this building. It is not considered that the loss of this building would cause harm to the character/appearance of the Conservation Area, if the planning permission for redevelopment is implemented. However, to allow premature demolition is unacceptable and contrary to Central Government advice. The Council’s position in this respect is safeguarded by condition and a legal agreement which formed part of the enabling works package.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (G1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (G1) Standard 2. (G3) Premature Demolition in 2. (G3) Standard Conservation Areas
INFORMATIVES
1. (14) Compliance with Legislation Administered by PPS 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 98 (3) INFORMATION
*THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
*(a) being within or affecting a conservation area
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
English Heritage No objections
Old Uxbridge Conservation No objections
Area Advisory Panel
(4) REPORT
The Site
This proposal relates directly to application ref. No. 42966AH/96/1862 for the “redevelopment, alteration, refurbishment and changes of use to provide a shopping centre and retail units to include uses falling within Classes A1, A2 and A3 together with ancillary uses, residential units, cinema, highway works, including the formation of new vehicular and pedestrian access, alterations to existing access for car parking, servicing and landscaping, together with associated highway works and other works incidental to the redevelopment of the application site. Basically, the comprehensive redevelopment for retail, residential and leisure purposes of the site historically known as Blocks 6 and 7/St Georges. This was granted planning permission on 11 November 1997.
The Proposal
This application before Members tonight relates to 180-181 High Street, Uxbridge and it seeks consent to demolish this building.
Relevant Planning History
Planning permission was granted on 11 November 1997 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Blocks 6/7 site (ref: 42966AH/96/1862).
Listed Building Consent was granted on 11 November 1997 for the demolition of the listed wall attached to Uxbridge Station.
Conservation Area Consent was granted on 11 November 1997 for the demolition of Nos. 175/176, the rear of Nos. 180/181, the extensions at the rear of Nos. 178, 179, 182, 183 and 185/186 and Nos. 187-191 High Street, Uxbridge. This application originally included 196-206 High Street but was amended to exclude these properties. This was as a direct result of negotiations between officers and the applicant on the contents of an enabling package. In June 1997 the applicants brought to the attention of
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 99 officers the need to undertake ‘enabling works’ in late 1997. The applicants advised that it was essential to proceed with these enabling works in order to meet the earliest possible date for the centre to open i.e. Autumn 2000.
The enabling works involved the demolition of the Grade II Listed Station Wall, the locally listed buildings 175/176 High Street, demolition of the rear of 180-181 High Street, demolition of extensions to the rear of 178, 179, 182, 183 and 185/186 High Street and the demolition of 187-191 High Street and the George Square Car Park. These demolitions have enabled the applicants to undertake the diversion of services via Atwells Yard and Nash’s Yard, to complete the archaeological investigations in Area A and to demolish and remove the associated rubble.
The applicants requested that the enabling works package be specifically excluded from the definition of development i.e. the enabling works should not be regarded as implementing the planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. This was due to the fact that the applicants will not decide until June/July this year if they are to build the scheme following the completion of the tendering process.
This was regarded as a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with such an application, being contrary to Central Government advice in PPG15 which states “it will often be appropriate to impose on the grant of consent for demolition a condition to provide that demolition shall not take place until a contract for the carrying out of works of re- development has been made and planning permission for these works has been granted. In the past ugly gaps have sometimes appeared in Conservation Areas as a result of demolition far in advance of redevelopment. The decision to grant Conservation Area consent last year. without linking it to a contract for the redevelopment of the site is clearly contrary to Government advice.
In making the decision Members took into account the applicant’s tight construction programme, their aim to handover the department store shell to the operator towards the end of 1999 to allow them a 44 week fit out period and opening the centre for trading in Autumn 2000. This was balanced against the harm there would be if the Council granted consent for premature demolition, with the main concerns relating to (i) the impact upon the character of the Old Uxbridge Conservation Area; (ii) the retail impact; and (iii) the overall impact upon Uxbridge Town Centre.
It was not considered that the possibility of the centre opening for trading in Autumn 2000 was sufficient justification to permit premature demolition. However, the Council secured a fallback position via a legal agreement if the applicants do not commit to the scheme. This would eventually see the empty gaps of the Listed Station Wall, the locally listed 175/176 High Street and 187-191 High Street (together with the George Square Car Park) filled with appropriate replacement buildings. In addition 197-215 High Street are to be retained until the applicant commits to the development. The locally listed buildings 178, 179, 182-186 which are to be retained are to be refurbished and made structurally sound with this work having commenced earlier this year. This was regarded as a positive benefit to the Conservation Area. In addition, the gaps that appear in the High Street street scene are to be ‘filled’ with a decorative hoarding in the interim period.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 100 With regards to the loss of George Square Car Park the fallback position requires a temporary car park to be laid out on the site accommodating 473 vehicles.
Turning to the issue of loss of retail units, it was acknowledged that these (175/176 and 187-191 High Street) would be lost anyway if the development were to proceed. The main problem being the interim period if the development is not to proceed, but that this needed to be balanced against the retention of a number of other High Street units which the applicants are legally obliged to use their reasonable endeavours to let. It was also noted that there will be disruption to retail activity whilst 178/179 and 182-186 High Street are refurbished.
Conservation Area Consent was granted by Members at last month’s Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee for the demolition of nos. 196-206 High Street, Uxbridge.
Planning Standards and Policies
Policy UL14 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan; Policy BE4 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (as Proposed to be Modified) (UDP; Central Government Guidance is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.
Main Planning Issues
Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 stipulates that demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas is subject to control. In exercising these controls Local Planning Authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. This is the prime consideration in determining a consent application.
Paragraph 4.27 of PPG15 “Planning and the Historic Environment” is of particular relevance to this proposal, it advises that the decision-maker is entitled to consider the merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unlisted building in a Conservation Area. Planning permission has been granted for the comprehensive redevelopment of this site. This scheme envisages the loss of Nos. 180-181 High Street, Uxbridge. This building is not on the statutory or local list of buildings and the loss is not perceived to be harmful to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. However, premature demolition would be harmful and this building should not be demolished until the applicant commits to the scheme. A condition will be attached to the Conservation Area Consent which safeguards the Council’s position.
In addition to the above condition the applicants are legally obliged to keep these buildings. This was a requirement of the Conservation Area Consent (ref: 39429J/96/1859) for the premature demolitions/enabling works referred to earlier.
Public Consultation
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 101 No objections received.
Conclusion
This application seeks permission to demolish 180-181 High Street, Uxbridge. Given that there is an acceptable scheme for the redevelopment of this site which was granted planning permission in November last year, there is no objection to the loss of this building in terms of impact upon the character/appearance of the Conservation Area. However, if this building is demolished prematurely then the creation of an empty gap in the High Street would be harmful. It is therefore recommended that the applicants are not permitted to demolish this building until they commit to implementing planning permission ref: 42966AH/96/1862 dated 11 November 1997 for the comprehensive redevelopment of this site for retail, residential and leisure purposes.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of this agenda:-
5, 21
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 102 CONTACT OFFICER: RICHARD BUXTON EXTENSION: 3606
Application No. Location Proposal
19. 52515A/98/57 27 MANOR WAYE ERECTION OF A SINGLE UXBRIDGE STOREY REAR EXTENSION
(Date of receipt: 16.1.98) Drawing No. FDB171297- 192 received on: 16.1.98
Central Hillingdon Local Plan - Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
Whilst the proposal is technically deeper than policy guidance would dictate for a semi- detached property the individual site characteristics will ensure that the amenities of the adjoining occupiers are not harmed.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D1) No additional windows or 3. (D1) Standard doors (‘facing 25 and 29 Manor Waye) 4. (D4) Prevention of balconies 2. (D4) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Compliance with Legislation Administered by PPS 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control.
(3) INFORMATION
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 30m²
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 4 No. of replies: Nil
OTHER CONSULTATIONS: COMMENTS
Area Engineer No objection
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 103 (4) REPORT
The Site
This is a semi-detached bungalow situated in the residential area to the south of St. Andrew’s Church and to the west of Hillingdon Road with the properties in this part of the street in an irregular layout. The road combines semi-detached bungalows, semi- detached houses and terraced properties with a pair of semi-detached houses to the north of the application site set 4 metres behind number 27 Manor Waye.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension which is 3.25m (deep) adjacent to the other semi-detached property, and 4.5m (deep) on the northern side of the extension such that it has an ‘L’ shaped configuration.
Planning History
None applicable.
Planing Standards and Policies
Those of relevance to this proposal include UL8 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and BE12, BE13, and BE14 of the Emerging Unitary Development Plan.
Main Planning Issues
The predominant planning issue revolves around the impact of the extension on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers. Where the extension adjoins the other half of the semi-detached property (No. 25) the depth of the extension complies with design guidance (3.25m deep) and will not harm the adjoining occupiers particularly as the extension is to the north of number 25. Where the extension is 4.5m deep the siting of the extension 2 metres from the northern boundary of the site and the gap to number 29 Manor Waye (which has been extended already) will ensure that mass, bulk, and overdominance will not occur to a significant degree. Additionally, whilst some loss of outlook will be evidence to the occupiers of 29 Manor Waye from their ground floor side window no direct loss of sunlight will occur as a result of the extension.
Public Consultation
No comments have been received.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 104 Conclusion
Whilst the proposal is technically deeper than policy guidance would dictate (3.25m) the individual site characteristics will ensure that the amenities of the adjoining occupiers are not harmed. It is, therefore, recommended accordingly.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5, Emerging UDP
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 105 CONTACT OFFICER: JIM READ EXTENSION: 2397
Application No. Location Proposal
20. 15676C/98/283 69 ROCKINGHAM ROAD, CONTINUED USE BY UXBRIDGE HOSPICE OF PREMISES FOR STORAGE OF FURNITURE WITH RETAILING ELEMENT (Date of receipt: 9.2.98) Drawing No. Unnumbered floor plan and 1:1250 site plan received on 9/2/98 and letter dated 2/4/98 received 3/4/98
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The application has been submitted by Thames Valley Hospice Trading, a registered charity providing care for the terminally ill. They have occupied a light industrial premises on the south side of Rockingham Road, between the ‘Mahjacks’ roundabout and Waterloo Road. The change of use to storage of furniture is not problematical, but in view of the retailing of second hand furniture primarily to local landlords, a one year temporary and personal permission is recommended, to take account both of the special circumstances of the applicant and to prevent the permanent establishment of retailing at this site.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The use hereby permitted shall be 1. The permission has been carried on only by Thames Valley granted due to the special Hospice. circumstances of the applicant. 2. The use hereby permitted shall be 2. The retailing use would not for a limited period being the period normally be permitted at this of 1 year from the date of this letter. site and the LPA would not wish to see it become established. The temporary permission would enable the LPA to monitor the impact of the proposal on parking in the area. 3. When the premises cease to be 3. The retailing use would not occupied by Thames Valley normally be permitted at this Hospice or at the end of 1 year site and the LPA would not from the date of this letter wish to see it become whichever shall first occur, the use established. The temporary Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 106 hereby permitted shall cease and permission would enable the all materials or equipment brought LPA to monitor the impact of on to the premises in connection the proposal on parking in with the use shall be removed. the area. 4. (B8) The parking area in the yard 4. (B8) Standard shown on the submitted plan shall be permanently retained and used for no other purpose.
INFORMATIVE
1. You are hereby reminded that the pedestrian footway in front of the premises should not be obstructed at any time, particularly when vehicles are loading or unloading at the premises.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.017 Hectare
CAR PARKING: Lost: - Provided: 3 Required: Sufficient in view of the applicants’ circumstances & the type of trading to be carried out.
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 176.5m2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 3 No. of replies: 0
Comments:
No replies received.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer No objection, subject to 1 year temporary and personal condition.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The site is a light industrial premises with 176.5m2 of floorspace contained in a single storey building. Immediately in front of the building is an open yard which is approximately 7 metres by 7 metres in size. The premises is located on the south side of Rockingham Road, in the stretch that runs between Waterloo Road and ‘Mahjacks’ roundabout.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 107 The Proposal
Permission is sought to use the premises for the storage of merchandise (second hand furniture) prior to its resale to the public (stated by the applicant primarily to be local landlords). The applicant is Thames Valley Hospice Trading, part of a registered charity needing to raise over £1.5 million per annum to care for the terminally ill. Thames Valley currently have a shop unit next door to the Central Library in Uxbridge High Street, where retail sales of small items directly to the public are carried out.
The applicants have stated that the retail element at the site subject of this application would not be like a conventional retail operation; although in theory the general public would be allowed to enter and view the furniture for sale, in practice most of the customers, as stated by the applicants “tend generally to be landlords that we have known for several years who visit us regularly”.
Relevant Planning History
Departmental records indicate that the authorised use of the premises appears to be for light industrial (class B1(c) of the Use Classes Order 1987). An official determination under section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act to this effect was made in 1988 (ref. 15676B/88/146).
Planning Standards and Policies
(i) Policy E8 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan (CHLP) Policy LE8 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as proposed to be modified. These policies seek to prevent the loss of premises currently used for light industrial purposes.
(ii) Policy T12 of the CHLP Policy AM15 of the UDP These policies seek to ensure that where development occurs, sufficient off-street parking, turning, loading and unloading facilities should be provided.
Main Planning Issues
The storage use per sec of a light industrial premises does not require planning permission as it is deemed to be permitted development by the current planning legislation. The retailing (and what amounts to a ‘showroom’ use) is significant enough to require planning permission. The applicants previously had premises at Slough which they recently had to close due to site redevelopment, whilst this application site offers them the required space at an affordable rent. Given their individual circumstances, it is considered acceptable in this case to permit their retailing operation which is not like a normal shop use as most of the clients fall into a particular category of person (local landlords).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 108 The Council would not normally wish to encourage retailing at this site as this part of Rockingham Road is relatively narrow and on one of the main access routes into and out of Uxbridge. However, the level of visits by customers is unlikely to cause on-street parking problems as in most instances the customers would be able to park in the yard. Should they arrive when loading or unloading is actually taking place on-street parking is permissible in the vicinity of the site.
In any event, the Area Engineer, in taking into account the circumstances of the applicant, has agreed that a one year temporary permission is acceptable, to enable the situation to be monitored and reassessed, should the applicants wish to renew the permission in one year’s time.
Although the grant of personal planning permissions is not generally encouraged by Central Government, there are instances where the particular circumstances of the applicant justify this course of action. As it would be undesirable to allow a retail use to become permanently established at this premises, a personal permission valid only for Thames Valley Hospice Trading would take these factors into account.
Public Consultation
No comments have been received from consultees.
Conclusion
Given the particular circumstances of the applicants, I recommend a one year temporary and personal approval to allow the proposal to be carried out whilst ensuring that a retail use does not become permanently established.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5, Unitary Development Plan.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 109 CONTACT OFFICER: David Gurtler EXTENSION: 7568
Application No. Location Proposal
21. 16877P/97/2130 TROUT LANE DEPOT USE OF LAND FOR THE TROUT LANE PARKING OF 14 LORRIES YIEWSLEY AND ERECTION OF 2m HIGH PALISADE BOUNDARY FENCING AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS Drawing No. 953-04 (Date of receipt: 15/2/97) RECEIVED 15.12.97
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
There are no materially different considerations to an earlier application that was refused in September 1997 and is the subject of an enforcement notice and appeal. The fencing off and hard surfacing of previously open Green Belt land in order to provide parking for lorries in connection with the adjoining business constitutes an inappropriate expansion of the commercial concern in the Green Belt. Although a small amount of landscaping is proposed, the development is visually intrusive and detrimental to the amenities of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been established that overcome the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and as such, the proposal is still considered unacceptable in planning terms.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL, for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal constitutes an inappropriate and visually intrusive form of development within the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been established which outweigh the harm the development would have on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy GB2 of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and Policy OL1 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified). 2. The proposal would introduce further urbanisation into a stretch of open countryside within the Colne Valley Park to the detriment of the objectives of the Colne Valley Park Standing Conference and contrary to Policy OL9 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 110 (3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.12 Hectares 0.29 Acres
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: Site notice No. of replies: 0
THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
(a) being a substantial Departure from the Development Plan
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Hillingdon Federation of Residents No Reply and Tenants Associations
British Waterways No Reply though objected to earlier application as intensification of an unwelcome activity in this area
Inland Waterways No objection. Given the existing wall and building adjacent to the towpath, it is considered that the proposal will not result in a loss of visual amenity to the canalside.
London Ecology Unit No objection
English Nature No Reply
EPU To be reported
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a plot of land of a roughly triangular shape, with the narrowest point being at the Grand Union Canal (14m wide) and the widest point is some 66m to the south (30m wide). At its longest point the site is 84m in length. The northern part of the site is covered by a concrete hardstanding, whilst the southern part is uneven with compacted soil and hard-core.
The site is located at the end of Trout Lane, situated to the west of a collection of buildings used by the Sweeney Group in association with their waste transfer station. The site lies within the Green Belt and the Colne Valley Regional Park, and is bordered on the north by the Grand Union Canal. To the south and west of the application site is ‘The Lizards’, land which is within the Green Belt but has been
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 111 subject to considerable stockpiling of material for soil screening (the subject of a High Court injunction and an ongoing enforcement appeal).
The Proposal
The proposal is to erect a 2m high palisade fence on the southern and western perimeters of the site. The northern perimeter already has fencing to the Grand Union Canal, whilst the eastern side is bounded by buildings forming part of the waste transfer station.
Part of the site is already hardsurfaced and the proposal is to lay hard-core to create a hardstanding for lorries to park over the whole of the site. There would be some landscaping on parts of the perimeter and frontage, in an attempt to reduce the visual impact of the development. But in the main the area would be hardsurfaced with space for fourteen lorries to park on the northern and western perimeters.
Relevant Planning History
In September 1997 an application for the use of this site for parking was refused with enforcement action authorised (ref: 16877M/97/206). Enforcement notices were served in December 1997, thought this is now the subject of an appeal.
As part of the larger site, owned by the Sweeney Group, two Lawful Development Certificates were issued in February 1996. One for the storage and sorting of 500 tonnes of non-putrescible waste products (ref: 16877G/94/529) and the other for the storage and sorting of 500 tonnes of waste animal products (ref: 16877/H/95/1067)
Planning Standards and Policies
The relevant policies within the Central Hillingdon Local Plan are GB2 (acceptable uses within the Green Belt), GB3 (comprehensive landscaping improvements in Green Belt), T2 (transportation effects of any development), UL1 (new development to make positive contribution), UL4 (development to retain topographical and landscape features), UL17 (canalside development), UL21 (restrictions on uses which may cause noise nuisance), and UL23 (restrictions on uses that may pollute air, land or water).
These standards are reiterated within the Draft Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified) in Policies OL1 (acceptable uses within the Green Belt), OL2 (comprehensive landscaping improvements in Green Belt), OL3 (retain and improve landscaping on land adjoining the Green Belt), OL9 (aims and objectives of Colne Valley Park Standing Conference), BE24 (canalside development), BE30 (development to retain topographical and landscape features), OE1 (restrictions on uses which may cause noise nuisance), OE6 (restrictions on uses that may pollute air, land or water) and AM6 (transportation effects of any development).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 112 Main Planning Issues
The main issue in relation to this application is the impact of the proposal upon the function and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the Colne Valley Regional Park. The creation of a lorry park upon a piece of Green Belt land is clearly an inappropriate form of development in relation to the functions of the Green Belt. Central Government Policy, in the form of Planning Policy Guidance 2 and Strategic Planning Guidance, states that there is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, except in very special circumstances.
The justification for the proposal advanced by the applicant is that ‘this area forms part of a working waste transfer yard, employing local people and clearing up local waste.’ In addition the applicant notes that since first commencing operation in 1942, the type of vehicle frequenting the yard has increased in size and there is an increased amount of waste. If consent is granted, vehicles will be able to be removed from the access road to the site and be stored in a secure compound.
The fact that the applicant desires to increase the space associated with the haulage business beyond its existing boundaries would suggest that the site itself is not capable of accommodating the existing use detailed in the Certificate of Lawful Use or Development.
The efficient functioning of a future use of the site or an intensification in the existing Lawful Use, is not sufficient grounds to justify the expansion of built development into an open area of Green Belt. The limited landscaping proposed, aimed at screening off the lorry park, would not overcome the objections in principle to this form of inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
It is considered that this development would be detrimental to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the Colne Valley Park.
Public Consultation
No response.
Conclusion
The application involves the expansion of a commercial development into an area of Green Belt land and runs contrary to policy. As such planning permission should be refused.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5 and the Draft UDP as proposed to be modified
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 113 CONTACT OFFICER: DAVID GURTLER EXTENSION: 7568
Application No. Location Proposal
22. 2168Z/98/131 STATION HOUSE, USE OF BUILDING FOR 4-8 HIGH STREET, HEALTH RESOURCE YIEWSLEY CENTRE (CLASS D2) AND RETENTION OF THIRD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION (Date of receipt:10.2.98) Drawing Nos. 889/1SK.CP, 889/2SK.A, 889/3SK.A, 889/4SK (received 10.2.98) and 889/1SK.A (received 9.3.98) and letters dated 2.298 and 13.3.98
Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area
(1) SUMMARY
The proposal involves the change of use of the ground floor from B1 offices to A2 offices (providing services primarily to visiting members of the public) and the change of use of the other floors (other than the residential element) to D1 (non-institutional use). It is considered that the proposed change of use provides a valuable service to this part of the Borough and the ground floor use would be appropriate within the secondary shopping area of the Yiewsley/West Drayton Town Centre.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B8) Parking Arrangements 2. (B8) Standard 3. Prior to the occupation of the 3. To ensure that adequate premises, details of the proposed facilities are provided for access ramp and alterations to people with disabilities and the front elevation of the building to safeguard the visual (including materials, gradients amenities of the area. and building entrances) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 114 4. The residential unit on the third 4. To safeguard a residential floor of the premises, detailed to unit and prevent the be retained in the letter dated depletion of the Council’s 13.3.98, shall be retained as housing stock in residential accommodation and accordance with policies in not used for any other purpose. the Central Hillingdon Local Plan and the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified.
(3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.12 Hectares 0.30 Acres
CAR PARKING: Lost: 8 Provided: 45 Required: 51 (1 space for 33 staff & 2 spaces for 9 consulting rooms)
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 1,625m2 (excludes third floor flat)
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 21 No. of replies: 0
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Area Engineer To be reported
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a four storey office block located on the eastern side of the High Street, between the canal bridge and the junction with Station Approach. The upper floor of the building includes a residential flat.
The building is located within the secondary shopping area of Yiewsley/West Drayton Town Centre.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought to change the use of the building from office use to a Health Resource Centre. The application does not affect the area occupied by the third floor flat.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 115 The proposal is associated with Hillingdon Park Hospital, where there is inadequate space and the hospital recognises a need for a service covering the south-western part of the Borough. The proposed use would be as a community based facility for Hillingdon Independant Living Centre (to provide advice and information to individuals with disabilities living and working in the community), a base for the Mental Health Team (with treatment rooms on an outpatient booking system as well as a day centre for past and present clients) and also for the Learning Difficulties Team (providing a base for staff to provide advice and information).
As such the centre would include reception, areas for display and demonstration for Hillingdon Independant Living Centre, a drop-in facility (as well as appointment system) to see consultants in the Mental Health Team, group work and discussion rooms, club type facilities to help patients relax and unwind and office facilities for staff based in the building.
At the ground floor there will be a physical alteration in the area to the north of the building. In order to provide access for people with disabilites, a ramp from the car park area would be constructed, providing wheel chair access to the High Street and to the building itself. The ramp would result in the loss of three marked out car parking spaces, though these spaces are all in fact substandard. In addition, the provision of suitable disabled spaces results in the loss of a further five parking spaces.
Relevant Planning History
Three separate planning permissions were granted in 1982 in relation to the office building. In August 1982 consent was granted for the erection of a four storey office block at Nos. 4-6 High Street (ref: 2168P/82/827). Permission was then granted in November 1982 for an extension of the original scheme over Nos. 8 and 8A (ref: 2168S/82/1382). At the same time consent was granted for a one-bedroom flat above Nos. 4-6, which replaced a residential unit that had been lost as a result of the redevelopment of the shop and flat at Nos. 8 and 8A (ref: 2168R/82/1386).
In August 1986 an appeal against the failure ot the Council to determine an application for the change of use of the third floor flat to executive dining rooms was dismissed by the Secretary of State.
Planning Standards and Policies
Policies SOC1 (health services acceptable in principle in developed areas), S8 (acceptable service uses within shopping areas), Policy T12 (off-street car parking requirement), T15 (parking spaces for people with disabilities), and DIS2 (access for people with disabilities) of the Central Hillingon Local Plan are relevant to this application.
The following policies within the Draft Unitary Development Plan as proposed to be modified are also relevant, R12 (health services acceptable in principle in developed areas), S3 (accessibility needs to buildings), S14 (acceptable uses in secondary
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 116 shopping areas), AM13 (parking spaces for people with disabilities), AM15 (off-street car parking requirement).
Main Planning Issues
The main considerations are the acceptability of the change of use of this building from B1 office use to a Health Resource Centre, and the impact of the use upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
Within the secondary shopping area of Yiewsley certain uses are considered acceptable if they are appropriate to the role and function of the centre. It should be noted that the use of the current building is as offices (Class B1), and the proposed change of use would be more likely to attract visiting members of the public to this part of the secondary shopping area.
Although the building would be changing from B1 use (offices) to D1 use (non- residential institutions), this form of use is considered appropriate in the developed area, whilst the use of the ground floor would be similar to an office type use, frequented by visiting members of the public (Class A2) and this use is acceptable in the secondary shopping area (and preferable to B1 offices).
The site is suitable for this form of use, being located close to public transport facilities (with the bus station in Station Approach and the nearby West Drayton and Yiewsley railway station).
Although the car parking provision does not meet the Council’s car parking standards, this arises for a number of reasons:
· a desire to provide an adequate number of parking spaces for people with disabilities (8 disabled bays which take up more space than ordinary car parking places and result in the loss of three exisiting spaces), · the provision of an access ramp for wheel chair users to gain access from the carpark to the building (resulting in the loss of three spaces - two of which were substandard), and · the removal of two further substandard car parking spaces
It is considered that due to the property’s location in the Town Centre, with the good local public transport and with the need to provide disabled parking, there would not be sufficient reason to sustain a reason for refusing this application.
Public Consultation
21 adjoining occupiers were consulted with no replies received.
Conclusion
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 117 It is considered that the proposal would provide a significant improvement to the quality of patient services provided in the south-western part of the Borough and that in planning terms the change of use of these premises is acceptable.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5 and the Deposit Draft UDP
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 118 23. LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS CONFIRMED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
TPO No: 567A
Location: 72 AND 95 SWAKELEYS DRIVE, ICKENHAM
Description: ONE COPPER BEECH AND ONE COMMON OAK
Date TPO Confirmed: 3 OCTOBER 1996
TPO No: 568
Location: VYNERS SCHOOL, WARREN ROAD, ICKENHAM
Description: WOODLAND (MAINLY OAK)
Date TPO Confirmed: 29 FEBRUARY 1996
TPO No: 569
Location: LAND AT THE REAR OF 20-24 TUDOR WAY (PASTURES MEAD) AND AT AURIOL DRIVE, HILLINGDON
Description: ONE OAK AND ONE COMMON ASH
Date TPO Confirmed: 6 FEBRUARY 1996
TPO No: 570
Location: 42 CHILTERN CLOSE, ICKENHAM
Description: ONE OAK
Date TPO Confirmed: 29 FEBRUARY 1996
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 119 TPO No: 584
Location: 15, 16 AND 19 WREN DRIVE, WEST DRAYTON
Description: ONE FALSE ACACIA AND TWO HORSE CHESTNUTS
Date TPO Confirmed: 17 JULY 1997
TPO No: 585
Location: PARK LODGE, COURT DRIVE, HILLINGDON
Description: ONE OAK
Date TPO Confirmed: 13 MARCH 1997
TPO No: 587
Location: LAND AT 1-24 PHILPOTS CLOSE, HIGH STREET, YIEWSLEY
Description: ONE SILVER BIRCH, TWO CHERRY TREES, ONE ROWAN AND ONE HAWTHORN
Date TPO Confirmed: 9 OCTOBER 1997
TPO No: 591
Location: 4 ELTHORNE ROAD AND 15 KINGS ROAD, UXBRIDGE
Description: TWO SILVER BIRCHES
Date TPO Confirmed: 17 JULY 1997
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 120 PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE - 21 APRIL 1998 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA
CONTACT OFFICER: CHRIS SAWDEN EXTENSION: 3837
Application No. Location Proposal
26. (A) 2864X/96/1861 219/221 HIGH STREET, ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY UXBRIDGE SIDE EXTENSION, RETENTION, REFURBISHMENT AND CHANGE (Date of receipt: 19.11.96) OF USE TO CLASS A3 (FOOD (Last amended plans received: 24.2.98 AND DRINK) AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION Drawing Nos. (Applications A & B) 2706 AL (00) 208 - 1B 2706 AL (00) 401 - PP1 2706 AL (00) 402 - PP1 2706 AL (00) 403 - PP1 2706 AL (00) 405 - PP3 Rev - A 2706 AL (00) 406 - PP2 Rev - A 2706 AL (00) 407 - PP2 Rev - A 2706 AL (00) 409 - PP1 2706 AL (00) 412 - PP1 2706 AL (00) 413 - PP 2706 AL (00) 415 - PP 2706 AL (00) 416 - PP 2706 AL (00) 417 - PP 2706 AL (00) 420 received 24.2.98 and letter dated 20/2/98 CHLP: Uxbridge Town Centre
(1) SUMMARY (A & B)
The reuse of a listed building which should secure its upkeep. This proposal forms part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Blocks 6/7 site and provides a complimentary use to the proposed cinema, 222 High Street and the timber framed building. The proposed internal alterations, extension and use have been agreed with English Heritage and are acceptable in planning and listed building consent terms. Conditions on both the planning permission and listed building consent should ensure that the works are sympathetically undertaken and safeguard amenity generally.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B10) Parking/Turning/Loading 2. (B10) Standard Arrangements
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 121 3. (B16) Details/Samples to be 3. (B16) Standard Submitted 4. (B23) Noise 4. (B23) Standard 5. (B24) Noise 5. (B24) Standard 6. (B25) External 6. (B25) Standard Openings/Machinery 7. (B28) Wine Bars 7. (B28) Standard 8. (B29) Takeaways 8. (B29) Standard 9. (B31) People with Disabilities 9. (B31) Standard 10.(D11A) Class A3 Use (shall not be 10. (D11A) Standard used for any purpose within Classes A1 or A2)
INFORMATIVES
1. (10) Disabled Persons 2. (14) Compliance with legislations administered by PPS 3. (15) Compliance with Environmental Health Legislation 4. (16) Takeaways/Restaurants Late Opening 5. (25) Compliance with legislations administered by Building Control.
Application No. Location Proposal
(B) 2864Y/96/1863 219/221 HIGH STREET, ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY UXBRIDGE SIDE EXTENSION, RETENTION, REFURBISHMENT AND CHANGE OF USE TO CLASS A3 (FOOD AND DRINK) AND ANCILLARY (Date of receipt: 19/11/96) ACCOMMODATION (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
CHLP: Uxbridge Town Centre
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (G1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (G1) Standard 2. (G3) Premature Demolition 2. (G3) Standard 3. (G4) Damage to Building 3. (G4) Standard 4. (G5) Approved Drawings 4. (G5) Standard 5. (G6) Salvaged items for re-use 5. (G6) Standard doors, fanlights, windows 6. (G9) Prior to Demolition 6. (G9) Standard 7. (G11) Limit of Demolition 7. (G11) Standard 8. (G12) Safeguarding Measures 8. (G12) Standard 9. (G13) Samples of all Materials 9. (G13) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 122 10.No works other than repairs shall 10. To prevent piecemeal and/or be undertaken in respect of this unnecessary works which listed building unless and until the would affect the character/ main contract is signed for the appearance of this historic comprehensive redevelopment of building. the Blocks 6/7 site for retail, residential and leisure uses (planning permission ref. 42966 AH/96/1862 dated 11/11/97)
INFORMATIVE
1. (8) Listed Buildings
(3) INFORMATION (A & B)
CAR PARKING: see report
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 2 No. of replies: 0
*THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
*(c) being a listed building or affecting its setting
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Old Uxbridge Conservation Area Advisory Panel No objections
Uxbridge Local History and Archive Society No response
Uxbridge Common Residents Association No response
Area Engineer No objection
English Heritage No objection
(4) REPORT (A & B)
The Site
219/221 High Street, Uxbridge a two-storey Grade II listed building which is currently occupied by Housing Services.
Originally described on the Department of Environment’s list as a late seventeenth century house with wide 2-window front of dark red brick with stone coped parapet.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 123 Gauged brick window arches remain although modern windows have been inserted on the first floor and modern shop fronts on ground floor. The back of the house is less damaged but largely concealed.
However, since the list description was compiled, the building was damaged by fire. This resulted in extensive refurbishment, remodelling and rebuilding work being undertaken. Whilst the building has been restored in a way that is nearer to its original appearance there has been a loss of most of the historic fabric.
These proposals relate to planning permission ref. no. 42966AH/96/1862 dated 11 November 1997 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site historically known as Blocks 6 and 7/St Georges for retail, residential and leisure purposes.
The Proposal
Application A - ref. no. 2864X/96/1861 seeks planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension, retention, refurbishment and change of use to Class A3 (food and drink)
Application B - ref. no. 2864Y/96/1863 seeks listed building consent for the erection of a two-storey side extensions, retention, refurbishment and change of use to Class A3 (food and drink) and ancillary accommodation (applications for Listed Building Consent).
The building will become part of a modern street scene with the department store and cinemas to the north and west.
The proposed conversion of the building carefully follows the historic plan form. However, it does open up internal walls to create usable commercial areas. Ground floor rooms G2, G3, G5 and G6 will all open into each other. The scheme retains the chimney stacks and parts of the internal walls which together with the downstand beams indicates the previous layout.
The two front doors are to be re-opened with steps up from the pavement. The main access to the building is via a side extension providing level access to the ground floor rooms. Level access is afforded to the main building via the proposed side extension. Unfortunately G14 (due to a change in level) and the smaller upper floors are not readily accessible.
At first floor level the frontage building is again opened up while retaining the lines of the older plan. The back room has balconies which overlook the ground floor of the new extension.
At second floor level the attic storey of the listed building retains its plan form with the back room remaining more or less the same.
Turning to the elevations these largely remain or are restored except on the east where the new extension hides part of the structure. Although the proposed side extension is
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 124 two storeys in height there is actually no first floor. The proposal represents an atrium between the “sinuous wall” feature and the existing building.
Members should note that the wall feature is to be rendered and creates a number of openings along ‘Chippendale Square’. The openings are to be glazed where they form the atrium feature to 219/221. To the north the wall steps up emphasising the entrance from The Square into the department store. The wall helps define the edge of the Chippendale Square space, helps to signal the entrance to the main development whilst reducing its impact on the listed building.
On the High Street elevation the walls stops with a clear glazed panel linking back into the listed building. This enables the brick built historic building to stand out solidly with lightweight glazed screens on either side.
Planning Standards and Policies
Policy UL1 - regard to the character and appearance of the area Policy UL11 - alterations/extensions to listed buildings Policy UL12/13 - uses of historic buildings Policy UL21 - neighbourly uses Policy T12 - parking/servicing standards Policy DIS1/DIS2 - accessibility to building Policy TC4 - site specific policy.
The following policies of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (as proposed to be modified)
Policy BE6 - alterations/extensions to listed buildings Policy BE7/8 - uses of historic buildings Policy OE1 - neighbourly uses Policy AM15 - parking/servicing standards Policy S3 - accessibility to buildings Policy UH6 - site specific policy.
Main Planning Issues
The main issues are whether or not the proposed alterations, extensions and use are acceptable in historic building terms.
Central Government advice is contained in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 15: Planning and Historic Environment. The Council’s Development Plan policies are based on this advice and provide the framework for assessing planning and listed building consent applications.
This building is currently occupied by Housing Services having previously been occupied by the local Gazette. In listed building terms the proposed internal alterations are considered acceptable following the buildings historic plan form. This is achieved through the retention of chimney stacks, parts of the internal walls and the downstand
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 125 beams. Although the proposed conversion opens up internal walls, it is considered that in relation to this much altered listed building the proposals are sympathetic and will do much to restore the character and appearance of the interior of the building. Whilst the proposed use is not the historic use of the building it is an acceptable use within the town centre and it will help to secure the upkeep of this historic building. The proposed use also needs to be considered in the overall context of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Blocks 6/7 site and the leisure facilities which this ‘end’ of the scheme will provide. In land use terms this proposal successfully relates to the cinema element o the scheme which is located above the department store and the re-use of 222 High Street and the timber framed building.
As stated earlier this building will become part of a modern street scene viewed in relation with the department store and cinema. The proposed extension is quite different in character and style to the brick built historic structure which will stand out solidly with lightweight glazed screens on either side. This proposal has been extensively discussed between the applicants, officers and English Heritage and what is now being proposed is considered acceptable and appropriate in design terms which allows the listed building to be properly appreciated.
Turning to the issue of residential amenity, the nearest residential properties are those on the High Street. The proposal does not afford details of sound alternation measures or extraction flues. These will be required to be submitted through the use of conditions and should therefore ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of residential amenity.
There is adequate parking available within the main car park provided in connection with the comprehensive redevelopment of this site for retail, residential and leisure uses. The premises are likely to be serviced via the High Street and this limited amount of servicing from the High Street has not met with any objections from the Area Engineer.
With regards to disabled persons access the proposal is considered reasonable in this respect.
Public Consultation
No objections received.
Conclusion
There is no objection to the principle of the use of this historic building for purposes within Use Class A3 - Food and Drink. The proposed alterations and extension have been the subject of lengthy discussions between Officers, English Heritage and the applicants. An acceptable scheme has now been produced which should hopefully provide for a viable use thereby securing the upkeep of this historic building.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 126 5, 21
In addition the following documents were also used:-
(b) Two statutory consultations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
(c) Planning History - Draft Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 127 CONTACT OFFICER: CHRIS SAWDEN EXTENSION: 3837
Application No. Location Proposal
27. (A) 7042J/97/50 222 HIGH STREET RETENTION, REFURBISH- UXBRIDGE MENT AND EXTENSION TO BUILDING AND CHANGE (Date of receipt: 14.1.97) OF USE TO USES WITHIN (Last amended plans received: 24.2.98) CLASS A3 (FOOD AND DRINK) AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION Drawing Nos. (Applications A & B): 2706 AL (00) 431 PP1; 2706 AL (00) 432 PP1; 2706 AL (00) 433 PP2; 2706 AL (00) 434 PP2; 2706 AL (00) 435 PP; 2706 AL (00) 436 PP; 2706 AL (00) 437 PP; 2706 AL (00) 438 PP1; 2706 AL (00) 439 PP1 2706 AL (00) 441 PP5 received on 24.2.98 and letters dated 20.2.98 and 3.4.98
CHLP: Uxbridge Town Centre
(1) SUMMARY (A & B)
The re-use of an historic building which should secure its upkeep. This proposal forms part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Blocks 6/7 site and provides a complimentary use to the proposed cinema. The proposal involves the removal of an unsympathetic addition and the proposed brick built extensions have been designed to ensure that they do not have an adverse impact on this listed building. Another extension involves the use of the Burge and Gall timbers displaced from the library site. This is part of the overall heritage balance of the scheme and again this has been successfully achieved. Conditions on both the planning permission and listed building consent should protect the integrity of this building and safeguard amenity.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B10) Parking/Turning/Loading 2. (B10) Standard Arrangements 3. (B16) Details/Samples to be 3. (B16) Standard Submitted 4. (B23) Noise 4. (B23) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 128 5. (B24) Noise 5. (B24) Standard 6. (B25) External 6. (B25) Standard Openings/Machinery 7. (B28) Wine Bars 7. (B28) Standard 8. (B29) Takeaways 8. (B29) Standard 9. (B31) People with Disabilities 9. (B31) Standard 10. (D11A) Class A3 Use 10. (D11A) Standard (...... shall not be used for any purpose within Classes A1 or A2)
INFORMATIVES:
1. (10) Disabled Persons 2. (14) Compliance with legislation administered by Public Protection Services 3. (15) Compliance with Environmental Health legislation 4. (16) Takeaways/Restaurants Late Opening 5. (25) Compliance with legislation administered by Building Control
Application No. Location Proposal
(B) 7042K/97/51 222 HIGH STREET RETENTION, REFURBISH- UXBRIDGE MENT AND EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING AND (Date of receipt: 14.1.97) CHANGE OF USE TO USES (Last amended plans received: 24.2.98) WITHIN CLASS A3 (FOOD AND DRINK) AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
CHLP: Uxbridge Town Centre
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (G1) Time Limit 1. (G1) Standard 2. (G3) Premature Demolition 2. (G3) Standard 3. (G4) Damage to Building 3. (G4) Standard 4. (G5) Approved Drawings 4. (G5) Standard 5. (G6) Salvaged items for re-use - 5. (G6) Standard door, fanlights, porch, window casings 6. (G9) Prior to Demolition 6. (G9) Standard 7. (G11) Limit of Demolition 7. (G11) Standard 8. (G12) Safeguarding Measures 8. (G12) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 129 9. (G13) Samples of all Materials 9. (G13) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 130 10. No works other than repairs shall 10. To prevent piecemeal be undertaken in respect of this and/or unnecessary works Listed Building unless and until which would affect the the main contract is signed for character/appearance of the comprehensive this historic building. redevelopment of the site for retail, residential and Blocks 6/7 leisure uses (planning permission ref: 42966AH/96/1862 dated 11.11.97)
INFORMATIVE:
1. (8) Listed Buildings
(3) INFORMATION (A & B)
CAR PARKING: See report
THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
A Listed Building or affecting its setting.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Old Uxbridge Conservation Area No objections Advisory Panel
North Uxbridge Residents Association No response
Area Engineer No objection
English Heritage No objection
(4) REPORT (A & B)
The Site
No. 222 High Street is a grade II Listed Building set back from the highway. It is described on the listing schedule as a late eighteenth century three storey house made of yellow brick with a stone coped parapet and a hipped slate roof. Access to the site is from the High Street.
These proposals relate directly to the application ref. no. 42966AH/96/1862 for the “redevelopment, alteration, refurbishment and changes of use to provide a shopping centre and retail units to include uses falling within Classes A1, A2 and A3 together with ancillary uses, residential units, cinema, highway works, including the formation of new
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 131 vehicular and pedestrian access, alterations to existing access for car parking, servicing and landscaping, together with associated highway works and other works incidental to the redevelopment of the application site”. This application was granted planning permission on 11 November 1997 for the site historically known as Blocks 6 and 7/St. Georges.
The site of 222 High Street forms an integral part of the overall scheme for the comprehensive redevelopment for retail, residential and leisure uses.
The Proposal
Application ref. no. 7042J/97/50 seeks planning permission for the retention, refurbishment and extension to the building and a change of use to uses within Class A3 (food and drink) with ancillary accommodation.
Application ref. no. 7042K/97/51 seeks listed building consent for the development outlined above.
These applications have been the subject of extensive negotiations between the applicants, officers and English Heritage and have been significantly amended.
The proposal involves the removal of a large unsympathetic extension to the rear of the building.
Whilst the application seeks consent for a general use within Class A3 (Food and Drink) the layout plan indicates that the building is to be converted for restaurant use. The scheme retains the basic plan form of the building and helps to re-establish it at the rear left corner where the modern addition - which is to be removed - is currently found.
The existing entrance is maintained with a more appropriately located stair with openings in the walls to bar areas on the left and right.
The main entrance appears to be by a new side door providing level access to the building. The rear left room opens up to the new single storey extension which is detailed as the restaurant dining room.
At first floor level the two front rooms are retained as is the back left room. These are shown to be used as function rooms. The second floor is to be the subject of more sub-division, however internal walls are now to be retained. A staff flat, rest room, office and toilets are shown to be created at this level.
The single storey rear extension links into the main house and this is shown to provide a dining room with a side addition providing kitchen and toilet facilities.
Attached to No. 222 adjoining the communal entrance area is an extension formed from the Burge and Gall timbers. This will consist of two rows (3 bays each) of timber framed building that occupied the High Street site where the library now stands. On the redevelopment of that site the buildings were carefully recorded, dismantled and stored
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 132 ready for re-erection. The front elevation can be properly reconstructed and within the building, posts and trusses remain sufficient for this to be a sensible restoration project. Both floors are to be used for purposes within the Use Class A3 (Food and Drink) with the two storey space at the centre of the Wealdon Hall re-created.
In order to achieve this plan form a “gallery” extension is to be erected on the Chippendale Alley side of the building. It is proposed to create an escape stair at the southern end of the building.
Planning Standards and Policies
The following policies of the Central Hillingdon Local Plan (C.H.L.P.) are considered relevant:
Policy UL1 - regard to the character and appearance of the area. Policy UL11 - alterations/extensions to listed buildings. Policies UL12/13 - uses of historic buildings Policy UL21 - neighbourly uses Policy T12 - parking/servicing standards Policies DIS1/DIS2 - accessibility to buildings Policy TC4 - site specific policy
The following policies of the Draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (as proposed to be modified)
Policy BE6 - alterations/extensions to listed buildings Policy BE7/8 - uses of historic Policy OE1 - neighbourly uses Policy AM15 - parking/servicing standards Policy S3 - accessibility to buildings Policy UH6 - site specific policy
Main Planning Issues
The main issues are whether or not the proposed alterations, extensions and use are acceptable in historic building terms.
Central Government advice is contained in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 15: Planing and Historic Environment. The Council’s Development Plan policies are based on this advice and provide the framework for assessing planning and listed building consent applications.
The main building is to retain the basic plan form whilst re-establishing it at its rear left corner. As mentioned earlier these applications have been the subject of extensive discussions between the applicants. This has resulted in the retention of the existing wall lines wherever possible and the retention and restoration of chimney breasts. The resulting proportions of the rooms and the creation of the openings into them having been carefully considered and are acceptable.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 133 On the buildings front elevation the windows are to be retained and refurbished. Turning to the side elevations these are to be re-arranged to suit the plan form. Again, these alterations are acceptable in historic building terms.
Turning to the rear wall and windows, these will largely have to be re-created. The submitted details are satisfactory, however, the brickwork will need to match the existing materials and Welsh slate is specified for the roof.
The rear extension comprises a single storey addition which links into the main building. Immediately behind the house is the dining room with hipped slated roof, with the flat roof slot corresponding to the entrance link. Beyond this is the pyramidal roof over the kitchen and toilet area. The overall structure is simple, to be built out of a stock brick with a natural slate roof. This element of the proposal should not detract from the setting of the listed building. This rear elevation does not exist at present and although it relates only to the service entrance to the building it is actually regarded as a considerable enhancement to the setting of this historic building.
The Burge and Gall timbers displaced from the site now occupied by the library will form part of an historic addition to this building. The proposal involves the use of two rows both with 3 bays with the proper reconstruction of the front elevations, utilising posts and trusses within the building and the re-creation of the Wealdon Hall. In order to be able to achieve this plan from, the proposal involves the addition of a gallery extension on the Chippendale Alley side of the building. This aspect of the proposal has been subject to extensive discussions and is now considered acceptable.
To the north of the Burge and Gall timbers a new brick built block with double pitched tiled roofs is proposed. This accommodates the kitchen and disabled toilet facilities at ground floor level and an additional dining area associated with the timber frame building at first floor level.
This proposed extension sits in the angle between No. 222 and the timber frame building. The two historic structures link into this block by tiled roof gateways which act as the main entrances to the two restaurants. This proposed arrangement is considered to be an interesting way of “turning the corner” which allows the timber frame building to link to the brick built 222 High Street. This has been achieved without attempting to mimic historical styles which allows a better appreciation of the very different buildings.
Turning to the issue of use, it needs to be borne in mind that this building has stood vacant for some time. In listed building terms the proposed internal alterations and extensions are considered acceptable. Whilst the proposed use is obviously not the historic use of this building it is an acceptable use within the town centre and it will secure the upkeep of this historic building. The proposal also needs to be assessed in the overall context of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Blocks 6/7 site and the leisure facilities which this end of the scheme will provide. In land use terms this proposal successfully relates to the cinema element of the scheme which is located above the department store.
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 134 The nearest residential properties are those on the High Street and Cumbrian Way. The proposal does not afford details of sound attenuation measures or extraction flues. These will be required to be submitted through the use of conditions and should therefore protect residential amenity. It is proposed to control the hours of use of these premises, again in the interests of residential amenity.
There is adequate parking available within the main car park provided in connection with the comprehensive redevelopment of this site for retail, residential and leisure uses. These premises are to be serviced via Cumbrian Way. These arrangements are considered acceptable by the Area Engineer.
Overall lit is considered that this element of the scheme should link together quite successfully and the courtyard in front is to be landscaped to given an attractive approach. Whilst the car park (to the north) and the department store/cinema (to the west) will be dominant features it is considered that the group of buildings formed by the Burge and Gall timbers and 222 High Street should be of sufficient size to be a feature in its own right.
With regards to disabled persons’ access the proposal is considered reasonable in this respect.
Public Consultation
No objections received.
Conclusion
There is no objection to the principle of the use of this historic building for purposes within Use Class A3 - Food and Drink. The proposed alterations and extensions have been the subject of lengthy discussions between Officers, English Heritage and the applicants. An acceptable scheme has now been produced which should hopefully provide for a viable use thereby securing the upkeep of this historic building.
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
5, 21
In addition the following documents were also used:-
(b) Two statutory consultations (the contents of which are summarised in the report).
(c) Planning History - Draft Unitary Development Plan (as proposed to be modified).
Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee - 21 April 1998 Page 135