RAF Uxbridge 1 203

Date: THURSDAY 22 JANUARY 2009

Cabinet Time: 7PM

Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 6, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE

To Members of the Cabinet: Visiting the Civic Centre:

Ray Puddifoot (Chairman) Leader of the Council Members of the Public and Press are welcome to attend this David Simmonds (Vice-Chairman) meeting. Deputy Leader / Education & Children’s Services

Jonathan Bianco Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and Finance & Business Services U7 all stop at the Civic Centre.

Keith Burrows Uxbridge underground station, Planning & Transportation with the Piccadilly and

Philip Corthorne Metropolitan lines, is a short Social Services, Health & Housing walk away. Please enter from the Council’s main reception Henry Higgins where you will be directed to Culture, Sport & Leisure the Committee Room. Sandra Jenkins Environment Please switch off your mobile

Douglas Mills phone when entering the room Improvement, Partnerships & Community Safety and note that the Council

Scott Seaman-Digby operates a no-smoking policy in Co-ordination & Central Services its offices.

Publication Date: 14 January 2009 This agenda is available in Lloyd White Head of Democratic Services large print

Cabinet Office T.01895 250472 F.01895 277373 cabinet@hillingdon.gov.uk London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Agenda

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

3. To receive the decisions of the meeting held on 18 December 2008 (pages i to xvi) attached

4. To confirm that the items of business marked Part 1 will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

5. Consideration of Cabinet reports (listed below)

Cabinet Reports – Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press

Items are marked in the order that they will be considered. A reference number is shown to indicate that this item has previously appeared on the Council’s Forward Plan. The Forward Plan is a publicly available document updated each month which outlines, as far as possible, the Cabinet’s work programme over the next four months.

Page No. Ref No. Policy & Strategic Items

1 Draft Supplementary Planning Document for RAF Uxbridge 1 203

2 Deputy Chief Executive's Office and Finance and Resources 94 267 - Whole Service Review

3 Hillingdon Residents Survey 116 NOFP

4 Mayor of London ' Use of Planning Obligations in Funding of 180 276 Crossrail' Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance - Consultation

5 Mayor of London: ‘Way to Go – Planning for London’s 192 277 Transport’: Consultation

6 Older People's Plan – Update Report 201 279

7 Request for Approval for Capital Expenditure for Transport 242 278 for London Funded Programmes 2009/10

8 CLG: Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property 253 NOFP Searches) Regulations 2008

Monitoring Items

9 Council Budget – Month 8 2008/9 Revenue and Capital - SI Monitoring REPORT TO FOLLOW

Cabinet Reports - Part 2 – Private, Members Only

The reports listed below in Part 2 are not made public because they contain confidential or exempt information. This is because items 10 to 12 contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. This is exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended.

Page No. Ref No. 10 Procurement of Services to be Provided from the Abacus 264 274 Centre

11 Re-Marketing Of Four Housing Revenue Account Hostel 269 265 Sites

12 Procurement Of Building Works For A New Children’s Centre 273 194 At Uxbridge College (Hayes Campus)

6. Any Items transferred from Part 1

7. Any Other Business in Part 2

NOFP - indicates new items not previously notified on the Forward Plan SI - indicates standard items on each edition of the Forward Plan

Cabinet Decisions

18 December 2008

PUBLISHED BY THE CABINET OFFICE ON 19 December 2008

This decision notice lists the decisions taken by the Cabinet of the London Borough of Hillingdon at its meeting on 18 December 2008.

They will come into effect at 5pm on 30 December 2008 unless called-in by the Executive Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

Click here to view the decisions

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Hillingdon Council strongly believes in open government. This is a public document listing every decision made by the Cabinet, including those decisions made in the non-public part of the meeting where discussion can take place on confidential / commercially sensitive matters.

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you require further information please contact the Cabinet Office on 01895 250472 or by email to [email protected]. Press enquiries should go through the Council’s Public Relations Unit in the first instance.

Mark Braddock Head of Cabinet Office

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page i DECISION LIST

The left hand column indicates the decision number, which relates to the report number on the agenda. The middle column details the decision made, the reason for that decision and also any alternatives considered or rejected. The right hand column indicates the name of the officer(s) responsible for implementing/following up the decision in each case.

Officer contact Cabinet Members Present – Councillors: Cabinet Office

• Councillor Ray Puddifoot (Leader of the Council) • David Simmonds (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services – Chairman for the meeting) • Jonathan Bianco (Cabinet Member for Finance and Business Services) • Henry Higgins (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) • Sandra Jenkins (Cabinet Member for Environment) • Douglas Mills (Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety) • Scott Seaman-Digby (Cabinet Member for Co-ordination and Central Services) • Philip Corthorne (Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health and Housing)

Apologies:

• Keith Burrows (Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation)

Other Councillors present: George Cooper, David Yarrow, Michael White, Kay Willmott-Denbeigh, Mary O’Connor, Mo Khursheed, Anthony Way

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cabinet Office

Councillors Scott Seaman-Digby and George Cooper declared personal and prejudicial interests in a number of organisations in receipt of grant funding and left the room during the discussion on item 2. Councillor Douglas Mills declared a personal but non prejudicial interest in item 10.

DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Cabinet Office

The reports on items 1-14 were considered in public.

Items 15 to 18 were considered to contain exempt information as defined in the paragraphs to the Schedule to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. These reports were considered in the private section of the meeting.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page ii CABINET DECISIONS Cabinet Office

The record of decisions of Cabinet held on 20th November 2008 was agreed as correct subject to the following amendment which was approved by the Cabinet:

Amendments to Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extensions - Amended paragraph 1.9e of the Appendix of the accompanying report to read as:

‘Roof extensions, other than in the case of hip-to-gable enlargement, are to be set back, as far as practicable, at least 20cm from the eaves.’

1 MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST 2009/10 – 2012/13 Paul Whaymand, DECISION Finance and Resources That Cabinet:

1. Note and forward the draft revenue budget and capital programme proposals for 2009/10 as the basis for consultation with Policy Overview Committees and other stakeholders.

2. Request the comments of individual Policy Overview Committees on the draft budget proposals relating to their areas of responsibility, to be collated into a single report back to Cabinet from the Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee.

3. Authorise the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources in consultation with the Leader of the Council to respond on behalf of the Council to the consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement and to the Mayor of London’s budget consultation.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The recommendations have been framed to comply with the Budget and Policy Framework rules, and to allow the presentation to Council of a recommended budget for 2009/10 in February 2009, which takes into account consultation with Policy Overview Committees.

They also allow for representations to be made to the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to the provisional local government finance settlement, and to the Mayor of London in relation to the Greater London Authority’s budget proposals, in accordance with the deadlines for responses of 7 January 2009 and to be confirmed within January 2009 respectively.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page iii ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

In order to comply with the Budget and Policy Framework the Cabinet needs to publish a draft budget for consultation at this meeting. The Cabinet could, however, choose to vary the proposals set out in the report, with any amendments reflected in the papers consulted upon with Policy Overview Committees during January 2009.

As contained in the section of the report on the Development and Risk Contingency, there are considerable risks and uncertainties around several of the key economic indicators against which the budget is constructed, leaving a total budget gap at this stage of over £4 million remaining to be managed through targeted reductions in pressures and further consideration of provisions for budget risks in contingency. These will be reviewed in detail with a view to presenting a fully balanced budget for 2009/10 that meets the key target parameters to Cabinet in February 2009. The level of this gap is the result of the continuing uncertainty on securing the extra income on Asylum for 2009/10, as well as significant changes in the financial environment for which appropriate management actions are currently being formulated.

This report had been circulated less than 5 working days before the meeting and the Chairman agreed that it would be considered as an urgent item.

2 ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDING 2009/10 FINANCIAL YEAR Nigel Cramb, Deputy Chief DECISION Executive’s Office That the Cabinet:

1. Agrees the recommendations on the allocation of grants to Voluntary Sector groups for the 2009/10 financial year as set out in the schedule attached to this report totalling £1,669,248.

2. Endorses the proposal to maintain the current groups on three year Service Level Agreements.

3. Approves an increase in funding to the Federation of Hillingdon Associations by £20k and the increase to the Hillingdon AIDS Response Trust with the conditions suggested in the attached schedule.

4. Agrees the proposal that no grant be awarded to the Sports Council but that funding be transferred to Sports Development for distribution to local sports groups.

5. Agrees in principle to build into the MTFF Budget 2009/10 a growth bid of £75,000 to respond to the community needs resulting from the economic downturn.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page iv 6. Accepts the advice to continue supporting a range of carer organisations and not to implement a single grant approach.

7. Agrees to the Council’s contribution to the London Councils Grant scheme for 2009/10.

8. Notes the intention to undertake a review of grant funding with the objective of producing a framework for use across all Council directorates providing a consistent and coherent approach to funding and support of the Voluntary Sector.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Council is a long-term supporter of the Voluntary Sector. The sector provides a range of services that compliment or are in addition to those provided by the Council. In light of the value of these services, support for the recommendations is strongly recommended.

In relation to the recommendations in respect of the Council’s contribution to the London Councils Grant Scheme, the Council has the option of not approving its contribution. For the overall budget to be approved, at least two thirds of the 32 London Boroughs must approve their individual budget contribution. In the unlikely event there is no agreement, the overall level of expenditure for the Grants Committee reverts back to the previous year’s budget.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

The Cabinet had the following alternative options:

1 Agree the recommendations subject to any changes the Cabinet wishes to make; or 2 Reject the recommendations.

3 WARD BUDGET INITIATIVE Mark Braddock, DECISION Deputy Chief Executive’s That Cabinet: Office

1. Welcome and endorse the Ward Budget Initiative detailed in this report which will commence operation in the New Year 2009 and approve the attached Protocol for Ward Councillors 2009 to 2010;

2. Delegate to the Deputy Chief Executive any changes to the Protocol and operation of the Ward Budget Initiative in conjunction with the Leader of the Council.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page v REASONS FOR DECISION

To approve the operation of the Ward Budget Initiative recently announced by the Leader of the Council. The initiative will provide each ward in the Borough with a £25k budget for Ward Councillors to spend on one-off initiatives to the benefit of residents and others in their Ward.

Ward budgets are being introduced to help Councillors make a difference in their Ward. They will be able to address specific local priorities by delivering new proposals, services or facilities to benefit residents and local organisations. Ward Budgets will take the already strong community leadership role of Hillingdon to a new truly local level and enhance Civic Pride.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

The alternatives considered were:

1. Not to implement such a scheme and deny Ward Councillors the opportunity to directly provide material benefits to their local area.

2. Implement a scheme based on individual Ward Councillor budgets.

4 REPORT OF THE TRANSITION FROM CHILD TO ADULT MENTAL Guy Fiegehen HEALTH SERVICES WORKING GROUP and Khalid Ahmed, Councillor Mary O’Connor, Chairman of the External Services Scrutiny Deputy Chief Committee, presented the report’s recommendations, which were Executive’s warmly endorsed by Cabinet. Office

DECISION

That Cabinet:

1. endorse the Working Group’s views on the difficulties young people experience in accessing mental health services during their transition from childhood to becoming adults.

2. request a further report from officers on how the Working Group’s recommendation to improve provision of information about local services for young adults can be implemented (see Recommendation 6 below and paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Working Group’s report).

3. consider supporting MIND’s call to improve the ability of young people with mental health problems to access the complaints system for health and social care in England (see Recommendation 10 below and paragraphs 76 to 81 of the Working Group’s report).

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page vi

4. approve the Working Group’s Recommendations 1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 and request officers to take them forward with Hillingdon PCT and Central & North West London NHS Trust.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The recommendations are as a result of a review undertaken by a Working Group commissioned by the External Services Scrutiny Committee. The review was undertaken as a consequence of discussions with service providers in Hillingdon where concerns were expressed regarding the problems faced by young people during the transition from child to adult mental health services.

The findings of the review indicate that transition does not always provide a seamless service and there are particular problems where adolescent service users do not meet the higher thresholds for accessing adult services.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Cabinet could have request further information on the review which was undertaken or reject or amend the recommendations.

5 ROAD SAFETY PLAN Jack Webster and David DECISION Knowles, Environment That Cabinet: and Consumer Protection 1. Approve the Road Safety Plan attached as Appendix A and endorse the approach to the installation of road safety infrastructure as laid out in the report.

2. Approve the new proposed casualty reduction targets for Hillingdon.

3. Receive a further report on the alleviation of rat-runs in the Borough.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To adopt the road safety plan for the Borough, to assist in the reduction of road accident casualties.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Not producing a road safety plan- this option has been discounted, due to the importance of continually improving road safety and reducing road casualties in Hillingdon.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page vii 6 DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN BLOCKS OF COUNCIL FLATS TO BE Neil Stubbings LET ONLY TO PEOPLE 55 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER and Beatrice Cingtho, Adult DECISION Social Care, Health and That Cabinet approve the changes set out in the report to the Housing allocation policy designating certain blocks to be let only to those aged 55 and over.

REASONS FOR DECISION

One of the ways the Council can drive up aspirations and create a true Borough of opportunity is through carefully thought out improvements to the Housing Allocations Scheme. The Council is proposing that certain blocks of housing in the Borough be allocated to older people (in addition to existing sheltered housing provision) in order to resolve issues raised by tenants,

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Not to approve the changes to the allocations policy as detailed within the body of the report.

7 HILLINGDON’S LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK REVISED Ian Dunsford, LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Planning and Community DECISION Services

That Cabinet:

1. Approve the proposed revisions to Hillingdon’s Local Development Scheme, contained in the Appendix to the report, which provides the framework for progressing the Local Development Framework documents; and

2. Instruct officers to submit the revised Local Development Scheme by 31 March 2009 to Government Office for London and the Greater London Authority for formal approval.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Government had requested any proposed revisions to local authorities’ Local Development Schemes (LDS) by 31 March 2007 and Hillingdon submitted their proposals following a Cabinet resolution in March 2007. Significant changes in the planning system during 2007 required a revision to be made to Hillingdon’s LDS putting formal approval of the LDS on hold.

A revised LDS was approved by Council in March 2008 to meet the government’s updated 31 March 2008 deadline. This document was submitted to the Government Office. However in June a revision to PPS12 was published which had a number of key changes integrated within it which would have a profound effect on future preparation and LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page viii style of LDF documents. Following a meeting with officers from Government Office for London (GOL) and subsequent discussions a further reassessment of the LDS has been undertaken. Officers are now at a position where Hillingdon’s LDS can be considered by Cabinet for formal approval by GOL and the GLA.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Not to proceed with the proposed revisions to the approved Local Development Scheme which could place at risk the overall timetable for the adoption of the LDF, as well as the West London Joint Waste Development Plan Document for which Hillingdon is the lead borough and also reduce the influence which the Council would have in dealing with the major development pressures in the Borough for the medium to long term.

8 DCMS FREE SWIMMING PROGRAMME GRANT - UPDATE Sue Drummond / DECISION Howard Griffin, Planning and That Cabinet: Community Services 1. Re-confirm that the Council will accept the grant of £61,763 from the DCMS to provide free swimming for those aged 60 and over at public swimming pools for the two years from April 2009. In addition to the grant funding from the DCMS, the additional cost to the Council to apply the scheme at Council owned facilities is provisionally estimated at £9,312.

2. Agree not to accept the grant from the DCMS for those aged 16 and under and continue a charging policy for this age group. The Council could then review the position after new swimming facilities have opened. However, any review at a later stage would not attract grant funding and the Council would then need to fully fund the cost at an estimated £233,000.

3. Agree that negotiation on the final level of funding required to be provided by the Council to leisure operators be delegated to the Director of Planning and Community Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Government have released details concerning how they intend to make funding available for Local Authorities to participate in making swimming free for over 60s and 16 and under in their local communities. A decision is required for Hillingdon to participate.

The development of the new swimming facilities at Hillingdon Sport & Leisure Centre and Botwell Green will have a considerable impact on swimming in Hillingdon and the surrounding area and will undoubtedly LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page ix increase participation amongst young people; a key target group in terms of engaging people in physical activity and sport.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

1. Not to accept the grant funding from the DCMS and to continue to operate a charging policy.

2. To apply for funding from alternative pots only, though this would limit the free-swimming opportunities available.

This report had been circulated less than 5 working days before the meeting and the Chairman agreed that it would be considered as an urgent item.

9 CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN ADULT SOCIAL CARE, HEALTH Paul Feven, AND HOUSING AND HILLINGDON HOMES Adult Social Care, Health ********************************************************************************* and Housing, CABINET MADE NO DECISION ON THIS ITEM AND THE REPORT and Sarah WAS WITHRDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA Laing, Hillingdon Homes 10 PROPOSED EXTENSION OF RUISLIP VILLAGE CONSERVATION Sarah Harper AREA and Nairita Chakraborty, DECISION Planning and Community That Cabinet: Services

1. Approves the extension of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area as shown on the map in Appendix 1; and

2. Approves the leaflet included in Appendix 2 for distribution to the residents and other property owners/occupiers within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area.

REASONS FOR DECISION

In May 2008 Cabinet agreed to extend the boundary of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area and during June and August, a public consultation exercise was carried out on the proposed extension. The results of the consultation required consideration of further additions to the proposed area of the extension. A second consultation was then undertaken between October and November, the results of which have determined the above recommendations.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

1. Not to re-consult residents, this would leave Members’ and residents’ questions and concerns unaddressed

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page x 2. Not to approve the proposed extension of these areas. This would leave areas identified as being of heritage significance unrecognised and unprotected

11 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES WHOLE SERVICE Jean Palmer/ REVIEW Andrew Malin, Planning and The Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Community Committee presented comments to the Cabinet endorsing the review Services

DECISION

That Cabinet:

1) Note the outcome of the PCS Whole Service Review.

2) Agree the savings outlined in Section 5 and Appendix 3 for inclusion in the overall MTFF submission to Cabinet.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To update Cabinet on the key outcomes of the Planning and Community Services Whole Service Review and request that the revenue MTFF proposals are now taken forward as part of Cabinet’s consideration of the revenue budget.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

None

12 MONITORING REPORT FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2008/09 Susie FOR COUNCIL PLAN WORK PROGRAMME, QUARTERLY Kemp/Ian PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, LAA REPORT AND Edwards, ACHIEVEMENTS Deputy Chief Executive’s DECISION Office

That Cabinet:

1) Notes the progress made to date on the Council Plan; 2) Notes the progress made on the LAA 2008 and the performance reward grant section of the LAA 2007; 3) Notes the progress made in performance within the local performance framework; 4) Notes the progress of the Residents Survey and the Place Survey; and 5) Notes achievements across the Council.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Cabinet agreed that the Council Plan, LAA and performance information should be monitored regularly.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page xi

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED Cabinet may choose to instruct officers to take further action or not. 13 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS – QUARTERLY FINANCIAL Nicola Wyatt, MONITORING REPORT Planning and Community DECISION Services

That the Cabinet notes the updated financial information attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Circular 05/05 and the accompanying best practice guidance requires local planning authorities to consider how they can inform Members and the public of progress in the allocation, provision and implementation of obligations whether they are provided by the developer in kind or through a financial contribution. This report details out the financial planning obligations held by the Council and what progress has and is being made.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To not report to Cabinet. However, it is an obvious example of good practice to monitor income and expenditure against specific planning agreements and ensure that expenditure takes place in accordance with the parameters of those agreements.

14 COUNCIL BUDGET – MONTH 7 2008/9 REVENUE AND CAPITAL Paul MONITORING Whaymand, Finance and DECISION Resources

That Cabinet:

1. Notes the forecast budget position for revenue and capital as at Month 7. 2. Allocates the following from priority growth: • £150k for the Leader’s Initiative for Older People to fund a range of services to older people. 3. Allocate £200k from the £3m priority growth fund established in November by transfer from balances to HIP contingency. 4. Allocates £43k of savings arising from the strike earlier in the year to the Leader’s Community budget to fund services or equipment that will be of benefit to the community.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The reason for the monitoring recommendation is to ensure the Council achieves its budgetary objectives. The report informs Cabinet of the latest forecast revenue and capital position for the current year 2008/9.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page xii

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

There are no other options proposed for consideration.

This report had been circulated less than 5 working days before the meeting and the Chairman agreed that it would be considered as an urgent item.

15 EXTENSION OF CONTRACT FOR THE PROVISION OF Shabeg VETERINARY SERVICES HEATHROW AIRPORT Nagra, Environment DECISION and Consumer Protection That Cabinet:

1. Agrees to extend the existing veterinary services contract which the Council has entered into until such time as it in a position to award a new contract; and

2. Request officers to report back to Cabinet as soon as they have had the opportunity to evaluate the tenders for the new veterinary services contract.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The present contract for the provision of veterinary services for the Heathrow Border inspection needs to be extended for the time being. This is in order for the Council to maintain its statutory duties for the inspection and clearance of imported food products at Heathrow airport in line with UK and EU legislation, it is necessary to have in place a contract for the provision of veterinary services.

Cabinet will receive a further report following a tender exercise for the provision of such services.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

None

This item was considered in the private part of the meeting as it contained information relating to “the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information)” and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page xiii

16 MOTOR WORKSHOP, WEST DRAYTON YOUNG PEOPLE’S M McNamara, CENTRE Finance and Resources DECISION

That the property shown hatched black on plan YIE420 dated 24.11.2008 be leased to ‘SKIDZ – the Hillingdon Road User Education Project Ltd’ for the consideration and term referred to in this report.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The recommendation is made in order to enable partner access to West Drayton Young People’s Centre to provide a motor vehicle education project to young people in partnership with the Youth and Connexions Service. The recommendation seeks to capitalise on the opportunity this partnership presents to the Council in terms of enabling full use of the existing premises through partner investment from Porsche Cars GB Ltd, which includes funding to refurbish the workshop area as detailed on the site plan.

Approval of the recommendation would lead to an increase in skills- training capacity. The development of locally-based skills centres of this kind has been identified as a need by the 14 – 19 Strategy Group. The additional capacity created would enable the Council and its partners to respond to the increasing demand for training opportunities of this type in a cost-effective manner.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To leave the property as it is, providing a lesser service to users of the Centre. This would result in the premises remaining in a relative state of disrepair, and not used to its full potential.

17 VOLUNTARY SECTOR LEASING Greg Morrison, Finance and DECISION Resources

That Cabinet:

1. Agrees the terms provisionally agreed by officers with the four voluntary sector organisations shown at Appendix A,

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page xiv with the final decision on the Harefield Hospital Bowls Club terms to be signed-off by the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Business Services.

2. Instructs officers to complete appropriate rent review memoranda and lease agreements.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Cabinet is being asked to agree the proposed rents because the letting of property at less than the full market rent constitutes a disposal at less than best consideration and the decision to do so is a Key Decision under Article 7 of the Council’s constitution, thereby requiring final Cabinet approval.

Approving the terms provisionally agreed by officers and granting the organisations concerned discounts in rent will comply with the Voluntary Sector Leasing Policy agreed in July 2004.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Cabinet could choose not to apply the Voluntary Sector Leasing Policy. This action may damage relationships though, as the organisations detailed in the report are unlikely to agree to any alternative less advantageous terms than have been applied to their peers.

Cabinet could choose to approve one or more cases but not others. This would give rise to claims that the Council was not acting in a fair and transparent manner and accusations of preferential treatment for some voluntary sector organisations.

18 ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FOR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE David Bryant, CONTRACT FOR HAYES AND HARLINGTON AREA Environment and Consumer DECISION Protection

That Cabinet award the term contract for the provision of ground maintenance services for the Hayes and Harlington area to Connaught Environmental Ltd., commencing 1 April 2009 for a period of 6 years.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The award of this contract to the company recommended above will provide the Council with the most economically advantageous outcome LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page xv in terms of price and quality (based on a price: quality ratio of 50:50).

Connaught Environmental Ltd. is a highly regarded company with a proven track record in delivering high quality services. The detailed tender submitted by this company demonstrated their ability to work effectively in partnership with the Council to deliver high quality grounds maintenance services. Their tender price for Grounds Maintenance is the lowest of those able to satisfy the Council’s quality requirements.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

No other alternatives have been considered at this time.

This report had been circulated less than 5 working days before the meeting and the Chairman agreed that it would be considered as an urgent item.

The meeting closed at 7.55pm

THESE DECISIONS WILL COME INTO FORCE AND WILL THEN BE IMPLEMENTED

UNLESS THEY ARE CALLED-IN. THE DEADLINE FOR CALL-IN TO BE RECEIVED BY THE HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES IS 5PM ON 30 DECEMBER 2008.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.12.08 Page xvi DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT ITEM 1 FOR RAF UXBRIDGE

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Officer Contact Jales Tippell, Planning and Community Services

Papers with report Appendix 1: Summary of responses to the consultation on the draft RAF Uxbridge SPD Appendix 2: Supplementary Planning Document for RAF Uxbridge (circulated separately) Appendix 3: Sustainability Appraisal (circulated separately)

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To seek Cabinet approval for the adoption of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for RAF Uxbridge, which has been revised following public consultation on the draft document.

Contribution to our The SPD, by setting the development framework for RAF plans and strategies Uxbridge, will help contribute to the Council’s priorities of improving health and wellbeing; creating strong and active communities; protecting and enhancing the environment; making Hillingdon safer; ensuring a thriving economy; and, improving aspiration through education and learning.

Financial Cost There are no direct costs associated with the adoption of the SPD.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected RAF Uxbridge is located within the Uxbridge North Ward and abuts Uxbridge South and Brunel Wards. The redevelopment of the site is likely to have implications for a much wider area.

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet:

1. Notes the comments received during the consultation period.

2. Approves the amendments made to the draft Supplementary Planning Document for RAF Uxbridge.

3. Adopts the RAF Uxbridge Supplementary Planning Document for the purposes of development management, along with the accompanying documents, the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 1 Sustainability Appraisal and the Summary of responses to the consultation on the draft RAF Uxbridge SPD.

4. Grants delegated authority to the Director of Planning and Community Services to approve any minor amendments or corrections of a factual nature, to the Supplementary Planning Document before it is formally published.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

The purpose of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to provide planning guidance for the future use and development of RAF Uxbridge, a large strategic site located close to the Uxbridge Town Centre. The owners of the site (Defence Estates) and the developer (Vinci St Modwen (VSM)), have advised that they intend to submit a planning application in the summer of 2009 to redevelop the site. Currently there is no adopted site-specific planning guidance to assist with the re-development of the RAF Uxbridge site. National, London and local planning policies apply, specifically Hillingdon’s adopted Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007. This SPD has been prepared to ensure that the redevelopment of the site occurs in a timely and co-ordinated manner, addresses the issues raised in the various public consultation exercises, and results in the most desirable and sustainable form of redevelopment for the site.

Alternative options considered

Not to adopt the SPD. This would restrict the Council’s ability to influence redevelopment of the site and may affect the ability to achieve wider planning, community and sustainability goals.

A number of various options have been considered in deciding the policy direction and proposals for the site as expressed in the SPD. The aspirations and expectations for the site were agreed by the Council in July 2008, in adopting the draft SPD for consultation purposes. The amendments to the SPD, as recommended by this report following the response to consultation, do not substantially alter the policy direction and overall aspirations approved by the Council. Rather, the changes reflect recent changes to Government legislation and guidance, and also strengthen the SPD in a number of areas following advice from Government departments and feedback from the community.

Supporting information

1. The statutory basis for the preparation of the SPD is London Plan Policy 3A.7 (Large Residential Developments) which states that “Boroughs should prepare planning frameworks for all large residential sites of 5 hectares or more, or that are capable of accommodating more than 500 dwellings.”

2. The SPD has been prepared within the context of Hillingdon’s adopted Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007, and other adopted strategies, standards and guidance at a local, regional and national level. The SPD will be consistent with the draft Local Development Framework (LDF) documents and when adopted as an SPD, will be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application for the site. The SPD will also help to realise the objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2018, through the redevelopment of the site.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 2

3. Due to the development pressures on this site, the SPD has been brought ahead of other relevant draft Local Development Framework (LDF) documents. Initial planning proposals relevant to this site are contained in the 2005 draft LDF Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) which allocated the site for a mix of uses and proposed a requirement to prepare a more detailed planning brief for RAF Uxbridge. In recent background work to the emerging LDF Core Strategy, RAF Uxbridge has been identified as suitable for the proposed expansion of the Uxbridge Town Centre boundary.

4. Preparation of the RAF Uxbridge SPD commenced in August 2007 with an early public consultation programme and information gathering exercise, and a range of further consultation has been undertaken over the past 18 months.

Background

5. At the meeting of 16 July 2008, Cabinet agreed to approve the RAF Uxbridge draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for public consultation and that the results of the consultation be reported to a future meeting. The SPD, Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Consultation Summary documents were then placed on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks from the 3rd of September until the 15th of October 2008. The consultation period was advertised and notified in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), as detailed below.

6. A statutory advertisement and a ¼ page colour advertisement appeared in the Uxbridge Leader on Wednesday 3rd September, along with a ¼ page colour advert and a short article in the Uxbridge Gazette. A total of 3,216 leaflets/questionnaires were mailed to residents and businesses surrounding the RAF site and within the Uxbridge town centre. 600 leaflets/questionnaires, along with posters and a hard copy of the SPD and CD-ROM were delivered to the RAF Uxbridge base for distribution. 405 letters and accompanying leaflets were sent to all people that made submissions in 2007, or who previously expressed an interest in the development of the site. All Elected Members (64) were posted a letter explaining the consultation process and an accompanying CD-ROM, with a hard copy of the SPD, SA and consultation documents delivered to the group offices, with additional hard copies delivered upon request. A letter and CD-ROM was sent to local MP’s (total of 3), along with members of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) (total of 27), and Environment Groups (13). An email was also sent to our database of interested people (total 323) with instructions and links to the planning documents. An additional 100 leaflets have been delivered to the chair of the Vine Lane Residents Association, and other groups upon request. All statutory consultees (a total of 95) were sent a letter explaining the consultation process and a CD-ROM containing the planning documents (SPD, SA and consultation summary), and this was followed up with phone-calls. A meeting was held with the key stakeholders, the Greater London Authority (GLA), Transport for London (TfL), Environment Agency (EA), and further correspondence with a number of other key Government agencies including English Heritage, Natural England and others. In addition, copies of the documents were also placed at all Borough libraries (17), Hayes One Stop Shop and the Civic Centre (Planning Reception). The draft documents were also placed on the Council’s website. An ‘Open House’ (invitation to speak to Council staff) was held at the Civic Centre on Wednesday 17 September 3.00pm – 7.00pm, Thursday 18 September 4.30pm – 7.30pm, and Saturday 20 September 10.00am – 1.00pm and attended by around 100 people.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 3 7. Officers also met with the Youth Council, Assembly for People with Physical Disabilities and Sensory Impairments, Older Persons Assembly, Connecting Communities, Hillingdon Inter-Faith Network, and the Local Strategic Partners Executive (LSP). A Members’ ‘briefing session’ was held on 22 October, which provided feedback to Members on all submissions received and a general discussion about the relevant issues. The meetings with the Council forums provided valuable feedback on various issues, and these have been incorporated into the SPD where appropriate. The issues raised have been summarised in Appendix 1.

8. A total of 65 responses have been received, in addition to a total of 339 questionnaire responses from residents. Details of all comments received, including issues raised and the officer response in respect of them, including amendments made to the SPD, are included in Appendix 1. The vast majority of responses are supportive of the SPD and the expected development of the RAF Uxbridge site. However, in light of submissions received, officers propose amendments to the draft document. The revised SPD recommended for adoption is included at Appendix 2, with amendments marked in bold, and deleted wording with a strikethrough. This document has been circulated to Cabinet Members separately. The Sustainability Appraisal on the revised SPD is included at Appendix 3, which has also been circulated separately to Cabinet Members.

Introduction

9. The site has been identified as being of strategic importance to the Borough with a unique opportunity to deliver a major mixed-use redevelopment close to the town centre. It provides an opportunity to cater for the future expansion and long term needs of Uxbridge town centre, improve transport links, including provision for walking, cycling, buses, and cars, and significantly improve connection of the site to the town centre and the surrounding area. This is also a unique opportunity to secure the provision of a “unique offer” for the Uxbridge town centre including an arts/cultural quarter, enhancing the town centre’s “Metropolitan” status. The site also offers a valuable opportunity to provide access to existing open space, protect areas of ecological importance, and protect and enhance important heritage assets, including the bunker, Hillingdon House and the Cinema.

10. In addition to the appendices attached, this report summarises the issues raised during the consultation period, and the proposed amendments to the SPD. These are set out under the headings of the SPD.

Site background

11. A number of minor details have been corrected in this section of the SPD. Reference to Annington Homes is amended to Annington Property Ltd (APL) throughout the document to ensure the correct reference in the SPD. Policy guidance has been updated to reflect recent changes and include additional references that will help guide the planning process for development of the site. Particular reference is now made to ‘Planning for a better London’, which sets out the direction for the Mayor’s likely policy changes, including a change in approach to delivering affordable housing

Development framework

12. The Council considered the earlier public feedback in preparing the draft RAF Uxbridge SPD, which sets out a development framework. These objectives have been updated following public consultation to achieve the following:

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 4

a) To ensure a high quality sustainable mixed use development that supports and enhances the vitality and viability of Uxbridge Town Centre and reflects the site’s strategic location.

b) To make provision towards the residential, employment and recreational needs of the local and wider population having regard to the area’s general character.

c) To ensure re-development of the site can be accommodated without detriment to the local community and the environment.

d) To protect and enhance the green belt, the historic built and natural environment, the River Pinn corridor and other key landscape features.

e) To ensure safe and sustainable access within and around the site, both during construction and for the completed development project. An holistic and integrated approach to public transport, vehicular traffic, cycle and pedestrian access, servicing and emergency vehicles needs to be planned for.

f) To provide appropriate infrastructure and services for the redevelopment of the site, particularly limiting the impacts on the existing infrastructure and services around the site, in a logical, co-ordinated manner corresponding with the timing of development on the site.

13. Given the size of the site, the draft SPD splits the site into four quarters which set out character guidance and preferred land uses. Following consultation the specific number of dwellings, commercial floorspace and proposed uses have in some cases been amended. These are summarised below and detailed in the revised SPD at Appendix 2:

a) Proposed Town Centre Extension – the proposal is for the creation of a lively mixed- use area to enhance Uxbridge’s “Metropolitan” status with the provision of commercial activity, the creation of an evening destination point and cultural quarter based around a significant arts/cultural facility. On a number of issues the very specific numerical requirements included in the draft SPD have been amended to reflect a more realistic expectation of development for the town centre extension. The amount of commercial floorspace required has been halved in comparison to the draft SPD, with at least 35,000m2 required. The figure of 69,675m2 of commercial floorspace in the draft SPD was based on the RAF site taking all commercial development for Uxbridge to 2021 on the assumption that there is no space for development in Uxbridge. Further consideration of this issue indicates that the demand for commercial floor space can be partly provided in and near the existing town centre. The number of residential units required has been increased to around 700, subject to further detailed studies, consideration of design and other issues. This increase is to reflect comments from the GLA and others, and is a more appropriate figure given the highly accessible location and the desires for a vibrant public realm and night-time destination. The amount of comparison retail and small shops permitted will be restricted to reduce any adverse impact on the existing town centre, and the wording around this issue has been strengthened, given the concerns raised by residents and businesses in Uxbridge. Separate submissions from the developer (VSM), and Tesco’s suggest that additional retail should be permitted in the town centre extension. However, Council officers

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 5 consider that this may impact adversely on the existing town centre, and further studies to justify such proposals would be necessary.

b) Southern Quadrant – the proposal is to provide a high quality residential area with good links and community facilities. The number of dwellings has been reduced to provide around 760 units with a mix of densities and styles based around a local community node and good links to the town centre extension, open space and adjoining land. The ‘homezone’ concept has been explained in more detail to ensure the creation of a quality public realm and a high quality living environment that encourages walking and cycling in preference to the car.

c) Northern Quarter – the proposal is to provide a predominantly lower density residential area with a new primary school. The number of dwellings likely in this quarter has been reduced to around 80 units, to reflect the landscape qualities of the site, and following feedback from VSM. The requirements to consider the adjoining Annington Property Ltd land has been expanded to ensure development and servicing for this site and future developments is properly planned for.

d) Open Space/Hillingdon House Quarter – the proposal is for the retention and enhancement of the green belt as high quality public open space linked to the town centre with the protection and enhancement to the River Pinn corridor. The draft SPD required the provision of a river walk. However, following advice from the Environment Agency and Natural England, this has been amended to provide a ‘nature walk’ that will generally follow the route of the river, but without impacting on the ecological and flood capacity attributes of the riparian zone. Hillingdon House and the Bunker are to be protected and enhanced and the wording in the SPD has been expanded to ensure their protection and a quality environment. The proposal is for about 60 units of high quality housing, on eastern infill areas consistent and complementary to surrounding residential uses, whilst protecting the setting of the listed buildings, and the natural and built environment.

Requirements for site layout

14. The SPD details the issues that are required to inform the spatial proposals for the site and detailed studies and plans that will be expected with any planning application, particularly at the outline stage. The SPD has been revised following feedback from a number of Government departments and the public, to strengthen and clarify a number of issues. The SPD now clearly sets out the expectations for a transport assessment and framework travel plan, and also outlines the constraints on the site, given the traffic problems and public transport capacity issues currently experienced. There is a greater emphasis on the provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities; highways safety; more explanation of the ‘homezone’ concept; the importance of quality public realm; and access to the existing town centre and surrounding areas. The SPD sets out the expectations that the redevelopment will be a catalyst to improve public transport facilities, especially bus facilities, along with cycle routes, links with the existing town centre and a range of other benefits. The open spaces section has been updated given the changes in Government guidance. The proposal for a river walk has been revised to provide a ‘nature’ walk, following advice from the Environment Agency and the need to protect the ecological attributes of the riparian zone.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 6 Requirements for specific uses

15. The SPD requires the creation of a cultural quarter, with an arts/cultural facility, and associated cafés and restaurants, and this has been strengthened by recent publications by the Mayor of London, and support from the London Development Authority (LDA). However, the SPD also acknowledges that additional studies and financial viability appraisals will be necessary before proceeding to create a quality theatre/music venue. The amount of office space proposed has been almost halved to at least 35,000m2, following further consideration and submissions from the public and the developers.

16. The requirements for housing, and in particular affordable housing, have been amended following guidance from the GLA and Council’s own Housing Supply Team. The draft SPD included reference to 35% affordable housing for the site. The SPD has been revised to ensure compliance with the current London Plan, recognising that this will be subject to change in the near future and that a 50% target will no longer be required for each site, but will be met through Borough wide targets. The SPD also recognises other aspirations and constraints on the site with regard to affordable housing. Some sections have been strengthened to ensure the highest quality housing and public realm result from the development, along with specific sustainability requirements.

17. The section on community infrastructure has been expanded and strengthened to ensure appropriate spaces are created for the needs and desires of all members of the community. It is very unlikely that a health facility will be constructed on the site, however obligations towards an improved health facility in the Uxbridge town centre are required. The proposal to re-locate Hillingdon Hospital to the RAF Uxbridge site has been fully considered by the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust with the support of the Council. However the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust determined that such a move would not be feasible and therefore the Council has not been able to progress this proposal.

18. Requirements to incorporate existing buildings into the redevelopment, or justify their loss from a heritage and sustainability perspective, have been added to the SPD following advice from English Heritage and comments in other submissions.

Environmental and Sustainable development considerations

19. The last section of the SPD concentrates on the important environmental and sustainable development considerations on the site looking at the need for any planning application to be accompanied by range of environmental studies, including an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The SPD contains clear directions to ensure that no adverse environmental impacts will result from the redevelopment, and that a number of very positive and innovative aspirations are achieved. The section on climate change has been updated to reflect the most recent guidance, and ensure that climate change and sustainability considerations are central to the development of proposals for the site. The incorporation of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) will be integral to the development and the SPD has been amended and strengthened to reflect this. The requirements regarding flooding have been updated, to ensure compliance with the Council’s recently adopted Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) November 2008 and the SPD states there is no reason why development should be located in areas vulnerable to flooding. An innovative waste to energy plant is an expectation for the site, and the management of waste is given more importance, and to reflect national guidance and good practice. The section of planning obligations has been expanded to incorporate reference

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 7 to the London Plan following advice from the GLA and TfL, and contains more detail to give an early indication of likely issues to be addressed by the develop and more closely reflects the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, adopted in July 2008.

Financial Implications

20. This report seeks adoption of a supplementary planning document to support the Council in its statutory role of assessing planning applications and negotiating for certain aspirations for the RAF Uxbridge site. Therefore this report is considered to have a positive effect on residents, services users and communities.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

21. The recommendation ensures continued community involvement in the planning process to redevelop RAF Uxbridge through the development of a master-plan and assessment of planning applications next year. The adoption of the SPD will enhance the weight that can be attached to it as a material consideration in decision-making on any planning application.

22. The RAF Uxbridge SPD has been developed after consideration of existing planning policies which deal with issues associated with: Crime and Disorder; The Local Environment; Health and Well-being; Older People; People with Disabilities; Children / Young People; Residents; and Community Groups, among others. The SPD will ensure the creation of an environment to achieve Secure by Design accreditation and it is expected to provide necessary facilities for all of the above groups.

Corporate and External Consultation Carried Out

23. In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 12, early public involvement was sought through a consultation programme undertaken in the summer/autumn of 2007, with large numbers of visitors to the public exhibition, over 300 written responses received and nearly 40 groups represented at the workshops. Further formal consultation was carried out in September/October 2008 as detailed above. The response from the consultation is summarised at Appendix 1, and amendments have been made to the SPD accordingly.

The next Steps

24. The developers (VSM-Estates) expect to lodge a planning application in the summer of 2009. As more detailed plans and proposals are drawn up to comply with the requirements of the SPD, it is expected that extensive pre-application meetings will involve the Council and other key stakeholders and government departments. In addition VSM intend to engage the community and consult widely on the detailed masterplan drawings and proposals in the spring of 2009.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 8 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

25. A corporate finance officer has reviewed the report and its financial implications, and is satisfied that the financial implications properly reflect the direct resource implications for the Planning & Community Services Group, and that there are no wider implications at this stage for the Council’s resources as a whole.

Legal

26. The Council’s solicitor has reviewed the report and advises there are no legal implications at this stage. Members should note that the purpose of this SPD is to provide advice to potential applicants for planning proposals on the RAF Uxbridge site. The SPD will be a material consideration in addition to the existing legislation on planning matters and supplement the Council's policies contained within its UDP and will be weighted accordingly. The SPD must operate in accordance with PPS 12 and other legislation.

Corporate Property

27. The Head of Corporate Property does not raise any concerns with regard to the recommendations contained in this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Cabinet Report 16 July 2008 Draft Supplementary Planning Document RAF Uxbridge Supplementary Planning Document – Draft for Public Consultation September 2008 RAF Uxbridge Sustainability Appraisal, September 2008 RAF Uxbridge - Consultation Summary, September 2008 Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable development Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Planning Policy Statement 6: Town Centres Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Planning Policy Guidance Note13: Transport Planning Policy Guidance Note15: Planning and the Historic Environment Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk The London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) 2008 London Borough of Hillingdon – Adopted Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) Saved Policies 27 September 2007 SPD: Affordable Housing SPD: HDAS: Residential Layouts SPD: HDAS: Accessible Hillingdon SPG’s: Noise (2002), Planning Obligations (2008), Air Quality (2002), Community Safety by Design (2004)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 9 APPENDIX 1

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT RAF UXBRIDGE SPD

Summary of comments received Officer response

1. Greater London Authority (GLA)

1.1 The GLA recognises the need for the SPD, which can help Noted inform the redevelopment of this sensitive`e site and provide a useful tool for both planners and prospective developers.

1.2 Given that the proposed town centre extension will be within a Officers disagree with the Metropolitan Town Centre, this area should be considered ‘central’ designation of a ‘central’ in character. This being the case, indicative densities 140-405 character. It is units per hectare (u/Ha) are considered appropriate for the area acknowledged that there is with a PTAL of 4/5 and 65-240 u/Ha for the area with a PTAL of 3, a relatively high PTAL and in line with the London Plan. Furthermore, areas with low PTAL the site is within close could be considered for higher density residential development if proximity of the they are within easy walking distance of employment, retail and ‘metropolitan’ town centre. services of the town centre (extension). This has been established However, the character of by recent planning appeal decisions for Porters Way (Hillingdon) the area, transport options and Honeypot Lane (Harrow). (which is only the private car for anyone travelling from west of the site and even West London) and capacity of public transport mean that the site will not support a density consistent with a ‘central’ definition. The density of the town centre extension has been significantly increased compared to the draft SPD however it cannot support a ‘central’ density.

1.3 The indicative densities set out in the SPD for the Northern The number of dwellings quarter are considered appropriate given the suburban in likely to be built in the character and being separated from the rest of the development northern quarter has been area by green belt land and low density housing. reduced, though still within appropriate density ranges.

1.4 Table 3.1 - shows the Southern quarter as having a PTAL of 2- The densities proposed are 4 and a potential suburban character. The site is large and consistent with the isolated enough to define its own character and a transition from surrounding residential suburban to urban could be more appropriate with higher character. The transition is densities. Furthermore, the northern portion of this quarter adjoins considered to be from

Page 10 the proposed town centre extension. This would make it more ‘urban’ rather than ‘central’ appropriate to be urban in character, as a transition from the (see above) and higher central character of the town centre. densities would need to be justified by the developer.

Affordable Housing 1.5 The SPD makes reference to the London Plan strategic target The Mayor has recently of 50% affordable housing, with a 70%:30% split of social rented written to all London and intermediate housing, but then goes on to say that because of Boroughs advising of new essential planning obligations, this is likely to be reduced to 35% affordable housing targets at RAF Uxbridge, contrary to London Plan Policy 3A.10. No details and the recently released have been produced by Hillingdon to demonstrate that planning Housing Strategy plans to obligations, other costs and public subsidy have been quantified. It remove the 50% target and is therefore unclear where the 35% target comes from. Rather instead allow local than set out an unjustified target, the SPD should reference authorities to achieve London Plan Policy 3A.10 and require developers to provide the affordable housing targets maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, subject to in accordance with local viability appraisal. need. Advice from the Council’s Housing Team indicates Hillingdon is on target to supply adequate affordable housing and the target for RAF Uxbridge is sufficient. Paras 5.19 to 5.28 have been amended to reflect the most recent and expected guidance.

1.6 A 53%:47% split of social rented and intermediate housing Further justification has clearly deviates from the 70%:30% tenure split in the London Plan, been provided to support as well as the 60%:40% split proposed in "Planning for a Better the tenure split by the London". Furthermore, it is known that Hillingdon borough has an Council’s Housing Supply acute shortage of social rented housing and a large number of Team and this seems to be people in temporary accommodation that could probably not afford supported by the Mayor of intermediate housing. Further justification would have to be London’s draft Housing provided to show how the 53%:47% figure responds to local need. Strategy, and approach to affordable housing provision.

1.7 Developers should be encouraged to have regard to Housing Additional details have been Corporation unit size mix and tenure split and apply for Housing added to Para 5.19, along Corporation grant in order to maximize the number of affordable with Paras 5.13 to 5.29, and units possible. in particular Para 5.15.

1.8 It is understood that providing the 100 social rented units for Additional details have been the elderly is intended to enable existing elderly social rented added to Para 5.23 to tenants in Hillingdon to free up the large units they currently expand on these occupy. This proposal is supported; however, it would be useful if requirements. the SPD explored this in more detail.

Page 11 Planning Obligations 1.9 Further work should be done in relation to viability and the The SPD has been level of planning gain. The SPD should be specific about the amended to expand on the additional facilities that are to be secured by planning obligation additional facilities to be and list them in order of priority, in accordance with London Plan secured. Whilst the London policies 6A.4 and 6A.5. Policy 6A.4 states that "Affordable housing Plan priorities will be taken and public transport improvements should generally be given the into account, other factors, highest importance with priority also given to tackling climate including emerging Mayoral change, learning and skills and health facilities and services and Policies and site specific child care provisions". considerations and opportunities, also need to be addressed. A full viability appraisal will be undertaken at the planning application stage with regard to the planning obligations arising.

1.10 Additional justification will be needed for the use of significant The need for an arts/cultural planning obligations to provide an arts/ cultural facility, particularly facility is addressed in the if this were to be at the expense of affordable housing provision. SPD at Paras 5.7 and 5.8. The LDA and emerging Mayoral policies, including ‘Cultural Metropolis’, supports the provision of arts/cultural facilities, particularly in outer boroughs.

1.11 The proposed town centre extension is supported in principle, Any applications for as it would reinforce the Metropolitan status of Uxbridge Town retail/commercial and other Centre. The final proposed quantum of new office space should, town centre type uses will however, be subject to local and strategic studies to confirm need need to be justified in and viability. accordance with PPS6.

1.12 The SPD should clarify the restriction on residential Tables 3.2 and 3.3 have development in the town centre extension and reword tables 3.3 been updated and amended and 3.2 accordingly. to clarify the amount of housing permitted in the town centre

1.13 The GLA supports the SPD's principle of using planning A financial viability appraisal obligations to safeguard the important architectural, historical and and s106 negotiations will cultural value of the site, however, this should not be at the determine the exact levels expense of other priorities such as affordable housing and public of funding available transport.

1.14 Para 4.31 – should also reference London Plan policy 4B.5, Para 4.34 has been as well as "Accessible London" SPG to the London Plan, which amended. sets out further detail on how this policy can be implemented.

Page 12 2. Transport for London (TfL)

2.1 Overall, Transport for London (TfL) welcomes the approach of Agreed. the draft SPD and considers that the document is in general conformity with the London Plan. However, some elements need to be strengthened or expanded. These points are outlined below:

2.2 Section 3 - The Development Framework Para 3.1 - The last Para 3.1 point e) has been bullet point should read "To ensure that safe and sustainable updated. vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access is provided...”

2.3 Para 3.2 - In explaining the background to the work done so Para 3.2 has been updated far, it should be emphasized that while public transport to reflect these comments. accessibility has been taken into account, the capacity of transport networks has not yet been considered. A comprehensive assessment of the impacts on the transport networks will need to be undertaken and it is important to recognise that the outcome of this assessment may potentially influence the design, mix and scale of any development that can be delivered on the site.

2.4 Map 9, Indicative Site Development Framework and The transport section of the associated Paras - TfL supports the intention to vary land use mix SPD has been amended and density across the site in accordance with the varying and strengthened to clarify accessibility levels. Likewise, car-parking allowances should also these points in accordance be varied to take account of the range in accessibility, with parking with TfL comments. restricted most in the areas with the highest accessibility. It is noted that this approach is mentioned in Para 4.29, but TfL suggests that this should be spelt out more clearly.

Requirements for Site Layout 2.5 TfL suggests that the Paras relating to transport (4.24 - 4.34) The section relating to are put within their own specific transport section, and needs to be transport has been strengthened and highlighted. Within a new 'transport chapter', amended and expanded to there should be a section concerning 'transport principles', or reflect the comments from 'strategic transport objectives', as the document does not contain TfL. A new heading and any clear over-arching strategy for transport and focuses too much changed layout in the on detailed site-specific issues. document highlights transport as a key issue, setting out the principles and approach, with clearer requirements to be addressed in any planning application.

2.6 It has yet to be proven that the redevelopment of this site can A full Transport Assessment be accommodated within existing transport infrastructure. The and Framework Travel Plan necessary transport improvements have not yet been identified, will be required with the and further detailed analysis will be required. There is already outline planning application. evidence that there are capacity issues, particularly with the bus The SPD has been network. amended to further clarify the requirements in

Page 13 accordance with the advice from TfL.

2.7 Para 4.26 - lists a long series of transport principles, however The SPD now explicitly these are very detailed and are not clearly structured. TfL recognises these potential suggests that there should be a set of over-arching, more strategic issues, and outlines transport objectives from which the detailed principles/objectives requirements for the could flow, for example: developer to justify any proposals for the site. a. Integrating the site with the surrounding area Para 4.28 and the transport b. Improving connectivity, permeability and accessibility section have been updated to incorporate these c. Encouraging more walking and cycling, providing high quality comments from TfL. walking/cycling routes and facilities d. Mitigating against adverse impacts on existing transport infrastructure e. Improving access to, and quality of, local public transport services

f. Reducing the need to travel, and reducing reliance on the private car

2.7 Following on from these strategic principles, the various These sections have been sections relating to public transport, walking and cycling need to updated accordingly, with be strengthened in order to provide a clearer direction for these new wording for Paras 4.24 objectives to be implemented. and 4.25

2.8 Para 4.28 - The second sentence should be amended to read: "These are likely to include, but not be limited to:" to allow the realisation of other opportunities that may arise at a later date but cannot be foreseen at present.

2.9 Paras 4.29 and 4.30 - These Paras could also mention the Para 4.30 has been London Plan car parking standards and the TfL Cycle Parking amended. standards.

2.10 Para 4.29 should also mention car clubs and a clearer A new Para 4.31 has been direction regarding car parking restraint in order to reduce traffic inserted and Para 4.32 has impacts. This section should be more explicit in promoting the been amended to reference principle of reducing car parking as public transport accessibility the London Plan standards. increases. The SPD now specifically mentions car clubs, and a desire to limit car parking on the site, subject to 2.11 The cycle parking paragraph should be expanded to include recommendations from a more specific guidance on the quality of design for cycle parking TA and Travel Plan to be and associated facilities, cycle routes, etc. The RAF site offers an submitted by the developer. excellent opportunity to deliver an exemplar development

Page 14 providing state of the art cycle facilities, and this should be included as an aspiration in the SPD.

2.12 Paras 4.32 and 4.33 - With regards to the required transport Agreed. Para 4.33 has been assessment, TfL’s Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance expanded to include these should be mentioned. TfL’s travel plan guidance documents recommendations. should also be mentioned with regards to the required standard for the travel plans. These two paragraphs are slightly confused; there should be one Para solely concerning transport assessments and one Para solely concerning travel plans.

2.13 Para 4.33 – needs correcting as more than one travel plan Paras 4.35 and 4.36 have will be required for a site of this size and scale. There would been updated. normally be a 'framework travel plan' covering the whole site, which would be prepared at outline application stage to set sitewide targets, along with a strategy for rolling out travel plan initiatives across the site. This should also include a management strategy, provision for a travel plan coordinator and initiatives Para 4.36 has been relating to physical measures that will be delivered at the outset or updated and amended to early stages of the development. In due course, more detailed and ensure a site wide site-specific travel plans relating to individual land uses would framework travel plan is need to be prepared as detailed planning applications are developed in accordance submitted. TfL would also recommend that this section specifies with TfL guidance. that parking and servicing management plans will be required.

3. The London Development Agency

Town Centres 3.1 The LDA welcomes the proposals to promote and make more Noted. efficient use of land around the town centre in line with London Plan policy 2A.9 (The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities).

3.2 In accordance with London Plan policy 30.4 (Development and The LDA support for an Promotion of Arts & Culture) the LDA welcomes the Borough's arts/cultural facility is support for an arts/cultural/leisure focus at the RAF Uxbridge site. welcomed. The provision of The aspirations for this draft SPD present a huge opportunity for such a facility would also be existing and future local residents and businesses, and it is supported in principle by the important that LB Hillingdon makes appropriate skills and training Mayor’s recently published opportunities available to those local people who are currently out ‘Cultural Metropolis’ which of work. The LDA welcomes the Borough's commitment to use sets out the priorities for planning conditions to ensure that skills, training and ultimately arts and culture 2009-2012. employment opportunities from major development will benefit local people.

Enterprise 3.3 The use of evidence base to justify office development is Noted. Proposals for office welcomed by the LDA. The provision of small business work space and live/work units spaces is supported as it would create a variety of type, size and will need to be justified in cost of offices that are specifically sought in the London Plan. accordance with PPS6, and These work spaces should be safeguarded in perpetuity through can be protected through

Page 15 the planning application process. planning conditions.

Southern Quadrant 3.4 The Agency welcomes the Borough's proposals to provide a Noted. Para 5.40 along with community node with a local shop in line with the London Plan. Table 3.4 have been Given the scale of site and the large increase in residents amended to reflect these predicted, the LDA would recommend the inclusion of suitable and comments. affordable childcare facilities within the former RAF site.

Communities 3.5 The type and timing of infrastructure provided, and they way Paras 5.39 to 5.42 have that it is delivered, can have important economic and social policy been updated and implications as well. It is therefore important to ensure: strengthened to ensure that community facilities are a. That infrastructure schemes genuinely contribute to the provided as required by the development of sustainable local communities, incorporating new community. A financial features and standards that optimise health, safety and other viability appraisal and benefits, particularly those facing exclusion and discrimination; further detailed studies will determine the provision of b. That the provision of infrastructure is supported by high quality infrastructure and services. public services; The SPD sets out the priorities and obligations c. That infrastructure and other development initiatives are likely to be required. coordinated to help support growth, sustain and nurture London's knowledge economy and ensure that residents and businesses have convenient access to the services and facilities they need, in line with London Plan Policy 3A.18. It is very important that facilities such as schools, post offices, places of worship and hospitals are adequately provided for in major areas of new development and regeneration.

Planning Obligations 3.6 In accordance with London Plan policies 6A.5 Planning Noted. Paras 5.39 to 5.42, Obligations and 6A.4 Priorities in Planning Obligations the LDA along with Para 6.38 have welcomes the Borough's commitment to: been strengthened and elaborated upon, to ensure a. contribute towards/provide a community facility, including a s106 contributions and cultural facility; provision of community facilities are provided in an b. provide education facilities to support the new population appropriate and logical sequence, in accordance c. provide local health facilities or contribute towards a polyclinic or with the London Plan and other wide healthcare facility; the Council’s SPD. Policies 6A.4 and 6A.5 have been d. contribute and/or provide training and employment specifically referenced. opportunities.

4. English Heritage

4.1 Overall it is essential that all heritage assets, their setting and Agreed.

Page 16 the wider historic environment are identified and valued when developing the SPD for the former RAF Uxbridge site.

4.2 The draft SPD makes reference to the Barrack Blocks a The SPD will require the number of times, but lacks clarity on whether the retention and developer to provide refurbishment of these Blocks is welcomed, aspirational or justification for the loss of discouraged. It is our view that these Blocks should be retained buildings on the site. Para and refurbished and that the SPD needs to express this as the 5.44 has been strengthened favoured approach. It is considered that these buildings form an to ensure the retention and integral part of the historical and architectural development of this re-use of existing buildings site, and its civic role locally, nationally and internationally. where appropriate and the protection and enhancement of the existing built environment where appropriate.

4.4 At RAF Uxbridge, the Barrack Blocks form an intricate Whilst the Council considers relationship with the parade ground and with the avenues of the Parade ground to be an mature trees that line this space. EH considers that the retention important asset, it is not of this group is fundamental to the interpretation of this site as a considered essential to the heritage asset and that any constructive dialogue regarding the redevelopment of the site redevelopment of the wider site should begin with the retention of and would significantly the Barrack Blocks, parade ground and associated trees. impact on the provision of housing and other aspirations for the site.

4.5 The message we wish to emphasise is that these are Initial evidence suggests the eminently convertible buildings. Their former function and the conversion of the barrack method of their construction means that they can with imagination blocks will not provide be easily adapted for a range of alternative uses, such as suitable housing stock. residential and commercial uses (as the internal features are of Commercial uses should be little merit). The floor-plates are not restrictive and thus do not limit located closer to the town the opportunities for conversion. centre. The SPD suggests that uses such as live/work be considered and any application will need to demonstrate that alternative uses have been exhausted before demolition is determined as the best approach.

4.6 In addition reuse of these Blocks would support the principles The conversion of existing of sustainable development as upgrading and conversion of buildings is encouraged and existing buildings, utilising the inert energy that they embody, is any proposal to demolish significantly more sustainable than demolition and replacement buildings will need to be with new build. justified from a sustainability as well as a heritage perspective.

Page 17

Additional Points 4.7 Page 14 – Para 2.17 - In addition to ‘restoration and reuse of Para 2.17 has been listed buildings’ (10th bullet point) EH recommends an amendment amended to include other to state ‘restoration and reuse of listed buildings and, where buildings, where appropriate possible, unlisted buildings with historic interest or that make a positive contribution’

4.8 Page 15 - Map 6 Map 6 illustrates listed It would be useful to highlight buildings individually or groups that buildings only. The retention are of historical interest and merit, such as the Barrack blocks. of other important buildings will be determined through additional studies and cannot be mapped at this stage

4.9 Page 18 – Para 2.19 Para 2.19 has been Reference should be made to PPG16 Archaeology and Planning. updated to include PPG16.

4.10 Page 18 – Para 2.20 Para 2.20 has been Reference should also be made to Policies 4B.11 to 4B.13 of the updated. London Plan, with special regard to policy 4B.13 Historic conservation-led regeneration.

4.11 Page 26 - Table 3.1 -It is considered that the existing parade Refer to 4.4 above. ground should be identified as a key open space.

4.12 Page 29 – Para 3.10 The last sentence ‘Reuse of existing military buildings of interest is Noted. encouraged where possible’ is welcomed.

4.13 Page 32 – Para 3.13 Para 3.13 has been In discussing the 1920’s layout and retention and reuse of amended to mention the buildings, it is considered that the barrack blocks should be barrack blocks. mentioned specifically as a key feature of the site’s military history.

4.14 Page 32 - 3.14 The possible uses for The 2nd sentence states ‘…local health… and other community specific buildings will be facilities as appropriate, ideally these should be accommodated considered through the around a local play area or amenity park,’ We believe that the planning application existing Barrack blocks could be adapted to accommodate these process. types of uses.

4.15 Page 32/33 – Para 3.15 Refer to comment for point Reference should be made to the Parade Ground as a key 4.4 above amenity space if carefully enhanced.

4.16 Page 34 - table 3.5 This is not considered to be The Barrack blocks should be specifically mentioned. appropriate.

Page 18

4.17 Page 38-41 – Paras 3.23-3.26 The creation of large water No reference is made to the potential to restore the existing lake bodies would be a risk to which has historic significance within the landscape and to airport safeguarding Hillingdon House.

4.18 Page 42 – Para 4.2 Para 4.2 has been The fourth bullet point of the Urban Design Framework states ‘ to amended to include a work with the grain of the landscape in terms of topography etc…’ number of attributes Unfortunately it does not explicitly expand this objective to include including the built the built environment and the need to work with the urban grain, environment block forms and existing buildings.

4.19 Page 42 – Para 4.3 Para 4.3 has been The text states that the existing landscape setting of the site is a amended to specifically unique asset, strongly contributing to the attractiveness and local refer to unlisted buildings. distinctiveness of the site. It is further stated that the history of the site and enhancement of the listed buildings are equally important. This is welcomed, although we would suggest it is amended so that it recognises the value of listed and unlisted buildings of merit.

4.20 Page 43 – Para 4.9– 4.10 Para 4.10 specifically The section on ‘Historical layout’ states the ‘retention of the mentions existing buildings. avenues of mature trees’. It is suggested that the text should be amended so that it makes reference to the existing pattern of formal building layouts and any listed buildings or non-designated buildings of merit.

4.21 Page 44 – Para 4.13 Para 4.13 has been The text states ‘a number of scattered buildings and features… amended to clarify the intent offer the opportunity to be reused’. This should be expanded and includes other features further to state ‘the extent of listed or unlisted buildings, structures of the built environment and features to be reused should be agreed as buildings, structures and features of historical, artistic or cultural value or merit, in accordance with a thorough analysis of buildings, structures and features across the site.’

4.22 Page 46 – Para 4.22 Para 4.22 states the Under the title ‘Key items that should be addressed in the site requirements expected of layout at the earliest stage’ the text states the need for ‘reflection any developer and does not of the site’s history through innovative urban design solutions.’ need to go further, as such This could be expanded further to state ‘reflection of the site’s suggestions are included history through the retention of key buildings’. elsewhere in the SPD.

4.23 Page 65 – Para 5.7 Refer to comments to points ‘Cultural Quarter’. This Para discusses the need to separate the 4.1-4.2 above, which town centre with a ‘zone of transition’ from the area of lower encourages the re-use of all amenity in the southern quadrant. It is considered that the barrack buildings or justification for blocks provide a perfect transition between the two areas, whilst the loss of any, but also reflecting the site’s military history and providing a sequence recognises that not all of landmark buildings of character and value. The Para continues barrack block buildings will

Page 19 to state that ‘the potential refurbishment of some of the be retained. northernmost series of barracks’ may be achievable. It is considered that this sentence should be amended to use a language that further encourages the retention of the entire series of barrack blocks to achieve the desired result, and furthermore to achieve sustainable construction/conversion, as well as other indicators as mentioned above.

4.24 Page 72 – Para 5.43 Para 5.44 has been ‘Building’s Appraisal’. This should be amended to state that the strengthened and expanded required appraisal of buildings should identify key unlisted to reflect these points. buildings that make a positive contribution, and be used as the basis of decision making with regards to which buildings should be recommend for retention.

4.25 Page 74 – Map13 Map 13 illustrates Listed We would suggest that the Barrack Blocks and the Parade Ground Buildings only and does not are a conservation feature that should highlighted on this map. need to show other buildings.

4.26 Page 76 – Para 5.46 Para 5.47 has been This sentence states ‘proposals to reuse this building should be amended consistent with its history and preserve and maintain the building.’ In accordance with national policy guidance, the phraseology should be amended to ‘preserve, enhance and maintain…’

4.27 Page 84 – Paras 6.25 – 6.29 Paras 6.25 to 6.30 have ‘Sustainable design and construction’. This section should discuss been amended the sustainable merits of retaining, reusing, converting and upgrading buildings and spaces rather than the current emphasis upon demolishing and rebuilding.

4.28 Page 86 – Paras 6.35-6.36 All funding options should ‘Planning Obligations’. We would urge you to include the historic be fully explored, including environment and its setting as a beneficiary of any future planning s106. However there may obligations. At present Listed Buildings are mentioned as ‘other be competing priorities for matters’ which implies its priority is secondary to the list above s106 funding. The SPD (Para 6.35). This is not acceptable as we would suggest that the recognises this and has areas heritage assets, their settings and the wider historic been expanded in a number environment should be seen as a priority for preservation and of areas to ensure enhancement. appropriate re-use of listed buildings.

5. Thames Water

5.1 We welcome reference for the need for developments to Noted. incorporate sustainable urban drainage and reduce the risk of surface water flooding.

Page 20 5.2 We welcome reference to the need for the developer to enter Details of the letter and early discussions with the water and wastewater provided, as we contact details for Thames have concerns regarding the provision of wastewater infrastructure Water have been passed to to this development. VSM to resolve any potential issues at the earliest stage.

5.3 We also welcome reference to the need for new development Noted. to be water efficient. We agree that developments should incorporate water conservation measures and consider any new residential development should meet as a minimum the Code of Sustainable Homes level 3.

6. British Waterways - London

6.1 The proposal does not lie within the consultation zone (150m Noted. either side of the centre line) of any waterway, reservoir, canal, feeder channel, water course, let off or culvert owned or managed by British Waterways.

6.2 British Waterways therefore has no comments to make. Noted.

7. Environment Agency

7.1 Para 2.20 - Additional policies should be included in this The SPD includes reference section. Please refer to the table on page 4 of our response below. to relevant London Plan policies and other guidance throughout, at relevant sections.

7.2 Para 4.35 - We commend the acknowledgement of the Noted. importance of the River Pinn in this section. Public realm improvements along the River Pinn, in particular lighting, should be designed to have a negligible impact on wildlife using the riparian corridor.

7.3 Footpaths should meander away from watercourses to provide Para 4.54 and Map 11 have a more dynamic experience for users. Footpaths set directly been updated to reflect against the bank top form a break between river and land habitats. these comments. It is important to have a continuous transition between these habitats to maintain the integrity of the river corridor for movement of wildlife.

7.4 Para 4.36 - It is good that the green chain and protection of Noted areas of significant wildlife habitat mainly adjacent to the River Pinn is featured in this section.

7.5 Para 4.37 - We support the use of the riparian corridor as a Renumbered Para 4.40 is green chain in the northern part of the site. However, where amended to encourage links

Page 21 possible the inclusion of a green chain or green corridors should around the site. Further be continued throughout the rest of the site. negotiations will be necessary.

7.6 The creation of a green chain links in with Section 4C (Blue Para 4.40 has been Ribbon Network) in the London Plan and our aspirations in the amended to reflect these North London River Restoration Document supported by the comments. Mayor.

7.7 Para 4.40 - In this Para the words “where possible” should be Renumbered Para 4.43 has removed so that it reads: been amended accordingly "...future development proposals should conserve, enhance and to reflect the ecological restore the diversity of England's wildlife and geology by importance of this area. sustaining and improving the quality and extent of the natural habitat..." This reflects the wide scope of opportunities for development on the site.

7.10 Para 4.56 - Landscape management plans for the River Pinn Para 4.58 has been corridor will need to be submitted prior to the commencement of strengthened to require a the development. detailed landscape masterplan and management plans Flood Risk 7.11 Para 6.1 - 6.5 - Further work is required in this section to Paras 6.4-6.10 have been outline the level of detail is needed in such a document. Firstly, substantially amended to there is a lack of reference to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment incorporate these (SFRA) or to the ‘Coarse Assessment’ of site allocations which is comments and to contained within their finalised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Our specifically reference the main comments are as follows: recently adopted SFRA.

7.12 Lack of cross reference and use of text within the Level 1 Refer to 7.11 above. SFRA which has been signed-off by us. Specifically the policy recommendations and FRA guidance section of the SFRA should be utilised to write this section.

7.13 Map 14 is not accurate, it must use the same data as the Map 14 has been replaced SFRA and as such include the Functional Floodplain as well with the most up to date historical flood outlines we have provided them with. flood map, following the recent adoption of the SFRA.

7.14 This section makes no reference to the Sequential test and Paras 6.4 to 6.7 have been the fact that the LPA need to Sequentially Test this site allocation. expanded to reflect these Also no reference is made to the need for the Exceptions Test to comments. be passed.

7.15 Note: As discussed in the meeting in September the Para 1.16 has been deleted Sequential Test should be addressed in this section not in Para and incorporated into Paras 1.16 of the document. 6.1-6.7

Page 22 7.16 We would expect the principle of the Sequential Approach Paras 6.4-6.7 explicitly state explicitly laid out in this section. Due to the location of the green that there is no reason why belt area around the River Pinn and the desire to locate housing or other development closer to the town centre there is the opportunity to development should be completely avoid floodplain development on this site which we located in the floodplain. wholly support.

7.17 Reference to our 8m byelaw margin should be made and the Para 4.42 has been need for this buffer zone to be kept free of development should be expanded to protect the promoted. riparian corridor and refer to the 8m exclusion zone.

7.18 We would expect the text to refer to the Thames CFMP and Para 6.4 has been the need to ensure that the redevelopment of this site is consistent amended. with the goals of the River Pinn policy unit.

7.19 We would also expect this site to be setting exemplary Paras 6.8-6.10 has been standards with regards to sustainable drainage systems or SUDS expanded to clarify this given that the Pinn is such a flashy catchment. This section should point. be making the case for SUDS and explaining what a big part they play in reducing risk. Using the SFRA it would be possible to start identifying types of SUDS system which should be focussed on at this site e.g. green roofs, ponds and swales. Need for Greenfield rates (in line with the London Plan) Need for 1 in 100 year attenuation. Requirement to use green roofs, ponds and swales

7.20 The opportunity to enhance the river environment should also This is incorporated into the be referred to in this section. SPD.

7.21 Para 6.4, bullet point 1 is not correct. The Mayors Plan was Renumbered Para 6.7 has updated in February 2008 and Greenfield discharge rates are been updated to reflect required on all sites. We think you should also cross reference to these requirements. the following Mayoral policies: table

7.22 Para 6.5 - This section should cross-reference the climate Para 6.5 now references change requirements outlined in PPS25. PPS25 and its requirements. Site Contamination 7.23 Para 6.10- Para 6.12 - We are happy with detail in this Paras 6.15-6.17 has been section, particularly the statement ‘this information must be updated to include submitted with the planning application’. Reference should also reference CRL11 along with be made to the Model Procedures CRL11. Council’s SPD.

Energy 7.24 Para 6.17 - In order to facilitate the discussion on the viability Paras 6.23 to 6.25 have of a waste processing plant on site we would need to know the been updated to outline the following: requirements for a waste to What waste you are proposing to use, where it is coming from, energy plant. The specifics how much and how you intend to process it? are to be worked out Dependent on whether you intend to use incineration (easier for through a planning individual householders and we have guidance on this) or whether application and the

Page 23 a large scale facility is proposed. Environment Agency will be Please note that you may need some kind of permit for this activity involved in that process

Sustainable Drainage 7.25 Para 6.22-6.23 - Similarly to our comments above for this Paras 6.8 - 6.10 have been section our main comments are as follows: expanded and updated to strengthen the requirements 7.26 Lack of cross reference and use of text within the Level 1 for SUDS and to ensure the SFRA which has been signed-off by us. Specifically the policy SFRA informs the design recommendations and FRA guidance section of the SFRA should and use of SUDS. be utilised to write this section.

7.27 We would also expect this site to be setting exemplary Refer to comments above. standards with regards to SUDS given that the Pinn is such a Developers will need to flashy catchment. There is a need for greenfield rates, need for 1 demonstrate innovative and in 100 year attenuation, and a requirement to use green roofs, exemplary proposals with ponds and swales. regards to SUDS.

7.28 This section should be making the case for SUDS and Paras 6.6 - 6.10 now reflect explaining what a big part they play in reducing risk. Using the these comments. SFRA it would be possible to start identifying types of SUDS system which should be focussed on at this site e.g. green roofs, ponds and swales.

7.29 Para 6.23 This section needs to be re-worded as it implies Paras 6.6 - 6.10 now that there are health and safety issues associated with SUDS. Up incorporate these to date Ciria guidance should be followed when writing this section comments. as health and safety is no longer deemed a barrier to SUDS

Living Roofs 7.30 Para 6.31 - We strongly support the use of green roofs on all Para 6.33 is updated to new and existing developments. In order to ensure the maximum reference the Mayor’s toolkit biodiversity benefit from green roofs please refer to our newly and EA guidance. released Green Roof Toolkit. See also the Mayor’s Living Roofs and Walls document and specifically page 40 for costings.

Water and Wastewater 7.31 Para 6.32 and 6.33 - We support the incorporation of water Paras 6.33 and 6.35 have saving devices throughout the developments on the site to ensure been expanded and that the target set in the London Plan is achieved. Please refer to updated to ensure water is our Developers Pack and Site Wise Guides for more information. seen as a precious resource and waste water is utilized as a resource wherever possible and to ensure infrastructure is upgraded as required.

8. Highways Agency

8.1 The Strategic Road Network (SRN) (closest to RAF Uxbridge) The Council is aware of the being the M40 Junctions 1 to 1a and M25 junctions 15 to 16 are current traffic issues on the

Page 24 currently congested during the peak hour period. Consequently local road network and the there are serious concerns if any material increase of traffic and/or strategic road network. Any safety concern occurs on these sections of the SRN without Transport Assessment and careful consideration of the mitigation measures. In spatial Travel Plan will need to planning and development control terms, we have a duty to demonstrate that no safeguard the operation of the SRN as set out in the DfT circular adverse impacts will arise 02/2007 (Planning and the Strategic Road Network). We from this development. The understand that a Transport Assessment (TA) and a Travel Plan transport and accessibility (TP) will be submitted as part of the planning application for the section of the SPD (Paras site. It is requested that the M40 section from Junctions 1 to 2 is 4.24 to 4.37) have been considered as part of the TA, since the car trips generated by the strengthened to address redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site may generate an adverse these issues. impact on the SRN. The developer will have to demonstrate that any mitigation measures required are identified and implemented prior to the occupation of the development to ensure that there is nil-detriment effect on the SRN.

8.2 In addition to re-opening the east/west public pedestrian Para 4.24 to 4.27 and Para access between the town centre and Hillingdon East, we strongly 4.33 specifically require recommend that a safe cycle route is provided along the improvements to the pedestrian access to create a walkable and cycle friendly pedestrian and cycle safety environment. and facilities in and around the site.

8.3 It is recommended that the cumulative transport impact of the The Uxbridge AAP will not site is considered in conjunction with the emerging Uxbridge AAP proceed, however the SPD DPD which has to meet the soundness requirements (i.e. based has given full consideration on a robust and credible transport assessment/evaluation). to the LDF process.

8.4 We fully support the requirement that development should be The Transport and appropriately phased to be in line with the provision of any Accessibility section has required transport infrastructure. been strengthened to cover phasing of the development.

8.5 Para 3.9 and Table 3.3 should be amended to include the Para 3.9 and Table 3.3 provision/improvement of a safe cycle route have been amended to reference cyclists.

8.6 We support the boroughs strategy to locate development of Noted. higher densities close to public transport nodes, as this type of development is likely to generate a high number of car trips which may create an adverse impact on the local road network and the SRN.

8.7 Regarding Traffic and Transport Principles we are encouraged The transport sections of to see that a big emphasis has been placed on the transport the SPD have been further

Page 25 aspects within this chapter of the SPD. The requirements of the strengthened following borough have been set out clearly providing early guidance to the advice from TfL and other developers. consultees.

8.8 We strongly support the recommendation in Para 4.29 that Noted. Para 4.31- 4.32 has consideration is given to car parking restraint as part of any been strengthened to limit development proposals located near existing public transport car parking, this will be nodes. As stated in PPG13, the provision of car parking spaces determined by the Traffic will have a major influence on the way people travel and by Assessment and Travel restricting the number of spaces it will encourage a modal shift to Plan/s. sustainable modes.

9. English Partnerships

9.1 The draft seems to be a very thorough and moreover a very Noted. ambitious response to a remarkable opportunity for the town.

10. Hillingdon NHS Primary Care Trust (PCT)

10.1 Given that the total development will produce around 1620 Paras 5.34 - 5.38 have new homes we do not believe that this will generate sufficient been amended to highlight population to sustain a new health centre on this site. the need for health facilities and planning obligations to 10.2 The PCT`s emerging estates strategy seeks to develop meet the additional polyclinics combined with larger GP practices with list sizes in the demand. order of 6000 or higher. Uxbridge has been highlighted as an important centre and is likely to be an area in which a polyclinic will be developed. The PCT has a current health centre in Uxbridge that appears suitable for redevelopment to enable this strategy to proceed. Any new building will be designed to serve the local community. In view of this the PCT would wish to see, as part of any planning permission granted, a planning contribution awarded through the Section 106 process to support the increased size of this building or to be invested in adjacent GP practices that may be enlarged or brought together.

11. Defence Estates

11.1 Para 1.1 Project MoDEL is a Ministry of Defence initiative not Para 1.1 has been updated a Government one. to reflect this.

11.2 Para 2.4 The date of the conveyance of the site was 1918 not Updated. 1915. In the third line wording should be added to read ‘relocated form Halton to the site’

11.3 Para 2.9 & 10 There should be some clarification in the text Para 2.9 & 2.10 have been to reflect that the Annington housing to the south, east and north updated to reflect this west of the SPD site is still leased to the Ministry of Defence. advice.

Page 26 11.4 Page 17 Map 7 does not have a key. Map 7 will be updated.

11.5 Page 25 The second bullet point of the preferred land uses This is an aspiration rather for the Northern quarter relates to Public access along the River than a burden on the Pinn to facilitate access to Hillingdon House Farm etc. How can current developers. Further this be delivered when the site is land locked in this area and negotiations with access over private land would be required? surrounding land-owners are expected to resolve this issue.

11.6 Page 29 In Table 3.2 the floor area in the Commercial This inaccuracy has been Description of 69,75m2 appears to be incorrect. corrected.

11.7 Page 30 In Table 3.3, Heights. The range if 3-6 storeys Specific mention of needs to be caveated subject t to RAF Northolt safeguarding safeguarding is provided in the text at Paras 4.16 and 6.18.

11.8 Page 32 Picture 5 is wrongly labelled. It is not a barrack Picture 5 has been block relabelled.

11.9 Para 4.16 The wording (approximately 24 AGL) appears to Para 4.16 has been have something missing and AGL should be defined. updated. Due to the topography across the site a height limit above ground level does not make sense. The SPD states that further consultation between the developer and MoD safeguarding is essential to inform the development. The Council, developer and MoD will work closely on these issues.

11.10 Para 4.26 The final bullet point seeks the provision of This is an aspiration rather recreational pedestrian routes in the proposed open space such than a burden on the as a river walk and links to the north and south to key sites such current developers. Further as Hillingdon House farm and Brunel University. How can these negotiations with be delivered when the site is land locked in these areas and surrounding land-owners access over private land would be required? will be undertaken to resolve these issue.

11.11 Page 63 A building north of the underground bunker on Map Map 12 is updated 12 is shown as being Listed. It is not. accordingly.

11.12 Page 66 The schedule suggest the number if units in each The detailed housing quarter based on PTAL levels. The document does not appear to numbers have been allow these numbers to be increased in the event of the PTAL amended in the final ratings being increased as a result of better public transport document, and are less

Page 27 access if routes are diverted into the site. specific to facilitate PTAL improvements or other eventualities

11.13 Page 74 On Map 13 key number 4 – Standby Set House is Standby set house is not a not a Listed Building and could not be regarded as an associated listed building however, it is structure to the bunker. within the curtilage and linked to the bunker. Map 13 does not refer to it as a listed building.

11.14 Para 6.35 There needs to be a better explanation about the Para 6.38 has been use of planning obligations being used when planning conditions updated and expanded with cannot be achieved. additional explanation given following comments from various parties, including the GLA and internal advice.

12. CgMs (for Metropolitan Police Authority)

12.1 A policy framework exists at national, strategic and local Agreed. levels to support the provision of policing infrastructure. An increase in the number of people working, living and visiting the area will generate the need for additional policing.

12.2 The MPA welcomes the reference to Secured by Design at Para 4.20 has been Para 4.20. It is recommended that this section be extended to updated to include ensure the ODPM’s guidance ‘Safer Places: The planning system reference “Secured by and Crime Prevention’ is included. Design”, along with the ODPM guidance.

12.3 The MPA request that the SPD includes specific reference to The specific reference to Policing Facilities as an appropriate use within the community policing requirements within node. obligations is justified through the Council’s 12.4 Para 6.35 should include reference to “Provision of policing Obligations SPD and has facility or infrastructure”. been added at Para 6.38.

13. The Coal Authority

13.1 The Coal Authority has no specific comments to make at this Noted point.

14. National Grid

14.1 Please note the presence of our low-pressure mains crossing Details of low pressure the proposed site. mains and contact details

Page 28 for National Grid have been passed to VSM.

15. Cyclists Touring Clubs (CTC)

15.1 It is broadly our memberships view that the footpath closure Specific improvements are order for the path which coincides with St Andrew Road should be required to St Andrews cancelled. This move will restore the link from Park Road/ roundabout with an Hillingdon Road roundabout to its junction with Vine Lane. When emphasis on cycle and the roundabout is moderately busy it is intimidating to negotiate, pedestrian safety. Refer to due to fast moving vehicles and poor sightlines. Automated traffic the transport section, signals at some or all entrances would be one way of effecting an particularly Para 4.33. improvement.

16. London Cycling Campaign (Hillingdon).

16.1 I would like to request that the maximum possible The SPD has been consideration is given to improving cycling facilities in, and around, strengthened to improve the proposed development of RAF Uxbridge. safety and opportunities for cyclists (Paras 4.28 to 4.33).

16.2 We feel that there is scope for upgrading the currently closed St Andrews roundabout is footpath, linking St Andrews roundabout to Vine Lane, enabling given specific emphasis in cycle use. This could potentially link through Hillingdon House the SPD. Farm, to the cycle track over the A40 adjacent to Swakeleys Road. An additional possibility is to link into the A40 cycle track via Hercies Road. We would also hope that where changes are undertaken to St. Andrews roundabout, greater consideration would be given to cyclists safety, enabling easy access in, and out of, Uxbridge Town Centre.

17. Natural England

17.1 We are encouraged to see that there is significant detail in Noted the SPD relating to Natural England’s interests, including open space and biodiversity enhancements.

17.2 It should be noted that whilst we do not object to the use of Para 4.48 has been innovative lighting, the site is known to support bats and lighting amended to specifically will need to be designed sensitively to ensure that it does not mention lighting. cause disturbance to bat roosts or affect bat - feeding behaviour.

17.3 We would expect any planning applications on the site to set Any planning application will out how they address the guidance contained in the SPD, include full ecological particularly in relation to open space provision and biodiversity surveys and management protection and enhancement. plans, and site proposals will include protection of

Page 29 ecological areas and open space.

17.4 As stated in the SPD, the site has been identified as having See comments above. suitable habitat for bats, great crested newts, voles, reptiles and birds. Planning applications for the site will need to clearly demonstrate how these species have been considered in the proposals, including suitable mitigation and enhancement measures.

18. NATS

18.1 The proposed development has been examined from a Noted. technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Limited and has no safeguarding objections to this proposal.

19. Civil Aviation Authority

19.1 Whilst the CAA would not wish to comment on local The proposal has been development plans, where officially safeguarded aerodromes lie referred to NATS and with the Council’s area of jurisdiction, we recommend that the Defence Estates who have Council considers the need of such aerodrome(s) within your not objected on development plan and consult with the aerodrome safeguarding issues. operator(s)/licensee(s) directly.

20. Michael May – Groundwork Thames Valley

20.1 Biodiversity - We welcome the overall objective contained Para 4.46 has been within section 4.35 that “the potential to utilise the Green Belt as amended to reflect these public open space was also a strong aspiration”. However, we comments and strengthen take the view that the Hillingdon Biodiversity Action Plan should the fact that the Biodiversity not just be “considered in developing proposals and action plan will underpin the recommendations for the site” (Section 4.43) but that its aims and proposals for the site. objectives should act as a guiding principle. We recognise that major developments can put pressures on bio-diversity; however, where this would result in a diminution of the local resource mitigation must be put in place, potentially by linking through to the local resource that is the Colne Valley Park.

20.2 Environment & Sustainable Development: we welcome the A range of additional scope of the considerations contained in Sections 6 but would studies will be undertaken make the observation that the more detail the better. For example: by the developer and submitted with any planning application for the site.

a. Air quality: a development of this scale will lead to a near Refer to comments above. inevitable and potentially highly significant increase in traffic

Page 30 congestion. At the earliest possible opportunity we would welcome more detailed analysis as to projections of size and scale and what mitigations might be put into effect. b. Waste Management and Energy: in broad terms we welcome Agreed. the narrative in sections 6.15 – 6.18 inclusive. The sub-group has long taken the view that a development of this scale should act as a beacon in these areas and it would be good to see the text strengthened to reflect this wholly beneficial aspiration. We also await greater detail with anticipation

20.3 Pedestrian connectivity at St Andrew’s roundabout. We Noted. support this as an aim wholeheartedly, though we believe that within the detail of section 6.35 and its implementation lies an integral component of the success or otherwise of the whole development.

Consultants & Businesses

21. GVA Grimley – (for VSM Estates who will be developing the masterplan and applying for planning permission in 2009)

21.1 The boundaries between the quarters should be indicative The boundaries are only and should be softened to illustrate the transitional areas on indicative only, however, it the SPD plans. The extent of the town centre should be indicative is considered necessary to only rather than precisely defined, allowing the detailed define the extent of the town masterplan to define the precise boundaries of the extended town centre boundary and open centre. space and therefore the four quarters.

21.2 The SPD is generally too prescriptive on housing numbers The SPD has been updated and lacks flexibility. In particular, the densities proposed are not to ensure the housing appropriate to deliver the number of dwellings proposed for each numbers, and other specific quarter. The SPD should be less prescriptive and state ‘around’ or figures in the draft SPD can a ‘target’ of rather than exact figures. The VSM team have be realistically delivered. surveyed the site in detail taking into account trees and other Some flexibility is needed features. The figures set out in the SPD do not correlate with the as additional studies and detailed capacity assessments carried out by VSM. detailed plans are yet to be submitted, and will be dictated by design, landscaping and a host of other issues. Town Centre 21.3 A massing exercise to assess the capacity of the town centre The SPD has been extension to accommodate the uses and areas set out in the draft amended to reflect a SPD, assuming building heights of between 4 and 6 storeys, has realistic mix and quantum of shown that the town centre boundary, cannot physically uses. accommodate the quantum of uses proposed. Therefore, the only options would be to increase building heights (potential issue in terms of height restrictions in safeguarded areas), extend the town

Page 31 centre boundary or incorporate more flexibility into the SPD by identifying preferred uses rather than specific floorspace areas.

21.4 Para 2.6 VSM Estates consider that the quantum and mix of See comments above. the proposed town centre uses set out in the draft SPD should be revisited in light of the massing exercise, and for the reasons set out below.

21.5 The retail element is too narrowly defined, being restricted to Site allocations Policy SA2, complementary/comparison shopping compatible with an along with the most recent arts/cultural quarter. The retail element should be more general. retail studies indicate that The north-western part of the site is identified as the proposed the amount of retail that town centre extension and should therefore be permitted to should be permitted on the function as a town centre including “retail and commercial uses”. RAF site should be limited, Our view is supported in principle by PPS6: Planning for Town to protect and enhance the Centres and by evidence available as explained below. The vitality and viability of the London Plan has re-designated Uxbridge from a Major Centre to a existing town centre. Metropolitan Centre and considers that the centre should be enhanced to meet retail and other consumer needs. The West London Sub Regional Development Framework (2006) (WLSRDF) notes that there may be scope for expansion of town centre related uses arising from the potential redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge. Table 2.2 of the WLSRDF provides a potential growth summary for West London Town Centres to 2016. Taking into account development schemes in the pipeline, this table identifies the need for an additional 16 - 24,000 sqm of comparison goods floorspace in Uxbridge.

21.6 Evidence to support further retail growth at Uxbridge is also Refer to comments above. provided by work undertaken on behalf of the Council. The Town Centres and Retail study prepared in 2006 by Scott Wilson and CACI notes that there are opportunities to improve the town centre against competing centres and forecasts a requirement of 8,354 sqm net of comparison floorspace by 2011 and 14,321 sqm net by 2016. Work undertaken by GVA Grimley Ltd suggests that this would increase to almost 22,000 sqm by 2022. The requirement for convenience floorspace is predicted by Scott Wilson to be 240 sqm net by 2016 whereas GVA Grimley Ltd has estimated the capacity would be up to almost 3,000 sqm (net) by 2017. It is important to note that these assessments were carried out when Uxbridge was classified as a Major Centre, now that is classified as a Metropolitan Centre aspirations are greater.

21.7 More recently in April 2008, CACI has prepared a draft report See comments above. to consider the retail potential of a town centre site. This report states that there is a “need for Uxbridge to develop in the future, simply in order to maintain its existing share of the market and position in the retail hierarchy” and “taking a conservative view of Uxbridge retaining its current role in the retail hierarchy in the future, and continuing, to act as an Average Metropolitan town, the scenario analysis shows that a substantial amount of floorspace

Page 32 will need to be added in Uxbridge in order to achieve any substantial uplift in market potential, due to the town having to overcome the considerable impacts from competing centres before growth can occur”. The report concludes that there is sufficient evidence to support retail use to secure the vitality of the town centre going forward to 2013 and that there could be a need for a scheme to provide between 14,000 – 18,500 sqm retail floorspace.

21.8 Clearly, there is policy support for significant town centre Refer to comments above. growth at Uxbridge and evidence to show a need for additional retail development in Uxbridge to support and enhance the viability and vitality of the centre. The SPD should not be prescriptive as to the exact type of retail development at this stage as this would be clarified through masterplan development and justified in due course by a comprehensive retail assessment in accordance with the principles of PPS6. The text should therefore not pre-empt this process and be flexible enough to ensure that the town centre extension can function as such and sustain and enhance the role of Uxbridge in the retail hierarchy.

Theatre 21.9 The SPD focuses heavily on the development of a theatre It is considered appropriate and cultural quarter which raises deliverability/viability issues. As that the RAF Uxbridge site we have stated in previous submissions, there is no regard to, or includes a unique cultural comment upon, the viability of such uses, nor reference to the attraction for the town, independent study undertaken for the Council and VSM Estates including an arts/cultural with regard to the viability of a theatre use. The study concluded quarter to enhance the town that there may be a market sufficient to support a theatre but it centre’s metropolitan status. should be located in the heart of the town centre close to the tube station if it is to be a success. A theatre would require massive capital investment and potentially substantial long-term public subsidy to support it. Hillingdon already has provision of a theatre in Hayes and is understood that this requires subsidy and has recently been refurbished. An additional theatre would create competition and should be reconsidered as an objective for the town centre extension.

21.10 Reference has also been made to an art gallery which is a The Mayor’s strategy for new addition and again would be an unviable use and should be arts and culture 2009-2012 reconsidered. It is important to note that strong weight is now titled ‘Cultural Metropolis’ given to viability and deliverability in the planning system. PPS12 outlines the need for states that core strategies should be deliverable; flexible and able additional arts and cultural to b monitored (para 4.44) and it is clear that these core principles facilities, particularly in outer should apply to all policy guidance documents. London boroughs. In principle such facilities are necessary for the vitality of

the town centre and provide improved opportunities and quality of life for residents.

Page 33 21.11 With respect to soundness, a key test is whether a The deliverability of facilities requirement is justified and developed from a robust and credible will require further evidence base. In terms of deliverability, PPS12 indicates that investigation through a there should be clarity with respect to who is going to deliver formal financial viability infrastructure and when - there should be a clear delivery plan. In appraisal and other studies. relation to the provision of a theatre at RAF Uxbridge, none of these factors have been properly considered and the only available evidence indicates such a facility would not be in a suitable location nor viable. On this basis VSM objects to the continued inclusion of the theatre and art gallery in the SPD.

21.12 The SPD proposes that the RAF Uxbridge site should The quantum of office deliver 69,750 sqm of office floorspace (B1a) representing a 20 space required in the town year supply to serve the borough. This is a significant amount and centre extension has been we are not aware of any evidence to support this quantum. Having almost halved from the draft reviewed the London Plan and associated documents prepared by SPD, to require at least the GLA and the emerging Core Strategy, we can find no 35,000 sq m of office space evidential support for this scale of office development at RAF on the RAF Uxbridge site. Uxbridge. This proposal is a particular concern to VSM Estates, as VSM, the majority of it would sterilise a large part of the town centre extension waiting responses from residents for market demand. Such a substantial scale of offices would take and other responses have between 20-30 years to build out creating a long term construction raised concerns about the site leaving the town centre extension incomplete and acting as a requirement for more office barrier to pedestrian movement to the town centre. Utilising the space on RAF Uxbridge. A town centre extension to provide predominantly office space would revision of the needs, and prejudice the delivery of other aspects of the SPD. potential for accommodation with the existing Uxbridge town centre means that the total needs for office space to 2021 do not need to be accommodated on the RAF site.

21.13 VSM Estates currently propose to incorporate an element of See response to point 21.12 office space as an integral part of a mixed use scheme in the town above. centre quarter but consider that the quantum in the SPD is too high and undeliverable, particularly if the town centre expansion boundary is more tightly drawn as proposed. VSM currently envisage that the town centre extension could accommodate a retail led mixed use scheme complemented by high density residential development, offices, a hotel, health facility and possibly cultural uses.

21.14 VSM consider the brief raises a number of fundamental See below. design issues that should be revisited in order to ensure that high quality design is achieved that allows for innovation and creation of a strong sense of place. The key issues are:

21.15 Character and Setting: VSM Estates are of the opinion that The RAF base has played the RAF Uxbridge site is big enough to create its own character an important role in the and setting. This is supported by the comments from the GLA character of the wider area

Page 34 which states that “the site is self contained, has its own distinctive over the years with intrinsic character, is separate to the surrounding area and of a sufficient qualities and historic size to establish its own context, therefore compatibility with local attachments for the context should not be seen as an overriding factor”. This residents of Uxbridge and philosophy reflects guidance in PPS3 Housing should underpin the the wider area. It is SPD. considered important that any redevelopment is not a stand alone contemporary design that ignores the context and historic importance the site. Whilst innovative design will be encouraged, and developments are not expected to be of a scale that simply copy the surrounding areas in terms of height and design, it is considered that the character guidance included in the SPD is generally appropriate. Some minor amendments have been made to the wording of the character guidance to ensure a high quality, accessible, safe and comfortable living environment.

21.16 Density: The SPD proposes low density development but The housing numbers have high total housing numbers. This will have implications for design been revised across the and layout. The SPD is too prescriptive and should allow scope for site, following comments good quality and innovative design solutions to emerge. Map 8 from VSM, the GLA, TfL RAF Uxbridge quarters indicates the four quarters and provides a and others. The numbers total number of units for each area. These have been roughly given were based purely on measured to calculate gross densities and compared to the PTAL ratings and an emerging proposals in the VSM Estates masterplan. objective to limit residential development in the town centre extension.

21.17 Table 3.2 illustrates that the SPD proposals have highest The draft SPD included a density in the north and south and lowest in the town centre which lower number of residential does not reflect either the landscape features nor the principle of units in the town centre having the highest densities in the town centre expansion area. extension area because of Taking into account the surveys undertaken by VSM in its early the range and quantum of masterplanning work, these indicate that densities should be other uses to be higher in the town centre than suggested. In the town centre, VSM accommodated. These wish to create a vibrant extension which provides an active day housing numbers have and night-time environment. As a sustainable town centre location been revised. accessible to public transport it is the ideal location to increase

Page 35 densities and accommodate a number of residential units.

21.18 The northern quarter is particularly constrained by trees and The housing numbers the potential location of a school. The SPD describes the proposed for the northern character of the northern area and that it should accommodate 2- quarter have been revised 3 storey lower density residential development, however, given the and will be subject to constraints the northern quarter cannot physically deliver 265 additional detailed houses and school at this density and height. As the SPD has not assessment when the taken account of site features in proposing these densities, it is masterplan and applications essential that it is less prescriptive and has regard to site features are submitted. to achieve the appropriate total of 1,600. It should introduce ranges rather than specific requirements/targets to ensure the SPD is not unnecessarily and unrealistically prescriptive and allow for flexibility.

21.19 In terms of the Green Belt boundary and heights, the SPD The SPD reflects a need to envisages a gradual decline in heights towards the interface with provide a softer edge to the the Green Belt. This fails to take account of the substantial green belt and to increase buildings and structures that currently exist along the Green Belt densities westwards where edge. The graduation is more likely a requirement southwards public transport, the town away from the town centre, rather than eastwards towards the centre and other services Green Belt. The evolving VSM masterplan proposes a stronger are more accessible. edge of varying heights up to four storeys with appropriate breaks to allow routes through. This would create natural surveillance over the Green Belt space and would provide a better and more interesting design solution to the treatment of the Green Belt edge.

21.20 VSM also consider that heights of up to 7 or 8 storeys may Table 3.2 and the character be appropriate in the town centre and 4 or 5 storeys elsewhere as guidance for the town landmark features to add interest and legibility to the development. centre have been amended.

21.21 Open space requirements: The SPD is extremely confusing The SPD has been updated when it comes to deciphering the open space requirements. The to refer to the Mayors SPG, NPFA table referred to at Para 4.49 is misquoted in relation to and requires the developer straightline / radial distances (and the NPFA are now called Fields to discuss proposals with in Trust (FIT). In addition, FIT have replaced the Six Acre the Council, Fields in Trust Standard with ‘Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play’. and the GLA as part of the The GLA are no longer referring to this guidance and have planning process (Para 4.51 developed specific guidance for London in the adopted SPG of the SPD). ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ (March 2008). The SPG establishes a minimum of 10 sqm of dedicated playspace per child as a basis for assessing existing and future provision. The open space requirements should be much more clearly stated, and accord with the GLA’s approach which is specifically geared towards London rather than applying the NPFA approach.

21.22 Various targets for achieving sustainable code level 4, 5 and Additional details and 6 dwellings are set out in the draft SPD. A figure of 30 code level 6 guidance are given in the exemplar units is proposed which is a particularly ambitious SPD on the requirements

Page 36 requirement. Sustainable code level 6 is a relatively new concept for exemplar developments, and requires particular technologies to develop further before they and the Mayor’s Energy become viable for large numbers of units. Bearing in mind the Strategy which aims for one current downturn in the housing market and economy generally, such proposals in every investment in such technologies will be a much longer term borough by 2010. With the prospect. We suggest that the aspirational target of 30 should be move towards zero carbon reworded to state ‘in the region of’ or ‘around’ to allow flexibility. homes by 2016 it is necessary to set an example, and the Council will work with the developer to achieve this, subject to financial viability appraisal and other considerations.

21.23 The draft SPD states that any redevelopment proposal The proposal for a waste to should provide a facility that enables the creation of green energy energy plant and similar from waste on the site, subject to a full evaluation of plant/facilities initiatives will need to in terms of its suitability for the site. VSM Estates are concerned consider various associated that the attractive RAF Uxbridge site is not the right location for a issues to ensure a truly large scale facility which could require significant land take, require sustainable and green chimney stacks (potential height issues in relation to safeguarding initiative without adverse zone) and generate heavy vehicle traffic. This requirement should impacts. be considered carefully in the SPD bearing in mind that there are other sustainable options available to address the issues of waste.

21.24 VSM Estates has considerable concerns regarding the Further negotiations will be viability and deliverability of the draft SPD. These have already required to determine the been raised in relation to the viability and deliverability of the viability of certain proposals, theatre, art gallery and to the adverse consequences of delivering including a theatre, however such a substantial office requirement. These concerns extend also there is an expectation that to the scale and extent of planning obligations required. a quality arts/cultural facility can be delivered on site. The quantum of office space has been halved from the draft SPD. The s106 considerations have been expanded at 6.39 and will be subject to further negotiations.

21.25 The list includes substantial contributions which could Refer to comments above. include the theatre (and other cultural facilities) as referred to above, sustainability requirements, contributions towards public realm/accessibility (such as St Andrews roundabout), education, health, play space and works to listed buildings/structures. There should be further consideration of the issues surrounding deliverability before the SPD is finalised to ensure that there is appropriate flexibility when it comes to agreeing the overall package.

21.26 VSM have particular concerns about phasing the delivery of Para 6.38 has been

Page 37 some of these requirements such as health and education. In the expanded to explain some majority of circumstances it is logical and preferable to tie in the requirements and make it provision of infrastructure and community facilities with the need clear that the Council will for these facilities. A number of facilities such as health and work with the developer to education are required to be provided upfront. This would be secure relevant funding for unfeasible both in terms of securing appropriate funding and of necessary services, having patronage for those facilities. VSM acknowledge that such infrastructure, listed facilities will need to be provided to tie in with the growing need but buildings, and a range of the requirement should not be upfront. other aspirations outlined in the SPD. Executive Summary 21.27 Para 4: It is noted in the executive summary that during the A theatre/music venue/arts public consultation a number of suggestions were made about and cultural facilities are possible uses on the site. It is stated that “some of the specific supported by the LDA, the uses and facilities that were regularly suggested as desirable London Plan, the Mayor of included a theatre or music venue …”. This has been developed London’s cultural priorities from a desirable aspiration into a requirement for a cultural quarter for 2009-2012, and other which is a significant leap without any consideration of need and policies, subject to such viability. proposals being financially viable, appropriate and supported by the local community

21.28 Para 6 third bullet: This states that ‘retail uses The SPD clarifies the complimentary to the Uxbridge Town Centre’ - this requirement is requirement for small shops unclear and not justified. It should state that this part of the site is and retail uses that are only appropriate for ‘town centre uses’ or ‘retail’ (refer to earlier Paras complimentary to the 2.5 - 2.15 of this report). cultural quarter, and that do no impact on the existing Uxbridge town centre. Proposals will need to comply with PPS 6.

21.29 Para 6 sixth/seventh bullet (River Pinn walk and footpath The Council would be links): This should be clearly defined to confirm whether this refers unable to force the to on or off site provision. developer to provide a footpath on land it does not own, however the redevelopment of this site should be a catalyst to improve accessibility, through footpaths and cycle paths which will need to be considered with any planning application.

21.30 Para 7 last bullet point: This refers to exemplar residential Zero carbon developments units that should meet sustainable code 6. This should be are strongly encouraged by considered an aspiration that VSM Estates will strive to achieve the London Plan and the (refer to Paras 2.17 - 2.18 of this report). Mayor’s energy strategy, subject to being financially

Page 38 viable. The SPD makes this point clear. Section 2 Site Background 21.31 Para 2.6 should refer to ‘Central London’. Para 2.6 has been updated.

21.32 Para 2.19 Planning policy statements should also refer to Para 2.19 includes a the climate change supplement to PPS1 and also PPS25 and number of additional PPS’s PPG17. and PPG’s for reference.

21.33 Para 2.28-29 This should be amended to state “acceptable Paras 2.27-2.28 have been uses include ... “ to ensure it accords with the SPD. For example updated, and lists a number to clarify that a hotel would be appropriate but is not a of appropriate uses, making requirement. In terms of retail use see previous comments about it clear that additional broadening retail uses (refer to Paras 2.5 - 2.15 of this report). details are included throughout the SPD.

21.34 Map 6 Opportunities: This does not accurately show the Map 6 has been updated to pedestrian access point for the existing public right of way on the more accurately depict a eastern part of the site. VSM has a preference to realign this number of opportunities and public right of way through the site, between the walls of Hillingdon attributes of the site. House and out to the east of the site.

Section 3 Development Framework 21.35 This section of the SPD sets out the four areas of The homezone concept, development. The southern area is very big and through the and character guidance masterplanning process VSM Estates propose to subdivide the provided in the SPD clarifies area to provide more legible and walkable neighbourhoods. this point.

21.36 The comments below relate to table 3.1. The residential density of the town centre has been 21.37 Proposed Town Centre Extension: The SPD recommends increased substantially to that the density of residential development in the town centre reflect the PTAL, access to extension should be between 55 – 260 dwellings per ha. services and location in a However, initial representations from the GLA suggested a density metropolitan centre. of between 240 – 435 dwellings per ha (650 – 1100 hr ha) would However, the density is not be appropriate in a town centre location. This is significantly higher expected to reflect a than the maximum proposed in the SPD for this location. The ‘central’ location, given the density should be increased to densities compatible with a location of RAF Uxbridge. Metropolitan town centre location i.e. to at least 650 hr ha.

21.38 Text in Table 3.1 refers to ‘the establishment of a major Refer to comments above. arts/cultural facility’ and an ‘arts/cultural facility (theatre, music venue, borough museum) which may include a community use component’. VSM Estates are particularly concerned about the viability issue (refer to comments at Paras 2.12 – 2.13).

21.39 Table 3.1 states that the only retail proposed in this location Policy SA2, and other is defined as ‘Complementary retail to the existing town centre’. supporting information See commentary at Paras 2.5 - 2.15. clearly states that retail will be limited to complimentary

Page 39 uses, that do not impact on the existing town centre.

21.40 There is no reference to any public space within the town Table 3.1 has been updated centre extension, which is a crucial element to creating a vibrant to require a vibrant public area. This should be referred to in this section. realm and ensure the vitality and viability of the town centre.

21.41 Northern Quarter: The draft SPD proposes a range of A lower density would be between 35 - 95 dwellings per ha. However, initial GLA appropriate given the representations suggested a density of between 55 – 275 natural attributes of that dwellings per ha (200 – 700 hr ha) would be appropriate in this area and the SPD responds area located adjacent to a town centre location. accordingly.

21.42 Public access is required along the River Pinn to facilitate The SPD has been access to Hillingdon House Farm sports facilities to the north and amended to encourage to other parts of the site. There are two issues which need to be discussions with considered and may lead to this requirement being unachievable; surrounding landowners to one, the land to the north is not in VSM ownership, so it is not pursue these ideas. possible for VSM to complete this link to the road. Two, this land is References to a ‘river walk’ adjacent to the badger sett and area of greatest ecological value have now been amended to within the site. It is therefore questionable whether a footpath a ‘nature walk’ which will should be created in this location and further input will be required preserve the ecological from the EA and Natural England. importance of the riparian zone, flood functioning of the river, and have regard to other issues.

21.43 Southern Quarter: The table proposes a density of between The density range of the 35 – 95 dwellings per ha. However, it is considered that suburban southern quarter is setting aspirations are too restrictive and initial GLA considered appropriate. representations suggested a density of between 55 – 275 dwellings per ha (200 – 700 hr ha) would be appropriate in this area.

21.44 There needs to be further confirmation of the health facility The PCT have advised that requirement as it is also mentioned in the southern quadrant and a polyclinic or other large town centre. The PCT should be clear about its requirements and scale health facility is funding available. unlikely to be pursued on this site, but additional health facilities will be required off site, possibly in the existing town centre. The SPD has been updated to reflect this.

21.45 Character guidance for the proposed town centre extension: Noted. Para 3.9 makes reference to a sequence of features from the Uxbridge tube station to the site. This is a positive point and VSM would encourage LBH to facilitate this.

Page 40

21.46 Para 3.10 Table 3.2: The table should include more Table 3.2 and various flexibility and is far too prescriptive. Refer to previous comments in references to specific respect of quantum of office floorspace (Paras 2.14 – 2.15); numbers have been cultural quarter (Paras 2.12 – 2.13) and references to retail (Paras updated throughout the 2.7 – 2.11). SPD to ensure they are realistic and appropriate for the site.

21.47 Table 3.3: is too prescriptive and specifies ‘about 332 units’ See comments above which is very specific and should be much more flexible. VSM Estates were intending to include substantially more residential units in this quarter to create a vibrant day and night environment and optimise the accessibility of this location. A target of 332 is too low if the whole site is to achieve 1600, VSM Estates are aiming to provide at least 700 units.

21.48 Table 3.3: specifies that buildings should have a general The SPD has been updated form of between 3 – 6 storeys. VSM Estates would wish to have to state that any buildings of the opportunity to possibly use taller buildings as landmarks up to 5-6 storeys and above will 7 or 8 storeys. need to be of exemplary design and subject to safeguarding and a range of other considerations, refer Table 3.3 and Paras 4.16 and 6.18.

21.49 Table 3.3 Key Issues: Refers to retention of historic Table 3.3 has been updated geometric layout, there is no clear historic geometric layout within to delete the word this part of the site, if anything the geometry in this area is geometric, however it is particularly poorly aligned with roads at varying angles. important to retain the historic layout, where appropriate.

21.50 Character guidance for the southern quadrant: Para 3.12 Para 3.14 has been refers to the principle of a walkable neighbourhood. This is updated, along with Para supported by VSM Estates, however, the area proposed for the 5.40, to reflect the guidance southern quadrant is too large for a single walkable in regards to homezones neighbourhood. A walkable neighbourhood would have all facilities and create walkable accessible within a 5min walk (240m straight line distance), the neighbourhoods. Detailed southern area would require 1½ walkable neighbourhoods. It may plans and information will be possible VSM Estates Draft RAF Uxbridge Supplementary be required with any Planning Document October 2008 to allow the northern part of the planning application to southern quadrant to tie into the town centre extension and form ensure everyone has good part of a walkable neighbourhood. access to relevant facilities and services

21.51 Para 3.13 makes reference to including reference to the Para 3.13 has been 1920s layout. We appreciate this refers to the principle of the amended to refer to the

Page 41 barrack buildings around a square, but the 1920s layout is barrack blocks specifically significantly different to this principle (see 1920s plan). The and the historic layout. reference should be more explicitly related to the barrack blocks.

21.52 Para 3.14 refers to the provision of a local health facility in The SPD has been the local centre of the southern quadrant. This together with one amended to reflect these within the town centre extension appears to be an overprovision, comments and those of the unless these facilities are somehow linked. It is understood the PCT. current PCT preference is for polyclinics therefore a small facility in the southern quadrant runs contrary to this preference. Further clarification from the PCT is required.

21.53 Para 3.16 makes reference to demonstrating compatibility Para 3.16 has been with the existing urban form. Refer to comments at 2.16 (i). updated to ensure that developments are compatible with the natural and built environment.

21.54 Northern Quarter: Para 3.20 indicates the need to link along Refer to comments above. the River Rea to the north. This area is the most ecologically sensitive within the site, and a link may not be appropriate. Reference is also made to tying into the existing Annington Homes development which is outside the control of VSM.

21.55 Table 3.7: Housing target: the SPD recommends a target of The housing target for this 265 units on 3.6ha of land which generates a gross density of area has been substantially 73dph, this is not a lower density area, the number of units needs reduced to around 80 to be reduced for this area (and possibly added to the town centre dwellings (excluding APL extension). land).

21.56 Hillingdon House Quarter: Para 3.24 states that vehicular Para 3.24 has been access across the site is to be discouraged. It is not clear how this amended to express the sits with the desire to restrict access on to Vine Lane. aim to limit traffic generation towards Vine Lane. Traffic Assessment and Travel Plans will provide more detail on this issue.

21.57 Para 3.25 makes reference to the reuse of adjoining Para 3.25 has been buildings for the Bunker Visitor attraction. No reference is made to updated to include a new building replacing these for a visitor centre, which would be reference to new buildings preferable. and the requirements they would have to satisfy.

21.58 Table 3.8: refers to ‘about 59 units’ which is too specific. Table 3.8 now says ‘around 60 units’.

Section 4 Requirements for site layout

21.59 With reference to Para 4.2, VSM Estates is generally These are general supportive of these objectives, however, the term historic routes objectives and further

Page 42 needs to clarify if the reference is to the 1920s layout / routes / details are contained in the geometry, or references back to the 1700s and Hillingdon House. SPD. Also the reduction of vehicle trip generation needs to be clarified. It is presumed there is a need to reduce carbon emissions and not impact upon congestion, therefore this reference should be to the reduction of carbon emitting vehicles.

21.60 Para 4.20 makes reference to Secured by Design and Park The SPD has been worded Marks as items which must be met through the design process. to require developers to This may be better worded as an aspiration. VSM Estates support achieve secure by design. If these principles, but experience elsewhere has demonstrated that there are very good reasons satisfying all parties’ requirements has not always been possible. to justify why this cannot be achieved the developer can provide such justification at that stage.

21.61 Key views need to be shown on a plan (possibly as cones Map 6 has been updated to rather than arrows). It is unclear where the view to the church on indicate more views, Hillingdon Hill is. however such details would be expected from the developer.

21.62 Street layouts to maximise solar gain needs to be reworded. Para 6.31 of the SPD now Whilst roof orientation should maximise solar gain, buildings reflects these comments. should not maximise solar gain as this can lead to overheating. Buildings should be designed to be adaptable in the potential increase in temperatures as a result of climate change.

21.63 Para 4.26 fifth bullet point states that the opening up of a A significant improvement is fifth arm for vehicular traffic to the site from St Andrews required to the St Andrew roundabout is not supported. VSM Estates’ highways advisor has roundabout for pedestrian indicated that it is technically feasible to accommodate a fifth arm and cyclists to link the site to the roundabout and that this option should not be ruled out by with the town centre. A fifth the SPD without further technical work. arm off the roundabout would likely be contrary to such requirements.

21.64 Para 4.26 ninth bullet point states ‘avoidance of access for Renumbered Para 4.28 high trip generating development from Vine Lane’. It is important to aims to limit traffic note that this access may be required to serve the school and generation to Vine Lane to potentially other elements of the scheme subject to further detailed protect the amenity of technical work. In addition, this access will be required to serve the residents and the local existing residents on the eastern side of RAF Uxbridge outside the traffic network. Proposals SPD boundary otherwise this will generate movements east to should aim to limit any extra west across the site. traffic to Vine Lane.

21.65 Paras 4.38 and 4.39: refers to Green Belt policy and makes The green belt is protected no provision for minor boundary adjustments or land swaps that for very good reason, any might achieve a more rational boundary and a better urban design proposals to build on it solution. would need substantial justification. The SPD

Page 43 reflects current policy guidance.

21.66 Para 4.47 confirms that ‘the retention of the existing sports Renumbered Para 4.49 has facilities on the site (outside the Green Belt) is not proposed in the been updated to reference SPD’ - this is a positive point. However, Para 4.48 goes on to state Fields in Trust. that a ‘District Park will be sought on site’ and refers to advice in the London Plan and NPFA. NPFA no longer exist. The body is now called Field in Trust (FIT).

21.67 The Six Acre Standard (as created by NPFA now FIT) has Para 4.49 has been been replaced by ‘Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and updated and the tables Play’ which indicates that a development of 1,600 units over 22ha taken from the NPFA have would not require a NEAP. been deleted.

21.68 The line of Hornbeam trees (Carpinus betulus) identified as The avenues of trees worthy of retention is a long line of small category B trees. VSM throughout the site are Estates’ masterplanners have found retaining these within the important to the character of master plan particularly difficult given the strong geometry of the the site and the surrounds barrack blocks and surrounding trees. There is clearly a hierarchy and need to be retained. of trees to be retained, starting with the category A trees, then most important groups (around barracks, along Public Right of Way), then less important groups (which these trees would fall within). Setting up this principle would be useful to allow flexibility within the development.

21.69 Map 12 Site Development Framework: It is noted that the Map 12 has been updated public right of way is not shown correctly. It connects to Vine Lane to ensure it is more at the point where the site ‘sticks out’ eastwards. At present the accurate, although it is only ‘major arts / cultural facility is indicated by an asterisk. We assume indicative at this stage. that this is indicative only and seek confirmation of this.

Section 5 Requirements for Specific Uses

21.70 Paras 5.1 – 5.10 deal with arts/cultural facilities, office Refer to comments above requirements, retail uses all of which have been commented upon in section 2 of this report.

21.71 Para 5.19 is supported. Noted.

21.72 Para 5.29 should make reference to DfES document Noted. “Building Bulletin 99: Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects”. This document states that sites for 2FE primary schools should be between 1.73 and 1.9ha, with 0.84ha for pitches and additional areas for other external play.

21.73 It is noted that Para 5.31 refers to a site for the Douay The SPD has been revised Martyrs School as an aspiration. VSM Estates considers this to reflect these comments. matter has been fully investigated and it has been concluded that relocation onto this site is not viable. This reference should therefore be deleted.

Page 44

21.74 Para 5.33 indicates that a three arm GP surgery is required Para 5.34 has been and should potentially be located in the southern quarter. Para updated to reflect advice 5.36 states that it should be open before first dwelling is occupied. from the PCT. It is likely that We consider the timing is too onerous and it would be reasonable contributions will be to require its provision prior to occupation of an agreed number of required, and that a new houses. facility will be built within the town centre.

21.75 Para 5.41 the conservation areas referred to should be on a The conservation areas are plan. mapped by the Council and available to the public.

21.76 Para 5.42 refers to the designation of Hillingdon Court Park Refer to comments above. Area of Special Local Character. This is not shown on any plans.

21.77 Para 5.43 requests an appraisal of all the buildings and It is considered that structures on the site. A consultant appointed by VSM and English additional justification will be Heritage have now completed this work and it has been submitted required as part of any to the Council. planning application for the demolition of buildings. Section 6 Environmental and Sustainable Development Considerations 21.78 Para 6.13 refers to height restrictions. These should be Para 6.18 has been clarified as being Above Ground Level or Above Ordnance Datum. reworded to delete reference to a number, as the advice from MoD does not take account of the topography of the site. More detailed discussions between the developer, MoD safeguarding, and the Council is required to inform development proposals.

21.79 Para 6.17 requires a facility that enables the creation of Refer to comments above. green energy from waste on site. Please refer to our comments at Para 2.17.

21.80 Para 6.26 – the requirements are confused and vary Refer to comments above. throughout the document - see comments at Para 2.17.

21.81 Para 6.34 – requires 30 sustainable code level 6 units to be Refer to comments above. provided on site – see comments a Para 2.17.

21.82 Para 6.35 – lists the potential planning obligations – see Para 6.38 has been earlier comments at Paras 2.19 - 2.22. substantially revised to include an initial heads of terms, subject to further negotiation.

Page 45

22. Annington Property Limited

22.1 The draft SPD refers to ‘Annington Homes’ throughout the The SPD has been updated document. The correct reference is Annington Property Limited throughout to ensure the (APL). correct reference to APL land.

22.2 It is important for the Council to understand and note the Noted. legal status of the APL land as referred to in the draft SPD.

22.3 The Council should note that the four areas identified on Map Noted. 4 of the draft SPD as ‘Annington Homes Land’ are actually held freehold by the Secretary of State for Defence (MoD). In November 1996 APL purchased the Married Quarters Estate of the MoD, of which the four areas identified on Map 4 form a part. APL purchased a 999 year Headlease and simultaneously granted the MoD a 200 year Underlease which allows them to occupy the land/buildings.

22.4 If the MoD no longer wishes to continue its’ occupation of the Noted. land (or part), it terminates its’ underlease. When this occurs APL exercises an option in its Headlease to acquire the freehold reversion thus putting it in sole control of the land in question.

22.5 The Council should note that there is no timescale as to when Noted. (and if) the MOD will terminate its occupational leases or hand land back to APL. This is predicated entirely on the needs of the MoD. Consequently representations made by APL on the draft SPD are all contingent upon the MoD terminating its occupational leases either in whole or part .

22.6 To date the MoD has terminated its’ occupational lease on Noted. some of the properties in the north east part of the site (adjoining Vine Lane) and consequently the freehold is now held by APL.

22.7 All references to land ownership throughout the draft SPD Noted. must be considered in the context of the definition as described above.

22.8 APL has considered the draft SPD in relation to RAF Noted. Uxbridge. The land held by APL is not specifically included in the draft SPD boundary but is a significant landowner adjoining the site (see definition of landowner above). The future redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge is welcomed by APL.

22.9 APL supports the preparation of the SPD to guide future Noted. It is expected that planning applications for the site and to set out the general APL will be heavily involved expectations in terms of land use, density, character and in pre-application accessibility. The draft brief is flexible enough to allow the discussions and through the developer to work up a variety of master-planning options for planning process.

Page 46 consideration.

22.10 APL as an adjoining land owner needs to ensure that proper Noted. regard is taken of the existing residential properties whether they are vacant or occupied.

22.11 The Council should insist on pre-application meetings and Agreed. Refer to comment involve APL. for point 22.9 above.

23. Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners - for Capital Shopping Centres (CSC)

23.1 CSC is generally supportive of the overall vision for the Agreed. redevelopment of the site and in particular welcome the addition of 1620 new homes and additional office space.

23.2 CSC support the preferred land uses in the town centre Agreed. extension in Table 3.1. CSC considers that any proposed retail within this quarter should be complimentary to the existing retail provision with the town centre.

23.3 The extension of the High Street and recognition of the need Agreed. to ensure safe pedestrian movement between the site and the town centre is welcomed and that this should not detract from Uxbridge’s main focus around the Uxbridge underground station (Para 3.9)

23.4 We agree with Para 5.11, however the SPD should clarify the Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 amount of retail floorspace anticipated as a benchmark for future have been revised to clarify developments. the fact that only complimentary retail and small shops will be encouraged, and that uses that do not compliment the arts/cultural quarter and a high quality, safe and enjoyable night-time economy will not be permitted. Any proposals for retail will need to clearly demonstrate that they will contribute to the unique quality of the cultural quarter, and the local vitality and viability of the town centre, along with complying with the needs assessment of PPS 6 and relevant policies of the London Plan.

Page 47

23.5 We note that there has been a slight shift in allocation of the Refer to comments above. site since the draft Site Allocations Policy SA2 which identified that the strategic mix for the site should include ‘a mix of residential, commercial, community facilities, health, open space and sports and recreational development’ and that proposals should also ‘facilitate the creation of an arts based cultural quarter’. The policy also identified that the development proposals should provide ancillary convenience retail floorspace with the supporting text in para 7.1.25 stating:- ‘In order to protect the vitality and viability of Uxbridge’s town centre and other nearby centres, no retail uses will be permitted on site other than ancillary convenience retailing to serve the immediate needs of the site.’

23.6 In addition, the Scott Wilson commissioned report ‘LB Refer to comments above. Hillingdon Town Centres and Retail Study 2006’ prepared in A figure has not been January 2007 identified that by 2011 8,354sqm net of additional included in the table, as comparison floorspace will be required in Uxbridge and that this more detailed studies will be will increase to a requirement of 14,321sqm net by 2016. The required with any planning study concludes by stating that: ‘There is no identified qualitative application. deficiency within Uxbridge as the centre has an adequate range and diversity of floorspace to enable the centre to meet the needs of its catchment population and compete with surrounding centres.’

23.7 Although CSC considers that any development proposals for Refer to comments above. the site will contain an element of retail provision, the majority of additional comparison floorspace identified in ‘LB Hillingdon Town Centres and Retail Study 2006’ should be accommodated within the existing Town Centre boundary (as identified in the UDP). A benchmark figure within the RAF Uxbridge SPD will ensure that the vitality of the existing town centre is maintained and that any future developer of the RAF Uxbridge site is clear about the provision of comparison retail across the site. This will ensure that the identified comparison floorspace is not allocated in its entirety to RAF Uxbridge and will enable the growth of existing retail provision within the town centre.

23.8 CSC considers that Table 3.2 ‘Proposed town centre Table 3.2 has been updated extension land uses’ is confusing and should draw a distinction to clarify the expected uses between whether the only acceptable A1 comparison floorspace is and where appropriate that which is complimentary with an arts/cultural quarter, and/or A1 floorspace within the town comparison floorspace in its own right. For clarity, this should centre. accord with the provision identified within Para 5.11 of the SDP. Again, CSC considers that parameters for the amount of comparison floorspace should be included within Table 3.2 and that any future development proposals fulfil the sequential tests identified in PPS6.

23.9 CSC considers that the identification of ‘significant Map 12 has been amended comparison retail complementary to town centre’ in Map 12 Site to reduce the amount of

Page 48 Development Framework is inconsistent with the SPD and does commercial floorspace, not reflect the aspirations of this quarter. clarify types of retail uses, amend the dwelling numbers and amend the river walk.

23.10 CSC wishes to remain closely involved in the future of The SPD acknowledges Uxbridge and we would therefore be grateful if the Council could that it is important to involve keep us informed of future progress of the SPD and any future a range of key stakeholders planning applications should they come forward at the site. in the planning process and CSC will be a part of this.

24. GL Hearn - for Tesco Stores Limited (TSL)

24.1 Para 2.17-2/20. TSL support the expansion of the town Refer to comments above. centre, and the need for a special draw. However, believe that to Site allocations Policy SA2, be successful the town centre quarter will need to be anchored by along with the most recent a development that can be an active and financial driver to retail studies indicate that encourage people to this end of town. the amount of retail that should be permitted on the RAF site should be limited, to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of the existing town centre.

24.2 The southern section of the town currently is significantly The ‘focus’ to encourage quieter beyond The Chimes and therefore it is considered a real people to visit the cultural focus would need to be made to encourage people to travel quarter, town centre beyond the Chimes over the road to the proposed expansion area. extension, and open space and other areas, will come from the cultural uses, unique specialty shops, cafes and restaurants, exemplary design and active public realm and quality areas of open space and natural attractions. A new supermarket is not considered to be essential to achieve the objectives of the SPD.

24.3 TSL are aware that there are a number of constraints Noted. separating the proposed expansion area from the current town centre boundary, however consider that with good design this barrier can be overcome.

Page 49

25. Barton Willmore (for Invista Real Estate)

25.1 Invista wish to express their support as a local landowner The bus depot is currently and business interest for the relocation of the bus at capacity and will need to depot/maintenance facility to a new location at RAF Uxbridge. be moved or ‘spill over’ The relocation of this depot could help facilitate the major parking space found. redevelopment of a site in central Uxbridge and help provide a However, the RAF Uxbridge new integrated transport interchange hub. site is not considered to be appropriate for a bus depot. Such ideas have been researched and although a bus depot is not suited to the RAF site, a holding area and other transport facilities should be provided.

25.2 Invista’s interests within the Town Centre are directly See comments above. affected by the current location of the Bus Depot. They are aware of the wider community desire to improve the bus facilities in Uxbridge Town Centre and re-locate the existing Bus Depot. The RAF site is considered an appropriate location for a new depot facility. However, the RAF Uxbridge SPD does not appear to consider this option. Accordingly, Invista is disappointed that a valuable opportunity might be lost to help assist the redevelopment of what is the largest single redevelopment site in Uxbridge Town Centre

26. John Palmer – (for the Mall)

26.1 Considerations should be given to the relocation of Our lady The relocation of this church of Lourdes & St Michaels Church in Osborn Road. This could does not fit with the enable expansion of the Mall Pavilions and enable a flagship retail strategic priorities for the attraction into the town. site and has not been included in the SPD. However, such a proposal would not be prohibited if supported by significant justification.

26.2 Bus Station and garage could be moved to RAF Uxbridge Refer to comment to point 25.1 above.

26.3 Park and ride services should be given consideration from Park and ride facilities are the RAF Uxbridge site. not considered to be a priority to the strategic transport needs of appropriate Uxbridge and would not be appropriate for the RAF site.

Page 50

27. Hillingdon Chamber of Commerce

27.1 The nearest quarter to Uxbridge I believe is supposed to be The amount of retail will be for retail. I would suggest this would stretch the town centre far too determined by appropriate much and damage the far end of Uxbridge. assessment and sequential test under PPS 6.

27.2 I would suggest that consideration be given to using the There is currently no existing Civic Centre site for retail and for any planned theatre in proposal to relocate the order to be close to existing transport, which would help to be a Civic Centre. Any such successful area. The Civic Centre should be re-sited in the RAF proposal would be outside site, which would be far better for the town in the long term. the scope of the current SPD.

Community Groups

28. Vine Lane Residents Association

28.1 Many residents are in favour of the retention of the fence, Paras 4.56 to 4.58 have because they feel it adds to their security as it would stop easy been expanded to ensure access from RAF Uxbridge to Vine Lane. There is also the issue of that landscaping, including what would replace the fence as a boundary. Would there be an the fence, is retained where attractive hedge and who would be responsible for the upkeep? appropriate. Landscaping Would the trees which border Vine Lane be retained? plans and various other reports will need to be considered with the planning application.

28.2 Hillingdon House might be accommodation or a hotel. If it is a The exact number of hotel, would this be counted against the number of dwellings in the dwellings would be Hillingdon House Quarter? determined by the character of the area, and through assessment of a planning application.

28.3 Access to the Hotel, would this be from Vine Lane or from the Access towards Vine lane Uxbridge Road? will be restricted wherever possible, and informed by the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Residents will be involved in the process.

28.4 The Bunker Museum - again will access be from Vine Lane or Access is likely to be from Uxbridge Road? Uxbridge Road. Details to be determined with future planning applications

28.5 Access to Vine Lane - How many cars are likely to be added Precise figures about traffic to Vine Lane traffic and at what times of day? Has consideration numbers are not known at

Page 51 been given to making the exit from RAF Uxbridge into Vine Lane this stage. Council intends left only, or to a mini-roundabout? Are there likely to be many to limit traffic impacts tourist coaches visiting the Bunker, in addition to the number around the site, and arriving at ACS International Hillingdon, before and after school? particularly Vine lane. Will public transport be serving Hillingdon House Quarter?

Education 28.6 The new primary school is welcomed. Concern was Provision for additional expressed by residents that there will not be sufficient secondary secondary school places school places for the catchment area. will be made.

Health services 28.7 The local primary health services are already overwhelmed. S106 contributions will be What steps are being taken to make sure there is adequate health required to meet future cover? demand from the site. Additional facilities are expected to be provided in Uxbridge through the PCT Strategy.

28.8 St Andrews Roundabout - Would it be possible to have the A quality link between the pedestrian access to RAF Uxbridge at street level, with the cars at site and the existing town a lower level. This would encourage people to walk, rather than centre is one key use their cars. It would also look much better. component to the success of the site. Paras 4.24 to 4.36 have been substantially strengthened and expanded to ensure this occurs.

28.9 Green Belt -This is a valuable asset and those who have Agreed. seen it fully endorse the plans to retain the green belt and feel it should not be eroded.

29. North Uxbridge Residents Association

29.1 We think the SPD goes a long way as an aspirational Noted. document and LBH is to be congratulated for having prepared it in house.

29.2 In the Executive Summary, the Principles and Achievable The Executive summary items are confused. Matters such as good design, community has been updated following safety, these are generic principles that apply to any development. consultation and to more Items such as respecting the sites military history, public art properly explain the provision, and meeting sustainable homes level 6 are specific Council’s vision for the site. requirements for the development site and should not be in the bullet points. In any event these bullet points really ought to be called Development Objectives.

29.3 In conservation terms, the document refers only to the Paras 5.43 to 5.53 have

Page 52 English Heritage report on Historic Military Aviation sites and for been amended and an evaluation of each building in terms of its architectural, social expanded to reflect these and historic significance. There is insufficient emphasis given to comments and to ensure the global warming issues of embodied carbon / low carbon take that re-use of buildings and up. Given the identifiably lower carbon take up in retro-fitting the loss of any buildings is housing into existing buildings, (as low as 25% of that for building fully justified. The retention equivalent new houses) then every building should be evaluated of a significant proportion of for its potential reuse and not be discounted just because of a buildings would constrain need to maximise the density or built form in the building the most appropriate "zones". In particular the barrack blocks around the parade ground redevelopment of the site, space invite an imaginative evaluation. We think the re-use and would not necessarily potential needs to be a guiding principle of the whole result in the most site's development not just for the re-use of the Listed Buildings. It sustainable development, is the application of such an approach that is going to achieve a refer to Para 6.30. status as an exemplar development.

29.4 As regards land use options: a. Appreciating recent (possibly divergent) statements, the site The proposal to relocate offers a central location for the new Hillingdon Hospital. Its Hillingdon Hospital to the present location has appalling private and public transport RAF Uxbridge site has been accessibility from around the Borough. fully considered and for a number of reasons the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust have determined such a move would not be feasible. b. Provision of a new bus garage or at least holding location for Refer to comments above. part of the fleet of busses that currently use Bakers Yard. The congestion and unattractiveness to the public is a running sore for the Town Centre. By forming the 4th arm to the Cedars roundabout, a sound connection can be made to the T C road system as well as providing a service route into the commercial sector of the site. c. The use of Hillingdon House is not seen as a hotel venue but All proposals regarding rather as the local museum with educational interpretation centre Hillingdon House will be with an emphasis on its RAF heritage and its bunker. The carefully considered. intervening area on the east side might offer other community functions such as a marriage venue, club meeting rooms etc. We appreciate that the financial viability and realism of obtaining the non profit making items have not been formally gone into, but the number of residential units and commercial floor-space is precisely stated and no sizes or even a monetary sum is advanced for a museum, cultural/art centre etc. The precision of one makes the other appear that Hillingdon will (be) accept whatever is offered!

29.5 In Para 4.26 of the document there is the only specific Paras 4.24 to 4.33 have reference to highway issues, saying a 5th arm to St Andrews been amended and roundabout is not supportable. We consider this document needs substantially expanded to

Page 53 to make a statement that, to achieve the desired pedestrian clarify these issues and connectivity with the High Street, surface level traffic movements ensure the most appropriate need to be reduced by the formation of an underpass. Such development of the site with a major item should be spelt out in 6.35 rather than left as a infrastructure provided as "connectivity" issue to be addressed. In addition the issue of site required. Para 6.38 has also vehicular access points should be included in a diagrammatic site been expanded to include plan to clarify the position of potential points and to assess the additional issues. likely impact on the surrounding environment.

30. Ruislip Residents Association

30.1 Whilst we welcome the overall concept there are concerns The implications of the about the impact of an extra 1600 homes on this site, together with redevelopment of RAF proposed redevelopment of the MoD sites in Ickenham and Uxbridge and surrounding Eastcote. developments will be fully considered when assessing any planning application.

30.2 Education – there will likely be a need for a substantial The SPD sets out number of additional secondary school places. requirements for a plethora of studies to be undertaken, 30.3 Health – Additional facilities will be required. including impacts and requirements for additional 30.4 Traffic – more homes will lead to more traffic, and roads are school places, health already saturated. facilities, transport infrastructure and a range of other issues.

30.5 Council should be giving clearer guidance to developers to The SPD includes specific improve access from the High Street. requirements for a high quality access between the site and the existing High street.

31. Hillingdon Inter-Faith Network (HIFN)

31.1 We would wish the council to consider two strands in setting Some important aspects go its planning documentation. It is our belief that each human being beyond the physical/spatial has a set of spiritual needs, some clearly related to those of a environment, but are very particular faith stance, whether through active membership of a much influenced by them, faith or of personal reflection and also those with no faith and have been considered allegiance. in preparing the SPD.

31.2 There are two particular needs that should be included in the The SPD reflects these planning documentation. For each one of us, there is the need to noble ambitions and this plan and deliver a potentially spiritually healthy community and should be achieved through environment, so that we can each: good urban design, the a. live in peace within our family, having enough space within each creation of active public dwelling so that each family member has their own space realm, private spacious dwellings, and through

Page 54 b. live in peace with neighbours, having the facility to meet adherence to relevant informally and socialise in small, attractive common spaces, being planning policies and able to maintain a strong degree of personal space whilst guidelines, in particular encouraging shared areas for enjoyment Councils adopted HDAS SPD. Most of all such c. live within dwellings which have been designed to allow direct objectives will be satisfied views of nature; clear access to the elements at work, the sky, through considering the trees and green spaces people that will live and work in this area and d. have social activities within close walking distance where applying that to the people can find freedom of space and can develop. These assessment of any planning opportunities may include some limited retail units but should also application. include areas, which are not retail dependent for their sustainability

31.4 The other ‘spiritual need’ that should be included is one The SPD includes reference dealing with society in being able to come together and in sharing, to requirements for learning from and about each other. Many faith communities in the community facilities. borough have limited access to community spaces or facilities to provide for the spiritual needs of their communities either through spaces for worship or community activities.

31.6 Hillingdon Inter Faith Network would ask for consideration on The SPD includes reference the development of a multi faith facility on the site that would to the need for community accommodate individual faith activity, inter faith activity and other buildings and that community activities to take place. This building would provide consideration should be space for communities to come together and build greater given to the needs of understanding and interaction between faith communities and the different faith organisations, wider community of the borough. refer to Para 5.41.

32. Connecting Communities

32.1 A combined meeting between HIFN and the Connecting Noted. Communities group was held during the consultation phase. The comments were very much the same, and have been addressed above, however a few extra points are below.

32.2 The development needs to: a. Provide spaces to facilitate positive community activities Paras 5.39 - 5.42 have been expanded. Requirements within other chapters require the provision of space for community needs. b. Provide Personal space and Community space Any development will need to comply with Council standards, such as HDAS.

Page 55 c. Include opportunities for Social activities Refer to comments above. d. Provide access to nature The site enjoys a very large amount of green belt and open land and the SPD requires this be protected and accessible. e. Have a community focus PPS 1, the London Plan and range of documents are referenced through the SPD to ensure the creation of sustainable communities.

33. Older Peoples Assembly

33.1 The key points that were raised at the FORCe meeting with officers are summarised below:

33.2 Why can the Hospital not relocate to RAF Uxbridge and the The proposal to re-locate existing hospital be turned over to housing to fund the move? Hillingdon Hospital to the RAF Uxbridge site has been fully considered and for a number of reasons the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust have determined such a move would not be feasible.

33.3 Additional facilities and services associated with extra The SPD requires services housing, such as health care, public transport, roads, parks, and and infrastructure to be others will be required. provided following studies and information submitted with a planning application. Para 6.35 summarises the s106 requirements.

33.4 Housing will be required specifically for Older People. Para 5.23 specifically requires affordable housing for older people

33.5 The amount of office space and retail space required for the The amount of office space site seems excessive and may impact on the existing town centre. has been reduced and the type of retail has been reviewed, to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the existing town centre.

33.6 There should be a strong emphasis on good quality housing. The SPD, and other Council Policies require all new housing to be of good

Page 56 quality with the inclusion of standards for rooms sizes, amenity space, and the like.

33.7 The ‘leading lights’ for RAF Northolt need to be considered in There are no leading lights all future proposals. on the RAF Uxbridge site. Any development will ensure there is no impact on safeguarding.

34. Youth Council

34.1 The issues raised during a meeting with the Youth Council are very briefly summarised below: a. More opportunities for young people Para 5.41 of the SPD includes specific reference to young people. b. More recreation and opportunities for activity and sports The SPD includes reference to the Mayors SPG on playspace and Para 5.41 requires specific consideration to be given to the needs of all people in the community. c. Places to ‘hang out’ Refer to comments above d. More High School places This will be considered through the assessment of planning obligations at the planning application stage. e. Youth Council would like to be involved in consultation next year Paras 5.40 and 5.41 requires the developer to consult key groups identified by the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, which includes the Youth Council.

35. Local Strategic Partners (LSP)

The following points are a very brief summary of the issues raised during the officers meeting with LSP: a. Generally very supportive Noted

Page 57 b. St Andrews roundabout and link with Town centre is critical Agreed. The SPD addresses this in Para 4.28. c. Strategic location for culture to underpin cultural quarter Agreed. d. Can affordable housing for ex-military be provided? Para 5.21 includes reference to ex-military housing, if feasible. e. Provide for a conference centre and associated hotel on site It is expected the town centre extension will yield a hotel and conference facilities (Para 5.8).

36. Chair - Air Training Corps

36.1 The Air Training Corp Unit (1083) is the largest ATC unit in The relocation of the ATC is Middlesex with over 100 cadets. We are anxious about the the responsibility of the relocation and size of any new premises and how this will impact MoD, and appropriate on our ability to sustain such high standards of achievements facilities have been through our training. sourced. The ATC play an Once the base is closed we will be the only remaining RAF important role in the presence in the town and we feel it is important to retain a community, thus Paras 5.41 prominent location in Uxbridge, so that we can continue to and 5.42 refer specifically to maintain our good links with the community and to thrive as a high such ‘community groups’. performing ATC unit.

37. The Theatres Trust

37.1 The Theatres Trust is the national advisory public body for It is important to note this theatres and a statutory consultee on planning applications information for future affecting land on which there is a theatre. This applies to all planning applications. theatre buildings, old and new, in current use, in other uses, or disused. Established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 ‘to promote the better protection of theatres’, our main objective is to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use but we also provide expert advice on design, conservation, property and planning matters to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies.

37.2 We support the redevelopment of the site to include an Noted. arts/cultural facility, the refurbishment of the Grade II listed cinema, and a cultural quarter incorporating live-work units. We also support the extension of Uxbridge town boundary into the site which will provide good accessibility to the public transport network system and a robust urban structure with well connected neighbourhoods giving safe and easy access to services and facilities, with an attractive townscape that promotes walking, and an environmentally sustainable approach to design and infrastructure.

Page 58

37.3 The proposed land use for an arts venue to include theatre / This statement music / conference and museum will be well served by proposed encapsulates many of the nearby cafes and restaurants. People and families coming to reasons why the Council is events will provide regular custom for new local bars and pursuing the requirement for restaurants during the day and in the evening to keep the area a theatre/arts/cultural facility vibrant. Theatre buildings can provide a venue for a range of within the town centre creative and cultural activities. These include not just extension to provide a focal performances on stage, but concerts and exhibitions, a location for point for Uxbridge and the art displays, conference facilities with break-out spaces. A wider area. Any theatre flourishing arts scene gives a sense of local identity and vitality, would need to be within and will entertain and stimulate the new residents, visitors and close proximity to public businesses. Encouraging new cultural facilities on this site will transport and other help deliver sustainable development by promoting economic complimentary uses. growth, improving accessibility and offering genuine choice for consumers through mixed-use development that recognises the importance of high quality design. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) repeats these themes for achieving sustainable development.

37.4 Theatres are very complex buildings technically and do need The Council welcome the to be very carefully planned both inside and out and The Theatres offer of assistance. Trust would be pleased to provide advice and information to assist this project and hope that this facility will be sited near to the restored cinema to keep all the cultural facilities together. Allowing restaurants and cafes in an open plan setting would enhance the use of the cultural buildings which would give the area a focal point and a sense of identity.

37.5 The development and management of cultural quarters can Agreed. help address the need for affordable workspace for creative industries by providing flexible live/work space and encouraging clusters of activity that provide a trigger for local regeneration.

37.6 We are pleased to note at (Para) 5.2 on page 64 that a needs Noted. These requirements assessment will be carried out to demonstrate the suitability of the have been expanded upon proposals which can only bring economic benefit and social and strengthened within the cohesion to Uxbridge. We are also pleased to note at 6.35 on finalised SPD. page 86 that planning obligations will be sought for the provision of new buildings for community and cultural use.

37.7 Please consult us on the planning applications for the new Council will consult the arts facility and for the refurbishment of the cinema. We look Theatres Trust and range of forward to being consulted on further planning policy documents other government especially the Core Strategy Submission, Development Control departments, the public and Policies and any town centre Area Action Plans. other interested stakeholders before deciding on the form and location of a theatre.

Page 59

38. Age Concern

38.1 As a voluntary organisation, we find it very difficult to find The creation of flexible accessible, affordable, flexible conference space in the centre of conference space and the borough. Please consider building a conference centre as part associated uses is of the RAF Uxbridge development, or incorporate it in the proposed for the town proposed theatre. centre, refer to Para 3.8, Table 3.1 and Para 5.8.

39. Denham Parish Council

39.1 The Parish Council is supportive of the proposals, especially Noted. those relating to additional school and medical facilities, retention of the historic parts of the RAF base, and provision of community facilities.

40. Hayes and Harlington Local Historical Society

40.1 It is imperative that any development respects the historical The SPD has provisions to and architectural features and associations of this site. protect the historical importance of the site.

40.2 A museum and local studies centre serving the borough Facilities are required in the would be much welcomed. SPD.

40.3 The society is concerned that a theatre would detract from We note the concerns and the viability of established facilities in the borough, particularly the any application for a theatre Beck theatre. But it is recognised that as part of an arts and will be assessed cultural centre there needs to be performance space. accordingly.

41. John Echlin, Chairman Hillingdon Federation of Community Associations

41.1 Community Facilities Paras 5.38 & 5.39 - The wording here is Paras 5.39 to 5.42 have far too bland with no requirement for any physical facility. A been updated and Community room is not sufficient. There must be a fully equipped expanded to reflect the Community Centre of at least 10,000 sq feet, with a bar and comments from various catering facilities, along with physical exercise room, and community groups. These adequate car parking. A hall capable of seating 200 with a stage paragraphs now require the and associated electrical capabilities, and three smaller meeting developer to identify the rooms, along with office, and maintenance workshop. This building likely needs of the should be modelled on, but an improvement on Barnhill and community and how these Yeading Community Centres. The facilities must be a planning will be satisfied, particularly consideration paid for and erected by, or adapted by the spatially through the developers, under the guidance of the Council and the masterplan and urban Hillingdon Federation of Community Associations. design approach, and how these can be managed in the future.

Page 60

42. Friends, Families and Travellers

42.1 There will be a need in Hillingdon for new Gypsy and The Council has considered Traveller sites. The recently published London Gypsy Traveller the draft guidance from the Accommodation Need Assessment indicates a range of need from ODPM and other statutory 3-35 pitches for the period 2007-2012 with the potential for an considerations that assist in extra 8 to 2017. In as much as the developers will pay due regard planning for gypsy and to the need for conventional affordable housing in their plans they traveller caravan sites. should also pay due regard to the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.

42.2 Gypsy and Traveller sites managed or owned by the Local Following considerations Authority or registered social landlord are types of affordable and an assessment of the housing (see for example CLG Guidance Local authorities and site and the strategic Gypsies and Travellers: A Guide to responsibilities and powers context, its future role in May 2007.) The guidance states that ‘in considering the location of meeting the housing needs sites, local planning authorities need to be aware that Gypsy and of the borough and Traveller sites are considered as affordable housing…Local accommodating a growing Planning Authorities may therefore negotiate s106 agreements town centre and improving with developers to include Gypsy and Traveller sites in new the vitality and viability of developments, ensuring that mixed communities are created from the town centre, it is the outset’. Hence we see RAF Uxbridge as an opportunity to considered that the RAF create mixed communities which should include accommodation Uxbridge site is not suitable for Gypsies and Travellers. for gypsy and traveller sites. In addition to the needs and strategic importance of the site, the ecological importance of the site and open space and metropolitan green belt, the site would not accommodate the specific needs of travellers and gypsies.

43. Surrey County Council

43.1 Surrey County Council is in receipt of the above consultation. Noted. We note the direction of the draft SPD and the likely connections and improvement to facilities implied by the approach, including assistance for the Town Centre. We have no concerns or other comments to make.

44. Hillingdon Blind Bowlers (Bobcats) (Mr Frank Lewis)

44.1 Battle of Britain Club should be protected. Discussions with the owners of the site indicate that the Battle of Britain Club will be

Page 61 retained and re-located on the site.

44.2 Hillingdon Blind Bowlers would like to be located somewhere Para 5.42 of the SPD now on this site. specifically requires organisations such as the 44.3 I have read the document through and nowhere can I find any Hillingdon Blind Bowlers to reference to the RAFA Battle of Britain Club plans to be relocated be considered in the on the site. Currently the Battle of Britain Club is the home of redevelopment of the site. Hillingdon Blind Bowlers, a local charity with some 40 members with varying degrees of visual impairment. We understood that a new club house was being built which would assure our future but it seems this is not to be so. My concerns were raised initially with VSD Estates and they promised I would be kept in touch with events. I have not heard from them since and was not informed of any previous consultation meetings.

45. St Andrews CofE Primary School (Mr Neil Mackin)

45.1 As chair of the governors at St Andrews CofE School I’d like to provide the following representation against the proposals as a whole on behalf of the governing body.

45.2 We’d like to be assured that section 106 funding is being S106 contributions will be realised in order to offset the costs of community oriented secured for a range of developments from the private developer’s profits. community needs as outlined in the SPD. 45.3 We’re pleased to see: a. affordable housing which is not only a government directive, but Noted. also a local requirement b. cultural quarter, especially including a theatre, which will Noted. improve leisure options in the town centre c. open space around River Pinn Noted.

45.4 With regards the two-form entry school – we’d like St. Noted. Consultation will be Andrews to be closely consulted in the planning stage. One option undertaken with St Andrews we’d like to consider would be relocating our school, thus freeing school through the planning up the present location which has poor access and is poorly sited. process.

45.5 Notwithstanding a possible relocation, the closure of RAF Noted. Uxbridge will diminish our intake as we do take a number of forces children and the new housing will increase it. Given our selective admissions criteria we could see marked swings in our level of applications.

45.6 We’d like to see greater clarity with regard the ‘community Paras 5.39-5.42 have been node’ – as the new development will include accommodation for expanded with regard to

Page 62 around 5000 people there will be need to significant need to build community facilities. The community. It’s not explicit that new pub(s) or other social focal exact location and types of points are included. Furthermore a medical centre may be needed uses for the community unless the nearby health centres can cope with the increased ‘node’ will be worked out load. through the planning process.

45.7 We’d like the southern quarter to be considered in terms of Noted. suitability for student accommodations – as Brunel grows the demand for student accommodation will increase and the proximity is such that the housing will be attractive to students.

45.8 We’d like to understand better the impact on the local A Transport Assessment transport network, both private and public. There is a risk that and Framework Travel Plan insufficient planning would result in increased local congestion and will be required to support pollution. any planning application.

45.9 We’d like to understand the impact on secondary schools in Further details will be the area – this has been noted by our members as a particular provided at the planning problem for forces children at present, many of whom resort to application stage. boarding school after failing to find suitable local provision.

46. Ickenham Residents’ Association (Mrs Rachel Moore)

46.1 The Ickenham Residents’ Association supports the general The proposal to re-locate principle of the proposed uses of the site. However, it also asks Hillingdon Hospital to the that due considerations is given as to whether Hillingdon Hospital RAF Uxbridge site has been could be moved to the site to eliminate the current parking fully considered and for a pressures and physical constraints of the present site, in line with number of reasons the the representation of our MP, John Randall. This is too good an Hillingdon Hospital NHS opportunity to miss and the possibility of moving the hospital Trust have determined such should not be dismissed simply because of funding. The a move would not be opportunity to build a state of the art hospital to improve feasible. healthcare facilities in the Borough should take precedence – if it is right to move the hospital then funding should be found.

46.2 The Ickenham Residents’ Association supports the view that The Council welcome the the green belt should be protected. In particular, the River Pinn support on this issue. corridor should be protected and opened up to public access.

47. Open Spaces Society (Mr David Williams)

47.1 Reopen right of way immediately This cannot be done for security reasons. The Right of Way will be re-opened at the appropriate stage of redevelopment.

47.2 In Table 3.7, the comment re the right of way should be Refer to comments above.

Page 63 extended to include:- a. On vacation of site by military there should be an immediate reinstatement of right of way between Vine Lane and St Andrews gate and protection during any development phase. b. No plans should be submitted that would require this path to be closed or substantially modified.

47.3 Keep footpaths and cycleways separate. In Para 4.26 add,’ Paras 4.26 to 4.33 have The footpaths and cyclepaths should be physically separated and been updated to ensure be each a minimum of 3m.’ provision of cycle and pedestrian facilities.

47.4 In Para 4.51 add, ’The footpaths and cycleways should be Dimensions and other physically separated and be each a minimum of 3 m width’. detailed requirements will be resolved through the planning process in accordance with relevant guidelines.

48. Mr Jim Ashton – Hayes and District Bowling Association

48.1 Hayes and District Bowling Association would like to make a Consideration will be given representation to use some of the site for an indoor playing and to facilitating the provision bowling complex. of appropriate facilities through the planning process.

Individual Written Representations

49. David Winder

49.1 As discussed on the telephone I have been considering the The proposal to utilise the suitability of this site for a campus. This is one of perhaps 7 site for a university campus locations that are current possibilities. RAF Uxbridge is the largest would substantially alter the of these sites, and it seems to have the potential to be developed SPD and would be likely to as an operational location of excellence, rather than just providing impact on the facilities that education and training. could be provided for the town. Significant justification would need to be provided to accommodate a campus, whilst also delivering the needed town centre uses, cultural quarter, and to deliver housing and other uses to meet borough targets.

49.2 The draft Strategic Planning Document seems to be Refer to comments above. substantially based MODeL's concept of replacing the existing facilities with substantial new housing. I believe that the draft SPD tends to close off any alternative options. I would like register that

Page 64 we are working on plans for this site and would like to discuss them with all concerned when they are more developed. Clearly funding is critical. Other sites are in areas where grants are available for providing employment, and this may limit the attractiveness of the RAF Uxbridge site to us.

49.3 I understand that the MOD must strive to achieve best value Noted. from their asset, but I believe that potentially this site could provide us with sufficient commercial value to give a best value return to the MOD.

50. David Varley

50.1 The site could benefit Uxbridge as an extension of the town in Agreed. a parkland setting with new housing, shops, offices and a cultural centre based around the WWII bunker area.

51. Roger A Dewey

51.1 Having read the SPD I wish to make my comments as to the future of this site:-

51.2 It is the ideal location for the re-built Hillingdon Hospital. This The proposal to re-locate would enable the existing hospital to continue to function while the Hillingdon Hospital to the replacement was being constructed on the RAF site. The new RAF Uxbridge site has been location has better transport links than Pield Heath Road and is on fully considered and for a a main road, A4020. The proximity of the Underground station is number of reasons the also an advantage. The RAF site would enable improved car Hillingdon Hospital NHS parking to be provided for visitors and staff. A letter in this week's Trust have determined such "Gazette" seemed to imply that the Leader of the Council is a move would not be lukewarm about the hospital being moved here. Defence Estates feasible. and NHS Estates may have a difficulty with land swaps but there really should not be a problem.

51.3 A mixture of good quality private and social housing carefully The SPD includes reference planned to avoid the potential conflicts that can arise. Local to these requirements. shopping facilities and a primary school and child day care facility. The school should complement the excellent St Andrew's Primary School.

51.4 Formal and informal green space with sympathetic attention The SPD includes reference to the River Pinn floodplain, including wildlife conservation. to these requirements.

51.5 Public access to the World War II bunker with a local heritage The SPD includes reference centre / museum. to these requirements.

51.6 I cannot support the provision of a theatre as I do not think The provision of an there will be a viable demand for it. We already have the Beck arts/cultural facility on the Theatre, Compass Arts Centre and Winston Churchill Hall for site will be subject to

Page 65 theatre-goers. extensive studies, viability appraisal and consultation.

52. Sue Tarling – Resident

52.1 The proposed Town Centre extension offers a real Agreed. opportunity to make Uxbridge a 'destination of choice' for adults of a certain socio-economic group! An exciting prospect, particularly if we can encourage more distinctive restaurants into the area.

52.2 I would urge developers and the local council to ensure The SPD includes reference that affordable activities appealing to young people are also to these requirements. included in the plans.

52.3 Finally, I would ask that Uxbridge's proud links to the RAF Agreed. The SPD includes underpin the whole ethos of the developments and isn't limited to a number of requirements to naming roads after Air Marshalls and Squadron Leaders. meet such objectives.

53. Maurice

53.1 Has any consideration been given that it may be a good idea The proposal to re-locate to build a new hospital on the grounds of the old RAF base, this Hillingdon Hospital to the would make access easier and also it would be served by more RAF Uxbridge site has been bus routes and is on a main road and very close to the town fully considered and for a centre. Then build houses on the old hospital site. number of reasons the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust have determined such a move would not be feasible.

54. Mrs Julie Senturk-Rutherford - Royal Lane Resident

54.1 I am totally against the idea of new homes & offices being The concerns regarding the built up in this area, I cannot even believe the Council is even impact on existing physical considering this. If they built 1500 houses that will mean at least and social infrastructure will extra 3000 people. I cannot imagine how crowded it will get be addressed through the around Hillingdon & surrounding areas. GPs, hospitals, assessment of a planning emergency services, schools, roads, crime rates will be badly application. The SPD affected and even get worse than already is. The Council will have requires a range of more work with less time and less people in the long term as well. additional services and infrastructure to the 54.2 Please, please do stop this madness and do what is right for provided by the developer the people who already live in Hillingdon. or paid for by the developer through contributions.

55. Mr EJ Mccabe

55.1 The site should be used for a new Hillingdon Hospital. It The proposal to re-locate would be very difficult to expand the existing Hospital to cater for Hillingdon Hospital to the

Page 66 new equipment and treatment procedures that have been RAF Uxbridge site has been developed since the hospital was originally built, and the access is fully considered and for a very congested, whereas access to the new site would be via number of reasons the three dual carriageways. Hillingdon Hospital NHS The existing hospital site could then be developed for housing and Trust have determined such leisure activities. a move would not be feasible.

55.2 The historic buildings must be retained and use found for It is intended to retain and them within the general scheme of planning on the site. reuse all Listed buildings on the site, along with other existing historic buildings wherever possible. Refer to Paras 5.43 - 5.55.

56. Mr and Mrs Morley

56.1 I am at a loss as to why our local Council see fit to inform the Hillingdon Council residents of their plans regarding RAF Uxbridge via a local undertook extensive pamphlet which gave us only a few days notice. It states we can consultation during 2007 so air our views on the FINAL DRAFT PLANNING DOCUMENT that residents could come giving dates we could view the plans. up with ideas for the site, these have been reflected in 56.2 Do you not think it would have been courteous to the people the draft planning of Hillingdon to as what they would like to happen to the RAF site document. Formal before you are in the final stages because what ever anyone says consultation has then been or does it will make no difference to the outcome. Due to undertaken again in 2008 commitments we were unable to attend any of the three given and the SPD has been dates. amended following comments from residents during that consultation period. Additional consultation will be undertaken next year when plans and additional studies are available for the site.

56.3 There is only one option for this site and that is to give the Refer to previous London borough of Hillingdon a much needed new hospital with comments. easy access and appropriate parking. (sic).

57. The Reynolds

57.1. I have read through the document with interest. Happily, it Noted. seems that a lot of thought is going into this re-development.

57.2. I am definitely in favour of the cultural side of things. It would Noted. be wonderful if the Listed Cinema could be incorporated into the theatre idea - Uxbridge doesn't need a huge emporium!

Page 67 57.3. I agree with some smaller retail outlets being available - Noted. something akin to the craft shops we now have at the Barn in Ruislip. Also, perhaps, small, affordable lock-ups for individuals with antique shops, vintage clothes, etc., like The Lanes in Brighton or Portobello Road, along with fresh produce, bringing back the proper feel of the old market town of Uxbridge.

57.4. I think Hillingdon House Hotel sounds marvellous. Noted. Somewhere for people to stay whilst visiting the Bunker and the new Uxbridge Museum - something we really do need. The hotel would be great for locals too - a proper meeting place to enjoy a Saturday night celebration dinner, Sunday lunch or afternoon tea.

57.5. The roads would certainly have to go underneath the Noted. pedestrian link from the High Street to the site.

57.6. Taking an example of a successful form of transport from Noted many tourist towns, a "Bus Train" would be great fun. At £1.00 a time, hop on hop off, circular tour of Uxbridge it would be so much easier for the elderly, mums & children, shoppers, etc.

57.7. I think it was our MP, Mr. Randall, who had quite a sensible Hillingdon Council also idea about Hillingdon Hospital moving to the RAF site, thereby pursued the idea of being far more accessible and freeing up another substantial relocating the Hospital on residential development with local shops, etc. this site, however the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust determined this was not the best solution for their needs.

57.8. The whole is something that all Hillingdon residents can Noted. enjoy - right from the outset. The amount of archaeological finds will hopefully be very educational and will finally end up in our long-awaited Museum.

58. Mr and Mrs A J Melvin

58.1 We would like to put forward our views for the RAF Uxbridge The proposal to re-locate site. We know it has been suggested many times but we still think Hillingdon Hospital to the it makes sense to have the new Hillingdon Hospital on this site. It RAF Uxbridge site has been is in the most convenient position. The access to Hillingdon fully considered and for a Hospital and the congestion caused by traffic in the area is number of reasons the appalling and the RAF site would be ideal. Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust have determined such a move would not be feasible.

Page 68

59. Alison Rochelle

59.1 I think the development of this site is a good idea but am S106 contributions will be worried that the local health care facilities would be over stretched required to meet the health by the addition of so many dwellings. needs of residents, along with the education needs of 59.2 The local secondary schools are all fully subscribed each additional children on the year and the extra dwellings would put even more pressure on site. them as well.

60. Michael May

60.1 Given the site’s background, and against the context of a The suggestion to provide nation currently engaged in 2 “hot conflicts” and the lamentable housing for ex-military staff reality that 25% of London’s homeless are ex-service personnel, I has been included in the would urge the Council as the planning authority to explore the SPD under Para 5.22, and potential of the provision of supported housing for such individuals. will be subject to additional Councillor Cooper and I visited the inspiring Mike Jackson House studies and funding options. in Aldershot in February, and I am sure he would support me in this observation.

61. Nadine Ter Meulen - Hayes

61.1 Hillingdon, is a stones throw from Hayes, and the dross that The SPD has been you have allowed to ruin that area, and the over development of it prepared to ensure a high that you are responsible for is spilling into Hillingdon. If you quality development across develop the RAF site into further housing, the area is destined for the site, to preserve open a further fall - and you the Council we pay to maintain the area, space, create an attractive and have its best interests at heart, will be responsible for it. town centre extension and a high quality living environment.

61.2 The schools are bursting at the seams, very few lifelong The Council’s recently residents of the UK and the borough get their first choice of school adopted Planning anymore - why? Because you are over populating the area Obligations SPD will through greed, instead of looking at the long term effects on those address the need for residents that are paying council tax, paying tax on earnings, or contributions towards have paid tax all their lives and are now retired and not able to schools and other move but are heartbroken at the almost certainty of the decline in infrastructure. the area they will probably end their lives. The certainty that you will continue to overdevelop, overpopulate and basically drag the area down!

61.3 WAKE up and stop now. If people are desperate for housing The SPD includes the need but have not lived in the Borough for life (family ties back to the for affordable housing, and borough from childhood) then send them to another Borough a significant number of whilst you focus on making Hillingdon Borough a place to be proud additional homes overall, to to live in again, not ashamed of but unable to move from! address the issues of

Page 69 housing and access to affordable housing.

61.4 Do not develop the RAF site into anything more than open A range of community space, youth club facilities, abused women’s refuge, cultural facilities are required for the centre, a new school, a new doctors surgery (no it doesn’t need site, and developers will housing around it, there are loads already). need to contribute to other facilities off site. The borough also needs more housing to address the concerns raised above, the provision of additional facilities will only occur through developer contributions.

62. Mr Peter Slavid

62.1 The proposed Arts facility provides a rare opportunity to Agreed. change the entire atmosphere of the area. A concert hall in particular will ensure a completely different evening atmosphere from the current one – it will attract a different group of people and will help develop a more cosmopolitan feel, as well as providing real opportunities for local businesses.

63. Mrs Barrell

63.1 General hugely supportive of the provision of open spaces on Agreed. the site. The provision of a cultural area along with restaurants and cafes would also be most welcome and mark Uxbridge out as a leisure destination in West London. Character of the area should however be maintained and further large retail / multiplex cinema / drive thru restaurants etc. would not be a positive addition to this site given the presence of such commercial sites elsewhere in the vicinity already.

63.2 Table 3.7 – the provision of four storey dwellings is not Some parts of the northern appropriate in the Northern Quarter given that the majority of quarter (Annington Property current residential housing is two or 3 storeys at the most. Ltd land) will be adjacent to the town centre, and higher buildings may be acceptable if designed appropriately.

63.3 S4.26 – I would wish that the level of traffic on the B483 be The Transport section of the contained to current levels as far as possible and speed SPD requires significant restrictions put in place. additional details to be provided with the planning application, with the aim of limiting impacts on the

Page 70 surrounding road network.

63.4 S4.28 – public transport – I would not want any major work Noted. done to the London Underground line passing under Park Road and parallel to Honeycroft Hill. Residents here have already endured 12 months of ongoing work on the line here and therefore further work, noise, dust, etc. would not be welcome.

63.5 S4.48 – I strongly support the provision of further playspace The SPD expands on the as current provision on the east side of the town centre in requirements for play Uxbridge is poor. space, in line with he Mayor’s requirements.

63.6 S4.53 – I strongly support the retention of all existing trees The SPD supports the and landscaping on the site as these provide welcome green retention of existing mature vistas and enhance residents privacy. trees and hedges wherever appropriate.

63.7 General – the opening up of the River Pinn is a welcome The Council welcomes the advance as access is not ideal at present particularly for those support on this issue. with young families or needing wheelchair access.

64. Mr Andy Wilcock

64.1 More details on access around the site is needed. Access to More details will be Annington Homes and connection to site and surrounds. provided through the planning application process.

64.2 I am a resident in Vine Lane and am disappointed to see that Council is developing Travel the SPD does not refer to how the ‘Annington Houses’ will be Plans separately for the accessed after the RAF site has been redeveloped. Living in Vine future impacts of moving the Lane and being used it its use as a ‘Rat Run’ I would like a lot RAF personnel to RAF more information published on the access to the existing houses Northolt. A Transport (which appear to be outside of the RAF) and to the new RAF Assessment and developments. I am in general not opposed to redeveloping the Framework Travel Plan will site but access must be considered very carefully. be required to support any planning application.

65. Y.Rutty

65.1 I have been concerned for some time about the increasing The proposal to re-locate congestion around Hillingdon Hospital. With the likely increased Hillingdon Hospital to the number of patients and the proposed enlargement of the hospital RAF Uxbridge site has been this will only become worse. I often deliver and collect elderly fully considered and for a patients to the entrance of the A&E end of the hospital and am number of reasons the constantly aware of the priority given quite rightly, to the Hillingdon Hospital NHS ambulances. Trust have determined such a move would not be feasible.

Page 71 65.2 It seemed a fortuitous and wonderful opportunity, when it was See above. announced the RAF were vacating Uxbridge, for the hospital to be relocated on part of that site. Road access would be much improved and the convenience of the town centre with the service of the Underground much appreciated.

65.3 I noted the comments of the Chair of the Hillingdon Hospital Noted. NHS Trust that the cost would be unacceptable but the construction of the new hospital on a cleared site without the need to maintain services to the existing hospital around a construction site would show cost savings. The vacated hospital site being used for housing displaced from the RAF site.

65.4 I would ask you to give consideration to the incorporation of See above. new hospital, which is proposed in any case, on the RAF site.

66. Response to Questionnaire

66.1 Around 5000 questionnaires/brochures were delivered to residents and businesses around the site, within Uxbridge town centre and to the RAF Base, and also delivered to the borough’s libraries, Hayes one stop shop and the Civic Centre. 339 responses were received, and a summary of the responses are included below:

Q1 What could go on site? 66.2 Town centre extension a. Theatre / music venue – 61% Strongly agree, 28% tend to Strong support for a agree, 5% tend to disagree, 5% strongly disagree. theatre/music venue is noted. The SPD includes a requirement to provide a theatre/music/ cultural venue, subject to financial viability. b. Cafes / restaurants - Strongly agree 47%, tend to agree 33%, Café’s/restaurants will be an tend to disagree 10%, strongly disagree 10%. important asset to the cultural quarter and add to the vitality of the town centre extension. c. Improve links to Uxbridge High Street - Strongly agree 56%, Improvements to St tend to Agree 31%, tend to disagree 6%, strongly disagree 7%. Andrews roundabout, and other links are essential to the success of the redevelopment of the site, and Para 4.28 of the SPD has been strengthened to reflect this.

Page 72 d. Shops - Strongly agree 37%, tend to agree 31%, tend to The general support is disagree 18%, strongly disagree 14%. welcomed. Concerns about impacts on the existing town centre are addressed in the SPD. e. Offices - Strongly agree 21%, tend to agree 25%, tend to There was some concern disagree 21%, strongly disagree 33%. raised about the amount of office space proposed. The quantum of office space has now been almost halved.

66.3 Northern Quarter a. Housing - Strongly agree 28%, tend to agree 32%, tend to A mix of housing types are disagree 18%, strongly disagree 22%. proposed for the site, and this will be determined through the planning process with additional consultation with surrounding residents. b. Possible location of primary school - Strongly agree 35%, tend Support for the primary to agree 39%, tend to disagree 8%, strongly disagree 17%. school is welcomed and further details will become apparent through the planning process, to enable community input. c. Public access along the River Pinn - Strongly agree 71%, tend There is strong support for to agree 22%, tend to disagree 3%, strongly disagree 4%. improved access, particularly an attractive walk near the river. Further details have been added to the SPD to clarify the requirements, and require protection of the riparian zone. d. Enhancing the river corridor - Strongly agree 73%, tend to agree The strong support on this 20%, tend to disagree 2%, strongly disagree 4%. issue has been carried through the updated SPD, which has been expanded to ensure protection and enhancement of the river corridor (riparian zone).

66.4 Southern Quarter a. mix of housing types - Strongly agree 32%, tend to agree 33%, A mix of housing types are tend to disagree 14%, strongly disagree 21%. proposed for the site, and this will be determined through the planning

Page 73 application process with additional consultation with surrounding residents. b. local shops - Strongly agree 38%, tend to agree 34%, tend to The provision of local shops disagree 16%, strongly disagree 13%. is generally supported, and concerns about litter, crime/antisocial behaviour will be addressed through the planning application process, in accordance with the SPD. c. local community facility - Strongly agree 54%, tend to agree The support for local 32%, tend to disagree 6%, strongly disagree 8%. community facilities is reflected in the SPD, especially Para 3.14, along with Paras 5.39-5.42. 66.5 Open Space / Hillingdon House Quarter a. keep all listed buildings - Strongly agree 88%, tend to agree 9%, The SPD has been further tend to disagree 1%, strongly disagree 1%. strengthened to ensure appropriate re-use of listed buildings. The strong support for their retention is welcomed. b. museum / retention of bunker - Strongly agree 91%, tend to Overwhelming support for agree 7%, tend to disagree 0%, strongly disagree 1%. retention of the bunker and provision of a museum is reflected in the SPD. c. re-use Hillingdon House - Strongly agree 43%, tend to agree The support to re-use 46%, tend to disagree 7%, strongly disagree 4%. Hillingdon House is expanded in the SPD, and various uses are proposed, with the aim of facilitating some public access. d. Retain open spaces - Strongly agree 88%, tend to agree 9%, The overwhelming support tend to disagree 1%, strongly disagree 1%. is welcomed and reflected in the updated SPD. 66.6 Q2 Do you generally agree or disagree with the details in the SPD?

Strongly agree 18%, tend to agree 69%, tend to disagree 7%, The overall support for the strongly disagree 5%. SPD is welcomed. Concerns have been addressed throughout this summary, and in the updated SPD.

66.7 Q3 Do you generally agree or disagree with the ideas for

Page 74 uses, buildings, and facilities on the site?

Strongly agree 23%, tend to agree 58%, tend to disagree 16%, Very few responses strongly disagree 3%. disagreed with the proposed uses for the site. Of those, the issues have been addressed above. The general support for redevelopment of the site is welcomed and expected to be carried through the planning process.

66.8 Q4 Do you generally agree that the site should include: a. Onsite renewable energy resources - Strongly agree 59%, The support for such tend to agree 34%, tend to disagree 4%, strongly disagree 3%. initiatives is welcomed, and the SPD reflects these requirements. b. Water conservation measures - Strongly agree 58%, tend to The support for such agree 37%, tend to disagree 3%, strongly disagree 1%. initiatives is welcomed and is reflected in the expanded wording of the SPD, refer Para 6.32. Other issues raised 66.9 Q5 Are there any other ideas for uses, buildings and facilities that should be included? A number of other issues and ideas were raised, and these are summarised below: a. Move the Hospital to the RAF Uxbridge site (66 responses). The proposal to re-locate Hillingdon Hospital to the RAF Uxbridge site has been fully considered and for a number of reasons the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust have determined such a move would not be feasible. b. provide a doctor’s surgery (12) The requirements for the provision of health facilities is included in the SPD. c. provide a dentist’s surgery (9) The provision of health facilities is included in the SPD. d. secondary school (6) It is expected that the existing secondary schools will cater for new students

Page 75 from the site. e. Hillingdon House turned into a conference centre (1) A conference centre would be more suited in the town centre extension area, although various uses are being considered for Hillingdon House. f. Hillingdon House as a multicultural / educational centre (1) Refer to comments above.

It would be preferable to g. Hillingdon House turned into low cost bedsits (5) explore other uses more suited to the existing structure of the building, however all uses will be considered. h. Mini theme park (5) Playspace, recreation and entertainment opportunities of an appropriate scale will need to be provided, and these could reflect the history of the site through themed recreation opportunities. i. Jehovah’s Witness place of worship (1) The needs of all faith groups will be considered, refer to Para 5.42. j. Museum (21) The requirements for Museums are indicated in the SPD.

Community facilities are k. Village hall (12) required, refer to paras 5.39 - 5.42. l. Sporting / Leisure Facilities (47) Activities and proposals will be assessed in line with the SPD and through further consultation. m. Battle of Britain club to be retained (20) The Battle of Britain Club should be retained, the SPD requires specific consideration of this at Para 5.42. n. Provision of a new park and retention of existing green The SPD requires the

Page 76 space.(19) creation of a district park, the retention of the green belt and areas of open space to capitalise on the attributes of the site and create useable attractive open spaces. o. Memorial to highlight the importance of the site i.e. WW2 (17) A number of historical attributes will be retained, not least of which is the Bunker and hopefully a museum and other features. p. Spitfire to be used as central piece (11) The existing spitfire is a scale replica that is not listed and Council has little control over whether it stays at RAF Uxbridge. It seems likely that the spitfire will move to RAF Northolt when the base is vacated. q. Provide wheelchair access throughout the site (1) Full consideration of disabled access is necessary through the planning application process, in accordance with HDAS and other guidelines and legislation. r. Facilities for younger people (2) Para 5.41 seeks specific consideration of children and young people and a range of government guidance will inform the planning for such facilities. 66.10 Q6 Are there any proposals that you do not agree with? a. The amount of office space proposed (52 responses) The quantum of office space proposed has been halved, however a mix of commercial space is necessary to cater for the future growth of Uxbridge.

b. The amount of new shops and what type’s are proposed? (41) Some residents feel that there should be more shops, others that this will impact adversely on the

Page 77 existing town centre. c. School (9) The provision of a primary school will be subject to further consultation on details and location in the future. d. Cinema (7) A cinema is not proposed for the site, although the retention of the Grade II listed former cinema is required. e. Excessive numbers of housing, and in some cases any housing The provision of housing will at all. (38) need to conform with the SPD and be of high quality. Significant infrastructure, facilities and services will be required in association with housing, such that adverse impacts should not result on existing residents. f. Concerns about parking for existing surrounding residents (3) The parking provision will be worked out through the planning application process and a full Traffic Assessment and Travel Plans. g. There should be no more takeaways or pubs, because of litter, Concerns about litter and anti-social behaviour and the like. (1) anti-social behaviour will be addressed with any planning application.

66.11 Q7 Do you have any other comments? a. Provide more affordable housing (4 responses) Affordable housing will be provided on the site, in a proportionate manner in accordance with housing needs and subject to the findings of the viability assessment. b. Retain sports facilities (3) The retention of sports facilities would be welcomed, however the site has good access to surrounding sports facilities.

Page 78 c. Provide a lift into the bunker (6) Different ideas to facilitate access to the bunker will be explored. d. Possible bus route into site (2) The provision of bus facilities is required to be considered in the Transport Assessment and Travel plans. e. Pedestrian and cycle track along side River Pinn (4) The SPD requires the provision of pedestrian and cycle access throughout the site, including a nature walk near the river Pinn. f. Medical centre needed (10) Additional medical facilities will be provided in accordance with the SPD, though these are likely to be off-site. g. Country Park (31) The green-belt and open space will be retained, with public access. h. Primary Schools (6) A primary school is proposed for the site.

i. More activities for disabled people (2) The needs of disabled people will be considered in developing proposals for the site. j. Donate Battle of Britain Club to Association for free (8) The developers expect to relocate the Battle of Britain Club on the site, para 5.42 requires specific attention to this issues. k. Activities for Community (27) Paras 5.39-5.42 require the developers to consider a range of issues linked to community groups and activities. l. Full disabled access (4) Refer to comments above. m. Art Gallery (2) Arts/cultural facilities are

Page 79 expected to be provided in the town centre extension. n. Improved traffic management systems (7) Refer to comments above. o. Ice rink (5) Consideration of various needs will be included with the planning application. p. Tram link (1) The West London Tram is no longer going ahead, a tram-link within Uxbridge is very unlikely to be feasible. q. Improve roundabout by St Andrew’s (3) This point is addressed within the SPD. r. Keep Sergeants’ Mess (6) The retention of unlisted buildings on the site will need to be considered in developing proposals for the site. And is expressed in the SPD.

Various specific uses could s. Health Spa (1) be appropriate for the site. t. Parking issues (2) Refer to comments above. u. Catholic Secondary School and any other Catholic organisation The need for schools will be (1) addressed through the planning process. v. Keep mature trees and open spaces (1) The SPD requires retention of mature trees and open spaces. w. New police station (1) The location and type of any police facilities needed will be resolved through further consultation with the police and the developer, through the planning application process. x. Small units for small business into rent for activities i.e. yoga, tai The provision of live/work chi, etc. (1) units, small shops and various commercial floorspace should provide space to rent or buy for such uses.

Page 80

y. Hotel (1) A hotel is expected to be provided in the town centre extension, and possibly at Hillingdon House.

Comments from Specialists and other service areas within Council

67. Conservation

67.1 Para 2.17 bullet point 10 should refer to historic, rather than Para 2.17 has been just listed buildings. amended

67.2 Para 2.18 bullet point 9 should read “Preservation and Para 2.18 has been enhancement of the historic buildings on the site and their wider amended accordingly. settings.”

67.3 A further bullet point should particularly address the sensitive Para 2.18 has been reuse of the listed buildings on the site and in particular the need amended to reflect these to secure the long term future of the bunker and associated comments. buildings.

67.4 Para 2.19 Should include PPG16. Para 2.19 has been updated.

67.5 Table 3.1- proposed town centre description should include Table 3.1 has been ref to the reuse of the listed former cinema- ideally we would like amended to include to see the one and a half storey buildings adjacent to the tennis reference to the listed courts identified for reuse. former cinema.

67.6 Northern quarter- would wish to see reference to the retention Para 5.44 requires a of buildings such as Lawrence House and we gather that some of building appraisal to the hospital buildings are also worthy of consideration for encourage the retention and retention. reuse of as many buildings as possible.

67.7 Southern Quarter-retention of the barrack blocks and the Possible retention of some parade ground are not mentioned. of the barrack blocks is mentioned in the revised SPD where appropriate.

67.8 Open Space- no mention of the protection and integration of Paras 3.25 - 3.26 have the historic landscape with the new development been expanded to clarify requirements to integrate the historic landscape with existing open space

67.9 Retention of the bunker and associated buildings should also Table 3.8 has been be incorporated under “description”. updated.

Page 81

67.10 Para 3.6 - landmark buildings do not necessarily mean tall Para 3.6 has been buildings. expanded to clarify this point.

67.11 Para 3.8 - should we be looking at a museum only in the There is a suggestion to bunker, rather than suggesting two potential locations. provide two museums, with different themes in different locations.

67.12 Para 3.10- could we lose the “where possible” in the last Para 3.10 has been line. amended accordingly.

67.13 Table 3.3- “Urban form” should also refer to the impact on Table 3.3 has been updated the listed buildings. to reference impact on listed buildings.

67.14 Para 3.13- very vague on the retention of important Para 3.13 has been buildings and spaces- EH has been very strong on this in their updated following response to the Council. We feel that the barracks and parade comments from EH. ground are important elements of the character of this part of the However retention of the site and should be incorporated into the scheme. parade ground is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of redeveloping the site.

67.15 Table 3.5- suggest that under “urban form” we should be Table 3.5 has been updated seeking high quality design across the whole site not just on the to clarify that high quality interface with the A4020 and when viewed from the Green Belt. development is required, Although, we could advise that in these areas particular care especially near more should be taken in these areas. prominent locations.

67.16 Heights – this should also make ref to the impact of The issue of height has topography. been addressed at Para 4.16.

67.17 Key Issues- if we mean the barracks and parade ground The issue of whether the why don’t we say it? barrack blocks and parade ground can be retained will be determined through further details submitted by the developer. A requirement to retain these features without proper analysis would unduly restrict development potential.

67.18 Para 3.19 “…and retention of significant buildings such as Para 3.20 has not included Lawrence House.” Lawrence House specifically, but re-use is

Page 82 encouraged, and justification needs to be provided if buildings are to be demolished.

67.19 Para 3.21 The reuse of attractive existing buildings should The SPD has been be a requirement not just “considered”. strengthened and the developer will be required to submit additional details on this issue.

67.20 Table 3.6 no mention of reuse of retained buildings. Table 3.6 has been updated to reflect this comment.

67.21 Table 3.7 page 38- include additional bullet point re Table 3.7 now refers to retention of significant historic buildings. significant historic buildings.

67.22 Para 3.25 S106 to secure its future- should be linked with Para 3.25 and 6.38 have the development to ensure that its long term future is assured. been amended for clarity.

67.23 Para 3.26- we do not agree with the proposal for large Para 3.26 has been houses in a landscaped setting- might be better to design any new amended to ensure development as mews type houses and in courtyards, to reflect landscaping, views and the traditional outbuildings etc that might be found in association amenity are considered with large period houses- these would also impinge less on the before proposals are put landscape around the listed building and its open setting. forward for housing.

67.24 Table 3.8 the residential conversion of Hillingdon House The SPD requires the would not be particularly desirable in terms of its impact on the developer to exhaust other listed building, hotel, office, or corporate type uses would be much suitable uses before better and require less subdivision of the interior of the historic residential will be permitted. house.

67.25 Table 3.9- urban form see above. Key issues should include The open space will be restoration of the historic parkland- EH have commented on this retained, however the and are seeking the reinstatement of the lake. creation of a lake is expected to pose an unjustified safety risk to aircraft utilising RAF Northolt.

67.26 Para 4.1 Is the master plan the UD framework? Or is the UD The SPD has been framework the master plan and design codes- what do we want amended to clarify the the master plan to do/say? What form should it take, should we intention and requirements have just drawings, a model, computer generated fly throughs or for masterplans and details other visual information, a written/drawn design rationale, should to be provided with future we be asking for specialist input (I think we should)? Should we applications. specify the submission of material for public display, will the designers be required to present their vision?

67.27 Para 4.2-bullet point one should be the retention of historic Para 4.2 has been

Page 83 building, spaces and landscape. amended to include reference to historic buildings places and spaces.

67.28 Para 4.4- Site analysis should include an historical analysis Para 4.4 and elsewhere in of the site, covering both buildings and landscape- this should be the document includes used to justify the extent of demolition and support the retention of these requirements. features.

67.29 Para 4.9-“..should be informed by the historic buildings, Para 4.9 reflects these spaces, routes….” comments.

67.30 Para 4.10- “The preservation of the history and memory of Para 4.10 has been the site should be a key factor in the urban design strategy. amended to strengthen the Characteristics that should inform this are the historic buildings requirements of studies and and features of the site, such as the symmetrical layout of the proposals to be informed by barracks and parade ground, together with the associated the existing natural and built avenues of mature trees. Trees should be retained unless there environment, and the are special circumstances that justify their removal”. “Where previous/existing use possible” is very weak.

67.31 Para 4.12- “Distinctive building styles that address Para 4.12 has been sustainable and landscape themes….” Should refer to SUDS amended.

67.32 Para 4.13- Actually the features are not really scattered, this Para 4.13 has been suggests that they are random, which they are not. amended for clarity and correctness 67.33 Para 4.14- “The historic analysis should identify significant elements in terms of the historic buildings and their relationship to Para 4.14 has been the surrounding landscape and suggest how these features might amended. influence the development proposals. While Hillingdon House and its military association is an important element, there are also….”

67.34 Para 4.15- should also make ref to the historic landscape. Para 4.15 now refers to the historic landscape.

67.35 Para 4.17- should cover topography and views… Para 4.17 has been revised to cover these important elements.

67.36 Para 4.22-bullet point 3-should also include other historic The SPD mentions other buildings and spaces. historic buildings. This will be subject to further studies.

67.37 Bullet point 10 - Retention of formal tree lined avenues and The creation of a lake would other landscape features; restoration of identified elements, such create a potential and as the lake. unwarranted airport safeguarding risk.

Page 84 67.38 Para 4.54 - “Detailed analysis of the landscape of the site, The SPD requires these to including an historical analysis and a full tree survey …” be undertaken.

67.39 Para 5.12 - Table makes no ref to the reuse of buildings and Refer to comments above. we are unhappy with the requirement for larger houses in the area of Hillingdon House, see earlier comments.

67.40 Map 13 - we suggest this should also include adjacent CA The SPD has been revised and ASLC boundaries and designated buildings off site but along to refer to these areas in the site boundaries. Paras 5.55 and 5.56.

67.41 Para 5.44 should “preserve and ideally enhance the Para 5.45 has been buildings and their settings”. reworded to reflect this.

67.42 Para 5.46 - “…proposals for the reuse of the bunker need to Para 5.47 incorporates be fully researched and realistic, taking into account its history, these comments. structure and condition. S106 monies will be sought to secure the long terms use and maintenance of the building and partnerships with other suitable interested parties, or organisations, will be encouraged.”

67.43 Para 5.48 “site owners, EH and other potential partners to Para 5.49 has been ensure…” updated to reference other potential partners.

67.44 Para 5.50 – Conversion to residential should be a last Noted. resort.

67.45 Para 5.51 - We should be requiring a long term Para 5.52 has been management plan for the historic landscape- “ may” is too weak. strengthened to reflect these comments and require developers to liaise with the Council, EH and others.

67.46 Para 5.53 - archaeology from 6.14 should be in here. Para 6.14 has been inserted at 5.54.

68. Highways and Green spaces

68.1 At present, the site has a number of secure gated accesses A Traffic Assessment will onto Vine Lane. The potential impact if these were opened up on determine the most traffic on Vine Lane and the network of local roads between Vine appropriate point of access. Lane and Long Lane will of course need careful consideration. It is very unlikely that Access points to and from the site are clearly a key issue, and secured gates will be associated with this is the degree of linkage of routes across the opened or that additional site. These would of course need to be created in a sensitive way traffic will be generated that does not promote 'rat-run' routes within the site. towards Vine Lane.

68.2 Public transport accessibility will presumably be an important Noted.

Page 85 aspect, not only with regard to the 'attractors' such as proposed cultural and retail centres but also for the substantial blocks of housing, in particular in the denser parts of the site. From experience, it will be essential that roads to be used by buses within the site are wide enough to easily accommodate buses and residents, with appropriate levels of loading and waiting restrictions pre-planned. This will be linked to any other parking management proposals.

68.3 Section 4.26 of the draft implies understandably that car Paras 4.31 – 4.32 reflect parking management is likely to be required and should be these comments. considered from the beginning. We would request that this is a committed part of the guidance and that all adopted highways in the proposed town centre extension are subject to planning controls, either parking bays or yellow lines. Depending on the layout of adjoining residential areas parking controls will be required within a 15 minute walk to the town centre extension zone.

68.4 The RAF Uxbridge site sits at the intersection of two of the Paras 4.24 to 4.36 have key London Cycle Network routes in the borough, and been expanded and consequently interlinking of the development with other local amended to ensure routes will be very important. Cyclists may well wish to be able to pedestrians and cyclists are pass from the site to access the public transport interchange at given priority in any Uxbridge LUL station. masterplan and subsequent detailed plans.

68.5 A key issue will of course be the manner in which the Para 4.28 of the revised proposed eastward extension of the town centre is to be integrated SPD reflects these into the proposals - in particular the way that the existing St. comments. Andrews roundabout is to be dealt with. Clearly there may be a range of options for this, but we would recommend some works as a minimum to improve the current arrangements to help alleviate for example difficulties for buses crossing east-west and by traffic attempting to emerge from the High Street.

69. Housing Supply Team

69.1 It is recognised that the proposed town centre expansion Agreed. area will support a higher residential density providing residential development over ground floor commercial activity. Housing Supply recognise that this is an ideal location to provide one and two bedroom dwellings for private sale, social rent and intermediate use. There is also an opportunity to develop quality well designed medium and high-rise residential at an even higher density within the air traffic building height constraints to create a vibrant sustainable town centre environment.

69.2 The SPD calls for a broad mix across the site of 30% one Noted. bedroom; 40% two and three bedroom and 30% four bedroom

Page 86 homes. This is in line with the overall development aspirations.

69.3 The affordable housing mix should be as set out in the West Agreed. Para 5.13 has been London Housing Partnership Investment Guide 2008-11, amended to reflect this. published in 2007. The current size mix of affordable social rent housing units sought is set out in the table below.

1 Beds 2 Beds 3 beds 4 Beds 5 Beds 15% 35% 25% 15% 10%

69.4 The Guide further states that the boroughs should seek a Para 5.13 has been target of at least 15% of all Low Cost Home Ownership built to be amended to reflect the three bedrooms or more. requirement for 3 bed homes.

69.5 Housing Supply support the commitment to achieve Level 4 Agreed. of the Code across the whole residential development including private market housing.

69.6 Affordable housing floor space standards should meet the Agreed. Council’s HDAS residential standards or the Housing Quality Indicators floor space standards whichever is the higher.

69.7 Housing Supply seeks a requirement within the SPD for Agreed. developers to seek to obtain Secured by Design wherever possible.

69.8 In addition developers should follow the guidance set out in Para 5.18 has been Building for Life published by CABE September 2008. amended to reference the CABE guidance.

69.9 Housing Supply would seek to ensure that specialist housing Para 5.18 has been is exempted from the requirement to achieve Lifetime Homes. amended to reflect these Specialist housing needs to be designed to meet the needs of the comments. community it serves and this can and often does conflict with the Lifetime Homes requirements. Specialist housing should be designed in conjunction with the relevant council department as well as with specialist providers.

69.10 The policy from the London Plan and the draft London The Housing section of the Housing Strategy (Sept 2007), which are reflected in the Hillingdon SPD states that proposals Affordable Housing SPD (May 2006), is to seek 50% affordable should aim to meet the housing with a mix of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate requirements of the London (which includes low cost home ownership). The Hillingdon Plan, however, local Housing Needs Survey 2005, the Hillingdon Housing Strategy circumstances and financial 2007-2010 and the constantly updated Housing Register support viability may result in this requirement. significantly less than 50% affordable housing on site.

69.11 The Council is on target to meet its affordable housing Noted.

Page 87 contribution to the London Plan targets to 2011. This site will realise a significant number of other planning obligations that may impact on its overall financial viability. Housing Supply recognise that subject to a satisfactory financial viability appraisal the quantum of affordable housing sought is likely to be reduced to 35%.

69.12 Council Policy seeks an affordable housing tenure split of Agreed. These comments 30% intermediate and 70% social rent. The Housing Needs are reflected in the SPD and Survey recognises that there are aspirations for home ownership the requirements for amongst borough residents that are not being met due to the gap affordable housing and between household average incomes and property prices. submission of details with Housing Supply accept that the proposal to provide 47% any planning application. intermediate and 53% social rent would enable residents via the various Housing Corporation and Government funding initiatives to get a foot on the housing ladder. Intermediate housing includes such provisions as rent to buy; shared ownership and sub market rent. In the current economic climate would be shared ownership buyers are encountering difficulties in accessing mortgage funding and as a consequence many RSL’s are now unwilling to take on any new LCHO initiatives as they are unable to achieve sales. Although this LCHO market may well have changed when the product eventually comes to the market Housing Supply wish to see a cascade mechanism that will allow under certain circumstances an RSL to seek consent to change within intermediate tenures or from intermediate to social rent if there is no market for LCHO products.

Specialist Housing 69.13 Developers should be informed by “A Strategy for Sheltered Noted Housing and Extra Care in Hillingdon” Consultation Draft May 2008. This would indicate that there is a requirement to provide both private and affordable extra care and private housing for the 55 plus age group.

69.14 Housing Supply supports the requirement within the SPD for Noted specialist housing. We would prefer developers to consult with and seek guidance from the Development Team; specialists within the Council and specialist providers.

69.15 In Para 5.27 Housing Supply would prefer to see the date Para 5.28has been reference to the Housing Corporation Design and Quality amended. Standards amended to read “current at the time of planning application determination”.

69.16 Housing Supply fully supports the requirement for some Paras 6.36-6.37 and Para residential units to be zero carbon Code Level 6. However we 6.38 have been amended to have concerns that 30 residential units may not be sufficient clarify some of the Council’s numbers to be viable. We would seek to delete “approximately” expectations with regard to and insert “minimum” for this requirement. There is evidence to a sustainable exemplar show that central heating and power systems particularly biomass scheme.

Page 88 require greater residential numbers to be economically viable to develop and for the end user.

70. Catherine Brough - Children With Disabilities Team

70.1 I am acutely aware of the shortage of appropriate housing for Para 5.13 has been families with a child/children with physical disabilities. Few new amended to reflect these developments appear to take into consideration the need for a comments. large number of bedrooms (ie. 3+) and also the need for all communal facilities to be wheelchair accessible, as well as appropriately sized bedrooms and bathroom facilities for the disabled person.

70.2 I request that this housing need be considered in consultation Noted. with any existing partners you have identified. Please see attached document for some of the recommendations

71. S106 Officer

Proposed Heads of Terms: 71.1 Transport and transport related issues: In line with the SPD The proposed heads of on Transport, Accessibility, Air Quality and Noise it is likely that a terms have been added at contribution towards public transport will be sought. This could Para 6.38 of the SPD. come in the form of a new bus route, bus stops throughout the site, cycle ways, improved accessibility given the sites proximity to the town centre and a sustainable travel plan for both the commercial and residential element of the site. It is also possible that an s278 agreement may be required to undertake any and all works on highway’s land as a result of this proposal.

71.2 Affordable Housing: In line with the SPD on affordable Refer to statement above housing and Planning Obligations; for developments over 10 units, then 50% of the development shall be provided for as affordable housing or a financial viability appraisal (FVA) supplied to demonstrate why 50% cannot be delivered as affordable. If a FVA is submitted then supporting information will be sought to enable the critique of this. Such as valuation data, existing use values, construction costs, sales date etc.

71.3 Education: In line with the SPD on Educational Facilities a Refer to statement above contribution towards nursery, primary, secondary and post 16 school places and/or facilities will be sought. There is a formula for ascertaining the likely level of this contribution within the SPD on planning obligations Chapter 4 Educational Facilities.

71.4 Health: in line with the SPD on Health Facilities a contribution Refer to statement above towards PCT would be sought as a result of this proposal, given the size of the site it is likely that the NHS may wish to secure an onsite facility to cope with the additional residents. However

Page 89 further more detailed consultation will be required with the NHS prior to any decision being made. A cash contribution would range from £183.33 to £216.67 per person.

71.5 Community Facilities: In line with the SPD on Community Refer to statement above Facilities a facility and or cash contribution is likely to be sought as a result of this proposal. Further scoping work is required on this point as I understand there are desires to look to have a theatre on-site, which may be acceptable as a community facility. In line with the SPD a libraries contribution of £23 per person would also be likely to be sought.

71.6 Open Space: In line with the SPD on Open Space and Refer to statement above Recreation it is envisaged that all the pen space requirements will be delivered on-site given the size of this site. The Green Spaces Team will need to undertake a needs and deficiency assessment of the site, its location and any other constraints i.e. consultees such as Sport England.

71.7 An assessment of the following will be required: a. Sports pitches and district parks b. Local parks, small parks and pocket parks c. Play space for children, if the development generates more than Refer to statement above 10 children then this provision needs to be met on site in line with the amended London Plan and in keeping with the nature and scale of the proposal.

71.8 Town Centres: in line with the SPD on the Public Realm Refer to statement above given the location and proposed mixed use aspects of the site then it is likely that a contribution towards the public realm will be sought as a result of this proposal. This could take the form of public realm improvements, accessibility measures, the provision and maintenance of public space, street furniture and lighting, litter management, crime prevention and CCTV, public art or other town centre initiatives.

71.9 Construction Training: in line with the SPD on Training and Refer to statement above Employment a contribution or onsite scheme to meet the training needs of our community is likely to be sought as a result of the proposal. If an onsite scheme is not implemented then it is likely that a cash contribution equal to £2,500 for every £1million construction cost will be sought plus an additional contribution towards co-ordinator costs (an estimate of the cost of a co- ordinator is £71,675 pa for every 160 units proposed).

71.10 Air Quality and Noise: in line with the SPD on Refer to statement above Transportation, Accessibility Air Quality and Noise a contribution or scheme to alleviate one or both of these matters may be

Page 90 required as a result of any proposal over this site.

71.11 Project Mgmt and Monitoring: In line with the SPD a Refer to statement above. contribution towards project management and monitoring is sought equal to 5% of the total cash contributions secured from this proposal.

72. Sustainability Appraisal

72.1 The SPD has been influenced to a certain extent through the The draft SPD has been formal sustainability appraisal process. However, through ongoing amended to reflect the attention to the SA and its fundamental principles, further recommendations of the beneficial effects can be achieved. Comments on the draft SPD Sustainability Appraisal. included: a. It is important to note that the SPD could try to achieve more The SPD encourages detailed recommendations for the further extension of the town integration with Annington centre boundary, to assist integration and establishment of a Property Ltd land, and sustainable community. This is also true in relation to the further extensions to the Annington Homes land adjacent to the site, further guidance could town centre will be given help to assist the beneficial effects of ensuring co-ordination of the careful consideration. Annington homes land. b. The implications of the adjoining Annington homes land should The SPD refers to the land be taken into account at all stages of development. This will controlled by Annington ensure the enhanced connectivity, accessibility and integration Property Ltd throughout the that the consideration of these sites can achieve is captured, thus document, and it is providing a co-ordinated approach to development. This will expected that APL will be ensure redevelopment will make the most of the site’s important heavily involved in pre- location and proximity to the metropolitan town centre of Uxbridge application discussions and and its likely future expansion and enhancement. through the planning application process to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the development of the site, and the surrounds.

c. Through the planning process the SPD could aim to maximise Agreed. beneficial effects. This could be at the implementation stage; for example, through application of design principles, as part of proposals in the EIA accompanying planning applications, or through proposals for changing other plans and programmes.

d. The SPD requires the development to meet Code Level 4 and Paras 6.1 to 6.2 set out the aspires to reaching levels above this. In addition an exemplar area requirements for is required to meet Code Level 6. In addition to this, 30 units are to sustainability issues and be show case exemplars for the area and meet code level 6. The climate change difference between Code Level 4 and Code Level 6 is substantial, considerations to be and it may be more cost efficient and technically-feasible to embedded in the address certain sustainability issues on a site-wide basis. development process, and

Page 91 Sustainable energy strategies such as the inclusion of a District that in designing the Energy System are likely to be more feasible on a large scale. masterplan these issues Through the planning process, developments on the site should should not be a set of “add- have a coordinated approach across the whole site, particularly for on’s” but should be central energy, water, drainage, waste and ecology, to ensure that large to the vision for the site. scale efficiencies are gained, despite different levels of With the move towards sustainability targets across the site. A site-wide approach to zero-carbon homes in 2016 sustainability analysis and strategy would from the beginning will the redevelopment of the be beneficial to delivery and should be encouraged through the site should set an example planning process. of best practice, to work through issues to deliver code level 6 dwellings for the site. The SPD states that further studies are required, and the exemplar development will be subject to financial viability and other considerations. e. The SPD encourages specific approaches to energy, water and Agreed, the initiatives and sustainable construction. This should be followed up through the requirements in the SPD planning application process by requiring developers to develop intend to be delivered and submit energy and water strategies (with detailed approaches through the planning to meeting best practice targets) and detailed plans for renewable application process. energy systems following the London requirements. These strategies could be included within or connected to a wider sustainability statement or strategy. Developers should also apply ‘considerate construction’ methods. f. Live/work units are currently envisaged in just one location, the The town centre extension town centre extension, further provision for more of these units is and transition to the recommended. southern quadrant is considered to be the most appropriate location for such uses. g. A viability study for the proposed Cultural Quarter is The SPD acknowledges recommended in order to determine the types of uses and size that additional studies are and capacity of cultural facilities. At the present time there is an required to support uncertainty regarding the demand and deliverability of the Cultural proposals for arts/cultural Quarter on site, which needs to be addressed. uses, refer to Paras 5.7 and 5.8. h. The viability of a good pedestrian link from the town centre Agreed, this is expanded in through to the new extension via the roundabout area is still to be the SPD to be determined determined through detailed studies, this should be conducted as through additional studies this link is essential for a walkable neighbourhood. and discussions between the key stakeholders. i. The SPD has set out ecological initiatives for enhancement, but The SPD addresses this it does not outline specific targets. As further ecological studies concern in requiring

Page 92 are undertaken, ecological initiatives and targets should be additional details, with demonstrated and required through the planning application outline targets to be set process to ensure beneficial effects. through the planning process. j. Lastly, the notion of living roofs could be particularly relevant to Agreed. The SPD has been and should be encouraged for the proposals for a new primary updated with an expectation school; incorporating life skills for children in growing flowers and that a school could become vegetables, alongside the need to promote biodiversity and an ‘eco-school’ in the future, sustainable design and construction. (Para 5.30).

Page 93 RAF Uxbridge Supplementary Planning Document

January 2009

www.hillingdon.gov.uk Published by the London Borough of Hillingdon January 2009 9600 RAF UXBRIDGE: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1 Introduction • Purpose of the Supplementary Planning Document • Policy rationale • The components of the SPD • The consultation process • Site allocation and sequential test

Section 2 Site background • Site history • Strategic location • Surrounding land uses • Site characteristics • Built form • Planning history • Site opportunities and constraints • Key strategic policy guidance • Key local planning policy guidance

Section 3 The Development Framework • Development objectives • Background • Character guidance for the proposed town centre extension • Character guidance for the southern quarter • Character guidance for the northern quarter • Character guidance for the open space/Hillingdon House quarter

Section 4 Requirements for site layout • Urban design framework • Transport and accessibility Movement, connectivity and accessibility requirements • Open space and biodiversity

Section 5 Requirements for specific uses • Proposed town centre extension • Housing • Community infrastructure • Conservation

Section 6 Environmental and sustainable development considerations • Environmental requirements • Development infrastructure • Sustainable design and construction • Planning obligations

All maps in this document are based on Ordnance Survey material with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

LB Hillingdon 100019283 2008

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RAF Uxbridge is a Royal Air Force (RAF) Base located next to the Uxbridge Town Centre. As part of the Ministry of Defence wider ‘Project MODeL’, it is intended to relocate operations to RAF Northolt by 2010 and close the RAF Uxbridge Base. Approximately 44.6 hectares, comprising of the operational part of the Base is intended for disposal by Defence Estates in partnership with the developer Vinci St Modwen (VSM). It is anticipated that the relevant outline and detailed planning applications, along with listed building applications, will be submitted to the council in the summer of 2009 for a mixed-use scheme to redevelop the site.

The purpose of this Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to provide planning guidance for the future use and development of the FAR Uxbridge site, including an indication of the extent and form of development that may be considered acceptable. The SPD has been prepared within the context of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007 and other agreed council standards, regional and national guidance. In due course it will comply with Local Development Framework (LDF) requirements by being adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, providing supplementary planning guidance held to be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application. The SPD will also help to realise spatially a number of Hillingdon’s Community Strategy objectives.

In order to inform the preparation of the draft SPD, a wide-ranging early public consultation programme was undertaken in the summer/autumn of 2007 to find out the priorities of local residents, interest groups and key stakeholders. The level of interest and response from the general public and from the focused group consultations was very high and there were numerous responses received that were all taken into account in preparing the draft SPD.

Formal consultation on the draft SPD was undertaken in the autumn of 2008. The council received 339 questionnaire responses from residents, in addition to 65 letters from interested parties and government departments. There was general support for the draft SPD with a wide range of useful suggestions to improve the document. Residents have supported the proposed uses for the site, with overwhelming support for the cultural quarter, improved links with the High street, retention of listed buildings, a new museum and retention of the bunker, retaining open space and enhancing the River Pinn.

There has been support for all other uses, but queries about the amount of office space, types of shops, and the amount and mix of housing have been raised. The SPD has been amended following consideration of the responses received during consultation, and to reflect the most recent planning policies and guidance at a local, London and national level.

The council has taken into account the public feedback in preparing this RAF Uxbridge SPD, which proposes that the redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site should achieve:

An arts/cultural facility to include a venue for a theatre/music/museum. Associated restaurants and cafes. Retail uses that do not detract from the existing Uxbridge town centre. Around 1600 new homes, including at least 560 affordable dwellings to assist those in need, to help people onto the housing ladder and to provide suitable accommodation 4 for the elderly. Up to 35,000 square metres of commercial floor space. Improvements to open space through an enhanced walk near the River Pinn and associated high quality public open spaces, including pedestrian links to Brunel University and Hillingdon House Farm. Improved footpath links particularly with the town centre and across the site to Vine Lane. Retention and reuse of the listed Hillingdon House for a hotel or residential uses. The retention of the listed Underground Bunker, including a visitor centre. A new two form entry primary school. New health facilities. A local community facility. A coordinated approach to the redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site by ensuring the integration of the disposal site with the surrounding land under the control of Annington Property Ltd.

The redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site will also need to achieve:

A high quality urban design that respects its high quality landscape setting (including trees, ecology and views) and the site’s military history Community safety by design Public art Support sustainable means of travel Sustainable drainage Renewable energy systems, including a waste to energy plant if appropriate Sustainable design and construction, including exemplar residential units that meet Sustainable Code Level 6

RAF Uxbridge is a large site, close to Uxbridge town centre. The operational part of the site (approximately 44.6 ha) is owned by Defence Estates and VSM Estates, who intend to redevelop it. Due to the imminent submission of a planning application for this land the council is preparing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to ensure that any redevelopment takes account of local and strategic planning issues and achieves the wider aims of Hillingdon’s Community Strategy objectives.

A wide ranging early public consultation programme was undertaken in the summer/autumn of 2007 to find out the priorities of local residents, interest groups and key stakeholders. This included leaflets and online questionnaires supported by a public exhibition open to all members of the public. Two targeted workshops were also held with key stakeholders, local interest and resident groups. Additionally, a number of presentations, workshops and discussions were held with council forums, interest groups and representatives including the Youth Council and Uxbridge College.

The level of interest and response from the general public and from the focused group consultations was very high, with large numbers of visitors to the public exhibition, over 300 written responses received and nearly 40 groups represented at the workshops. Whilst some concerns were expressed about the redevelopment of the site, these were considerably outweighed by those who supported redevelopment of the site and responded with positive views about the potential opportunities it offered.

5 The responses provided a variety of positive suggestions for the type of development desired and the key issues of interest. Some of the specific uses and facilities that were regularly suggested as desirable included a theatre or music venue, a museum, facilities for children and young adults, leisure facilities and the provision of affordable housing. Many people referred to the relationship of the site and its redevelopment with the existing town centre and expressed a wish to see links with the town centre and an extension of some town centre uses into the site, improving the quality and range of facilities and services that Uxbridge provides. The opportunity for the redevelopment of the site to create a sense of place and to benefit both the existing town and the local residents was also often highlighted. There was a lot of public interest in retaining the existing open character of the site and providing parks and green spaces for public use. There was also a strong desire to ensure that the military heritage of the site is reflected in the new development and that key buildings are preserved and brought back into use.

In terms of the concerns expressed, these related to the potentially high level and density of development that may be permitted at the site and the likely impact that this could have on the character of the area, highways and other infrastructure.

The council has taken into account the public feedback in preparing this draft RAF Uxbridge SPD, which proposes that the redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site should achieve: • An arts/cultural facility to include a venue for a theatre/music/museum • Associated restaurants and cafes • Retail uses complimentary to the Uxbridge town centre • 1,620 new homes of which 567 units are likely to be affordable housing. Of the affordable units, 267 would be for low cost ownership and 300 for social rented (including 100 units for the elderly). • Up to 69, 675 square metres of commercial floor space • An enhanced River Pinn walk and associated high quality public open spaces, including pedestrian links to Brunel University and Hillingdon House Farm • Improved footpath links particularly with the town centre and across the site to Vine Lane • Retention and reuse of the listed Hillingdon House for a hotel or residential uses • The retention of the listed Underground Bunker, including a visitor centre • A new two form entry primary school • New health facilities • A local community facility • Proposing a coordinated approach to the redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site by ensuring the integration of the disposal site with surrounding Annington Homes land. • The redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site should also endorse the following principles:

• A high quality urban design that respects its high quality landscape setting (including trees, ecology and views) and the site’s military history • Community safety by design • Public art • Supporting sustainable means of travel • Sustainable drainage • Renewable energy systems including a waste to energy plant, if appropriate

6 • Sustainable design and construction, including exemplar residential units that meet Sustainable Code Level 6

The council will be carrying out public consultation on this draft RAF Uxbridge SPD, with a view to finalising the document for adoption later in the year.

7 Section 1 INTRODUCTION

THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

1.1 The purpose of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is to provide planning guidance for the future use and development of the RAF Uxbridge site, including an indication of the extent and form of development that may be considered acceptable. RAF Uxbridge is a Royal Air Force (RAF) Base located next to the Uxbridge Town Centre. As part of the Government’s Ministry of Defence wider ‘Project MODeL’, it is intended to relocate operations to RAF Northolt by 2010 and close the RAF Uxbridge Base. Approximately 44.6 hectares, comprising of the operational part of the Base is intended for disposal (see map 1) by Defence Estates in partnership with the developer Vinci St Modwen (VSM). The defence personnel housing controlled by owned by Annington Property Ltd Homes is to remain. GVA Grimley, the agents for VSM, advised in 2007 that a planning application for a mixed-use residential-led scheme is to be submitted to Council. It is anticipated that relevant outline and detailed planning applications, along with listed building applications, will be made in the summer of 2009 in 2008 to redevelop this site.

1.2 Due to the imminent submission of a this planning application, the Council has prepared this Supplementary Planning Document, following extensive consultation. The consideration of all submissions and various meetings through the consultation process has helped to ensure that the re-development will take into account the local community’s concerns, address strategic issues and achieve wider planning objectives.

Map 1 RAF Uxbridge © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

POLICY RATIONALE

1.3 The statutory basis for the preparation of the SPD is London Plan Policy 3A.7 (Large Residential Developments) which states that “Boroughs should prepare planning frameworks for all large residential sites of 5 hectares or more, or that are capable of accommodating more than 500 dwellings. The planning frameworks should be prepared in consultation with local communities and other key stakeholders.”

1.4 The SPD has been prepared within the context of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007 and other agreed Council standards, regional and national guidance. In due course it will comply with Local Development Framework (LDF) requirements by being adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, providing supplementary planning guidance held to be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application. The SPD will also help to realise spatially a number of Hillingdon’s Community Strategy objectives.

1.5 Due to the development pressures on this site, the SPD has been brought ahead of other relevant overarching draft Local Development Framework (LDF) documents. Other planning proposals relevant to this site are contained in the draft LDF Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) placed on public consultation in 2005. Draft Policy SA2 allocated the site for a mix of uses and proposed a requirement to prepare a more detailed planning brief for RAF Uxbridge. In recent background work to the emerging LDF Core Strategy, RAF Uxbridge has been identified as suitable for the proposed expansion of the Uxbridge Town Centre boundary. The proposed LDF Uxbridge Area Action Plan DPD, scheduled to complete in 2010, will provide wider planning guidance for the Uxbridge area and will incorporate the RAF Uxbridge site.

THE COMPONENTS OF THE SPD

1.6 Preparation of the RAF Uxbridge SPD commenced in August 2007 with an early public consultation programme and information gathering. Further formal consultation was undertaken in September-October 2008. The SPD It comprises of three key parts being:

a) The Supplementary Planning Document which is to provide planning guidance for the site

b) The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which evaluates the SPD and ensures it meets the government’s wider objectives for sustainable development. This can be viewed as a separate document.

c) The Consultation Summary, which details the tasks undertaken and results. This can also be viewed as a separate document.

10 THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

1.7 In accordance with PPS12, early public involvement was sought through a consultation programme undertaken in the summer/autumn of 2007. This comprised of a leaflet drop, workshops, displays and discussion with interest groups. There were a number of positive comments regarding the redevelopment of the site including the following:

Respecting the character and heritage of the site including the green spaces. Raising the profile and quality of the area. Providing new housing (affordable, family housing, elderly) An arts and cultural or leisure focus Activities for children and teenagers Significant health facilities.

1.8 The main concerns raised were with regard to the level of development, housing, commercial buildings, and the impact that this would have on a number of areas including the character of the area, highways and other infrastructure. It should be noted that the number of concerns was considerably outweighed by those who supported redevelopment of the site.

1.9 The workshop events considered a vision for the site and the spatial organisation of land uses. The issues and feedback from the public consultation have informed the site specific proposals and the development scenario for the site.

1.10 Formal consultation on the draft SPD was then undertaken in the autumn of 2008. This included the following:

A 6 week public consultation exercise began on 3rd September 2008 and finished on 15th October 2008.

Advertisements were placed in the local press (the Leader and Gazette) and a number of articles and letters to the editor have appeared in the local newspapers since then. Almost 5, 000 brochures were delivered to residents and businesses both surrounding the RAF site, within the Uxbridge town centre, and to the RAF base. Letters were also sent to various stakeholders, local groups, and interested people.

All documents were made available at the Hillingdon libraries, at the Civic Centre, Hayes one stop shop, and available on the Council website.

11 An ‘open house’ exhibition was held on the 17th, 18th and 20th of September at the Civic Centre, and attended by around 100 local residents and a member of the press. Meetings have also been held with various local resident groups, individuals and other stakeholders.

Presentations and discussions were held with the various forums, as identified in Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), and these groups were invited to make more detailed written submissions on the draft SPD.

1.11 The Council received 339 questionnaire responses from residents, in addition to 65 letters from interested parties and government departments, as part of the consultation. There was general support for the draft SPD with a wide range of useful suggestions to improve the document. Residents have supported the proposed uses for the site, with overwhelming support for the cultural quarter, improved links with the High Street, retention of listed buildings, a new museum and retention of the bunker, retaining open space and enhancing the River Pinn. There has been support for all other uses, but queries about the amount of office space, types of shops, and the amount and mix of housing have been raised. The SPD has been amended following consideration of the responses received during consultation, and to reflect the most recent planning policies and guidance at a local, London and national level.

SITE ALLOCATION AND SEQUENTIAL TEST

1.10 As the draft Site Allocation DPD was prepared ahead of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), the Sequential Test was considered in bringing this site forward.

Section 2 SITE BACKGROUND

SITE HISTORY

2.1 RAF Uxbridge occupies the former estate and grounds of the historic Hillingdon House and has an important connection with Britain’s air defence during World War II.

2.2 The original Hillingdon House is thought to have been built in 1617 and was rebuilt in 1717 by the last Duke of Schonberg. Prior to 1717, the estate had been identified as belonging partly to the Manor of Swakeleys and partly to the Manor of Colham. A Medieval settlement within this area was concentrated within the settlements of Hillingdon, Colham and Uxbridge and it is likely that the site lay within common land and wasteland between these.

2.3 The current Hillingdon House was rebuilt again in 1844 (architect George Mair) after being destroyed by fire. In 1907 the gardens covered 47 acres and contained a five- acre lake formed by a dam in the River Pinn. The park as a whole covered approximately 158 acres with no significant changes by 1914. (MoDEL Disposal Sites Information Pack 2005 pg 32).

2.4 The estate was bought by the Government in 19185. The site was used as a convalescence home for Canadian soldiers until 1917 after which it became the RFC Armament and Gunnery School in 1917. In 1919 the RAF Depot relocated from Halton to the site and became the main recruit-training centre, (one of the most famous associations being T.E. Lawrence who joined up in 1922). During the 1920’s new barrack blocks around a large parade ground and other buildings were built to accommodate this. Hillingdon House soon began to house headquarters for units, of which the most notable was No 11 (Fighter) Group in 1936.

2.5 Co-ordination of the main part of Britain’s defence was conducted during the Battle of Britain from the 1938 underground Bunker on RAF Uxbridge. This housed the Group Operations Room from where the No. 11 Fighter Group was commanded. The importance of the Bunker is reflected in its status as a Grade 1 Listed Building.

STRATEGIC LOCATION

2.6 The development site is located next to the Uxbridge Town centre, which was upgraded to “Metropolitan” status in the London Plan Alterations (February 2008). It is approximately 18 miles from central London and 5 miles from Heathrow Airport, as measured in a direct line.

2.7 The B483 (Park Road) gives the site access to central London and the West of England via the A40 and directly to the north of the Borough. There is access is to the employment areas in the south of the Borough and Heathrow Airport as well as to the M40 and M25 by means of the A4020 (Hillingdon Road).

Map 2 – London Context © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

2.8 The site is in a key location for Uxbridge. Directly to the north is Uxbridge College and Hillingdon House Farm (athletics track and Uxbridge Lido). The town centre is located to the west and to the south are the key institutions of Brunel University, Uxbridge High School and Hillingdon Hospital. On the eastern side is are the American School and the suburban areas of Hillingdon East and the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character. RAF Uxbridge is also forms a key link in the local Green Belt network.

Map 3 – Strategic Context © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

2.9 Park Road (B483) and Hillingdon Road (A4020) bound RAF Uxbridge to the west with Honeycroft Hill to the north, Honey Hill and Vine Lane to the east and, Hillingdon Golf Course to the south. Included in the Base, but outside the actual site boundary expected for redevelopment SPD area to the south and east is the occupied low-density defence personnel housing to the south and east, which owned by Annington Property Ltd has a controlling interest Homes. Within the Base, in the northwest and abutting the town centre, but again outside the red line boundary, there is unoccupied, two-storey land controlled by Annington Property Ltd with an underlease under lease to the MoD. Homes housing.

2.10 The land controlled by Annington Property Ltd Homes land, while not specifically included in the red line boundary for the SPD, has implications for the comprehensive redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge and for the re-integration of the Base within the surrounding urban and suburban fabric. Of particular relevance is the land are the Annington Homes sites to the south and northwest. While there are no specific proposals at present for the Annington Homes land to the south, it is important that redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge on the southwestern flank integrates with this land in the final proposals. The mostly vacant housing of the northwest section of Annington Homes landAnnington Property Ltd land is considered to be a potential future area of change. Given its gateway location to Uxbridge town centre and the site, future development proposals for RAF Uxbridge should recognise this as an area of opportunity and likely change.

2.11 To the north of the site is a small section of commercial activity at Park Road. Adjoining the site to the north, off Honeycroft Hill is the Territorial Army site. Housing owned controlled by Annington Property LtdHomes, but outside the Base, is located to the north-east off Honey Hill. Vine Lane, being included in the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character has retained much of its sylvan character and comprises large detached houses. The surrounding residential character is generally of lower density terrace/semi-detached housing.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.12 The site covers 44.6 ha. The site It includes a small valley bisected north-south by the River Pinn. It has a high level of amenity through the retention of vegetation along the River Pinn and the sports fields and other open land in the Green Belt. Much of the built form is located on the western side, and is low rise with a clearly laid out and spacious “campus character”.

2.13 Important physical site characteristics are:

The River Pinn flood plain corridor that runs north south through the site with its associated woodland and areas of semi-natural habitat

The openness of the Green Belt land which forms part of the setting for the Listed Buildings

16 A large number of amenity trees found within ornamental borders and in formal avenuesregimental rows surrounding the main car parks, roads, and pathways.

A number of natural grass sports pitches, in the north and south of the site.

Map 4: RAF Uxbridge Context © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

17 BUILT FORM

2.14 The built form reflects the site’s military use and comprises of:

Single Living Accommodation (barracks, accommodation blocks and housing) equating to 33,462m2 located around a parade ground. Mess facilities located on the western side of the site. Welfare/indoor recreational buildings of 7,125m2. This includes the Officers’ Mess, a general store, a medical and dental centre, a nursery/playgroup and a church. Rifle range An outdoor athletics track to the north, an all weather pitch to the south-west, a tennis court to the west and several sports pitches, including artificial surface located towards both the centre and south of the site. Administrative/office/technical buildings of 15,345m2. Stores/Workshop and plant of 9,175m2. General site infrastructure of 10,310m2. Hillingdon House (Grade II), the Bunker (Grade 1) and their associated structures, monuments and buildings, and former cinema (Grade II). Two communications towers on the site. Features such as the Battle of Britain Gates and St Andrews Gate.

Map 5 MOD Disposal Site Boundary showing Contours © Crown Copyright 100019283 2008

PLANNING HISTORY

2.15 Planning records from 1965 (when the London Borough of Hillingdon was formed) generally reflect the utilitarian nature of the site. As, until June 2006, the Ministry of Defence and other Crown bodies were exempt from the provision of the Town and Country Planning Act, the records are limited to the Council’s response to the various ‘Notice of Proposed Development’.

SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

2.16 The 2005 draft Site Allocations DPD Policy SA2 identified the site as being of strategic importance, creating a unique opportunity to deliver major mixed use redevelopment close to the town centre. However, the site has a number of significant constraints that require addressing as part of site redevelopment proposals.

2.17 The following opportunities have been identified which should be delivered through the redevelopment of the site:

• An improved connection of the site to the town centre and surrounding area, including enhancements to the public realm of the St Andrew’s roundabout

• Extension of the town centre boundary into the site

• Provision of a unique cultural attraction “special draw” for the town centre including an arts/cultural quarter, enhancing the town centre’s “Metropolitan” status

• Potential for good quality public open spaces accessible to/from the town centre

• Potential to link up the Green Belt land to the north and south via by means of River Pinn corridor, providing ecological protection and improvements, along with some suitable public access

• Incorporation of avenues of mature trees and other landscape features in the site redevelopment proposals

• Incorporation of measures to mitigate and reduce local flooding, with particular emphasis on SUDS

• Reopening of east/west public pedestrian access between the town centre and Hillingdon East as well as to the north and south

• Protection and enhancement of key views, in particular of Hillingdon House, which will help reinforce local identity

• Restoration and reuse of the listed buildings and historic landscapes and, where appropriate, other buildings with historic interest or that would make a positive contribution to the redevelopment of the site

20 • Potential for local tourist draw based around the site’s military history and the underground Bunker (Group 11 Operations Room) and other listed buildings

• Opportunity to provide a coordinated approach to the redevelopment of land on RAF Uxbridge together with improvements to the existing land owned by Annington Property Ltd Homes land

• Comprehensive landscape proposals, including landscape masterplan and management plan to capitalise on the existing aesthetic qualities of the site

2.18 The following site constraints should be addressed in any redevelopment proposals for the site:

The separation of the site from the Uxbridge town centre by the A4020/B483 and St Andrews roundabout

The limited capacity of the existing road network and public transport facilities

Green Belt designation

The Hillingdon Unitary Plan Green Chain designation in the north of the site

The Air Quality Management Area designation

The River Pinn flood plain (Environment agency zones 2 and 3)

Aviation safeguarding requirements due to proximity of RAF Northolt

Protection and enhancement of the ecological attributes on site, mainly associated with the River Pinn, green belt and green chain land, but other areas where necessary

Surrounding built environment, particularly land controlled by Annington Property Ltd, in terms of building design and access

Existing Annington Homes in terms of building design and access

Preservation and enhancement of the listed buildings on the site and their wider settings

Protection of the settings of the listed buildings

Retention and enhancement of landscape features where appropriate

Map 6 – Existing attributes and Opportunities © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

Map 7 – UDP Proposals map illustrating constraints (key to be added) © Crown Copyright London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008

KEY STRATEGIC POLICY GUIDANCE

Planning Policy Statements and Guidance

2.19 The following are the key planning policy statements (PPS) and planning policy guidance, which influence the site proposals.

PPS 1 - Sustainable development states that sustainable development is the core principal underpinning planning and that planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of development.

Supplement to PPS 1 - Planning and Climate Change sets out how planning should mitigate against climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and also help in adapting to the already inevitable impacts of climate change. Tackling climate change is a key government priority for the planning system. Applications for planning permission will need to demonstrate how their proposals contribute to the government’s ambitions and conform to planning guidance.

PPS3 - Housing outlines the Governments policy on housing with the key goal being to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. It sets out a number of key outcomes addressing quality and choice and the need for a mix of market and affordable housing.

PPS 4 - Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms sets out the governments desired aims to promote economic development, subject to environmental and other considerations. It is likely that the current PPS4 will be superseded by the current draft PPS 4 prior to an application being determined for this site.

Draft PPS 4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Development sets out the government’s priorities for how planning authorities should plan for economic development, whilst ensuring this is underpinned by sustainability objectives and robust evidence.

PPS6 - Town Centres states out the government’s policy on town centres, one identified objective is promoting their vitality and viability by planning for the growth and development of existing centres that the planning system has a key role in facilitating and promoting sustainable and inclusive patterns of development, including the creation of vital and viable town centres. The PPS promotes a plan led approach to direct development to existing town centres and to apply a sequential approach to site selection for town centre type uses.

Draft amendments to PPS 6 are expected to become a material consideration before any decisions are finalised on the development of this site. Draft PPS 6 amends the ‘needs’ test with a broader emphasis on economic, social and environmental impacts. An amended PPS 6 would be a material consideration for any planning application.

PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sets out the government’s planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning 24 system. Amongst other matters, measures include the promotion of sustainable development by ensuring biological and geological diversity is conserved and, enhancement of biodiversity in green spaces and amongst developments.

PPS10 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management requires more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort.

PPG13 - Transport sets out the governments objective to integrate planning and transport by promoting more sustainable transport choices, accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling, and reducing the need to travel, especially by car.

PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment sets out the Government’s requirements for the protection of the historic environment as a key aspect of wider environmental responsibilities, and to be taken fully into account both in the formulation of local authorities' planning policies and in assessing planning applications.

PPG 16 - Archaeology and Planning gives guidance on how archaeological remains are to be preserved or recorded or both, and weight to be given to such considerations in planning for development and with regard to conditions placed on planning consents.

PPG 17 - Planning for Open space, Sport and Recreation sets out the governments priorities for the provision of open space and facilities and improving opportunities and accessibility for sport and recreation.

PPS 22 - Renewable energy outlines the considerations in planning for renewable energy production, and states that local authorities and developers should consider the opportunity for incorporating renewable energy projects in all new developments, particularly small scale schemes utilising solar, biomass, wind and Combined Heat and Power.

PPS 23 - Planning and Pollution Control outlines the requirement to consider potential impacts of development on the environment and human health from any development. This includes protecting the quality of air, water and land, and specific considerations for potentially contaminated land.

PPS 25 - Development and Flood Risk sets out the requirements to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of flooding, including as a result of climate change. The PPS includes requirements for a sequential approach to site selection for new development and the need to limit development in areas vulnerable to flooding, and gives specific guidance on preparing a flood risk assessment.

The London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)

25 2.20 The London Plan themes of strong, diverse long-term growth, socially inclusiveely and sustainable development are reflected in the proposals for the redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge. Any development proposals will be expected to comply with all policies of the London, however Tthe following key policies are relevant to the redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge:

London Plan Policy 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites) states that Boroughs should ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles in Policy 4B.1 and with public transport capacity. It identifies that the Mayor will refuse permission for strategic referrals that, taking into account context and potential transport capacity, under-use the potential of the site.

Policy 3A.7 (Large residential developments) establishes the requirement to prepare planning frameworks for large residential developments.

Policy 3A.10 (Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed use schemes) requires Boroughs to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes, the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual circumstances of the site.

Policy 3C.2 (Matching development to transport capacity) proposals should be considered in terms of existing transport capacity, both at a corridor and local level. It outlines the requirement to ensure that development proposals are appropriately phased until it is known these transport requirements can be met. The cumulative impacts of development on transport requirements are required to be taken into account. Developments with significant transport implications should include a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan as part of planning applications.

Policy 3D.1 (Supporting town centres) states that Boroughs should enhance access to goods and services and strengthen the wider role of town centres. Amongst other matters listed it identifies to enhance the competitiveness and quality of retail and other consumer services in town centres, support a wide role for town centres as locations for leisure and cultural activities, as well as business and housing and their key role in developing a sense of place and identity for sustainable local communities and require the location of appropriate health, education and other public and community services in town centres.

Policy 4A.3 (Sustainable design and construction) encourages development to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction. This sets out a number of objectives and requires a statement on the potential implications of the development on sustainable design and construction principles, including energy.

Policy 4B.5 (Creating an inclusive environment) requires all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and that the principles of inclusive design should be used in assessing planning applications and in drawing up master plans and area planning frameworks

2.21 A number of other specific policies are relevant and these are identified throughout this SPD. Other GLA Strategies and supplementary planning guidance are 26 likely to affect detailed proposals and should be referred to as part of the planning process. In July 2008 the Mayor of London published ‘Planning for a better London’ which sets out the key areas that he wants to address in revising the London Plan and other various planning strategies and guidance. Over the course of 2009 and beyond a number of changes are expected to be made which will have implications for planning in London. In planning for the future development of RAF Uxbridge, developers and decision makers will need to consider amendments to the London Plan, emerging SPG’s and other guidance. It is anticipated that policies regarding affordable housing, outer London borough’s, climate change, accessibility, open space and other issues will be amended, which may affect the redevelopment of this site, prior to any decision being reached on any planning applications. The assessment of any planning application will consider the most recent guidance from the Mayor of London and relevant legislation, to inform decision-making.

KEY LOCAL PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE

2.22 Development objectives for the site should be compatible with the key strategic documents, which include the emerging LDF Core strategy and the Community Strategy

Draft LDF Core Strategy Spatial Vision (March 2007):

“By 2017 Hillingdon will be one of the most successful and sustainable boroughs in West London where the population will be proud to live. The Borough will be a leader in: tackling the causes of climate change protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, and developing facilities which will ensure the borough’s diverse communities are more accessible, healthier, inclusive, economically prosperous and safer.”

Sustainable Community Strategy (20085 –20185)

2.23 The Sustainable Community Strategy promotes the wider social, economic and environmental well being of Hillingdon as part of the achievement of sustainable development. It has three key components which underpin the strategy, and should form the objectives for development of this site:

People – “Planning Understanding and responding to the changing needs of our communities Place – “ Making Hillingdon a safe, attractive and sustainable place to live, work and learn” Prosperity – Prosperous individuals and prosperous communities

The priorities of the objectives of this strategy are:

Improving health and wellbeing – Making Hillingdon a borough of excellent health, social care and housing, where all residents can enjoy fulfilling and happy lives

27 Strong and Active Communities – A borough where communities are strong and cohesive, and local people have a real opportunity to take an active part in local life, leisure and culture Protecting and enhancing the environment – One of the greenest and most attractive boroughs in London, for current and future generations to enjoy

Making Hillingdon Safer – A safe borough, where residents are able to benefit from a full range of local amenities without fear of becoming a victim of crime

A thriving economy – Hillingdon will have a strong and vibrant economy, where prosperity and quality of life are high

Improving aspiration through education and learning – We will raise attainment by increasing aspiration, and ensure that all residents, young and old, have the skills to prosper in the job market of today and tomorrow. A borough of learning and culture: Where residents can develop their skills, broaden their knowledge and embrace new leisure pursuits A safe borough: Where crime and the fear of crime is falling, policing is visible and our community is safer A clean and attractive borough: Where the environment is protected, transport links improved and our heritage preserved A borough with improving health, housing and social care: Where first class health and social care and decent, affordable housing is available to all A prosperous borough: Where enterprise is encouraged, businesses supported and new jobs created for local people A borough where opportunities are open to all: Where communities are closer and stronger, local people are listened to and excellent services are provided for all A borough where children and young people are healthy, safe and supported: Where our young people are valued, properly educated and given the opportunity to thrive

2.24 Local planning guidance is set out in the Hillingdon UDP Saved Policies (and where relevant London Plan (2008) requirements). Relevant UDP polices are cross- referenced in the appropriate chapters. A summary of the relevant documents is:

Borough wide Hillingdon UDP Saved Policies - September 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Supplementary documents: SPD Affordable Housing SPD Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statements: Residential Layouts HDAS Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement: Accessible Hillingdon SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance - Noise (LBH 2002) SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Obligations (LBH 2002) SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance - Air Quality (LBH 2002) SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance-Community Safety by Design (LBH 28 2004)

2.25 During the formal planning stages of the RAF Uxbridge site, it is likely that the emerging LDF documents will be adopted and will also influence site proposals. The overarching draft LDF documents are:

Emerging LDF Core Strategy Draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) Proposed Uxbridge Area Action Plan DPD

Draft Site Allocations Policy SA2

2.26 This policy is still in draft format but is relevant. It identifies the strategic importance of the site and proposes its allocation for “ a mix of residential, commercial, community facilities, health, open space and sports and recreational development. In addition to accommodating the future residential and commercial needs of Uxbridge, proposals should facilitate the creation of an arts based cultural quarter, which should create and build on linkages with Brunel University, Uxbridge College and Uxbridge Town Centre”

2.27 Draft Policy SA2 proposes a development framework should be provided. It outlines provisions that the framework will deliver namely:

Integration of the site and the existing Uxbridge town centre Links to surrounding residential areas Further clarification on the location of preferred uses Further clarification on design, density, scale, mass and layout Detailing of Pprotection areas alongside the River Pinn (Green Belt and Green Chain) Preferred uses for important buildings, including listed buildings Location and extension of public open space/parkland within the Green Belt Designation of sports ground for public use Environmental enhancement of River Pinn corridor Public footpath and cycleways Traffic and highways issues Level of car parking Amenity of nearby residents Impacts on air quality and noise levels Visual impacts – landscaping/environmental improvements Identification of listed buildings, and other buildings of historic interest and the opportunities to enhance their settings.

2.28 The above policies and proposed land uses have been reviewed as part of the background work for the SPD, the associated public consultation and workshops and against the overall aims of the community strategy. A short list of acceptable uses across the site are listed below. Specific locations and detailed analysis to support such uses are provided through this SPD. Proposed land uses are:

Arts/cultural facility (Theatre/music venue/conference centre/museum) Conference facilities Café/restaurants Retail and small shops compatible with the aims to develop a cultural quarter 29 Commercial floorspace Employment generating uses, including live/work compatible with the aims to develop a cultural quarter Local health facilities Education facilities Housing Hotel Community facilities Public open space Protection and enhancement of the Green Belt and enhancement of land held in the Green Chain Retention and appropriate reuse of the Listed buildings and other buildings Environmental enhancement of the River Pinn corridor Improved accessibility and connections across the site and surrounds Sustainable exemplar development Waste to Energy Plant Resolution of connectivity issues Sustainable design and construction Sustainable waste recycling

Section 3 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

3.1 Redevelopment of the site should achieve the following development objectives:

a) To ensure a high quality sustainable mixed use development that supports and enhances the vitality and viability of Uxbridge Town Centre and reflects the site’s strategic location. gateway location in the borough.

b) To make provision towards the residential, employment and recreational needs of the local and wider population having regard to the area’s general character.

c) To ensure re-development of the site can be accommodated without detriment to the local community and the environment.

d) To protect and enhance the green belt, the historical built and natural environment, the River Pinn corridor and other key landscape features. where appropriate.

e) To ensure the safe and sustainable access within and around the site, both during construction and for the completed development project. An holistic and integrated approach to public transport, vehicular traffic, cycle and pedestrian access, servicing and emergency vehicles is provided to, within and from the site and within the local vicinity by incorporating traffic and transport initiatives where necessary. needs to be planned for.

BACKGROUND

3.2 The basis for the framework for the development of the site has taken into account initial studies regarding its accessibility in terms of public transport, its physical and built form characteristics and the opportunities and constraints within the site. However, it should be recognised that the capacity of transport networks to cater for the additional demands will need to be demonstrated through any planning applications. Implications for the local traffic and public transport network may influence the design, density and types of uses for the site.

3.3 Given the size of the site, the physical constraints and opportunities, and the proposed town centre extension, the development framework has identified the; the basis for the development framework for the RAF Uxbridge site can be seen as four distinct areas. This assists in a practical way for ease of reference, but also recognizes the importance of limiting the size of the town centre extension and different characteristics of the site. Nevertheless it is not intended that each quarter will be a distinct entity and excellent links, both visual and physical, will be provided to create an integrated, 31 attractive and well functioning site. The four distinct areas are identified on the development framework map as:

Proposed town centre extension Northern quarter Southern quarterdrant Open space/Hillingdon House quarter

3.4 Given the strategic location of land owned by Annington Property Ltd Homes land in the northwest of the site, and the likelihood that this would be a future area of change, this land has been included reflected in proposals for the northern quarter. The importance of connectivity and integration between the Annington Homes land to the south and new development has also been reflected in the southern quarter proposals.

Map 8 – RAF Uxbridge quarters © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

TABLE 3.1 – Description of Quarters and preferred land uses Quarters Description Preferred land uses

Proposed Town centre The aspiration for this quarter is • Arts/cultural facility extension to provide a mix of town centre (theatre/music venue/ land uses compatible with the Borough museum) which PTAL 5 – 3 urban existing Uxbridge town centre may include a community without detracting from it. It use component PTAL 5/4 - flats should become a vibrant part of • Associated A3 (restaurants 55 -260 dwellings per ha the town centre, encouraging and cafés) and A4 (drinking (based on 2.7- 3.7 habitable evening activity through the establishments) uses rooms per unit) establishment of a major • Complementary retail with arts/cultural facility. It should also no adverse impact onto a PTAL 3 - terraces, flats support the employment and the existing town centre (55 – 145 dwellings/per/ha commercial needs of the town • Higher density residential based on 2.7 – 3.7 habitable centre as well as residential uses • B1a offices, rooms per unit) in appropriate locations. Good • Employment, live/work units quality urban design should (creative industries) create good links to open space, Alternative location of a local and create vibrant and attractive health facility public spaces. • Vibrant public spaces • Visual links between the existing High street, the proposed town centre extension and the areas of existing open space. • Appropriate re-use of listed former cinema Northern quarter The aspiration is for a high quality • Residential predominantly lower density • Public access near alongthe Likely PTAL 2 - 3 suburban residential area, which reflects Riverthe River Pinn to the environmental values of the facilitate access to Hillingdon Detached and linked houses, current green chain designation House Farm facilities and to terrace houses and flats while recognising that the other parts of the site in a suburban setting adjoining Annington Property • Protect and enhance Homes land to the west is Enhancement ecological and PTAL 3 - 2 is 35 - 95 dwellings potentially an area of future flood mitigation benefits of per ha based on 2.7 – 4.6 change. Protection and theof river corridor habitable rooms per unit. enhancement of the river corridor • Location of 2-form primary is sought in accordance with its school * Current draft PTAL is 3 –1A Green Chain designation. • Potential use (or part use) of sports pitch for school The Annington Homes Property • Re-use of some existing Ltd land would be suitable for a buildings as appropriate mix of residential densities with a small number of town centre uses relevant to the site’s function as an interface between the residential and proposed town centre extension areas.

TABLE 3.1 (cont) – Description of Quarters and preferred land uses Quarters Description Preferred land uses

Southern quadrant Mix of residential types and • Residential densities. Higher densities • Local shops Likely PTAL 4 – 2 suburban towards Hillingdon Road • Alternative location for 2-form reflecting higher accessibility. primary school PTAL 4 – 45 – 70 d/per ha Street design around the • Possible location of local PTAL 3 65 – 95 d/per ha “Homezone” concept is sought. health facility PTAL 2 – 35 – 50 d/per ha A local community focus, which • Enhancement of existing Based on 2.7 – 4.6 habitable may comprise of local shop, natural and built environment rooms per unit. health centre and public space is sought. There should be Suburban setting with a mix of connectivity and integration with housing types. Annington Property Ltd Homes land to the south.

Open space/Hillingdon Retention and enhancement of • Visitor centre/RAF museum House quadrant green belt as high quality public based around the Bunker open space connected to the • Residential Likely PTAL 1B suburban town centre with enhancement • Facilitation of nature river to the River Pinn corridor, walk to the south, improving Detached and linked houses in including footpaths near the access on to and around the a suburban setting, rivera river walk. Protection and site reuse of and enhance Hillingdon • Restoration and reuse of House and the bunker with Hillingdon House for a hotel appropriate re-use and other acceptable use such as residential. High quality, lower density • Potential location of recreation No greater than 35 dwellings housing on eastern infill areas or other acceptable uses in per ha based on special consistent and complementary flood plain in the south-west circumstances of the site with to surrounding residential use, corner (dependent on flood the higher minimum target of the listed buildings and historic and ecology study). 4.6 habitable rooms per unit landscape. • Protect and enhance areas sought. of ecological importance • Integrate any new structures with existing natural and built environment, with particular respect to listed buildings

Map 9 Indicative Site Development Framework © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008

CHARACTER GUIDANCE FOR THE PROPOSED TOWN CENTRE EXTENSION

Aspiration

3.5 The aspiration for this quarter is the creation of a lively mixed use area to enhance Uxbridge’s “Metropolitan” status with the provision of commercial activity, the creation of an evening destination point and cultural quarter based around a significant arts/cultural facility. Key to this is the re- connection of the site to the existing town centre and extension of the High Street as a main pedestrian thoroughfare along with links to the surrounding areas.

Character

3.6 A mix of uses is sought in this location, with the major proposed land uses being B1a offices, specialist retail uses and the development of an arts/cultural quarter. Residential above these uses, subordinate to the town centre’s commercial/ cultural uses would also acceptable in this location. The creation of “landmark” buildings of exceptional design, especially at the key view entry points to the site and to the Uxbridge town centre (being the St Andrew’s and Chimes roundabouts) will be required are sought to create focal points, and a sense of identity and attractive places.

3.7 Commercial and other professional uses should be clustered close to the existing town centre with comparison retail uses that supports the existing functions of the town centre. Servicing and freight delivery should be a key consideration at the earliest stage such that this will not impact on the character and aesthetics of the site and surrounds.

3.8 The creation of a cultural quarter is sought around a distinctive arts/ cultural/ community facility (i.e. theatre/museum/conferencing) located in a prominent position with supporting uses such as restaurants and cafes (A3) and drinking establishments (A4) in the High Street extension. Promotion of a cultural quarter within this sector is sought through the availability of smaller commercial units in a distinct location. The provision of a distinct cluster of live/work units or other employment to facilitate the location of creative industries is also sought.

3.9 Extension of the High Street is sought onto the site. This should allow easy and safe pedestrian and cycle movement between RAF Uxbridge and the town centre and improvement to the street level environment at the St Andrew’s roundabout. Attractive civic space should be incorporated into the design of the town centre extension High Street extension, with hich should be a local focal point, with care not to detract from Uxbridge’s main focus around the Uxbridge underground. Public art and street furniture should be integrated in the design of the High Street – ideally a sequence of features should be provided as a ”guide” from the Underground station. New developments should maximise the opportunity to focus on artistic street furniture along the High Street, and to create a key object/installation. The use of the historic listed cinema as a public focus point is encouraged sought.

37 3.10 Buildings should provide an interesting and attractive vista and roofline from key viewpoints. The creation of higher densities and heights close to Uxbridge town centre, and within the town centre extension along the new High Street would be expected will be required, with a graduation in heights away from this. Retention of existing avenues of mature trees and groups of vegetation is sought. Reuse of existing military buildings of interest is encouraged. Proposals that involve the loss of any buildings will need to be justified where possible.

Table 3.2 Proposed town centre extension - land uses Desirable Description Acceptable Description Commercial B1a offices Primarily office space, A2 Financial & complimentary uses to professional create vibrant areas and services sustainable economic C1 Hotel development Total gross area of at least A3/A4 Restaurants and 35,000m2 Total area drinking 69,675m2 establishments D1 Health facility Retail A1 shops Comparison floor space compatible with an arts /cultural quarter. Cultural Art/cultural (Theatre/ museum/ B8/C3 Clustered quarter facility. D1/ conferencing) Live work together sui generis units A3/A4 Restaurants and D1 Health facility, drinking establishments Crèche, art galleries Housing C3 – Prefer C3 – Prefer No more than above ground upper one third town level as part of ground level centre extension mixed use as part of land take for mixed use housing. D1 Health facility

Community D1 Health Facility, D2 Uses community building/s

Table 3.3 Proposed town centre extension – summary of development parameters and issues Urban form Scale and massing should relate to existing urban form of eastern end of Uxbridge town centre in terms of height, form and urban grain Heights General form 3 – 6 stories, only buildings of exceptional design that respect RAF Northolt safeguarding issues and sustainability objectives will be permitted atabove 5-6 storeys and above. Urban form Predominantly commercial with promotion of a cultural quarter. Housing type Flats – above ground floor Housing target Expected to be around 700 bout 332 units given the PTAL and town (based on PTAL) centre status. There is the expectation that housing will be subordinate 38 to the commercial functions of the town centre extension and the character of the area. . As such, no more than one third proposed town centre uses to be housing. Key Issues Resolution of pedestrian and cycle access between the site and town centre Retention of historic geometric layout and buildings where appropriatepossible Provision of a high quality public realm including public art Retention and reuse of features such as the St Andrews Gate Restoration and reuse of the Listed Cinema High quality interface with Green Belt Retention and enhancement of significant trees and landscaping Reuse of buildings of merit where appropriatepossible Enhancement of view corridor to Hillingdon House Location of major vehicular access point into site

CHARACTER GUIDANCE FOR THE SOUTHERN QUADRANT

Aspiration

3.11 The creation of a high quality residential area with a distinct identity with a mix of densities and styles based around a local community node, linked by a series of amenity spaces and high quality public realm with links to the Green Belt and to the adjoining land controlled by Annington Property Ltd Homes.

Character

3.12 This area should provide for predominantly residential development. Promotion of the homezone concept and of walkable neighbourhoods will be required is sought, with ease of access to local community facilities, the town centre extension and to public transport nodes. The “sustainable exemplar” development could locate in this quadrant if good accessibility and other sustainability parameters are addressed.

3.13 The site framework should reflect the history of the site through innovative urban design solutions and retain the formal avenues of trees. This should include reference to site features such as the 1920s layout and where appropriate possible, the retention and reuse of buildings, such as the barrack blocks where they can be readily converted and will add to the character of the site, and other features associated with the site’s military history. A green network of local amenity and public spaces with links to the Green Belt is also sought. Incorporation of the land owned by Annington Property Ltd (APL)Homes within the new community must be demonstrated through plans and details submitted at application stage, in consultation with APL.

3.14 A community “node” must be included to give a focal area for the new population and the adjoining Annington Property Ltd land Homes. This is expected to comprise of local convenience shop/s, local health facility, childcare facilities and other local community facilities as appropriate. Ideally this should be accommodated around a local play area or amenity park in a well designed setting to facilitate interaction and a ‘sense 39 of community’. The community node and amenity area should be an active area that would discourage crime and anti-social behaviour. The timing of the provision of facilities will be negotiated at the planning application stage and will need to be provided concurrently with residential development.

3.15 The redevelopment for residential use will need to provide iversity diversity in housing form, densities, height and type. is sought. With regard to parcel size, smaller plots with active frontages and a mix of residential building types is sought. The promotion of a clear public front and private back is encouraged (for example by use of the perimeter block) with primary access from the street. Higher densities should be located close to public transport nodes, community facilities and nearer to the town centre extensions. Suitable amenity areas, (which may include allotments) and play space in accordance with the Hillingdon Design and Access Statement (HDAS) requirements and the Mayor’s Play Space SPG will need to be demonstrated at the master plan stage. should be designed in at the earliest stage and safe access to it be provided.

3.16 Along Hillingdon Road the opportunity to provide a gateway vista to Uxbridge town centre should be maximised and improvements to the be public realm (i.e. existing landscaping) provided. Blank walls and façades and long unbroken building lines shall ould be avoided and the scale and massing of new development should respect the suburban form of Uxbridge that adjoins to the west. Opportunities to provide interesting views vista through the provision of landmark buildings of exceptional design with a range of different heights and styles should be promoted. Strong visual links to the existing landscaping and green spaces on the site will also be required. New development on RAF Uxbridge should demonstrate compatibility with the existing urban form in interface areas (i.e. to the west of the A4020 and adjoining Annington property homes) through good design, especially in relation to bulk, scale and massing and avoiding overlooking. Access routes through and around the site should take the opportunity to improve the visual appearance of the site in addition to the functional role of improving accessibility.

3.17 A quality interface between the development and the Green Belt to the eastern edge of this quarter is sought to facilitate public surveillance, whilst preserving and enhancing the natural environment and aesthetic appeal of the site. Buildings and streets should be orientated towards the green belt to encourage human activity and passive surveillance. Consideration is required forof the final building design and siting with the aim of providing an attractive vista from the public open space. As such uninterrupted blanket building heights, long unbroken walls, and unattractive features are discouraged.

3.18 Land in the River Pinn flood plain in the southeast should retain its openness and flood plain function. Public recreation or another use suitable with its flood storage and ecological function, such as allotment gardens may be acceptable in some areas. Attention to the orientation of buildings in the interface to this land is sought to ensure it does not become secluded from public activity

Table 3.4 - Southern quadrant - land uses Use Desirable Description Acceptable Description Housing C3 housing Mix of housing Allotments Where compatible 40 Table 3.4 - Southern quadrant - land uses Use Desirable Description Acceptable Description types and with flood functions densities and areas of biodiversity value Community A1 shop/s To provide for D1 Health facility, crèche node local Alternative location for population’s primary school (daily needs) only) Local amenity park D1 Local community space

Table 3.5 Southern quadrant – summary of development parameters and issues Urban form Should show relationship with the surrounding residential form and urban grain to the west and Annington Property LtdHomes to the south. Consistency with the site topography is sought to encourage interesting vistas internally. High quality design sought on the interface with the A4020 and when viewed from the green belt. Heights Generally 2 – 4 stories, up to 5 in parts with a graduation downwards in interface to the Green Belt. Key Character Predominantly residential linked by a green network with an identifiable summary community node. Location of a “sustainable exemplar” development. Housing type Flats, terraces

Housing target About 964 760 units based on PTAL's Key Issues - Provision of safe and secure pedestrian access across the A4020 - Retention of historic geometric layout and reuse of buildings of merit where appropriate - Provision of a high quality public amenity spaces as a network and connected to the Green Belt (including public art) - Provision of a community focal point - High quality interface and public surveillance with Green Belt - Retention and enhancement of significant trees and landscaping - Enhancement of view corridor to Hillingdon House - Location of major vehicular access point into site - Provision of a “sustainable exemplar” development

CHARACTER GUIDANCE FOR THE NORTHERN QUARTER

Aspiration

3.19 The provision of a high quality lower density residential development with a clearly identifiable environmental character, protection of biodiversity values and the enhancement of the River Pinn with provision for integration of this part of the site with the adjoining Annington Property Homes land to the northwest.

Character

3.20 Building heights and scale vary across this northern part of the site. Land occupied by Annington Property Ltd Homes in the northwest may have a higher housing density due to its public transport accessibility and proximity to the town centre. Lower densities and scale would be sought for land closer to the east with consideration to the detached residential character to the north and the visual impact on the Green Belt. The design of the development should be encouraged to maximise biodiversity values by providing green links from this part of the site to the ecological corridor along the River Pinn, in accordance with its Green Chain designation. The riparian corridor of the River Pinn is sought as open space to protect its flood plain and ecological functions. Facilitation of foot and cycle access to the north as part of a river walkway near the river is sought, subject to no adverse impacts on the ecological importance of this area. Consideration of the integration of land owned by Annington Property Ltd Homes land within the Northern Quarter as a potential area of future change should be considered as part of the site proposals.

3.21 Generally smaller plots with active frontages at a human scale are sought in this quarter. For lower densities the promotion of a clear public frontage but with privacy to the rear of new development is encouraged (for example by use of the perimeter block) with primary access from the street. Reuse of attractive existing buildings such as the parts of the Hospital complex and the Children’s Play Centre should be considered. The nature and scale of any future proposals for the land owned by Annington Property Ltd Homes land should reflect its location between the town centre (and possible expansion) and the lower densities sought to the east of this quarter.

3.22 One location of the new primary school is in this quarter and a high quality sustainable design at a scale sympathetic to surrounding residential is encouraged. A focal point for this part of the site, compatible with surrounding residential uses and its ecological values including the need to ensure minimal traffic generation is sought and this may include the primary school.

Table 3.6 Northern quarter - land uses Use Desirable Description Acceptable Description Housing C3 housing Mix of housing types and densities Community Amenity space D1 Primary School Parkland Parkland Linking green Allotment Where compatible along river belt to north gardens with ecological corridor and south values Provision of a rivernature walk Other* See table Town centre uses in (Annington 3.2 interface area with HomesProperty town centre/ Ltd) proposed town

42 Table 3.6 Northern quarter - land uses Use Desirable Description Acceptable Description centre extension compatible and subordinate to this.

Table 3.7 Northern quarter – summary of development parameters and issues Urban form A mix of densities across this part when considered with the Annington HomesProperty land, with lower density residential in the east compatible with the surrounding residential form, fine grain layout and high level of environmental amenity Heights 2 – 3 storey up to 4 in parts. Heights on the Annington Property Homes land should be compatible with those surrounding. Character Residential and possible location of primary school. Land occupied by summary Annington Property Ltd Homes is expected to be predominantly residential. A small amount of uses in the interface to the proposed town centre expansion area, which are compatible and complimentary to the town centre, may be acceptable. Housing type Terrace, flats and houses Housing target About 26580 units within that part of the site owned by VSM and based on PTALs Defence Estates (1.7 ha may be taken up for a primary school in this location). Land occupied by Annington Property LtdHomes will be required to be appraised at the time proposals are made. Key Issues - Provision of green network in quarter connecting to river corridor - Connection and integration between any future proposals for the adjoining Annington Property Ltd Homes site and the northern quarter. - Protection and enhancement of the River Pinn corridor, provision of public access - Retention of the St Andrew’s right of way - Provision of a community focal point - High quality interface with Green Belt - Retention of significant trees and landscaping - Alternative location for a “sustainable exemplar” development

CHARACTER GUIDANCE FOR THE OPEN SPACE/HILLINGDON HOUSE QUARTER

Aspiration

3.23 The primary aim forof this quarter is to maintain and enhance amenity and biodiversity values and sense of openness of the Green Belt, preserve, enhance and encourage the public reuse of Hillingdon House and preserve, enhance, promote and protect the 11 Group Operations Room (Bunker).

Character

43 3.24 New development proposals will be required to be sympathetic to the sense of openness of the green belt; the setting of the listed buildings; and to respect the adjoining Area of Special Local Character at Vine Lane. The openness of the Green Belt should be retained and enhanced. Land contained in the Green Belt will be sought as public parkland, connected via the River Pinn to the Green Belt to the north. Protection of the riverine corridor in its natural state is required and enhancement of biodiversity and habitat values. Vehicular access across this space is discouraged and should be limited to emergency access traffic generated by Hillingdon House, the Bunker/Museum, and similar uses only. The promotion of public use and access via walk and cycleways is encouraged. The restoration of the historic landscape of Hillingdon House will be sought as part of any site redevelopment.

3.254 The retention, protection and promotion of the Bunker as a visitor attraction and reuse of adjoining buildings for this purpose will be sought. Any proposal for improvements or new buildings will require careful consideration of the specific requirements of the underground listed buildings and its external landscape, and the landscape quality of the open space.

3.26 Proposals are sought for Hillingdon House that restore, enhance and maintain the historic building and its associated historic landscape. The preferred land use is for a hotel or C3 use or other compatible use that permits some public access in and around the Listed Building. high quality, low density (predominantly detached) residential Any development will need to that respects the character of Hillingdon House, the surrounding open space and established trees and vegetationsylvan character along with the nd the height and form of surrounding residential development. Residential development in this quarter shall be high quality with a predominantly low-density layout informed by the existing vegetation and open character of the surrounds. Planning obligations are likely to be sought from the redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site towards the restoration of the historic landscape. Other grants and funding opportunities to restore important historic features should be exhausted before a section 106 agreement is signed.

Table 3.8 Hillingdon House/Open Space - land uses Use Desirable Description Acceptable Description Housing C3 housing Low density high quality development Hillingdon house C1 Hotel Residential/other Use, (subject to and associated assessment) buildings which restores, enhances and maintains the building and its setting C3 High quality housing (flats or other) Group 11 D1 Museum Operations associated Room with the 44 Table 3.8 Hillingdon House/Open Space - land uses Use Desirable Description Acceptable Description Bunker’s WWII role and specific site history

Table 3.9 Open space/Hillingdon House quarter– summary of development parameters and issues Urban form Preservation of the sense of openness and high landscape values through high quality low density residential development. New development will be required to demonstrate compatibility with the Listed Buildings and their settings and Area of Special Local Character. Heights Generally 2 – 3 stories Key Character Predominantly residential linked by a green network with an summary identifiable community node. Possible location of a “sustainable exemplar” development. Housing type Detached and attached houses Housing target About 60 59 units (Specific constraints are likely to affect the siting according to PTAL and design of housing in this section). Larger Hhigh quality family houses are specifically sought in this location.. Key Issues - Protection of the settings of the Listed building and the sense of openness of the Green Belt - Reuse and retention of the Listed buildings - Preservation of the sense of openness through detached and semi detached dwellings - Provision of a public park in the Green belt, protection of ecological values and provision of public access ways. - Retention of significant trees and landscaping - Enhancement of views to/from Hillingdon House

Section 4 REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE LAYOUT

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

Master Plan and Design Codes

4.1 A Master Plan is required to be submitted with the site proposals. Design Codes for the site reflecting the aspirations for the different parts of the site and the requirements in the SPD are required to be submitted with this. Future development will be required to comply with any approved Masterplan, Design Codes, and associated documents this.

Urban Design Framework

4.2 The following objectives should inform the design framework:

To respect and be influenced by the forms and layout of the existing historic routes, block patterns on the site and surrounds and the height of retained buildings and landscape features, based on the landscape master plan.

To provide attractive and interesting landmark buildings and a mix of dwelling types and tenure that offers a choice of lifestyle acceptable and accessible to all.

To provide a development which is well connected, readily understood and easily navigated.

To respect the existing attributes of the work with the grain of the landscape with regard to the in terms of topography, ecology, hydrology, geology, soil capability and expected climate, along with the existing built environment where appropriate hydrology and ecology.

To create places for people with a distinctive sense of character and identity, informed by local history

To provide a socially inclusive and accessible development without fear of crime, that will engender a ‘sense of community’ and potential for interaction and engagement .

To limit reduce vehicle trip generation and the associated negative impacts, such as carbon emissions, noise and air pollution, traffic impacts, and other social, environmental and economic impacts, through accessibility and appropriate site design

4.3 London Plan Policy 4B.7 encourages the recognition and management of local distinctiveness and London Plan Policy 4B.1, amongst other matters, identifies the need to enhance green networks and respect local context and history. These are important considerations in the development of the site layout. The existing spacious landscape setting of the site is a unique asset for the Uxbridge area, which strongly contributes to the attractiveness and local distinctiveness of the site. Equally as important is the retention of the history of the site and enhancement of the Listed buildings and utilisation of other existing buildings where appropriate. In accordance with Saved Polices BE19 and BE21 of the UDP consideration must be given to the relationship of the site with the surrounding residential area.

Site Analysis

4.4 A comprehensive site analysis should be undertaken and supplied in support of the site layout for the redevelopment. This should address natural and manmade landscape features, topography, landscape character areas, scale and character of open spaces, significant habitat, landscape elements and built elements, enclosures, open spaces, visual links and landmarks.

Landscape and Open Spaces Strategy

4.5 A landscape and open spaces strategy should be developed for the site, which will inform the final master plan. A green and blue (water) framework for the site should be developed. The green framework should be developed in parallel with the 46 accessibility/movement network. The green/blue grid, open spaces and movement network should be the basis for the final master plan.

4.6 A full tree survey must be submitted with the planning application and should inform the landscape strategy. An analysis of the importance of trees (individuals and groups) is required in order to identify the opportunities and constraints the trees will have on site layout proposals.

Visual analysis

4.7 A visual analysis will be required as part of the site analysis, which should inform the Master Plan. This should include the image and perception of the area, an assessment of gaps and enclosure, strategic and local views, skylines, landmarks, gateways and thresholds, boundaries and barriers, legibility and aesthetic quality.

4.8 Protection and enhancement of key views will be sought as part of the site proposals and should be reflected where possible in the design codes. An early appraisal of this is: From the western part of the site – Hillingdon House and its surrounds and the spire of the church on Hillingdon Hill. The opportunity for interesting vistas of the new development on the western side from Hillingdon House (currently over the green belt and river corridor) The “gateway” of the site at the St Andrews (particularly when viewed from Uxbridge High Street) The vista of the new development along the A4020

Historical layout

4.9 The design, layout and urban form of the new development should take account of the retained buildings, spaces, routes and landscape and be developed together with an appropriate layout of new routes through the site. This should be demonstrated through the site analysis information. The English Heritage document Historic Military Aviation Sites – Conservation Management Guidance identifies RAF Uxbridge as a key site. As part of its general guidance, it states that, “On sites where coherent groups of historic buildings survive, it is desirable to maintain the scale and density of the original development and the visual connection between buildings….”

4.10 The preservation of history and memory of the site should influence the urban design strategy. Key characteristics which should inform this are the existing symmetrical layout of the parade ground and positioning of the 1920’s barrack blocks, together with the organised planting of avenues of trees. Retention of the existing avenues of mature trees will be required sought as part of the wider landscaping proposals for the site where possible. Consideration should also be given to retaining existing buildings where appropriate.

Urban form

47 4.11 In accordance with London Plan policy 4B.7 and PPS1, the aim should be to create a locally distinctive place and an inclusive one. Redevelopment of the site must integrate within the surrounding area in accordance with Saved Policies BE13 (harmonisation with street scene) BE20, (daylight and sunlight) and BE21 (impacts on residential amenity). While a mix of higher heights and densities is acceptable in the area of the town centre extension, elsewhere on the site height, bulk and densities must be compatible with site characteristics, historical features and listed buildings.

4.12 Distinctive building styles, which reflect sustainable and landscape themes are sought to create a distinct identity on the RAF Uxbridge site. Attention to detail and high quality finish is sought, rather than reproductions of “high volume” schemes. The opportunity for the provision of different textures and materials as part of buildings and the wider urban environment could be considered. Incorporation of functional aspects of the scheme such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems uDs is required encouraged as anto be integrated into thel part of the design for the site.

4.13 A number of scattered buildings and features such as the St Andrew’s and Battle of Britain Gates offer the opportunity to be reused, relocated and incorporated as part of proposals for the redevelopment of the site, to promote its historical associations and provide local points of interest. In addition to the listed Hillingdon House and former cinema, a A number of other buildings, structures and features to be reused should be considered, as there are other buildings, structures and features of historical, artistic or cultural value or merit, that could be utilised, preserved and enhanced through the redevelopment of the site. A thorough analysis of buildings, structures and features across the site should be provided with a planning application. The organised planting of amenity trees is a key feature of the site and should be retained. where possible.

4.14 Consideration should be given to the influence and relationship of buildings of historic merit to influence site proposals. While Hillingdon House and the military association is one, there are also aspects such as the small workshops adjacent to the former walled garden of Hillingdon House, which can be used as inspiration for determining the character of new neighbourhoods (for low rise parts) i.e. ‘The Gardener’s Village’ for instance.

4.15 Design Codes should reflect the variation of urban form requirements within the RAF Uxbridge site, with attention to the specific requirements for the Listed Buildings and the requirements to protect the historic landscape and openness of the Green Belt.

Height restrictions

4.16 The site is located in close proximity to RAF Northolt and as such any new developments will need to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the safe and effective operation of RAF Northolt. Height restrictions will apply to all development on the site, with a likely maximum of 5-6 storeys in the town centre. High rise development and new buildings will need to be sited and designed to ensure they do not pose a potential hazard or risk to aircraft utilising RAF Northolt or associated radar equipment, and this 48 will apply to temporary structures such as construction cranes. This will be subject to further consultation with MoD safeguarding on detailed designs. The site is within the published statutory height safeguarding map for RAF Northolt. There will be a constraint on high-rise development (approximately 24m above ground level). New buildings, including temporary structures, will need to be sited and designed to ensure they do not infringe the safeguarding surfaces.

4.17 Further information on expected heights is given under character guidance for each quarter, particularly Tables 3.2-3.8, along with sections on aviation safeguarding and the requirements for the listed buildings.

Public art

4.18 Provision for public art should be accommodated in any redevelopment proposals. This may include reuse of historical features such as the St Andrews Gates as focal points where possible. The provision of public art should accord with the Council’s HDAS Public Realm document. This matter should be addressed in the Design Codes, with the main provision sought in the public areas such as the town centre extension. The site’s history and context such as its historic associations with aviation should be considered as part of proposals.

Lighting

4.19 The Design Codes should address the opportunity to use innovative lighting to promote a sense of identity, illuminate key features and guide main pedestrian thoroughfares. Aviation safeguarding requirements may apply, and consultation with MoD safeguarding will be required.

Community safety

4.20 Guidance in the Hillingdon Secured by Design SPG, along with the UK Police “Secure by Design” design codes and ODPM guidance should be considered and public safety and security measures addressed. The “Secured by Design” standard must be incorporated into the design and layout of housing, and the site as a whole should achieve “secured by design” status. Early consultation with the Metropolitan Police Architectural Liaison Officer is required to inform the planning process and the development of any plans for the site. Public facilities such as schools and medical facilities should also consider these requirements. All car parks must meet the Safer Parking 'ParkMark' standards.

4.21 Public safety and surveillance must be considered at the earliest stage in the site design. From a public safety perspective permeability should be limited to logical and necessary routes. All pedestrian footways and alleys should be as direct and overlooked as possible.

49 4.22 Extension of the Uxbridge Town Centre CCTV system will be required in the town centre extension. This may also be required for specific public facilities and entry points to them such as children’s playgrounds LAPS and LEAPS.

Key Items that should be addressed in the site layout at the earliest stage

Protection of key views Reflection of the site’s history through innovative urban design solutions Interface and relationship to the Green Belt, River Pinn and Listed buildings Protection of the ecological values of the River Pinn corridor, green belt and green chain land Connection between the Uxbridge town centre to the site to the proposed parkland and beyond to Hillingdon East Identification and retention of interesting site features to add to the richness of the urban environment Provision of a sense of place in the development, encouragement of diversity in developing distinct neighbourhoods, landmarks and character areas. The need to carefully consider the balance between the public and private realm in street design with the aim of ensuring attractive and vibrant street frontages. The provision of a linked series of public squares and amenity spaces which form part of the wider public realm Retention of formal tree lined avenues and other landscape features Street layouts to maximise solar gain and consideration of sustainability requirements at the earliest stage of master planning Incorporation of flood management measures i.e. SUuDSs in the layout Consideration of public safety and secured by design in the layout

4.23 A Design and Access Statement will be required to be submitted as with the planning application. Principles set out in this document should be carried through in the detailed planning for the site.

MOVEMENT, CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY

Strategic Transport Objectives

4.24 The redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site will inevitably have some impact on the local transport network. Before redeveloping the site it is essential that the potential impacts on the surrounding road network, public transport capacity and accessibility to and from the site are assessed. Proposals will need to mitigate against any adverse impacts through appropriate infrastructure and service improvements.

4.25 The redevelopment of this site will have some significant impacts, but also represents a unique opportunity to improve the current public transport, cycling and walking facilities within and around the site, Uxbridge town centre and surrounding areas. Any redevelopment proposal must capitalise on these opportunities to help realise an exemplary development for the overall site, and improve the opportunities and quality of life for residents of the borough.

4.26 As part of the planning process for redevelopment of the site, the objectives of PPG13, the London Plan, and the specific circumstances and constraints on this site should form the basis for masterplan and design proposals. Any Traffic Assessment and Travel Plans need to recognize these planning principles and adhere to the general planning objectives, and especially the aim of:

Integrating the site within the surrounding area

Improving connectivity, permeability and accessibility, whilst incorporating secure by design principles

Aiming to prioritise walking and cycling over other modes of transport, by providing high quality walking/cycling routes and facilities

Mitigating against adverse impacts on existing transport infrastructure

Improving access to, and quality of, local transport services

Reducing the need to travel, and reducing reliance on the private car

4.27 Current evidence suggests that the redevelopment of the site may be constrained by the current traffic and transport situation. For example the local road network around the site, along with the strategic road network (particularly junctions of the nearby M40) are currently operating at or near capacity. In addition the local bus network is currently operating at capacity and appropriate infrastructure improvements will be necessary. Existing walking and cycling links between the town centre, the RAF site and the wider

51 area are also very limited and unappealing at present. These and other issues are expected to be addressed through any planning application to redevelop the site.

4.24 A critical part of the success of any redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge and the extension of the town centre into the site is the need to overcome the physical barrier of the St Andrew’s roundabout and the A4020/B483, to facilitate pedestrian movement, create attractive surrounds and a ‘gateway’ to the town centre. In this regard, an environment where the pedestrian is given a high priority is essential between the eastern end of the High Street and RAF Uxbridge. The issues of pedestrian connection between the site and the town centre cannot be considered in isolation. Any solution to reconnect the site to the town centre should be undertaken with the dual aim of encouraging regeneration and improving the public realm of the eastern end of the High Street.

4.25 With the redevelopment of the site, the overarching objectives of PPG13 have been considered in setting out the parameters. These are: That more sustainable choices for both people and for moving freight are promoted Increased accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling That need to travel is reduced, especially by car

Traffic and Local transport principles for the redevelopment of the site

4.286 In addition to the general principles raised above, a number of site specific issues have also been identified. In accordance with Saved Policies AM1, AM2, AM6, AM7, AM8, AM9 and AM10 of the Hillingdon UDP, the following issues parameters have been listed to help identified which should inform the movement strategy and the basis of the master planning of the site, and will need to be specifically addressed in a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan/s. These include, but are not limited to:

• Provision of a high quality pedestrian and cycle connection to the High Street to ensure the vitality and viability of both the new town centre extension and the existing high street. This will need to significantly improve the current unsatisfactory access under the St Andrews roundabout, which is considered to be a critical part of the success of any redevelopment on RAF Uxbridge and extension of the town centre into the site. There is a need to overcome the physical and psychological barrier of the St Andrew’s roundabout and the A4020/B483, to facilitate pedestrian and cycle movement, create attractive surrounds and a “gateway” to the town centre. In this regard, an environment where the pedestrian is given a high priority is essential between the eastern end of the High Street and RAF Uxbridge. Any solution to reconnect the site to the town centre should be undertaken with the dual aim of encouraging regeneration and improving the public realm of the eastern end of the High Street.

• The objective of this should be to link the Uxbridge town centre and the town centre extension and promote an environment where pedestrians have priority.

52 • Provision of a high quality pedestrian foot and cycle link connecting the High Street through the town centre extension, to the proposed open space (green belt) and through to Vine Lane/Hillingdon East, maximising key views and amenity for users along the way.

• Provision of internal access to the site where major vehicular movements are channelled towards the A4020/B483 and only essential access movements occur to Vine Lane. In this regard east-west traffic movements within the site should be minimised, to ensure the quality of the Green Belt as public realm and maintain the ecological values of the River Pinn corridor.

• The internal design should not encourage north-south or east-west “rat-running” or encourage traffic diversion to surrounding residential streets. In particular traffic impacts to the east of the site, especially Vine Lane, will need to be minimised.

• Minimisation ofLimit the creation of new entry points onto the A4020/B483, in particular major junctions. Opening up a fifth arm for vehicular traffic to the site from the St Andrew’s roundabout is very unlikely to benot supported. Proposals for new access points must consider the impact on new and existing residents and any other sensitive land uses.

• Ensuring that provision for servicing and freight delivery, particularly for the town centre extension, is incorporated with minimal impact on the character and aesthetic quality of the site and new town centre.

• Consideration of the need to maintain amenity values and pedestrian and cycle accessibility in the design of the internal main connector roads.

• Incorporation of Promotion of “homezone” concepts across the site, subject to secure by design considerations. The “homezone” is particularly relevant for the residential quarters and the town centre extension. This shall include provisions such as shared pedestrian, cycle and vehicle space, restraint on car movement and restraints on car parking. In this regard development should comply with the following objectives Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers’ (IHIE) Home Zone Design Guidelines published in 2002, along with Home Zones - Challenging the future of our streets from the Department for Transport. The following objectives from the IHIE guidelines are especially important: (Home Zone Design Guidelines, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers 2002).

a)i. To reduce traffic speed to maximise the sense of safety for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, older people, children and people with disabilities,

ii. To incorporate appropriate measures to ensure there are limited risks and potential for conflict between cars and other users.

b)iii. To incorporate attractive paving, street furniture and planting to make theo streets more attractive to users

53 iv. To consider SUDS and drainage in designing streets, to limit the use of kerb and guttering and other hard features and surfaces that can create barriers to mobility impaired people, children, cyclists and pedestrians

c)v. To do everything possible, through design and other measures, to encourage walking and cycling within the home zone and adjacent area

d)vi. To increase surveillance, deterring casual crime

e)vii. To contribute to improving the quality of life of residents and visitors

• Restrict any significant traffic generation to Vine Lane and the east of the siteAvoidance of access for high trip generating development from Vine Lane.

• Recognition of the traffic impacts from Annington Properties Ltdhomes, with the need to minimise impacts on the surrounding road network and the need to incorporate the impact of this into the site design, travel plan framework and future travel plans.

• Early identification and promotion of travel planning concepts, (such as car restraint for certain uses, travel planning for new businesses) from the outset to reduce traffic and air quality impacts. Car parking management is likely to be required on the site due to the location of the town centre and Tube. This should be informed by a transport assessment, along with the framework travel plan, in consultation with the Council and TfL through the planning process, and should be considered from the onset.

• Incorporation of public transport provision in the site design as a necessary part of overall traffic reduction measures. This may include facilities to increase the capacity of the existing bus network.

• Provision of pedestrian and cycle paths access to facilitate easy and safe access, connectivity and permeability with the site and to the surrounding area, whilst adhering to within the considerations of “Secured by Design” principles.

• Provision of easy and safe access from the site for pedestrians to public transport on both sides of Park Road and Hillingdon Road and to the existing and proposed bus and tube stations, along with key destinations such as Brunel University, Uxbridge College, Uxbridge High School, and the new primary school.

• Provision of quality pedestrian and cycle links from the Annington Property Ltd land nnington Homes (pedestrian and cycle) to the site and the new attributes, to ensure that residents have improved walking and cycling access to shops and other facilities, and ensure the APL land is properly integrated within the overall re-development

• Improve and enhance Maximisation of key short and long views, along with and retention the retention of existing tree lined routes along public paths, roads and other routes in the new street/open space layout

• Provision of recreational pedestrian routes in the proposed open space, such as a nature river walk that meanders along a route adjacent to the river, taking advantage of views, amenity and aesthetic attributes of the site, whilst protecting the ecological

54 and floodplain functions of the river. Opportunities to provide and improve upon as well as links to the north and south of the site, to access key sites such as Hillingdon House Farm and Brunel University, should be explored with the Council and other landowners

Public transport requirements 4.29 In accordance with Saved Policy AM2, a review of the impact on local public transport from the new development will be required. This should establish the current baseline situation and assess the impact on it from the new population, workers and visitors to the site. An evaluation will be required to ascertain the requirements for improvement to facilities and/or services to support the redevelopment of the site. 4.30 Planning obligations may be sought in accordance with the planning obligations SPG and draft Council’s adopted Planning Obligations SPD toward public transport improvements. These are likely to be, though not limited to: a) Provision of new, and upgrades to existing, facilities such as bus shelters and bus stops. b) Possible iImprovements to bus arrangements servicing the site c) Possible cContributions to or, or upgrades to, public transport facilities at the Uxbridge underground and bus station. d) Provision of bus stop/ bus standing facilities and driver facilities in the site e) Some form of bus priority measures f) Passenger information systems g) Improvements to transport interchanges as a result of the new population

Car parking requirements

4.31 Any proposals for the site should aim to reduce reliance on the private motor vehicle in accordance with national and London Plan policy guidance. Such an approach will need to be incorporated into the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Framework, which will then inform the approach that should be taken to car parking controls and restraint across the site. Car parking for all uses should comply with Council’s standards applicable at the time and in accordance with Saved Policies AM14, AM15 and AM16 of the Hillingdon UDP, and generally in accordance with the controls of the London Plan and objectives of PPG 13. Whilst parking will need to comply with current standards, as a minimum requirement, car-parking restraint should be investigated as a part of any development proposals, particularly areas located near transport nodes on the western side of the site and near the town centre extension.

4.32 The design and layout of car parking will need to comply with the Council’s adopted standards. Car parking in residential areas should be generally in accordance with the ‘homezone’ concept and will need to ensure facilities are the most visually and functionally appropriate given the needs and constraints of the site, and the other objectives in this SPD. The introduction of car clubs, facilities for electric cars and other initiatives will need to be investigated and will be expected unless proven to be unviable. Developers will be expected to enter in to early discussions with the Council, TfL, the Highways Agency and other relevant parties as part of the planning process. Car parking for all uses should comply with Council’s standards applicable at the time and in accordance with Saved Policies AM14, AM15 and AM16. Currently these are set out as in Annex 1 (car parking standards) in the 2007 UDP Saved Policies. The impacts of trip 55 generation will be assessed accordingly but the incorporation of car parking restraint and travel planning for businesses and residential units in the Town Centre Expansion Area should be considered. Car parking restraint should be investigated as a part of any development proposals located near transport nodes on the western side of the site and near the town centre.

Cycling, cycle parking and storage

4.33 The RAF Uxbridge site lies at the intersection of two key London Cycle Network routes in the borough, and consequently interlinking of the development with other local routes will be very important. Cyclists may also wish to be able to pass from the site to access the public transport interchange at Uxbridge LUL station. The redevelopment of the site will be expected to significantly improve the opportunities for cycling on and around the site. In accordance with London Plan policy 3C.22 and Hillingdon UDP Saved Policy AM9, provision of facilities to promote cycling will be expected to be incorporated in to the masterplan, design proposals, and detailed studies, including the Transport Assessment and Framework Travel Plan and further travel plans. Given the size and scale of the site, and its strategic location, it is expected that cycling will be promoted as a prioritised form of transport, with improved cycle routes, bicycle parking and storage, shower facilities in the workplace and other facilities to ensure safe and accessible cycling opportunities. Bicycle, and where relevant, motorcycle storage should be an integral part of the development. Provision should be made in accordance with Council’s standards for safe and secure parking in convenient locations that deter theft and vandalism, fit within the proposed road and footpath network and conform with the character of the new development.

Accessibility

4.34 The redevelopment of the site will need to demonstrate a commitment to making public transport and the pedestrian environment accessible to everyone, especially disabled people. London Plan Policy 4B.5 ‘creating an inclusive environment’ and the Mayors SPG “Accessible London” provide detailed guidance which will inform the site layout and detailed considerations for any development. Further requirements detailed thein the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement SPD “Accessible Hillingdon” must be included as a key consideration in developing the site masterplan. . The “Accessible Hillingdon” document will need to should be reviewed in its entirety, however but some of the key requirements are:that should inform the master planning are summarised as: a) Routes should be direct, well lit, and well sign posted. They should be level, with the gradient not exceeding 1 in 20. Where the gradient is steeper thanover 1 in 20 it should be designed as ramped access. Cross-falls should not exceed 1 in 50. b) All routes used by pedestrians should be at least 1.8m wide, and preferably 2m wide, to allow wheelchairs and pushchairs to pass, and should be significantly wider in areas of high pedestrian activity. Consideration of all street furniture will need to be demonstrated in the design of footpaths to allow an unobstructed easy flow of pedestrian traffic. If feasible, dDrainage gratings should be located off access routes.

56 c) All street furniture will need toshould be located clear of pedestrian routes and clearly distinguishable from its background. Such additions will need to be given consideration at masterplan stage and detailed through planning applications. d) Level access is essential for the majority of wheelchair users. There should be dropped kerbs at junctions and designated crossing points with appropriate tactile paving. Developers will be expected to demonstrate that the avoidance of kerbs and other barriers has been investigated and incorporated where appropriate. e) Seats should be provided along pedestrian routes and where waiting is likely. There should be space for wheelchairs and pushchairs alongside. f) 10% of all parking spaces shall be provided to mobility standards and must comply with the detailed design requirement s as set out in the Disability Discrimination Act1995 and Building Regulations BS8300: 2001. The design of all car parks including those for people with disabilities, must form an integral part of the design of the entire development, including safe and direct access to the residential units and must achieve “Secure by Design” standards and comply with the SPG on Community Safety by Design. g) Other provisions of HDAS (Accessible Hillingdon) will be required at the planning application and reserved matters stages and as such must be satisfactorily addressed.

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan

4.324.35 In accordance with PPG13, and the requirements of Transport for London (TfL) a Transport Assessment (TA) will be required with any planning application for the site. Any Transport Assessment will need to comply with TfL’s Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance, and should be developed in consultation with the Council, TfL and other stakeholders. A Travel Plan must be developed in parallel with it and as a minimum, the principles submitted with the TA. This to provide an accurate evaluation of the measures proposed and for any alterations to the modal share of a development facilitated by the Travel Plan to be accommodated in the TA.

4.36 For major developments on the site, a detailed In tandem with the TA, a Framework Travel Plan will need to be developed in close consultation with the Council, TfL and other stakeholders, and in accordance with TfL’s “Guidance for workplace/residential travel planning in London”. The framework travel plan will be required at outline application stage, and this would set site-wide targets and a strategy for developing and implementing other travel plan initiatives across the site. This will need to include a management strategy, provision for a travel plan co-ordinator and initiatives relating to physical measures that will be delivered at the outset or early stages of the development. In due course more detailed and site-specific travel plans relating to individual land uses would need to be prepared as detailed planning applications are submitted. be required to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Travel Plans should be consistent with the principles established in this SPD and deliver sustainable transport objectives and reduce traffic. As a general guide the framework travel plan, and subsequent travel plans, should aim to meet the following:

Reductions in car usage, increased use of public transport, walking and cycling. 57 Reduced traffic speeds, improved road safety and personal security. Consolidation of delivery and freight movements. The objectives of the air quality management plan. Reduce vehicle carbon emissions for the development as a whole through modal split shift and reduction in on-site car parking and ownership where appropriate and achievable Consistency with the Local Implementation Plan Consistency with advice from TfL and relevant local and London wide policies.

Construction Traffic Management

4.37 In accordance with Saved Policy AM2, a construction traffic management plan will be required to be provided prior to works commencing on site with the aim of minimising traffic impacts on and around the site, ultimately through limiting unnecessary vehicular movement if possible. The developer will be required to adhere to the construction management plan during the site development and construction phase. A construction management plan will be required to be developed with the Council, TfL, the Highways Agency and other key stakeholders.

OPEN SPACE AND BIODIVERSITY

4.38 The high amenity and environmental values of the landscaping, Green Belt and the River Pinn corridor are recognised on this site as well as the objective to preserve and enhance them. The potential to utilise the Green Belt as public open space was also a strong aspiration raised through the public consultation.

4.364.39 There are a number of considerations, which will affect open space provision on the site and the strategy for this. These are:

The provisions of the Green Chain designation for land in the north of the site, and potential for extension of the green chain. The need to protect the openness of the Green Belt and the requirement that this be delivered as a District Park The need to protect the settings of the Listed Buildings and the aspiration to restore the historic landscape around Hillingdon House The protection of areas of significant wildlife habitat, mainly adjacent to the River Pinn The protection and enhancement of the biodiversity values of the River Pinn corridor, The inclusion of sustainable urban drainage systems SUDS across the site, and flood management features as part of the green network The provision of recreational needs for the new residential population

Green Chain

4.40 The north of the site is included in the Green Chain designation in the UDP Proposals map. The UDP (Part 1 policies) outlines that Green Chains were intended - “to safeguard a network of green chains from built development to provide a visual and physical break in the built- up area and opportunities for recreation and corridors for wildlife.” Redevelopment proposals in the northern part of the site should reflect the principles for Saved Policy OL11 in the site layout being the protection and enhancement of the riparian corridor, provision of public access and the enhancement of the site’s 58 environmental values (such as provision for wildlife corridors) in the development site layout. The extension of wildlife corridors should be continued through the site. Council and the Environment Agency will work with landowners to improve the existing corridors. The creation of a ‘green chain’ is supported by Section 4C (Blue Ribbon Network) of the London Plan and the Environment Agency aspirations in the North London River Restoration Document supported by the Mayor of London.

Green Belt

4.41 PPG2 (Green Belts) outlines a general presumption against inappropriate development, and that such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. It outlines that with suitable safeguards, the re-use of existing buildings may be acceptable. Some 12.57 hectares of the RAF Uxbridge site are included in the Green Belt that stretches from the St Andrews Road on the eastern side to the southeast boundary. This forms a link in the wider Green Belt network offsite to the Golf Course to the south and via the Green Chain designation on the north of the site to Hillingdon House Farm. The connector is the ecological corridor that follows the River Pinn.

4.42 Land in the Green Belt should remain in its state of openness as a public recreation area and as a setting for the Listed Buildings. Improvements consistent with this aim and that to protect and enhance the environmental values of the River Pinn will be sought. This will be likely to include provision of public access and public realm improvements (lighting, seating) and the restoration of the historic landscape around Hillingdon House. The provision of lighting, seating and footpaths will need to ensure the ecological importance of the riparian corridor is improved. Development will not be permitted within 8m of the river Pinn, and lighting should not adversely impact on flora and fauna.

Map 10 – Environmental designations © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

60 Ecology and Biodiversity

4.43 PPS 9 highlights that future development proposals should conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology by sustaining and improving the quality and extent of natural habitat and geological and geomorphological sites. RAF Uxbridge has a number of significant environmental attributes which attributes that should be protected and enhanced as part of the redevelopment and reuse of the site, including opening up these areas for public access, where appropriate.

4.44 Key to this is the River Pinn corridor, which is an important connector for the surrounding areas. It links two Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) being the Uxbridge Common Meadows to the north and Manor Farm Pastures to the south (both Grade II). Two phase 1 studies have been undertaken for the site owners by Entec (2005) and a draft report by Halcrow Yolles (2007). The site has been identified as having suitable habitat for bats, Great Crested Newts, voles, reptiles and birds. In addition, the collective importance of the standard trees was recognised.

4.45 A NVC Habitat Study and Phase 2 Ecological Study will be required to be submitted with any planning application and should inform the site development proposals. This should draw on the recommendations of the Extended Phase 1 study, and shall be developed in consultation with the Council, Natural England, the Environment Agency and other relevant stakeholders.

4.46 The recommendations in the Hillingdon Biodiversity Action Plan will need toshould be addressed and complied with considered in developing proposals and recommendations for the site. Ecological Studies will need outline specific measures for improving the biodiversity on the site, recognizing the ecological importance of a number of specific areas. Ecological initiatives will be required to outline specific targets and this should be demonstrated through the planning application process to ensure relevant beneficial outcomes. Habitat improvement proposals will need consider aerodrome safeguarding issues and should not be attractive to Canada Geese, which are considered to be a serious bird strike hazard by their body size, weight and flocking behaviour. The Standing Water HAP makes further recommendations in this regard.

4.47 Opportunities for ecological improvements drawn from these studies should inform the site layout proposals (Saved Policy EC2). These should consider opportunities for habitat and biodiversity improvements. Where relevant, these should be considered against the wider requirement for a publicly accessible District Park and the aspiration to restore the historic landscape around Hillingdon House. Recommendations for habitat protection and enhancement, as well as construction management/ mitigation should be provided as part of any planning application. This should be informed by Saved Policies EC1, EC3 and in consultation with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Bats

61 4.48 Bats and their roosts are protected in the UK under the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A European Protected Species Licence may be required if they or their habitat is to be affected. The Halcrow Yolles report – (Assessment of bat potential, October 2007), identified that a bat survey incorporating a thorough inspection including the roof void of every building scheduled for demolition shall be undertaken to determine if bats are present within the buildings prior to any demolition or refurbishment works. Impacts on the habitat of bats will also need to be considered as part of an ecological survey, and in designing proposals for the site. Issues such as protecting the riparian corridor and other ‘green chains’ will need to be demonstrated, and consideration of lighting and any changes to the natural environment will need to demonstrate that no adverse impacts will result on wildlife, particularly bats. Further consultation with Natural England, the Council and the Environment Agency will be necessary prior to submission of any planning application.

Recreational Needs

4.464.49 UDP Saved Policy R1 states that where residential development is proposed, satisfactory accessible amenity, recreational and play space is required (appropriate to the scale of the development) to meet accepted standards. The expected population for the proposed development should be ascertained at the time of the planning application (aone reference willmay be the population table in the emergingCouncil’s Planning Obligations SPD) and a full assessment of impact the recreation needs will need to provided by the developer. In considering open space provision and access for the new population on the site, reference should be made to the London Plan Open Space Strategies SPG in terms of distance to facilities and guidance from Field in Trust National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) requirements and Sport England.

4.474.50 Given the proximity of nearby facilities at Hillingdon House Farm and Brunel University, the retention of the existing sports facilities on the site (outside the Green Belt) is unlikely to be necessarynot proposed in the SPD. However, any reuse and incorporation of these facilities, additional to the specific play space and open space requirements detailed in this SPD, would be generally supported. Integral to the redevelopment proposal is that improved access to the sporting facilities off site (to the north and south) shall be provided as part of the overall development of the site in accordance with London Plan policy 3A.18. Such improved accessibility shall be demonstrated at planning application stage.

4.484.51 A District Park will be sought on the site (see below) and it is considered that some amenity and play space requirements may be able to be met through this. However there are a number of requirements that must be met. In addition to the requirements of HDAS (Residential Layouts), compliance will be required sought with the Mayor’s play space SPG on Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation, along with requirements and the NPFA the most recent guidance from Fields in Trust and Sport England standards. Particular attention must be given to the opportunities to encourage children and young people to engage in physical activity, whether through formal or informal sports, provision of play space and areas for social interaction. The needs of other groups must also be considered, including the elderly and groups that may normally be excluded from such opportunities. below (which may be incorporated as part of the wider park proposals). Types of play space 62

Children under Children 5 – 11 Young people 12+ 5 years Local playable Youth space where Doorstep space young people aged 12 playable space Neighborhood and above can meet in playable space informal sport based activities What Small Equipped play Adventure counts as equipped play area Playgrounds an existing area Public open Sport or recreation space for Public open spaces with space that is open play? spaces with potential for access (e.g. ball court, potential for informal play basketball court, multi- informal play Kickabout areas use games area) Adventure Skate park or bike playgrounds park Fitness trails Actual 100 m 400 m 800 m walking Distance (taking into account barriers to movement) Source Providing for Children’s and young people’s play and informal recreation SPG London Plan B3: Assessing Areas of Deficiency (para 4.53)

4.49 The NPFA Standards for play provision provide further guidance on play space requirements (see below).

Facility Time Walking Radial Min Nearest Characteristic dist dist size dwelling LAP local 1 100m 60m 100m2 5m from Small low key area for play min (5m activity games area buffer zone zone) LEAP local 5min 400m 240m 400m2 10m 5 types of play equipped (10m from equipment, small area for play buffer activity games areas zone) zone NEAP 15 1000m 600m 1000m2 30m 8 types of play Neighbourhoo min (30m from equipment, d equipped buffer activity opportunities for area for play zone) zone ball games or wheeled activities Source Table 2.2 - Providing for children’s and young people’s play and informal recreation SPG London Plan

District Park

63 4.52 PPG17 outlines that local authorities should seek opportunities to improve local open space network, to create public open space from vacant land and incorporate open space within new development on previously used land. The recently published London Plan Implementation Report Improving Londoners' Access to Nature (figure 4) showed that parts of Uxbridge were identified as deficient in access to nature and public open space for metropolitan and district parks.

4.514.53 Public parkland will be sought for a district park as an integral part of the redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge in accordance with Saved Policies OL1 and R17. This is expected to incorporate Green Belt land, as a minimum, land in Flood zones 2 – 3 to the north and land in the flood corridor to the south. In the southern part, the final area will depend on the ecological survey, however the primary aim of for including this area in the proposed parkland is to ensure access to the River and to facilitate a River Walk to the south (via the Annington Property Ltd Homes).

4.542 Planning obligations will be sought to enhance and maintain this land in accordance with UDP Saved Policies OL2 and OL 11. An early appraisal indicates these requirements are likely to be:

Environmental and flood improvements to the River Pinn flood corridor Habitat and biodiversity improvements Landscaping improvements to existing green belt land Restoration of the historic landscape around Hillingdon House and protection of that around the Group 11 Operations Room (Bunker) Provision of public amenity, recreational and access requirements consistent with the nature and scale of the use of the proposed parkland, in particular provision for a river/nature walk that will meander in proximity to the river Pinn, but will not impact on the ecological importance of the riparian corridor. Improvements and enhancements of this open space for public use, such as footpaths, cycleway and other ancillary features to enable the use and enjoyment of the site and connection to other recreation areas will be sought.

Map 11 – Open space framework © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

4.55 As part of the proposals for the site, a management and implementation plan for the public parkland will be sought, which should be undertaken in consultation with the Council’s Green Spaces Team.

Trees and Landscaping

4.56 In accordance with Saved Policies OL26 and BE38, existing mature trees and hedge cover, including woodlands should be where practical retained and these proposals should be consistent with the draft Phase 1 studies and subsequent studies submitted with any planning application.

4.57 A full tree survey must be submitted with the planning application and should inform the landscape strategy. However, an analysis of the importance of trees (individuals and groups) is required in order to identify the opportunities and constraints the trees will have on site layout proposals. Notable mature existing trees have been identified in the Site Disposal’s Pack as:

The horse chestnut avenues (Aesculus species) around the parade ground The tree planting within the River Pinn open space Tree cover along the River Pinn banks The line of Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) adjacent to the SNCO living accommodation and mess Tree cover along the western boundary, including Maple (Acer species), Oak, (Quercus species) Ash (Fraximus species) and Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus)

4.58 A comprehensive landscape masterplan, including landscape management, will required as part of any site proposals to ensure a high quality landscape setting. As a minimum this should address:

Provision of public open space for both formal and informal play and recreation.

Larger areas of landscaped open space in the green belt and the River Pinn corridor to be retained and enhanced for wildlife conservation and/or public access as a linear park.

The historic landscape associated with the site

.Selected trees, hedgerows and woodlands throughout the site be retained and managed

The submission of an approved landscape management plan for the River Pinn corridor.

. 66

4.5957 New hard and soft landscaping, including planting, will be implemented as part of the development proposals to secure a high quality public realm. The delivery of open spaces and landscape enhancement should be correlated with any phased development. Where feasible, infrastructure planting should be implemented in advance of the built development phases. Where the soft landscape work is integral to the built development, planting should be implemented as soon as possible after completion of discrete development parcels.

Map 12 – SITE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Hillingdon 100019283 2008.

Section 5 REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES

PROPOSED TOWN CENTRE EXTENSION

5.1 The major land uses in the town centre expansion area are proposed as a major arts/cultural facility in association with a cultural quarter and associated restaurants and cafes. In addition there is a need for more commercial floor space to be accommodated in this area with B1a offices a priority. AndA small element of comparison retailing, with a focus on specialist uses and small shops is also encouraged, in accordance with the retail needs of Uxbridge and advice from the Mayor of London.

Retail Needs Assessment

5.2 As the area proposed for the town centre expansion is currently outside the existing Uxbridge Town Centre (as defined in the adopted UDP), a needs assessment demonstrating the suitability of any proposed retail uses the proposal is required to be submitted in support of any proposals. The developer will be required to demonstrate compliance with national guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 6, or it’s replacement. The current needs test requires any developer to justify the development through: a) The need for the development b) That the development is of an appropriate scale c) That there are no more central sites for development d) That there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centre e) That the location is acceptable

B1a Offices

5.3 In accordance with UDP Saved Policies LE1 and LE6, proposals for office B1a uses compatible with the nature and functioning of the Uxbridge Town Centre are sought in that part of the site proposed for the town centre extension only. An early indication is that provision could be aimed primarily at the larger users (i.e. 5,000+ sq.m), although further supporting information in accordance with PPS6, and local need, would be required at the time. Small business workspaces shall also be provided to encourage local entrepreneurship and innovation. This should be a minimum of 10 units in the range of 460m2 total floor space required.

5.4 The identified office demand across Uxbridge until 2016 is in the range of 35,000 sq m, a longer-term view consistent with the emerging Hillingdon LDF Core Strategy is sought on this site. Forecasts to 2016 - 2021 identify an indicative need for a further 34,675 sq m of office floor space in Uxbridge (a total of 69,675 sq m).

5.5 Proposals in the town centre expansion area should aim to accommodate some of the longer-term at least 35,000m2 of the future office needs for Uxbridge. The Council has an aspiration for the RAF Uxbridge site to accommodate to higher level of office provision on the site given the likely longer term needs for offices in Uxbridge up to 2021. This is due to the lack of suitable alternative sites in the vicinity and the need to meet the economic prosperity objectives for the Borough. Such an approach is consistent with the

69 proposed changes to PPS12. In this regard, as part of the site proposals, a phasing plan should be provided for the implementation of office development to 2021.

5.6 Innovative, high quality individual design and compatibility within the scale of the existing and proposed built form will be one of the requirements for new office developmentsare sought. Individual proposals will be required to address appropriate planning requirements concerning traffic and transport impacts (including travel plans), height, sustainable design and construction, public art and other relevant planning obligations. Consideration of the site’s landscaping values and historical association are sought as part of the detailed designs.

Cultural quarter

5.7 A cultural quarter, building on the relationship of the site to Uxbridge Town Centre, is sought within the town centre expansion area. This is to be a distinct area within the town centre expansion area anchored by an arts/cultural facility, restaurants and cafes, with the co-location of creative industries. A small component of live/work units located together (with other complementary uses) isare also requiredsought. This may take the form of a “zone of transition” in an area of lower amenity, separating the town centre expansion area from the southern quarter. This could be achieved by , in the location of/or potentially refurbishing some the existing barrack blocks if appropriate.of the northernmost series of barracks.. Such a proposal would be supported from a sustainability and heritage perspective, subject to good quality urban design outcomes. Proposals should be compatible with the activities of the Uxbridge town centre and accord with 2007 UDP Saved Policies LE1, LE3 and LE6. Live/work proposals should be compatible with Hillingdon’s Live/Work SPG, and London Plan Policies 2A.8, 3B.1, 3B.2, 3B.11 and 3D.4.

5.8 London Plan policy 3D.4 (Development and Promotion of Arts and Culture), along with Hillingdon saved UDP policy R2 encourages the provision of recreation, entertainment, leisure, arts and cultural facilities with town centres. Hillingdon’s Cultural Strategy and Arts Strategy also encourage such uses. ‘Cultural Metropolis’ the Mayors priorities for culture 2009-2012 also specifically encourages greater accessibility to and provision of cultural facilities, particularly in the outer London boroughs. An arts/cultural/ community venue, offering theatre, music and other performance space is strongly encouraged within the town centre extension. There is also an identified need for a museum, a hotel and conferencing facilities, and community use space, and these will need to be incorporated into the masterplan proposals for the site, and either provided or contributions made towards their provision within the proposed town centre extension, subject to financial viability appraisals. Such uses should be located in a prominent and accessible location to the existing town centre, and public transport infrastructure and designed in to the masterplan to ensure an exemplary urban design approach to the proposed town centre extension. on the proposed High Street extension. The possibility of such buildings/spaces being may also be used for other community and complimentary uses should also be explored. The Ppromotion of an innovative design is sought for the arts/cultural building to be a local landmark and an attractive venue for visitors, particularly in the evening. Further details will be required on the nature and scale of the uses, along with the long term viability and wider benefits, which will be assessed accordingly.

5.9 Restaurants and cafes (A3) compatible with the promotion of RAF Uxbridge as a quality evening destination are sought within the area proposed as a cultural quarter and in particular to reinforce the arts/cultural facility as a destination.

5.10 Proposals for small shops (A1) and financial and professional services (A2) uses should be of a supporting scale to the commercial/ employment uses on the site and not in competition or impact detrimentally on the Uxbridge Town Centre primary shopping parade. In this regard, retail warehousing proposals and other similar operations would not be compatible and would be unable to meet the objectives for this site and surrounding environs.

5.11 Comparison retail uses aimed at specialist occupiers, compatible with the use of part of the site as an arts/cultural quarter and complimentary to the main function of the existing town centre may be provided. The location, size and siting of these uses should reflect this intention and the need to ensure the continued functioning of the town centre is protected.

HOUSING

General considerations

5.12 The preferred urban form for housing based on the character areas is considered to be:set out in the table below. Notwithstanding the number of dwellings indicated for each quarter, some increase in the level of provision of housing may be considered appropriate, subject to the provision of the satisfactorily overall mix of uses, a high quality urban design and a sustainable development that can be accommodated without detriment to the local community and the environment.

Quarter Expected Type and description Description number Proposed town 332 Flats. Higher density No more than 1/3 housing. centre Around housing as part of mixed Schemes close to the expansion area 700 use schemes is supported. existing town centre and While across the site the within the arts cultural total mix should reflect the quarter shallould provide an 30:40:30 target for unit sizes element of commercial as outlined in Council’s activity on the ground floor, Affordable Housing SPD, with residential only dwelling sizes consistent permitted above ground with the proposed town floor level. centre are expected in the range of 3.7 – 2.7 habitable rooms per unit, mostly in the form of flats above retail/ commercial uses at ground floor. in the proposed town centre expansion area Southern Around Flats, terraces and houses. Mix of densities and styles. quadrant 760964 A mix of unit sizes areA mix To include at least one 71 Quarter Expected Type and description Description number of unit sizes is expected “sustainable exemplar” generally ranging from 2.7 development. Integration (or less) – 4.6 habitable with Annington Property Ltd rooms (or larger) per unit land homes to the south. with the total number to reflect the size mix of 30:40:30. Northern quarter Around Primarily terraces and Lower density ‘village scale’ 80265 houses, with flats integrated development compatible (Excluding into the suburban form. with Green Chain APL land) Generally, the setting will designation. Any future Annington include units ranging from proposals for the Annington Homes 2.7 – 4.6 habitable rooms Property Ltd Homes land land) (or larger) per unit, with the should be compatible with total number of units to the character of the town reflect the size mix of centre and areas north of 30:40:30 the site, especially in interface areas. Hillingdon 59Around Detached/ semi-detached High quality finishes, House/ open 60 housing. Larger family preservation of the sense of space housing units are is openness and specific specifically sought in this requirement of the setting of location, due to its very low the Listed buildings (and PTAL and unique landscape theits historic landscape) and heritage qualities, Area of Special Local special circumstances within Character and retention of a minimum of 3.8 – 4.6 mature trees and, significant habitable rooms per unit. vegetation.

Housing Mix

5.13 A mix of housing sizes will be required is sought across the site,. in accordance with the West London Housing Partnership Investment Guide 2008-11, published 2007, or it replacement. The current mix of affordable social rent housing is set out in the table below: Consistent with the Council’s affordable housing requirements, developers will be expected to provide when practicable, the following overall housing size mix: • 1 bedroom – 1530 % • 2 Bedroom – 35 % • 3 bedroom – 25% • 4 bedroom – 15%30% • 5 Bedroom – 10%

The guide further states that the boroughs should seek a target of at least 15% of all Low Cost Home Ownership built to be three bedrooms or more. This is further encouraged in the Mayors draft Housing Strategy.

Code for Sustainable Homes

72 5.14 Consistent with the aspiration for low carbon development, all new housing development on the site mustshould achieve, as a minimum, the requirements of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Higher standards will be encouraged as we move closer to 2016. Further guidancedetails on sustainable design and construction for this site are in Section 6 of this SPD.

Development standards

5.15 The Council’s Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Standards (HDAS) DAS documents “Residential Layouts” details requirements for minimum room sizes, layouts, amenity areas and other details for new housing development. Minimum All floorspacefloor space standards will need to comply with be sought in accordance with thisthe latest guidance from Council. At present the minimum floor space standards are set out in HDAS as follows: These are as follows:

Recommended floor space standards 5 bed 4 bed 3 bed 2 bed 1 bed Studio Three storey house 108m2 103m 2 1 or 2 storey house 101m2 92m2 81m2 63m2 50m2 Maisonette 101m2 90m2 79m2 63m2 50m2 Flat 94.6m2 87m2 77m2 63m2 50m2 33m2 Source: Table 2 – HDAS Residential layouts

Note: Where usable balconies are provided, the floorspace of the balcony or balconies can be deducted from the above totals up to a maximum of 5m2

Garages should not be included in the calculation of floor space

Affordable housing should be guided by the Housing Corporation's floor space standards

5.16 Developments should incorporate usable, attractively laid out and private garden space conveniently located in relation to the property or properties it serves. It should be of an appropriate size, having regard to the size of the dwelling and character of the area. Further details on the calculation of amenity space are in HDAS Residential Layouts and this should be addressed as part of any site proposals. Note that any unusable amenity space will be excluded from the calculations.

Amenity space for dwelling houses 1 bed house Minimum of 40m2 2 & 3 bedroom house Minimum of 60m2 4 bedroom house Minimum of 100m2 5+ bedroom house Minimum of 100m2 Source: HDAS Residential layouts

Shared amenity space for flats & maisonettes (including the conversion of houses) Studio & 1 bed bedroom flat 20m2 per flat 2 bed bedroom flat 25m2 per flat 73 3+ bedroom flat 30m2 per flat Source: HDAS Residential layouts

5.17 Demonstration that site proposals address London Plan Policy 3D.11i (Children’s Play and Informal Recreation Strategies) will be required. This requires that developments which include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs. The Mayors SPG “Providing for Children’s and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation” SPG outlines that the benchmark standard of a minimum of 10 square metres per child should be applied to establish the quantitive requirements for play space. Child yield should be appraised in accordance with the draft Planning Obligations SPD. Provision of play space will should normally be required made onsite, and be in accordance the Mayors SPGwith the play strategy for the area. UDP Saved Policy R1 states that amenity and recreational should include provision for the landscaping, equipping and future maintenance of the additional open space. Areas of high quality amenity space, with opportunities for passive and active recreation, along with children’s play space will be required. The creation of all such spaces shall be attractive and well designed and conform to secured by design principles. Children’s play areas should incorporate informal elements that reflect the attributes of the site, notably the natural environment and the historic characteristics of the site. Such details will need to be demonstrated with any planning application, and any masterplan submitted will need to ensure that children’s play space, along with access to them, is integral to the design and layout of the development.

Accessibility and Lifetime homes

5.18 In accordance with London Plan policy and HDAS requirementsFor all housing, at least 10% of all new affordable housing shallould be provided to full wheelchair accessibility standards. All homes not being built to full wheelchair accessibility standard should be built to lifetime homes standards. However, some specialist housing may need to be exempt from the requirements to achieve Lifetime Homes as these will need to be designed to meet the particular needs of the potential resident. Detailed assessment will be undertaken at application stage. In addition developers should follow the guidance set out in “Building for Life” published by CABE, September 2008.

Affordable Housing requirements Financial viability and cascade mechanism

5.19 The London Plan is currently going through a policy transition with regard to affordable housing. Current practice tends to seeks 50% affordable housing on all development sites capable of producing 10 or more units. Recent advice from the Mayor of London suggests a borough wide target for provision of affordable housing, with the borough to make decisions with regard to the quantity and location of affordable housing within the borough. Whilst the RAF Uxbridge site is expected to deliver a large number of residential units, including affordable housing, the aspirations for other uses on the site, together with a financial viability appraisal, may limit the number of affordable housing units provided on the site.

74 5.20 Any development will be expected to comply with the London Plan, advice from the Mayor of London and the needs and aspirations of the borough. The Council will work with the developer, registered social landlords, and other stakeholders to ensure that the maximum yield of affordable housing can be realised, in accordance with the London Plan and local needs. The Council will seek to negotiate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and to ensure that these units will continue to be affordable for successive occupiers. Affordable units should be distributed throughout the site and well integrated into the development. Whilst a target of 50% affordable housing is the aim of the London Plan, along with a need to include a mix of social rented and intermediate tenures at a 70:30 ratio, the final level of provision will be dependent on a viability assessment to ensure delivery of the SPD objectives. Innovative affordable solutions will be sought with the distribution of affordable housing throughout the site in each phase of developmentwith a 70:30 tenure split between social rented and intermediate housing. However tThe London Plan does recognisze that in order to promote the redevelopment of sites, reductions in this provision may be acceptable subject to a satisfactory financial viability appraisal. Redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge is expected to have a significant number of essential planning obligations integral to the acceptability of the scheme that may impact on its financial viability. As such, the requirements for affordable housing is likely to be reduced to 35%. Notwithstanding a lower provision of affordable housing at RAF Uxbridge, the council considers that it can meet its contribution towards the London Plan targets for affordable housing in London to 2011.

5.210 Whilst there is a growing requirement for social rented accommodation, there is also an increasing need for intermediate housing in the borough. The significant and increasing gap in Hillingdon between house prices and average incomes of householdshousehold’s means that many low and middle incomemiddle-income people cannot afford to purchase their first home on the open market in the borough. The government’s initiative for intermediate housing helps those with low income into the housing market. The council supports this initiative and considers that there should be an increased emphasis on intermediate homes to help low income and key sector workers into homes. At RAF Uxbridge, it would therefore encourage at least 47% of affordable housing to be for low cost/intermediate with 53% social rented housing. However a large proportion of low and middle incomemiddle-income people do not qualify for the government’s intermediate scheme because their income is above the qualifying level. In order to enable these people to receive some practical help to get onto the housing ladder, the council considers that a more flexible approach should be applied to the provision of intermediate housing, and would strongly support initiatives such as the First Steps Housing Scheme, which provides housing at 20% below the market rate price.

5.215.22 In light of the above, assuming the provision of a total of 1620 around 1600 residential units at RAF Uxbridge, the council would expect the likely provision of at least 560567 units of affordable housing, of which around 270267 would be for low cost ownership, and around 300 for social rented (including about 100 units for the elderly). The possibility of providing specialist affordable housing for ex-military personnel should also be explored.

Specialist housing required

5.23 As part of the affordable housing requirements, provision will be required for specialist housing for extra care housing for older people and supported housing for 75 adults with learning disabilities. Further liaison will be required with the Development Team in the Council’s Social Services and Housing Department as specialist housing priorities may change over time.

5.24 For persons with learning disabilities, the current identified need is for accommodation offor at least 18 units in close proximity. This may be a group of up to 3 blocks of 6 to 8 flats in close proximity (10-15 minutes walk) of each other with one block containing staff facilities (office for 3 staff, common room for staff and residents, accessible toilet, staff sleep over with toilet and bath facilities). Alternatively provision can be in the form of a block of 12 flats with on site staff facilities (as above). All the learning disability blocks must be fully wheelchair accessible throughout.

Affordable Housing Standards

5.25 The current size mix of affordable housing units sought is set out in the West London Housing Partnership Investment Guide 2008-11, published in July 2007, which is a guide to any housing providers intending to bid for Housing Corporation funding for new affordable housing schemes in west London in 2008 to 2011.

5.26 Existing minimum requirements for affordable housing are summarised below:

Dwelling type flat flat house flat house house house Number of 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 bedrooms Guide Max Person 2 4 4 6 6 7 9 Occupancy / No of Bed spaces Guide Minimum 45m2 70m2 80m2 85m2 95m2 110m2 135 m2 Size* * Note that the most important guideline is that all rooms must be of adequate size and shape for activities associated with their use.

5.276 At least 10% of all new affordable housing should be provided to full wheelchair accessibility standard. This 10% can be provided either as single-family dwelling with 2 or more bedrooms (to allow for sleep-in carer) or as supported housing for people with special needs. Sizes for full wheelchair accessibility will be significantly larger than the guide sizes above for the same number of bedrooms in order to meet wheelchair accessibility standards.

5.287 All new Affordable Housing must meet Housing Corporation Design and Quality Standards (April 2007). As well as providing high quality dwellings and amenity spaces, all affordable housing units should be virtually indistinguishable in design terms from the open market To ensure community cohesion and in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD pepper potting of affordable housing throughout the site will be required in a co-ordinated and logical manner.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Education

76 5.29 An early appraisal of potential child yield from the likely housing development on RAF Uxbridge has indicated a lack of current capacity in nearby schools. In accordance with London Plan, Para. 3.115, planning obligations will be sought to address shortfalls in school capacity arising from new housing development. Any proposals will need to comply with London Plan policy 3A.24 - Education Facilities, and local circumstances and needs.

Primary education

5.3029 In accordance with PPS1 and the Council’s Planning Obligations SPG and emerging Planning Obligation SPD, provision of educational facilities to support the new residents will be required sought on RAF Uxbridge. An early appraisal of requirements indicates that a new 2-form (60 place) primary school is required, potentially in the northern part of the site, or as an alternative in the southern quarter. This is expected to comprise of 1.7ha, including 0.8ha of sports pitches. The reuse of the existing sports pitches in the north of the site for this purpose is encouraged. A high standard of design will be expectedis sought and in accordance with London Plan Polices 3A.24 and 4A.3. , In addition sustainable design and construction will be required for any new school buildings, in particular green roofs, sustainable drainage and passive solar design will be a minimum requirement. Developers and the Council will need to explore the possibilities for funding of such ‘green’ initiatives and it is expected that a new primary school would become an ‘eco-school’.

5.310 A travel plan for this will be required to be submitted for the new school in accordance with the requirements of Council’s emerging Planning Obligations SPD in order to promote safe cycle and walking routes, restrict car parking and car access at and around schools. It should also include on-site changing and cycle storage facilities as required.

Secondary education

5.321 An early appraisal of child yield indicates that additional high school places will be required, but a new facility on RAF Uxbridge is not required to meet the needs of the proposed development. Contributions in accordance with the provisions of the planning obligations SPG and emerging Council’s adopted Planning Obligations SPD will be required towards additional high school places in the locality. As Uxbridge High School is the nearest secondary facility, as part of the overall site development, safe pedestrian access across Hillingdon Road to Uxbridge High School will be required. Details of the student movement will be required to be addressed as part of the TA and Travel Plan/s. In view of the aspirations of the Douay Martyrs School to relocate to a single site within the Borough, the council would seek to be supportive of appropriate proposals to include this within the RAF Uxbridge site.

Child yield

5.33 An estimation of child yield for the site will be ascertained on the most up-to-date information provided with the planning application. The formula for calculation This is currently contained within Hillingdon’s emerging adopted Planning Obligations SPD.

77 Health Facilities

5.335.34 PPS1, and London Plan policy 3A.21 Locations for Health Care, identifies good access to key services for all members of the community as a requirement to achieve sustainable and inclusive development. The needs of the new population expected on RAF Uxbridge are unlikely to be met by existing local health services. Additional provision will be required and if provided locally, this may take the form of a three-arm GP surgery or a centralised polyclinic and other health facilities provided. (or equivalent)

5.35 Saved Policy R17 enables the provision of community infrastructure as a consequence of new development. Planning obligations will be sought for the provision of a new local health facility to serve the new population based on the proportional impact of the new residential development, in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD.

5.36 The need to locate health facilities in accessible locations to maximise public transport access is also promoted through the draft LDF Core Strategy Spatial Objective S04 and PPG13. The preferred location for a local health facility is in a location accessible to the new residential population and preferably in connection with other local community facilities, most likely in the southern quarter of the site.

5.37 Assessment of the health needs of the new population will be required. Identification of the type and location of the health facility and its timing should be provided with the planning application. This should aim to ensure the health facility is available at the time of occupation of new residential development to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on existing health services and existing residents.

5.38 A Health Impact Assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment should be provided. Further guidance on this is provided through the Health and Urban Planning Toolkit published by the NHS. Consultation with the local PCT, and the Council will need to should be undertaken in the preparation of the scope of this assessment.

Community facilities

5.385.39 In redeveloping this site and providing a significant number of additional homes, the provision of community facilities will need to be an integral component from the outset. PPS 1 states that the government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to promoting social cohesion. Any planning applications will need to demonstrate how these objectives will be achieved across the site and the surrounds, particularly the adjoining residential areas. Paragraph 3.100 of the London Plan notes that accessible and affordable community facilities are key to enabling the community to function. While there will be access to “Borough level” amenities and facilities in Uxbridge town centre, there will also be a need for a local community room or facilities y for the new population. The southern quadrant, together with the Annington land Homes in the south will form a distinct local population, separated from Uxbridge by the A4020 and as such it is considered particularly important in this part of the site to build and foster a sense of place and community.

5.40 The provision of facilities will need to consider the homezone concept and to create walkable neighbourhoods and places that encourage passive and active social 78 interaction, surveillance and engender a “sense of place” and “sense of community”. A ‘community node’, with public buildings and a convenience store, will be required in the southern section. Detailed studies of housing numbers and walking distance will be necessary to ascertain the requirements for the site. Where buildings will be available for public uses and community groups, these should be designed in collaboration with established local community groups, such as those identified in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The timing of the provision of facilities will be negotiated at the planning application stage and will need to be provided concurrently with residential development to meet the needs of residents as they occupy the site. Provision for thissuch facilitiesy will be sought in accordance with the requirements of the Saved Policy R17, and be within easily accessible locations reached- by y reach by walking, cycling and public transport for the population that will uses them, with consideration given to other modes of transport. (London Plan Policy 3A.18). In this regard it is expected that this would be provided as part of a local community node in this part of the site.

5.41 All groups within society will need to be considered in developing a masterplan for the site, and any other planning applications. The needs of the elderly, children, youths, different religious groups, people of different cultural backgrounds, and all sectors of society should form the basis in developing a spatial plan for the site. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement identifies a number of key groups that should be involved in developing proposals prior to submission of a planning application. Developers will be expected to work with the Council in consulting widely on draft masterplan proposals and engaging different groups in the planning process.

5.42 Existing groups that utilise the site and offer a positive community benefit should be accommodated through appropriate redevelopment. It is expected that the Battle of Britain Club, will be relocated on the site, in an appropriate and accessible location, to preserve the unique heritage of the club, and artifacts and character of the existing building. This could compliment development near the bunker. The Hillingdon Blind Bowlers Association, Air Training Corp Unit (1083) and similar groups will need to be considered. The needs of faith groups should also be considered, with reference to the GLA commissioned report: “Responding to the Needs of Faith Communities: places of worship”, and any emerging policies. Consideration will need to be given to facilitate/enable the creation of new community groups as the development is progressed.

CONSERVATION

5.43 RAF Uxbridge has a number of identified and potential historic attributes related to Hillingdon House and its estate and more recently as an important WWII military site. The site is included in the English Heritage document Historic Military Aviation Sites – Conservation Management Guidance, which identifies a list of key sites, including pre- 1945 military aviation sites in England that retain the best preserved airfield landscapes and/or most historically significant groups of original building. 5.41RAF Uxbridge is not within a designated Conservation Area, but due to its size and location, proposals must consider impacts on, and where relevant connection to, the following Conservation Areas:

Old Uxbridge/Windsor Street Conservation Area, 79 The North Uxbridge Area of Special Local Character The Greenway Conservation Area. Hillingdon Village Conservation Area

5.42 Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character abuts RAF Uxbridge and as such proposals on this part of the site must be compatible with this designation.

Building appraisal

5.44 Given the site’s important WWII history, an appraisal of all the buildings and structures on the site and structures must be provided with any the planning application. Such an appraisal must be, undertaken by a specialist in military buildings and will need to identify all listed and unlisted buildings. Justification will be required for the loss of any buildings, with consideration given to the conversion of important buildings, subject to viability appraisals and other design considerations. All of the buildings should be recorded to the appropriate level (1-3) and recommendations should be included in the final proposals. This should advise on the history and development of the site and assess its importance within the wider context of aviation history. It should provide details on each building i.e. its age, architectural, social and historical significance and justify its retention, relocation or redevelopment. In the case of any buildings scheduled for demolition, recording work should be completed before any works start on site and would be required through planning conditions.

Map 13 – Listed buildings and associated structures © Crown Copyright 100019283.

81 Listed buildings

5.45 The site includes three statutory listed buildings and a number of associated listed curtilage structures. Proposals in the vicinity of these must take account of the specific requirements to preserve and enhance the buildings and their settings. Green Belt land provides part of the setting for both the Group 11 Operations Room and Hillingdon House and any proposals in this area (including recreation) must be compatible with these requirements.

11 Group Operations Room (Grade I Listed)

Building Listings Bunker and both Grade I entrances Pill box over bunker Grade I Stand by Set house curtilage Pill box to r/o no 4 Grade II (outside of site)

5.46 The 11 Group Operations Room is a large underground structure and includes two entrance points above ground, various vents and a pillbox.

5.47 Retention of the listed building is sought on this site with the preference for a specific museum or as the main exhibit linked with a suitable museum building. Adjacent buildings may be considered for use in association with this. Proposals to reuse this building should be consistent with its history and preserve, enhance and maintain the building.

5.48 There are a number of specific issues that will influence its future use, repair, management and safekeeping. The building is suffering from water ingress and repairs may be costly and if in public use, accessibility requirements require addressing. Any proposals for building on top of it is likely to be inappropriate in listed building terms and may cause structural difficulties.

5.49 The Council will work with the site owners, and English Heritage and other potential partners to ensure the preservation, protection and enhancement of this building with the aim of promoting this as a viable tourist draw for Uxbridge as part of the overall proposals for RAF Uxbridge. As part of the site proposals, a Conservation Management Plan will be required, taking into account the condition of the building and repairs and restoration costs.

Hillingdon House (Grade II Listed)

Building Listings Hillingdon House Grade II, Wall Curtilage to Hillingdon House Walls to rear of no 8 Grade II Carpenters building to Grade II r/o stable wall 82

5.50 The setting of Hillingdon House is considered to encompass a wide area. The area from it to the River Pinn and between the Group 11 Operations Room and Hillingdon House should remain free from further development. Any development of the areas directly to the north and east of the house, particularly where listed curtilage structures remain, require careful consideration in terms of bulk, scale, siting and visual impact. Views to and from the building should be protected including the skyline to the west and north and its wider landscaped setting maintained, including the approach from Vine Lane.

5.51 Proposals which restore and maintain Hillingdon House and its historic landscape are sought for this listed building. Uses which may be suitable for Hillingdon House include a hotel and/or conferencing and associated facilities, company headquarters or residential uses. Proposals will be required to demonstrate the restoration and maintenance of the listed building and its setting through a Management Plan to be agreed with the Council’s Conservation Officers.

5.52 The Hillingdon House Estate is included in the draft Parks and Gardens Trust Local List as an area requiring further investigation. A landscape study should be provided as part of the background information that includes a full historic landscape assessment. This should include investigation of any historic garden features, such as planting and garden layout, historic paths and routes. A long-term management plan will may be required for the historic landscape.

Cinema (Grade II Listed)

5.53 Proposals for the Grade II Listed Cinema will need should aim to restore this building, which is currently in poor repair and to bring it back into public use. ItThe building incorporates a large, simply detailed principal space and offers some flexibility in terms of its use. Potential uses may include food and drink establishments (A3 and A4) or public use spaces (D1, D2). The setting of this building will be required to be considered in terms of the location, design and size of any new buildings, and to ensure an active public realm and add to the vitality and viability of the town centre extension. A Conservation Management Plan will be required.

Archaeological appraisal (formerly point 6.19)

5.54 Whilst the site does not lie within an archaeological priority area, the site is considered to be geographically well placed for pre-historic and more recent remains. An archaeological desk based assessment should be included as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, conducted by a recognised archaeological organisation to the standards of the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS). This report should also allow for any archaeological mitigation and may include recommendations for excavation and further investigation.

Conservation Areas 83

5.55 RAF Uxbridge is not within a designated Conservation Area, but due to its size and location, proposals must consider impacts on, and where relevant connection to, the following Conservation Areas:

Old Uxbridge/Windsor Street Conservation Area, The North Uxbridge Area of Special Local Character The Greenway Conservation Area. Hillingdon Village Conservation Area

5.56 Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character adjoins RAF Uxbridge and as such proposals on this part of the site must be compatible with this designation. Proposals for redevelopment will need to demonstrate compatibility in accordance with adopted policies and advice from English Heritage and the Council.

Section 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Environmental Impact Assessment

6.1 An Environmental Impact Statement will be required to accompany any planning application in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Regulations (1999) or as amended. Developers will need to agree the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment with the Council and involve a range of key stakeholders in completing the EIA.

Climate Change

6.2 The London Plan, Planning Policy Statement 1 and supplement to PPS 1 state that dealing with climate change is an integral and essential part of the development process. The London Plan specifically states that dealing with climate cannot be considered as a set of “add ons” and must be integral to the development process. The government has recently announced very ambitious targets to limit greenhouse emissions through the Climate Change Act, 2008 and there is a wide range of planning policies and building control regulations that will assist in achieving the targets. Any proposals for the site will need to demonstrate that measures to mitigate against climate change, by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and adapting to the already inevitable impacts of climate change, through layout, design and a range of other measures, are integral to the masterplan and detailed planning applications. In striving to plan for sustainable communities a lot of the initiatives that will limit greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to inevitable climate change will overlap with beneficial environmental, economic and social outcomes. Such initiatives will need to be demonstrated at the planning application stage, through various studies, the design and access statement, design codes, energy statements, sustainability statement, a framework travel plan, and a range of other details. Impacts of climate change must also be taken into account in considering flood risk, including SUDS throughout the development, coping with extreme weather conditions, including heat, cold, storms and other weather, as would normally be considered with any such large scale proposal. Climate change must also be considered as part of sustainable design and construction requirements. Further details are in this chapter and cross-referenced to London Plan Policies 4B.1 and under Part 4A along with the range of emerging documentation and government policy on this subject.

6.3 Given the size and scale of the site, the innovative design solutions available, an improving general understanding of climate change and sustainability issues, emerging technology and other developments, the proposed redevelopment of this site should aim to be an example of best practice sustainable development for London.

Flood Risk Assessment

6.26.4 Some of the The site is subject to flooding from the River Pinn and is included within flood zone 2 and flood zone 3, whilst the remainder of the site is identifiedncluded 85 as flood zone 1. Given the location of the river Pinn and its natural ‘floodplain’ within protected areas of open space, being designated within the green belt, and green chain, there is no reason why housing or other development proposals should encroach within areas that are liable to fluvial flooding. The riparian zone is of particular ecological importance, and the river, existing vegetation and open areas are an important asset to be protected and enhanced. For any development such as infrastructure, formal play areas or open space, and any buildings proposed, applications will need to demonstrate compliance with the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) adopted November 2008, along with guidance from the Environment Agency, Natural England and other bodies. included in Flood Zones 1 – 3 with regard to the River Pinn.

Map 14 - RAF Uxbridge – Flood Zones locations Source: Hillingdon Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) November 2008. © Crown Copyright 100019283.

6.3 6.5 As a masterplan will cover the whole site a flood risk assessment (FRA) will be required to be submitted with any planning application for redevelopment of the site. The Flood Risk Assessment will need to demonstrate compliance with PPS 25 – Development and Flood Risk, the Council’s adopted Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, and advice from the Environment Agency, the Council and other strategic partners. Future applications will also need to conform withto these requirements. In accordance with PPS25, the developer should demonstrate the following: a) The proposal is consistent with the policies in the PPS25 and those on flood risk in local development documents. (In this regard a draft SFRA is currently being prepared and consultation should be undertaken with Council’s Policy and Environmental Strategy Division)

6.6 Section 10 of Council’s SFRA gives site specific FRA guidance, and includes specific reference to Annex E of PPS 25, and the Practice Guide Companion to PPS25. However, as a general guide, any flood risk assessment will need to consider all sources of flooding, including fluvial, overland flow, groundwater flooding, sewer flooding and artificial sources, along with residual risks. b) The FRA will need should demonstrate to demonstrate, as a minimum:

Whether any proposed development is likely to be affected by current or future flooding from any source

Satisfy the LPA that the development is safe and where possiblewill reduces flood risk overall

That development initiatives will Whether it will increasedecrease the flood risk elsewhere

Satisfy the LPA that there are limited if any risks, however where this is unavoidable that there are measures proposed to deal with these effects and risks. Any necessary flood risk management measures should be sufficiently funded to ensure that the site can be developed and occupied safelty through its proposed lifetime

c) Designs which reduce flood risk to the development and elsewhere by incorporating sustainable drainage systems SUDS, and where necessary flood resilience measures

d) Identify opportunities to reduce flood risk, enhance biodiversity and amenity, protect the historic environment and seek collective solutions to managing flood risk

That adoption and maintenance of SUDS, flood defence, riparian and river improvement, and other initiatives can be properly funded and managed at development stage and in perpetuity

6.74 Proposals for the site will be required to address relevant London Plan and Environment Agency guidance. Of particular relevance is the proposals of the 87 Mayors draft Water Strategy 2007, along with Policy 4A.14 which requires developments to aim being to achieve greenfield discharge rates for all new development, and to establish separate foul sewer and surface water drain and not discharge excess surface water into the combined sewer. Given the use of SUDS and other initiatives this will be expected to be achieved, and will need to be demonstrated at planning application stage.

Proposal 7 - The Mayor will, and the Boroughs should, require new developments (larger than 1,000 m2 or more than 10 dwellings) to manage their surface water runoff so that there is a 50 per cent reduction in the volume and rate of surface water drainage when compared to that of the undeveloped site at peak times.

Proposal 8 -The Mayor will, and the Boroughs should, require new developments (larger than 3,000 m2 or more than 100 dwellings) to establish separate foul sewer and surface water drains and not to discharge excess surface water into the combined sewer system

Sustainable drainage

6.8 In accordance with London Plan Policies 4A.3, 4A.9 and 4A.14, a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) and sustainable design and construction techniques will be required for the site. The use of SUDS will need to be developed through the planning process, with the aim of controlling water runoff as close to its origins as possible and with the aim of reducing flood risk downstream in accordance with the Council’s SFRA and the Mayor of London requirement to achieve greenfield discharge rates on all new developments. In accordance with Policy 4A.14 the Council will seek to ensure that surface water run-off is managed in line with the following drainage hierarchy: • store rainwater for later use • use infiltration techniques, such as porous surfaces in non-clay areas • attenuate rainwater in ponds or open water features for gradual release to a watercourse • attenuate rainwater by storing in tanks or sealed water features for gradual release to a watercourse • discharge rainwater direct to a watercourse • discharge rainwater to a surface water drain • discharge rainwater to the combined sewer.

6.9 Sustainability initiatives, such as minimising water use and protecting and enhancing green infrastructure should be taken into account in the design. SUDS proposals for the overall site should be designed in at the earliest stage, along with the overall street layout, landscape and open spaces strategies and other considerations. The Mayor of London believes that managing London’s surface water and combined sewer flooding/overflows should start with source control management – improving the permeability of the public realm through the incorporation of rainwater harvesting and sustainable drainage – before proceeding to enhanced drainage capacity. These techniques include permeable surfaces, storage on site, green roofs, infiltration techniques and even water butts. Many of these techniques also have benefits for biodiversity by creating habitat, and some can help to reduce the demand for supplied water. Consideration should also be given to public health, safety and usability of open spaces, and airport safeguarding in designing such schemes. Proposals must ensure that the water quality of the River Pinn and associated habitat is protected in accordance 88 Saved Policy EC1. Further information is available from the Environment Agency in the document “SUDS – A Practical Guide” 2006, and designs should be developed in consultation with the Council, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and other stakeholders.

6.10 Given the nature and scale of the development of the site an indication of sequencing should be provided with the planning application for key infrastructure such as water, wastewater and roads, erosion and sediment control, including phasing of the development of the site. Climate Change

6.5 In assessing flood risk, climate change considerations must be taken into account. Climate change must also be considered as part of sustainable design and construction requirements. Further details are in this chapter and cross referenced to London Plan Policies 4B.1 and 4A.9

Air Quality

6.116 RAF Uxbridge is in an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and developers will need to demonstrate compliance with the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan. This which will have implications for the suitability of activities such as biomass (and other) fuelled CCHP plants, traffic generation, and other potentially polluting activities. Liaison should be undertaken with the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit as to the suitability of such proposals. The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy seeks to minimise the emissions of key pollutants and to reduce concentrations to levels which no or minimal effects on human health are likely to occur. One of its main aims is to reduce pollution from road traffic emissions. Implementation mechanisms for improving air quality in the AQMA are set out in Hillingdon’s Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP). Land use proposals for the site should be consistent with the London Plan policies and the targets in the AQMP, in particular through addressing the reduction in traffic and the provision of targets in a Travel Plan.

Noise

6.12.7 Hillingdon’s SPD on Noise indicates that the A4020 (where adjacent to the site) falls within a corridor identified as having significant issues of road traffic noise in respect to residential development. The London Road Traffic Noise Map shows noise levels along the A4020 over the equivalent of a 24 hour period at 70-75 (dB(A)).

6.138 Hillingdon’s SPD on Noise (April 2006) sets out the Council’s approach to noise sensitive development with the main aim of physical separation. Measures to address noise issues for sensitive development should be designed from the onset, rather than retrofitted. Other possible noise sources may be aircraft noise from RAF Northolt and possible noise issues from activities in the proposed town centre extension and other activities such as waste management facilities.

6.149 An assessment of noise impacts in accordance with the Mayors Ambient Noise Strategy and Hillingdon’s Noise SPD should be undertaken and where relevant and measures to ensure no adverse impacts will result for new residents, or existing surrounding residents shall be demonstrated at the planning application stage. for mitigation proposed.

89 Site contamination

6.15 PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control sets out the Government’s objectives for contaminated land, which are to identify and remove unacceptable risks to human health and the environment and seek to bring contaminateddamaged land back into beneficial use. Model Procedures CRL 11 also provides guidance for developers and government in dealing with potentially contaminated land and this will be utilised in assessing any planning application. In addition any application will need to demonstrate compliance with Hillingdon’s SPG on Land Contamination, or any subsequent SPD or policy guidance that replaces it.

6.116.16 A number of sources of potential contamination for the RAF Uxbridge site were identified as part of the 2005 site appraisal (Disposal Sites Information Pack), namely:

Above and below ground bulk fuel stores at separate locations (Hydrocarbons, 35-sec gas oil) Material in hazardous chemical store (hydrocarbons, metals, organic compounds, volatile compound, pH) Firing range (metals, explosive residue) Electrical transformers at sub stations (PCBs, hydrocarbons) Asbestos containing material within buildings (asbestos fibres)

6.17 Consideration should also be given to any likely contamination arising as part of any previously “made ground” or any possible fill material. Asbestos contamination, ground gas contamination in relation to fill, hydrocarbon’s (including vapours) and implications for water pollution will need to be fully considered. Investigations will be required to should be undertaken and recommendations made to ascertain the level of contamination across the site, and proposals for mitigation and remediation will need to demonstrate that no adverse impacts will arise.requirements to either remove or manage this should be made. This information must be submitted with the planning application. Measures will be required to ensure that contamination is not activated or spread when during demolition or construction on the sitebuilding takes place. In assessing this issue and any proposed mitigation, implications for other proposals on the site such as the use of SUDS and flood management should be addressed as proposals are developed and clearly demonstrated through any planning application.from the onset. Hillingdon’s SPG Land Contamination also outlines further information on this matter.

Aviation safeguarding requirements

6.183 The site is located in an area in close proximity to of height safeguarding due to proximity to RAF Northolt and as such any new developments will need to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the safe and effective operation of the aerodrome. Height restrictions approximately at 24m ”willrestrictions will apply to all development on the site, with a maximum building height likely to be around 5-6 storeys. Additional details are provided under character guidance sections of this SPD. High rise development and new buildings will need to be sited and designed to ensure they do not pose a potential hazard or risk to aircraft utilising RAF Northolt orand associated radar equipment, infringe the safeguarding surfaces and this will apply to temporary structures such as construction cranes. Development proposals will need to demonstrate that be required to be assessed to ensure that they avoid navigational and other hazards. Some 90 potential hazards have been identified below though full investigation and justification, in close consultation with from MoD safeguarding, will be required before such initiatives are ruled out: but early identification of these are:

Large areas of glazing/reflective surfaces (particularly complete elevations/roof surfaces), which can cause reflection/dazzle hazards to aircrew.

Renewable energy installations, particularly wind turbines (including roof top micro turbines) which can cause interference with Air Traffic Radar systems

Landscape features that provide open water bodies, habitat or sources of food, can raise potential unacceptable risk from Bird strike, that can be easily avoided through appropriate design, controls and management incorporated at an early stage of the planning process. safeguarding requirements will apply such as restrictions on any landscape features that provide open water bodies and avoidance of berry bearing tree species

Archaeological appraisal

6.194 Whilst Tthe site does not lie within an archaeological priority area, however the site is considered to be geographicallygeologically well placed for pre-historic and more recent remains. An archaeological desk based assessment should be included as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, conducted by a recognised archaeological organisation to the standards of the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS). This report should also allow for any archaeological mitigation and may include recommendations for excavation and further investigation.

DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

Waste Management

6.19 PPS10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management requires a more sustainable approach to waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort. Given the size of the site, a site-wide waste management strategy will need toshould be submitted with any planning application, to with the aim of reduceing conventional levels of waste, and demonstrate compliance with PPS 10, and demonstrate that an innovative solution to manage waste across the site, and the immediate surrounds if appropriate, has been considered. encouraging recycling across this site. This should also address the requirement to reduce demolition across the site and maximise the re-use and recycling of demolition waste, if no suitable alternative for existing buildings is found.

6.20 Any planning application must provide details of the design of waste and recycling collection facilities. Residential and commercial developments must include dedicated storage and collection facilities for waste and recyclable materials at ground floor level, in easily accessible, safe, secure and convenient locations. Minimal visual intrusion and protection of amenity will be sought in these locations. Street layout, housing design, open space and the public realm will need to consider collection, management and disposal of public and domestic waste. Applications will need to clearly illustrate that 91 whilst facilities for refuse collection vehicles are provided in the street layout, alternative solutions to improve the layout, in accordance with the “homezone” principles, and ensure a quality accessible environment are provided. A strategy for waste collection should therefore be incorporated in to the masterplan and other proposals.

Energy

6.17 Any redevelopment proposal should provide a facility that enables the creation of green energy from waste on the site, subject to a full evaluation of the plant/facilities in terms of its suitability for the site in terms of issues such as land take; visual impacts; noise; emissions; traffic and the likely benefits in terms of energy creation, including its impacts on the surrounding areas. The council considers that a gasification plant may be appropriate, which would convert waste into a gas with the resulting heat energy being used to produce steam, which could then be used to generate electricity. Any proposal should be designed in at the earliest stages of master planning for the site.

6.186.21 PPS 22 - Renewable Energy, outlines the governments preferred approach to planning for renewable energy, and encourages small-scale renewable energy projects in all new developments. The London Plan and the Mayors Energy Strategy also outline the requirements for renewable energy. In accordance with the London Plan Policy 4A.4 (Energy assessment), an assessment of the energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions will be required, with an holistic approach to accounting for CO2 emissions, embodied energy and similar considerations. Details of this are contained within the London Plan and the Mayor’s Energy Strategy. In particular energy assessment and sustainability assessment will need it should to demonstrate the expected energy and carbon dioxide emission savings from the energy efficiency and renewable energy measures incorporated in the development, including the feasibility of combined cooling, heat, and power (CCHP), combined heat and power (CHP) and community heating systems. This assessment should form part of the sustainable design and construction statement.

6.22 Developers will be required to demonstrate compliance with in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.6 (Decentralised Energy: Heating, Cooling and Power provision) illustrating to demonstrate that their heating, cooling and power systems have been selected to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. The need for active cooling systems should be reduced as far as possible through passive design including ventilation, appropriate use of thermal mass, external summer shading and vegetation on and adjacent to developments. The heating and cooling infrastructure should be designed to allow the use of decentralised energy (including renewable generation) and for it to be maximised in the future. In this regard, consideration of these issues will need to is should be incorporated into the masterplan and initial planning applications. “designed in” from the onset of the site layout .

6.23 Any redevelopment proposal should provide a facility that enables the creation of green energy from waste suitable for the needs of the site, and the immediate surrounds. Such a proposal will be subject to a full evaluation of the plant/facilities in terms of its suitability for the site in terms of issues such as land take; visual impacts; noise; emissions; traffic and the likely benefits with regard to energy creation, including its impacts on the surrounding areas. The council considers that a small-scale gasification plant may be appropriate, which would convert waste into a gas through pyrolysis, with 92 the resulting heat energy being used to produce steam, which could then be used to generate electricity. Any proposal should be designed in at the earliest stages of master planning for the site.

6.240 CCHP and CHP systems should be evaluated for the suitability to this site, and the immediate surroundings, particularly APL land. if relevant be extended beyond the boundaries. However It needs to be is recognised that there will be height, location, management and emission issues, and other material considerations that will need to be assessed as part of any proposals. for this site which will affect the provision and location of facilities.

6.25 Given the size and scale of the project, and the opportunities this presents, developers will need to demonstrate that every endeavour has been made to limit CO2 emissions arising from development of the site. This can be achieved through the design phase and with attention given to thinking about how the buildings will function and how residents and visitors will live and work on and around the site. In accordance with the current London Plan Policy 4A.7 (Renewable Energy), the development should achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation (which can include sources of decentralised renewable energy). Proposals will also need to comply with PPS1 and the supplement to PPS 1, in showing that innovative solutions have been explored through the design phase of the project. The 20% reduction in CO2 emissions should be viewed as a minimum requirement and developers will be required to demonstrate that developments will aim to limit CO2 emissions further than this target, subject to financial viability and other logistical considerations. Developers should engage in discussions with the Council, the GLA and other key stakeholders in developing proposals for the site., unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible.

Sustainable drainage

6.22 In accordance with London Plan Policies 4A.3, 4A.9 and 4A.14, a sustainable water drainage system (SUuDS) and sustainable design and construction techniques will be required for the site with the aim of controlling water runoff as close to its origins as possible and with the aim of reducing flood risk downstream in accordance with Councils SFRA, and the Mayor of London requirement to achieve greenfield discharge rates on all new developmemts.

6.23 Climate change considerations, such as minimising water use and protecting and enhancing green infrastructure should be taken into account in the design. SUuDs proposals for the overall site should be designed in at the earliest stage with the overall landscape and open spaces strategy. Consideration should be given to public health, safety and usability of open spaces. This is considered particularly relevant to any location of ponding water facilities near children’s play space and housing development. Proposals must ensure that the water quality of the River Pinn and associated habitat is protected in accordance Saved Policy EC1. Further information is available in the Environment Agency in the document “SuDs – A Practical Guide” 2006.

6.24 Given the nature and scale of the development of the site an indication of sequencing should be provided with the planning application for key infrastructure

93 such as water, wastewater and roads, including phasing of the development of the site.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

6.256.26 The Code for Sustainable Homes - Technical Guide was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in April 2008. It sets out the requirements for the Code, and the process by which a Code assessment is reached., The and accompanying Code for Ssustainable Homes: Setting the Sustainability Standards for New Homes, details the assessment process and the performance standards required to meet the different for the Code levels.

6.266.27 Consistent with the aspiration for low carbon development, all new housing developments on the site should achieve, as a minimum, the requirements of Level 4. However, given the long timeframes for development on the site, it is likely that these requirements will be reviewed with current proposals for Level 6 to be required by 2016, and therefore the achievement of levels 5 or 6 of the Code from the onset are would be strongly encouraged for any site proposals, wherever these are feasible. Commercial development shall the endeavour to achievement of the achieve a BREEAM “excellent” rating, unless it can be justified why this cannot be achieved. will be sought.

6.276.28 In accordance with London Plan Policies 4B.1 and 4A.9 any proposals should contribute to the mitigation of the effects of climate change which includes minimising overheating and heat island effects, minimising solar gain in summer, contributing to reducing flood risk, minimising water use and protecting and enhancing green infrastructure.

6.2928 The London Plan Policy 4A.3 (Sustainable design and construction) encourages development to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction. This sets out a number of objectives. These requirements must be addressed as part of site development proposals for RAF Uxbridge. In accordance with this policy, a statement on the potential implications of the development on sustainable design and construction principles will be sought, including energy. It should also address demolition, construction and long-term management.

6.30 29It should be noted that a number of potential issues need particular consideration will influence measures that can be achieved on this site given the safeguarding requirements of RAF Northolt. Consideration will need to be given to This includes restrictions the impacts of on reflective materials and panels, the heights of all structures, turbines (and similar navigational hazards) and the need to limit the risk of bird strike requirements through limiting habitat for large birds in landscaping design and flood mitigation. In addition the site is in an Air Quality Management Area, which will affect emissions such as the use of biomass and other fuels. The impact on the Listed buildings on the site, the amenities of the Green Belt, the adjacent Area of Special Local Character (Vine Lane) and the views from the nearby Conservation Areas (Old Uxbridge and the Greenway) must be taken into account in the design of all proposals. However, such issues will need to be fully explored before any renewable energy technologies and other sustainability initiatives are discounted. Such information will need to be included with any planning application for the site. Liaison will be required with the relevant aviation authorities, MoD safeguarding,y and the Council’s Conservation officers and 94 Environmental Protection Unit, and other relevant parties as part of the preparation of site proposals.

Overheating

6.310 Any proposals for the site, The development, including a masterplan, site layout should be designed to avoid internal overheating of buildings and the public realm and avoid excessive heat generation in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.10. Any proposals should demonstrate how development is, as far as practicable, designed to provide an appropriate living and working environment for the likely weather conditions, including extreme heat, made heatthrough heat resilient in design, construction and operation as part of site proposals.

Living roofs and walls

6.321 Development on site will be expected to should incorporate living roofs and walls where feasible in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.11. Developments should help to enhance biodiversity, absorb rainfall, improve the performance of the building, reduce the heat island effect, provide amenity space and improve appearance. This will be particularly Provision of these would be strongly encouraged for those developments in close proximity adjacent to the Green belt, or where they are within strategic views to and from the site and the riparian corridor to promote biodiversity. Additional advice is included in the Environment Agency’s “Green Roof Toolkit”, and the Mayor of London’s “Living Roofs and Walls” document. Design and selection of vegetation should consider the ability to enhance the current ecological values, SUDS, aesthetic qualities of the site, but must also give due consideration to as well as aviation safeguarding (bird strike) constraints in consultation with MoD safeguarding and the Council.requirements.

Water supply and wastewater management

6.33 Water should be considered a precious resource not to be wasted. Rainwater harvesting, limits on consumption of water and re-use of the various forms of waste water will need to be designed into the fabric of any masterplan, design codes and detailed planning applications in accordance with London Plan policy 4B.14.

6.34 Early discussions with the relevant water and wastewater providers (currently Three Rivers Water and Thames Water respectively) should be undertaken to ensure adequate provision and no undue impact on the surrounding network. The redevelopment of this site will be seen as an opportunity to significantly improve current infrastructure and to mitigate against any future flooding, particularly as a result of climate change. This may require significant investment and the planning of underground services, and other water and wastewater management will need to be considered along side the masterplan and planning applications. Any proposals for the site should incorporate water conservation measures including water saving devices, greywater and/or rainwater recycling in all buildings to significantly reduce potable water consumption in both residential and non-residential buildings in line with the other objectives outlined in this SPD.

95 6.353 In accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.16, a maximum water use target of 105 litres per person per day for residential development should be addressed as part of site proposals. However given the long time frame for the site it is recommended where possible a target of 80 litres per day per person should be considered (Sustainable Homes level 6). This may be adjusted through reviews of future planning documents, which will take into account the then prevailing standards in the Code for Sustainable Homes. Measures to reduce consumption should include low water use appliances and fittings for both residential and commercial development (as appropriate).

Sustainable exemplar development

6.36 The aspiration to achieve “sustainable exemplar” provision was expressed during the public consultation. For residential development this would equate to development that meets Sustainable Homes Code Level 6 (“zero carbon”). London Plan Policy 4A.7 (Renewable energy) seeks the provision of sites for zero carbon development and this is reflected in the Mayors Energy Strategy which seeks one in every Borough by 2010. As part of the wider sustainability objectives for the site and as part of the overall aspiration to create an exemplar development, the nomination of a site for, and development of at least one Code Level 6 development is sought as part of the proposals for RAF Uxbridge. Provision for this should be reflected in the master plan with specific requirements set out in the design codes. The location, timing and size of the development should reflect the aspiration to achieve the Mayor’s target and the proposal should also be a significant landmark development of exceptional design quality, building on the site’s environmental attributes. While the final size and location of the proposal will be established in the design codes and through detailed discussions with the Council and other key stakeholders, as a minimum a target of a development of approximately 30 residential units would be expected.

6.37 The Mayors Energy Strategy states that zero-carbon developments are highly energy-efficient developments, powered and heated by renewables with zero net carbon emissions. Zerocarbon developments represent an almost complete solution to many of the issues that the Energy Strategy is seeking to address. They are typically mixed use, including housing, office and retail, which contributes to more sustainable living patterns as well as helping to balance heat and electricity loads. Zero-carbon developments also aim to reduce the need for private car use through transport plans, and focusing on good pedestrian and cycling facilities as well as good links to public transport.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

6.38 In accordance with the provisions of ODPM Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations, the Planning Obligations SPG, the draft the Council’s adopted Planning Obligations SPD and relevant UDP Saved Policies, planning obligations (s106/s278) will be sought as part of the development proposals on the site. where planning conditions cannot be achieved. Compliance with London Plan Policies 6A.4 and 6A.5 will also need to be demonstrated. The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD outlines the expected contributions, and an initial desktop study indicates a number of planning obligations that will be required. The s106 and s278 agreements will be subject to detailed studies and negotiations, however as a starting point the obligations are likely to include:

96 1. Transport and transport related issues: In line with the SPD on Transport, Accessibility, Air Quality and Noise, a contribution towards public transport will be sought. This could come in the form of a new bus route, bus stops, holding bays throughout the site, cycle ways, improved accessibility given the sites proximity to the town centre and a framework travel plan and detailed travel plans across the site. It is also likely that a s278 agreement will be required to undertake any and all works on highway’s land as a result of this proposal. A priority has been identified to improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity between the RAF Uxbridge site and the existing Uxbridge Town centre via St Andrew’s roundabout. This should be at grade and create a visually attractive and eminently safe and useable thoroughfare.

2. Affordable Housing: In line with the SPD on affordable housing and Planning Obligations; a financial viability appraisal (FVA) will be required to demonstrate that every effort has been made to provide up to 50% affordable housing on the site in accordance with the London Plan and current guidance. Supporting information will be sought to enable the critique of an FVA, including valuation data, existing use values, construction costs, sales date along with details on the cost of other aspirations for the site and similar information required to reach a decision on the amount of affordable housing that can be viably provided on the site.

3. Education: In line with the SPD on Educational Facilities a contribution towards nursery, primary, secondary and post 16 school places and/or facilities will be sought. There is a formula for ascertaining the likely level of this contribution within the SPD on planning obligations Chapter 4 Educational Facilities.

4. Health: in line with the SPD on Health Facilities a contribution towards the PCT will be sought as a result of this proposal. Given the size of the site it is likely that the NHS may wish to secure an onsite facility to cope with the additional residents, however recent advice indicates that a new health facility will be provided nearby in the existing town centre, and through existing GP surgeries, and other health providers near the site. Significant contributions may be required to assist in the funding of additional facilities. Further more detailed consultation will be required with the PCT and NHS prior to any decision being made.

5. Community Facilities: In line with the SPD on Community Facilities a facility or number of facilities are likely to be required on site, and/or cash contribution is sought as a result of this proposal. In addition to any local community facility requirements arising from the addition of new residents to the area, the facilities / contribution for facilities should also reflect the aspiration for the site to provide the creation of an evening destination point and cultural quarter around a significant arts / cultural facility, given Uxbridge’s ‘Metropolitan’ town centre status. Further scoping work is required and any developer will be expected to work with the Council in developing proposals for the site to comply with the aspirations of this RAF Uxbridge SPD. In additional, in line with the Planning Obligations SPD a libraries contribution of £23 per person would also be required.

6. Open Space: In line with the SPD on Open Space and Recreation it is envisaged that all the open space requirements will be delivered given the size of this site. However, contributions towards the management of open space, areas of ecological importance and other costs associated with the upkeep of the site. The developer, in association with Council’s Green Spaces Team, will need to undertake a needs and deficiency 97 assessment of the site, its location and any other constraints i.e. through consultation with bodies such as Sport England. As a minimum, an assessment of the following will be required:

Sports pitches and district parks Local parks, small parks and pocket parks Play space for children, needs to be met on site in line with the amended London Plan, and the Mayors SPG, and in keeping with the nature and scale of the proposal.

7. Public Realm: in line with the SPD on the Public Realm given the location and proposed mixed use aspects of the site, then it is likely that a contribution towards the public realm will be sought as a result of this proposal. This may take the form of public realm improvements, accessibility measures, the provision and maintenance of public spaces, street furniture and lighting, litter management, crime prevention and CCTV, public art and other town centre initiatives, both on site and off site. Particular emphasis will be given to improvements around St Andrews roundabout, and linking the town centre extension and the existing High street.

8. Construction Training: in line with the SPD on Training and Employment a contribution or onsite scheme to meet the training needs of our community is likely to be sought as a result of the proposal. If an onsite scheme is not implemented then it is likely that a cash contribution equal to £2,500 for every £1million construction cost will be sought plus an additional contribution towards co-ordinator costs (an estimate of the cost of a co-ordinator is £71,675 pa for every 160 units proposed).

9. Air Quality and Noise: in line with the SPD on Transportation, Accessibility, Air Quality and Noise, a contribution or scheme to mitigate against or ameliorate the impacts arising from the development is likely to be required.

10. Environmental Impacts: The protection, enhancement and provision of additional landscaping and trees, will be expected of the developer, along with the protection and enhancement of areas of ecological and biodiversity importance, and other associated issues as identified through this SPD.

11. Project Management and Monitoring: In line with the SPD a contribution towards project management and monitoring is sought equal to 5% of the total cash contributions secured from this proposal.

These requirements are likely to include:

Restoration of pedestrian connectivity to join RAF Uxbridge to the Uxbridge Town centre (St Andrew’s roundabout) Contribution towards/provision of community facilities including cultural facility, meeting rooms and public art Provision of education facilities to support the new population, likely to be 2 – form primary school and contributions towards secondary school places Provision of local health facilities or contribution towards a polyclinic or other wider health facility, to support the new population Provision of affordable housing Provision of public open space and contribution towards management 98 Contribution and/or provision of training and employment opportunities Provision of a Travel Plan and relevant traffic and transport requirements as a result of the development Contribution or provision of safety initiatives such as CCTV in the town centre expansion

6.396 Other matters such as Listed Building requirements, flooding, environmental improvements, noise, land contamination, recycling and the nomination of a site as a sustainable exemplar model, and the other issues identified throughout this SPD should be addressed in any planning application and may be covered by planning conditions and/or required through planning obligations if appropriate.

99 RAF Uxbridge Sustainability Appraisal

January 2009

www.hillingdon.gov.uk Published by the London Borough of Hillingdon January 2009 9600

Contents

Non Technical Summary ...... 1 1. Background ...... 2 1.1 The Study Area ...... 3 1.2 The RAF Uxbridge SPD ...... 4 1.3 The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) ...... 4 1.4 How this SA/SEA was undertaken ...... 5 2. Context ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Summary Review of Plans, Programmes and Sustainability Objectives ....10 2.3 Collection of Baseline Information ...... 11 2.4 Key Sustainability Issues ...... 13 2.5 The Sustainability Appraisal Framework ...... 19 2.6 Consulting on the Scope of the SA/SEA ...... 31 3. Assessment of the RAF Uxbridge Supplementary Planning Document ...32 3.1 Introduction ...... 32 3.2 Initial Assessment of Emerging Options and Policies ...... 33 3.3 Testing the SPD Objectives against the SA Framework ...... 34 3.4 Refining of the SPD in response to the SA ...... 36 3.5 Assessment of the SPD...... 37 3.6 Further Recommendations and Strategies to Maximise Beneficial Effects .64 4. Implementation ...... 66 4.1 Introduction ...... 66 4.2 Commenting on this Report ...... 66 4.3 Monitoring ...... 66 Appendix A: Review of Relevant Plans and Policies ...... 68 Appendix B: Baseline Information ...... 111 Appendix C: Sustainability Framework ...... 128 Appendix D: Consultation Responses ...... 140 Appendix E: Table of Options ...... 143 Appendix F: Iteration Table ...... 169

Non Technical Summary

The London Borough of Hillingdon is producing a supplementary planning document (SPD) to guide the future development of RAF Uxbridge which is being considered for residential led mixed-use development. This document is the Sustainability Appraisal that accompanies the SPD and is used as a planning tool to assess the performance of the SPD against specific sustainability objectives developed for the area.

The RAF Uxbridge site is a large site owned by Defence Estates and VSM Estates, covering approximately 44.6 hectares, located close to the Uxbridge town centre. Within the site, to the north-west and adjacent to the town centre, there is unoccupied Annington Property Ltd housing. The Annington Property Ltd land, while not specifically included in the red line boundary for the SPD, has implications for integrating the site with the surrounding built form and the comprehensive redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge. It will be essential that the redevelopment integrates with the Annington Property Ltd proposals.

Hillingdon is an area where significant growth is encouraged through London Plan policy - it is identified in the adopted Further Alterations to the London Plan (2008) as a metropolitan centre. In addition, the LDF Core Strategy is considering the extension of the Uxbridge town centre boundary into the northern corner of the RAF Uxbridge site.

Accompanying the preparation of the SPD is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process. The purpose of an SA is to promote sustainable development by predicting the impact of the SPD policies against a range of social, economic and environmental criteria. Close working with the plan-making team has ensured that the outcomes of the SA assessment have been taken into account as the policies for the SPD have been developed.

THIS REPORT

• Explains the Sustainability Appraisal process and methodology (Section 1); • Section 2 provides a review of the relevant plans and programmes, outlines the baseline conditions for the area, identifies the key sustainability issues, provides the objectives against which the RAF Uxbridge policies have been assessed and the outcomes of the Scoping Report which set out the objectives and criteria for the SA; • Section 3 contains information on the appraisals of the SPD that have occurred during its development, and the final appraisal of the SPD released for consultation; • Section 4 has more information on implementation including how to comment on this report and recommended monitoring of sustainability aspects; and • The Appendices contain details of the plan review; the indicators and baseline; and consultation responses to the Scoping Report.

1. Background

A Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is being prepared by the London Borough of Hillingdon for the RAF Uxbridge development site. RAF Uxbridge is a Royal Air Force (RAF) Base located adjacent to the Uxbridge Town Centre. As part of the wider Project MODeL, operations on the base are intended to relocate to RAF Northolt and the base will close in 2010. The operational part of the site (approximately 44.6 ha) is owned by Defence Estates and VSM Estates, who intend to redevelop it. In April 2007, the agents for VSM, GVA Grimley, advised that they intended to submit a planning application for a mixed-use residential-led scheme in 2008.

As part of the work for the draft local development framework (LDF) the site has been identified as being of strategic importance to the London Borough of Hillingdon with a unique opportunity to deliver a major mixed use development close to Uxbridge town centre, bringing benefits not only to Uxbridge but to the Borough and West London.

Accompanying the preparation of the SPD is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process. The purpose of a SA is to promote sustainable development through meaningful integration of sustainability considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans. The SA process is designed to test the RAF Uxbridge SPD for soundness – through social, economic and environmental criteria.

A Sustainability Team within EDAW have been working closely with the plan- making team to ensure the two processes are integrated and iterative, ensuring that the SA process has informed the development of the RAF Uxbridge SPD. The SA Framework, Baseline, Indicators and Assessment within this SA have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy to ensure consistency across the LDF documents.

This Report documents the impact of the SA process to date, and provides an assessment of the SPD document.

This SA Report was preceded by a Scoping Report (December 2007), which set out the sustainability objectives and baseline, including the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) set out in EU Directive 2001/42/EC. The Scoping Report was revised and this report will be revised in response to comments by statutory consultees during consultation of the Supplementary Planning Document.

1.1 The Study Area

The RAF Uxbridge development site is a 44.6 hectare area forming part of the wider RAF Uxbridge RAF Base and is located in Uxbridge, in the Borough of Hillingdon (Uxbridge North ward). The RAF Uxbridge site area and its surrounds are shown in Figure 1. As far as possible, the analysis of issues, baseline and assessment set out by this Sustainability Appraisal relate to the area within the SPD boundary but where specific data is unavailable analysis may be based on a wider context area.

Figure 1: RAF Uxbridge Area Map

1.2 The RAF Uxbridge SPD

The RAF Uxbridge SPD will form a strategic framework for the redevelopment of the area and therefore will have a considerable role to play in the delivery of the major planned regeneration initiative and ensuring the imminent submission of a planning application is sustainable.

The RAF Uxbridge SPD has been produced for consultation. It sets out the proposed policies for the area and documents the alternatives considered in the development of these policies. The SPD is divided into the following sections: • Site Background; • Development Framework; • Requirements for Site Layout; • Requirements for Specific Uses; • Environmental and Sustainable Development Considerations

This report contains the assessment of this SPD as part of the Sustainability Appraisal process.

1.3 The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

What is Sustainable Development? The most frequently quoted historical definition of sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”1. In March 2005, a new Government strategy for sustainable development was set out called ‘Securing the Future’. The following definition for sustainable development was forwarded to specifically direct sustainable development in the UK:

“The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations. For the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations, that goal will be pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment; and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal wellbeing. This will be done in ways that protect and enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy as efficiently as possible.”

1 World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987

To achieve this, five key principles have been proposed in ‘Securing the Future’: • Living Within Environmental Limits • Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society • Achieving a Sustainable Economy • Promoting Good Governance • Using Sound Science Responsibly

These principles have been used to inform the development of the sustainability objectives which are set out later in this report (section 2.5 The Sustainability Appraisal Framework).

What does a Sustainability Appraisal involve? The SA process is designed to test the SPD for soundness – through social, economic and environmental criteria. In order to make meaningful progress towards a sustainable way of living, it is essential that plans such as the SPD for RAF Uxbridge are developed in an integrated way where sustainability considerations are taken on board. The Sustainability Appraisal process provides a mechanism through which these considerations can be forwarded to influence the development of such plans with the aim of reconciling and balancing their environmental, social and economic effects. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a Sustainability Appraisal is mandatory for SPDs. The Sustainability Appraisal process has also been tailored to incorporate the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process. The European Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive requires the use of the SEA process to ensure that plans and policies with land use implications take environmental issues into account. The process involves the assessment of the current state of the environment, the identification of likely significant effects on the environment and specifies possible measures to prevent or mitigate these effects. The report is then consulted on with authorities with environmental responsibility and information summarised stating how environmental considerations have been integrated into the plan and monitored thereafter. Since environmental issues fall within the scope of a sustainability assessment, the SA process can be used to satisfy the requirements of an SEA, along with the wider social and economic considerations.

1.4 How this SA/SEA was undertaken In order to ensure that the SA meets the requirements of SEA Directive, DCLG (formally ODPM) has prepared guidance. ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks’, published November 2005, is intended to provide guidance on how to undertake a Sustainability Appraisal that incorporates the environmental assessment requirements of the

SEA Regulations. This Sustainability Appraisal of the RAF Uxbridge SPD follows this guidance and therefore incorporates the requirements of the SEA and the SA regulations and for the purpose of this report is termed solely as a Sustainability Appraisal (SA). In line with this guidance, the SA has five stages, which are linked to the four stages of SPD production, as shown in the diagram below.

Figure 2: SA Process alongside SPD Process

This Report covers the appraisal process to date. Table 1 shows the key outputs of the SA process in development of the RAF Uxbridge SPD.

The following table provides the stages and associated process for the RAF Uxbridge SPD.

Table 1. Summary of the SA Process Stage Key SA Steps SA Outputs A This involves: Section in this report: Section 2 and appendices A, B and C − Identifying other relevant policies, plans, programmes Also the RAF Uxbridge SPD SA and sustainability objectives Scoping Report (December 2007) − Collecting baseline information Timeframe: The Scoping Report − Identifying sustainability issues was issued in December 2007 and problems for a 5 week consultation period. − Developing the SA Framework Process: The Scoping Report − Consulting on the scope of the was revised (March 2008) to sustainability appraisal reflect comments received from statutory consultees B − Testing the SPD objectives Section in this report: Section 3 against the SA framework. Timeframe: This has been − Developing the SPD options. ongoing during the preparation of the SPD. − Predicting and evaluating the effects of the draft SPD. Process: Involvement in design team meetings and informal − Considering ways of mitigating consultation with statutory adverse effects and maximising consultees. beneficial effects. − Proposing measures to monitor the significant effects of implementing the SPD C Preparing the SA report This report has been completed. D Consulting on the draft SPD and We are here in the process SA report. This involves public Section in this report: Section 4 participation, assessing significant provides details on how to changes required and providing comment on the RAF Uxbridge information and helping decisions SPD Report and this SA Report to be made. Timeframe: July 2008 for a six week formal consultation period

Stage Key SA Steps SA Outputs E Monitoring significant effects of the Section in this report: Section 4 implementation of the SPD. Timeframe: Annual monitoring − Using a finalised and agreed Process: A range of indicators methodology, significant effects have been identified that will of the SPD must be monitored show change over time as a from an early stage. result of the SPD. − Sustainability monitoring reports must be integrated with the Annual Monitoring Report, and appropriate remedial action taken when necessary.

2. Context 2.1 Introduction This chapter sets out the results arising from tasks undertaken within Stage A of the Sustainability Appraisal process. Much of this information is also contained in the SA Scoping Report. Table 2 below outlines the component parts in Stage A, and lists the outputs within this report.

Table 2: Stage A of SA Section of SA Task Purpose Output in this Scoping report Report A1: Identifying To document how the plan is Section 3 and A table other relevant affected by outside factors Appendix A summarising policies, plans, and suggest ideas for how any all European, programmes constraints can be addressed. national and regional, sub- sustainability regional and objectives local plans, programmes and sustainability objectives of relevance to RAF Uxbridge. (Appendix A and section 2.2). A2: Collecting To provide an evidence base Section 4 and A table baseline for sustainability issues. Appendix B summarising information evidence (as far as information is

currently available) against a comprehensive range of key sustainability issues and indicators (Appendix B and section 2.3)

Section of SA Task Purpose Output in this Scoping report Report A3: Identifying To help focus the SA and Section 5 A summary of sustainability streamline the subsequent the key issues issues and stages, by analysing the as they drive problems baseline and identifying or are affected sustainability issues and by sustainable problems. development, drawing evidence from the baseline information (section 2.4). A4: Developing To provide a means by which Section 6 and Drawing on the SA the sustainability of the plan Appendix C and consistent Framework can be appraised. with, the above three tasks a framework for testing options at future stages in the form of a matrix was developed (Appendix C and section 2.5). A5: Consulting To consult with statutory Section 7 and Consultation on the scope of bodies that have social, Section 8 responses the environmental, or economic were received sustainability responsibilities to ensure the and the appraisal SA covers the key scoping report sustainability issues. was amended and finalised accordingly.

2.2 Summary Review of Plans, Programmes and Sustainability Objectives In order to conduct a meaningful sustainability appraisal of the SPD, the relationship of the RAF Uxbridge SPD with other relevant plans and programmes and the relevant sustainability objectives established at National, Regional, and Local level have been mapped and assessed. Accordingly, these objectives have been taken into account during the preparation of this Sustainability Appraisal. This mapping exercise was completed as part of Stage A in the Sustainability Process.

These strategies, along with community and stakeholder consultation and baseline analysis, have informed the options to be considered in the preparation of the RAF Uxbridge SPD. Mapping and documenting these strategies, and the relationships between them, enables potential synergies to be exploited and any inconsistencies and constraints to be addressed. There is no definitive list of strategies and plans that may have influence within the RAF Uxbridge SPD. This review did not attempt to list all relevant information to Uxbridge, but to establish relationships and common themes between plans and to identify the likely significant effects of the RAF Uxbridge SPD. It will not always be possible to achieve complete compatibility with the objectives or aspirations of other plans. A full review of plans and strategies is contained within Appendix A. It reviews the relevant sustainability objectives of the plan, programme or sustainability objective and summarises the implications of these sustainability objectives on the RAF Uxbridge SPD. The challenge is for the SPD to incorporate these key principles and apply them locally.

2.3 Collection of Baseline Information The sustainability framework must be drawn from a robust evidence base if it is to be relevant and effective in informing the preparation of the SPD for RAF Uxbridge. Baseline information provides the basis for predicting and monitoring effects and helps to identify sustainability problems along with alternative ways of dealing with those problems. This report provides an overview of the current environmental, social and economic situation in the RAF Uxbridge and wider Hillingdon area. From this baseline we can map any sustainability issues connected to the implementation of the SPD over time and manage the effects accordingly.

Relationship to the SEA Directive The baseline data collected to meet the requirements of Annex 1 (f) of the SEA Directive includes: • Biodiversity • Population • Flora and fauna • Landscape • Air • Water (including resources, quality and groundwater) • Cultural (including architectural and archaeological heritage) • Material assets (including energy, waste, previously developed land and minerals); • Human health • The interrelationship between these factors

Baseline data was also collected for a range of economic and social topics. These sustainability topics were selected from a number of sources, including the DCLG (ODPM) guidance. Detailed baseline information for the RAF Uxbridge area has been gathered as part of the baseline analysis for the RAF Uxbridge SPD. Also, substantial baseline investigations for Hillingdon as a whole have been undertaken as part of the Sustainability Appraisals of the ‘draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Documents’ and the ‘Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document’. This baseline information has been utilised, updated and added to within this baseline study. Baseline information has also been sourced from a number of Hillingdon strategies, action plans and monitoring reports and this information has been drawn on where relevant to the RAF Uxbridge situation. A summary of the key baseline information is set out in Appendix B including the relevant baseline indicator information available in tabular form.

Focusing the Baseline Stage To focus the baseline data collection stage, the following principles were considered: • Relevance – is the data helpful? • Current – is the data as up to date as possible? • Availability – the data easily accessible? • Interpretation – is it easy to understand? Generally, if data did not fall within the above it was omitted. Where RAF Uxbridge data was unavailable, then Hillingdon, Regional or national level data was used where considered appropriate.

Presenting the Baseline Data The baseline review and data tables are set out in Appendix B. The appraisal objectives have been used as the basis for the analysis of the baseline. In line with the iterative nature of the process, the objectives have also been influenced by the baseline. This approach is consistent with guidance from the DCLG (ODPM).

Summary and Conclusion The baseline review has provided a clear picture of key sustainability issues within the RAF Uxbridge area across the range of sustainability objectives. Key conclusions from the baseline review relating to sustainability issues and the strategy needed for RAF Uxbridge are summarised in Table 3 below.

2.4 Key Sustainability Issues The Scoping Report identified a number of key sustainability issues. This analysis has informed the development of the RAF Uxbridge SPD objectives and options. The table below was updated subsequent to the SPD and SA consultation to reflect stakeholder comments. The stakeholder comments and SA amendments can be found in Appendix D.

Key sustainability issues are highlighted in the table below. Table 3: Key Sustainability Issues Identified in the Scoping Report No Key Issues Key Sources Key Strategy for RAF Uxbridge Social 1 Ensuring the standard Community Provide residents with a of living for present Strategy very high standard of and future residents is living. addressed. 2 The baseline review Baseline – Provide community identifies GP provision Community facilities and essential is below national Facilities services to allow easy average. UDP access for residents Community without unnecessary There is room for Strategy utilization of motor improvement in Hillingdon vehicles. This is to Boroughs Community Transport Strategy assist in the reduction of Facilities provision. carbon emissions. 3 Local and national Baseline – Provision of health policy promotes Community facilities and the healthy living for all Facilities encouragement of residents in the UDP healthy living borough. Community complimented by access Strategy to a range of high quality Health White open spaces and natural Paper landscapes. 4 The baseline review Baseline – Inclusion of accessible identifies a diverse Community cultural, recreational community within the Facilities and leisure facilities area. Community where appropriate to Strategy improve community It also identifies a lack UDP vibrancy and cohesion. of cultural facilities Core Strategy SA LDF SA

5 Policy promotes the Baseline – Provision of additional provision of Education primary and secondary educational services UDP education capacity to for growing Community meet the needs of new

No Key Issues Key Sources Key Strategy for RAF Uxbridge population. Strategy residents Core Strategy SA The baseline review identifies a lack of capacity in existing schools to meet expected growth. 6 Policy identifies the Baseline – Provide a range of need to provide a Housing social rented, sustainable housing PPS3 intermediate and market mix to need the varied London Plan housing that meets local needs of the area. UDP needs including an Community appropriate mix of Strategy dwelling sizes. Affordable Housing SPD Core Strategy SA LDF SA 7 Meeting the housing Baseline – Identify variety of needs of the growing Housing housing densities on population whilst London Plan the site appropriate to maintaining existing Affordable the surrounding area and developing Housing SPD and transport links. character of the area. 8 The baseline review Baseline – Improve navigation recognises that the Connectivity through RAF Uxbridge closed nature of site UDP through the currently acts as a Hillingdon establishment of focal barrier. Transport Strategy points at key locations 9 The baseline review Baseline – Improve access across recognises that the Connectivity the site allowing closed nature of site UDP residents to access currently acts as a Corporate Plan public transport around barrier and that LDF SA Uxbridge Town Centre ppedestrian links from the site to the town centre are hampered by surrounding highways.

10 The community Baseline – Promote safer strategy draws Community Safety communities through attention to the need Community the creation of active to improve the quality Strategy frontages and natural

No Key Issues Key Sources Key Strategy for RAF Uxbridge of community living by surveillance along addressing crime and pedestrian links. safety issues. 11 Local and national Baseline – Involve local policy highlights the Community communities in decision importance of local Cohesion making and promote community PPS1 community cohesion. involvement in UDP development within the borough. Environmental 12 The baseline review Baseline – Open Preserving and identifies the current Space enhancing the suburban nature and Baseline - Housing character of the site, greenbelt principles of UDP the surrounding the Borough. residential area and the greenbelt. 13 Local policy Baseline – Open Protecting views and recognises the need Space the natural aspect of the to maintain and UDP landscape enhance the environment which is identified in the baseline review. 14 The baseline review Baseline – History Maintaining the heritage highlights the PPG15 of the area, particularly important military UDP preserving the historical history of the site. Community value of the site and Strategy taking advantage of Local and national Core Strategy SA heritage opportunities. policies stress the LDF SA The heritage of the area importance of should be enhanced preserving London’s through sensitive historical assets. regeneration. 15 Local policy states the Baseline – Open Protecting the greenbelt importance of open Space and providing high space and greenbelt PPG2 quality open space for a principles in the UDP range of recreational borough. LDF SA activities

16 The baseline review Baseline – Creating new and identifies a number of Ecology preserving existing important habitats and UDP valuable habitats to fauna on the site. PPS9 enhance biodiversity

No Key Issues Key Sources Key Strategy for RAF Uxbridge Core Strategy SA and to provide for LDF SA species already using the site and surrounds 17 Regional policy London Plan Develop good quality promotes the use of London Plan Early housing based upon sustainable design Alterations sustainable design and construction Sustainable and construction practices in all new Design and principles. developments. Construction SPG PPS22 18 Local and regional London Plan Promoting and policy highlights the Community encouraging efficient growing need to Strategy use of water and protect and conserve Core Strategy SA minimizing runoff water supplies in London. 19 Both local and London Plan Promoting energy regional policy identify Community efficiency and increasing the need to Improve Strategy self sufficiency with energy efficiency and Core Strategy SA regard to green energy reduce CO2 emissions LDF SA production within the borough 20 The local policy Baseline – Ensuring that the new promotes sustainable Resource development contributes waste management Management to Hillingdon’s efforts to within the borough. Community facilitate high levels of Strategy recycling and effective PPS10 waste management. Core Strategy SA LDF SA 21 Areas around the site Baseline – Noise Ensure that noise are affected by and Air Pollution pollution is controlled on significant noise Noise SPD site, especially around issues. New Mayor’s Noise sensitive interfaces development will need Strategy to address local policy Core Strategy SA to reduce and control LDF SA noise.

22 Part of the site lies Baseline – Reduce and where within flood zone 3. Flooding and possible prevent Development will need Water Control flooding on-site through to minimise flooding PPS25 sensitive design and an

No Key Issues Key Sources Key Strategy for RAF Uxbridge risk as set out in local Core Strategy SA integrative approach to policy. LDF SA water management, using sustainable urban drainage systems where possible 23 The borough has a Baseline – Reducing the reliance high level of car Connectivity for new residents on ownership and private Mayor’s Air Quality private motor vehicles car travel. Local and Strategy through effective design regional policy Mayor’s Transport identifies the need to Strategy promote alternatives Hillingdon to the use of private Transport Strategy cars. Community Strategy Core Strategy SA 24 The baseline shows a Baseline – Providing for and high level of private Connectivity encouraging walking car use in the Mayor’s Air Quality and cycling borough. Local and Strategy regional policies Mayor’s Transport identify the need to Strategy promote the walking Hillingdon and cycling as Transport Strategy alternatives. Community Strategy 25 The site benefits from Baseline – Providing access to significant public Connectivity regular and well- transport opportunities Mayor’s Air Quality connected public as identified in the Strategy transport services baseline review. In Mayor’s Transport accordance with local Strategy and regional policy, Hillingdon public transport Transport Strategy alternatives should be Community promoted. Strategy

26 Local and regional Baseline – Reducing carbon policies advocate the Connectivity emissions and the reduction of carbon Mayor’s Air Quality effects of traffic on the emissions in London. Strategy environment

No Key Issues Key Sources Key Strategy for RAF Uxbridge Hillingdon Local policies identify Transport Strategy the need to reduce the Core Strategy SA impact of traffic from LDF SA new developments 27 The baseline review Baseline – Introduce measures to identifies traffic Connectivity calm traffic and accident hot spots in Mayor’s Transport promote road safety. the area. The Mayor’s Strategy strategy identifies the need to improve transport safety, especially reducing road traffic accidents and fatalities. Economic 28 The baseline review Baseline – Create a range of identifies the Employment and employment employment profile of Economic opportunities to match the area and its wider Development the varied needs of the context. UDP local area. Core Strategy The core strategy Community identifies the need to Strategy promote competitive economic growth which promotes employment creation 29 The policy review has Baseline – Encourage both highlighted the Employment indigenous and inwards economic Economic investment into the opportunities at this Development area, which is site, whilst also UDP complimentary to and identifying the need to London’s supports the existing support the existing Economic Uxbridge town centre town centre. Development and builds on its Strategy Metropolitan status. Community Strategy LDF SA

2.5 The Sustainability Appraisal Framework A Sustainability Framework (SF) provides the key objectives and indicators against which emerging options and policies can be tested against – and suggestions made for improvement. The SF presented in Table 4 was developed through the scoping process and consulted upon (see below). This framework provides the basis through which the Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging SPD has been conducted. In Table 4 below, the key issues identified are mapped to the final objectives and SA objectives from hierarchical and relevant other Sustainability Appraisals are listed to give consistency throughout the planning system. The SF includes a range of topics as required by the SEA Directive - including issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, water, air, material assets and cultural heritage.

Table 4. The Sustainability Appraisal Framework No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. 1 To promote Will it increase the 7, 9, London Plan SA: methods to proportion of journeys 21. -To focus development at reduce made using public 23, locations which are currently dependence transport rather than 24, 25 well served by public on private private car? 26, 28 transport with spare existing vehicular Will it increase capacity, walking or cycling, transport accessibility to public or at locations where and manage transport? improvements are planned to the effects Will it increase walking achieve increases in their traffic on the and cycling modal share environment alternatives to using -To reduce car dependency private cars? by improving transport choice Will it act to achieve and thus increasing the Hillingdon’s targets to proportion of journeys made increase walking by by public transport, by bicycle 10% and cycling by and by foot 80%? Affordable Housing SPD SA: Will it increase car - To promote methods to sharing? reduce dependence on Will it improve road private transport and manage safety? the effects traffic on the Will it reduce carbon environment emissions? - To improve air quality to a Will it act to reduce air standard that is acceptable pollution? for human and ecological health Core Strategy SA:

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. - To promote methods to reduce dependence on private transport and manage the effects traffic on the environment

- To improve air quality to a standard that is acceptable for human and ecological health 2 To increase Will it reduce isolation? 8, 9, Affordable Housing SPD SA: accessibility Will it improve access 13, - To improve the ready to and within to the site by car? 23, access to essential services the site and Will it improve access 24, 25 and facilities for all residents promote to the site by walking Core Strategy SA: connectivity and cycling? - To improve the ready with the Will it make navigation access to essential services surrounding through the site and facilities for all residents areas. easier? Will it improve connectivity between the surrounding area, facilities and the town centre? 3 To Will it improve social 17, London Plan SA: encourage cohesion? 20, - To encourage sustainable sustainable Will it reduce 21, development that is compact development dissatisfaction with 22. and mixed use as that is local services? 23, appropriate, with provision of compact Will it improve the 24, 26 key local services and (with range of key services amenity that will reduce the densities within easy access of need to travel appropriate the population? Affordable Housing SPD SA: to the local Will it improve access - To improve the ready context and to cultural, recreational access to essential services the and leisure facilities? and facilities for all residents principles of Have densities been - To improve air quality to a good design) maximised especially standard that is acceptable and mixed around transport links? for human and ecological use as health appropriate, Core Strategy SA: with - To encourage efficient use provision of of available land that will not key local foreclose on future options services and - To improve the ready

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. amenity that access to essential services will reduce and facilities for all residents the need to travel. 4 To protect Will existing species be 13, London Plan SA: and enhance provided for on site? 16, 17 - To protect and enhance existing Will new habitats be existing biodiversity and biodiversity created? natural habitats, and create and natural Will habitat corridors new wildlife habitats habitats, and be included to facilitate - To increase tree cover as create new movement of species? appropriate and ensure active wildlife Will tree cover and and sustainable management habitats woodland be retained of existing woodland where and enhanced? Affordable Housing SPD SA: appropriate. Will it retain existing - To ensure sustainable hedgerows, where management and practicable? conservation of wildlife and Will the River Pinn habitats representative of the ecology be protected borough and reverse those in and enhanced? decline Core Strategy SA: - To ensure sustainable management and conservation of wildlife and habitats representative of the borough and reverse those in decline 5 To ensure Will it enhance local 28 London Plan SA: local people employment -To ensure Londoners have have access prospects? access to opportunities for to satisfying Will it improve the employment and occupation opportunities range of employment - To maximise the benefits of for opportunities? regeneration schemes for employment Will it promote skills local people and training? Core Strategy SA: occupation Will it build on current - To provide residents of all Uxbridge employment ages with the option to strengths? access education and skills based enhancement - To encourage business to provide a range of jobs and services that will support and enhance existing residential and employment areas

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref.

6 To promote Will it provide a high 6, 7, London Plan SA: a high quality urban 8, 9, - To promote a high quality of quality of environment? 10, urban design in conjunction urban design Will it increase the 17, with sustainable construction in success of the 18, principles and techniques conjunction neighbourhood in the 19, 20 - To actively promote new with short and the long clean technologies, sustainable term? particularly potential growth design and Will it promote and sectors of the environmental construction deliver sustainable economy, renewable energy principles design and production and pollution and construction? control techniques. Will it reduce pollution? - To improve the image of Will it make efficient London as an exemplary use of natural sustainable city resources including - To reduce emissions of soil, mineral greenhouse gases, and plan aggregates, water and for further reductions, to meet biodiversity? or exceed national climate Will housing of decent change targets quality be retained and - To improve air quality improved? - To substantially increase the Will a high level of proportion of energy both reused and recycled purchased and generated materials be integrated from renewable and into construction sustainable resources materials? - To reduce the amount of Will it encourage the waste requiring final disposal re-use of embodied through waste minimisation, energy in the building and to increase in order of fabric and reduction of priority, the proportion of waste? waste reused, recycled and Will it act to achieve composted, and recovered London’s requirement - To ensure that London that at least 50% of makes more efficient use of timber products used natural resources and in are from an FSC particular, soil, mineral source? aggregates, water and energy Affordable Housing SPD SA: - To reduce contributions towards, and vulnerability to, the effects of climate change Core Strategy SA:

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. - To avoid the adverse effects of activities and development on the natural functions of soil and water systems. - To improve air quality to a standard that is acceptable for human and ecological health. - To reduce contributions towards, and vulnerability to, the effects of climate change. - To encourage built environments of high quality urban design that assists in enhancing areas amenity value and promote community sense of place. - To promote growth in the economy whilst improving its environmental and social performance 7 To promote Will water use be 18 London Plan SA efficient use minimised in buildings - To promote a high quality of of water and and the landscape? urban design in conjunction the use of Will non-potable water with sustainable construction recycled and sources such as principles and techniques non-potable rainwater and - To ensure that London water greywater be captured, makes more efficient use of sources treated and reused on- natural resources and in site in place of mains particular, soil, mineral water supply? aggregates, water and energy Will this enable 100% - To improve the image of of properties to be London as an exemplary metered? sustainable city Will this enable new Affordable Housing SPD SA: development to have a - To reduce contributions water use of 105L per towards, and vulnerability to, day or less in keeping the effects of climate change with best practice? Core Strategy SA: - To reduce contributions towards, and vulnerability to, the effects of climate change. - To ensure efficient use of non renewable resources and minimise production of waste

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref.

8 To promote Will it act to reduce 19 London Plan SA: improved carbon emissions? - To substantially increase the energy Will it reduce resident’s proportion of energy both efficiency energy costs? purchased and generated and Will renewable energy from renewable and increased sources be sustainable resources self maximised? - To promote a high quality of sufficiency in Will energy be supplied urban design in conjunction term of and distributed in an with sustainable construction energy efficient manner? principles and techniques production Will buildings be - To actively promote new designed to lower clean technologies, energy demand particularly potential growth through passive sectors of the environmental design? economy, renewable energy Will it meet London’s production and pollution 20% reduction in C02 control through on-site - To improve the image of renewables target? London as an exemplary sustainable city - To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and plan for further reductions, to meet or exceed national climate change targets - To improve the image of London as an exemplary sustainable city - To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and plan for further reductions, to meet or exceed national climate change targets Affordable Housing SPD SA: - To reduce contributions towards, and vulnerability to, the effects of climate change Core Strategy SA: - To reduce contributions towards, and vulnerability to, the effects of climate change. - To ensure efficient use of non renewable resources and

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. minimise production of waste

9 To promote Will it minimise waste 20 London Plan SA: recycling production and - To reduce the amount of and efficient increase levels of waste requiring final disposal waste reuse and recycling? through waste minimisation, management Will materials and and to increase in order of infrastructure be re- priority, the proportion of used? waste reused, recycled and Will construction and composted, and recovered demolition waste be - To ensure that London minimised? makes more efficient use of Will it enable organic natural resources and in waste to be collected particular, soil, mineral and reused? aggregates, water and energy Will it act to enable the - To improve the image of provision of facilities to London as an exemplary recycle or compost at sustainable city least 25% of Affordable Housing SPD SA: household waste by - To reduce contributions means of separated towards, and vulnerability to, dedicated storage the effects of climate change space (by 2010 this Core Strategy SA: should rise to 35%)? - To ensure efficient use of non renewable resources and minimise production of waste 10 To ensure Will it contribute to 29 London Plan SA: indigenous prosperity? - To ensure that inward and inward Will it increase investment projects are investment opportunities for environmentally, socially and which is business? economically sustainable environment Will it encourage - To create a climate for ally, socially entrepreneurship and investment in London, with a and innovation in design modern employment structure economically and development? based on a combination of sustainable Will it introduce indigenous growth and inward investment that will investment compliment and Affordable Housing SPD SA: support the viability of - To promote growth in the existing businesses in economy whilst improving its Uxbridge town centre? environmental and social performance Core Strategy SA: - To promote growth in the economy whilst improving its

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. environmental and social performance - To enhance the image of the borough as a location for new business - To encourage business to provide a range of jobs and services that will support and enhance existing residential and employment areas 11 To protect, Will it ensure easy 12, London Plan SA: maintain and accessibility to open 13, - To protect, maintain, restore enhance the spaces? 15, and enhance the quality of quality of Will it act to protect 16, 24 London’s open spaces, to open spaces and enhance the green create new open space as and the belt areas? appropriate, and to ensure greenbelt Will it create a variety that access to open space and ensure of functional open and the wider public realm is effective spaces to meet maintained access to community and Affordable Housing SPD SA: open space environmental needs? - To protect and preserve Will it improve physical landscape character, historic activity and wellbeing? buildings, archaeological sites Will it improve and cultural features of opportunities for importance to the community recreation and play? - To provide environments Will it act to change that promote healthy and safe Uxbridge’s living and reduce anti-social classification as an behaviour Area of Deficiency access to nature and public open space for metropolitan and district parks? (As defined by “London Plan Implementation Report – Improving Londoner’s access to Nature” Feb 2008)

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref.

12 To improve Will it improve access 1, 2, London Plan SA: health, to primary healthcare 3, 4 - To improve the health of reduce facilities? Londoners, reduce health health Will it encourage inequalities and promote inequalities healthy lifestyles and healthy living and promote provide opportunities Affordable Housing SPD SA: healthy living for sport and - To provide environments recreation? that promote healthy and safe Will it improve the living and reduce anti-social health of children and behaviour young people? Core Strategy SA: Will contaminated land - To provide environments be managed so that it that promote healthy and safe poses no significant living and reduce anti-social risk to users? behaviour

13 To reduce Will it make local 1, 10 London Plan SA: crime and people feel safer in - To reduce crime and the the fear of their community? fear of crime crime Will it act to avoid the Affordable Housing SPD SA: creation of isolated - To provide environments places? that promote healthy and safe Will it create safer living and reduce anti-social walking routes to key behaviour areas? Core Strategy SA: Will it improve safety - To provide environments for children and young that promote healthy and safe people? living and reduce anti-social Does it incorporate the behaviour principles of ‘Secure by Design’? 14 To provide Will it increase access 6 London Plan SA: everyone to good quality and - To ensure that all Londoners with the affordable housing? have access to good quality opportunity Will it reduce affordable housing to live in a homelessness? Affordable Housing SPD SA: decent Will it provide a range - To create a variety of high affordable of housing to cater for quality residential home different affordability environments that provide needs? everybody with the Will it act to achieve opportunity to live in a decent Hillingdon’s target of home 50% affordable Core Strategy SA:

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. housing (30% - To create a variety of high intermediate, 70% quality residential social rent)? environments that provide Will it provide a range everybody with the of dwelling sizes? opportunity to live in a decent Will it enable all home residential development should meet Lifetime Home standards and 10% should meet wheelchair accessibility standards? 15 To provide Will it provide 5 London Plan SA: good meaningful educational - To improve education and education opportunities for skills and training children and young Affordable Housing SPD SA: opportunities people in RAF - To provide residents of all which build Uxbridge? ages with the option to skills and Will it provide access education and skills capacity of meaningful educational based employment the opportunities for adults population in RAF Uxbridge? Will it improve access to educational facilities?

16 To foster a Will it foster a sense of 11 London Plan SA: vibrant and pride in local - To tackle poverty and social cohesive neighbourhood? exclusion in areas of community Will it respond to particular need that community needs and - To actively challenge participate in desires? discrimination against all decision- marginalised groups in a making consistent and comprehensive way - To respect people and value their contribution to society

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref.

17 To preserve Will it maintain the 12, London Plan SA: and enhance visual character of the 15, 16 - To maintain and enhance the urban area? the quality and integrity, and and Will it protect and distinctiveness of the suburban enhance the high cityscape landscape, landscape and amenity Affordable Housing SPD SA: in keeping values of parts of the - To protect and preserve with the site? landscape character, historic character of Will it minimise effects buildings, archaeological sites the wider of development on the and cultural features of area. green belt? importance to the community Has an appropriate Core Strategy SA: balance of densities - To encourage built been included environments of high quality reflecting the more urban design that assists in urban character near enhancing areas amenity the town centre and value and promote the more suburban community sense of place. character of the other surrounding areas? Will the historic amenity of the site and wider area be preserved and enhanced? Will it ensure RAF Uxbridge also creates its own character and setting within the existing landscape? 18 To maintain Will the historical 4, 14 London Plan SA: and enhance assets be retained? - To maintain and enhance the historic Will the history of the the historic environment and environment site be showcased? cultural assets of London and cultural Will the cultural Affordable Housing SPD SA: assets of environment be - To protect and preserve RAF protected? landscape character, historic Uxbridge Will any archaeological buildings, archaeological sites sites be protected? and cultural features of Will there be any importance to the community impact on the Core Strategy SA: neighbouring - To protect and preserve conservation area? landscape character, historic

No. Objective Key Criteria Key SA Reference Issue Ref. Will understanding of buildings, archaeological sites the history and and cultural features of archaeology of the site importance to the community be enhanced? Will it enable historical tourism for the area? Will it improve access to cultural facilities? Will the SPD take into account its impact on the wider range of heritage assets found on the site and its immediate surroundings?

19 To minimise Will it create significant 21 London Plan SA: noise noise pollution for - To minimise ambient noise pollution, sensitive land areas? using best practice especially Will noise issues be techniques around land created around land use use interfaces? interfaces 20 To reduce Will it reduce risk of 22 London Plan SA: and where flooding and prevent it - To avoid development that possible where possible? will impact on areas at high prevent the Will it manage flood risk from flooding impact of waters effectively? Affordable Housing SPD SA: flooding to Will it position property - To minimise the hazard risk people and out of flood paths? from flooding in Hillingdon property of Will sustainable urban Core Strategy SA: RAF drainage systems be - To reduce contributions Uxbridge used? towards, and vulnerability to, Are the SUDS features the effects of climate change. beneficial to - To minimise the hazard risk biodiversity, pollution from flooding in Hillingdon prevention and amenity value? Have contamination issues been considered in drainage design? Will it act to achieve 50% attenuation of the undeveloped site’s surface water run off at peak times?

Indicators Indicators have been selected to enable the monitoring and review of the SPD after its adoption and to assess whether progress is being made toward greater sustainability within the area, against the baseline which is presented in Appendix B. The indicators that accompany the framework are presented in Appendix C. To ensure consistency and continued monitoring the indicators have, where possible, been closely aligned with the indicators proposed in Sustainability Appraisal Report of the Core Strategy.

2.6 Consulting on the Scope of the SA/SEA

In line with the requirements of the SEA Regulations and the DCLG guidance on carrying out sustainability appraisals, the scoping report was consulted upon and involved the following statutory consultees: • Environment Agency; • Natural England; and • English Heritage.

Other consultees also invited to comment on the Scoping Report include: • Government Office for London (GOL); and • VSM Estates.

A summary of the key comments and recommendations received from consultees is included in Appendix D. This appendix tracks how the SA Scoping report and this report have been revised in response to the comments from the consultees.

3. Assessment of the RAF Uxbridge Supplementary Planning Document

3.1 Introduction

The RAF Uxbridge SPD was informed by the SA process and a public consultation programme, which was held in the summer and autumn of 2007 to find out the priorities of local residents, interest groups and key stakeholders. Stage B of the sustainability appraisal process involves developing and refining options and assessing effects. At the end of Stage B a draft Sustainability Appraisal is complete, which highlights the expected effects on the key sustainability criteria as a result of the implementation of the SPD. The following table provides a summary of the key steps in Stage B of the Sustainability Appraisal process and how they appear in this SA Report. Following consultation on the draft SPD, the Sustainability Appraisal will also be revised to reflect any key changes.

The following table provides a summary of the key steps and tasks in Stage B of the Sustainability Appraisal process and how they appear in this SA report.

Table 5. Stage B of the SA Stages and tasks Purpose Output in this Report B1: Testing the SPD To test the SPD objectives for See Section 3.3 objectives against compatibilities and the sustainability inconsistencies against the appraisal SA objectives. framework B2: Developing the To provide a range of options See Section 3.2 SPD Options (developed from analysis of the baseline situation, stakeholder views, and from policy directions) for assessment. The options must include a ‘business as usual’ option. B3: Predicting the This predicts the likely social, See Section 3.5 effects of the SPD environmental and economic effects of the options being considered in the SPD process.

B4: Evaluating the This task evaluates the See Section 3.5 effects of the SPD significance of the likely

Stages and tasks Purpose Output in this Report effects. B5: Considering This task provides mitigation See Section 3.4 and 3.6 ways of mitigating and improves positive effects adverse effects and by maximising - recommending changes to beneficial effects the SPD - refining policies - suggesting technological or other measures to be applied in the implementation stage - proposals linked to EIA or changes to other plans and programmes B6: Proposing This task provides early See Section 4.3 measures to warning of measures that will monitor significant need to be incorporated into effects of the AMR or other reporting implementing the and remedial mechanisms. SPD.

Subsequent stages involve; • Stage C – Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal Report. This report fulfils this stage; • Stage D – Consulting on the draft SPD and the Sustainability Appraisal Report: and • Stage E – Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the SPD.

3.2 Initial Assessment of Emerging Options and Policies

Three Strategic options were considered and identified for the proposed strategy at Uxbridge. These are outlined below:

This chapter outlines the reasons for selecting the alternatives/options.

Option 1: Development based on current planning policy This approach is based on the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (adopted 1998, policies saved 2007). Whilst many of the policies set out a positive basis to guide any development, there are no site specific policies and they are therefore open to interpretation in the local context.

Option 2: Development based on emerging LDF Policy with no SPD Site-specific proposals for the RAF Uxbridge site are included in the draft Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPD: Proposed Changes. The policies set a positive basis for development but there is a lack of detail and clarity on how the development should come forward within the set parameters.

Option 3: Development of the SPD to guide the regeneration the RAF Uxbridge site This approach would steer regeneration initiatives. This policy would be based on the efficient use of land by the promotion of mixed-use development, the promotion of accessibility and safety, high quality and safe urban design and management strategies for the long term. The approach aims to re-use previously developed land to meet the needs of the community, enhance the quality of environment, provide sufficient affordable homes and, develop local services, create a vibrant community with some local employment and help individuals to maximise their opportunities and to achieve success by building on the strengths of the area.

A full assessment of the above options against the SA objectives set out in Section 3.3 is located in Appendix E.

3.3 Testing the SPD Objectives against the SA Framework This section tests the draft objectives of the SPD against the Sustainability Objectives, with a view to highlighting compatibility, inconsistencies and tensions. The results are set out in the matrix below and each of the policies has been appraised on its own merits. This approach, which reflects current good practice, ensures that the appraisal considers the extent to which principles will contribute to the achievement of objectives in their own right.

The Draft SPD Objectives

a) To ensure high quality sustainable mixed use development that supports and enhances the vitality and viability of the Uxbridge Town Centre and reflects the site’s gateway location in the borough. b) To make provision towards the residential, employment and recreational needs of the local and wider population having regard to the area’s general character. c) To ensure development of the site can be accommodated without detriment to the local community and environment. d) To protect and enhance the green belt, the historical environment, the River Pinn corridor and other key landscape features where appropriate. e) To ensure the safe vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access is provided to and from the site and within the local vicinity by incorporating traffic and transport initiatives where necessary.

The SA Framework Objectives

1. To promote methods to reduce dependence on private vehicular transport and manage the effects of transport on the environment. 2. To increase accessibility to and within the site and promote connectivity with the surrounding areas. 3. To encourage sustainable development that is compact (with densities appropriate to the local context and the principles of good design) and mixed use as appropriate, with provision of key services and amenity that will reduce the need to travel. 4. To protect and enhance existing biodiversity and natural habitats, and create new wildlife habitats where appropriate. 5. To ensure local people have access to satisfying opportunities for employment and occupation. 6. To promote a high quality of urban design in conjunction with sustainable design and construction principles and techniques. 7. To promote efficient use of water and the use of recycled and non- potable water resources. 8. To promote improved energy efficiency and increased self sufficiency in terms of energy production. 9. To promote recycling and efficient waste management. 10. To ensure indigenous and inward investment that this is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. 11. To protect, maintain and enhance the quality of open spaces and the greenbelt and ensure effective access to open space. 12. To improve health, reduce health inequalities and promote healthy living. 13. To reduce crime and the fear of crime. 14. To provide everyone with the opportunity to live in a decent affordable home. 15. To provide good education and training opportunities which build skills and capacity of the population. 16. To foster a vibrant and cohesive community that participates in decision- making. 17. To preserve and enhance the urban and suburban area in keeping with the character of the wider area. 18. To maintain and enhance the historic environment and cultural assets of RAF Uxbridge. 19. To minimise noise pollution, especially around land use interfaces. 20. To reduce and where possible prevent the impact of flooding to people and property of RAF Uxbridge

Table 6: Testing the Draft SPD Objectives against the Sustainability Framework Objectives. Sustainability Appraisal Framework Objectives (1-20) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

a + + + + + + + + + + ? ? ? + ? . b + + + ? ? ? ? + + ? + + ? ++ . c + + + ? ? + + + + + ? + ? + . d ++ ++ + ++ + . e ++ + + + + Draft SPDObjectivesDraft (a-e) .

Key Very ++ Compatible Compatible + Uncertain Link ? Incompatible - - No Link

The outcome from the assessment is clearly visible in the above matrix. Overall the draft development principles compare favourably with the SA objectives. With some of the emerging draft development principles there are uncertain links, as it is unknown how they are likely to impact (either in a positive or negative fashion) on the objectives. No incompatible or negative comparisons have been identified with any of the principles. No links have been identified between a number of the principles and the objectives.

3.4 Refining of the SPD in response to the SA

The Supplementary Planning Document went through a number of iterations prior to the final draft. These appraisals dissected and predicted the impact of the RAF Uxbridge SPD using the Sustainability Framework. A series of recommendations were submitted to the policy-making team to improve and solidify the expected effects of the SPD. The initial recommendations, along with the resulting changes and responses from the policy-making team are included in Appendix F.

A number of key changes were brought about as a result of this process. Some of the most salient changes include: • Promotion of allotment gardens in the northern and southern quadrants • Improving opportunities for new habitat creation • Requiring commercial development to achieve the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) “excellent” standard • Considering a health facility in the north rather than the south quadrant, dependent on further study • Considering primary school in the south quadrant rather than the north • Clarification of the definition of “sustainable exemplar” in terms of number of units (30) and level of sustainability (code level 6) • Promotion of the development of better access to, and connections between buildings and locations within the site • Ensuring the adjacent Annington Property Ltd land is recognised as integral to the redevelopment of the site, and that it needs to be coordinated with the redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge to ensure connectivity, integration, compatibility with existing urban form and sustainability measures. • Specified aspirations for suitable densities in different parts of the site were clarified • Objective to retain historical value was promoted and creative urban design solutions to meet this objective were encouraged • Greater emphasis was placed on reducing automobile transportation through improved public transportation, walking, and cycling connections in-line with “secured by design” principles. Vehicle dependence will also be deterred by a reduction in on-site car parking. • Clarification of Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) requirements, especially how SUDS might be affected by mitigating potential site contamination issues • Consideration of the possible impacts of energy infrastructure on pollution and noise levels

3.5 Assessment of the SPD

When predicting the effects of the draft SPD against the Sustainability Appraisal Framework Objectives, the SA team kept the following in mind: • Effects - the magnitude, geographical scale, the time scale over which they will occur, whether they are permanent or temporary, positive or negative, probable or improbable, frequent or rare, and whether or not there are secondary, cumulative and / or synergistic effects;

• Effect of the plan in relation to the baseline situation; • A focus on the effects of the SPD policies rather than other factors that may influence the achievement of the SA objectives (e.g. Core Strategy policy); • Effects of displacing sustainability problems to other areas as a result of the plan; • Uncertainty and risk.

An assessment of the proposed policies against the sustainability framework is presented in the tables below. The assessment considers possible indirect, secondary, cumulative and synergistic impacts of the proposed policies. Comments incorporate comparisons to the baseline conditions identified in the baseline review (Appendix B). Effects are noted using the system shown in the table below:

Table 8. Key to Effects Notation ++ likely to have a very positive effect + likely to have a positive effect 0, likely to have a neutral effect +/- or positive effects would balance out negative effects - likely to have a negative effect -- likely to have a very negative effect ? unknown or could have a positive or a negative effect depending on how it is implemented

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

1. To promote Comments: methods to reduce The SPD recognises the need to increase dependence on accessibility to public transport and to reduce the private vehicular need to travel, particularly by reducing car use transport and (PPG13). Encouragingly the SPD lists a number manage the effects of specific circumstances and constraints on the of transport on the site that need to form the basis for masterplan environment. and design proposals, in line with PPG13 and the London Plan. The SPD makes a positive contribution to this SA Framework objective by outlining a number of public transport objectives including: “Reduce vehicle trip generation and associated carbon emissions through accessibility and appropriate site design” “Reduce vehicle carbon emissions for the development as a whole through modal split and reduction in on-site car parking and ownership where appropriate and achievable”. The reduction of carbon emissions could be + achieved through the provision of a percentage of low emission or electric car specific, car parking spaces on site. The SPD also encourages minimum car parking spaces to reduce the reliance on the private car. Public transport, Pedestrian and cycling modes and linkages will be capitalized upon as part of the redevelopment, to improve the opportunities and quality of life for residents of the borough. A PTAL assessment has been carried out. Results show the proposed town centre and southern quadrant have med-high PTALs, showing reasonably good linkages to public transport, with the Underground link nearby in the Uxbridge town centre, and a number of bus routes nearby. Home-zone street design will also be delivered to reduce traffic and assist road safety. A detailed Travel Assessment and Travel Plan is required and will suggest ways to improve the local road network around the site, the strategic

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted road network and local bus network. Improvements to road safety are also encouraged as part of a planning application to redevelop the site. Carbon emissions goals and targets are intended to be delivered through the Travel Plan for the site overall. The urban design criteria of the SPD requires that clear walking and cycling routes and links to public transport are developed to promote good alternatives to car travel. No specific targets for modal split have been set out in the SPD, but these are expected to be delivered within the travel plan coming forward. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: There is a degree of uncertainty associated with this predicted effect. Although methods and infrastructure will be introduced to assist this objective, it is still uncertain whether people will actually reduce vehicle car usage. Geographical scale of the effect: Site and surrounding areas connected through developed routes Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Long Term 2. To increase Comments: The SPD encourages pedestrian and cycle routes accessibility to and into and across the site. Objectives within the within the site and SPD that will contribute positively to accessibility promote and connectivity include: connectivity with the surrounding “To ensure safe and sustainable access within areas. and around the site, both during construction and for the completed development project.” + “An holistic and integrated approach to public transport, vehicular traffic, cycle and pedestrian access, servicing and emergency vehicles” and “the provision of pedestrian and cycle access to facilitate easy and safe access, connectivity and permeability within the site and to the surrounding area within the considerations of the secured by design principles”.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

The site is currently closed off and has low accessibility. However, this will be rectified by the proposals within the SPD, therefore improving connectivity to the site. A major defining factor for the success of this development is the need to overcome the physical and psychological barrier of the St Andrew’s roundabout and the A4020/B483. The SPD actively encourages this in order to facilitate pedestrian movement, create attractive surrounds and a “gateway” to the town centre. Pedestrian and cycle links, as well as vehicular links, from the Annington Property Ltd land and the extension of the High street will improve the access in, out and within the site and to the surrounding communities. The strategic location of the adjoining Annington Property Ltd land to the northwest and south of the site is reflected in proposals; ensuring improved connectivity and integration between the RAF Uxbridge site, Annington Property Ltd land and the surrounding area and assisting accessibility. Another positive contribution to this SA objective is that the SPD outlines options for the eco-school location, considering key factors including safety, accessibility and connectivity. The masterplan and the delivery of access on site will determine how effective the access initiatives are in reality. The SPD does not lay out a clear access plan as detailed studies have not been conducted at this stage. The masterplan will need to provide good access to potentially challenging locations due to the current isolation of the site. Key features that should provide good access links include; the eco-school, the bunker, Hillingdon House and the cultural centre. The viability of a good pedestrian link from the town centre through to the new extension via the roundabout area is still to be determined through detailed studies.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

Likelihood / certainty of occurring: It is likely that access will be improved considerably due to the reopening of the site. However, there is some uncertainty surrounding the quality of access to certain features which will depend on the masterplan development. The improved public links and connectivity within the site and to the surrounding areas needs to be delivered before this objective is fulfilled, alongside this Annington Property Ltd land must be taken into account, as raised within the SPD, if this does not happen issues with access may still occur. Geographical scale of the effect: Site Specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Long Term

3. To encourage Comments: sustainable The SPD outlines a number of objectives to development that is encourage and contribute to sustainable compact (with +/? development considering density, exceptional densities design, mixed use and the provision of services appropriate to the and amenities. The SPD outlines diversity in local context and housing form, densities, height and type, and the principles of aims to match this to its surroundings and good design) and encourages good quality urban design. The SPD mixed use as requires new development to demonstrate appropriate, with compatibility with the urban form to the west of provision of key the A4020 and the adjoining Annington Property services and Ltd, through scale, massing, bulk and avoidance amenity that will of overlooking, whilst delivering densities in reduce the need to keeping with wider policy objectives. travel. When development comes forward the

requirements in relation to Annington Property Ltd

land set out in the SPD should be adhered to, this cannot be determined at this stage.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted Plans for a local community node (shop, health facility, child care facility and public space) will aim to improve social cohesion, local service provision and encourage a ‘sense of community’. The SPD states that this community node should be designed with community collaboration, with the aim to design an active area that would discourage crime and anti-social behaviour. The node should be in compliance with residential uses, ecological requirements and minimal traffic generation. The Town centre extension will assist in providing easy access to key services. The SPD outlines plans to provide a new cultural quarter with an arts/cultural facility (theatre/music venue/Borough museum) which will provide good access to cultural facilities. There has been a long-term aspiration for a cultural quarter, from various sources including the local community and aspirations within the London Plan, though the viability studies and evidence base to determine the types of uses and size and capacity of the cultural facilities are still to be conducted. Hence there is some uncertainty regarding the demand and deliverability of the cultural quarter on site. The SPD suggests clustering of high density development and maximization of densities; around transport links, the town centre and towards Hillingdon road, reflecting good walkability and accessibility. For example, the Town Centre extension and Southern Quadrant quarters have respectively; PTAL 5/4 55-260 dwellings per ha and PTAL 4 45-70 d/per ha.

Likelihood / certainty of occurring: It is likely that the SPD will act to improve services in the area and deliver mixed-use communities with appropriate densities. Some uncertainty is associated with the delivery of a cultural quarter that caters to the demand and need of the surrounding communities,

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

and viability studies have not yet been conducted. This needs to be conducted in order to assess economic and social success of locating a cultural quarter within the development. Geographical scale of the effect: Site Specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Medium - Long Term

4. To protect and Comments: enhance existing The SPD realises the importance of protecting biodiversity and and enhancing biodiversity, together with natural habitats, encouraging habitat creation. By seeking to and create new protect ecological habitats and biodiversity, wildlife habitats development should have a neutral effect. It is where appropriate. important to note that any development on this scale could have a negative effect, though some areas can be managed and enhanced. The SPD requires ecological studies to be undertaken which will need to outline specific measures for improving the biodiversity on the site, recognizing the ecological importance of a number of specific areas. Ecological initiatives will be required to outline specific targets. The + Impacts on the habitat of bats will also need to be considered as part of an ecological survey, and in designing proposals for the site. The SPD states that development on site will be expected to incorporate living roofs and walls in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.11. Developments should help to enhance biodiversity, absorb rainfall, improve the performance of the building, reduce the heat island effect, provide amenity space and improve appearance.

Recommendations for habitat protection and enhancement, as well as construction management/ mitigation are to be provided as

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted part of any planning application and in consultation with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the London Borough of Hillingdon. Formatted: Font color: Black The riparian corridor of the River Pinn is sought as open space to protect its Flood plain and ecological functions. The SPD seeks to retain significant trees and landscaping, a full tree survey and landscape plan will be required as part of site proposals. The action plans in the Hillingdon Biodiversity Action plan should also be considered in proposals and recommendations for the site. The requirement of a green/blue grid, open spaces and movement network as part of the final master plan ensures existing habitats are protected. The enhancements proposed to open space will boost local biodiversity and provide new habitats, bringing new ecological opportunities. If the geometric layout can be retained through design, the tree lined streets will be able to be protected. Though the feasibility of this is still to be determined through masterplan development.

Likelihood / certainty of occurring: Again this can be uncertain unless the objectives and proposals above are delivered. The SPD refers to ecological initiatives that should be enforced by various targets. The delivery will need to ensure these targets are applied in design and monitored. This would be effective in ensuring the ecological benefits. Geographical scale of the effect: Site Specific and wider Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Short, Medium and Long Term

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted Comments: 5. To ensure local The SPD has made positive contributions to people have access ensure that employment and occupation to satisfying opportunities available for local people. The opportunities for extension of the town centre and creation of a employment and cultural quarter will enhance employment occupation. prospects and a range of employment opportunities. This will offer connections to Brunel University as part of skills and employment. A1, A3 and A4 uses, B1a offices, B8/C3 Live work units, a health facility and a 2-form primary school will provide a range of job opportunities. + The SPD outlines complementary uses (including office and retail) to the existing town centre which will build on existing strengths. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: This is likely to be more certain. Geographical scale of the effect: Site Specific and Wider Communities Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Long Term

6. To promote a Comments: The SPD promotes urban design, high quality of architectural excellence and exemplar design urban design in throughout the development and Uxbridge offers conjunction with a unique opportunity to create an exemplar sustainable design sustainable development with real value. and construction Whilst the final size and location of the overall principles and proposal will be established in design codes, as a techniques. minimum, a target of approximately 30 exemplar ++/? units would be expected as a showcase development for the Borough. These exemplar units will be code level 6 while the rest of the proposed units on site will be code level 4, which in itself is a high standard of sustainable design and construction.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

The SPD states that development on site will be expected to incorporate living roofs and walls in accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.11. Developments should help to enhance biodiversity, absorb rainfall, improve the performance of the building, reduce the heat island effect, provide amenity space and improve appearance. A high standard of design will be expected for the proposed primary school. An eco-school model is suggested within the SPD, to be built using sustainable design and construction methods including; green roofs, sustainable drainage and passive solar design as a minimum requirement.

The SPD mentions a community node (with shops, health centre and other local community facilities) which will help to increase the success of the community in the short and long term. The SPD outlines a requirement for high quality landmark buildings, high quality design and a mix of dwelling types. The SPD will retain housing of a decent quality, including low density defence personnel housing owned by Annington Property Ltd land. The redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge will integrate with this land in its proposals for development. The SPD states that the development should aim to meet the objectives of the Mayor’s Air Quality management Area (AQMA). The main aim of which is to reduce pollution.

Sustainable design and construction principles and techniques in relation to the re-use of existing buildings should also include the re-use of embodied energy in the building fabric and reduction of waste. Restoration and reuse of listed buildings and historic landscapes and, where appropriate, other buildings with historic interest or that would make a positive contribution to the redevelopment of the site is encouraged.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted Likelihood / certainty of occurring: The delivery of a Zero-Carbon development within the site will be challenging, and hence carries some uncertainty. The expense of delivering the units is a possible constraint. However through the use of extensive environmental target systems, the site will be designed to high levels of sustainable design. The constraints that the retention of buildings place on urban design and masterplanning are still to be tested. Careful consideration of urban design principles will be necessary to ensure accessibility and good design of the development, due to its existing insular layout. Geographical scale of the effect: Site Specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Short - Long Term

7. To promote Comments: efficient use of The SPD discusses the need to minimise potable water and the use of water with a target of 80 litres of water used per recycled and non- person per day. This is a challenging target potable water which will create an exemplary development. resources. To achieve this goal, the SPD requires all new housing developments to achieve as a minimum, the requirements set out in level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, and encourage levels 5 and 6. For commercial development, British ++ Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) “excellent” rating will be sought, and water saving devices and water recycling will be expected. The SPD states that Rainwater harvesting, limits on consumption of water and re-use of the various forms of waste water will need to be designed into the fabric of any masterplan, design codes and detailed planning applications in accordance with London Plan policy 4B.14.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

The SPD states that proposals for the site will be required to address relevant London Plan and Environment Agency guidance. This includes the Mayors draft Water Strategy 2007, along with London Plan Policy 4A.14 which requires developments to aim to achieve Greenfield discharge rates for all new development, and to establish separate foul sewer and surface water drain and not discharge excess surface water into the combined sewer. The SPD encourages the use of SUDS and other initiatives on site, which should ensure this is achieved. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High Geographical scale of the effect: Site Specific Nature of the effect: Permanent if infrastructure is retained and managed Timing: Short and Long-term

8. To promote Comments: improved energy While development on the site will increase CO2 efficiency and emissions in both the short-term and long-term, increased self the SPD includes a large number of requirements sufficiency in terms for limiting energy use and increasing efficiency; of energy including the suitability of the use of combined production. cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) as well as combined heat and power (CHP)for the site and its immediate surroundings. The goal, in keeping ++ with the London Plan, PPS1 and the PPS1 supplement (Planning and Climate Change), is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% (as a minimum requirement) from on-site renewable energy generation, whilst also meeting Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 across the site, and Code Level 6 (zero-carbon) for a portion of the site.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

The SPD also states that dealing with climate change cannot be considered as a set of “add ons” and must be integral to the development process. Any proposals for the site should demonstrate that measures to mitigate against climate change, by limiting CO2 emissions, and adapting to the impacts of climate change, through layout, design and a range of other measures, are integral to the masterplan and detailed planning applications. The SPD requires such initiatives to be demonstrated at the planning application stage, through various studies including; the design and access statement, design codes, energy statements, sustainability statement, a framework travel plan, and a range of other details. While the SPD mentions the need to address construction and long-term management of site- wide system, it does not discuss a preference for the location or the aesthetics required for such a facility. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: As long as the energy strategy is economically viable, high levels of energy efficiency will be delivered. The Zero Carbon development will require more investment to deliver. Geographical scale of the effect: Global and site specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Long-term

9. To promote Comments: recycling and The SPD outlines that both residential and efficient waste commercial developments are to include management. dedicated storage and collection facilities for ++ waste and recyclable materials. In addition, consideration is given to reusing as well as recycling existing materials and infrastructural waste resulting from demolition.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

The SPD requires that compliance with PPS 10 is demonstrated, along with an innovative solution to manage waste across the site, and the immediate surrounds if appropriate, has been considered.

The SPD also encourages Sustainable design and construction principles and techniques in relation to the re-use of existing buildings, which includes waste management. The SPD requires a site-wide waste management strategy, with the objective of reducing waste and encouraging recycling. This strategy could be improved by adding specific and measurable targets, and outlining the desired locations of the waste facility. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High. In addition, a waste to energy gasification plant is being considered. This plant would convert waste into a gas with the resulting heat energy being used to produce steam, which in turn could be used to generate electricity. It should be ensured that demand for energy does not create a reliance on waste production and influence waste reduction and recycling initiatives if this option is pursued. Geographical scale of the effect: Site specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Short and long-term 10. To ensure Comments: indigenous and The provision of an arts and cultural facility, inward investment associated restaurants and cafes, B1a offices, that this is and comparison retailing with a focus on environmentally, +/? specialist uses will aim to contribute to the socially and prosperity of the area. economically The proposed cultural quarter has community and sustainable. London Plan policy support, however as no viability evidence base has been provided to

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted support this proposition it is difficult to know whether this will be sustainable in the long-term. The extension of the town centre should increase opportunities for business, with the hope that the cultural quarter will provide the impetus for increased entrepreneurship and innovation. As the SPD highlights, however, it is important that new businesses and retail uses do not detract from the existing Uxbridge Town Centre. The retention of historic buildings on site may encourage tourism, which will bring additional investment into the local economy. The SPD has outlined provisions made for mixed use developments within the town centre extension. These live/work units are currently envisaged as a distinct cluster in just one location; the SPD should discuss if more of these units could also be located elsewhere. By providing a range of new uses on site, the SPD hopes that indigenous and inward investment will be forthcoming. A viability study should be conducted to determine whether the uses proposed on site will provide this investment in an environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable manner, that does not jeopardise the current success of the existing Uxbridge Town Centre. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: A viability study will need to be undertaken to understand whether this objective can be achieved without compromising the continued success of the Uxbridge Town Centre. Geographical scale of the effect: Site and Town Centre Nature of the effect: permanent Timing: long-term

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

11. To protect, Comments: maintain and The masterplan aims to create a distinctive enhance the quality character for the site that will enhance and of open spaces and preserve the existing character, site features and the greenbelt and will respect the existing heritage. This will not be ensure effective in isolation; the site also considers the access to open surrounding residential area and the greenbelt. space. The SPD encourages comprehensive landscape proposals, including a landscape masterplan and management plan, focussing on capitalising on the existing aesthetic qualities of the site including the topography, ecology, hydrology, geology, soil capability and expected climate, along with the existing built environment where possible. The SPD also provides a green chain designation, along with a green/blue grid, open spaces, and a movement network, which are required to form the basis of final master plan. The site benefits from the existing greenbelt, which runs north – south through the site. The ++ SPD states that the land within the green belt will be designated a District Park, thereby increasing open space for public recreation. This greenspace will be improved with a requirement for areas of high quality amenity space, opportunities for passive and active recreation and children’s play spaces, in line with accepted standards. The SPD requires the creation of all such spaces to be attractive, well designed and incorporate informal elements that reflect the attributes of the site, notably the natural environment and historic characteristics of the site. These spaces should be in conformity with secured by design principles. The SPD has also proposed that improvements within the site should be made with the existing green belt and surrounding area in mind. Access to open space will also be improved, with cycling and walking encouraged. While the information within the SPD discussing the greenbelt is strong, it could be expanded to provide details on recreational uses,

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted multifunctionality in sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), and ecology. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High Geographical scale of the effect: Site and connected open space areas Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Long-term 12. To improve Comments: health, reduce The SPD encourages proposals for a health health inequalities facility in the southern section of the site. The and promote SPD requires Planning Obligations to be sought healthy living. for the provision of a new local health facility or contributions to existing facilities, to serve the new population. In addition, a Health Impact Assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment should be provided. It is likely that a three-arm GP surgery, a centralised polyclinic and other health facilities in addition to GP surgeries, such as dentists, and other health practitioners will be provided on site or through existing GP surgeries, and other health providers near the site. In line with PPS1, and London Plan ++ policy 3A.21 Locations for Health Care, the District Park to be designated within the greenbelt will provide opportunity for sport and recreation. The SPD will ensure that access to open space is improved. The SPD requires the provision of areas of high quality amenity space, opportunities for passive and active recreation and children’s play spaces, in line with accepted standards. Links to local amenities, public spaces, and the greenbelt, especially via cycling and walking, will encourage healthier lifestyles. While the SPD states the possible contamination issues on site, further details could be provided on the proposed mitigation and management of this contamination.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

Likelihood / certainty of occurring: Likely to occur, though the extent and location of health facilities provided is still subject to viability studies. Geographical scale of the effect: Site and surrounding communities Nature of the effect: Semi-permanent Timing: Medium – Long-term 13. To reduce crime Comments: and the fear of The SPD requires the high quality of the built crime. environment to be safer through providing “eyes on the street.” Other improvements to the social and physical environments will contribute to a reduction in crime, or fear of crime. These include: “secured by design” standards, which effectively prevents crime and improves security standards using design principles; public surveillance aimed at deterring casual crime; proper street lighting in foot paths and alleys; and extension of CCTV into the town centre extension. The SPD states that this community node should be designed with community collaboration, with the aim to design an active area that would discourage crime and anti-social +/? behaviour. The location of the school was initially planned in the North. Safety concerns arose however, due to uncertain access. For this reason, the school is being considered for relocation to the south. The current isolation of the site has led to an insular design, which if not overcome could lead to access and safety issues. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: Likelihood depends on the delivery of urban design objectives. Geographical scale of the effect: Site specific Nature of the effect: Permanent

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

Timing: Short - Long-term 14. To provide Comments: everyone with the The SPD provides details on housing type, opportunity to live tenure, and size with diversity in housing form, in a decent densities and height. Dwelling units will be affordable home. offered in a range of sizes and tailored to differing levels of affordability. The possibility of providing specialist affordable housing for ex-military personnel is also suggested within the SPD. Varying forms of housing are also offered for “specialist housing,” which is targeted to individuals who have mental or physical disabilities, or who require extra care. For example, the SPD provides a commitment to wheelchair access in all specialist housing blocks. These characteristics are further supported by the SPD’s commitment to “lifetime homes,” which is housing thoughtfully designed to adapt and accommodate a multitude of individuals for all dwellings on the site. These policies are all + positive and will help to achieve this objective. The SPD suggests that the affordable housing provision on site should be in line with the London Plan requirements subject to viability. Outlined in the SPD is a goal for 47% of affordable housing to be for low cost/intermediate with 53% social rented housing in line with the London Borough of Hillingdon’s affordability targets. While this goal is laudable, the actual percentage of affordable housing on site overall might be significantly reduced depending on its financial viability and to ensure deliverability of the SPD objectives. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High; % of affordable housing provision, however, is uncertain Geographical scale of the effect: Site specific

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

Nature of the effect: Semi-permanent Timing: Short to Long-term 15. To provide good Comments: education and The SPD provides a commitment to a new training primary school facility and contributions to the opportunities which existing secondary school. An eco-school model build skills and is suggested for the primary school, with capacity of the sustainable design and construction methods population. including; green roofs, sustainable drainage and passive solar design as a minimum requirement. While the primary school was initially planned for the northern quarter, a commitment has been made to consult on whether the southern quarter could be an alternative location. The southern quarter offers a few additional benefits for the location of the eco-school, as it is closer to the most heavily populated area, thereby reducing the length of journeys to school. This provides an + opportunity to tie the eco-school into the community hub, thus creating an urban core in concert with the community facilities. The SPD could be strengthened by providing details of education and skills training opportunities for adults. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High probability of the secondary school being built; uncertainty regarding its location and potential for adult learning facility Geographical scale of the effect: Site and surrounding communities Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Long-term 16. To foster a Comments: vibrant and ? The SPD aims to create ‘places for people’ with a cohesive distinctive sense of character and identity, community that informed by local history.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted participates in This should help to foster a cohesive community decision-making. with nodes such as shops, health facility, and other local facilities. While it is difficult to ascertain at this time, these actions should help to respond to community needs and desires. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: Uncertain Geographical scale of the effect: Site specific Nature of the effect: Permanent and temporary Timing: Short and long-term

17. To preserve and Comments: enhance the urban and suburban area The SPD has outlined a variety of densities to in keeping with the reflect the more urban character near the town character of the centre and the suburban character of surrounding wider area. areas. The greenbelt, running north-south, under policy guidelines will not be developed, but rather incorporated as a District Park with green links and a green/blue network. This will establish a corridor of nature through the site. ++ A comprehensive site analysis is required and the SPD encourages existing attributes of the landscape to be respected, with regard to; the topography, ecology, hydrology, geology, soil capability and expected climate, along with the existing built environment where appropriate. In addition the retention of formal tree lines and other landscape features is encouraged. The SPD requires the preservation of the sense of openness and high landscape values of the site, through the development of high quality low- density residential development.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

Provision of a landscape and open space strategy will aim to ensure landscape and amenity values are protected and enhanced.

An appropriate balance of densities has been included reflecting the more urban character near the town centre for example; the SPD suggests clustering of high density development and maximization of densities; around the town centre, the Town Centre extension has a PTAL of 5/4 55-260 dwellings per ha. The historic value of the site will be retained, where possible, with protection and enhancement of key views and development of interesting vistas. This will also include the retention of historic layout and buildings where appropriate.

These SPD aims should help to ensure the RAF Uxbridge site creates its own character and setting within the existing landscape. Providing more details on the residential areas, specifically as they relate to restrictions on the location of housing especially in the Hillingdon House quarter would strengthen the SPD.

Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High Geographical scale of the effect: Site specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Short and long-term 18. To maintain and Comments: enhance the historic The heritage of the area should be enhanced environment and through sensitive regeneration. The SPD aims to cultural assets of ++/? do this by taking into consideration its impact on RAF Uxbridge. the wider range of heritage assets found on the site and its immediate surroundings.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted The SPD requires the maintenance and enhancement of listed buildings to be incorporated in proposals for development. The SPD encourages “the preservation and enhancement of listed buildings, other buildings of historic interest and historic landscapes on the site and in its wider setting.” In addition, it outlines plans for a new museum, which will showcase the history of the area and will be located on the site. This will enhance the understanding of the historical significance of the site, and encourage tourist visitation.

The SPD will protect and enhance Hillingdon House and the listed bunker with appropriate reuse, including provision of a visitor centre as noted above. The SPD states as follows “Restoration of the historic landscape around Hillingdon House and protection of that around the Group 11 Operations Room (Bunker)”. The SPD also aims to preserve the layout of the barrack blocks from the 1920s, where they can be readily converted and will add to the character of the site, and other features associated with the site’s military history. In this way, maintaining and enhancing the historic character of the site. Incorporating the historical layout, in addition to other key historical features of the site, is promoted in the SPD as an important feature in retaining and enhancing the historical and cultural significance of RAF Uxbridge. The development of the masterplan will determine how much of this historical layout and existing built form will be able to be retained. Retention of this historical urban form may clash with accessibility and urban design needs.

Other key historical features that will be retained, include the St. Andrew’s and Battle of Britain gates, and the three statutorily listed buildings and associated cartilage structures, including the Grade I and Grade II listed buildings.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

The SPD should consider how these historic sites and assets will be visited by people, and assist in ascertaining their target audience. This is important to gain an understanding of how historical tourism can be enabled and encouraged in the area. In addition, given Hillingdon House’s and the bunkers relative isolation, particular attention should be paid to accessing it by elderly and disabled persons. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: Highly likely that key historical aspects of the site will be promoted and enhanced, though uncertain if the history of the site as an entirety will be able to be retained through design; uncertain that tourism will definitely be enhanced as a result of the SPD proposals. Geographical scale of the effect: Site specific Nature of the effect: Permanent Timing: Short and long-term

19. To minimise Comments: noise pollution, The SPD outlines a commitment to assessing especially around noise impacts, and recognizing that development land-use interfaces will have a negative noise impact, indicates that the development is to be concentrated away from sensitive areas. Some of the sources outlined in the SPD include road traffic with respect to residential development, aircraft noise from RAF Northolt, -/? and from activities associated with the proposed town extension. Overall, additional development on this scale will have a negative impact, especially in the short term. The SPD lacks details regarding noise mitigation and desired positioning of noise generating activities, such as combined heat and power plants.

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted

These activities should be taken into consideration. Likelihood / certainty of occurring: Uncertain regarding noise mitigation techniques Geographical scale of the effect: site specific Nature of the effect: temporary and permanent Timing: short and long-term 20. To reduce and Comments: where possible The SPD refers to sustainable design and prevent the impact construction, including an emphasis on providing of flooding to sustainable water drainage system (SUDS), people and property which should contribute to mitigating flood risk. of RAF Uxbridge The aim is to control water runoff as close to the source as possible, thereby reducing the risk of a flood downstream The SPD requires for any buildings proposed applications should be in line with PPS25, the Councils Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) adopted November 2008, along with guidance from the Environment Agency, Natural England and other bodies. The SPD requires SUDS proposals for the overall ++ site to be designed in at the earliest stage, along with the overall street layout, landscape and open spaces strategies and other considerations. The adoption and maintenance of SUDS, flood defence, riparian and river improvement, and other initiatives should also be properly funded and managed at development stage and in perpetuity. SUDS and drainage should also be considered in designing streets, to limit the use of kerb and guttering and other hard features and surfaces that can create barriers to mobility impaired people, children, cyclists and pedestrians.

The SPD also refers to important guidance available from the Environment Agency in the

SA Framework Objectives Justification Impact Impact Predicted Predicted document “SUDS – A Practical Guide” 2006. The SPD also states that designs should be developed in consultation with the Council, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and other stakeholders. Climate change considerations, as they relate to flood prevention, have been outlined in the SPD to include minimising water use and protecting and enhancing green infrastructure in the design of SUDS. Prohibiting development on the flood plain mitigates the damage of any flooding of the River Pinn.

The SPD in reference to contamination states that Asbestos contamination, ground gas contamination in relation to possible fill, hydrocarbon’s (vapours too) and implications for water pollution will need to be fully considered. Proposals for mitigation and remediation will need to demonstrate that no adverse impacts will arise. The SPD requires any application will need to demonstrate compliance with Hillingdon’s SPG on Land Contamination, or any subsequent SPD or policy guidance that replaces it.

Likelihood / certainty of occurring: High Geographical scale of the effect: Site and areas connected by possible flooding effects Nature of the effect: Temporary and permanent Timing: Short and long-term

3.6 Further Recommendations and Strategies to Maximise Beneficial Effects

The RAF Uxbridge SPD and the planning processes going forward should encourage the maximisation of beneficial effects and minimise negative effects identified within this SA. The SPD has been influenced to a certain extent through the formal sustainability appraisal process. However, through ongoing attention to the SA and its fundamental principles, further beneficial effects can be achieved. • It is important to note that the SPD could try to achieve more detailed recommendations for the further extension of the town centre boundary, to assist integration and establishment of a sustainable community. This is also true in relation to the Annington Property Ltd land adjacent to the site, further guidance could help to assist the beneficial effects of ensuring co-ordination of the Annington Property Ltd land. • The implications of the adjoining Annington Property Ltd land should be taken into account at all stages of development. This will ensure the enhanced connectivity, accessibility and integration that the consideration of these sites can achieve is captured, thus providing a co-ordinated approach to development. This will ensure redevelopment will make the most of the site’s important location and proximity to the metropolitan town centre of Uxbridge and its likely future expansion and enhancement. • Through the planning process the SPD could aim to maximise beneficial effects. This could be at the implementation stage; for example, through application of design principles, as part of proposals in the EIA accompanying planning applications, or through proposals for changing other plans and programmes. • The SPD requires the development to meet Code Level 4 and aspires to reaching levels above this. In addition an exemplar area is required to meet Code Level 6. In addition to this, 30 units are to be show case exemplars for the area and meet code level 6. The difference between Code Level 4 and Code Level 6 is substantial, and it may be more cost- efficient and technically-feasible to address certain sustainability issues on a site-wide basis. Sustainable energy strategies such as the inclusion of a District Energy System are likely to be more feasible on a large scale. Through the planning process, developments on the site should have a coordinated approach across the whole site, particularly for energy, water, drainage, waste and ecology, to ensure that large- scale efficiencies are gained, despite different levels of sustainability targets across the site. A site-wide approach to sustainability analysis and strategy would from the beginning will be beneficial to delivery and should be encouraged through the planning process.

• Live/work units are currently envisaged in just one location, the town centre extension, further provision for more of these units is recommended. • A viability study for the proposed Cultural Quarter is recommended in order to determine the types of uses and size and capacity of cultural facilities. At the present time there is an uncertainty regarding the demand and deliverability of the Cultural Quarter on site, which needs to be addressed.

• The viability of a good pedestrian link from the town centre through to the new extension via the roundabout area is still to be determined through detailed studies, this should be conducted as this link is essential for a walkable neighbourhood.

• As further ecological studies are undertaken, ecological initiatives and targets should be demonstrated and required through the planning application process to ensure beneficial effects.

4. Implementation

4.1 Introduction Now that the key issues arising from the sustainability assessment have been highlighted, it is necessary to test the accuracy and actual effects arising from these issues through consultation and monitoring. Stage D of the sustainability appraisal process involves consulting on the SA report alongside the draft SPD. Comments received will inform the accuracy of the appraisal undertaken and highlight any gaps in the assessment. Stage E of the sustainability appraisal process involves the monitoring of the implementation of the SPD, where effects can be quantified and controlled where possible. Appendix C sets out the indicators that will be adopted for monitoring, in line with Sustainability Appraisals of other Local Development Documents within the Local Development Framework.

4.2 Commenting on this Report Consultation is critical for the development of a sound SPD. This draft Sustainability Appraisal Report is published for consultation, alongside the SPD. To help to inform our decision we are consulting interested people and organisations for 6 weeks. Representations can be made via the following options: • Formal letter • Comments cards will be used at all consultation events and will be available at all locations • Email via the website www.hillingdon.gov.uk

Alongside this, an open house event and a specific event with the Youth Council and Uxbridge College will be held in September. Further details are available on the London Borough of Hillingdon website.

4.3 Monitoring Any significant effects of the SPD must be monitored from an early stage. Sustainability monitoring reports must be integrated with the Annual Monitoring Report, and appropriate remedial action taken where necessary. Monitoring enables us to establish whether the SPD is contributing to the achievement of the identified sustainability objectives. It also allows us to identify unforeseen or adverse effects and consider appropriate remedial action. Monitoring should be an ongoing process and achieving high standards should be of paramount importance.

The baseline and sustainability indicators were identified in the Scoping Report for this sustainability appraisal, and are included in Appendix C. While it is recognised that additional work is required to establish additional targets and to refine some of the proposed indicators, these will generally provide the framework that will be used to monitor the progress of the SPD against the sustainability objectives.

Specific monitoring and mitigation requirements arising from the SPD appraisal include: • The river biodiversity, ecology and woodland will need to be assessed and monitored for effects during development of the area and protection should be sought. • Planning Applications will need to ensure the Air Quality Management Area designation is maintained and aviation safeguarding requirements noted, these should form part of the planning conditions. • Planning applications should also ensure protection of the Grade I and Grade II listed buildings, monuments and other structures including the Battle of Britain Gates and St Andrews Gate. • Preservation of the history and memory of the site should also be taken into account as part of the ongoing process and as part of planning conditions, and should influence design. • Planning Applications will need to ensure key view lines are retained, in particular of Hillingdon House, as well as from and towards the Study Area. View analysis can help mitigate potential negative impacts of taller buildings proposed as part of new development. • Monitoring and mitigation actions for the River Pinn flood plain and other areas identified in the Flood Risk Assessment, will need to be comprehensively carried out. • Monitoring of the surrounding Annington Property Ltd land is required to ensure it is successfully integrated within the urban and suburban fabric of the area, assisting in accessibility, connectivity and integration of the RAF Uxbridge site. • Ensure the Green Belt and Green chain are continually protected, and the openness of the Green Belt enhanced and established as a District Park. • Availability of community services including recreational facilities, health and education. • Monitor environmental improvements to the site. • Monitor tourist footprint on the site, any issues arising from this need to be mitigated.

Appendix A: Review of Relevant Plans and Policies

Following best practice that aims to make Sustainability Appraisals more approachable and manageable, this policy review draws on the policy reviews already undertaken in Hillingdon’s Site Allocation DPD SA and the London Plan SA. This recognises that these documents have already included comprehensive reviews of policies and plans which have fed into the objectives and criteria which in turn feed into this SA document.

This review firstly outlines the plans and policies that have previously been reviewed as part of the Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy and Site Allocation DPD (the most directly relevant Sustainability Appraisal hierarchical document). This document is publicly available at http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/environment/planning/planningpub.php#porter. While all of the documents listed here have directly informed this SA, the commentary on the review has not been repeated here for the sake of efficiency and practicality.

The second table outlines additional relevant plans and polices, and where appropriate updates those reviewed by the Sustainability Appraisal for the Core Strategy and Site Allocation DPD. It sets out their sustainability objectives and requirements. The review then refers to and updates the review of the relevant sustainability considerations identified in International, National and Local policy and plans by the Sustainability Appraisal of the London Plan (the most directly relevant Sustainability Appraisal hierarchical document).

International, National, Regional and Local Plans and Strategies Reviewed as part of Sustainability Appraisal for Core Strategy and Site Allocation DPD

Policies and plans reviewed in the Core Strategy DPD and Site Allocations DPD SA

International Directive 1996/62/EC Ambient Air Quality Directive Directive 1999/30/EC Limit values for SO2, NOX, PM10, and lead Directive 2002/49/EC Environmental Noise Directive Directive 2000/60/EC Water Framework Directive Directive 99/31/EC Landfill directive Directive 92/43/EEC Habitats Directive National Working With The Grain of Nature: Biodiversity Strategy for England A better quality of life: a strategy for sustainable development for the UK Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: General Policy & Principles Draft Planning Policy Statement: 1: Creating sustainable communities Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts Planning Policy Guidance Note: 3 Housing Planning Policy Guidance Note 4: Industrial, commercial development and small firms Planning Policy Guidance Note 5: Simplified planning zones Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Town centres and retail development Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications Planning Policy Guidance Note 9: Nature conservation Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and geological conservation Planning Policy Guidance Note 10: Planning and waste management Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies Planning Policy Statement 12: Local development frameworks Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the historic environment Policy Planning Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning

Policies and plans reviewed in the Core Strategy DPD and Site Allocations DPD SA

Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation Planning Policy Guidance 19: Outdoor advertisement control Planning Policy Guidance 21: Tourism Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and pollution control Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and flood risk Minerals Planning Guidance 1: General considerations Minerals Planning Guidance 6: Guidelines for aggregates provision in England Minerals Planning Guidance 7: Reclamation of Mineral Workings The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Working Together for Clean Air Regional – London A Sustainable Development Framework for London The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London The Mayor's Transport Strategy The Mayor's Noise Strategy: Sounder City The Mayor's Air Quality Strategy The Mayor's Biodiversity Strategy: Connecting with London’s nature The Mayor's Cultural Strategy: London Cultural Capital The Mayor's Economic Development Strategy: Success through diversity The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy The Mayors Energy Strategy: Green light to clean power London Biodiversity Action Plan London Borough Of Hillingdon Transport Strategy (Draft) Community Plan Air Quality Action Plan Unitary Development Plan Hillingdon Biodiversity Action Plan (Draft)

Policies and plans reviewed in the Core Strategy DPD and Site Allocations DPD SA

London Borough of Hillingdon – Waste (Recycling) Strategy 2001 – 2006 A Prosperous Borough – Hillingdon’s Strategy for a Sustainable Economy 2005-2015

International, National, Regional and Local Plans and Strategies Reviewed – Updates and Additions

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA INTERNATIONAL/EUROPEAN CONTEXT The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development States a commitment to building a Key commitments SPD guidance to Check that the humane, equitable and caring global • Sustainable production and support overall commitments are society consumption objectives reflected in the • Renewable energy and energy sustainability efficiency appraisal framework • Produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment • Develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005 Kyoto Climate Change Protocol Established to limit the emissions of • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Consider how the Check that the greenhouse gases by 5% of 1990 levels by 2008-12 SPD can contribute requirements of the • UK has an agreement to reduce to the objectives and protocol are reflected greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% targets of the in the sustainability below 1990 levels by 2008-12 and a protocol appraisal framework national goal to a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA

UN Convention on Human Rights Details the basic civil and political The rights of an individual to: Ensure the SPD Ensure the SA does rights of individuals and nations • Legal recourse when their rights does not violate any not violate any human have been violated, even if the human rights rights violator was acting in an official capacity • The right to privacy and protection of privacy by law • Freedom of opinion and expression • Freedom of assembly and association European Spatial Development Perspective 97/150/EC Based on the EU aim of achieving a • Economic and social cohesion The SPD guidance Check that objectives balanced and sustainable • Conservation of natural resources should provide a are reflected in development, in particular by and cultural heritage sustainable spatial sustainability strengthening economic and social • More balanced competitiveness of vision appraisal framework cohesion the European territory • To achieve more spatially balanced development, these goals must be pursued simultaneously in all regions of the EU and their interactions taken into account

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA

EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora 92/43/EEC 1992 Member states are required to take 1. Target – preserve the area of habitats The SPD guidance Check that the SA will legislative and administrative and the number of species in Hillingdon should protect and take into account the measures to maintain and restore 2. Target – minimise the loss of designated enhance habitats conservation status of natural habitats and wild species at a areas to development. and conservation in any areas in the favourable conservation status in the the Uxbridge area Uxbridge area and will community. Indicator: seek to identify Change in areas and populations of measures to further An assessment of the impact and biodiversity importance including: maintain and restore implications of any plan or project i. change in priority habitats and natural habitats that is likely to have a significant species (by type) impact on a designated site. ii. Change in areas designated for intrinsic environmental value including site of national, international, regional, sub- regional or local significance. European Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC 1979 Member States have a duty to No targets SPD guidance to The SA will consider sustain populations of naturally support overall the impacts of the occurring wild birds by sustaining objectives and SPD on wild bird areas of habitats in order to maintain requirements of the populations. The populations at ecologically and Directive requirements of the scientifically sound levels. This Directive should be applies to birds, their eggs, nests and reflected in the SA habitats. framework.

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA European Directive Nitrates 91/676/EEC Reducing water pollution caused or No targets SPD guidance to Check that the induced by nitrates from agricultural support overall requirements of the sources objectives and Directive are reflected requirements of the in the Sustainability Prevent further such pollution Directive Framework

European Directive Waste Framework (Directive 75/442/EEC Waste is to be disposed of without No targets SPD guidance to Check that the causing danger to humans, the support overall requirements of the environment, the countryside or objectives and Directive are reflected places of interest requirements of the in the Sustainability Directive Framework Noise and odour to be minimised European Directive EIA 97/11/EC Requires assessment of the effect of No targets SPD guidance to Ensure that certain public and private projects on support overall ‘appropriate the environment objectives and assessments’ are requirements of the carried out for sites in Directive locations where development could negatively impact on the environment

European SEA Directive 2001/42/EC Ensure that environmental Ensure preparation of SAs for new planning SPD guidance to Ensure that consequences of certain plans and documents where relevant support overall ‘appropriate

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA programmes are identified and objectives and assessments’ are assessed during their preparation requirements of the carried out for sites in and before their adoption Directive locations where development could negatively impact on the environment European Directive Energy Performance of Buildings 2001/91/EC To promote the improvement of the BV63 – the average SAP rating of local SPD guidance to Ensure that the energy performance of buildings authority owned dwellings support overall requirements are within the community, taking into objectives and reflected in the account outdoor climatic and local requirements of the Sustainability conditions, as well as indoor climate Directive Appraisal Framework requirements and cost effectiveness Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy July 2003 (UNEP) An innovative and proactive No specific targets SPD guidance The SA will consider approach to stop and reverse the should conserve and biodiversity in degradation of biological and enhance biodiversity accordance with the landscape diversity values in Europe. guidance

Strategy to introduce a coordinating and unifying framework for strengthening and building on existing initiatives. The strategy will assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing initiatives and promotes practical action where there is a lack of suitable instruments or where existing mechanisms are not implemented to their full potential Aarhus Convention 1998 (The UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) Establishes a number of rights of the • The right of everyone to receive Production of Production of public (citizens and their environmental information that is Statement of Sustainability associations) with regard to the held by public organisations Community Report in consultation environment. Public authorities (at • Public authorities are obliged to Involvement (SCI) with relevant national, regional or local level) are actively disseminate environmental organisations in to contribute to allowing these rights information in their possession accordance with to become effective • The right to participate from an early Government stage in environmental decision Guidance and the making Statement of • The right to challenge, in a court of Community law, public decisions that have been Involvement made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general European Sustainable Development Strategy (ESDS) – European Commission June 2001

Achieving sustainable development No specific targets SPD guidance The SA will consider requires economic growth that should provide a long term supports social progress and sustainable spatial sustainability in respects the environment. The vision and reflect the accordance with strategy argues that in the long-term aim of this strategy guidance on this issue economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection must go hand in hand. The main aims of the strategy are: • To limit climate change and increase • the use of clean energy • To address threats to public

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA health • To manage natural resources more responsibly • To improve the transport system and land-use management EU Sixth Environmental Action Plan 1600/2002/EC Priority Areas For each of these areas key objectives and SPD guidance to Check that the Climate Change certain targets are identified with a view to support the primary requirements of the Nature and Biodiversity achieving the main targets areas of the action Directive are reflected Environment and Health and Quality plan in the SA framework of Life Natural Resources and Waste

The objectives, priorities and actions of the Programme should contribute to sustainable development in the candidate countries

This directive sets out a set of common rules on permitting for industrial installations. The IPPC Directive is about minimising pollution from various point sources throughout the EU. Directive 96/61/EC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (The IPPC Directive) This directive sets out a set of No specific targets SPD guidance to The SA should include common rules on permitting for support overall objectives for waste industrial installations. The IPPC objectives and management and Directive is about minimising requirements of the ensure that the pollution from various point sources Directive requirements of the

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA throughout the EU. Directive are reflected in the SA framework NATIONAL CONTEXT PPS1: Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change –Supplement to PPS1 (2007) This Planning Policy Statement • Secure the highest viable resource The SPD will need to The SA should include (PPS) sets out how planning, in and energy efficiency and reduction Include guidance objectives to ensure providing for the new homes, jobs in emissions and policies on the the SPD will assist in and infrastructure needed by • Encourage the fullest possible use of reduction of carbon reducing carbon communities, should help shape sustainable transport including public emissions, energy emissions, promoting places with lower carbon emissions transport, cycling and walking; and, efficiency and energy efficiency and and resilient to the climate change which overall, reduce the need to sustainable transport encouraging now accepted as inevitable. travel, especially by car impacts on sustainable transport • Conserve and enhance biodiversity, biodiversity. modes. In addition recognising that the distribution of impacts on habitats and species will be affected biodiversity should be by climate change; considered. PPS3: Housing (2006) High quality housing that is well 1. Reference to the targets under the The SPD will need to The SA should include designed and built to a high affordable housing SPD consider balancing objectives relating to standard. 2. Local (London Plan) target of 365 units economic nature conservation 1. A mix of housing, both market per annum (3650 over 10 years) development and and the protection of and affordable, particularly in nature conservation, wildlife and will terms of tenure and price, to can also include consider impacts on support a wide variety of policies for the biodiversity in households in all areas, both conservation of accordance with urban and rural. biodiversity beyond existing guidance. 2. A sufficient quantity of housing the designated sites, taking into account need and for example the demand and seeking to improve creation of new choice. habitats as part of a

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA new development Housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. A flexible, responsive supply of land – managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate. Draft PPS4: Industrial, commercial development and small firms (Draft for consultation Aug 2008) - A good range of sites identified for New uses for vacant or derelict The SPD should The SA should include economic development and mixed- Buildings is encouraged, including historic address the use of objectives for use development; buildings, as this can contribute positively vacant or derelict encouraging wider to an area’s regeneration, provide wider buildings. Live work economic benefits, − A good supply of land and economic benefits, help to preserve historic units on site should live-work and home buildings which offers a range of assets and also reduce the need for also be pursued as a working and office opportunities for creating new Greenfield development; viable employment development, to jobs in large and small option. In addition B1 encourage durable businesses as well as start-up Take account of the changing spatial office should be and sustainable firms and which is responsive to working patterns that advances in encouraged on the economic changing needs and demands; information and communication site as it is on the development. − High quality development and technologies allow, such as live-work units edge of a town inclusive design for all forms of or the use of residential properties for home centre. These economic development; working. options ought to encourage − Avoiding adverse impacts on the For office (B1) Development preference for indigenous and environment, but where these are sites in or on the edge of town centres, inward investment

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA unavoidable, providing mitigation; consistent with the sequential approach in and provide and PPS6, whilst recognising that market complimentary uses demand will influence office location. on site. − Shaping travel demand by promoting sustainable travel Opportunities for smaller scale office choices wherever possible. development should be promoted taking account of local circumstances and wider − Set car parking policies for non- benefits that may arise from the proposal. residential developments(maximum standards) − Provision for powered two- wheelers − Varying needs of different business sizes and types − Development should be durable and sustainable, and deliver attractive and healthy working environments.

Draft PPS 6: Town Centres (Draft for consultation July 2008)

This policy statement focuses on a A focus on overall economic, social, The SPD will need to The SA should include range of issues relating to planning environmental and strategic planning consider objectives relating to; for the future of town centres and the impacts weighing up the positive and opportunities for accessibility, main uses that relate to them. negatives in order to provide a broader investment to assist sustainable traffic and understanding of the issues of the in the strengthening transport aspects, - Emphasis is put on the need for proposed development; of the areas’ economic investment,

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA investment in areas that require economy and sustainable economic strengthening to their economy or Other impacts which should form part of the employment base growth and the wider regeneration. Any significant assessment include and to aid employment and changes to town centre role and - accessibility, regeneration. regeneration function should be delivered - sustainable transport and Issues such as opportunities. through the development plan traffic impact, accessibility, process. As part of this process - wider employment and sustainable transport LPAs should be encouraging regeneration effects. and traffic impacts sustainable economic growth and should be helping to deliver the needs of All proposals should ensure making considered. local businesses. efficient and effective use of land.

The main proposed changes to PPS Emphasis on encouraging investment and 6 include the introduction of a new building prosperous communities. impact test (replacing the former needs test) which will run in parallel to the sequential approach which allows for a more thorough assessment of the proposed development, the town centre’s impact as a result of the proposed development and the impact on consumer choice and competition

PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) To promote sustainable development No specific targets or indicators The SPD guidance The SA should include by ensuring that biological and will need to address objectives to ensure geological diversity are conserved waste and sustainable use of and enhanced as an integral part of encourage materials through social, environmental and economic developments that efficient use of raw

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA development, so that policies and minimise and recycle materials and decisions about the development and waste in the increased use of use of land integrate biodiversity and Borough. recycled materials, geological diversity with other composting waste and considerations. waste reduction in the Borough. To conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology by sustaining, and where possible improving, the quality and extent of natural habitat and geological and geomorphological sites; the natural physical processes on which they depend; and the populations of naturally occurring species which they support.

To contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance by: • enhancing biodiversity in green spaces and among developments so that they are used by wildlife and valued by people, recognising that healthy functional ecosystems can contribute to a better quality of life and to people’s sense of well-being; and • Ensuring that developments take account of the role and

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA value of biodiversity in supporting economic diversification and contributing to a high quality environment. PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) Help deliver sustainable No specific targets The policies of the The SA framework will development through driving waste SPD will have to management up the waste hierarchy, have to be in general take into account addressing waste as a resource and conformity with those policies in the looking to disposal as the last option, in the RSS but one which must be adequately RSS catered for;

Provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities;

Help implement the national waste strategy, and supporting targets, are consistent with obligations required under European legislation and support and complement other guidance and legal controls such as those set out in the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994;

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA Help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations;

Reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, and encourage competitiveness;

Protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities when defining detailed green belt boundaries and, in determining planning applications, that these locational needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission;

Ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainable

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA waste management. PPS 12 Local Development Frameworks (June 2008) PPS 12 sets out government policy  The policies of the The SA will need to on local development frameworks The “sustainability appraisal” required by SPD will need to be take into account replaces PPS12 Local Development S19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory in conformity with the guidance within Frameworks and the companion Purchase Act 2004 should be an appraisal guidance in PPS12 PPS12. guide Creating LDFs (2004). This of the economic, social and environmental PPS 12 reflects the lessons learned sustainability of the plan. The “sustainability The Sustainability from the first three years of the A sustainability appraisal fully incorporates appraisal” required operation of the new planning system by S19(5) of the Appraisal should the requirements of the European Directive perform a key role in in England brought in by the on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Planning and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Compulsory providing a sound Provided the sustainability appraisal is evidence base for the Act 2004. carried out following the guidelines in the A Purchase Act 2004 should be an plan and form an PPS12 explains what local spatial Practical Guide to the Strategic integrated part of the planning is, and how it benefits Environmental Assessment Directive and appraisal of the economic, social and plan preparation communities. It also sets out what the Plan-Making Manual there will be no process. the key ingredients of local spatial need to carry out a separate SEA. environmental sustainability of the plans are and the key government Where authorities are required by law or policies on how they should be plan. encouraged by government policy to prepared. It should be taken into undertake assessments of their plans, such account by local planning authorities assessments should feed into and be in preparing development plan summarised in the sustainability appraisal. documents and other local development documents. Sustainability appraisal must be proportionate to the plan in question. It should not repeat the appraisal of higher level policy. The Sustainability Appraisal should perform a key role in providing a sound evidence

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA base for the plan and form an integrated part of the plan preparation process. Sustainability Assessment should inform the evaluation of alternatives. Sustainability Assessment should provide a powerful means of proving to decision makers, and the public, that the plan is the most appropriate given reasonable alternatives.

PPG13 – Transport (2001) The Transport planning policy sets • Sustainable transport choices The SPD guidance The SA should out the government’s objective to • Enhanced local travel – promoting will need to promote formulate objectives integrate planning and transport by walking and cycling as alternatives sustainable that will address the promoting more sustainable transport to car use. transport choices need to promote choices, accessibility to jobs, • Reducing the need to travel by car and accessibility to sustainable transport shopping, leisure facilities and jobs, shopping, and choices and services by public transport, walking services by public accessibility. and cycling, and reducing the need to transport, walking travel, especially by car. and cycling, and reducing the need to The guidance states that local travel, especially by planning authorities should actively car. manage the pattern of urban growth, locate facilities to improve accessibility on foot and cycle, accommodate housing principally within urban areas and recognise that provision for movement by walking, cycling and public transport are important.

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA

PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) PPG15 sets out government policies Protection of historic buildings and other The SPD guidance The SA should ensure for the identification and protection of elements of the historic environment should promote the aspects of heritage historic buildings, conservation areas, protection and protection and and other elements of the historic enhancement of enhancement are environment. It explains the role of certain historic adhered to, where the planning system in their buildings or those possible and practical. protection. Part One of the PPG buildings of heritage deals with conservation policy which value. interacts most directly with the planning system. These include matters of economic prosperity, visual impact, building alterations, traffic and affect on the character of conservation areas. Part Two addresses the identification and recording of the historic environment including listing procedures, upkeep and repairs. PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning (1990) PPG 16 outlines the government’s No specific targets The SPD guidance The SA should include policy on archaeological remains on will need to address objectives to ensure land and how they should be and provide policy any archaeological preserved or recorded both in an on, any remains are protected urban setting and in the countryside. archaeological during the development remains that need to process and in the It gives advice on the handling of be protected during future.

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA archaeological remains and the development discoveries through the development process and in the plan and development control future. systems, including the weight to be given to them in planning decisions and planning conditions.

Explanation is given of the importance of archaeology and of procedures in the event of archaeological remains being discovered during development. PPG 17 - Planning for Open space, Sport and Recreation (2002) PPG 17 sets out the government’s Adequate land and water resources should The policies of the The SA should include priorities for the provision of open be allocated for organised sport and SPD will need to be objectives that will space and facilities and improving informal recreation. set against the address the need to opportunities and accessibility for guidance in PPG17, provide open space for sport and recreation. Have regard to the community’s need for in order to provide recreation. recreational space, having regard to open space for The guidance observes that it is part current levels of provision and deficiencies. recreation. of the function of the planning system to ensure that through the preparation of development plans adequate land and water resources are allocated for organised sport and informal recreation. Local planning authorities should take account of the community’s need for recreational space, having regard to current levels of provision and deficiencies and

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA resisting pressures for development of open space which conflict with the wider public interest.

Provision should be made for open space, sport and recreation in urban areas, the urban fringe, the Green Belts, and the countryside and particular sports including football stadia, water sports and golf.

PPS 22 Renewable energy (2004) PPS 22 covers technologies such as Have regard to, and consider ways to plan The SPD should The SA must ensure onshore wind generation, hydro, for renewable energy production. consider renewable renewable energy photovoltaic’s, passive solar, energy aspects production is assessed biomass and energy crops, energy particularly utilising and accounted for, from waste (but not energy from solar, biomass, where possible, within mass incineration of domestic waste), wind or CHP. the site. and landfill and sewage gas. The principles for making decisions on waste management are set out in PPG10 (Planning and Waste Management) and Waste Strategy 2000.PPS22 outlines the considerations in planning for renewable energy production, and states that local authorities and developers should consider the opportunity for incorporating

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA renewable energy projects in all new developments, particularly small scale schemes utilising solar, biomass, wind and CHP.

PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control (2004) PPS 23 outlines the requirement to The potential impacts of RAF Uxbridge on The SPD should The SA should include consider potential impacts of the environment should be considered. ensure objectives that aim to development on the environment and contaminated land protect Land, air and human health from any development. is considered and water quality. This includes protecting the quality of mitigated where air, water and land, and specific necessary. Land, air considerations for potentially and water quality contaminated land. concerns should be addressed and opportunities for enhancement considered.

PPS25 Development and Flood Risk (2006) The aims of planning policy on  Flood risk must be taken into account in The SPD must The SA must ensure development and flood risk are to planning for the new development. ensure that flood risk that flood risk is ensure that flood risk is taken into is assessed, assessed, managed account at all stages in the planning managed and and reduced on and process to avoid inappropriate reduced. from RAF Uxbridge. development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is,

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall. The Future of Transport White Paper (DFT, 2004) The strategy is built around three • Enhanced road networks – more Consider how the Implications for the SA themes: capacity, road tolls, better SPD documents can include the need to • Sustained investment management contribute to the formulate objectives • Improvements in transport • Railways – improve efficiency, national objectives that will address • management structure and performance and targets on congestion and Planning ahead • Enhanced local travel – promoting transport accessibility of Strategy objective: balancing the walking and cycling as alternatives transport as well as need to travel with the need to to car use, more buses, use of Develop policies and issues such as health improve quality of life. school travel plans proposals that and air pollution. • Balanced approach to aviation provide for the use of All transport schemes also need to • Maintaining high quality shipping a range of modes of respect the environment. • Sustainable freight transport transport with focus on reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions

UK Climate Change Programme How the UK plans to deliver its Kyoto • Improve business’s use of energy The SPD guidance Check that the target to cut its greenhouse gas • Stimulate investment and cut costs will need to address objectives are emissions by 12.5%, and move • Stimulate new, more efficient climate change and reflected in the towards its domestic goal to cut sources of power generation encourage sustainability carbon dioxide emissions by 20% • Cut emissions from the transport development that appraisal framework

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA below 1990 levels by 2010 sector minimises • Promote better energy efficiency in emissions, the domestic sector encouragement of • Improve energy efficiency rail travel and freight, requirements of the Building Regulations Energy efficiency • Continue the fall in emissions from should be integrated agriculture and forestry into new housing • Ensure the public sector takes a developments leading role

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) The Action Plan is the UK A large number of monitoring measures SPD needs to take The SA should be in Government's response to the can be found in the individual plans due regard of the UK line with the objectives International Convention on BAP as well as of the UK BAP Biological Diversity signed in 1992. It habitat and species describes the UK's biological action plans that are resources, commits a detailed plan relevant to the area for the protection of these resources and has 391 Species Action Plans, 45 Habitat Action Plans and 162 Local Biodiversity Action Plans with targeted actions

Waste Strategy for England and Wales (2000) Statement of Government policy on Local authorities will be required to meet Plan policies to Check that the sustainable management of waste statutory performance targets (BVPIs) for contribute objectives are

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA and recycling. Decisions about waste to achieving said reflected in the resources management should be based on BEPO objectives sustainability appraisal framework The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (The PPC Regulations) The regulations apply an integrated No specific targets Plan policies to Check that the environmental approach to the contribute objectives are regulation of certain industrial to achieving said reflected in the activities and are the means by objectives sustainability which the Government has appraisal framework implemented the EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC).

The primary aim of the Directive is to ensure a high level of environmental protection and to prevent and where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.

Working with the Grain of Nature: Biodiversity Strategy for England (DEFRA 2002) The strategy seeks to ensure The Government’s objectives are: SPD guidance will The SA will need to biodiversity considerations become • To promote sustainable need to ensure that include objectives embedded in all main sectors of development development does relating to biodiversity public policy and sets out a • To conserve, enhance and restore not have a and will consider programme for the next 5 years to the diversity of England’s wildlife and detrimental impact impacts on make the changes necessary to geology on biodiversity biodiversity in conserve, enhance and • To contribute to an urban accordance with work with the grain of nature and renaissance existing guidance ecosystems rather than against them • To contribute to urban renewal

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA The strategy sets out the Government’s vision for conserving and enhancing biological diversity in England together with a programme of work to achieve it. Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 The Countryside and Rights of Way Plan policies to Check that the Act 2000 extends the public's ability contribute to objectives are to enjoy the countryside whilst also achieving said reflected in the providing safeguards for landowners objectives sustainability and occupiers. appraisal framework

It creates a new statutory right of access and modernises the rights of way system as well as giving greater protection to SSSI's, providing better management arrangements of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and strengthening wildlife enforcement legislation.

Strategy for Flood Risk Management (Environment Agency, 2003) Aims: The SPD guidance The SA will include • Have no loss of life through should take into objectives to reduce flooding account all guidance vulnerability to climate • Reduce the risk to flooding to relating to flood risk change and to life, major infrastructure, and management minimise environmental assets and the susceptibility to some 80,000 homes flooding

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA Health White Paper – Choosing Health – Making Healthy Choices Easier, Department of Health, 2004 This report sets out the new The report sets out a number of targets to Plan policies to Check that the approaches to the health of the achieve the aims of the strategy contribute to objectives are public reflecting the raid and radical achieving said reflected in the transformation of the English society objectives sustainability in the latter half of the 20th Century. appraisal framework

The aims of the strategy are to: • Have integrated planning and effective delivery of services • Improve the health of the nation by reducing smoking, reducing obesity, increasing exercise, improving sexual health and improving mental health Choice for Parents, The Best Start for Children: A 10 Year Strategy for Childcare, December 2004 This document sets out the Targets: Plan policies to Ensure Sustainability governments vision to ensure that • Choice and Flexibility – Parents to address the issues Appraisal objectives every child gets the best start in life have greater choice about balancing raised by the plan reflect the aims of this and to give parents more choice work and family life programme about how to balance work and • Availability – for all families with family life children up to 14 to affordable, flexible, high quality childcare • Quality – high quality provision with a highly skilled childcare and early years workforce • Affordability – families to be able to afford flexible high quality childcare that is appropriate for their needs

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA

Regional Planning for a better London (July 2008) ‘Planning for a better London’ sets No key targets The ‘Planning for a Ensure climate change, out the key areas that the Mayor better London’ affordable housing and wants to address in revising the guidance (or the open space targets are London Plan and other various most recent incorporated. planning strategies and guidance. guidance from the Mayor of London From 2009 onwards a number of and relevant changes will be made which will have legislation) will need implications for planning in London. to be considered in These changes will need to be an assessment of considered in planning for the future any planning development of RAF Uxbridge. The application. most pertinent policies that may affect the site will be regarding affordable housing, climate change, accessibility and open space. The London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) – Consolidated with Alterations since 2004 (February 2008) This document sets out a number of See policy’s in first column Plan guidance to Appraisal help to key revisions to the London Plan. contribute to realising achieve goals and said objectives objectives of the plan In relation the RAF Uxbridge, the Sub-Regional Development Framework and Further Alterations plan provide guidance on developing

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA a wider role for Uxbridge as a Metropolitan centre.

The following key policies are also relevant to the redevelopment of RAF Uxbridge:

Policy 3A.7 (Large residential developments) establishes the requirement to prepare planning frameworks for large residential developments.

Policy 3A.10 (Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed use schemes)

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA requires Boroughs to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes, the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual circumstances of the site.

Policy 3D.1 (Supporting town centres) states that Boroughs should

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA enhance access to goods and services and strengthen the wider role of town centres. Amongst other matters listed it identifies to enhance the competitiveness and quality of retail and other consumer services in town centres, support a wide role for town centres as locations for leisure and cultural activities, as well as business and housing and their key role in developing a sense of place and identity for sustainable local communities and require the location of appropriate health, education and other public and community services in town centres.

Policy 4B.5 (Creating an inclusive environment) requires all future

100

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and that the principles of inclusive design should be used in assessing planning applications and in drawing up master plans and area planning frameworks

The London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) - Housing Provision Targets, Waste and Minerals Alterations The alterations to the London Plan The Plan increases Hillingdon’s housing The objectives Ensure Sustainability serve to increase the supply of targets between 2007/08 and 2016/17 by outlined in the Appraisal helps to housing in London by increasing the 3,650. alterations will need achieve goals and targets for each Borough from that to be considered as objectives of the plan set out in the London Plan. Increase recycling target for London to 30% part of Hillingdon’s by 2010. overall response to Borough DPD documents should the revised targets. seek to exceed the Borough target figures, having regard to

• Opportunity Areas • Mixed use development if low density commercial sites • Change of use of surplus industrial/commercial land • Redevelopment in Town Centres • Intensification of housing provision through high densities (where consistent

101

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA with sustainable residential quality • The need for adequate provision of local services.

The capacity of housing sites should be determined in accordance with the urban design and density policies of the London Plan.

The document also outlines policies to ensure provision of facilities for 75% of London’s waste by 2010 and to minimise waste and increase reuse and recycling (the latter to 30% by 2010).

Policies are also amended in relation to planning for minerals, promoting recycling and re-use of construction, excavation and demolition waste and the recycling of waste as aggregates.

Sustainable Design and Construction: The London Plan SPD (2006) Guidance to provide additional The SPG sets both required and The SPD for RAF The SA should be in information to support the aspirational targets for sustainable design Uxbridge will need to keeping with the implementation of the London Plan and construction. consider how it can intentions of this SPD best accommodate in terms of sustainable sustainable design design and and construction as construction.

102

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA part of the Planning Brief.

London Borough of Hillingdon Draft Core Strategy (2007) The core strategy has 8 objectives: No targets SPD needs to SA needs to ensure • To ensure that enough land is ensure consistency consistency with the made available to meet the with the objectives objectives and the housing, economic and and the spatial spatial requirements community facilities needs of requirements for for densities, housing the borough in the period to densities, housing mix and provision of 2016 as identified in the mix and provision of facilities. Community facilities. • Strategy and where appropriate in the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy • To secure high quality, accessible and well designed development that seeks to make the most efficient use of brownfield land including the promotion, where appropriate, of higher density, mixed use development. • To promote safe, healthy and inclusive communities and respect the needs of the borough's diverse and multi- cultural communities. • To increase Hillingdon’s

103

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA accessibility • To enhance the environment in Hillingdon by addressing local causes of pollution and climate change. • To safeguard the borough's rural and urban heritage. • To deliver a choice and mix of housing types and tenures which cater for a range of needs and aspirations including those in need of affordable housing, in order to promote the establishment of mixed sustainable communities. • To promote the Hillingdon economy through a planning framework for sustainable and competitive economic growth which promotes employment creation, leisure facilities and the role of town centres. Draft Site Allocations DPD (2007) The draft Site Allocations No targets or indicators The SPD should The SA should take Development Plan Document (DPD) confirm to the account of the provides the draft framework for the requirements set out aspirations set out in allocation of land for development in in the site allocation the site allocation. the Borough for the period 2004 – 2016. The RAF Uxbridge site has its

104

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA own site allocation and a number of draft proposals.

Hillingdon Transport Strategy (2005) The key objective within the LIP target chapter 9 pages 249-272. The SPD should The SA should ensure Transport Strategy is of developing Target 1- road safety (reduction in seriously take account all the sustainability an effective and sustainable killed or injured, reduction in slight causality transport related goals of the Transport transport system for the borough. Target 2 – school road safety (20mph zone issues identified in Strategy are achieved. or other road safety measures) this strategy The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Target 3 – bus excess (wait time) is a statutory document, which Target 4 – Borough bus target implements the Transport Strategy. Target 5 – traffic volumes The LIP has 8 priority areas: Target 6 – general traffic journey time probability • road safety, Target 7- modal shift • bus journey times, Target 8 – school travel plans • relieving traffic congestion, Target 9 – compliance (to achieve • parking and loading, improvements in compliance and loading) • accessibility and social Target 10 – access (improvement in inclusion, proportion of trips made by equality and • walking, inclusion groups). • cycling, and Target 11 – taxi-card scheme Target 12 –walking increase in 10% in • Transport infrastructure. journeys on foot

Target 13- cycling- increase in 80% Target 14 – roads (road conditions) Target 15 – road traffic NOx emissions (collected by GLA)

105

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA London Borough of Hillingdon’s Community Plan 2005-2015 The Community Plan sets out 6 key To ensure Uxbridge remains one of The SPD should The SA will include priorities that the Borough must London’s top ten shopping centres take account all of objectives that help towards. the Boroughs key deliver against all 6 of These key priorities are linked to the BVPIs priorities the key objectives. • A borough of learning and in the Council Plan 2006/07. These are culture monitored annually and published. • A safer borough • A cleaner and more pleasant borough • A borough with improving health, housing and social care • An economically prosperous borough • A borough where opportunities are open to all

In relation to RAF Uxbridge the strategy underlines Uxbridge’s importance and an economic driver for the Borough.

106

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement SPD (2006) The Hillingdon Design and No specific targets The SPD needs to The SA should cross Accessibility Statement SPD seeks respond to the check the to provide guidance for new standards set out in development of the development in the borough and these documents SPD content with comprises a number of separate through all stages. these requirements sections on the following topics and guidance. including the relevant topics of: • Accessible Hillingdon – requires consideration of the implications of 1995 DDA requirements early in design. • Shop fronts – Provides guidance on the design of shop fronts and retail units • Public Realm consultation draft – Includes sustainability principles and gives principles and objectives for the design of public realm. It promotes an integrated design process. • New residential layouts – Gives design guidance for the urban design and layout of new communities

107

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA Affordable Housing SPD The SPD provides implementation • Council will seek to ensure that 50% The SPD will need to The SA will have an support to the Draft LDF Core of all new housing is affordable demonstrate the affordable housing Strategy’s aim: “To increase access • Council will aim to achieve an overall level of affordable objective to promote a to and choice of housing in the affordable housing tenure mix of housing potential of mixed and balanced Borough” 70% social rent and 30% the site and how the community. and Unitary Development Plan intermediate housing mix will be (1998) policy H11 which seeks to Residential development of 15 or more achieved. obtain the highest acceptable units will be expected to provide specified proportion of affordable housing. housing mixes for the overall development (15-50 units a balance of 1,2 and 3+ bedrooms, with no more that 50% 1 bed units, 51+ units = 30% 1 bed, 40% 2/3 bed, 30% 4 bed+) Noise SPD The Supplementary Planning The SPD sets out a range of detailed The SPD will need to Ensure Sustainability Document (SPD) has been prepared maximums for noise in relation to different incorporate the Appraisal helps to in anticipation of the development of types and locations of development guidance on noise. achieve the goals and specific policies in the LDF Core objectives of the plan. Strategy. In the interim period, this SPD will be taken into account by the Council in determining planning applications as supplementary to relevant policies in the adopted UDP (2007).

It sets out 10 key points, which will impact on how noise is dealt with as part a development proposals: • Location of residential

108

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA development • Aircraft noise • Road traffic noise • Amenity/Internal Noise levels • Schools and hospitals • Industrial uses • Airport buildings • Character of area • Countryside • Detailed housing design measures

Live Work Accommodation SPD The Supplementary Planning No targets Should live/work The SA would need to Document (SPD) has been prepared units be considered consider the in it will need to done implication of live/work anticipation of the development of so within the development in terms specific policies in the LDF Core parameters set out in of affordable housing Strategy. In the interim period, this this SPD and economic SPD will we be taken into account by development the Council in determining planning objectives. applications as supplementary to relevant policies in the adopted UDP.

The document sets the parameters for the Borough’s live/work policy to prevent the re-use of buildings for solely employment or residential and to ensure appropriate employment

109

Key objectives relevant to the plan Key targets and indicators relevant to Implications for the Implications for the and SA the plan and SA plan SA uses and locations of live/work premises. It also sets out the Borough’s policy on live/work units and affordable housing. Land Contamination SPG (2004) This SPG provides guidance on No targets The SPD will need to The SA should ensure Hillingdon’s policies on land follow the guidance that the SPD contamination and provides on contaminated conforms to these information about land contamination land requirements and legislation, and advice on how to guidance on land deal with actual and suspected contamination. contaminated sites through the planning and development process.

Planning Obligations SPG (Draft SPD) Supplementary Planning Guidance No targets Planning obligations The SA should ensure set out the council’s current may be used to that the SPD approach, policies and procedures in address matters that conforms to these respect of planning obligations, cannot be resolved requirements. including one for Land through planning Contamination. These set out the conditions including implementation to the provision of land contamination. planning obligations for certain items of infrastructure.

These have been updated into draft SPD.

110

Appendix B: Baseline Information

The following table gives a range of relevant baseline information. Some information is applicable to Hillingdon as a whole, while some is specific to the Uxbridge North, which is the ward within which the RAF Uxbridge site sits. Where Super Output Areas are used, this is noted.

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data Social Index of Multiple RAF Uxbridge Other super N/A Not comparable To improve access to services and Deprivation for RAF The southern output areas in with previous employment opportunities. Uxbridge (two section is in the Borough. Indices of SOAs) 50% most Multiple deprived, Deprivation northern section is in the 40% least deprived. (2004) % Population of age Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North - To ensure a balance of services, 0-15 19.44% 21.2% 16.43% including youth and educational (Census 2001) London - Hillingdon - provision 20.20% 19.76% England - London - 18.88 19.52% (Census 2001) England - 20.05 (Census 1991)

% Population of age Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North - To ensure accessibility issues for 65+ 14.45% 13.9% 15.82% the elderly are incorporated in the

111

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data (Census 2001) London - Hillingdon - Development Brief 12.43% 14.65% England - London - 15.89% 14.43% (Census 2001) England - 16.05% (Census 1991) Ethnicity Uxbridge North Hillingdon: N/A Uxbridge North: To ensure there is a balanced and a) White a) 85.6% a) 79.1 a) 91.9% representative community by Population b) 8.8% b) 13.6% b) 6.8% promoting access to all b) Asian/ Asian London: Hillingdon: British (Census 2001) a) 71.2% a) 87.7% b) 12.1% b) 9.5% England: London: a) 90.9% a) 79.9% b) 4.6% b) 10.3% (Census 2001) England: a) 93.8% b) 3.8% (Census 1991) Description of 73.5% Hillingdon:71.3 - - Ensure good access to GP services (Census 2001) % Health as ‘Good’ England/Wales : 68.6%

Cultural Services Hillingdon a) Quartile 4 a) 32% Not available To promote cultural facilities as an User Satisfaction a) 12% (bottom) b) 37% essential part of place making and with other Cultural b) 29% b) Quartile 4 community building Services (bottom) (2009/10) a) museums and (BVPI 2006/07)

112

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data galleries b) arts and activity venues

Sport & Leisure Hillingdon Quartile 4 50% Not available To ensure provision is made that is Facilities 39% (bottom) (2009/10) sustainable and economically viable User Satisfaction (BVPI 2006/07) and meets the needs of the local population Library User Hillingdon Quartile 4 73% Not available To make library facilities more Satisfaction 68% (bottom) (2009/10) accessible to local population (BVPI 2006/07)

Socially rented Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North - To provide a balanced mix of properties 13.9% 16.7% 9.5% housing on the site (Census 2001) London - Hillingdon - 26.2% 17.9% England - London - 29.1% 19.3% England - 23.1% (Census 2001) (Census 1991)

Housing Stock Uxbridge North Hillingdon N/A Uxbridge North To ensure the SPD captures the a) Detached a) Detached a) Detached local character of Uxbridge houses - 30.5% houses - 14.63 houses - 39.4% b) Semi- b) Semi- b) Semi- detached - detached - detached - 30.6% 36.2% 22.2% c) Terraced - c) Terraced - c) Terraced - 17.29% 24.6% 15.1%

113

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data d) Apartments - d) Apartments - d) Apartments - 19.27% 20.3% 23.3% (Census 2001) (Census 1991)

% non-decent LA Hillingdon Quartile 2 0% 22.4% (2005/06) N/A homes at the start of 17% (2009/10) the financial year (BVPI 2006/07) BV184a Number of people Hillingdon Quartile 3 3 (2009/10) 3 (2005/06) To increase the stock of social and sleeping rough on a 3 affordable housing in the area single night BV40 (BVPI 2006/07) and BV41 % pupils achieving Hillingdon a) Quartile 1 a) a) English: To support additional high quality Level 4+ in key a) English: (top) English:84% 79.8% educational capacity in the Borough stage 2 Maths and 81.50% b) Quartile 1 b) b) Maths: 76.6% English b) Maths: (top) Maths:81% (2005/06) 77.40% (2009/10) (BVPI 2006/07)

% of pupils with 5+ Bishopshalt Hillingdon - N/A Bishopshalt To support additional high quality GCSE, A*-C grades School - 70% 54.7% School - 57% educational capacity in the Borough at Local Schools Uxbridge High England - Uxbridge High School – 43% 59.2% School - 49% BV 38 (2005/06) (2004/05)

% of adults Uxbridge North Hillingdon N/A Not Available Promote adult learning and access achieving a) 16.7 a) 18 to local adult education facilities a) full level 1 b) 22.4 b) 20.9 (NVQ or c) 10.1 c) 9.6

114

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data equivalent) d) 23.7 d) 20 b) full level 2 (Census 2001) (NVQ or London equivalent) a) 13 c) full level 3 b) 17.1 (NVQ or c) 9.8 equivalent) d) 31 d) full level 4/5 (NVQ or England equivalent) a) 16.6 b) 19.4 c) 8.3 d) 19.9

% of population Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Not available To help improve access to aged 16 - 74 with no 21% 25% educational facilities in the area qualifications (Census 2001) London - 23.7% England - 28.9% % of working age Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North - To help improve access to population 80.3% 78.2% 81.9% educational facilities, healthy living economically active (Census 2001) London - Hillingdon - and employment opportunities in the 74.4% 81.4% area England - London - 77.7% 76.4% England - 77.9% (Census 2001) (Census 1991) Burglaries per 1000 Hillingdon Quartile 4 18 (2009/10) 18.15 (2005/06) To help reduce burglaries through households 18.36 (bottom) improved design

115

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data BV 126 (BVPI 2006/07)

Robberies per 1000 Hillingdon Quartile 4 3.5 3.52 (2005/06) To help reduce robberies through population 3.86 (bottom) (2009/10) improved design BV 127b (BVPI 2006/07)

Vehicle crimes per Hillingdon Quartile 4 19 (2009/10) 18.16 (2005/06) Continue to reduce car crime 1000 population 19.6 (bottom) through improved urban design BV128 (BVPI 2006/07)

Road accident Hillingdon Quartile 2 107 157 (2005/06) Encourage better design to make casualties – people 119 (2009/10) roads safer killed or seriously (BVPI injured 20006/07) BV99a(i) Environmental Travel to work Uxbridge North Hillingdon N/A Not available Encourage forms of travel other than journeys by mode a) Work at a) Work at car, particularly walking and cycling Home: 5.6% Home: LIP 9.7 modal shift b) Car/Van/ 5.5 Motorcycle- b) Car/Van/ 41.3% Motorcycle- c) Train/ Bus- 40.6% 11.3% c) Train/ Bus- (Census 2001) 14.4%

London: a) Work at

116

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data Home: 5.4% b) Car/Van/ Motorcycle- 23.4% c) Train/ Bus- 26.4%

England a) Work at Home: 5.8% b) Car/Van/ Motorcycle- 39.3% c) Train/ Bus- 9.4%

Percentage of Hillingdon Quartile 4 67% Not available Improve green space satisfaction by residents satisfied 62% (bottom) (2009/10) promoting open space and the with parks, (BVPI 2006/07) greenbelt playgrounds and open spaces Number of listed RAF Uxbridge N/A N/A N/A Promote and protect Hillingdon buildings 2 House and the WW2 Bunker Number of RAF Uxbridge N/A N/A N/A N/A scheduled ancient 0 monuments Number of RAF Uxbridge N/A N/A N/A N/A archeological priority 0 areas

117

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data % of household Hillingdon Quartile 2 12.5% 11.4% (2005/06) Continue to promote sustainable waste composted 12% (2009/10) waste disposal (BVPI 2006/07)

% of household Hillingdon Quartile 2 27.5% 16.3% (2005/06) Continue to promote sustainable waste recycled 18.6% (2009/10) waste disposal (BVPI 2006/07)

Kerbside collection Hillingdon Quartile 1 (top) 100% 100% (2005/06) Continue to promote sustainable of recyclables (one 100% (2009/10) waste disposal recyclables) (BVPI 2006/07) Waste collected per Hillingdon Quartile 4 490 515.4 (2005/06) Continue to promote sustainable head (kg) 492 (bottom) (2009/10) waste disposal (BVPI 2006/07) User Satisfaction Hillingdon a) Quartile 3 a) 85% Not available Continue to promote sustainable with: a) 77% b) Quartile 3 b) 66% waste disposal a) Waste b) 61% (2009/10) collection (BVPI 2006/07) b) Recycling facilities Average SAP rating Hillingdon Quartile 1 (top) 68.5 Basis for Continue to promote energy efficient of local authority 73.44 (2009/10) calculating and sustainable design and owned dwellings (BVPI 2006/07) figures have construction. (energy efficiency) changed so previous years not directly comparable.

118

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data

Indicative Noise RAF Uxbridge N/A N/A N/A Minimise Noise Pollution Levels - dB(A) (LA10 a) Along A4020 18 hour) - 70-75

b) Along other roads within vicinity of site - 55-70

c) Across the site - 45-60 Water Quality - River Pinn: N/A N/A River Pinn: Protect water quality in the River a) GQA Chemistry a) B (Good) a) B (Good) - Pinn b) GQA Biology b) C (Fairly 2002 Good) E (Poor) - (2003) 2001 b) Not available

119

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data

Air Quality Hillingdon 1 - Objective Hillingdon 1 - Minimise air pollution Pollutant levels South Ruislip Level South Ruislip a) PM10 Particulate a) 28 a) 31 (annual mean) b) 16 a) 40 b) 41 b) PM10 Particulate c) 44 b) 35 c) 50 (no. days 24hr mean d) 1 c) 40 d) 18 > 50ug/m3) d) 18 c) Nitrogen Dioxide (2004) (2003) (annual mean) (source:www.lo d) Nitrogen Dioxide ndonair.gov.uk) (no. hrs hourly mean > 200ug/m3) Accidents in the 122 (council Not - - Improve road safety immediate area in data) comparable the last 3 years Economic % of population full- Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North - To improve access to educational time students 2.7% 3.2% 3.6% facilities in the local area and (Census 2001) London - 3% Hillingdon - promote higher achievement at local England - 2.6% 3.2% schools (Census 2001) London - 4.2% England - 3.5% (Census 1991)

Unemployment: Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North High employment in the area, which % of working age 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% 2006 should be maintained and improved population claiming (Claimant London - 3.1% 1.8% 2005

120

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data Job Seekers Count England - 2.4% 1.9% 2004 Allowance July 2007) Hillingdon 2.5% 2006 2.5% 2005 2.3% 2004

London 3.6% 2006 3.5% 2005 3.5% 2004

England 2.6% 2006 2.4% 2005 2.2% 2004

Long Term Uxbridge North Hillingdon - N/A Uxbridge North To help improve access to Unemployed: 16.3% 12.6% 14.5% 2006 educational facilities and % of people (July 2007) London - 11.3% 2005 employment opportunities in the claiming Job 19.5% 10.8% 2004 area Seekers Allowance England -

121

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data who have been out 16.9% Hillingdon of work for more 12.6% 2006 than a year (July 2007) 13.6% 2005 15.2% 2004

London 19.4% 2006 17.9% 2005 20.0% 2004

England 16.1% 2006 13.7% 2005 16.0% 2004

Resident Uxbridge North Hillingdon N/A Not available To understand and promote areas of employment by a) 15.9% a) 15.6% employment Industry: b) 13.2% b) 5.9% a) Real Estate, c) 14.5% c) 17.3% Renting, d)10.4% d) 13.9% and business e) 9.7% e) 10% activities b) Public (Census 2001) London Administration a) 20.3% defence, social b) 5.4% security c) 14.4% c) Wholesale, retail d) 8.1% trade, repair cohort e) 7.6%

122

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data d) Transport, storage, and England communications a) 13.2% grouping b) 5.7% e) Manufacturing c) 16.9% sector d) 7.1% e) 14.8%

Occupation Range Uxbridge North Hillingdon N/A Not available To promote inward investment for as a proportion of a) 19.3% a) 16% higher end businesses to match the working b) 13.1% b) 10.2% population profile population: c) 20.3% c) 15.2% a) Managers d) 4.9% d) 7.2% and senior e) 6.9% e) 10.5% officials b) Professional (Census 2001) London Occupations a) 17.6% c) Professional b) 14.9% and c) 17.9% Technical d) 4.9% occupations e) 9% d) Process, plant and England machine a) 15.3% operatives b) 11.2% e) Elementary c) 13.8%

123

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data occupations d) 8.4% e) 11.8%

North Uxbridge B1: Units 40% N/A N/A N/A To ensure no competition with Industrial area uses Floor space existing commercial/industrial space 53% B1C: Units 3% Floor space 5% B2: Units 10% Floor space 3% B8: Units 37% Floor space 37% Other: Units Vacant premises 10% Floor space 2%

Small 2% Medium 39% Large 59%

(Industrial Business Areas Audit 2006) (yearly)

124

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data

South Uxbridge B1A: Units N/A N/A N/A To ensure no competition with Industrial Estate 12% existing commercial/industrial space Occupation Rates Floor space 16% B1B: Units 1% Floor space <1% B2: Units 62% Floor space 50% B8: Units 30% Vacant Premises Floor space 29% Other: Units 7% Floor space 4%

Small: 7% Medium: 70% Large: 23%

(Industrial Business Areas Audit 2006)

125

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data % change in VAT Hillingdon Stock N/A N/A Encourage entrepreneurship and (2001 – 2005) + 0.7% London + 1.3% healthy business population registered England + businesses in the (VAT 1.4% area Registration Data) Net growth in VAT Hillingdon N/A N/A N/A To promote growth areas in the local registered a) 49% economy businesses: b) 28% % change in VAT c) 16% (2001 – 2005) d) 6% registered businesses in the (VAT area Registration a) Real Estate, Data) Renting, and business activities b) Construction c) Hotels and Restaurants d) Transport, Storage +communication

Decline in VAT Hillingdon N/A N/A N/A To promote growth areas in the local Registration: a) 64% economy % change in VAT b) 32%

126

Indicator Quantified Comparators Targets Trends Action / Issues for SPD/SA Data (2001 – 2005) c) 4% registered businesses in the (VAT area Registration a) Manufacturing Data) b) Public admin + other community, social and personal services c) Finance intermediation

127

Appendix C: Sustainability Framework

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) 1 To promote methods to Will it increase the proportion of - Road accident casualties – people killed or seriously reduce dependence on journeys made using public injured (BVPI) private transport and transport rather than private car? - % of residents who feel that public transport services are manage the effects traffic Will it increase accessibility to excellent, very good or good (BVPI) on the environment public transport? - Travel to work journeys by mode in Uxbridge North, Will it increase walking and Uxbridge South and Brunel (Census) cycling alternatives to using - Local bus service satisfaction (BVPI general survey) private cars? - % Traffic Growth Will it act to achieve Hillingdon’s - Modal share home – education (LIP indicator) targets to increase walking by - Modal share home – work (LIP indicator) 10% and cycling by 80%? - Number of walk and cycle trips (LIP indicator) Will it increase car sharing? - School Travel Plans (LIP indicator) Will it improve road safety? - Investment in public transport, walking and cycling Will it reduce carbon emissions? - Average number of car spaces per unit Will it act to reduce air pollution? - Bus excess wait time in Hillingdon (LIP indicator) - NOx emissions attributed to traffic (LIP indicator)

2 To increase accessibility Will it reduce isolation? - Satisfaction with low level of traffic congestion (BVPI to and within the site and Will it improve access to the site general survey) promote connectivity with by car? - Access to open space

128

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) the surrounding areas. Will it improve access to the site by walking and cycling? Will it make navigation through the site easier? Will it improve connectivity between the surrounding area, facilities and the town centre? 3 To encourage Will it improve social cohesion? - % new homes built on previously developed land (BVPI) sustainable development Will it reduce dissatisfaction with - Satisfaction with access to culture (BVPI general survey) that is compact (with local services? - Index of Multiple Deprivation for RAF Uxbridge (Uxbridge densities appropriate to Will it improve the range of key north, Uxbridge south and Brunel) the local context and the services within easy access of - Housing density, -percentage of new dwelling completed at principles of good the population? <30 dwellings p/ha, between 30 –50 dwellings p/ha, >50 design) and mixed use Will it improve access to cultural, dwelling p/ha as appropriate, with recreational and leisure facilities? provision of key local Have densities been maximised services and amenity especially around transport links? that will reduce the need to travel

4 To protect and enhance Will existing species be provided - Satisfaction with access to nature (BVPI general survey) existing biodiversity and for on site? - Tree Preservation Orders natural habitats, and Will new habitats be created? - River Pinn Water Quality - create new wildlife Will habitat corridors be included a) GQA Chemistry habitats to facilitate movement of b) GQA Biology species? - % BAP habitats and species implemented

129

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) Will tree cover and woodland be retained and enhanced? Will it retain existing hedgerows, where practicable? Will the River Pinn ecology be protected and enhanced? 5 To ensure local people Will it enhance local employment - % of working age population economically active in have access to satisfying prospects? Uxbridge North, Uxbridge South and Brunel (Census) opportunities for Will it improve the range of - % of unemployed people claiming Job Seekers Allowance employment and employment opportunities? (Claimant Count) occupation Will it promote skills training? - % of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance who have Will it build on current Uxbridge been out of work for more than a year employment strengths? - Satisfaction with job prospects (BVPI general survey) - Index of Multiple Deprivation for RAF Uxbridge (Uxbridge north, Uxbridge south and Brunel) - Resident employment by Industry in Uxbridge North: a) Real Estate, Renting, and business activities b) Public Administration defence, social security c) Wholesale, retail trade, repair cohort d) Transport, storage, and communications grouping e) Manufacturing sector (Census)

6 To promote a high Will it provide a high quality - % of new homes achieving Code for Sustainable Homes quality of urban design in urban environment? Level 3 or above conjunction with Will it increase the success of the - Satisfaction with low level of pollution (BVPI general sustainable design and neighbourhood in the short and survey) construction principles the long term? - River Pinn Water Quality - and techniques Will it promote and deliver c) GQA Chemistry sustainable design and d) GQA Biology construction? Will it reduce pollution?

130

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) Will it make efficient use of natural resources including soil, mineral aggregates, water and biodiversity? Will housing of decent quality be retained and improved? Will a high level of reused and recycled materials be integrated into construction materials? Will it act to achieve London’s requirement that at least 50% of timber products used are from an FSC source?

7 To promote efficient use Will water use be minimised in - % of new homes achieving Code for Sustainable Homes of water and the use of buildings and the landscape? Level 3 or above recycled and non-potable Will non-potable water sources - Water usage per capita water sources such as rainwater and greywater be captured, treated and reused on-site in place of mains water supply? Will this enable 100% of properties to be metered? Will this enable new development to have a water use of 105L per day or less in keeping with best

131

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) practice?

8 To promote increased Will it act to reduce carbon - Average SAP rating of authority dwellings (BV63) self sufficiency in term of emissions? - % of new homes achieving Code for Sustainable Homes energy production and to Will it reduce resident’s energy Level 3 or above improve energy costs? - Percentage of energy from renewable resources efficiency Will renewable energy sources be maximised? Will energy be supplied and distributed in an efficient manner? Will buildings be designed to lower energy demand through passive design? Will it meet London’s 20% reduction in C02 through on-site

132

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) renewables target?

9 To promote recycling Will it minimise waste production - % of household waste composted (BVPI) BV82b(i) and efficient waste and increase levels of reuse and - % of household waste recycled (BVPI)BV82a(i) management recycling? - Kerbside collection of recyclables (one recyclables) (BVPI) Will materials and infrastructure BV91(a) be re-used? - Waste per head (kg) (BVPI) BV84a Will construction and demolition - User Satisfaction with: waste be minimised? a) Waste collection BV90a Will it enable organic waste to be b) Recycling facilities (BVPI) BV90b collected and reused? Will it act to enable the provision of facilities to recycle or compost at least 25% of household waste by means of separated dedicated storage space (by 2010 this should rise to 35%)? 10 To ensure indigenous Will it contribute to prosperity? - % change in VAT registered businesses in the area and inward investment Will it increase opportunities for a) Real Estate, Renting, and business activities which is environmentally, business? b) Construction socially and Will it encourage c) Hotels and Restaurants economically sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation d) Transport, Storage +communication in design and development? e) Manufacturing Will it introduce investment that f) Public admin + other community, social and will compliment and support the personal services viability of existing businesses in g) Finance intermediation

133

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) Uxbridge town centre? (VAT registration data) - Amount of floor space developed for employment by type

11 To protect, maintain and Will it ensure easy accessibility to - Percentage of residents satisfied with parks, playgrounds enhance the quality of open spaces? and open spaces (BVPI) open spaces and the Will it act to protect and enhance - walking distance from publicly accessible site of borough or greenbelt and ensure the green belt areas? higher level significance for nature conservation. (London effective access to open Will it create a variety of Plan Implementation Report 2008) space functional open spaces to meet community and environmental needs? Will it improve physical activity and wellbeing? Will it improve opportunities for recreation and play? Will it act to change Uxbridge’s classification as an Area of Deficiency access to nature and public open space for metropolitan and district parks? (As defined by “London Plan Implementation Report – Improving Londoner’s access to Nature” Feb 2008)

134

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional)

12 To improve health, Will it improve access to primary - Satisfaction with access to health services (BVPI general reduce health healthcare facilities? survey) inequalities and promote Will it encourage healthy - GP Services: Access to a GP within 2 days healthy living lifestyles and provide opportunities for sport and recreation? Will it improve the health of children and young people? Will contaminated land be managed so that it poses no significant risk to users? 13 To reduce crime and the Will it make local people feel - Proportion of young people who report feeling ‘safe’ or fear of crime safer in their community? ‘very safe’ in Hillingdon Will it act to avoid the creation of - Robberies per 1000 population (BVPI) BV127b isolated places? - Vehicle crimes per 1000 population (BVPI) BV128 Will it create safer walking routes - Violent crimes /1000 population (BVPI)BV127a to key areas? Will it improve safety for children and young people? Does it incorporate the principles of ‘Secure by Design’?

14 To provide everyone with Will it increase access to good - Affordable homes started on site

135

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) the opportunity to live in quality and affordable housing? - % Socially rented properties in Uxbridge North, Uxbridge a decent affordable Will it reduce homelessness? South and Brunel (Census) home Will it provide a range of housing - Housing Stock Proportions in Uxbridge North, Uxbridge to cater for different affordability South and Brunel (Census) needs? - % non-decent LA homes at the start of the financial year Will it act to achieve Hillingdon’s (BVPI) target of 50% affordable housing (30% intermediate, 70% social rent)? Will it provide a range of dwelling sizes? Will it enable all residential development should meet Lifetime Home standards and 10% should meet wheelchair accessibility standards? 15 To provide good Will it provide meaningful - % pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C or equivalent education and training educational opportunities for (BVPI) BV38 opportunities which build children and young people in - % pupils achieving Level 4+ in key stage 2 Maths and skills and capacity of the RAF Uxbridge? English (BVPI) BV41 population Will it provide meaningful - Number of adults achieving educational opportunities for a) full level 2 (NVQ or equivalent) adults in RAF Uxbridge? b) full level 3 (NVQ or equivalent) Will it improve access to c) full level 3 (NVQ or equivalent) educational facilities? d) full level 4/5 (NVQ or equivalent) (Census) - % of population full-time students (Census)

16 To foster a vibrant and Will it foster a sense of pride in - % of residents that feel strongly that they belong to their cohesive community that local neighbourhood? neighbourhood (BVPI general survey) participate in decision- Will it respond to community - Percentage of adults who feel making needs and desires? a) very involved

136

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) b) fairly involved in decisions affecting their local area (BVPI general survey) - % of residents that agree that local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together (BVPI general survey) 17 To preserve and Will it maintain the visual - Percentage of residents satisfied with parks, playgrounds enhance the urban and character of the area? and open spaces (BVPI) BV119e suburban landscape, in Will it protect and enhance the keeping with the high landscape and amenity character of the wider values of parts of the site? area Will it minimise effects of development on the green belt? Has an appropriate balance of

densities been included reflecting the more urban character near the town centre and the more suburban character of the other surrounding areas? Will the historic amenity of the site and wider area be preserved and enhanced?

18 To maintain and Will the historical assets be - User Satisfaction with Cultural Services (BVPI) BV119 enhance the historic retained? - Number of Listed Buildings environment and cultural Will the history of the site be - Cultural Services: User Satisfaction with other Cultural assets of RAF Uxbridge showcased? Services Will the cultural environment be a) museums and galleries BV119c protected? b) arts and activity venues (BVPI) BV119d Will any archaeological sites be

137

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) protected? Will there be any impact on the neighbouring conservation area? Will understanding of the history and archaeology of the site be enhanced? Will it enable historical tourism for the area? Will it improve access to cultural facilities? 19 To minimise noise Will it create significant noise - Number of noise pollution incidents recorded pollution, especially pollution for sensitive land areas? - Indicative Noise Levels - dB(A) (LA10 18 hour) in and around around land use Will noise issues be created RAF Uxbridge interfaces around land use interfaces?

20 To reduce and where Will it reduce risk of flooding and - Number of Planning Permissions granted contrary to the possible prevent the prevent it where possible? advice of the Environment Agency on grounds of flood risk impact of flooding to Will it manage flood waters (AMR Core 7) people and property of effectively? - Number of properties at risk from flooding RAF Uxbridge Will it position property out of flood paths? Will sustainable urban drainage systems be used? Are the SUDS features beneficial to biodiversity, pollution

138

No. Objective Key Criteria Indicators (provisional) prevention and amenity value? Have contamination issues been considered in drainage design? Will it act to achieve 50% attenuation of the undeveloped site’s surface water run off at peak times?

139

Appendix D: Consultation Responses

The following responses were received in relation to the sustainability appraisal. These have been addressed within the final version as follows;

Stakeholder submission comments Actions VSM Estates Point 2 in Table 3 refers to allowing easy access for residents Amended SA with the following; This is to assist in the reduction without unnecessary utilization of motor vehicles. It is unclear if of carbon emissions. This has been done in order to cross the objective is to remove cars due to congestion, or to remove reference the possible effects. This issue is identified specifically cars due to carbon emissions (or possibly both). We would in Issue 26. request that this is clarified, for example, if the reduction in carbon is the issue, then the use of electric cars will be acceptable. Point 4 in table 3 refers to a lack of cultural facilities and the The proposed cultural quarter has been a long-term aspiration, strategy for RAF Uxbridge to include accessible cultural, from various sources including the local community and London recreational and leisure facilities where appropriate to improve Plan policy. However, it is true the viability of this proposal is community vibrancy and cohesion. As indicated in section 2 of unclear due to the lack of evidence base. The cultural quarter this report, the theatre and art gallery currently referred to in the has been retained within the SPD due to popular demand and draft SPD would not be suitably located and are not viable or policy support, although it is recommended viability testing is deliverable. They should not be included as requirements. undertaken. Point 12 in table 3 refers to preserving and enhancing the The potential for the RAF Uxbridge site to create its own character of the site and the surrounding residential area and distinctive character has been taken into account in the SA the Green Belt. VSM Estates are of the opinion that the RAF assessment and also balanced with the need to integrate the Uxbridge site is big enough to create its own character and site’s character with its surrounding. setting. This philosophy should underpin the SPD and the sustainability appraisal. The masterplan will create a distinctive character for the site that will enhance the existing site features and respect the existing heritage, with appropriate architectural reference. Refer to paragraph 2.16 (i). Point 15 in table 3 refers to protecting the Green Belt. Whilst we The green belt issue will be addressed as part of the masterplan

140

agree that the Green Belt should be protected, the issue and planning process and therefore no additional points have highlighted in relation to the SPD of the illogical Green Belt been added in that regard. boundary (once buildings / roads are removed) stands. There are some small areas of Green Belt which may not be protected under the current master plan proposals, but there is potential for the area of Green Belt to be increased overall (particularly due to the areas of flood plain outside the Green Belt). Point 3 in table 4 encourages sustainable development that is This criteria concerns appropriate densities and land use. compact with densities appropriate to the local context and the Character concerns will be picked up alongside other objectives. principles of good design. As previously mentioned, the RAF Uxbridge site is of sufficient size to create its own character. Point 17 in table 4 makes reference to the objective of Amended SA criteria with the following; Will it ensure RAF preserving and enhancing the urban and suburban landscape in Uxbridge also creates its own character and setting within the keeping with the character of the wider area. As mentioned in existing landscape? paragraph 4.4 above VSM Estates are of the opinion that the RAF Uxbridge site is big enough to create its own character and setting. Paragraph 3.2 option 3, the title should include the words ‘guide SA amended to reflect this comment. the’ before regeneration. Paragraph 3.4 mentions the inclusion of text in the SPD to SPD does discuss provision of allotment gardens and therefore promote allotment gardens in the northern and southern this comment has been retained within the SA. quadrants; this is not mentioned in the main text of the draft SPD and should be deleted. Appendix A should be updated to recognise the publication of Appendix A has been amended to include recent changes to the more recent Planning Policy Statements, such as PPS1, Planning Policy Statements including, PPS1 supplement, Draft Draft PPS4 and PPS12. PPS4, Draft PPS6, PPS12, PPS16, PPS17, PPS22 and PPS23. English Heritage Pg15 – Table 3 No.14 Amendment to the SA as follows; The heritage of the area In general we support the key strategy for this particular issue. should be enhanced through sensitive regeneration. However we believe that this could be expanded to include the need to enhance the areas heritage through sensitive regeneration.

141

Pg20 – Table 4 No.3 & No.6 SA criteria amended in the following way to reflect this comment; When considering sustainable development it is important to Will it encourage the re-use of embodied energy in the building consider the contribution the historic environment can provide to fabric and reduction of waste? achieving this essential objective. For example the retention and re-use of existing buildings (e.g. re-use of embodied energy in the fabric and reduction in waste) can provide an invaluable contribution to meeting sustainable development targets. Pg29 – Table 4 No18 Amendment to the SA as follows; Will the SPD take into account Additional key questions that should be asked include an its impact on the wider range of heritage assets found on the site appreciation of the wider range of heritage assets found on the and its immediate surroundings? site and its immediate surroundings and the impact of this SPD upon them and their setting Pg38 onwards – para 3.5 assessment of the SPD Amendment to the SA as follows; It is also suggested that the Pg61 - No.17 existing barrack blocks are retained and reused where possible, We are encouraged by the comments outlined in the third and the parade ground enhanced, in order to preserve and paragraph and the ‘hope to preserve the symmetric layout of the enhance the character of the area. barrack blocks’. However it does not state the retention and reuse of the existing barrack blocks and the enhancement of the parade ground. This we would suggest is an essential in order that the character of the area is preserved or enhanced. Pg62 – No.18 The SA states that; Incorporating the historical layout, in addition Again we would suggest that the assessment could push harder to other key historical features of the site, is promoted in the for the retention and re-use of key historic features. At present in SPD as an important feature in retaining and enhancing the the text and as reflected in the draft SPD there is a degree of historical and cultural significance of RAF Uxbridge. ambiguity in the future of key features such as the Barrack blocks. The SPD should provide greater clarity with a strong It is felt that this wording is sufficient in terms of encouraging emphasis upon the retention, reuse and enhancement of this retention of key historic features. The development of the important urban form. masterplan in conjunction with consultation with key stakeholders will in the main determine what is retained.

142

Appendix E: Table of Options

++ likely to have a very positive effect + likely to have a positive effect 0, likely to have a neutral effect +/- or positive effects would balance out negative effects - likely to have a negative effect -- likely to have a very negative effect ? unknown or could have a positive or a negative effect depending on how it is implemented

143

Policy AM9 sees to Both these policies will provide a network of promote use of non well signposted cycle vehicular travel routes throughout the borough and safe cycle parking. However, while providing a positive basis it does set out how the objective could be achieved at the RAF Uxbridge site. These policies could be open to interpretation and may not result in an outcome that best achieves a reduction

144

+ The Draft Core Strategy ++ An SPD for the RAF Uxbridge 2. To increase 0 Policies in relation to seeks to secure high site would be in a strong accessibility to access and and within the movement promote quality, accessible and position to build on this policy site and promote improved access for well designed basis and provide site specific connectivity with the elderly and development and to detail and how development the surrounding disabled and an increase Hillingdon’s should interface and integrate areas. improved cycle accessibility. with the town centre.

network, but these The Draft Site are not site specific

145

Hillingdon’s Draft Design and Access Statement sets out guidance on a range of areas, including accessibility, public realm and residential layout.

These policies would have a positive impact on any development

146

3. To encourage + The saved UDP + The draft Core Strategy ++ There is a need to take sustainable policies refer to seeks to make the most forward these broad principles development that London Plan policy efficient use of and sets out how and where brownfield land including compact development should is compact (with 4B.1 ‘Design the promotion, where be accommodated at RAF densities Principles for a appropriate, of higher Uxbridge. An SPD appropriate to Compact City’, which the local context sets out a design density, mixed use development brief for the site and the framework for development. would enable this to happen. principles of building at good design) and appropriate higher The Draft Site Allocation mixed use as densities. This would DPD sets out that development on RAF appropriate, with provide a positive Uxbridge should seek provision of key basis for any services and development, but appropriate density of amenity that will would not be site residential development

147

This builds on the existing policy basis and provides a good framework for future development.

148

4. To protect and ? The saved UDP + The draft Core Strategy + The BAP and the site enhance existing policy document seeks to enhance the allocations draft document environment in provide a strong basis to biodiversity and requires the Hillingdon by addressing inform development. The SPD natural habitats, Hillingdon and create new Biodiversity Action local causes of pollution would be in a position to wildlife habitats Plan to be used, but and climate change. relate these to site specific where this does not set proposals and to elaborate on appropriate. specific The draft Site information details in the requirements. This Allocations policy aforementioned documents. promotes the creation of sets out a vision and public open a series of objectives space/parkland in the that the strategy seeks to deliver. It green belt at RAF also sets out habitat Uxbridge, along with action plans to help environmental achieve these goals. enhancement of the This sets out a River Pinn corridor and aim to protect and positive basis for enhance local development to take place on the site, but biodiversity. lacks enforcement

149

Option 1: No Action – Option 2: Status Quo – Option 3: development of the SPD to development based on emerging LDF policy with no regenerate the RAF Uxbridge site current local plan SPD Sustainability Impact Explanation Impact Explanation Impact Explanation Objective ability. These policies will enable developers to take forward the BAP. 5. To ensure + Policy LE6 refers to + The draft Core Strategy ++ An development brief for the local people have establishing an promotes the planning RAF Uxbridge will be able to access to appropriate town framework to support identify how and where satisfying centre mix to sustainable and employment/commercial uses opportunities for encourage economic competitive economic should be located on the site development and growth which promotes and add detail the strong employment and Policy LE7 sets out employment creation, policy basis set out in the draft occupation. S106 criteria for leisure facilities and the core strategy and site development, which role of town centres. allocations document. could support While the Community economic Strategy refers to RAF development Uxbridge’s importance initiatives. The saved and an economic driver policy document also for the Borough. uses London Plan Policy 3B.1 The draft site allocation Developing London’s DPD refers to the economy and its provision of B1 supporting text. employment uses and These provide a the provision of positive basis for commercial economic development which development would complement opportunities. current commercial

150

This provides more site specific context

+ The draft Core Strategy ++ A development brief SPD for 6. To promote a + The UDP saved high quality of policies refer to the seeks to enhance the the RAF Uxbridge would have urban design in importance of good environment in the opportunity to provide real

151

Option 1: No Action – Option 2: Status Quo – Option 3: development of the SPD to development based on emerging LDF policy with no regenerate the RAF Uxbridge site current local plan SPD Sustainability Impact Explanation Impact Explanation Impact Explanation Objective conjunction with urban design, Hillingdon by addressing detail and clarity on these sustainable including secure by local causes of pollution broad policy objectives. There design and design principles and and climate change. is the potential for the RAF construction refers to the London Uxbridge to take forward principles and Plan policy 4B.1 The draft site allocations regional policy to deliver an techniques. ‘Design Principles for DPD for RAF Uxbridge exemplar development in a Compact City’. sets out that where terms of sustainable appropriate, sustainable construction and design. This design and construction would have a positive impact The saved policies of buildings and facilities on the objective. also include should be undertaken. statements to encourage reuse of materials, energy recovery and/or appropriate disposal. This provides a positive basis to meet this framework but is not site specific 7. To promote 0 Within the saved + The draft Core Strategy ++ A development brief SPD for efficient use of UDP policies there is seeks to enhance the the RAF Uxbridge would have water and the little mentioned of environment in the opportunity to provide real use of recycled recycling water or the Hillingdon by addressing detail and clarity on these local causes of pollution broad policy objectives. There and non-potable use of non potable and climate change. is the potential for the RAF water resources. water in new Uxbridge to take forward

152

These policies provide a An SPD is in a good position positive framework for to provide the catalyst to help action. meet this objective.

Within the saved + The draft Core Strategy ++ A development brief SPD for 8. To promote 0 improved energy UDP policies there is seeks to enhance the the RAF Uxbridge would have efficiency and little mentioned of environment in the opportunity to provide real increased self local or self sufficient Hillingdon by addressing detail and clarity on these sufficiency in energy production. It local causes of pollution broad policy objectives. There terms of energy does refer to London and climate change. is the potential for the RAF Plan policy - Policy Uxbridge to take forward production. 4A.9 Providing for The draft site allocations regional policy to deliver an renewable energy, DPD for RAF Uxbridge exemplar development in which provides a sets out that where terms of sustainable

153

9. To promote 0 The saved policies + The draft Core Strategy ++ A development brief SPD for seeks to enhance the the RAF Uxbridge would have recycling and include polices to environment in the opportunity to provide real efficient waste encourage reuse of Hillingdon by addressing detail and clarity on these management. materials, energy recovery and/or local causes of pollution broad policy objectives. There appropriate disposal and climate change. is the potential for the RAF of waste (Policy Uxbridge to take forward MIN16). However, It The draft site allocations regional policy to deliver an is difficult to see how DPD for RAF Uxbridge exemplar development in sets out that where terms of sustainable these policies alone appropriate, sustainable construction and design, could affect a positive outcome against this design and construction including a site specific objective. of buildings and facilities recycling strategy.

154

10. To ensure 0 Policy LE6 refers to + The draft Core Strategy ++ A development brief for the indigenous and establishing an promotes the planning RAF Uxbridge will be able to inward appropriate town framework to support identify how and where investment that centre mix to sustainable and employment/commercial uses encourage economic competitive economic should be located on the site this is development and growth which promotes and add detail to the policy environmentally, Policy LE7 sets out employment creation, basis set out in the draft core socially and economically S106 criteria for leisure facilities and the strategy and site allocations sustainable. development, which role of town centres. document. could support While the Community economic Strategy refers to RAF development Uxbridge’s importance initiatives. The saved and an economic driver policy document also for the Borough. uses London Plan Policy 3B.1 The draft site allocation

155

156

11. To protect, ? The saved UDP + The draft site allocation + The policy basis for this maintain and policy document DPD seeks the creation objective is already sound and enhance the provides a strong of public open would require a developer(s) policy basis for the space/parkland in the to protect and enhance quality of open protection of the green belt on the RAF access to the green belt on spaces and the greenbelt and green belt, but does Uxbridge site. It will also RAF Uxbridge. An SPD could ensure effective not provide a promote the provision of help to identify the types of access to open coordinated approach outdoor recreational appropriate uses that would space. to the creation of facilities and be considered. parkland which will environmental link other green belt enhancement of the and SINCs and River Pinn corridor and provide for habitats aims to protect and creation. enhance local biodiversity.

157

Policies in relation to + The draft core strategy ++ A site specific SPD for the site 12. To improve 0 health, reduce pedestrian access document will promote could build on this policy health and sustainable the safe, healthy and basis, identifying the nature inequalities and design are included inclusive communities and scale of required facilities promote healthy or reference made to and the need to respect based on assumptions of the living. the London Plan. The the needs of the scale and mix of saved UDP policies borough's diverse and development. document promotes multi-cultural the need for communities. adequate health facilities across the The draft site allocations borough. DPD in relation to RAF However, It is difficult Uxbridge seeks to see how these provision of community policies alone could facilities to provide for affect a positive the needs created by the outcome against this type and scale of the objective. proposed uses on site and the surrounding area.

13. To reduce 0 The saved UPD + The draft core strategy ++ A site specific SPD would

158

to see how these The draft site allocations An SPD is in a good position policies alone could DPD in relation to RAF to provide the catalyst to help affect a positive outcome against this Uxbridge seeks meet this objective. objective. provision of community facilities to provide for the needs created by the type and scale of the proposed uses on site and the surrounding area. This would include provision of police services.

This would support a positive outcome in realising this objective. 14. To provide + The UDP saved ++ The draft core strategy + The LDF documents provide a everyone with policy document will seek to ensure that strong basis to inform

159

Option 1: No Action – Option 2: Status Quo – Option 3: development of the SPD to development based on emerging LDF policy with no regenerate the RAF Uxbridge site current local plan SPD Sustainability Impact Explanation Impact Explanation Impact Explanation Objective the opportunity to refers to Planning enough land is made development. A site specific live in a decent Policy Statement 3 available to meet the development brief SPD affordable home. Housing, London housing, economic and should be able to provide a Plan Policy 3A.7 community facilities strong framework for (Affordable housing needs of the borough in developers and as such targets) and its the period to 2016 as confidence that S106 supporting text along identified in the contributions would be used with the Hillingdon Community Strategy and on other site specific Affordable Housing where appropriate in the infrastructure requirements. Supplementary Mayor’s Spatial This should help enable them Planning Document Development Strategy to provide the necessary (2006) to be used requirement of affordable (instead of Policy It also aims to deliver a housing in the knowledge that H11). choice and mix of the value of private housing housing types and will be high due to adequate This policy statement tenures which cater for a provision of other services. provides a positive range of needs and basis to move aspirations including This will be positive in terms forwards towards this those in need of of making the affordable objective. affordable housing, in housing target feasible. order to promote the establishment of mixed sustainable communities.

The Draft Site Allocations DPD in

160

Furthermore the Affordable Housing SPD provides implementation support to the Draft Core Strategy and seeks to ensure that 50% of all new housing is affordable.

These policies will be key in realising this objective.

15. To provide 0 The saved UDP + The draft core strategy ++ A site specific development good education policies document document will promote brief SPD would be able to and training does not contain the safe, healthy and assess the levels of opportunities specific policies in inclusive communities educational provision and relation to provision and the need to respect capacity for skills which build skills of education facilities the needs of the development facilities by and capacity of the population. borough's diverse and setting out the scope and mix Policy LE7 does set multi-cultural of development anticipated

161

162

16. To foster a - There are no policies + The draft core strategy ++ An SPD for RAF Uxbridge vibrant and that directly support document will promote could help support this this objective. This the safe, healthy and objective by identifying cohesive would have a inclusive communities opportunities for community community that negative impact as and the need to respect collaboration and ownership, participates in decision-making. there is no policy the needs of the including among others, local basis to pursue this borough's diverse and food supply and allotments, objective. multi-cultural suggesting potential housing communities. This could and/or public realm help foster a community management vehicles, that is participatory as exploring the relationship such is a positive basis between residents, for further policy. employees, pupils and the green belt/biodiversity and the

163

An SPD is in a good position to provide the catalyst to help meet this objective. 17. To preserve + Policy BE13 states + The draft Core Strategy ++ A site specific SPD would be and enhance the than development will seeks to secure high able to demonstrate how the urban and not be permitted if the quality, accessible and quantum and mix of suburban area in layout and well designed development on the site could keeping with the appearance fail to development that makes be delivered spatially and harmonise with the the most efficient use of detail what specific character of the existing street scene brownfield land including requirements will need to be wider area. or other features of the promotion, where met in terms of the area which the appropriate, of higher complementing and fitting in local planning density, mixed use with the character of authority considers it development. It also surrounding development. An desirable to retain or promotes safe, healthy SPD for RAF Uxbridge would enhance. This is a and inclusive provide the best opportunity of positive policy basis. communities and a the three to achieve this requirement to respect objective. the needs of the borough's diverse and

164

The draft Site Allocations DPD seeks to provide protection and enhancement of the green belt, establish appropriate links to surrounding residential areas and provide for appropriate density of residential development varying across the site in accordance the character and appearance of the immediate area.

This provides a positive framework to move forward towards this objective.

165

18. To maintain + Polices BE1, 2 and 3 + The draft Site ++ An SPD for RAF Uxbridge and enhance the sets out requirements Allocations DPD seeks could build on this already historic in relation to the protection of the strong emerging policy basis environment and archaeology and built listed buildings across by allocating additional land heritage, including RAF Uxbridge and the for potential enhancements cultural assets of protection, and/or preservation and and indicating what type of RAF Uxbridge. recording. Moreover, enhancement of their improvements could be sites have been listed settings. This is a included in development have significant positive factor that builds (based on any consultation protection from on existing policy. with the local community and development. This is experts). a positive basis to move forward towards meeting this objective.

166

The saved UDP ++ The draft Core Strategy ++ An SPD would be able to take 19. To minimise + policy document seeks to enhance the forward the guidance in the noise pollution, especially around includes policies that environment in Noise SPD and identify site land use protect surrounding Hillingdon by addressing specific requirements in interfaces. areas from local causes of pollution relation to a proposed development that and climate change. quantum and mix of would be detrimental development. to the character or Furthermore, amenities of Hillingdon’s Noise SPD surrounding sets out key points to be properties. Moreover, considered when it refers to assessing and mitigating London Plan Policy the impact on how noise 4A.14 Reducing is dealt with as part Noise and its development proposals. supporting text to be used (instead of Policy OE4). Other relevant Documents include Hillingdon’s Supplementary Planning Document Noise (2006). 20. To reduce + Policies OE7 and 8 0 The draft Core Strategy ++ A development brief SPD for and where cover general seeks the appropriate the RAF Uxbridge site would

167

168

Appendix F: Iteration Table

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

1. To promote Will it increase The SPD aims to 1. No specific carbon emission 1. It is intended that carbon methods to the proportion of increase reduction goals are outlined. emissions goals or targets should reduce journeys made accessibility to The SPD should have a be delivered through the overall dependence on using public public transport and position on these goals and site Travel Plan (for example trip private transport transport rather to reduce the need require developers to reduction/ modal split could be and manage the than private car? to travel, especially demonstrate reductions in referenced to carbon reductions) effects traffic on Will it increase by car (PPG13) vehicle emissions through required for the planning the environment accessibility to design. application through the SPD and public transport? then individual developments’

Will it increase The proposed Town travel plans would then fall in time walking and Centre extension 2. The SPD has not mentioned with this. Given the long time cycling and Southern whether it will meet Hillingdon frame for the development and the alternatives to Quadrant quarters targets of an increase of 10% planning application to follow to it using private have Med-High walking and 80% cycling. is considered unnecessarily cars? PTALs These targets should be a part detailed to impose this now and of the SPD. Will it act to difficult to ascertain a relevant and achieve appropriate target. However it is Hillingdon’s The introduction of consider that the SPD should be targets to the Homezone 3The SPD gives no mention of amended to reflect the overall goal street design will car sharing or other car increase walking to reduce C02 emissions through by 10% and assist road safety. A reduction proposals. good site design and reinforce this cycling by 80%? detailed Travel Plan Consideration of this should be aim in the Travel Plan Will it increase is required and will taken into account. requirements. car sharing? aim to provide Will it improve improved road Proposed changes: road safety? safety. 4The SPD aims to meet Will it reduce objectives for the Mayor’s Air Section 4, Urban Design Quality management Area

169

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

carbon (AQMA). The main aim is to Framework, include additional emissions? reduce pollution from road objective (bullet point) at 4.2 To Will it act to traffic emissions through reduce vehicle trip generation reduce air addressing reduction in traffic and associated carbon pollution? and targets in a Travel Plan. emissions through accessibility The targets need to be and appropriate site design. identified and how they will be achieved set out within the SPD. Section 4.33 Travel Plan section have an additional aim (bullet

point) “Reduce vehicle carbon emissions for the development as a whole through modal split

and reduction in on-site car parking and ownership where appropriate and achievable”

2. To increase Will it reduce The site is currently 5.The SPD gives no 2 – 4 – This level of detail is to be accessibility to isolation? closed off and has information on the internal addressed through the Travel Plan. and within the Will it improve low accessibility, connections within the site and site and access to the which will be specific targets for walking and promote site by car? rectified by the SPD cycling, it is not clear whether 5. Targets may applied through the connectivity with Will it improve proposals. permeability will be achieved. travel plan and specific travel plans such as for the school. the surrounding access to the In particular objective 5 of the areas. site by walking SPD current concentrates on Specific access details will be Connectivity to the and cycling? external connections but provided through the master plan Will it make site will be should also promote internal and traffic and transport navigation improved. information to be provided for the

170

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

through the site Pedestrian and connectivity. site however the following changes easier? cycle links from the are to be made to better reflect Will it improve Annington Property this. 6. How navigation through the connectivity Ltd land to the site Section 3 development objectives between the and the extension of site and to the adjacent area is 3.1, objective (e) has the following surrounding the High street will to be achieved is not outlined. amendment: area, facilities improve the cycling and the town and pedestrian links “To ensure that safe vehicular, centre? in and out of the site 7. The SPD does not outline cycle and pedestrian access is and to the how pedestrians will access the provided to, within and from the surrounding proposed town centre site…” communities extension, with the existing roundabout in its current Change para 4.26 Traffic and location navigation around this transport principles additional bullet point “ provision of pedestrian would cause a problem and and cycle access to facilitate needs to be addressed. easy and safe access, Aspirations for the stoppage of the roundabout have been connectivity and permeability mentioned, although how this within the site and to the will be achieved has not been surrounding area within the set out. considerations of the secured by design principles”

8 The large arrows outlined in diagram four the ‘site 6. Navigation is an objective of the development framework’ need Urban Design Framework section – further clarity as to how they to be delivered through the master provide clear pedestrian and plan – the incorporation of public art, retention and reuse of existing vehicular access. Diagram 4 feature should assist with this (see places the major arts/cultural

171

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

facility and cultural area off to Urban Form). the side of the main access route – a better frontage would make this area more 7. This is a significant issue that successful. Also the community requires detailed traffic and node is pointed to in the transport modelling (based on final southern quarter. Unless these uses) as well as financial, safety exact locations are desired and and security appraisal for the final justified, the arrows should be outcome and as such will be removed for clarity and to allow considered as part of the planning good urban design to take application. The promotion of place. pedestrian priority in this SPD (bullet point 1 traffic and transport principles 4.26) is consisted to set 9 It is also important to note the parameters for the planning that the white colouration on brief. diagram 4 does not signify anything. This should be revised to show its use. 8. Arrows are intended to be indicative of issues of pedestrian connectivity described in diagram. 10. A requirement of the SPD Diagram likely to be further refined is the retention of the existing during consultation. geometric layout where appropriate. Given that the area was designed in isolation 9. Land not generally indicated as of the surroundings, this may development area in SPD as first not provide the best access appraisal indicates constraints of solutions. Further clarification original driveway to Hillingdon of when the geometric layout House, vista & vegetation (more

172

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

would be ‘appropriate’ is detail will be required as to any needed in the discussion infill development) regarding modern accessibility requirements. 10. Section 3.12 and 4.10 to be reworded to be more flexible and 11 It is strongly recommended encourage urban design that the SPD includes an solutions to retain the site’s access plan outlining where the military history, established key access points are to be avenues of trees and located. incorporation of the retention of historic value.

12 The access to certain key areas on the site is unclear. 11. Noted however detailed Particularly the following areas: provisions intended to be provided - The entrance to the cinema is through detail TA work in order for an appropriate engineering to the south. How is it appraisal to be made. Will be envisioned that this is brought into the cultural quarter established through the outline effectively? application stage and then the site master planning. SPD was - How will a school in the intended to set parameters and Northern Quarter be accessed? establish guidance for planning And the adjoining housing? Is a application. major route through the green area to the south acceptable? - How will Hillingdon House 12. The incorporation of the and the bunker be accessed? cinema should be established at Only by walking and cycling? the detailed master planning stage.

173

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

Traffic & transport information to be provided with the planning application. The SPD sets requirements for the protection of the amenity of the proposed parkland and discouragement of east west transport routes. The location of the school will now also be considered in the south, with access to be considered as part of the masterplan development. Hillingdon House and the bunker can be accessed by vehicles but there are likely to be restrictions. Accessibility will be developed further as part of the masterplan development.

3. To encourage Will it improve The SPD outlines 13. The SPD outlines the 13. A cultural quarter has always sustainable social cohesion? diversity in housing location of a cultural quarter been envisaged for this site via the development Will it reduce form, densities, within the town centre draft site allocations DPD. There that is compact dissatisfaction height and type. extension. The density of this are a number of ongoing projects (with densities with local has not been outlined which is i.e. creative industries in west The mention of a appropriate to services? a requirement in order to London & Hillingdon relevant to local community the local context Will it improve focus (shop, health assess viability. It is suggested this. and the the range of key centre, public that if a viability study for the principles of services within space) will aim to cultural quarter has not been

174

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response good design) easy access of improve social conducted that one should be 14 Typo - Clarification to be and mixed use the population? cohesion and local produced in order to assess undertaken as potential as appropriate, Will it improve service provision. economic and social success housing number based on with provision of access to The Town centre of locating a cultural quarter revised PTALs and area of land key local cultural, within the development. available in each PTAL – amend extension will assist services and recreational and wording. in providing easy amenity that will leisure facilities? access to key 14 The commentary on density reduce the need Have densities services. 15. Intention is for focal point for in the Northern Quarter may be to travel been maximised area layout not to do with analysis The SPD outlines misleading, as the maximum especially of open space. Amend para 3.21 plans to provide a density is the same as that of around transport last sentence to identify the links? new cultural quarter the Southern quarter. If the with an Arts/cultural Northern quarter purports to be requirement for a community facility a lower density residential focus without restricting urban (theatre/music area, this should be reviewed. design solution to “village venue/Borough green” with reference to need to be compatible with residential museum) which will uses, ecological requirements provide good 15. It is suggested that a village access to cultural green could be included in the and minimal traffic generating. facilities. Northern Quarter. It is suggested that this suggestion The SPD suggest is omitted unless analysis to 16. To be amended as per densities are suggestion with the final the appropriateness of this type maximized around proposal to delivered through a of open space has been transport links, for conducted. Other acceptable suitable urban design solution example, the Town uses could be suggested in this Centre extension area. and Southern Quadrant quarters have respectively 16. The SPD suggests that the PTAL 5/4 55-260

175

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

dwellings per ha parade ground may be a and PTAL 4 - 2 45- suitable location for a small 75 d/per ha ranging public square. It is to 35-50 d/ per ha. recommended that this suggestion is omitted, and that

rather it is just required that the history and memory is evoked in this area through urban design strategy. This will leave the design open to creative options that will be in keeping with the historical associations of the parade ground, without the risk of suggesting a possibly unsuitable solution. 4. To protect Will existing By seeking to 17. The Hillingdon House 17. Development proposals in this and enhance species be protect ecological quarter has a focus on open area will be subject to detailed existing provided for on habitats and space and heritage but Conservation requirements likely biodiversity and site? biodiversity significant emphasis should be on a proposal-by-proposal basis. natural habitats, Will new habitats development should on the protection and These matters should be dealt and create new be created? have a neutral enhancement of biodiversity, with through design codes. wildlife habitats Will habitat effect, although any due to its green belt and river Targets may not be appropriate to corridors be development on this location. Targets for living roofs meet these specific requirements. included to scale could have a and other ecological initiatives However as this quarter facilitate negative effect and would be effective in ensuring includes open space it is movement of is unlikely to ecological benefit. agreed that para 3.22 & 3.22 be species? enhance habitats. amended to strengthen Will tree cover reference to protect & enhance and woodland 18. The SPD does not mention biodiversity. be retained and The riparian corridor new habitat creation, although

176

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

enhanced? of River Pinn is biodiversity will be enhanced Will it retain sought as open with the provision of living roofs 18 & 19 Detailed proposals will be existing space to protect its and walls. New habitat creation provided at a later stage through hedgerows, Flood plain and for indigenous species to the landscape and open space where ecological functions. area should be noted. management plans. However to practicable? ensure these matters are Will the River identified at the earliest stage it The SPD seeks to 19. The SPD should consider Pinn ecology be is recommended that the retain significant building integrated ecology, protected and wording of para 4.44 be trees and providing for example, bat and enhanced? strengthened to encourage new landscaping. bird nests as part of the design of the development. Aspects habitat creation and be The requirement of mentioned within the SPD on referenced to the results of the a green/blue grid, existing and required ecological open spaces and enhancing habitats could be given stronger emphasis. appraisals and that 4.52 movement network (planning obligations) be as part of the final amended to refer to habitat and master plan ensures 20. Allotments are mentioned biodiversity improvements. existing habitats are within the SPD but it is not protected. clear within the SPD whether their use is being encouraged 20. Amend table to include allotments The SPD states that on site or exactly where these improvements that allotments may be located. are consistent with Allotments should be 21. Generally the proposals in this mentioned in the Northern the openness of the area are considered consistent quarter and other suitable Green Belt and the with the UDP green chain policy. quarters’ land use table as protection and Built development is already enhancement of the ‘acceptable’. located in this part of the site. River Pinn ecology and biodiversity will

177

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

be sought. 21. The Green chain designation requirement to safeguard the area from built The SPD aims to development (4.37) does not protect the River align with the Northern quarter Pinn ecology, with plans for a 2 form primary allotment garden school and residential use possibly development, clarity is needed acceptable. as to the location of this development to ensure it does not impact on the green chain. How this development should be treated in the green chain needs clarification.

5. To ensure Will it enhance The extension of 22. The SPD does not mention 22 & 23 identified in the planning local people local town centre and skills training which should be obligations section. The promotion have access to employment creation of a cultural taken into account as part of of a cultural quarter/creative satisfying prospects? quarter will enhance the path that local people may industries would have association opportunities for Will it improve employment take in order to access with Brunel. employment the range of prospects and a employment. and occupation employment range of opportunities? employment Will it promote opportunities. 23 The SPD should also think about the possible connections skills training? Will it build on to Brunel University as part of current Uxbridge A1, A3 and A4 skills development and employment uses, B1a offices, employment. strengths? B8/C3 Live work

178

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

units, a health centre and a 2-form primary school will provide a range of job opportunities.

The SPD outlines complementary uses (including office and retail) to the existing town centre which will build on existing strengths.

6. To promote a Will it provide a The SPD mentions 24.The notion of a sustainable 24. Level 4 is sought as a minimum high quality of high quality a community node exemplar in the southern on the site – with the provision of at urban design in urban (with shops, health quarter is unclear and unlikely least one Code Level 6 conjunction with environment? centre and other to deliver desirable results. development (zero carbon) to meet sustainable Will it increase local community Clarity is needed as to whether the requirements of the Mayors design and the success of facilities) which will this refers to one house or the Energy Strategy para (x) The construction the help to increase the whole site and the exact Mayor believes that there should principles and neighbourhood success of the desired size of this exemplar be at least one zero-carbon techniques in the short and community in the development. It is also unclear development in every London the long term? short and long term. as to how this sustainable borough by 2010. To achieve this, Will it promote exemplar will be distinguished he expects each borough to and deliver from the rest of the site which identify at least one suitable site for sustainable The SPD outlines a will be code level 4. Providing such a development, use their

179

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

design and requirement for high site wide facilities often result in powers as landowners or partners construction? quality landmark more meaningful gains. It is with others to bring about its Will it reduce buildings, high suggested that this concept is development, and include the pollution? quality design and a either removed or given much identified sites in their Will it make mix of dwelling more detail and targets. It Development Plan Documents. efficient use of types. should also be clarified whether Therefore Para 6.33 should be natural ‘zero carbon’ or ‘code level 6’ is amended –typo in reference to resources sought. policy 4A.7. Amend reference to The SPD will retain including soil, description in southern quarter housing of a decent mineral to allow anywhere on site. aggregates, quality, including 25 Code level 6 is expected in low density defence 2016. This date is incorrect in Amend reference to clarify Code water and Level 6. Amend reference to set biodiversity? personnel housing the SPD and should be parameters “To this end, Will housing of owned by Annington amended. It is suggested that provision for this sustainable decent quality be Property Ltd . section 5.14 is moved to section 6 for clarity and exemplar development should retained and be reflected in the master plan improved? integration. The SPD states that and the specific requirements Will a high level set out in the design codes for a of reused and the development should aim to meet 26.The SPD should aim to nominated location on RAF recycled Uxbridge. The location, timing materials be the objectives of the encourage extensive use of and size of the development integrated into Mayor’s Air Quality reused and recycled materials management Area integrated into construction. should reflect the aspiration to construction achieve the Mayor’s target and materials? (AQMA). The main Considering the presence of aim of which is to functional built form, there may should be a significant landmark Will it act to development, building on the achieve reduce pollution. be significant component reuse opportunities which will also sites environmental attributes. London’s Code level 4 is While the final size and location requirement that carry through heritage goals. required, with of the proposal will be at least 50% of This consideration should be flexibility for the established in the design codes, timber products extended beyond recycling into future. This as a minimum, a target of

180

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

used are from an approach is aggregates. approximately 30 units would be FSC source? sensible. expected. 27. The SPD should mention The SPD requires a key targets for timber products 25 – change date in para 5.14. site wide waste from an FSC source. Section 5.14 will be moved to management section 6 with cross reference strategy to under “development standards. 28 The SPD uses inconsistent encourage recycling & reuse of wording in relation to the term demolition waste for solar gain (whether it is 26. Proposals will be required to be aggregates. maximized or minimized). This consistent with the London Plan wording needs to be (which identifies requirements for consistent, and would be better reuse of materials) and any The SPD states that phrased as ‘managing’ solar requirements at the time that the heating, cooling gain for optimum efficiency. detailed planning applications are and power systems The SPD could also mention made on the site. These should be should be selected the orientation of buildings to applied as conditions on the on the basis that ensure the best solar access. planning application. Wording to they reduce carbon be amended to para 6.14 emissions. to..reuse and recycling of 29 The London Plan demolition waste.. to clarify and sustainable construction the suggestion of ‘aggregates’ The SPD targets should be referred to removed. encourages and where possible given as sustainable design targets in order to comply with and construction the goals of the London plan. 28 & 29 amend wording to better (green roofs, cross reference this policy. sustainable drainage and

181

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

passive design). 7. To promote Will water use The SPD mentions 30. It is suggested that the 30 – amend efficient use of be minimised in the need to ‘Water and Wastewater’ and water and the buildings and the maximise water the ‘Low water use’ sections use of recycled landscape? harvesting/recycling. are merged for clarity. and non-potable Will non-potable 31. Amend wording to clarify as water sources water sources 31 A more effective way of part of reorganisation of such as A target of 80l/p/day encouraging water recycling chapter. Reference to water use rainwater and is encouraged. will be through targets rather and recycling to be put in with greywater be than ‘maximise’. Suggest that clarification of BREEAM captured, treated wording is changed to “excellent” standard for and reused on- Water use will be encourage minimisation of commercial development. site in place of minimized in potable water use through mains water buildings and the water saving devices, rainwater supply? landscape. and/or greywater recycling in 32 & 33 Noted – however it is likely Will this enable non-residential buildings. that this matter will also be affected 100% of Otherwise BREEAM excellent by SuDs requirements, the need properties to be It is unclear how the standards should be required. for urban run off control and flood metered? efficient use of mitigation on the River Pinn to Will this enable water sources will 32 There may be some conflict improve current flood problems. new be implemented. between the use of living roofs The detailed flood study required development to and walls to absorb rainfall and with the planning application have a water rainwater harvesting. It should (which will need to meet EA runoff use of 105L per be ensured that a balance is targets) is likely to set day or less in struck where both are requirements for development and keeping with deliverable under the SPD. the site layout. As far as possible best practice? at this stage, targets have been 33 The SPD needs to provide set. more details, with specific aspirations and targets.

182

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

8. To promote Will it act to Development at this 34 To meet Code Level 4 or 34 Para 6.28 to be amended to increased self reduce carbon site will increase above and the 20% renewables reference that these site wide sufficiency in emissions? CO2 emission (both target, it is likely that a site systems be designed in from the term of energy Will it reduce short term and long wide system will be an efficient start and be reflected in the production and resident’s term). form of supply. Consequently, master planning for the site. to improve energy costs? significant space may have to energy Will renewable The SPD mentions be allocated to utilities. Any efficiency energy sources requirements for preferences for this location or be maximised? limiting energy use degree of aesthetics required Will energy be and increasing should be discussed in the supplied and efficiency. plan. 35 SPD reflects the London Plan distributed in an requirements for minimising energy efficient The SPD outlines 35. The developer should be and an energy assessment is manner? the possible use of required to submit an energy required. Will buildings be CCHP and CHP strategy for the site addressing designed to systems. the wide range of energy lower energy generation options for the site demand through The SPD indicates a (more than CHP and passive design? 20% reduction in community energy systems). Will it meet CO2 through on site London’s 20% renewables targets. reduction in C02 This should be through on-site taken into renewables consideration. target?

9. To promote Will it minimise The residential and 36. The section on waste 36 – London Plan policy recycling and waste production commercial needs to be strengthened and requirement – will be part of efficient waste and increase developments are to more comprehensive. It should conditions. Amend construction

183

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response management levels of reuse include dedicated consider construction waste waste section 6.14 to refer to and recycling? storage and and reuse (rather than recycling as well. Will materials collection facilities recycling) of existing materials and for waste and and infrastructure. 37 – 38 more detailed information infrastructure be recyclable materials. required at the planning stage. Re: re-used? 37. The SPD needs to outline a waste to gas plant -it is likely that Will construction whether it will be providing an EIS will be required as well as and demolition facilities for organic waste specific locational requirements waste be collection and composting of (i.e. outside flood prone land), as minimised? 25% household waste. well as an assessment of Will it enable emissions that will affect proposals. organic waste to 38 A requirement to consider a The final matters should form part be collected and waste to energy gasification of the developer’s detailed waste reused? plant on the site which would strategy. Will it act to convert waste into a gas with enable the the resulting heat energy being provision of used to produce steam, which facilities to could then be used to generate recycle or electricity. This is one option compost at least but the SPD should consider 25% of mentioning other options other household waste than energy from waste. by means of separated 39 The desired location/s of the 39. Amend para 6.26 to include dedicated waste facility could be outlined the location of any such facility storage space in the SPD, to be followed by a should be identified at earliest (by 2010 this visual and noise pollution stage and any specific locational should rise to assessment provided by the requirements be established. 35%)? developer.

184

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

40 The SPD requires a site 40 Targets should be included in wide waste management the site wide strategy and will be strategy to be submitted which linked to other waste strategy aims to reduce waste and targets (e.g. Council) in force at the encourage recycling, however time. it does not mention targets, which should be included.

10. To ensure Will it contribute By providing a 41. In order to ascertain 41. Noted. A needs assessment of indigenous and to prosperity? range of new uses whether the uses proposed on the town centre extension will be inward Will it increase on the site the site will in fact provide required as part of the proposals. investment opportunities for indigenous and indigenous and inward which is business? inward investment investment in an environmentally, Will it encourage should be environmentally, socially and socially and entrepreneurship forthcoming. economically sustainable way, economically and innovation in it will be important to conduct a sustainable design and viability study of these uses if development? The provision of an one has not already been Will it introduce arts and cultural undertaken. If a study has investment that facility, associated already been done this should will compliment restaurants and be clearly outlined, and and support the cafes, B1a offices otherwise required of the

viability of and comparison developer to determine suitable existing retailing with a focus uses. on specialist uses businesses in 42. Generally envisaged as a

185

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

Uxbridge town will all aim to distinct cluster in one location only centre contribute to the 42. The SPD outlines provision – the town centre extension. prosperity of the to be made for live/work units area. within the Town centre extension but the SPD should The extension of expand on this if these units could additionally be located town centre should elsewhere, outlining this within increase the acceptable/desirable use opportunities for tables of the other quarters. business. Also whether the number of The SPD highlights units is fixed or whether this the importance of could be adjusted. complimenting existing services. The cultural quarter may encourage entrepreneurship and innovation The retention of the Historic buildings may encourage tourism to assist investment in the economy. 11. To protect, Will it ensure The SPD provides a 43. The sections within the 43. Will form part of the detailed maintain and easy Green chain SPD that talk about open master planning as will depend on enhance the accessibility to designation, along space should be expanded, layouts, population and child yield. quality of open open spaces? with a green/blue providing more detail on However the specific requirement

186

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response spaces and the Will it act to grid, open spaces desired types of recreation for the District park is clear. greenbelt and protect and and movement uses, and requirements for Detailed provisions & management ensure effective enhance the network which are multifunctionality in SUDS, will be provided through the access to open green belt required to form the ecology etc management and implementation space areas? basis of final master plan. Will it create a plan. variety of functional open spaces to meet The SPD states that community and improvements environmental should be needs? consistent with the Will it improve openness of the physical activity Green Belt, to and well-being? protect and Will it improve enhance Green Belt opportunities for areas. recreation and The SPD will open play? up public access to Will it act to improved open change space and cycling Uxbridge’s and walking will be classification as encouraged. an Area of The SPD requires Deficiency land in the Green access to nature Belt to remain a and public open public recreation space for area. metropolitan and The Green Belt will district parks? be delivered as a

187

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

(As defined by District Park, “London Plan improving park Implementation provision in the Report – area. Improving Recreational and Londoner’s play spaces will be access to provided in line with Nature” Feb accepted standards. 2008) Existing sports facilities on site are not retained, as they are no longer required. Nearby facilities are located at Hillingdon house Farm and Brunel University. 12. To improve Will it improve The SPD outlines 44. The SPD highlights 44. Contamination report health, reduce access to aspirations for possible contamination issues required with the EIS & planning health primary Health Facility on site. Further details should application inequalities and healthcare onsite. be provided on the proposed promote healthy facilities? mitigation of this contamination living Will it encourage The SPD will ensure and the management needed. healthy lifestyles access to public and provide open space is 45 The Southern quarter is the opportunities for improved. proposed location for a Health sport and centre. As a health facility may 45. Amend report to be more recreation? The SPD provides a also be possible in the town flexible to allow a suitable Will it improve commitment to centre area, this should be location – however south is

188

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

the health of promoting listed as an acceptable use. preferred as closer to larger children and walking/cycling. residential population young people? Will A District Park contaminated designation as part land be of the SPD will managed so that provide it poses no opportunities for significant risk to sport and users? recreation.

The recreational and play spaces that will be provided will be in line with accepted standards.

The SPD seeks to link Local amenity and public spaces with the Green Belt. 13. To reduce Will it make local The SPD outlines 46 The location of the school in 46. Amend matter to consider crime and the people feel safer improvements to the the northern quarter without a school in south for consultation fear of crime in their physical and social clear access way also raises document community? environment. The questions around the safety of Will it act to SPD also requires children walking to school avoid the the quality of the along river path, which it is creation of built environment to assumed would be one of the isolated places? be safer, providing ways children from the Will it create ‘eyes on the street’. Southern quarter would access

189

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

safer walking the school if they are part of its routes to key The SPD states that catchment. areas? the ‘secured by Will it improve design’ standards safety for must be children and incorporated. young people? Does it The SPD requires incorporate the that public safety principles of and surveillance ‘Secure by should be Design’? considered from the earliest stage, aiming to deter casual crime.

Integrating safety into the SPD has been achieved by requiring direct and overlooked footways and alleys, with good street lighting.

Safety and security will be further provided for by the extension of CCTV into the town centre extension.

190

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

14. To provide Will it increase The SPD provides 47. The SPD encourages at 47. Explanation in SPD everyone with access to good good details on least 47% of affordable housing the opportunity quality and housing type, to be for low cost/intermediate to live in a affordable tenure, size, with with 53% social rented decent housing? diversity in housing housing. It would be preferable affordable home Will it reduce form, densities and that the SPD consider 50% homelessness? height. affordable housing on site, in Will it provide a line with the London Borough range of housing The SPD provides a of Hillingdon’s affordable to cater for commitment to targets. Although it is different lifetime homes and understood that the affordability wheelchair access. requirement for 50% affordable needs? housing is likely to be Will it act to A range of dwelling significantly reduced depending achieve sizes and on the results of the financial Hillingdon’s affordability have viability assessment. target of 50% been accounted for affordable in the SPD. housing (30% intermediate, The SPD provides a 70% social commitment to rent)? specialist housing. Will it provide a range of dwelling The SPD will sizes? provide increased Will it enable all access to good residential quality homes.

191

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

development should meet Lifetime Home standards and 10% should meet wheelchair accessibility standards? 15. To provide Will it provide The SPD provides a 48. The SPD needs to provide 48- 51. Amend document - to be good education meaningful commitment to a further reasoning for the school consulted on as an option in the and training educational new primary school to be located in the northern south opportunities opportunities for facility and quarter as its location in this which build children and contributions to area could result in increased skills and young people in existing secondary school journeys from the more capacity of the RAF Uxbridge? school. populated southern quarter, population Will it provide depending on the school meaningful catchment area.

educational opportunities for adults in RAF 49. The SPD needs to explain Uxbridge? in a wider context why the Will it improve school is located in the access to Northern quarter, outlining educational which catchments it is serving, facilities? detailing whether its location was a determinant of the catchment plan aiming to serve the communities north of the location.

192

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

50. School should be listed in acceptable use section for Southern quarter as it is mentioned within the SPD at other points that the Southern quarter could be a proposed location.

51. The possibility of locating the school in the Southern quarter could be taken into consideration as this could provide a good opportunity to tie the school into the community hub, providing an urban core that has the co- location of school and community facilities.

52. The SPD should consider providing details of education, skills and training opportunities for adults.

16. To foster a Will it foster a The SPD will aim to 53. It is difficult to ascertain the vibrant and sense of pride in create places for participation in decision-

193

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response cohesive local people with a making, this cannot be community that neighbourhood? distinctive sense of measured at this time. participate in Will it respond to character and decision-making community identity, informed by needs and local history, desires? fostering a cohesive community. The community node (with shops, health centre and other local community facilities) will go some way to responding to community needs and desires. 17. To preserve Will it maintain The SPD has 54. The SPD needs to provide 54 SPD is considered to set and enhance the visual included a variety of further instructions and more guidance for the detailed master the urban and character of the densities, reflecting details or restrictions on the plan and design codes that will suburban area? the more urban location of housing, particularly follow. It is envisaged that detailed landscape, in Will it protect character near the in the Hillingdon House quarter. design matters will be contained in keeping with the and enhance the town centre and the The SPD should provide more this character of the high landscape more suburban specific details on the wider area and amenity character of the residential areas. values of parts other surrounding of the site? areas. Will it minimise The Green belt is effects of not being developed development on under policy the green belt? guidelines. The

194

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

Has an Green belt will be appropriate incorporated into a balance of District Park densities been designation with included green links and a reflecting the green/blue network. more urban The SPD requires character near the Historic amenity the town centre of the site to be and the more retained where suburban possible. character of the The SPD ensures other the protection and surrounding enhancement of key areas? views, along with Will the historic the development of amenity of the interesting vistas. site and wider The SPD has taken area be into account the preserved and preservation of the enhanced? symmetrical layout of the 1920s barrack blocks, as part of the new development. 18. To maintain Will the historical The SPD requires 55. The SPD needs to consider 55. Further details will be required and enhance assets be the maintenance how these historic assets will at the proposals stage. A design the historic retained? and enhancement be visited by people and the and accessibility statement will be environment Will the history of listed buildings. types of people who will use required at the application stage as and cultural of the site be them, in order to build up a well as Conservation management

195

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response assets of RAF showcased? The SPD outlines a picture of how historical tourism plans. Hillingdon House has Uxbridge Will the cultural new museum to be can be enabled and original driveway to Vine Lane and environment be located on the site encouraged in the area. a number of access ways to the protected? that will showcase Access to Hillingdon House, west of the site. Will any the history of the given its isolation from an archaeological area. access way, should particularly sites be give regard to access by protected? The museums will elderly and disabled persons. Will there be any enhance an impact on the understanding of neighbouring history and conservation encourage tourist area? visitation to the site. Will understanding of The SPD seeks to the history and incorporate archaeology of historical layout and the site be other key features enhanced? as part of the site Will it enable development. historical tourism for the area? The St Andrew’s Will it improve and Battle of Britain access to gates will be cultural retained and facilities? promoted as focal points.

The three statutorily listed buildings and

196

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

associated cartilage structures, including the Grade I and Grade II listed buildings will be retained.

The SPD outlines the new cultural facilities that will be provided on the site, thereby improving access to cultural facilities. 19. To minimise Will it create Overall, additional 56.The SPD lacks details 56. The SPD sets out specifc noise pollution, significant noise development on this regarding noise mitigation and requirements for noise to be especially pollution for scale will have a desired positioning of noise considered from the onset. around land use sensitive land negative impact. generating activities (such as Detailed requirement will be interfaces areas? CHP), this should be taken into provided through the planning Will noise issues The SPD outlines consideration. Ultimately, if application requirements and be created the need for a noise mitigation measures are conditions. around land use commitment to taken into consideration this interfaces? assessing noise may result in a neutral effect. impacts. The SPD indicates that development is to be concentrated away from sensitive areas

197

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

The SPD outlines possible noise sources; issues of road traffic noise in respect to residential development, aircraft noise from RAF Northolt and from activities associated with the proposed town centre extension.

In the short term there will be high noise impacts as a result of the construction on the site. 20. To reduce Will it reduce risk The SPD refers to 57 The SPD needs more clarity and where of flooding and sustainable design in terms of the wording used for 57 Noted – to be amended to be possible prevent prevent it where and construction, SUDs – sometimes they are consistent the impact of possible? highlighting that required, sometimes desired. flooding to Will it manage proposals should Sustainable drainage design people and flood waters contribute to will be required as part of the property of RAF effectively? reducing flood risk. Code for Sustainable Homes Uxbridge Will it position requirements. property out of flood paths?

198

Objective Key Criteria Draft SPD Impact Recommendations Response

Will sustainable The SPD outlines 58 The southern quarter 58. To be clarified – refers to urban drainage that flood risk will be commentary contains some specific part of land (pond) of systems be managed by aiming discussion about flood and interest not found elsewhere on used? to reduce flood risk ecological functioning (3.17). the site Are the SUDS downstream. For consistency the SPD features should make reference to these beneficial to The SPD design considerations in the biodiversity, specifically avoids other quarters fronting the river. pollution development on the 59. Reference to climate change prevention and flood plain. 59 Reference to changes in to be included amenity value? flood risk relating to Climate Have change are omitted from the contamination SPD, the introduction of text on issues been this subject is advised. 60 cross reference considered in drainage 60 The SPD highlights design? contamination issues but more Will it act to clarity is needed as to whether achieve 50% this may impact on SUDS. attenuation of the undeveloped site’s surface water run off at peak times?

199 DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OFFICE AND FINANCE ITEM 2 AND RESOURCES - WHOLE SERVICE REVIEW

Cabinet Member Councillor Raymond Puddifoot, Councillor Douglas Mills, Councillor Jonathan Bianco and Councillor Scott Seaman-Digby

Cabinet Portfolio Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety, Cabinet Member for Finance and Business Services and Cabinet Member for Co-ordination and Central Services

Officer Contact Fran Beasley and Susie Kemp, Deputy Chief Executive’s Office, and Christopher Neale and Paul Whaymand, Finance and Resources

Papers with report Appendix A

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report The report sets out proposals to contribute to the Council’s MTFF from 2009/10 onwards. In respect of revenue savings, options to meet the Groups’ full target of £1.6m have been identified and progress is being made to implement proposals in order to attain maximum benefit of the savings in 2009/10. The focus of the report is on how the two departments – Deputy Chief Executive’s Office (DCEO) and Finance & Resources (F&R) – collectively referred to as Central Services - can further improve and continue to act as a catalyst for change to ensure the Council’s vision to be a “modern, well managed Council delivering excellent services” is achieved and residents’ satisfaction continues to increase.

Financial Cost The report identifies savings to meet the Whole Service Review (WSR) target of £1.6 million.

Relevant Policy Corporate Services and Partnerships Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet:

1. Note the outcome of the DCEO / F&R Whole Service Review.

2. Agree the savings outlined in Appendix A for inclusion in the overall MTFF submission to Cabinet.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 94 Reasons for recommendation

To update Cabinet on the key outcomes of the DCEO / F&R WSR and request that the revenue MTFF proposals are now taken forward as part of Cabinet’s consideration of the revenue budget.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee

The Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee will be updated at their January 2009 meeting.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

SECTION ONE - Background

1. Overview of Process & Scope

The Organisational Development & Performance Improvement HIP workstream is responsible for overseeing a programme of Service Reviews for all Council directorates. Service Reviews are fundamental and integrated reviews intended to be transformational and, as such, focus on identifying significant efficiencies and improvements across all services. These reviews are designed to: improve services so they can be provided to a level, quality and price; meet the needs of local residents, increase residents' satisfaction; be capable of securing continuous improvement over time; and meet the needs of the Council’s MTFF and identify cashable efficiency gains. Reviews have already been completed for all the main directorates, which are now in the process of implementing a range of service improvements. The review of the DCEO and F&R services is the final one within the scope of this programme.

The scope of the review encompasses the majority of services within DCEO and F&R.

These include:

DCEO Corporate Communications Democratic Services Organisational Development and Performance Improvement Partnerships, Business & Community Engagement Policy

F&R Accounting Central Support Finance & Revenues Corporate Property Major Construction Contact Centre Procurement ICT Support services

The review of Legal Services and HR has been undertaken as separate exercises and their recommendations approved by HIP Steering Group.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 95 For the purposes of this Service Review, the DCEO & F&R directorates are collectively referred to as “Central Services”.

2. Introduction to Central Services

2.1 Structure & Focus

In October 2006, as part of an overhaul of the whole Council’s structure, the Deputy Chief Executive’s directorate was created. The appointment of a new Deputy Chief Executive (DCE) in 2008 has strengthened the capacity of the Chief Executive to focus on strategic leadership and direction to the organisation. Under this restructure, the Finance directorate was broadened to take in ICT, Legal and HR.

The role of the Deputy Chief Executive is to support the Chief Executive, the Corporate Management Team and Cabinet in leading the Council to achieve our vision to be a modern, well-managed Council delivering excellent services. The work of the DCEO underpins the Council’s strategic leadership – articulating and embedding the priorities of the Administration and enhancing a One Council approach that delivers better results for customers and residents. Through robust performance management, resident engagement and sound governance, the DCEO enhances the managerial and democratic decision making process and supports the Council’s continuous improvement programme.

The DCEO fosters collaborative working with partners to improve the social, economic and environmental well-being of residents through the delivery of the Borough’s Sustainable Community Strategy.

The award-winning communications team has a vital role in protecting and enhancing the Council’s reputation through ‘brand Hillingdon’ and in ensuring our residents are well informed.

The wider role of the Finance & Resources Director is to ensure that the Council makes effective use of all the resources at its disposal. These resources include financial, ICT and staffing resources as well as the management of the Council’s assets. The Director, as S151 officer, also ensures that the Council meets its fiduciary duties and statutory financial requirements, that there is a sound system of internal control in operation and that the Council has strong financial management and provides excellent value for money. The role includes ensuring that the Council operates within its legal powers and that there is a high level of probity within the Council.

The role also includes leading on ICT and HR which are two of the key drivers of transformation. As well as providing a range of internal support services, the Group also provides services in a number of high profile front line areas such as Council Tax and Business Rate collection. ICT also plays an important role in terms of improving access to services through the Customer Contact Centre and the wider customer experience strategy.

2.2 Value for Money

In line with the rest of the Council, Central Services have delivered significant savings over the past 5 years. The following table sets out a 5 Year analysis of Growth and Savings between 2004/05 and 2008/09, including the recovery savings that were required in 2006/07. The growth includes both unavoidable and discretionary growth.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 96 Year Growth Savings Net Movement £000 £000 £000 2004/05 793 -1,040 -247 2005/06 822 -629 193 2006/07 1,713 -1,512 201 2006/07 – In Year Recovery Savings 0 -1,171 -1,171 2007/08 1,272 -1,842 -570 2008/09 1,351 -1,223 128

Total Movement over the 5 Year 5,951 -7,417 -1,466 Period

Over the 5 year period, Central Services received growth of £5,951k and has delivered savings of £7,417k. Excluding inflation and budget transfers associated with centralisation, the Centre has contracted by £1,466k.

Having achieved average savings of almost £1.5m in the last 5 years, Central Services are delivering good value for money. In the majority of service areas where comparative data is available, services are being delivered at a better quality and at a substantially lower cost.

The growth in budget, resulting from the centralisation of certain functions, has delivered considerable ‘added value’, for example through the centralisation of accounting, financial management within Hillingdon has improved significantly. Efficiency savings of £13M have been generated and through robust management, and the Council has achieved its target for balances two years ahead of schedule. Similarly short term investment in the council tax unit has resulted in significant improvement in the collection rate and the London Borough of Hillingdon is now one of the highest performers in London, as is the payments unit. The finance model of support for service Groups is well respected.

Numerous examples of value for money through innovative working practices can be evidenced across Central Services. For example: the award winning service of the Corporate Communications unit, with value for money at its core, which delivered savings when the team was unified two years ago; the ICT project on ‘virtualisation of servers’ shows a particularly innovative approach to VFM; and various collaborations with the partnership team and environment and community safety are delivering good VFM results. This good work is set to continue with projects such as transforming the customer experience.

Whilst already having supported the achievement of many Council-wide savings and efficiencies, going forward the reviews of Human Resources, Legal and ICT will ensure that these units are structured to provide the best possible platform for the Council-wide transformation agenda. The delivery of value for money remains at the heart of Hillingdon’s strategic objectives, being a key focus for both Members and senior officers. As the main driver of the VFM agenda, Central Services will continue to examine and improve its own VFM to ensure that it leads by example.

2.3 Performance

In terms of performance management, first and foremost, Central Services needs to embed the local performance management framework, so that it effectively supports the priorities of the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 97 Administration as set out in the Council Plan. The local performance framework also includes Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets, National Indicators, Key National Performance Indicators and Local Performance Indicators. These indicators need to be linked to the Council priorities and monitored and reviewed on a regular basis. Under the new regulatory framework, Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), the Council and its partners will be required to demonstrate that we are working together to improve the outcomes for local people. Through robust performance management, Central Services have a role in driving up continuous improvement, enabling resources to be more effectively targeted at local priorities.

The performance of Central Services is steadily improving and this can be evidenced by the provisional 2008/09 Use of Resources Score moving to a strong 3, with scores for four of the eleven key lines of enquiry increasing.

The new regulatory framework, Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA), will retain an Organisational Assessment from which the Borough will be externally judged by Central Government. The focus will be on delivering value for money through the two themes of Use of Resources and Managing Performance. Key to both of these themes will be the Local Area Agreement (LAA) and our local performance management framework.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 98 SECTION TWO – Way forward and proposals

A. The Vision of Central Services A strong centre is the backbone of any successful organisation. Its role is to enhance strategic leadership, provide sound governance and effective performance management so that the Council acts as ‘one’ in the pursuance of excellent service delivery – getting it right first time, every time. It provides the engine for continuous improvement and the tools for transformation.

Understanding the business needs of our residents and customers is key to repositioning the Centre as the heartbeat of the organisation, acting as a catalyst for change. The Centre needs to ‘enable’ Service Groups to deliver better services through strengthened strategic capacity, policy development and analytical capability. It has an unequivocal contribution to make to service transformation by ensuring that the organisation is effectively supported: making the best use possible of ICT, HR, Property, Procurement and best practice. Working with Service Groups and partners, we share the responsibility for maximising the use of available resources to improving the well-being and experience of those who live in, work in or visit the Borough. As an outcome of the review, we will seek to develop a more mature relationship with the Groups so that we can support the organisation to deliver against priorities and equip them for the future. The model of business partners, combined with centres of excellence being rolled out for professional services, will be very much part of achieving this improved support relationship.

Through sound financial management and robust governance, we will ensure that the organisation has greater flexibility to pursue local priorities and greater resilience to deal with challenges. At the same time, the organisation needs to act as one; the Centre has an unapologetic role in challenging the organisation, enforcing probity and compliance, where it may otherwise compromise the Council’s efficiency or reputation. We will foster a ‘one Council’ approach – providing a consistent framework within which the Council can operate.

The core themes to deliver a strengthened Central Services are:

1. Strategic Direction 2. Transformation 3. Customer Focus 4. Efficiency 5. Governance 6. Partnerships / Community Engagement 7. Asset Management

Underpinning the Council’s aspiration to being a “modern well managed Council delivering excellent services” must be at the core of both the DCEO and F&R. It is clear that there is a great deal of scope for improved working within the whole of Central Services. There must be a far greater emphasis on Customer Focus, Business Efficiency, Business Intelligence and Transparency that in turn will lead to a robust approach to how we do business.

As part of the Central Services Review, all services applied the Corporate Service Review Toolkit, which included the consideration of whether the service is needed, whether it should be provided in house or be considered for outsourcing.

The general conclusion on outsourcing is that the high volume process type activities are more likely to be suitable for outsourcing e.g. Council Tax, Payroll, whereas the value added service e.g. policy, performance and finance type functions are better placed in house. A reasonable

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 99 level of services are already outsourced e.g. parts of ICT, recruitment, facilities management, part of Council Tax function, translation and interpreting services, and printing services, delivering efficiencies and corporate savings.

In order to ensure that the Centre is strong and is driving the whole Council, an improvement plan using the key themes described above are commended. Implementing this plan will ensure that not only the Centre is working more effectively and efficiently, providing the engine for continuous improvement across the Council.

Under each heading where savings proposals have been identified, there is a reference number from Appendix A that gives the full savings.

1. Strategic Direction

The Centre must:

• drive the strategic agenda and shape policy development and partnership working to deliver the priorities of the administration. • lead on strategic analysis and use of the organisation’s information and intelligence to inform policy development. • ensure corporate systems are available to provide local and national intelligence including customer insight, whilst ensuring there are strategies in place to manage, exploit and share corporate data more effectively. • lead on the production of a range of corporate and cross-cutting strategies setting the framework for the Council’s approach to service planning and providing excellent services. • provide high-level advice to the Cabinet, CEO and DCE on all aspects of policy development and strategic planning. • be proactive in identifying and advising Cabinet, CEO and DCE on emerging legislative and policy issues facing Hillingdon (including partners). • be the custodian of the corporate brand and positive profile of the organisation.

The Policy Team is relatively new, having been formed as part of the new DCEO restructure undertaken in early 2007. The Head of Policy has been in post since September 2007 and, with his team, has made great strides in moving the policy and intelligence function forward. Moving forward, the Policy Team will drive a strong ‘one Council’ approach to policy development, to deliver the Council’s vision.

The Head of Communication has overseen the successful centralisation of the communications function that has considerably strengthened the communications offer to the Council. Going forward, a key role is to build capacity through working more closely with partners and further developing and strengthening the reputation for the Borough.

Recommendations – Strategic Direction

1. The Head of Policy to develop a strong corporate policy approach.

2. The Head of Policy to lead on driving forward strategic thinking including by synthesising the local, regional and national agenda.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 100 3. To re-define the Information Strategy and Information Governance in order to increase sharing of corporate information/intelligence and to develop the Council’s strategic corporate intelligence function.

4. The Communications Team works more closely with partners to develop reputation for the Borough - to include the development of a corporate narrative for the Borough.

2. Transformation

HIP has been the key driver for the Council’s improvement and transformation agendas. The governance of HIP works extremely well and has particularly allowed focussed decision making and the escalation of issues that can be quickly resolved. The HIP Organisational Development & Performance Improvement workstream has been responsible for overseeing the whole service review process and has provided each directorate with a corporate service review methodology to address key themes common to all services. HIP will continue its role in the improvement agenda within the Council and the Borough in order to increase residents’ satisfaction, deliver key priorities for the Council giving excellent value for money.

It is vital with a strong transformation agenda, excellent HR and ICT service areas support the change and improvement within an organisation. It was recognised at an early stage that these functions needed to be thoroughly reviewed as part of the overall Central Services Review.

2.2 HR Review

Providing an effective HR service within local authorities has become increasingly challenging as the demands on local authorities and partner organisations has become more complex. In order to support the transformation and improvement throughout the Council, HR must have the capability to be strategic and be able to respond with an approach to people management that helps to build the required capability and capacity within the organisation. Planned HR interventions must be designed to improve organisational effectiveness, making positive changes to people management to improve performance. The HR service must be proactive in thinking about the strategies and policies that are needed to ensure that employees are equipped to deliver the best possible services to the residents of Hillingdon.

The HR Service Review focused entirely on these priorities leading to the following three functions being established:

• Strategic HR Team who will be responsible for HR strategy policy and plans and driving the corporate approach. • Service Delivery Partners who will have a strong understanding and connection to the service area whilst being expert in HR interventions. They will form the conduit from the service area to all parts of HR. • Shared Services who will provide managers with advice and deliver slick and efficient transactional services.

A new structure based on this has now been consulted upon with a new Head of HR currently being recruited.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 101 2.3 ICT

A significant amount of work has been completed with the ICT Service Review. Arising from this, there are two key workstreams that are strongly recommended to be taken forward – transforming the customer experience and the centralisation of ICT.

2.3.1 Transforming the customer experience

Transforming the customer experience remains an important strategic objective for the Council. It provides: a catalyst for change and the means of driving continuous service improvement; and a further opportunity for improving customer experience by providing services and information that are more responsive to resident and service user needs and preferences. Transforming the customer experience will lead to less waste, i.e., reduce activities and processes that add little or no value to customers.

Business Benefits

Financial: • Reduced transaction costs • Releases resources to the front line • Headcount reduction

Organisational: • Fosters a whole-Council customer-focused approach to service delivery and continuous improvement • Establishes the Hillingdon website and Customer Contact Centre as the principal points of contact for Council services

Customer: • Data will pinpoint the services that require focused process improvement • Will deliver service re-design focused on customer needs • Will improve the customer’s experience of end-to-end delivery resulting in increased satisfaction levels

Improvement projects will include:

Web-based services • Information is presented consistently throughout the site • Links to supporting information are improved • Information is accurate and up-to-date • Is fully transactional i.e. full self-service • The latest technologies are applied • Continued development of the Council’s new youth website

Channel Migration A shift of contact from telephone to web-based services will be achieved through the development of improved transactional capabilities on the Hillingdon website which will lead to a reduction in transaction costs. Appropriate services will be identified for migration and communicated to residents and users as soon as they become available through the website.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 102 Face to Face contact – Civic Centre Reception and Local Access Points This project will confirm the scope and implementation plans for a re-designed Civic Centre main reception that will establish more efficient/effective management of face-to-face contact with customers and provide the basis for accurate data capture through the CRM system. Local access points will be developed to help reduce main reception traffic and provide more convenient access for customers.

2.3.2 ICT Centralisation

This project represents the work needed to deliver one of the Service Review’s key proposals – to establish a centralised ICT function, which consolidates all ICT staff under a single reporting structure whilst servicing the needs of Group business areas. The new structure will adopt the ‘Business Partner’ model implemented by Finance, HR and Procurement which is recognised as the most effective corporate method for providing consistent professional advice and support to the Groups’ business objectives.

The added value to the Groups produced by this new structure will be transparency of costs and the use of technology specialists working with Group senior management teams to define their business requirements and to ensure these are translated into cost effective/flexible ICT solutions - thereby avoiding the development of inefficient locally implemented technology solutions/applications.

There has been significant progress in ensuring connection between business objectives and ICT investment in recent months, however there is much room for improvement. The Council’s understanding of what can be achieved to meet targets and expectations through ICT deployment is improving and this will be enhanced by a more business led approach to deployment and governance of ICT within the Council. This approach will also engage staff at all levels through embracing the ideas and innovation of service specialists for the benefit of all stakeholders.

There will need to be a clearly communicated vision for ICT deployment that matches the Council’s vision along with a well articulated rolling 3 year strategy, which would support the ICT investment plan to improve efficiency.

Business Benefits

Benefits of the proposed structure can be summarised as follows:

• Improving staffing efficiency • Lower ICT costs to Groups, through reduction in central establishment charges • Reduced management overhead for Groups • Better alignment of service to business need • Groups can focus on business requirements, rather than how these are met through use of ICT • Facilitates effective ICT governance/stakeholder engagement • Provides consistent approach to exploitation of emerging technologies • Higher professional standards • Synergy achieved through ICT staff working together • Cross training opportunities • Reduced duplication

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 103 • Sharing of ideas / skills / collaborative working • Reduced frictional costs

Critical Success Factors

• ICT budgets are transferred along with the staff and responsibilities • Organisation built from zero base, rather than replicate existing structures • Staff involved understand the need for change and the opportunities that this presents • Effective communications are established to ensure Groups are engaged and made aware of the basis for change • Service Level Agreements in place that are understood and signed off by all parties • Lead ICT Business Manager in each Group attends appropriate management meetings (SMT/DMTs) • Capacity is created to bring in new skills e.g. business analysis • Phased timetable to ensure smooth transition

Transition to a new Structure

During January 2009, further work will be undertaken to develop a better understanding of the Groups’ business objectives and their ICT priorities. Once this is clearly established, the ICT resources required to deliver the requirements will be defined within a new structure.

2.4 As part of the overall Central Services Review, both the Legal and Procurement teams have been thoroughly reviewed.

2.4.1 Legal Review

Following a robust exercise, it was recommended that Legal Services remain as an in-house function within a strengthened management and operational structure, reflecting the ways in which private law firms operate. A thorough overhaul of how the department operates and liases with clients has been undertaken to provide LBH with a legal service that provides value for money and is fit for purpose. This process was facilitated by working through a Legal Services Review action plan, in conjunction with Zero Based Budgeting.

The Legal Services restructure has now nearly been completed with most key posts being recruited to. Client groups are already noting an improvement in the service.

2.4.2 Procurement

The Procurement function has been strengthened with specialist resource with a named Procurement Manager and Buyer allocated to each Directorate, charged with agreeing and facilitating a planned programme of retendering and review covering contracts above £100k that will deliver increased savings and reduced risk. Savings have been identified which are already in the MTFF going forward and do not form part of the Central Services savings target.

Recommendations - Transformation

1. The improvements and strengthening of the HR, Legal and Procurement teams will continue and be reviewed as necessary.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 104 2. To proceed with Transforming the Customer Experience and the Centralisation of ICT as key projects with implementation commencing from January 2009.

Proposed Savings

F&R 18 The initial savings for Transforming the Customer Experience £250k F&R 19 ICT Centralisation £150k

3. Customer Focus

A key driver for the Council to deliver its vision and priorities is a clear focus on residents and demonstrable increases in resident satisfaction. Although Central Services support the delivery of front-line services through the work of the directorates, they play a key role in a range of overarching policies and strategies such as implementing the sustainable community strategy and co-coordinating the delivery of the Local Area Agreement. They also have a clear focus on residents by supporting front-facing services. These include:

• Shaping services – this includes development of policy in the context of local, regional and national agendas, but influenced by consultation with residents to determine priorities and needs. • Customer access – through support from ICT, the Contact Centre and Communications, Central Services lead on informing residents about Council services. In addition, they support services to change resident behaviour to respond to changing priorities. • Organisational culture and workforce management – through Human Resources, Organisational Development, Economic Regeneration, Communications and ICT, the Centre supports the organisation’s workforce to have the right skills, culture, ethos, policies and tools to ensure a focus on residents in the delivery of all our services. • Borough and Council profile and reputation management – Communications, Democratic Services, Legal Services and Human Resources all contribute to ensure the reputation of the Council and the Borough is preserved and enhanced.

The Service Review closely scrutinised these areas to identify how these areas can be further enhanced.

The following areas have been identified:

• regular assessment of the strategic and co-ordinating role of the Centre • continued benchmarking of residents’ satisfaction • align efficiency and service improvement objectives and ensure that internal processes are transparent to client Groups and duplication is avoided within Central Services. • ensure all corporate costs are transparent and are challenged to ensure value for money is provided at all times • improve engagement with client Groups, strengthening role in actively supporting the delivery of key services across group business areas, undertaking a more customer-focused approach (building on the business partnering model previously implemented by finance and procurement), improving its understanding of group business areas, their objectives and priorities. The L&D team will be re-organised to sit more in line with a Business Partner approach and to ensure a closer link with HR can be achieved.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 105 • ensure that professional expertise is utilised and tailored to the needs of Group service areas. • The corporate performance function will be strengthened through a re-focusing of BSU capacity into the Corporate Team. This will ensure further support is given to the organisation as the performance management framework continues to be strengthened.

Recommendations – Customer Focus

1. F&R and DCEO SMTs work more collaboratively in order to strengthen the business planning framework for the organisation.

2. Service Groups are more actively engaged at an earlier stage in the business planning and implementation.

Proposed Savings

DCEO 03 Increase L&D income through accessing external L&D funds £85k DCEO 04 A refocus of the performance management and BSU team £90k DCEO 05

4. Efficiency

The Finance function of the Council was restructured 2 years ago into 2 broad services:

• Accounting Services • Finance Support Services and Revenues

Although there was an option at the time to combine into one service, it was felt that the amount of work required to modernise these services was too great. Over the last 2 years, the newly centralised accounting structure has been recruited to, moving from around a 35% vacancy level to less than 5%. The various work processes and procedures followed by the previously devolved teams has been harmonised around best practice and the use of interims has reduced considerably.

On the Revenues side, the service was restructured with the back office partially outsourced and the front of office moving to the contact centre. Performance on both Council Tax and NNDR Collection has improved significantly in the last 2 years, although it is recognised that going forward this will be affected by the Council’s response to the economic downturn. Procurement has been strengthened through the building of a new team that has given greater capacity and capability.

The Service Review has looked at the scope to build on the work undertaken over the last 2 years to deliver further efficiencies. It has concluded that Finance Support Services and Revenues and Accountancy can now be merged into 1 service. This will enable a more joined up Finance function that better exploits the synergies between the various component services. The move will also increase the efficiency of the service by facilitating the deletion of a Head of Service post.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 106 Other efficiencies identified in the review include the following:

Council Tax / NNDR • Continue to incrementally outsource the back office in a way that minimises redundancy costs and incentivises the outsourced contractor side to perform. • Explore the potential for more joined up working with Housing Benefits including Systems administration, Contact Centre, Scanning & Indexing and reception. • Implement one corporate solution for the receipt of payments through the Internet. • Improve web enabled transactions.

Accounting • Continue to harmonise work processes and procedures around best practice in previously devolved Finance teams. • Combine the current Financial Planning and Corporate Accounting teams into a single Corporate Finance function, removing a senior manager post from the finance structure and partially reinvesting some of this saving to strengthen the corporate finance function. The new structure also includes proposals to strengthen the control function in Corporate Finance where it will have management responsibility for Payroll Controls. This will address weaknesses identified in recent audit reports. • Implement various measures to improve cash flow management within the Council.

Payments/Sundry Debtors • Improve web enabled transactions. • Make better use of financial systems to improve efficiency of these exchequer operations.

Business Support Unit • Restructure of the unit in response to the rationalisation of Services and the experience of support required from the various services in the Centre.

Procurement • It is proposed that strategic procurement will be a service in its own right reporting to the Director of Finance & Resources. As referred to earlier in this report, the service has already been restructured to form a centrally managed team with dotted line into service directors. • Procurement is one of the key pillars of transformation and therefore needs focussed attention.

Recommendations - Efficiency

1. Merge Finance Support Service and Revenues with Accounting into one service.

2. Continue the incremental outsourcing of the Revenues back office.

3. Explore joint working opportunities between Revenues and Benefits.

4. Implement one corporate solution for the receipt of payments through the Internet.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 107 5. Combine the current Financial Planning and Corporate Accounting teams into a single Corporate Finance function.

6. Review all cash flow activity within the Council.

Proposed savings

F&R10 Merge Finance Support Service & Revenues with Accounting £115k into 1 service thus deleting a Head of Service post F&R 11 Restructure Corporate Accounting to provide a more efficient £75k joined up service

F&R 12 Restructure the Corporate Business Support Unit in response £50k to the rationalisation of services and experience of support required from the services F&R 13 Review of Exchequer Services £60k F&R 14 Continued phased outsourcing of Revenues back office, £100k explore further use of the contact centre and look for potential for joint working with Housing Benefits

5. Governance

A crucial role of the Centre is to ensure the governance of the Council is conducted within the correct regulatory framework, is efficient, transparent and inclusive. Co-ordinating all the Borough’s democratic processes and encouraging participation in them is vital in ensuring public confidence in the Council as a whole. Democratic Services provides a full range of support and advice for residents, Members and other stakeholders and oversees the Borough’s vital decision-making, scrutiny, civic, electoral and registration processes.

The new Head of Democratic Services has undertaken a thorough review of the service and concluded that there are improvements that should be made. Both Electoral Services and Registration Services are already judged as “good” services and the firm intention is push these to excellence.

The Cabinet Office and Overview and Scrutiny teams can be more efficiently organised and pulled together as a single Democratic Services Team. This will be done in such a way as to retain the provision of dedicated, identifiable support to both the Executive and to the Overview and Scrutiny process.

Recommendations - Governance 1. Improve Electoral Services and the Registration Service to be recognised as Excellent services.

2. To merge the Cabinet Office and Overview & Scrutiny teams into one Democratic Services team.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 108 Proposed Savings:

DCEO 01 Restructure of the Cabinet Office and Overview and Scrutiny £70k Teams DCEO 02 Improved procurement of the Mayor’s Car £40k

6. Partnerships / Community Engagement

The Local Strategic Partnership, Hillingdon Partners, has agreed a new Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) to deliver on the identified needs and priorities of the Borough and to shape Hillingdon to become a better place to live in, work in or visit.

Key to delivering the SCS will be a new governance framework and performance management system led from within DCEO. In addition, Hillingdon Partners have agreed to come together to explore joint approaches to resident engagement, understand needs and to share intelligence and support business planning.

The Council has developed a popular approach to resident engagement through its Council Question Time events, Street Champions and Streets Ahead activity in each ward. Through the Chrysalis scheme and the older people’s initiative, residents are able to directly influence decisions that meet their needs and which have an impact locally. Residents are also able to petition Cabinet Members on issues of concern. Moving forward, the DCEO will support the further development of community engagement, building upon existing programmes and enabling Ward Members to enhance their community leadership role locally through the implementation of the Leader’s ward budget initiative.

The way that the Council and its partners engage with residents to ensure that services meet local aspirations, needs and priorities is continuing to evolve and the Community Leadership Team have a clear role in supporting this agenda. There is also scope to better integrate the support provided by the Community Leadership Team to Members to tackle ward problems / matters with the implementation of the ward funds and the Chrysalis Programme and also with delivery of Streets Ahead.

The Economic Development Team delivers a substantial number of projects that benefit businesses and residents. The Service Review identified a gap in the strategic planning for the local economy and the role that the Council could fulfil to maximise skills, jobs and inward investment in the Borough. It is intended to work with the London Development Agency and Capital Ambition to close this gap.

Recommendations - Partnerships / Community Engagement

1. That the Community Leadership Team supports Members in the administration and implementation of ward funds. An economic assessment of the Borough is conducted that will act as the evidence 2. base for the development of the Council’s Sustainable Economy Strategy.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 109 7. Asset Management

The current Corporate Property and Major Construction Team will be split into two distinct functions:

7.1 The Construction Team

The Construction Team will lead on all building projects, with the exception of any minor refurbishment works of a maintenance nature. It will also explore opportunities for exploiting further its expertise by offering itself for managing specialist public sector projects with local public sector bodies.

7.2 Corporate Property Services

The Council’s requirements for a property service are to ensure that all of its property assets are used as enablers of service delivery as they will be optimised in use, well managed, fit for purpose and will provide value for money for the Council’s communities, customers and partners. This will be achieved by:

• the development of a corporate landlord approach to asset management. • the provision of a high quality, value for money, professional one stop property service. • the delivery of a rolling programme of challenging asset review. • ensuring property assets comply with statutory health and safety legislation. • ensuring that property assets minimise energy consumption and carbon emissions and support the development of a sustainable environment.

In order to deliver the Property vision, it is recommended that the Service Review recommendations are delivered in two phases.

The first phase will see the restructuring of Corporate Property Services from four teams in to three teams:

• Compliance, energy and feasibility (CEF) • Facilities management (FM) • Landlord services (LS)

This will give a sound basis to move to a Corporate Landlord model of asset management that will be operational by 1st April 2010.

In essence, this approach will clarify where the responsibility for the Council’s assets lie. At the present time there is a lack of clarity about the role of Corporate Property Services (CPS) and this is largely historical in origin but nonetheless exists. Under the corporate landlord there will be a clear central responsibility for all assets to rest with an appropriately qualified team.

The Corporate Landlord model would also provide a central focus for undertaking asset review, developing the Council’s strategy for the future of its estate and ensuring it is delivered.

As with the private sector equivalent, there is a need to develop a “tenant” role. “Tenants” need to have a much more participatory role in making their needs clear and in balancing their need for accommodation with other pressures on their budgets.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 110 This means that CPS will provide much clearer linkages to its stakeholder departments by having designated business partner client managers who will be close to their designated service in terms of understanding its needs and ensuring its property needs are adequately met. Additionally, all planning application work must be referred to CPS to manage and design work for any Council owned asset must be referred either to CPS who will manage the minor refurbishment works of a maintenance nature or Construction Projects.

The primary changes in Corporate Property Services that will be delivered by the proposed changes in the services structure include:

• The creation of an adequately resourced team within Landlord Services to deliver Asset Management and spearhead ongoing property reviews through closer liaison with client services. • The new structure will move the Council towards realising additional disposals in the short term and, in the longer term, help deliver a better more fit for purpose estate which provides better value for money. • The Council will immediately benefit from cost savings from bringing land sales feasibility work back in house and, in the longer term, reap improved sales values from land it sells. • The Corporate Property service is poised for a changing emphasis from being inwardly focussed around the undertaking of technical property work to becoming an outward focussed, client aware service that has much greater strategic importance to the Council. • The outsourcing of statutory asset valuations whilst ensuring some in-house capability is retained.

The transition to the Corporate Landlord model will be delivered through restructuring and will be developed in close consultation with the service departments.

Recommendations - Asset Management

1. The Construction Team will lead on all building projects, with the exception of any minor refurbishment works of a maintenance nature.

2. To restructure the Corporate Property Service into 3 teams with a business partner lead for each group and to move to a Corporate Landlord model of Asset Management by 1st April 2010.

3. Income from property functions will be explored.

4. The Construction Team to explore opportunities for supporting other local public sector bodies of similar projects.

Proposed savings

F&R 15 Restructure Property Service function £135k F&R 16 Additional annual savings achieved by the outsourcing of £150k Facilities Management F&R 17 Exploring the potential for income generation from property £50k functions

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 111 B. New Structures for the DCEO and F&R

The Service Review process has enabled DCEO and F&R to scrutinise how they are currently operating and to consider how the Central Services ‘offer’ can be significantly enhanced and improved. It is clear that strong Central Services are the backbone of a strong Council, with a dual role as both ‘enablers’ and ‘enforcers’, acting within a One Council framework, to improve the services, standards and VFM for our residents.

Having only recently created the DCEO and F&R directorates, radical changes in the structure of Central Services are not presently required. However, it is recognised that Central Services are expected to improve the way in which they work together and with the Service Groups. Both the Deputy Chief Executive and Finance & Resources Corporate Director are committed to this improvement and this report sets out a range of actions that will support this.

In terms of the structure, the Service Review has concluded that a degree of structural change is required to support the continued improvement agenda and to re-balance and focus the priorities between the two directorates. It is therefore proposed that HR, Legal Services and the Construction Team move from F&R to the DCEO. HR has strong links to both Organisational Design and Training and Development and it is considered that, by moving this service across to the DCEO, the role of HR in facilitating transformation can be further enhanced. Legal has strong links to Democratic Services and again it is considered that having both services under the same line management can enhance this. The Construction Team will be delivering on key priorities for the Council and needs to be closely aligned to HIP.

Moving these services from F&R to the DCEO will create extra capacity within F&R to concentrate efforts on steering the Council through the financial downturn. The forthcoming year or two will pose significant financial pressures on the Council and it will need to respond in terms of adjusting financial strategy. Asset management will also play an increasingly significant role in enabling the Council to meet its financial objectives.

A further structural change proposed in the report is for the Finance Support Services & Revenues and the Accounting services to be merged into one service to exploit the synergies between these services and to provide better value for money.

Finally, it is recommended that Internal Audit, although keeping its reporting lines within F&R, should have direct links to the DCE in terms of issues that have a strategic importance to the Council, particularly those with HIP. The links with the Performance Management and Audit Teams will be strengthened to ensure they are working together to drive performance improvement through the organisation.

Recommendations – Structural

1. HR, Legal Services and the Construction Team line management be moved from F&R to the DCEO to exploit synergies with other services in that Group and to allow F&R greater capacity to concentrate on steering the Council through the financial downturn.

2. That Internal Audit reports to the DCE on issues that have strategic importance to the Council.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 112 C. Conclusion

This report seeks to set out a robust way forward for Central Services to further improve in order to give the strong strategic direction and focus to the Council required to meet the vision of being a modern, well managed Council delivering excellent services. The recommendations in this report, coupled with the recommendations arising from the HR and Legal Service Reviews, will enable Central Services to underpin improvements to service delivery with a ‘one Council’ approach. The Review will deliver the financial target of £1.6m set out at the outset of the Service Review programme and now assumed in the MTFF strategy. An improvement board will be set up with F&R and DCEO SMTs to oversee the implementation of these proposals.

Corporate Finance

The report outlines a number of savings proposals that total £1.6m in 2009/10. This is consistent with the target set for the service review and sum assumed in the MTFF. The redundancies associated with the service review have been included in the overall target figure.

HR implications

The recommendations which have an impact on posts will be subject to a formal consultation process with staff and trade unions.

Legal

There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

Corporate Property

The implications arising from the report are covered in Section 7 on Asset Management.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Detailed Whole Service Review papers.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 113 Appendix A

Savings Schedule

Central Services were set a savings target of £1.6m for the Service Review. A summary of how this target could be delivered is summarised in the following table. The redundancy costs have been minimised and all the savings are shown net of such costs.

Service/Proposals Saving 09/10 Democratic Services

DCE Restructure the Democratic Services Team to realise O01 efficiencies within the current structure and to achieve a £70k greater focus on the wider community and Council agenda DCE Mayor’s Car £40k O02

Organisational Development & Performance Improvement

DCE Increase L&D income through accessing external L&D funds £85k 03 DCE Performance Management – delete Business Analyst Post £45k O04 (currently vacant) DCE Reconfigure BSU / Performance Management to strengthen O05 Corporate Performance Management £45k

Finance Services

F&R Restructure the Finance function – bring the separate services 10 of Finance Support Services and Revenues and Accounting £115k together. Realise savings through the deletion of Head of Service post and support costs and get the Finance function to work in a more joined up way. F&R Restructure of Corporate Accounting Services to provide £75k 11 better support to key Council initiatives. F&R Restructure of Business Support Unit in response to £50k 12 rationalisation of Services and experience of support required from the service now the structure agreed last year has bedded in. F&R Review of Exchequer Services – short term savings from £60k 13 restructuring Payments Team to make it more cost effective and longer term savings from having 1 Sundry Debtor system and more clearly differentiating between function of ASCH&H Finance Team and Corporate Income Team. F&R Council Tax/NNDR – continue phased outsourcing of £100k 14 operation, explore further use of contact centre and look for potential for joint working with Housing Benefits.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 114

Property Services

F&R Restructure Property Service function to ensure it is fit for £125k 15 purpose to deliver a Corporate Landlord Service in the longer term. F&R Maximise opportunities from outsourced FM contract (savings £150k 16 in excess of the £500k already assumed in the MTFF F&R Exploring the potential for income generation from property £50k 17 functions

ICT

F&R Transforming the Customer Experience £250k 18 F&R ICT Centralisation £150k 19 F&R Review all cash flow activity within the Council £190k 20

Total savings proposals £1.6m

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 115 HILLINGDON RESIDENTS SURVEY ITEM 3

Cabinet Member Councillor Ray Puddifoot

Cabinet Portfolio Leader of the Council

Officer Contact Kevin Byrne/ David Holdstock, Deputy Chief Executive’s Office

Papers with report Summary of Survey findings

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To report on the headline findings of the Hillingdon Resident Survey completed September – November 2008 by Ipsos MORI.

Contribution to our The survey supports our understanding of residents’ needs and plans and strategies levels of satisfaction and is key to delivery of the Council Plan (Fast Forward to 2010) and the Borough’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2018.

Financial Cost No direct costs as a result of this report.

Relevant Policy All POCs are relevant. Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet notes the findings of the report setting out the views of residents on the priorities of the Council and feedback on their satisfaction regarding services.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

To share findings and agree to publication.

Alternative options considered / risk management

None.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None at this stage.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 116 Supporting Information

Summary of survey findings. The report attached at Appendix A sets out the findings. The full report, with supporting annexes, will be published on the Council’s website.

Overall findings include:

• The survey of Hillingdon residents shows large increases in satisfaction with the Council and the services it provides.

• There is positive support for and satisfaction with the Council across the board, with very high ratings for the Administration’s priorities.

• The results show significant improvements in a range of key service areas. On waste collection (93% of residents satisfied) and recycling (83% of residents satisfied) the results are outstanding.

• For customer care, 76% of residents are satisfied when they contact the Council and 77% said staff were helpful.

• The survey also shows very high levels of satisfaction for services for children and young people and community safety and following the launch of Hillingdon’s library refurbishment programme, more than three quarters of residents say they are satisfied with the Borough’s libraries.

• Residents have also shown strong support for specific initiatives such as older/disabled people’s priorities (67%), Council Tax freeze (84%) and additional support for victims of crime (85%).

• The results for how well residents are informed are excellent: 75% well informed (up from 40%).

• The environment and safety remain residents’ top priorities and there is also strong support for older/disabled people’s priorities (67%), Council Tax freeze (84%), support for victims of crime (85%) and increased youth provision (67%).

Headlines

A clean and attractive Borough High levels of satisfaction: Household waste collection – 93% Door step recycling – 83% Recycling facilities – 76% Civic amenities – 79%

Customer care 76% satisfied with contact with council. 77% of staff were helpful. On complaints 52% satisfied, substantial improvement year on year from 30% The council is helpful when contacted – 57% agree, 19% neither agree/disagree and 15% disagree

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 117

A Safe Borough All scores are positive with low levels of dissatisfaction: 61% feel safer that CCTV cameras are monitoring the borough 52% satisfied with improving road safety through the introduction of new pedestrian crossings 48% satisfied with safer neighbourhood teams, street/estate champions

A borough of learning and culture Very high levels of satisfaction: Libraries 77% Theatres 67% Leisure facilities 45% (29% Neither satisfied/dissatisfied)

A borough where children and young people are healthy, safe and supported Support for increased youth facilities – 67% Satisfaction with play and childcare – 69% Primary school education – 85% Secondary – 77%

Financial Implications

None directly.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

It will strengthen the evidence base to support our vision of being a modern well managed Council delivering excellent services.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

Ipsos Mori was commissioned following competitive tender to carry out the survey on behalf of the Council. The postal survey was conducted between September and November 2008 and undertaken using a random sample of addresses from a Post Office address file of residents in the Borough. Each household was sent a questionnaire and invited to respond.

The survey was sent to 3,500 residents with a high return rate of 1,086 completed questionnaires.

The methodology follows the guidelines set out by the government and has a 95% confidence interval.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

N/A.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 118 Legal

None.

Corporate Property

N/A.

Relevant Service Groups

N/A.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 119 Appendix A

Hillingdon Residents’Survey 2008

Research Study Conducted for the London Borough of Hillingdon

December 2008

Contents

Introduction 1 Methodology 1 Sample profile 3 Report layout 4 Executive Summary 6 Part 1: Image of Hillingdon Council 8 1.1 Advocacy of the authority 8 1.2 Detailed aspects of the Council’s image 9 Part 2: Council Priorities 12 2.1 Sustainable community strategy priorities 12 2.2 A safer borough 13 2.3 A clean & attractive borough 14 2.4 A borough with improving health, housing & social care 15 2.5 A borough where children & young people are healthy, safe & supported 16 2.6 A borough of learning, culture & leisure 16 2.7 A borough where opportunities are open to all 17 2.8 A prosperous borough 20 Part 3: Council Services 22 3.1 Waste and recycling services 22 3.2 Have environmental services improved? 28 3.3 The planning service 29 3.4 Community safety 30 3.5 Learning, cultural and leisure services 33 3.6 Health, housing and social care 39 3.7 Childcare and play facilities 40 3.8 Primary schools 43 3.9 Secondary schools 44 3.10 Post-16 education and training 45 3.11 Facilities for young people 46

Part 4: Communications 48 4.1 How well informed do residents feel? 48 4.2 Methods of communication 48 Part 5: Customer care 51 5.1 Dealing with residents’ complaints 51 5.2 Other contact with the council 51

Appendices

Technical Note Statistical reliability Marked-up questionnaire

2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Introduction

Background and objectives This report presents the findings of a residents’ survey carried out by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Hillingdon Council.

The research explores the following specific areas:

• satisfaction with and image of Hillingdon Council;

• council communications and information provision;

• views on council priorities;

• usage and satisfaction with local services;

• contact with the council;

This report presents the main findings from the survey and includes a marked-up questionnaire that provides a quick reference to all the headline results. This also presents, where applicable, trend data for the previous two BVPI surveys we have undertaken on behalf of the council, and benchmarking data – although caution should be taken where results are compared between different methodologies; these are flagged up when they occur.

Methodology A postal methodology was used comparable with the BVPI survey approach (i.e. a postal survey sent to a random sample of addresses). The survey was sent to a random sample of 3,500 addresses selected from the small-user Postcode Address File (PAF).

To meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act, a covering letter stating the purpose for which the data was being collected was sent with each questionnaire. The front page of each questionnaire was branded with the Hillingdon Council and Ipsos MORI logos.

Fieldwork took place between 1 September 2008 and 7 November 2008. This was broken down into three key stages:

• First mailing: questionnaires posted to all 3,500 addresses in the sample on the week commencing 1 September 2008, with an instruction asking for all questionnaires to be returned by 26 September 2008;

• First reminder: reminder letters (without the questionnaire) posted to 2,979 addresses to individuals in the sample who, at the ‘cut off’ point for the first mailing, had not returned the

1 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

questionnaire. The covering letter included an instruction asking for all questionnaires to be returned by 7 November 2008;

• Second reminder: full reminder questionnaires posted to 2,910 addresses to individuals in the sample who, at the ‘cut off’ point for the first reminder, had not returned the questionnaire.

Across the entire fieldwork period 1,086 completed questionnaires were returned, so the overall unadjusted response rate1 achieved was 31%.

Data is weighted by gender, age, work status and ethnicity to match the 2001 census profile of Hillingdon residents as a whole.

All responses have been analysed by a range of demographic, geographical and attitudinal variables; detailed breakdowns have been provided in a separate volume of computer tables.

Some comparisons are made in this report with the 2006/07 BVPI survey. Fieldwork for this survey took place between 12 September and 21 November 2006. A 36% responses rate was achieved with 1,246 questionnaires returned.

1 This does not allow for invalid addresses, vacant properties etc, which will be an element of any PAF sample.

2 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Sample profile Number of Unweighted Weighted people % % Unweighted*

Total 1,086 100 100 Gender Male 437 40 47 Female 603 56 53 Age 18-24 24 2 12 25-34 116 11 21 35-54 392 36 37 55-64 180 17 10 65+ 339 31 20 Work status Working full-time 398 37 47 Not working full-time 650 60 53 Tenure Owner occupier 760 70 68 Any rented 259 24 26 Ethnicity White 829 76 80 Black 26 2 3 Asian 117 11 14 Source: Ipsos MORI *Breakdowns may not sum to base due to respondents leaving demographic questions blank.

3 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Report layout Following this introduction, the report contains:

• an executive summary of the key findings of the survey and their implications for the council;

• more detailed analysis on the main findings of the study, including key population sub-groups;

• appendices, including a marked-up questionnaire and guides to statistical reliability. Interpretation of the data It should be remembered that a sample, and not the entire population of Hillingdon, has been interviewed. Therefore, all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which means that not all differences are statistically significant. A guide to statistical reliability is appended.

Where percentages do not sum 100, this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of “don’t know” categories, or multiple answers. An asterisk (*) denotes any value less than half a per cent but greater than zero.

Reference is made throughout the report to “net” figures. This represents the balance of opinion on attitudinal questions, and provides a particularly useful means of comparing the results for a number of variables. In the case of the “net satisfaction” figure, this represents the percentage satisfied on a particular issue or service less the percentage dissatisfied. For example, if a service records 40% satisfied and 25% dissatisfied, the “net satisfaction” figure is +15 points.

It is also worth emphasising that the survey deals with residents’ perceptions at the time the survey was conducted rather that with facts and these may not accurately reflect the level of services actually being delivered.

Acknowledgements Ipsos MORI would like to thank Pam Nash at Hillingdon Council for her help in conducting this survey, as well as the 1,086 members of the public who took part.

4 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Publication of the findings As Hillingdon Council has engaged Ipsos MORI to undertake an objective research project, it is important to protect the interests of both organisations by ensuring that it is accurately reflected in any press release or publication of findings. As part of our standard terms and conditions of contract, the publication of the findings of this research is therefore subject to advance approval of Ipsos MORI. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.

©Ipsos MORI/33906 Checked & Approved: Andy Byrom John Kennedy Jayesh Shah

5 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Executive Summary

This survey represents excellent progress for the council on a number of fronts, in particular the degree to which residents feel informed about council services and satisfaction with some key service areas.

A further positive from this research is the attitude towards front-line staff. Residents are especially likely to give high ratings to the helpfulness of the council when they contact it.

Image of the council

One in three residents (33%) say they would speak highly of the authority; this compares to one in five (19%) who would be critical. Those who feel informed about council services and who agree they can influence local decision-making are among the biggest advocates for the authority.

As well as praising the council’s helpfulness when they contact it, residents give the authority high ratings for its efforts to protect the environment. This is especially noteworthy, given that maintaining a “clean and attractive borough” is near the top of residents’ priorities (see next section).

More residents believe the council offers good value for money than do not – although one in five are negative on this measure. Indications are that Hillingdon performs roughly in line with the average outer London borough on this measure.

Priorities

Residents’ priorities focus most around safety and the environment, with significant proportions also mentioning social care, health, housing and support for children.

Within the theme of community safety, greatest emphasis rests upon creating a safe environment, followed by tackling burglary and vehicle crime, and reducing assault and hate crime.

The top priority under the theme of the environment is making Hillingdon a cleaner and greener place, mentioned by nearly three in four residents. Closely connected to this is the wish to protect and enhance the green belt, along with the borough’s heritage and natural environment.

Service ratings

Refuse collection performs extremely well as a service, with a 93% satisfaction score. Other high flying services are libraries, recycling facilities, and parks/ open spaces.

Hillingdon also compares favourably with the London average for adult education, and holds its own in relation to sports/ leisure facilities and council housing management.

6 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Communications

Three in four residents (75%) say they feel well informed about council services – a dramatic increase since the last round of BVPI surveys, which showed this figure at 40%.

Another encouraging sign for the authority is that the “Hillingdon People” appears very popular as the main source of information, with the council website being residents’ second preference.

Customer care

Among those who have contacted the authority in the last two years, ratings are generally positive for being put through to the correct person, with the quality of information and – in particular – with the helpfulness of staff.

Of the 25% of respondents who have contacted Hillingdon Council with a complaint in the last two years, around half (52%) express satisfaction with the way their complaint was dealt with.

The proportion declaring themselves satisfied with the actual outcome is somewhat lower at 42%. However, this discrepancy can be viewed as very positive, in that it suggests a good standard of customer care and support, regardless of outcome.

7 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Part 1: Image of Hillingdon Council

This section looks at how residents view Hillingdon Council. Over the coming pages, we will look at:

Residents’ advocacy of the council; and

More detailed aspects of image (e.g. value for money). 1.1 Advocacy of the authority Encouragingly, more Hillingdon residents (32%) would speak highly of the council than would be critical (19%). Of those who would speak highly or critically only when asked, almost twice as many are likely to speak highly, than to speak critically (27% highly, compared to 15% critically). Fewer than one in twenty residents (4%) would be critical without being asked.

Advocacy of Hillingdon Council

Q1 Which, if any, of these statements comes closest to how you feel about Hillingdon Council overall? Not stated Speak highly Don’t know spontaneous Speak Critical spontaneous 6% 5% highly Critical 4% 32% 19% 4% Speak highly Critical if 27% if asked asked 15%

I have no views one way or the other 38%

Net advocacy rating = +13

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Residents who feel more involved with council activities are considerably more likely to advocate the authority. Two in five (43%) of those who agree that the council keeps them well informed would speak highly, as would 46% of those who agree that they can influence decisions in their local area and 58% of those who believe that the council takes account of their views when making decisions.

Understandably, those who have had a recent negative experience with the council are less likely than the average resident to speak highly of it and more likely to be critical. Of those who have made a complaint to the council in the past year, just 24% would speak highly of the council, while 34% are critical.

8 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Substantial differences in advocacy also emerge among demographic subgroups.

Age As Ipsos MORI regularly finds, older residents tend to think better of their local authority than younger residents. This is no different for Hillingdon – 42% of over 55s would speak highly of the council, compared to just 23% of 35-54 year olds and 35% of 18-34 year olds.

The 35-54 group are significantly more likely than average to be negative (24% would speak critically). Again, this is in line with results we see elsewhere in the country.

Ethnicity BME residents are less likely to criticize the council – just one in ten (11%) would be critical of the council, whereas one in five white residents (21%) would. This result appears to emanate mainly from the Asian population, who are more favourable to the council overall (+29 net speak highly) than white residents (+10).

Work status Those not working full time are more likely to speak highly of the council than those in full-time work (35% compared to 30%). Notably, those in the former group are also more likely to receive housing or council tax benefit than those in the latter (25% compared to 11%).

Tenure Those in privately rented accommodation are much less likely to speak highly than residents living in owner-occupied properties, or properties owned by the council/housing associations (23% compared to 34% and 36% respectively). In addition, those renting from private landlords are more likely to be critical of the council than average (24% would speak critically). 1.2 Detailed aspects of the Council’s image Two areas where residents consider the authority to perform especially well are being helpful when they contact it (+42 net agree) and doing its best to protect the environment (+37).

In addition, considerably more residents agree than disagree that Hillingdon Council represents the interests of residents to central government (+26 net agree), and works well with other public service organisations (+25).

Areas where respondents perceive the council to perform relatively less well – although still on balance positive – include being well run (+18 net agree), giving good value for money (+14), taking account of residents’ views when making decisions (+5) and doing enough for people like them (+2).

9 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Although the difference in methodology make any comparison indicative only2, the rating for value for money appears to be in line with that for outer London boroughs generally. The average for outer London boroughs in the annual London survey for 2006/07 (the most recent for which we have available data) is 36% saying their authority offers value for money either “a great deal” or “to some extent”.

Attitudes towards the Council

Q2 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? The Council… % Agree % Disagree Net +/-

...is helpful when you contact it 57 15 +42

...does its best to protect the environment 51 14 +37 …represents the interests of residents to +26 central government 38 12 …works well with other organisations that +25 provide public services 32 7 …is well run 32 14 +18 …gives local people good value for money 35 21 +14 …takes account of residents' views when making decisions 29 24 +5 …does enough for people like me 30 28 +2

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Unsurprisingly, residents who feel well-informed about the council are far more likely to agree that the authority gives good value for money (45% compared to 14% for those who do not feel well-informed). This is also true for those who agree they can influence local decisions, with 54% of this group agreeing that value for money is provided, compared to just 20% among those who do not believe they can influence local decisions.

Once more, breakdowns by demographic subgroup show some interesting differences.

Gender Men are more likely than women to disagree that the council gives good value for money (26% compared to 18%).

Age As before, the 35-54 age band is considerably more negative about the council’s performance than residents over 55. In particular, the 35-54 group show net disagreement with the statements, the council does enough for people like me (-9 net disagree), the council takes account of residents’ views when making decisions (-1), and the council gives local people good value for money (-*).

2 The TNS annual London survey uses a face-to-face methodology.

10 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Ethnicity Again, Hillingdon’s BME residents are more likely to praise several aspects of the council’s performance than white residents. With many aspects of performance, this subgroup difference is more pronounced than the differences in advocacy. More BME residents than white residents agree that the council does its best to protect the environment (63% compared to 49%), the council is well run (43% compared to 30%) and that it works well with other public service organizations (42% compared to 30%).

Work status Residents who are not in full-time work are significantly more positive than average in their image of the council. They are more likely to agree (and less likely to disagree) than those working full time that the council gives good value for money (+23 net agree compared to +2 net agree).

Moreover, those working full time show net disagreement that the authority does enough for people like them (-9 net disagree), while those not working full time show net agreement with this statement (+10 net agree).

Tenure A larger net proportion (+25 net agree) of those renting from the council or from a housing association believe that the council gives good value for money than do those who own their properties (+11) and those who rent privately (+5). In addition, residents renting private accommodation are much less likely than average to show net agreement that the council does enough for people like them (-11 net disagree).

11 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Part 2: Council Priorities

2.1 Sustainable community strategy priorities Safety and the quality of the environment feature as the most important issues among residents, when presented with the council’s seven broad priority themes. Around three in four cite both of these as most important.

Social and health-related services are the next most important, with around three in five citing improved health, housing & social care and support for children.

Relatively less important – although still mentioned by around one in three – are learning & culture, opportunities for all and a prosperous borough.

The Council’s priorities

Q6 In our Council Plan 'Fast Forward to 2010' we have listed seven priority areas. Which, if any, of the following priority areas do you think should be most important for Hillingdon Council to focus attention on in order to meet our objectives mentioned above?

A safer borough 81% A clean and attractive borough 76% A borough which improves health, housing and social care 60% A borough where children and young people are healthy, safe and supported 58% A borough of learning and culture 33% A borough where opportunities are open to all 31% A prosperous borough 30% None of these *% Don’t know 1%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Women are more likely than men to nominate health, housing & social care (65%), learning & culture (38%) and opportunities for all (35%). Over-55s are also more likely than other age groups to mention health, housing & social care (69%), and a clean & attractive borough (84%).

Residents aged 35-54 – who are the age group least satisfied with the council – are more likely than the average to prioritise the cleanliness & attractiveness of the borough (80%) and to emphasise the role of the council in contributing to healthy, safe and supported children and young people (64%).

12 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

While BME residents’ order of priorities by and large follow the same pattern as white residents, there are a number of issues which receive relatively greater emphasis: learning & culture (cited by 45% of BME residents), opportunities open to all (46%), a safe borough (88%) and a borough where children and young people are healthy. Safe and supported (69%).

The following sections detail residents’ priorities within each of these seven themes, in order of their overall stated importance.

2.2 A safer borough Creating a safe environment in general is considered to be the number one priority; while open to interpretation, this is likely to include aspects of the built environment in public spaces and where people live.

More specifically, reducing burglary, vehicle crime, assault and hate crime are cited by roughly the same proportions: approaching three in four residents.

Traffic-related issues – reducing the number of road accidents and reducing congestion – are considered among the most important by just under half of residents.

Residents’ priorities for making Hillingdon safer

Q10 Which, if any, of the following aspects do you feel the Council should focus on in order to help make Hillingdon a safer borough?

Creating a safe environment 77%

Reducing burglary and vehicle crime 73%

Reducing assault and hate crime 70% Reducing the number of accidents on our 46% roads Reducing traffic congestion 45%

Other 7%

None of these *%

Don’t know 2%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Women are more likely than men to cite both reducing assault (73%) and reducing traffic accidents (51%). Over half of residents with children also mention reducing traffic accidents (54%).

13 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

2.3 A clean & attractive borough The top priority under this theme is making Hillingdon a cleaner and greener place, mentioned by nearly three in four residents.

Closely connected to this is the wish to protect and enhance the green belt, along with the borough’s heritage and natural environment – mentioned by three in five.

A similar proportion cite reducing traffic congestion and improving transport access to places in the borough, while planning and development issues also receive a high number of mentions – with half citing preventing inappropriate developments and a quarter specifically calling for the council’s planning enforcement service to be strengthened.

One in three say that engaging residents in improving street scene services is among the most important things for the council and partners to promote. Although only 23% mention the continuance of the Chrysalis environmental programme, this may at least in part be down to a lack of recognition of the initiative.

A clean and attractive borough

Q7 Which, if any, of these do you think are the most important for Hillingdon Council to achieve?

Make Hillingdon a cleaner, greener borough 72% Protect and enhance the borough’s heritage and natural environment, especially the green belt 59% Improve access and transport, and relieve traffic congestion 56% Improve planning and developments, and resist inappropriate development 52% Engage local residents in setting and monitoring standards to improve Street Scene 34% Strengthen the Council's planning enforcement 27% service Continue our Chrysalis environmental programme to 23% help improve the image of our borough Other 6% None of these *% Don’t know 2%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Reflecting the higher level of priority given overall to the borough’s cleanliness, over-55s tend to place greater emphasis upon all the issues listed (with the exception of the Chrysalis programme, where they are in line with the average).

14 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

2.4 A borough with improving health, housing & social care The publicity given to recent hospital closures may feature in the call for local health services to be protected – mentioned by nearly four in five residents (and rising to 87% of over-55s). Again housing and social care also feature strongly, with 60% prioritising the need for good quality access to these services.

Financial aspects come next in importance, with around half calling for the council to work with PCTs to minimise the effect of budget deficits upon local services, and for help to be given to first time homebuyers.

Although last in relative importance, increasing the number of affordable homes in the borough is seen as among the most critical issues by a significant minority of 40%.

Among those who are currently renting private accommodation, over three in five (62%) consider increasing affordable housing one of the most important priorities, with 63% citing support for first time homebuyers – in fact these two issues are the most important of any in this list for these residents.

Health, housing and social care

Q18 Which, if any, of the following priorities do you feel are most important for Hillingdon Council to focus attention on in order to meet our objective as listed below?

Protect local health services for our residents 78% Improve the quality of life, independence, choice and access to good quality health, housing and social care 60% Work with the primary care trust to minimise the effect on local services caused by their budget deficit 49% Support first time homebuyers 46% Increase the provision of key worker and affordable homes in Hillingdon 40% Other 3% None of these 1%

Don’t know 3%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

15 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

2.5 A borough where children & young people are healthy, safe & supported Around half or more of all residents consider each of the issues listed under this category to be high in importance, with less variation than for most other themes.

Increasing youth activities and improving educational standards are seen as most important overall, but are closely followed by support for healthy living and a general improvement in quality of life for children and young people.

Improving the quality of early years and childcare provision is cited by 48% of residents overall; while this rises to 60% among 25-34 year olds, it still ranks (slightly) lower than the other listed priorities.

A borough where children and young people are healthy, safe and supported Q25 Which, if any of these, do you think are the most important for Hillingdon Council to focus on in order to meet our objectives?

Increase the provision of youth activities 67%

Improve the performance of Hillingdon children at 66% all stages of education

Support children to be healthy 62%

Improve the quality of life for all our children and 61% young people, including those in the council’s care Improve the quality of early years and childcare provision 48%

Other 4%

None of these 1%

Don’t know 6%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

2.6 A borough of learning, culture & leisure Developing and improving education at school is seen as most important under this theme – reflecting the importance attached to school-aged children’s education seen in the previous theme around more general support for children. This is mentioned by 63% of residents overall, and rises to 69% among the 35-54 age group.

The other issues listed are viewed as important by similar proportions of residents: expanding cultural and sports activities in general shares the same level of importance as improving opportunities for older people specifically, while almost as many call for new facilities and support for remaining age groups (i.e. ‘adults’).

16 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

This said – as might be expected – there is greater support for expanding opportunities for older people among over-55s (66%) – making this the top priority among this age group. Expanding cultural and sports activities in general receives a higher level of support from BME residents than among white residents (62% vs. 48%).

Maintaining local heritage is considered important by a slightly lower proportion of residents overall (44%) – although this rises to 52% among over-55s and to 48% among BME residents.

Leisure

Q14 Which, if any, of the following things do you feel are most important for Hillingdon Council to focus on in order to help ensure that local residents develop and broaden their knowledge and embrace new leisure pursuits?

Developing and improving education in our schools 63% Expanding opportunities for older people to participate in leisure, recreation and cultural activities 51% Expanding cultural and sports activities 50% Supporting adult and community learning, including new facilities 47% Maintaining our local heritage 44% Other 4%

None of these 1%

Don’t know 7%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

2.7 A borough where opportunities are open to all General support for elderly and disabled citizens is seen as more important than either improving access to services or encouraging community cohesion through the distribution of services according to need.

There is however a call from over half for equal opportunities when employing local people, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

17 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Opportunities for all

Q21 Which, if any, of the following priorities do you feel are most important for Hillingdon Council to focus attention on in order to meet our objective as listed above?

Support older and disabled people 67%

Employ people throughout the borough regardless of sex, age, race or sexual orientation 55%

Improve access to services and employment for 45% the elderly, disable and minority groups Encourage community engagement and cohesion by providing services fairly and based solely on need 39%

Other 2%

None of these 2%

Don’t know 7%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

When exploring attitudes towards particular types of services for older people, the most popular ideas are for council tax freezes and support for victims of burglaries, such as free alarm fitting. Both of these are classed as important by over four in five residents, and as very important by half or more (in the case of a council tax freeze this rises to 81% of over-55s who consider it very important).

A dedicated action plan to take forward decisions made at the older people’s assembly also receives considerable support, with three in five thinking it important, outweighing those thinking it not important by a ratio of four to one. Over one in three over-55s (37%) think this very important, and nearly two in three (64%) important overall.

Although a slightly higher proportion of residents – 64% – think it important to provide dedicated parking bays for older people under the brown badge scheme, one in four think this unimportant (24%), the highest for all five suggestions listed. Among over-55s, 75% consider this important and 11% unimportant.

A clear majority of residents overall also think an older person’s initiative fund to be important; while this is a little lower than the other suggestions at 57%, only 14% say it is not important.

18 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Supporting older people

Q22 In delivering our support for older people we have identified a number of possible actions. To what extent, if at all do you feel that each of the following is important? % Important % Unimportant Net +/- Support for victims of burglaries; 85 7 +78 e.g free alarm fitting

Council Tax freeze for over 65's 84 7 +77 Older peoples plan, to take forward views of older people's 61 15 +46 assembly Dedicated older people's 57 14 initiative fund +43 Dedicated parking bays for older 64 24 people (brown badge scheme) +40

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Ability to influence decisions When looking at actively influencing decisions at local level, fewer residents overall agree they can do so than disagree. However, there has been a positive shift since the last round of BVPI results (in 2006/07) from 34% agree to 44%.

The over-55 age group are most likely to agree (51%), as are those who do not work (50%). A higher proportion of BME than white residents agree (58% vs. 41%). However there are no significant differences by whether a resident is disabled, has children in the household, or by type of tenure.

Local decision-making

Q23 To what extent do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area? Definitely Definitely agree disagree 18% 11% 56% 45% Disagree Agree 34% Tend to Tend to 38% agree disagree

Net agree = - 11

Base: All valid responses (848). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

19 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

2.8 A prosperous borough Residents believe on the whole that there should be efforts made to match local people with local jobs – and given the current economic climate this is likely to become increasingly important. Also particularly important - and again connected to local supply and demand – is the need to keep large local companies in situ, and to improve the skills of the local workforce.

The council’s direct role in supporting local business is also emphasised by the 54% who call for the authority to use small local firms for its services where at all possible.

Just under a half of residents call for the council to work with the LSP and others to secure inward investment, while a third cite consultation specifically with local businesses in relation to regenerating the local economy.

A prosperous borough

Q20 Which, if any, of the following priorities do you feel are most important for Hillingdon Council to focus attention on in order to meet our objective as listed below? Improve and enhance employment opportunities for local people 62% Ensure large employers are retained within the borough 57% Support small, local companies to provide services 54% to the council where financially viable Improve skills training for local people 54% Work in partnership with a range of partners to secure investment in the local area 48% Consult the business community and other organisations, recognising the role of business in 33% delivering regeneration Other 3%

None of these 1%

Don’t know 7%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

20 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Volunteering Looking at voluntary work, which can be taken as one measure of the social capital within a community, 14% of survey respondents say they have taken part in such unpaid activity over the past year, against 82% who say they have not.

Interestingly, the 35-54 age group (least likely to be satisfied with the council) have the highest proportion of volunteers (18%), closely followed by over-55s (17%). Conversely only eight per cent of under-35s currently volunteer.

Volunteering

Q24 Have you taken part in voluntary work in the last 12 months? Not stated (1%)

Don’t know Yes 3% 14%

82% No

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

21 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Part 3: Council Services

3.1 Waste and recycling services Positively, most Hillingdon residents are satisfied with the waste and recycling services provided by Hillingdon Council.

Waste and recycling services

Q8 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following environmental services that Hillingdon Council provides?

% Satisfied % Dissatisfied Net +/- Base

Household waste collection 93 5 +88 1,055

Doorstep recycling 83 12 +71 975

Civic amenity sites / local tip 79 7 +72 859

Local recycling facilities 76 13 +63 894

Base: all valid responses. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Household waste collection Almost all (93%) residents are satisfied with the household waste collection service – just one in twenty (5%) are dissatisfied.

While satisfaction ratings are broadly consistent across most key subgroups, older residents aged 55 and over are most likely to be very satisfied with the service (71% of residents aged 55 and over are very satisfied compared to 45% of middle aged residents, and 43% of residents aged under 35).

Satisfaction ratings have also improved significantly when compared with BVPI results from 2006/7 and from 2003/4. In both rounds of the BVPI surveys, while around four fifths of local residents were satisfied with the waste collection service (81% in 2003/4 and 78% in 2006/7), over nine in ten residents (93%) are now satisfied with the service. Levels of dissatisfaction have halved when compared to the 2006/7 BVPI survey results.

It is also very encouraging to note that those who are very satisfied with the service have more than doubled since 2006 from 24% to 52%.

22 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Household waste collection

Q8a How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with…household waste collection?

Very Fairly dissatisfied dissatisfied Very %% Neither / nor 3% satisfied 2006/7 2003/4 2% 2% Satisfaction Very satisfied 24 24 Fairly satisfied 54 57 Neither/nor 12 11 41% 52% Fairly dissatisfied 7 6 Very dissatisfied 4 2 Fairly satisfied Net satisfied +67 +73

Net satisfied = +88

Base: all valid responses (1,055). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

The chart below shows just how much satisfaction ratings have increased compared with just two years ago – net satisfaction ratings have improved from +67 points in 2006, to +88 points in 2008 – a significant improvement.

Household waste collection

Q8aSatisfaction How satisfied or dissatisfied with Waste are you with…household Collection waste collection?

Net satisfied + 100

90 2008

80 2003/4 70 2006/7

60 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year surveyed Base: all valid responses (1,055). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

23 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Doorstep recycling As with satisfaction ratings of the household waste collection service, satisfaction ratings with doorstep recycling services have also improved significantly when compared against BVPI results from 2006/7 and 2003/4.

While three quarters (76%) of residents were satisfied with the service in 2006, this has increased to over four fifths (83%) of residents in 2008. Levels of dissatisfaction however, have remained consistent over the period with around one in eight residents being negative about the service.

Doorstep recycling

Q8b How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with…doorstep recycling?

Very Fairly dissatisfied Very %% dissatisfied satisfied 2006/7 2003/4 7% Neither / nor 5% Satisfaction 6% Very satisfied 30 30 Fairly satisfied 46 46 49% Neither/nor 10 14 Fairly dissatisfied 8 5 34% Very dissatisfied 6 6 Fairly satisfied Net satisfied +62 +65

Net satisfied = +71

Base: all valid responses (975). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

What is also very noticeable when compared against BVPI survey findings is that half (49%) of residents are now very satisfied with the service, up from three in ten residents just two years ago.

And while satisfaction ratings are again broadly similar across key subgroups there are some significant differences:

• residents aged 55 and over are more likely to be satisfied (94% of those aged 55 and over are satisfied compared to 81% of residents aged between 35 and 54, and 75% of those aged 34 and under)

• three in ten (29%) of those who rent their home from a private landlord are dissatisfied compared to just 12% of residents overall)

• while almost all (92%) of those who feel that the council provides value for money are satisfied, this falls to three quarters (74%) of those who do not feel that the council does not provide value for money

24 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

• just 7% of those who are informed are dissatisfied with the service compared to a quarter (25%) of uninformed residents.

The chart below further illustrates the improvements in satisfaction ratings compared with BVPI survey findings from 2006/7. Satisfaction ratings are clearly going in the right direction.

Doorstep recycling

Q8bSatisfaction How satisfied or dissatisfied with Waste are you with…doorstep Collection recycling?

Net satisfied + 80

2008 70

2003/4 60 2006/7

40 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year surveyed Base: all valid responses (975). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

25 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Local recycling facilities Three quarters (75%) of residents are satisfied with local recycling facilities – one in eight (13%) are dissatisfied. Ratings compare favourably when compared with BVPI survey results from 2006/7 and from 2003/4, especially in terms of the proportion who are very satisfied.

Local recycling facilities

Q8c How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with…local recycling facilities?

Very Fairly dissatisfied Very %% dissatisfied satisfied 2006/7 2003/4 5% 8% Satisfaction Neither / nor 31% Very satisfied 17 18 11% Fairly satisfied 45 46 Neither/nor 21 20 Fairly dissatisfied 12 11 Very dissatisfied 5 5 Fairly satisfied 44% Net satisfied +45 +48

Net satisfied = +62

Base: all valid responses (894). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Three in ten (31%) residents are now very satisfied with these facilities – up from one in six (17%) residents just two years ago.

Local recycling facilities

Q8cSatisfaction How satisfied or dissatisfied with Waste are you with…local Collection recycling facilities?

Net satisfied + 80

70 2008 60

50 2003/4 2006/7

20 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year surveyed Base: all valid responses (894). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

26 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

However, there are again some differences in satisfaction ratings by key subgroup:

• residents aged 55 and over are more likely to be satisfied (86% of those aged 55 and over are satisfied compared to 73% of residents aged between 35 and 54, and 70% of residents aged between 18 and 34)

• as with doorstep recycling facilities, private renters are again more likely to be dissatisfied – a third (32%) of those who rent their home privately are dissatisfied compared to just one in eight (13%) of residents overall

• nine in ten (89%) of those who feel that the Council itself is well run are satisfied with local recycling facilities. However, of those who do not feel that the Council is well run, just two thirds (64%) of these residents are satisfied with the service

• perceived value for money also has an impact on how residents perceive the service. Those who do not feel that the council provides value for money are four times more likely than those who feel that the council does provide value to be dissatisfied with the service (23% and 8% are dissatisfied respectively).

Local tips Four fifths (79%) of residents are satisfied with civic amenity sites provided by Hillingdon Council – just one in fourteen (7%) residents are dissatisfied. While the same proportion of residents were dissatisfied with this service in 2006/7 and in 2003/4, it is noticeable that the proportion of those being very satisfied has increased from around a quarter of residents to a third of residents this year.

Civic amenity sites

Q8d How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with…civic amenity sites?

Fairly Very dissatisfied dissatisfied Very %% satisfied 2006/7 2003/4 5%2% Neither / nor Satisfaction 14% 33% Very satisfied 27 25 Fairly satisfied 50 53 Neither/nor 17 18 Fairly dissatisfied 5 3 Very dissatisfied 2 2 Fairly satisfied 46% Net satisfied +70 +73

Net satisfied = +72

Base: all valid responses (859). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

27 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

As with other waste services, older people are again more likely than their younger counterparts to be satisfied (86% of residents aged 55 and over are satisfied compared to 79% of those aged between 35 and 54, and 72% of those aged between 18 and 34). Other differences by subgroup include:

• white residents are more likely than BME residents to be satisfied (82% of white residents and 67% of black residents are satisfied respectively)

• almost nine in ten (88%) of those who feel that the council offers value for money are satisfied with the service. This compares with three quarters (74%) of those who do not feel that the authority provides value

• informed residents are also more likely than their uninformed counterparts to be satisfied (82% of informed residents and 71% of uninformed residents are satisfied with local civic amenity sites). 3.2 Have environmental services improved? As the chart below shows, residents are more likely to feel that environmental services have improved than have deteriorated over the past 12 months. And overall, the picture is one of stability with most residents feeling that the services have neither improved nor got worse. This can be taken as positive given the high satisfaction ratings these services receive.

Rating of environmental services

Q9 Do you feel that each of the following environmental services has got better, got worse, or stayed about the same compared to 12 months ago?

% Got better % Neither / nor % Got worse Base

Doorstep recycling 29 64 7 924

Local recycling facilities 23 70 6 808

Household waste collection 21 75 4 1,015

Civic amenity sites/local tip 16 81 4 770

The planning service 16 72 12 426

Base: all valid responses. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Positively, three in ten (29%) residents feel that doorstep recycling has improved, compared to just one in fourteen (7%) residents who feel that the service has got worse.

28 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

However, it is noticeable that women are twice as likely as men to feel that the service has got worse (9% of women and 4% of men think that the service has got worse). Residents aged 55 and over are more likely to feel that the service has neither improved nor deteriorated (67% of residents aged 55 and over compared to 64% of residents as a whole).

While most residents (70%) feel that local recycling facilities have neither improved nor deteriorated, it is encouraging to find that four times as many residents are positive as negative when asked about the service – 23% cite improvements compared to just 6% who feel that the service has worsened.

Residents are also more likely to feel that household waste collection has improved than to feel that it has deteriorated - one in five residents (21%) think the service has got better, while just one in twenty-five (4%) residents think that the service has got worse.

Few residents feel that civic amenity sites have got worse – just 4% are negative here. And more also feel that that planning service has improved than has got worse – an encouraging finding.

3.3 The planning service Just over two fifths (44%) of residents are satisfied with the planning service – one in seven (15%) are dissatisfied.

The planning service

Q8e How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with…the planning service?

Very Very dissatisfied %% Fairly satisfied 2006/7 2003/4 dissatisfied 5% 8% 10% Satisfaction Very satisfied 5 2 Fairly satisfied 19 15 Neither/nor 64 73 Neither / 36% nor Fairly dissatisfied 6 7 42% Very dissatisfied 6 4 Fairly satisfied Net satisfied +12 +6

Net satisfied = +29

Base: all valid responses (885). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Encouragingly, satisfaction ratings have been increasing over the past few years from a low of just 17% satisfied in 2003/4.

29 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

The planning service

Q8eSatisfaction How satisfied or dissatisfied with Waste are you with…the Collection planning service?

Net satisfied + 40

30 2008

20 2006/7 10 2003/4

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year surveyed Base: all valid responses (859). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008 3.4 Community safety Residents were asked about how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with a range of measures implemented by Hillingdon Council in terms of making the borough safer. Around half are satisfied with improving road safety through the introduction of new pedestrian crossings, the introduction of safer neighbourhood teams, and the level of CCTV in the borough.

A safer borough

Q11 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following ways in which Hillingdon Council aims to make the borough safer?

% Satisfied % Not satisfied Net +/- Improving road safety through the introduction +44 of new pedestrian crossings 52 8

Introduction of safer neighbourhood teams, +42 street champions, and estate champions 48 6

The level of CCTV in the borough 48 13 +35 Improving the well-being of older people and vulnerable people through a range of repairs 42 6 +36 and security arrangements to homes Joint funding for the installation of alley gates 33 5 +28

Reducing crime in our car parks 37 11 +26

Base: 1,086 Hillingdon residents. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

While two fifths (42%) of residents are satisfied with improving the well-being of older people through a range of repairs and security arrangements, just one in sixteen residents are dissatisfied with this.

30 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

A third (33%) of residents are satisfied with joint funding of the installation of alley gates compared to just one in twenty (5%) who are dissatisfied.

And while one in ten (11%) residents are dissatisfied with the council’s efforts to reduce crime in car parks, over three times as many (37%) are satisfied.

There are, however, some differences in opinion by key subgroup:

• Asian residents are more likely than white residents to be satisfied with the introduction of safer neighbourhood teams, street champions and estate champions (63% of Asian residents are satisfied compared to just 45% of white residents)

• 48% of residents aged 55 and over are satisfied with improving the well-being of older people and vulnerable people through a range of repairs and security improvement of homes. This compares to 42% of residents as a whole. However, one in ten (10%) older people aged 55+ are dissatisfied compared to one in twenty (5%) residents aged between 35 and 54

• Men are more likely than women to be dissatisfied with the council’s handling of reducing crime in car parks (15% of men compared to 8% of women are dissatisfied)

• BME residents are more likely than their white counterparts to be satisfied with the level of CCTV in the borough (61% of BME residents are satisfied compared to only 45% of white residents).

The impact of CCTV Two fifths (41%) of residents feel that CCTV cameras have reduced the amount of crime and disorder in town centres in the borough – around one in four (23%) disagree. A third don’t know. Asian residents are much more likely than white residents to feel that CCTV cameras have reduced crime at least to some extent (55% of Asian residents compared to just 38% of white residents

31 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Impact of CCTV in reducing crime

Q12 To what extent, if at all do you think that CCTV cameras have reduced the amount of crime and disorder in town centres in the borough? Reduced crime a great deal 7%

Don’t know 35% 41% 34% reduced crime

Reduced 23% not 7% It has not crime to reduced 16% some extent crime reduced crime at all It has not Net reduction in reduced crime crime = +18 very much Base: 1,086 Hillingdon residents. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Most (61%) feel safer at least to some extent in the knowledge that CCTV cameras are monitoring areas of the borough – one in four (25%) do not feel any safer.

Impact of CCTV on perceptions of safety

Q13 When travelling around the borough, to what extent, if at all do you feel safer knowing that CCTV cameras are monitoring areas of the borough? Not stated I feel a lot Don’t know 2% safer 11% 14%

I don’t feel safer 25%

47% I feel a little safer Net safer = +36

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

There are not many differences in opinion by subgroup, although it is middle- aged residents (aged between 35 and 54) who are more likely to say that they do not feel any safer (29% of these residents do not feel any safer)

32 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

3.5 Learning, cultural and leisure services Around three quarters (77%) of residents are satisfied with the provision of local libraries – just one in sixteen residents (6%) are dissatisfied. Satisfaction ratings compare favourably to BVPI results in 2006/7 and in 2003/4 when around two thirds (68% in 2006/7 and 67% in 2003/4) of residents were satisfied with these facilities.

Satisfaction with cultural and leisure activities

Q15 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services provided by Hillingdon Council?

% Satisfied % Not satisfied Net +/- +71 Libraries 77 6

Theatres 67 7 +60

Parks & open spaces 67 16 +51

Adult education facilities 45 15 +30

Sports / leisure facilities & 45 26 events +19

Base: all valid responses. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Most residents are also satisfied with the provision of theatres (67% satisfied) and parks & open spaces (also 67% satisfied). Satisfaction with parks has increased by four percentage points when compared to 2006/7 BVPI results. More noticeable, however, is that satisfaction levels with theatres have improved significantly from just 30% satisfied in 2006/7 to 67% satisfied now.

Just under half of residents are satisfied with adult education facilities, and also sports & leisure facilities & events. However, while satisfaction with sports & leisure facilities has increased by six percentage points when compared to 2006/7 BVPI survey findings, it is important to point out that levels of dissatisfaction with this service have been rising significantly from 14% dissatisfied in 2003/4 to 20% dissatisfied two years ago, to 26% this year. This will warrant further investigation by the authority to find out the reasons for increasing levels of dissatisfaction with this service.

The following chart shows frequency of using cultural and leisure services within the past 12 months. Most residents (69%) have used parks & open spaces, and over half (55%) have frequented a library. Around a third (34%) have used sporting and leisure facilities, and three in ten have visited a theatre. Just one in ten (10%) have used adult education facilities.

33 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Usage of cultural and leisure facilities

Q16 Which, if any, of the following learning, cultural and leisure provided by Hillingdon Council have you used in the last 12 months?

Parks & open spaces 69%

Libraries 55%

Sports / leisure facilities & events 34%

Theatres 30%

Adult education facilities 10%

None of these 12%

Don't know 3%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Differences by subgroup include:

• 72% of white residents have used parks & open spaces compared to just 58% of BME residents within the past 12 months

• Six in ten (60%) women have used local libraries compared to just half (49%) of men. And two thirds (66%) of households with children aged under 16 have frequented a library compared to just over half (54%) of those without children in household

• Those who are working full-time have been more likely than those who do not work full-time to have used sports and leisure facilities (40% and 29% respectively)

• 36% of middle-aged residents, and 33% of older residents have visited the theatre compared to just 20% of residents aged between 18 and 34. White residents are also three times more likely than BME residents to have visited local theatres (34% of white residents versus just 11% of BME residents)

• Women have been twice as likely as men to have used adult education facilities (12% of women versus just 6% of men). And while 16% of BME residents have used this service, just 8% of white residents claim to have done so within the past 12 months.

34 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

User satisfaction: Sports / leisure facilities and events Around half (48%) of those who have used local sports and leisure facilities and events are satisfied with the service – three in ten (29%). It is noticeable, however, that users tend to be fairly satisfied (42%) rather than being very satisfied (7%).

Sports, leisure facilities and events

Q15a How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services provided by Hillingdon Council…sports, leisure facilities and events

% Dissatisfied% Dissatisfied % Satisfied% Satisfied

Users 29 48

(65) Non-users 24 42

All 26 45 2003/4 figures in brackets

Base: All valid responses (789). 332 valid users and 467 valid non-users Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

User satisfaction: Libraries Encouragingly, most (87%) of those who have frequented a local library within the past 12 months are satisfied with the service – a third (36%) of whom are very satisfied. While three in five (59%) non-users are satisfied with the service, just one in twelve (8%) are dissatisfied.

35 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Libraries

Q15b How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services provided by Hillingdon Council…libraries

% Dissatisfied % Satisfied % Dissatisfied % Satisfied

Users 5 87

Non-users 8 59 (65)

All 6 77 2003/4 figures in brackets

Base: All valid responses (899). 590 valid users and 309 valid non-users Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

User satisfaction: Theatres Most (90%) of those who have used the Beck and Compass theatres within the past twelve months are satisfied with these facilities – just one in fifty (2%) are negative.

Theatres

Q15c How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services provided by Hillingdon Council…theatres (Beck and Compass) % Dissatisfied % Satisfied % Dissatisfied % Satisfied

Users 2 90

Non-users 9 53 (65)

All 7 67 2003/4 figures in brackets

Base: All valid responses (809). 333 valid users and 476 valid non-users Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

36 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

User satisfaction: Parks & open spaces Seven in ten (71%) of those who have used local parks in the borough within the past twelve months are satisfied with these facilities – one in seven (15%) are dissatisfied. Users are more likely than non-users to be satisfied are shown in the following chart.

Parks & open spaces

Q15d How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services provided by Hillingdon Council…parks & open spaces % Dissatisfied % Satisfied % Dissatisfied % Satisfied

Users 15 71

Non-users 18 56 (65)

All 16 67 2003/4 figures in brackets

Base: All valid responses (936). 684 valid users and 252 valid non-users Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

User satisfaction: Adult education facilities Users of adult education facilities in the borough are three times more likely to be satisfied than dissatisfied with this service (70% satisfied and 23% dissatisfied).

Adult education facilities

Q15e How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services provided by Hillingdon Council…adult education facilities % Dissatisfied % Satisfied % Dissatisfied % Satisfied

Users 23 70

Non-users 14 41 (65)

All 15 45 2003/4 figures in brackets

Base: All valid responses (672). 108 valid users and 564 valid non-users Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

37 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Rating of cultural and leisure services While most do not think that cultural and leisure facilities have improved compared to 12 months ago, it is encouraging to find that more residents feel that the services have improved than feel that they have deteriorated.

Rating of cultural and leisure services

Q17 Do you feel that each of the following learning, cultural and leisure services has got better, got worse or stayed about the same compared to 12 months ago?

% Got better % Neither / nor % Got worse Base

Libraries 28 66 6 743

Parks & open spaces 24 60 16 790

Theatres 12 84 4 561

Adult education facilities 15 77 8 361

Sports / leisure facilities & events 15 73 13 590

Base: all valid responses. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

There are no real differences in the ratings of users and non-users of sports and leisure facilities and events (17% of users and 12% of non-users feel that this service has got better. 14% of users feel that the service has deteriorated compared to 11% of non-users.

Users are, however, much more positive about libraries than non-users. A third (35%) of those who have used a local library in the borough feel that the service has got better. This compares with just one in ten (10%) non-users.

Residents aged 55 and over are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel that theatres have improved compared to 12 months ago (15% of those aged 55 and over are positive compared to 9% of those aged 18-34). Those who have visited a local theatre within the past 12 months are twice as likely as those who have not to feel that this service has improved (16% and 8% are positive respectively).

While just one in eight (13%) of those who have visited local parks within the past 12 months feel that this service has deteriorated, a third (33%) of non-users of parks are negative.

Three in ten (29%) users of adult education services feel that this service has improved compared to one in ten (11%) non-users.

38 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

3.6 Health, housing and social care The following chart shows levels of satisfaction with health, housing and social care services provided by the council.

Residents are three times more likely to be satisfied as dissatisfied with the services the council provides for people with disabilities (25% and 8% of residents are satisfied respectively). And this rises to 33% of those who are aged 55 and over. One in four (25%) residents are also satisfied with the care provided for older people – one in eight (12%) are negative. Older people aged 55 and over are more likely to be satisfied than their younger counterparts (37% of residents aged 55 and over are satisfied compared to 16% of middle-aged residents, and 24% of younger residents).

Satisfaction with health, housing and social care services Q19 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following health, housing and social care services that Hillingdon Council provides?

% Satisfied % Not satisfied Net +/- Services for people with disabilities 25 8 +17

Care of older people 25 12 +13

Housing benefit / council tax benefit 23 11 +12 Assisting people to stay in their own +12 homes longer 19 7 (Council) Housing management 17 11 +6

Housing/homelessness advice 11 9 +2

Supporting first time buyers 12 13 -1

Base: 1,086 Hillingdon residents. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Around a quarter (23%) of residents are satisfied with housing and/or council tax benefit provided by the council – one in ten (11%) are dissatisfied. Perhaps not unexpectedly, those who are not in full time employment are more likely to be satisfied (31% are satisfied compared to 14% of those in full-time employment). Those not in full-time employment will have been more likely to have used this service given its nature.

While satisfaction levels appear to be relatively low, this is because many respondents are neutral, or do not have a view. Half (48%) of residents for instance do not have an opinion on housing management. By tenure, two fifths (41%) of those who rent their property from the council or housing association are satisfied and one in six (16%) are dissatisfied with this service.

Half (48%) of residents do not have an opinion on assisting people to stay in their homes for longer. However, those who are satisfied outnumber those who are dissatisfied by a ration of 3 to 1 (19% are satisfied and 7% are

39 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

dissatisfied). By tenure, social renters are more likely to be content with this service (31% are satisfied)

And while residents are as likely to be satisfied as dissatisfied with housing and homeless advice (11% satisfied and 9% dissatisfied), most (54%) do not have opinion. It is noticeable that while a quarter (24%) of social renters are satisfied, one in six (18%) are dissatisfied. And even more noticeable, a quarter (24%) of those who rent their property privately are dissatisfied.

Residents are as likely to be satisfied (as dissatisfied with council support for first time buyers (12% satisfied and 13% dissatisfied). Half (49%) do not have an opinion.

3.7 Childcare and play facilities Of those with children under 11 in household, one in five attend play group (20%), and day nursery (19%). Over two fifths (44%) do not attend any of these facilities.

Attending childcare / play facilities

Q27 Does you child or children attend any of the following childcare or play facilities in Hillingdon?

Play group 20%

Day nursery 19%

Out of school club 13%

Child minder 6%

Other 6%

None of these 44%

Don’t know 1%

Base: 190 Hillingdon residents with children aged under 11 in household. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

40 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Of those whose children attend childcare or play facilities in the borough, most (69%) are satisfied – just one in ten (10%) are dissatisfied.

Satisfaction with local childcare / play facilities

Q28 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the childcare or play facilities your child or children receive? Don’t know/Not stated 10% dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied 6% Very 4% satisfied 6% 30% 69% Neither satisfied 15% satisfied nor dissatisfied

39% Fairly satisfied Net satisfied = +59%

Base: 95 Hillingdon residents whose children use local childcare or play facilities. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Residents with young children who attend childcare and play facilities are twice as likely to feel that these services have improved as have got worse over the past 12 months.

Improvements to local childcare / play facilities

Q29 Do you think the childcare or play facilities your child or children have received have improved, stayed the same, or got worse over the last 12 months?

Don’t know/Not stated 21% 22% Improved

Got worse 11%

46% Stayed the same Net improvement = +11

Base: 95 Hillingdon residents whose children use local childcare or play facilities. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

41 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Of those who have young children, but do not attend childcare or play facilities in borough, the main reason for non attendance is cost.

Reasons for not using local childcare / play facilities

Q30 What, in your opinion would you say are the barriers preventing your child or children from accessing these services?

Cost 30%

Not enough places 12%

Distance / location 7%

Other 23%

None of these 20%

Don’t know 9%

Base: 79 Hillingdon residents whose children use local childcare or play facilities. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

42 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

3.8 Primary schools Most (86%) residents whose children attend primary schools in the borough are satisfied with the quality of education their child receives – just 3% are dissatisfied. This is very encouraging given that a recent survey by TNS across London in 2006 showed that 68% of users of primary schools were satisfied with primary school education provision.

Satisfaction with primary school education

Q32 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of primary school education you child or children receives in the borough? Very dissatisfied 2% Don’t know/Not stated Fairly dissatisfied 1%

Neither satisfied nor 4% dissatisfied 7%

41% Very satisfied

45% Fairly satisfied Satisfied 86% Dissatisfied 3% Net satisfaction = +83

Base: 108 Hillingdon residents whose children attend primary school. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

43 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

And residents with primary school age children are much more likely to feel that the quality of education their child receives has improved as opposed to having deteriorated.

The quality of primary school education

Q33 And thinking about the quality of primary school education your child or children receive in the borough, would you say this has improved, stayed the same, or got worse within the past 12 months? Not stated 3% Don’t know 16% 33% Improved Got worse 5%

44% Stayed the same Net improvement = +28 Base: 108 Hillingdon residents whose children attend primary school. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

3.9 Secondary schools Most of those whose have children attending secondary schools in the borough are satisfied with the quality of secondary school education their children receives – just one in seven are dissatisfied.

Eating with secondary school education

Q36 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of secondary school education you child or children receives in Hillingdon? Don’t know/Not stated 15% Very dissatisfied disagree Very satisfied Fairly dissatisfied 7%2% 8% Neither satisfied 28% nor dissatisfied 6% 77% agree

49% Fairly satisfied

Net satisfied = +62

Base: 97 Hillingdon residents whose children attend secondary school. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

44 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

One in four (26%) residents whose children attend secondary school feel that the quality of the education provided has improved – one in six (18%) feel that it has deteriorated.

The quality of secondary school education

Q37 And thinking about the quality of secondary school education your child or children receive in the borough, would you say this has improved, stayed the same, or got worse within the past 12 months? Not stated Don’t know 6%3% Got worse 26% Improved 18%

48% Stayed the same Net improved = +8 Base: 97 Hillingdon residents whose children attend secondary school. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

3.10 Post-16 education and training Just 51 respondents to the survey have a child or children aged 16+ who attend secondary school or college in the borough. Of these, most (62%) are satisfied with the information on options for post-16 education or employment their child or children receive. One in ten (10%) are dissatisfied.

Information on options for post 16 education or employment Q40 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the information on options for post-16 education or employment which your child or children aged 16 or over receive? Don’t know/Not stated Very dissatisfied 10% Fairly dissatisfied 4% Very dissatisfied 2% satisfied 8% 16%

Neither satisfied 62% nor dissatisfied 24% satisfied

46% Fairly satisfied Net satisfied = 52% Base: 51 Hillingdon residents who have children aged 16+ in household. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

45 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

And of those who do have children aged 16+ who attend secondary school or college in the borough, three times as many think that the information on post- 16 options has improved as think it has got worse.

Information on post-16 options

Q41 Do you think the information on options for post-16 education or employment they received has improved, stayed the same, or got worse within the past 12 months?

Improved Don’t know/Not stated 17% 23%

Got worse 5%

55% Stayed the same Net improved = +12

Base: 51 Hillingdon residents who have children aged 16+ in household. Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

3.11 Facilities for young people Just one in ten (10%) residents are satisfied with the provision of youth clubs and other facilities provided or supported by Hillingdon Council – over twice as many (22%) are dissatisfied. Half (48%), however, don’t know.

Satisfaction with facilities for young people

Q42 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with youth clubs and other facilities for young people provided or supported by Hillingdon Council? Very satisfied Children in household under 16 yrs Fairly dissatisfied %% 1% 9% Yes No Satisfaction 14% Neither / nor Don’t Very satisfied 3 2 know/ Not 53% Fairly satisfied 10 9 stated 12% Neither/nor 15 15 Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied 17 12 10% Very dissatisfied 13 9 Don’t know 40 50 Very dissatisfied Net satisfied -17 -10 Net satisfied = -12

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

46 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

There are some differences by key demographic subgroup:

• Men are more likely than women to not have an opinion (53% of men don’t know compared to 44% of women)

• 28% of middle-aged residents are dissatisfied compared to 22% of residents as a whole

• Three in ten residents with children in household are dissatisfied compared to two fifths of those who do not have children (30% and 21% are dissatisfied respectively)

• Those who feel that the Council provides value for money are three times more likely than those who disagree to be satisfied with provision of facilities for young people (18% and 6% are satisfied respectively)

47 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Part 4: Communications

4.1 How well informed do residents feel? The authority appears to have made tremendous strides in its information provision. Three in four survey respondents (75%) say they feel well informed; this compares to just 40% in the 2006/07 BVPI survey.

Keeping residents informed

Q3 How well do you think Hillingdon Council keeps residents informed about the services and benefits it provides? Not informed at all Very well Uninformed informed 25% 6% Not very 19% well 19% informed Informed 75%

Fairly well 56% informed

Net informed = +50 Base: All valid responses excluding Don’t know and Not stated (985). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008 Residents aged 55+ feel better informed (80%) about council services and benefits than average, while fewer 35-54s feel well-informed (71%).

Those with children under 16 in the household are also much less likely to feel well informed (66%) than those without children (76%), and are much more likely than average to feel uninformed (34%).

4.2 Methods of communication Preferences Residents’ preferences are for regular information about council products and services. It is encouraging that the majority of residents (65%) say their preferred source for finding out about council services is the council magazine “Hillingdon People”.

While readership of “Hillingdon People” is fairly high overall, it is markedly higher than average among those renting from the Council or a housing association (78%) and among 55+ residents (75%).

48 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Two in five (39%) cite the council’s website as a preferred source as well – the second most popular choice. Overall, council website usage is much higher than average among the young (52% and 47% for 18-34s and 35-54s respectively), the BME population (51%), those in full-time work (51%) and those with children (46%).

Conversely, the website is a less-preferred information source for older residents (17% for the 55+ age group), people in Council/HA housing (18%) and those with a disability in the household (27%).

Preferred sources of information

Q5 When finding out about local services Hillingdon Council provides, from which one or two of these sources would you prefer to receive the information?

“Hillingdon People” magazine 65% Hillingdon Council website 39% Local A-Z directories of services 19% Local media, leaflets and posters 19% Council tax leaflet and summary of our performance 14% Street champions 8% Community events 3% Other 2% None of these 1% Don’t know 3%

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

The council’s A-Z directory of services comes joint third, along with local media, leaflets and posters, both mentioned by 19%, and these are followed by the summary of the council’s performance contained within the annual council tax leaflet.

Fewer than one in ten cite Street Champions and community events such as Council Question Time; this may in part reflect less awareness of these feedback mechanisms, as well as issues of access.

The 55+ age group tends to use a wider range of information sources – this group is more likely than average to find its information in A-Z directories (25%), in council tax leaflets (19%) and via Street Champions (10%). That over- 55s use a greater variety of information channels may explain why older residents feel more informed and 35-54s less informed about the Council.

49 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Ratings for council and other local publications The perceived usefulness of local publications reflect residents’ preferences, in that the “Hillingdon People” is most favourably regarded by some margin (77% see it as useful and only 11% as not being useful), followed by the authority’s website (56% useful vs. 11% not useful). Indeed, one in three respondents say they find the “Hillingdon People” very useful.

The fact that the newspaper receives a higher positive rating therefore appears to be due to greater awareness and/or current use, as evidenced by the same proportion saying either are not useful.

Finding out about council services

Q4 Overall, how useful do you find the following sources of information when finding out about Hillingdon Council services? % Useful % Not useful Net +/-

Hillingdon People Magazine 77 11 +66

Hillingdon Council's website 56 11 +45

Council tax leaflet and summary 55 28 of our performance +27

Local media, leaflets and posters 53 27 +26

Base: All valid responses (1,086). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Similar proportions to those citing the council website find both council tax leaflets and local media, leaflets and posters of use – however, larger numbers also say these are not useful (just over one in four residents in each case).

50 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Part 5: Customer care

5.1 Dealing with residents’ complaints Of the 25% of respondents who have contacted Hillingdon Council with a complaint in the last two years, around half (52%) express satisfaction with the way their complaint was dealt with. This compares to just over one in three (37%) who express dissatisfaction.

The proportion declaring themselves satisfied with the actual outcome is somewhat lower at 46%, and is about the same as that for those dissatisfied (48%).

Complaints handling

Q44 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with…

% Very satisfied % Fairly satisfied % Neither / nor % Fairly dissatisfied % Very dissatisfied % No opinion …the way in which your …the outcome complaint(s) was (were) handled

20% 24% 21% 36%

13% 25% 32% 10% 12% 6%

Base: All who contacted with complaint excluding No opinion and Not stated (handling: 276; outcome: 243). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

This discrepancy can be viewed as positive, in that it suggests a good standard of customer care and support, regardless of outcome.

A potential area for improvement is in dealing with complaints from those with a disability in the household, since one in two (50%) in this group are dissatisfied with the way their complaint was handled – substantially more than average. Considering that this group is also more likely than most to have had a complaint (36%), improvement here may have a relatively large effect on satisfaction scores.

5.2 Other contact with the council Three in five residents (62%) say they have contacted the council in the last couple of years for a reason other than to complain, the vast majority being via telephone – which is also overwhelmingly residents’ preferred means of communicating with the authority.

51 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

One in ten say they would prefer to contact the council through email, and the same proportion via the internet or website. The current proportions who actually use these methods is slightly below, at 5% and 7% respectively.

In general ratings for the service residents received are most positive.

Contacting the Council for other reasons

Q46 How did you contact Hillingdon Council on the last occasion that you contacted them? Q47 How would you prefer to contact Hillingdon Council? % Used % Preferred 75 Telephone 70 11 In person 6 7 Via a website/ Internet 10 5 By e-mail 10 2 By letter 2 0 SMS Text message * * Other 1 None of these 0 Base: All contacting Council other than complaint excluding Don’t know and Not stated (Q46: 644; Q47: 652). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

In relation to gaining access to the appropriate member of staff, three in four residents say they were satisfied – including 41% who were very satisfied – with being put through to the “right person to deal with” their enquiry.

Residents that rent from the council or from a housing association were noticeably less satisfied (61%) and more dissatisfied (27%) with being put through to the right person.

52 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

Finding the right person

Q49 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you in terms of being able to find the right person to deal with your enquiry when you most recently contacted Hillingdon Council?

15% Very dissatisfied dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied 9% 6% Very Neither satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied 8% 41% 76% satisfied

35% Fairly satisfied Net satisfied = +61 Base: All valid responses among those who have contacted the Council other than to make a compliant within the past two years (617). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Likewise, three in four (77%) consider the staff dealing with their enquiry helpful, including 44% who say they were very helpful. Although the proportion considering staff unhelpful is generally low (15%), this is twice as high (30%) among those renting from the council or from housing associations, which reflects their higher dissatisfaction for being put through to the right person; this may well be linked to housing-related topics, which are traditionally more complex to deal with.

Helpfulness of staff

Q51 And were the staff…

Don’t know/not stated

15% Not at all helpful Very 8% helpful unhelpful Not very 6% helpful 9% 44% 77% helpful

Fairly 33% helpful

Net helpful = +62%

Base: all who have contacted the Council other than to make a compliant within the past two years (652). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

53 2008 Hillingdon Residents’ Survey 2008

While the quality of the information given was slightly less impressive, a clear majority of 69% consider it was good, including 39% who call it very good. Once again, although fewer than one in five overall (18%) thought they were given poor information, this figure is higher among those in Council/HA accommodation (32%).

Quality of information

Q50 And was the information you were given or told?

18% Very poor poor 10% Fairly poor 8% Very good 39% Neither good 12% 69% nor poor good

30% Fairly good Net quality of information = +51

Base: All valid responses among those who have contacted the Council other than to make a compliant within the past two years (616). Postal survey. Fieldwork: 01 September to 07 November 2008

Appendices

Technical Note

Confidence intervals The respondents to the questionnaire are only a sample of the total ‘population’. We cannot therefore be certain that the figures obtained are exactly those we would have if everybody had been interviewed (the ‘true’ values). However, we can predict the variation between the sample results and the ‘true’ values from knowledge of the size of the samples on which the results are based and the number of times that a particular answer is given.

The confidence with which we can make this prediction is usually chosen to be 95% - that is, the chances are 19 in 20 that the ‘true’ value will fall within a specified range. The table below illustrates the predicted ranges for different sample sizes and percentages results at the ‘95% confidence interval’, based on a random sample.

Size of sample on Approximate sampling tolerances applicable which survey result is to percentages at or near these levels based 10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

+ + + 100 respondents 6 9 10 200 respondents 4 6 7 300 respondents 3 5 6 500 respondents 3 4 4 1,000 respondents 2 3 3 1,086 respondents 2 3 3

Thus, the confidence interval (or margin of error) is by how much the survey result could increase or decrease and still be considered to reflect the ‘true’ result that would have been recorded if everyone in the population had been surveyed.

However, it should be noted that these margins of error apply only to representative samples. Given the nature of the sample involved, results from this survey will generally have margins of error of up to double the figures contained above.

Statistical Reliability When the results are compared between separate sub-groups within a sample, different results may be obtained. The difference may be “real,” or it may occur by chance (because not everyone in the population has been surveyed). To test if the difference is a real one - i.e. if it is “statistically significant” - it is again necessary to know the total population, the size of the samples, the percentage giving a certain answer, and the degree of confidence chosen. Assuming “95% confidence interval”, the differences between the two sub-sample results must be greater than the values given in the table below:

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels

10% or 30% or 90% 70% 50%

± ± ± Size of sample on which Survey result is based

100 and 100 8 13 14 100 and 300 7 10 11 100 and 500 7 10 11 200 and 200 7 10 11 200 and 300 5 8 9 200 and 500 5 8 8 300 and 300 5 7 8 Men (437) Vs. Women (603) 4 6 6 White (829) Vs. BME (160) 5 8 9 Working full-time (398) Vs. Not working full-time (650) 4 6 6

Source: Ipsos MORI

MAYOR OF LONDON ‘ USE OF PLANNING ITEM 4 OBLIGATIONS IN THE FUNDING OF CROSSRAIL’ DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE: CONSULTATION

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Officer Contact Janet Rangeley/Ian Dunsford, Planning and Community Services

Papers with report Appendix 1: new and amended London Plan policies for Crossrail Appendix 2: LBH Response to the Consultation

HEADLINE INFORMATION Purpose of report To advise Cabinet of the Mayor’s current consultation on the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on the use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail. The report outlines the Mayor’s proposals, the implications for Hillingdon and seeks Cabinet approval of the officer’s recommended response contained in the Appendix to the report.

Contribution to our • Sustainable Community Strategy; plans and strategies • Council Plan • Emerging Local Development Framework • Air Quality Action Plan • Local Implementation Plan • Economic Development Strategy • Hillingdon’s S106 Planning Obligations SPD

Financial Cost There are no direct financial implications at this stage. Should the Mayor favour an alternative approach to using developer contributions to fund Crossrail which directly affects development in Hillingdon, this will need to be considered and reviewed further.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet notes the contents of the Mayor’s ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ draft Supplementary Planning Guidance and the implications for Hillingdon and endorses the officer response contained in Appendix 2 to the report.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 180 Reasons for recommendation

The report outlines the Mayor’s intentions for funding part of the Crossrail scheme through the use of planning obligations. Whilst funding is currently being sought from commercial developers in Central London, it is essential that Hillingdon’s views are submitted to the Mayor with regard to possible considerations of a more London wide approach to accessing developer contributions to fund Crossrail and therefore the Cabinet is requested to endorse the officer’s recommended response to meet the deadline for comments of the 6th February 2009.

Alternative options considered

1) Note the report and its implications for Hillingdon but not endorse the officer recommended response. 2) Not to respond to the consultation, which would not be in the Borough’s best interests. 3) Decline to note the content of the report and not take the recommendation forward.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None at this stage.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The Crossrail Act November 2008 provides powers to construct and maintain Crossrail. Some enabling works for the scheme have already started; full construction is expected to be underway during 2012, with services commencing in 2017. In Hillingdon, Crossrail will cross the Borough east-west along the route of existing Paddington to Bristol mainline with a branch extending along the Hayes to Heathrow spur. The project will result in two enhanced stations at West Drayton and Hayes and Heathrow and a larger rail flyover near Stockley Close/Rigby Lane (see Fig 1 in this report).

Crossrail is considered essential to the delivery of the strategic objectives of the London Plan, particularly accommodating London’s growth. The new Mayor has reaffirmed the importance of Crossrail in ‘Planning for a Better London’ (July 2008), emphasising the importance of linking economically critical places including Heathrow Airport, the West End, the City and Canary Wharf, and also to places where there will be major housing development and new communities in the Thames Gateway. The Mayor also recognises that Crossrail will help support growth in west London identified in the London Plan, will support development opportunities around Heathrow and at Hayes/West Drayton/Southall, and will assist in enhancing west London's network of town centres.

The London Plan makes clear the importance of infrastructure, including public transport, to ensuring realisation of these objectives. In particular, it highlights the strategic role for Crossrail, which consists of Crossrail 1, (which would link Heathrow airport, the West End, the City, Canary Wharf and the Thames Gateway), and Crossrail 2 (which would connect Clapham Junction and Wimbledon with Hackney). Funding is not currently available for Crossrail 2, and the proposed guidance in respect of funding only relates to Crossrail 1.

In October 2007, the then Mayor set out his proposals for securing contributions from developers in a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport. Contained in this letter was the prospect of bringing forward London Plan alterations with the aim of securing contributions

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 181 under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any other appropriate powers).

The new Mayor has adopted the same position and is proposing to introduce alterations to the London Plan which seek to set a framework consistent with Government guidance (ODPM 5/2005) for the use of planning obligations and Crossrail. The Mayor has also prepared this draft supplementary planning guidance (SPG) to accompany proposed draft alterations to the London Plan relating to the use of planning obligations/S106 agreements to raise contributions towards the funding of the Crossrail project. The Mayor is inviting comments and views to be submitted by 6th February 2009.

In summary, the new and amended London plan policies in respect of Crossrail are as follows:

• Add a new Policy 3C.12A setting a policy framework consistent with the relevant Government guidance (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 5/2005) for the use of planning obligations to raise contributions towards the funding of Crossrail, with supplementary guidance to be provided on detailed matters, including standard charges and formulae to calculate the contribution that might fairly and reasonably be sought for particular kinds of development;

• Clarify existing policies on priorities in planning obligations, making clear in particular the priority that should be given to the funding of Crossrail (Existing London Plan Policies 6A.4 and 6A.5). In addition the adopted London Plan (2008) policies 6A.4 and 6A.5 are being clarified on priorities in planning obligations, making clear that priority should be given to the funding of Crossrail. A new policy 6A.5A is also proposed relating to the Government’s introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy; and

• Look forward to the Government's introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (new London Plan Policy 6A.5A).

All of these draft policies are contained in Appendix 1 of this report.

In its final form, this SPG will be the guidance referred to in the draft Policy 3C.12A. It is being brought forward in draft form now in order to inform consultation on these draft alterations, and it is likely that it will continue to be refined as the alteration process goes forward, to take account of the comments made by consultees and of changing circumstances.

The impact, both individually and cumulatively, of development proposals will give rise to additional pressures and crowding on London’s transport infrastructure. Crossrail is vital to alleviate these pressures, and is national and regional governments’ chosen method of improving capacity. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Circular 05/2005 makes it clear that contributions can be sought to mitigate the impact of a development (Para B15) and that contributions can be pooled (Paras B21-B23). The circular (B25 and B26) requires that a policy requiring a contribution is set out in the Development Plan (in this case the London Plan) with the details left to supplementary planning guidance setting out likely levels of contribution. The Circular also provides for the use of formula and standard charges (B33-B35) to ease understanding and transparency.

The Government has made clear that it intends to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help ensure the delivery of large-scale infrastructure such as Crossrail (see section 5 below). However, at the present time the exact form of the Community Infrastructure Levy is

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 182 unclear. The guidance set out in this document will apply until such time as the Mayor issues a revision of this SPG on the implementation of these policies to accompany the introduction of CIL.

This SPG sets out: • The background and policy context for Crossrail (section 2) • The funding arrangements for Crossrail, and in particular the use of planning obligations to deliver the scheme in terms of relevant legislation and Government guidance (section 3) • Details of the standard charges and formula that will be applied to work out the contribution to be made in each case (section 4). This includes where the charge will apply, what type of development will be covered, the level at which the charge will be set, and how it will be collected and monitored • Information about the Community Infrastructure Levy (section 5)

Proposed Funding Arrangements

The funding arrangements for Crossrail were announced by Government in October 2007. The project is expected to cost £16 billion (including contingency and provision for inflation) and agreement was reached between the Government, the then Mayor and London businesses on a funding package under which each contributes approximately one third of the expected cost as follows: • The Government will provide a grant of over £5 billion through the Department for Transport during Crossrail’s construction; • Crossrail farepayers will ultimately contribute another third, with revenue servicing debt raised during construction by Transport for London and by Network Rail in respect of works on the national rail network; and • London businesses will contribute through a variety of mechanisms: i) Direct contributions have been agreed with some of the projects key beneficiaries including Canary Wharf Group, the City of London Corporation and BAA. ii) The Government has published proposals to introduce a power for local authorities to raise supplementary business rates to fund economic development. The Mayor is proposing 2p in the £ of rateable value across London from April 2010, with relief for businesses with a rateable value below £50,000, which will be used to service £3.5 billion of debt raised by the Mayor during construction. iii) The Mayor has also indicated that he envisaged securing contributions from developers, both through the use of planning obligations and once implemented the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy.

In the Heads of Terms between the Secretary of State for Transport and Transport for London (TfL), it was indicated that £300 million would be raised from contributions from development. Part of this sum will be raised in respect of development expected to come forward for planning permission before the start of construction. It is expected that approximately £200m needs to be raised by use of planning obligations through the policies and arrangements outlined in the draft SPG.

The Heads of Terms also refer to a second sum of £300m to be raised from a ‘Statutory Planning Charge’ (now referred to as the ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’). This Levy is

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 183 being introduced through the Planning Bill and, should there be a shortfall of funds by 2010, then the Government has indicated it will provide additional grant.

Fig 1. Crossrail Route

Section 4 of this document sets out and applies a methodology that addresses the Circular 5/05 tests, identifies appropriate types of development in particular locations in London for which it would be reasonable to seek a contribution, and a methodology for calculating the amount of contribution to be paid in each case. The approach has taken into account the type of development and the locations, the level the charge should be set at, indexation ( Consumer Price Index to be applied from April 2011 forwards), reporting, monitoring and review, collection and consistency with Government policy.

Taking this approach and information provided by consultants, the Mayor has decided that contributions should be sought in respect of office development in the Central Activities Zone and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs which involves a net increase in office floorspace of more than 500 square metres. This is the form of development that gives rise to the most substantial “impact” that Crossrail will mitigate. This recognises the following: • The impact of development in outer London is comparatively low and it is unlikely to be cost-effective to seek to apply a standard charge. • Similarly, within CAZ/IoD, the type of development that has the next highest level of impact (retail) does so at only two-thirds the level of offices. • The de minimis threshold excluding development that would result in additional office floorspace of 500 square metres or less has been set to reflect that developments below this size are unlikely to have crowding impacts sufficient to meet the tests of proportionality and reasonableness in Circular 5/05. Furthermore the benefits of seeking contributions from smaller developments of this scale are likely to be outweighed by the costs of entering into obligations and collecting contributions and the large number of smaller developments would make application of a policy of this kind uneconomic to administer.

In summary, the approach taken has been to focus on the type of development

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 184 having the most direct impact, and to restrict the number of applications in respect of which a contribution will have to be sought, minimising the administrative and cost burden on planning authorities. This is in compliance with the guidance in Circular 5/05.

Table 1 below shows that outside of the central London area, the ‘harm’ caused to the network by development is much less and, as such, it would be more difficult to require local authorities to seek a contribution from broad classes of development along the lines envisaged in this SPG. However, the individual circumstances of an application may be such the relevant local authority feel it is appropriate to seek a contribution for Crossrail, particularly in respect of development close to proposed Crossrail stations (taking account of the fact that rail use is likely to be highest within an 800 metre radius of a station, representing a 10 minute walk) and developments likely to place a particularly heavy demand on the rail network.

Table 1: impact on the rail network by geographical area and land use Type of Development Central London Outer London (CAZ/IoD) 800m zones Commercial 100 22 Retail 77 12 Hotels 44 - Residential 6 10

In developing this guidance, the Mayor has been particularly mindful of the need not to seek contributions at such a level that development will not be financially viable, or that the patterns of development across different parts of London are likely to be distorted. Care has been taken to ensure the amounts set out in paragraphs 4.18 and 4.20 accord with the tests set out in Circular 5/05 and, in particular, those of proportionality and reasonableness and the likely impacts on development.

Contributions will be payable at the point at which development commences. The Mayor is keen to ensure that inclusion of provision for contributions towards the costs of Crossrail in planning obligations does not cause unnecessary delays to the planning process. He intends to agree a protocol with boroughs regarding issues like joint approaches to negotiation and collection and the arrangements for review set out in the previous paragraph. In particular, he will work with the boroughs, developers and other stakeholders to develop model clauses for inclusion in agreements. The protocol will also provide more detailed advice on payment triggers.

Implications for Hillingdon

The proposal to alter the London Plan to give a clear steer on the importance of the Crossrail project is to be welcomed, as Hillingdon has been a supporter of the Crossrail scheme for many years. The current proposals indicate that it is only office development in the Central Activities Zone and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs which involves a net increase in office floorspace of more than 500 square metres which would necessitate s106 funding contribution for Crossrail is to be supported for the reasons stated in the SPG.

However, the draft SPG also states that contributions may be sought elsewhere where this is justified in terms of Circular 5/05 and development plan policies in the London Plan (particularly policies 3C.2 and 6A.4) and borough local development frameworks. This could involve sites 800m from stations and the Borough would wish to be closely consulted should the Mayor’s

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 185 approach ultimately include locations outside of the above 2 areas. For Hillingdon this is particularly pertinent should further expansion at Heathrow be approved and development pressures for sites near to West Drayton and Hayes/Harlington station increase. The introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy could also affect the type and location of development criteria for seeking Crossrail funding. Officers are seeking further clarification from the Mayor as to how he might proceed under the changed circumstances.

Of further concern is that there may be the opportunity to seek funding for Crossrail through the regional spatial strategy for the South-East [Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East (RPG9)]which identifies inter-regional connections around/through London as an overall priority for transport investment, with Crossrail identified as one of the regionally significant schemes supporting this objective and helping delivery of policies on management and investment support and development of regional hubs (and of regional spokes), airports and fostering an improved and integrated network of public transport services. Any large scale developments which have a sub regional dimension to them, e.g., associated with Heathrow, may be required at some stage in the future to contribute to Crossrail funding, resulting in less funding for other planning obligation priorities in the respective local authorities in the outer London boroughs and adjoining districts/authorities.

The above areas of support and concern are reflected in the letter of response contained in Appendix 2 to the report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications at this stage. Should the Mayor favour an alternative approach to using developer contributions to fund Crossrail which directly affects development in Hillingdon, this will need to be considered and reviewed further.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Corporate Finance

There are no direct financial implications for the Council arising from the recommendation to endorse the response to the Mayor’s consultation. However, the draft supplementary planning guidance provides a framework within which any development in Hillingdon close to Crossrail stations may be assessed for future planning obligations, the full implications of which for business and organisations in Hillingdon will only become apparent once further details of the nature of the Government’s proposals for the Community Infrastructure Levy are announced.

In addition, Crossrail will be part-funded through the proposed use of powers currently being enacted to give the Mayor the ability to place a Business Rate Supplement of 2p in the pound from April 2010. Accordingly, the Medium Term Financial Forecast includes provision for up to £100k per year from 2010/11 to cover the cost of additional business rates on Council premises with a rateable value in excess of £50k.

Legal

Members are advised that a Planning Act was introduced by the Government in November 2007. The aim of the Planning Act is to bring to an end, long, expensive and drawn out decisions, which involve development, which is perceived to be in the national interest.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 186 The main points of the Act are as follows:

a. To allow for decisions involving major infrastructure would be taken by a new Government body called the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). b. Decisions would be based on new national policy statements. c. The hearing and decision taking process undertaken by the IPC would be timetabled as set out. d. The Secretary of State would lose the power to determine major infrastructure projects. e. There would be a new Community Infrastructure Levy on development, which would be used to finance required infrastructure.

Part 11 of the Act deals with the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The CIL will be a levy that enables infrastructure to support the area being funded by owners or developers of land. The Local Planning Authority is in effect the charging authority. Regulations to be published will make provision for the liability of such persons to pay the CIL and the question of exemptions. The Charging Schedule, which will be dealt with by regulations, which will set out the rates.

Members are advised the report informs them of the Mayor’s method for dealing with transportation issues within London. In the event that Members choose to proceed against officer recommendations, they must note their detailed reasons for doing so, including evidence of their consideration of the reasonableness of such a decision.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF THE RECOMMENDATION?

To ensure the interests of Hillingdon’s residents and business communities are safeguarded.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

N/A.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004 (2008) Mayor of London Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance – Use of Planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail (December 2008)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 187 Appendix 1

Proposed New Policy 3C.12A - Funding of Crossrail

In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London's economic regeneration and development, developments which contribute to the transport needs that the project will wholly or partly address will be required to contribute towards its funding through the use of planning obligations, in accordance with relevant legislation and policy guidance. The Mayor will provide guidance for boroughs and other partners for the negotiation of planning obligations requiring, where appropriate, developers to contribute towards the costs of funding Crossrail having regard to central government policy and guidance and strategic and local considerations. This guidance will include:

• Criteria for identifying developments in respect of which Crossrail contributions should be required in accordance with national policy guidance

• Standard charges and formulae for calculating fair and reasonable contributions to be sought and guidance on how these should be applied in specific localities and different kinds of development

• The period over which contributions will be sought and arrangements for periodic review

The Mayor will, when considering relevant planning applications of potential strategic importance, take account of the existence and content of planning obligations supporting the funding of Crossrail among other material planning considerations.

Policy 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations The Mayor will, and boroughs must, reflect the policies of this plan (in particular Policy 3C.12A) as well as local needs in their policies for planning obligations (see ODPM Circular 5/2005). Affordable housing, supporting the funding of Crossrail (see Policy 3C.12A) and other public transport improvements should, where appropriate, be given the highest importance. Importance should also be given to tackling climate change, learning and skills, health facilities and services and childcare provisions. The Mayor will, when considering planning applications of potential strategic importance, take into account, among other issues, the existence and content of planning obligations.

Policy 6A.5 Planning obligations Boroughs must set out a clear framework for negotiations on planning obligations in DPDs [Development Plan Documents] having regard to central government policy and guidance and local and strategic considerations (see Policy 6A.4) to the effect that:

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 188 • It will be a material consideration whether a development makes an appropriate contribution or other provision (or some combination thereof) towards meeting the requirements made necessary by, and related to, the proposed development • Negotiations should seek a contribution towards the full cost of all such provision that is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and its impact on a wider area • Boroughs must refer to planning obligations that would be sought in the relevant parts of the DPDs (such as transport and housing policies). The Mayor will provide guidance for boroughs and other partners on the preparation of these frameworks. In particular, the Mayor wishes to develop with boroughs a voluntary system of pooling contributions for the provision of facilities related to proposed developments.

This SPG is the guidance referred to in Policy 3C.12A. It provides detailed guidance on how these London Plan policies (3C.12A, 6A.4, 6A.5 and 6A.5A) will be applied to ensure the implementation of Crossrail.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 189 Appendix 2

Mayor Johnson Planning Obligations - Crossrail City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2BR

22nd January 2009

Dear Mr Johnson,

Re: ‘ Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance: Consultation

Thank you for the invitation to comment on the above consultation document. Hillingdon welcomes the opportunity to provide views on both draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on the use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail as well as the proposed London Plan alterations to support the SPG.

As you are probably aware Hillingdon has been a strong supporter of the Crossrail proposals for a considerable number of years and is keen to take advantage of the regeneration benefits not only in terms of employment, but also transport infrastructure. However the Borough is also aware that the impact of the Crossrail scheme in outer London boroughs such as Hillingdon, is likely to be substantially less than areas of Central London. The Borough therefore supports the methodology used in the approach to determining how planning obligations should be used. It also welcomes the Mayor’s recognition of the fact that in outer London boroughs a contribution to Crossrail may seriously prejudice other planning obligation contributions, needed for local priorities.

Planning and Community Services T.01895 250553 F.01895 277042 [email protected] www.hillingdon.gov.uk London Borough of Hillingdon, 3N/02, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW

However, there are concerns that in the draft SPG it is stated that contributions may be sought elsewhere where this is justified in terms of Circular 5/05 and development plan policies in the London Plan (particularly policies 3C.2 and 6A.4) and borough local development frameworks. This could involve sites 800m from stations and the Borough would wish to be closely consulted should the Mayor’s approach ultimately include locations outside of the above 2 areas. For Hillingdon this is particularly pertinent should further expansion at Heathrow be approved and development pressures for sites near to West Drayton and Hayes/Harlington station increase. Therefore I would be grateful if you could clarify how you intend to proceed should the above circumstances be relevant/prevail.

Of further concern is that there may be the opportunity to seek funding for Crossrail through the regional spatial strategy for the South-East [ Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East (RPG9)]which identifies inter-regional connections around/through London as an overall priority for transport investment. With Crossrail identified as one of the regionally significant schemes supporting this objective and helping delivery of policies on management and investment support and development of regional hubs (and of regional spokes), airports and fostering an improved and integrated network of public transport services. Any large scale developments which have a sub regional dimension to them eg associated with Heathrow, may be required at some stage in the future to contribute to Crossrail funding, resulting in less funding for other planning obligation priorities in the respective local authorities in the outer London boroughs and adjoining districts/authorities. It is suggested that further consideration be given to the implications of any such arrangements on outer London boroughs.

Finally, the proposed new policies and amendments to existing London Plan policies are to be welcomed and give a clear steer on what is expected from development proposals.

In conclusion, Hillingdon looks forward to working with the GLA to ensure that Crossrail delivers the expected benefits for London, but in the meantime awaits to hear how the Borough’s concerns will be addressed.

Should you wish to discuss any of these comments further, please do not hesitate to contact me on 01895 250553 or at [email protected]

Yours sincerely

Janet Rangeley Head of Transportation and Spatial Development

MAYOR OF LONDON: ‘WAY TO GO – PLANNING FOR ITEM 5 LONDON’S TRANSPORT’: CONSULTATION

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Report Author Janet Rangeley, Planning and Community Services

Papers with report Appendix: Hillingdon’s response to the Consultation

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report This report advises Cabinet of the Mayor’s approach to planning for transport in London. The document outlines key objectives and the overall policy direction of the Mayor and views are sought on these and other transport aspects, to inform the development of the Mayor’s new Transport Strategy ( MTS2). Officers have prepared a response for the closing date of 16th January 2009 and the report seeks Cabinet’s endorsement of the officers’ recommended response to the consultation as contained in the Appendix to the report.

Contribution to our Council Plan; L.I.P.; Sustainable Community Strategy; LDF; plans and strategies Road Safety Strategy; Economic Strategy.

Financial Cost There is no cost in responding to the consultation.

Relevant Policy Residents and Environmental Services Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet:

(1) notes the contents of the Mayor’s ‘Way To Go’ document and the implications for Hillingdon; and (2) endorses the officers’ recommended response as contained in the Appendix to the report.

Reasons for recommendation

This is the first document since 2001 which outlines the Mayor’s intentions with regard to planning for transport in London. It is essential that the Borough provides comments and takes up the invitation to assist the Mayor in shaping transport in London over the next 10-15 years. The response contained in the Appendix to the report reflects the Borough’s interest

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 192 and commitment to achieving transport improvements for the Borough and officers recommend that Cabinet endorse the comments.

Alternative options considered

1. Not to respond to the Mayor’s consultation. This would not ensure Hillingdon’s interests and concerns are raised with the Mayor at both the borough and sub regional level. 2. To comment only through the West London Allowance (WLA) sub regional response. This would not ensure Hillingdon’s individual Borough issues and concerns are fully raised with the Mayor.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None at this stage.

Supporting Information

On 6th November 2008, the Mayor of London launched a consultation on his new approach to planning for transport in London. A wide range of stakeholders has been invited to respond to the consultation by the 16th January 2009. At the sub-regional west London level, the West London Partnership (WLP) has prepared a response with contributions from Hillingdon officers. The WLP response forms part of Hillingdon’s comments to the Mayor and officers are recommending endorsement of them. Officers have also forwarded their comments to London Councils and the SWELTRAC partnership (a transport partnership covering South and West London).

The document is seen as a precursor to the forthcoming Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS2) and responses to this consultation will inform the direction of its preparation. The Mayor is very keen to achieve the right mix of policies in the MTS2 using the overall themes of reducing congestion, emissions and overall stress levels of the travelling public. His key challenge for transport is to ensure that London remains the world’s number one location as a place to visit, a place to do business and a place to invest. The document builds on the achievements in transport over the last few years and value for money is a priority.

Seven principles underlie the document’s intentions as follows: 1. Respecting the travelling public’s choice of transport – ‘helping people out of their cars by persuasion rather than persecution’, by helping people to recognise that there are cleaner greener cheaper and more efficient alternatives to the car. 2. Keeping the public informed – will help make the traveller make the right choices 3. Protecting the Environment – recognising the poor air quality in London, Transport for London (TfL) should play a pioneering role in introducing new technology to help produce a cleaner and greener city. 4. Developing Outer London – the Mayor is keen to do more for transport development of the outer boroughs to help people to live and work in the same area, developing orbital as well as radial. 5. Connecting transport and planning – this will be strengthened as the Mayor revises the London Plan and develops the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. 6. Working with the boroughs – the Mayor wants greater involvement with the boroughs to help them deliver their objectives.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 193 7. Transport for all – the Mayor is keen to ensure that London’s transport infrastructure is fully DDA compliant and wheelchair accessible.

There is emphasis in the document that in respect of large projects, certain ambitions which do not have funding identified, such as the ThamesLink River Crossing, will not be pursued. However, the document does identify key areas for improvements and associated funding focus on the underground, including the Metropolitan Line, unblocking the traffic through a review of the timings of traffic signalling, London’s overground railway (includes Crossrail), improving journeys, permitting motor bikes in bus lanes on Red Routes and tackling the impact of roadworks on congestion, improving the urban realm and encouraging more cycling. The document outlines some of the Mayor’s future intentions and asks 4 key questions as part of the response. These are included in the Borough’s response attached as the Appendix to the report.

Implications for Hillingdon

The consultation document has many aspects that Hillingdon should welcome; in particular: • The explicit recognition of the important role played by the boroughs in tackling transport issues and the commitment for the GLA and TfL to work more closely with the boroughs in developing and delivering solutions. • A greater focus on the needs of outer London. Indeed the statement in “Way to Go!” that refers to the need “to help people live and work in the same area” reflects both the Borough’s intentions and that of West London Partnership’s ‘Ten Point Plan’ for West London boroughs. • A commitment to address the issues concerned with provision of orbital transport services. This significant issue has been an integral part of both Hillingdon’s ambitions for a considerable time. • Recognition of the need to address planning and transport policies in tandem. Hillingdon has been particularly concerned that the planning and provision of transport services has not matched the scale and pace of development investment in the Borough, especially given the considerable number of major developments in Hillingdon, many of which are influenced by the presence of Heathrow airport in the Borough. • The attention placed on tackling congestion through a review of traffic signalling and road works programming. • The commitment to improve the urban realm through the removal of street clutter and by promoting walking and cycling. • The commitment to improving accessibility for disabled people, which also helps other who are less mobile. • Improving the information available to help people make more sustainable travel choices. • The new approach from TfL involving a series of sub-regional studies that will help identify and compare the effectiveness of a wide range of transport measures in different areas on an objective basis. Hillingdon is committed to working closely with TfL on the West London sub-regional study as the bBorough has long recognised that West London’s transport investment needs are significant, are required to underpin the continued economic success of our area and deserve fair treatment in prioritisation alongside those from other sub-regions.

There are however key concerns that there needs to be stronger commitment to delivering on critical issues for public transport improvement in outer London and particularly Hillingdon,

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 194 such as orbital routes addressing the imbalance between land use development and transport investment, tackling the problems of limited accessibility in parts of outer London. The West London Partnership response sets out possible ways of addressing these issues and officers strongly support these suggestions for delivery.

In conclusion Hillingdon welcomes: • The new approach to working with Boroughs • A greater focus on the transport needs of Outer London • The commitment to address orbital travel • A concern for tackling congestion • Addressing land use, planning and transport together • The commitment to improve the public realm • The principle of supporting informed travel choices

However, Hillingdon would wish to see these principles carried through to committed actions, in line with those plans for Underground and Overground services. We particularly seek: • Improved orbital services and a stronger bus network in the outer part of West London; • A long-term transport infrastructure investment programme for outer West London, which includes extensions to the Central Line to Uxbridge and Metropolitan Line to Heathrow; • A greater investment in travel planning with the sub-regional partners; • A recognition of the surface transport access needs of Heathrow, major development sites in the Borough, existing and future interchange requirements for Uxbridge Metropolitan Centre and also the Crossrail interchanges at Hayes and West Drayton; • Improved customer care practices; • Greater attention to freight transport through Freight Quality Partnerships; and • Stronger working with local authorities in adjoining regions on transport issues and the delivery of improvements.

Financial Implications

There are no costs involved in responding to this consultation.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

That Hillingdon’s transport improvements are relayed to the Mayor and that future funding of the Borough Local Implementation Plan projects and schemes will reflect such needs to the longer term benefit of residents, businesses and the quality of the environment in the Borough.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

N/A.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 195 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

The recommendation of the report to endorse the consultation response has no direct financial implications. In terms of wider impact on the Council’s resources, the content of consultation document if taken forward into implementation is expected, as described the report, to allow an increased focus on some of the key transport planning needs in Hillingdon and West London, and may assist in creating a framework for allowing increased resources in support of transport development in the area from London regional government.

Legal

There are no legal implications arising directly out of this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Mayor of London: ‘The Way To Go – Planning for Transport in London’ November 2008. Consultation • West London Partnership: Response to the ‘Way To Go’ consultation document December 2008

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 196 Appendix A

Mayor Johnson Way to Go! Post Point 22, FREEPOST LON15799, City hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2BR

12th January 2009

Dear Mr Johnson,

Re: ‘Way to Go – Planning for London’s Transport’ Consultation

Thank you for the invitation to comment on the above consultation document, which outlines your approach to the future of transport in London. Hillingdon strongly welcomes the document and the Borough’s response below includes comments in addition to the responses to the four key questions asked in the consultation. As a member of the West London Alliance, the Borough also strongly endorses its response to the consultation.

Key Questions: 1. Do you generally support our principles for developing policy? Hillingdon strongly supports the seven principles for developing policy viz, • The new approach to working with boroughs; • A greater focus on the transport needs of Outer London; • Respecting the travelling public’s choice of transport; • Keeping the public informed; • Connecting transport and planning; • Protecting the environment and • Transport for all – focusing on accessibility compliance

Planning and Community Services T.01895 250553 F.01895 277042 [email protected] www.hillingdon.gov.uk London Borough of Hillingdon, 3N/02, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW

The Borough would welcome the opportunity for greater involvement by the outer London boroughs in developing such policies. There is also strong support for the aim of retaining London as the world’s number one location as a place to visit, do business and to invest. With Heathrow airport in the Borough, Hillingdon has a key role in ensuring policy development can deliver those aims, both in a London and West London context. Furthermore the Borough welcomes the statement in the ‘Principles’ section of the document that ‘It is our job to listen and learn from the boroughs, to help them achieve their objectives’ and Hillingdon is keen to continue and strengthen its engagement with TfL.

2. Have we identified the key challenges facing transport in London? Hillingdon has long recognised that for many residents and employees, public transport is not the most appropriate option for travel, even if it is short distances. The recognition in the consultation document that the Mayor is seeking solutions which ‘persuade rather than persecute’ the car user and that in many parts of outer London, cleaner, greener, cheaper and more efficient alternatives do not exist is to be welcomed. Furthermore, there is strong support for the statement that the Mayor’s ‘job is to supply these alternatives and Hillingdon would want to ensure that future funding of the Borough’s LIP programme strongly reflects the local priorities and needs for transport improvements.

3. Do you agree with the approach to encourage more people to walk and cycle? Hillingdon supports the approach to encourage more people to walk and cycle, especially as this should help address some key health issues identified. One area that TfL could develop further is a strong network of safe cycle routes to school. Evidence from the borough’s Sustainable Modes of School Travel Strategy (SMOTS) suggests that more school pupils ( primary and secondary) would cycle to school if the routes were safer and focused on the school travel. Hillingdon is keen to develop this through its School Travel Plan programme with TfL. However, for many of the Borough’s residents, employees and school pupils, it is recognised that in large, outer London boroughs such as Hillingdon, walking and cycling is not always a viable option and that public transport especially buses or the car can often be the best option for travel.

4. Are there things you think the Mayor should do to improve transport in London which are not identified in the document? Hillingdon would wish to see the seven principles carried through to committed actions, in line with those plans for Underground and Overground services and in particular seeks:-

• Improved orbital services and a stronger bus network in the outer part of West London; • A long-term transport infrastructure investment programme for outer West London, which includes extensions to the Central Line to Uxbridge and the Metropolitan line to Heathrow • A greater investment in travel planning with the sub-regional partners • A recognition of the surface transport access needs of Heathrow, major development sites in the borough, existing and future interchange requirements for Uxbridge Metropolitan Centre and also the Crossrail interchanges at Hayes and West Drayton; • Improved customer care practices • Greater attention to freight transport through Freight Quality Partnerships • Stronger working with local authorities in adjoining regions on transport issues and the delivery of improvements.

Additional comments The consultation document has many aspects that Hillingdon welcomes, in particular:

• The explicit recognition of the important role played by the boroughs in tackling transport issues and the commitment for the GLA and TfL to work more closely with the Boroughs in developing and delivering solutions.

• A greater focus on the needs of outer London. Indeed the statement in “Way to Go!” that refers to the need “to help people live and work in the same area” reflects both the borough’s intentions and the West London Partnership’s ‘Ten Point Plan’ for West London boroughs.

• A commitment to address the issues concerned with provision of orbital transport services. This significant issue has been an integral part of Hillingdon’s ambitions for a considerable time.

• Recognition of the need to address planning and transport policies in tandem. Hillingdon has been particularly concerned that the planning and provision of transport services has not matched the scale and pace of development investment in the borough, especially given the considerable number of major developments in Hillingdon, many of which are influenced by the presence of Heathrow airport in the Borough.

• The attention placed on tackling congestion through a review of traffic signalling and road works’ programming.

• The commitment to improve the urban realm through the removal of street clutter and by promoting walking and cycling.

• The commitment to improving accessibility for disabled people, which also helps other who are less mobile.

• Improving the information available to help people make more sustainable travel choices.

• the new approach from TfL involving a series of sub-regional studies that will help identify and compare the effectiveness of a wide range of transport measures in different areas on an objective basis. Hillingdon is committed to working closely with TfL on the West London sub-regional study as the borough has long recognised that West London’s transport investment needs are significant, are required to underpin the continued economic success of our area and deserve fair treatment in prioritisation alongside those from other sub-regions.

Nevertheless, Hillingdon would welcome a stronger commitment to delivering on critical issues for public transport improvement in outer London and particularly Hillingdon, orbital routes and addressing the existing need for transport infrastructure investment and tackling the problems of limited accessibility in parts of outer west London. Furthermore, the infrastructure relationship with authorities outside London in the South East region, needs more detailed consideration as without partnership working with these other authorities, public transport and environmental improvements outlined in the ‘Way to Go’ are unlikely to be delivered. The West London Partnership response sets out possible ways of addressing these issues and officers strongly support these suggestions for delivery.

In conclusion, Hillingdon looks forward to working with TfL and the GLA over the coming months to ensure that the issues that are highlighted in this response are addressed in the forthcoming Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Should you wish to discuss any of the above comments further, please do not hesitate to contact me on 01895 250553 or at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Janet Rangeley Head of Transportation and Spatial Development

OLDER PEOPLES PLAN – UPDATE REPORT ITEM 6

Cabinet Member Councillor Ray Puddifoot / Councillor Philip Corthorne

Cabinet Portfolio Leader of the Council / Social Services, Health and Housing

Officer Contact Kevin Byrne, Deputy Chief Executive’s Office, and Dan Kennedy, Adult Social Care, Health and Housing

Papers with report Appendix 1: Older People’s Action Plan 2008-2009

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To provide a progress report on the implementation of the Action Plan from the Older People’s Plan 2008-2011.

Contribution to our The older people’s plan assists the Council to deliver its plan ‘Fast plans and strategies Forward to 2010’ and with partners assists in delivering the Sustainable Community Strategy for Hillingdon. These in turn contribute to the Comprehensive Area Assessment for Hillingdon.

Financial Cost The majority of proposals will be financed from within existing resources. However, some proposals may be financed via funding set aside under the “Leader’s Initiative”.

Relevant Policy Social Services, Health and Housing Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet:

1. Notes the significant achievements of the older people’s action plan for Quarters 1, 2 and 3 2008/09 as set out in Appendix 1. 2. Agree that progress is regularly reported to older people via the older people’s champion and via the older people’s assemblies and other media. 3. Agree that further progress on the action plan is reported to Cabinet in May 2009.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

1. The development of the three-year Older People’s Plan 2008-2011 endorses the commitment from the Council and its partners to the continued development and improvement of services designed to create a better quality of life for older people in Hillingdon. The plan supports the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 201 Council in delivering it’s plan ‘Fast Forward to 2010’ and supports Hillingdon in delivering the Sustainable Community Strategy.

Alternative options considered

2. None considered.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

3. None at this stage.

Supporting Information

4. The Older People’s Plan from 2008-2011 is the second three-year plan for older people in Hillingdon, and continues the work of the 2005-2008 Plan. On 15 July 2008, Cabinet approved the three-year plan for older people 2008-2011 and agreed the action plan for 2008/09. The three year plan was developed in consultation with older people and a wide range of partners including the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, Hillingdon Hospital, the voluntary sector, Police, Ambulance Service and Fire Brigade. This collaborative approach has proved successful and will continue to further improve services for older people in the Borough and promote active ageing in Hillingdon.

5. The Older Peoples Plan 2008-2011 is made up of eight themes which older people have said are important to them. The eight themes are:

1. Safety and security 2. Preventative care 3. Keeping independent and healthy 4. Tackling age discrimination 5. Planning for retirement 6. Housing 7. Learning and sharing skills 8. Consulting and informing

6. The action plan is regularly monitored and updated and further work is underway to develop the involvement of the Older People’s Assembly and the FORCE Group (the Older People’s Assembly Steering Group) in monitoring the plan and developing actions for future years.

7. There have been a number of achievements to date. Some of the most notable achievements have included:

• the provision of free burglar alarms to older people who are victims of crime • strengthening the links between older people and the Safer Neighbourhood Teams. A number of older people are members of Ward Safer Neighbourhood Team Panels • the ‘darker nights’ campaign designed to help older people feel safer • improved partnership arrangements to safeguard adults from harm • improving take-up of allotments to encourage social inclusion, physical fitness and healthy eating

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 202 • the development and improvement of information for older people, with a dedicated page for older people in every edition of the Council’s publication for local residents (called ‘Hillingdon People’) • increasing the support for dining clubs • expanding the take up of the brown badge parking scheme for older people

8. A full progress update of the action plan is attached under appendix one.

Financial Implications

9. The majority of proposals will be financed from within existing resources. However, some proposals may be financed via funding set aside under the “Leader’s Initiative”.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

10. The 2008-2011 Older Peoples Plan was welcomed by older people as positively continuing to raise their value and profile and as an opportunity to improve the lives of older people in the community.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

11. Engagement with older people in 2009 to review the 2008-2011 plan will help to identify future priorities for development.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

12. A corporate finance officer has reviewed the report and its financial implications, and is satisfied that theses reflect the resource implications for the Council of the implementation of the Older People’s Plan. There are no additional financial implications arising from the recommendations of the report.

Legal

13. There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 203 Appendix One

HILLINGDON COUNCIL’S ACTION PLAN FOR OLDER PEOPLE 2008-2011 (QUARTER 3 2008/09 UPDATE) This action plan represents a working tool for the implementation of Hillingdon Council’s Plan for Older People 2008-2011 and will be implemented by the Champion for Older People, Partners and Older People themselves.

Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 1 Safety and 1a Emma We will 1 Encourage older 1a Raise awareness of safety and Safer Security Marsh continue to people to talk to their security, to include 4 articles in Hillingdon Hillingdon increase the safer neighbourhood People Partnershi confidence of teams. Encourage p Annual older people older people to join On track (Green) – The Plan by reducing Ward Panels. This November/December 08 edition of both the fear of would help raise the Hillingdon People included an article on crime and the profile of older bogus callers and tips on staying safe chances of people and their when someone calls at their door, and an them particular needs. article on keeping safe in the winter. becoming There will be subsequent articles during victims. 2009.

(Emma Marsh)

Page 204 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 1b Ed Shaylor 1b Presentations by police and other / Andy Jones agencies at the Assemblies

On track (Green) – a presentation was delivered to the Older Peoples Assembly on 29th September 2008. The presentation covered CCTV and asked for views from the Assembly to inform the Residents Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee review; also publicised the Burglar Alarms project and invited referrals (see 4a).

A Community Safety talk was delivered to the Older People’s Assembly on 15th December 2008. This included presentations from the Community Safety Team, Fire Brigade, CAB, Age Concern and Trading Standards.

(Teresa McKee / Ed Shaylor)

Page 205 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 1c / 1d Andy 1c Visits to sheltered housing complexes Jones Safer to ensure older people know how to Neighbourhoo report anti-social behaviour and address d Teams the fear of repercussions by Safer (Stewart Neighbourhood Teams and Safer Walker/Sgt Transport Team, and the Sheltered Kelly Housing Forum Donoghue) On track (Green) - Safer Neighbourhood Teams visit sheltered housing as part of their routine community liaison. Safer Neighbourhood Teams have been advised about the location of all sheltered housing units in the borough and are using these details to inform their visits.

(Teresa McKee / Ed Shaylor)

Page 206 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 1d 5 older people (aged 65 years or older) will join Ward Safer Neighbourhood Team Panels in 2008/09.

On track (Green) - There is already good representation from older persons on Ward Panels, the Community and Police Consultation Group (CPCG) and Transport Users Forum. Also, we have active involvement within the Borough Wide Neighbourhood Watch Scheme and on the Crime Prevention Panel that both has good representation from people aged 65 or older and also reaches out to these groups on the various events and roadshows it participates in.

(Teresa McKee / Ed Shaylor)

Page 207 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 2a Sue Pollitt 2. Warn older people 2a Trading standards will respond to all about bogus callers reports of rogue traders targeting older to reduce the risk of people or vulnerable people deception used to enter homes and On track - Trading Standards have steal. responded to all referrals regarding possible rogue traders targeting older or vulnerable residents. This has included contacting the possible victim and talking through the circumstances, offering appropriate advice and gathering intelligence.

Where appropriate e.g. where traders are still on site, or are returning to collect money allegedly owing, intervention by Officers has taken place. Since 1 April 08, Trading Standards Officers have intervened on 9 occasions, saving residents £180,000.

Page 208 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 2b Sue Pollitt / 2b By March 2009, publish an article in Emma Marsh Hillingdon People warning about bogus callers and other crime prevention messages.

Completed (Green) - Lead article on the older people’s page for the November/ December edition of Hillingdon People focussed on information and advice regarding bogus callers. (Emma Marsh)

In addition a production by Attic Theatre Company called “Ma Kelly’s Doorstep” took place in Brunel Ward on 21st October 2008. Brunel Safer Neighbourhood Team identified and invited 70 vulnerable people aged 65 or over or any older person who had been a victim of burglary or distraction burglary. The 1-hour event included songs and a drama show.

The production has been designed to warn older people about the dangers of bogus callers and rogue traders.

(Ed Shaylor / Teresa McKee)

Page 209 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 3a Ed Shaylor 3. Continue to make 3a Develop new initiatives for dealing with / Chris Scott the streets feel safer, groups of youths causing anti-social particularly in the behaviour and racial harassment. evenings. On track (Green) – A number of initiatives have been held or are underway to provide positive activities for young people as part of the Children and Families Trust plan. This includes • Fiesta programme summer 2008 was the largest programme in London. • KICKZ football programme is operating in Hayes (QPR) and Northwood (Watford). Both projects attract between 50 and 100 young people and are run on 3 evenings a week. • Targeted Youth Support Service being piloted in Harlington. • Early Intervention Panel diverts young people coming to notice. • Information about tackling anti-social behaviour and nuisance behaviour over Halloween and bonfire night was put on the council website and distributed via Street Champions and Hillingdon Neighbourhood Watch. ‘No Trick or Treat’ posters were given out by Safer Neighbourhood Teams and available to download from the website. • Darker Nights campaign is being led by the Crime Prevention Office and has encouraged people to take extra precautions in the run up to Christmas.

(Ed Shaylor/Teresa McKee)

Page 210 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 3b / 3c Mary 3b Work with the Green Spaces Team and Worrall the Police to provide a rapid response to anti-social behaviour in parks and green spaces where identified.

On track (Green)- the green spaces team and safer neighbourhood teams are working closely on issues where they arise to good effect.

3c Ensure there is adequate lighting in areas identified as being unsafe. Bring forward priorities from 2005-08 older peoples plan

On track (Green) – a programme of streetlight improvements, prioritised with partners to tackle key safety concerns has been agreed and works to install the lights has started. Improvements completed on 2 sites and installation underway on 3 other sites. (Tim Edwards)

Page 211 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 4a Ed Shaylor 4. Ensure an increase 4a 500 burglar alarms to be fitted free to / Mike in the number of the homes of vulnerable older people by Smooker security and personal 2009 via Age Concern Handy Person alarms. Scheme and meeting Community Safety Team criteria.

On track (Green) - Scheme has now started with Age Concern with about 70 now fitted and 50 on the waiting list. Requests are coming in daily and are being assessed by the Crime Prevention Officers. On track to meet an interim target of 150 by 31st March 2009.

An urgent referral by the burglary squad was dealt with swiftly with the residents receiving the installed alarm less than 24 hours after the initial referral.

Liaising with Environmental Protection Unit, we have negotiated a discount for recipients interested in joining the London Keyholder Database.

Surveys asking recipients to rate the impact on the alarm on their level of fear have been distributed to the first batch of residents and we are awaiting the returns.

(Teresa McKee / Ed Shaylor)

Page 212 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 4b Gerard 4b Develop a programme with London Fire Hollingworth Brigade to make sure that older people are fully aware of the need to test smoke alarms and make sure they are working. 2 presentations to be programmed in for the Older People’s Assemblies.

On track (Green) – London Fire Brigade have a dedicated fire safety officer to deal with community fire safety issues who is targeting older people and people with disabilities with advice and assistance. Advice is being provided to residents and smoke alarms fitted free of charge by operational fire fighters.

Since 1 April 2008, the stations have completed 1109 visits (as at 24.11.08) compared to 1330 visits last year. On average one and a half smoke alarms per visit are fitted (a recommendation is one alarm per floor) - approximately 1600 alarms have been fitted so far this year.

The officer has attended a number of community events to promote fire safety and reach older people in the community. A presentation on fire safety was made to the Older Peoples Assembly on 15th December 2008.

(Ed Shaylor / T. McKee)

Page 213

Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 5 Chris 5. Break down the 5 Time Travellers Project continues Commerford barriers between involving older people visiting schools. older and younger This initiative is PCT and Hillingdon people. Community Trust funded.

On track (Green): 43 volunteers now in place exceeding the target of 35-40 volunteers.

(Chris Commerford)

Page 214 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 6. Paul Greene 6. Strengthen the 6 Safeguarding adults – campaign processes for delivered in the Autumn 2008. safeguarding older people from physical, On track (Green) - A robust and in-depth financial and verbal safeguarding Adults Improvement Plan abuse 2008-2009 has been put in place and is being delivered, to ensure older people and other vulnerable groups are protected from abuse.

The Improvement Plan covers the following themes: • Making sure safeguarding processes are robust and adhered to • Providing a wide range of services to help prevent abuse and neglect • Making sure staff and managers know what to do • Performance monitoring and quality assurance processes • Partnership arrangements and the multi-agency safeguarding committee.

A high-level body (the Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board) was re- launched in November 2008, with senior representation from all agencies. A new governance structure is being implemented, modelled on best practice across the country.

Page 215 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies A business planning workshop was held on 8th December attended by partners and Members. This established the vision and priorities for Safeguarding Adults in Hillingdon over 2009-12 within a rigorous framework.

As part of the 2009-12 Strategic Plan, a safeguarding communications workstream is being developed that will raise awareness of safeguarding issues across a number of channels – including posters, leaflets, events and the council website.

Campaign activities scheduled for the Autumn 2008 included: • Improved website information about safeguarding concerns and how to report this • Measuring staff awareness of safeguarding to inform future campaign activities • Targeting awareness raising and briefings to service users and their carers, including under-represented groups

The communications sub-group of the Board is reviewing the success of this campaign in quarter 4 2008/9. (Sam Taylor)

Page 216 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 2 Preventative Head of Older Older people 1 Ensure that there 1. Continue to reduce by 5% the numbers Care that People’s will live active are adequate of Older People entering residential care helps people Service/Sarah and healthy services for older On track (Green) - over the last two years to continue Morris/PCT lives in the people with Dementia the number of older people placed in spot living at rep/Hillingdon community and their Carers. purchased care homes has reduced home. Hospital significantly and the number of weeks in rep/Ambulanc residential or nursing care has fallen. e Service/GP and Pharmacy During the year 2008/09 the number of rep/ weeks of spot purchased residential or Belinda Norris nursing care for older people is expected Kerry Fellows to fall by 6% when compared to 2007/08 (16,303 weeks in 2007/08 compared to a projected 15,239 weeks in 2008/09)

There can be seasonal increases in demand for care home beds during the winter months.

Developments in services for older people designed to promote independent living over the next three years will help to reduce the need for care home placements. This includes extra care housing, telecare services and intermediate care services.

The fall in the number of weeks of residential and nursing care indicates that older people are being supported longer and with greater complexity within a community setting. (Belinda Norris)

Page 217 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 2 People are treated 2. Deliver the Dignity Challenge workshop with Dignity and to care providers by March 2009. Respect whether they live at home or in On track (Green) – A programme of residential care. Dignity Challenge assessments of registered care home providers in Hillingdon is being implemented. A team of assessors have been trained to deliver the programme. Overall, we are on track to assess all registered care homes in Hillingdon for older people by 31 March 2009 as part of the Dignity Challenge.

(Dan Kennedy/Belinda Norris)

3 Work with partners 3. 2/3 planned events staged in parks to and the voluntary encourage social inclusion, dancing and sector to maximise physical fitness. on the community services they can Completed (Green) - The Teddy Bear offer to help older Picnic inter-generational event ran at people make more Ruislip Manor in July with 1500 use of dining clubs participants of all ages attending. The and other social event was organised by the Family facilities which Information Service and Supported by stimulate and Healthy Hillingdon encourage social inclusion. A number of bowling clubs have run “come and try” events with input from green spaces staff and these have been well received.

This has taken place at Ruislip Bowls

Page 218 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies Club and Eastcote Bowls.

The Ruislip Woods Open Day included a guided walk for people of all ages.

A schedule of future events is available from the green spaces team and available on the Council’s website.

The Healthy Walks programme is running as planned. There have been walks at 13 locations and a walk takes place on average every day except Sundays.

(Andrew Knight)

Andrew 4. Work with partners 4. Dining clubs – review the transport Knight to encourage the available to support attendance at dining Damien Searle uptake of allotments clubs. Helen Vincent for social inclusion, On track (Green) – most people attending Mary Worrall physical fitness and the voluntary sector-run dining clubs in healthy eating. Hillingdon arrange their transport through Assist with initiatives ‘dial-a-ride’. Some dining centres have to help older people their own mini-buses. Quarterly meetings take up gardening take place between the council and dining (raised beds/small centre managers to review issues and plots, co-operatives, identify opportunities for shared learning. Horticultural Discussion is continuing with dining Societies) clubs to develop ideas for gaining customer feedback about how the dining centres are working, including areas for improvement. This includes transport arrangements to / from the dining clubs.

Page 219 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies

Overall, Hillingdon Council has increased support for dining clubs during 2008/09 through the Leaders Initiative.

5. Recruiting 20 volunteers with the Allotment Federation and Adult Education.

Completed (Green) - 46 volunteers have been recruited. 8 volunteers are manning stalls in The Pavillions; 26 volunteers are site secretaries; and 8 volunteers are on the Hillingdon Allotment and Horticultural Federation (HAHF).

(Mary Worrall)

6. Deliver the allotment strategy to promote take-up / maintain use and encourage healthy eating and an active lifestyle, including:

6.1 Provide new toilet facilities at 3 sites identified through the Joint Allotment Strategy

On track (Green) - We have identified the type of composting toilets for installation on sites and are on track to provide new toilet facilities at 3 sites by 31 March 2009.

(Mary Worrall)

Page 220 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 6.2 Provide plot preparation to all new tenants to assist in start up

Completed (Green) - this service is now being provided to all new tenants.

(Mary Worrall)

6.3 Promote introductory sessions to allotment gardening with Adult Education to older people, including information in Hillingdon People.

On track (Green) - Hillingdon People article scheduled for March/April 09 edition.

Taster sessions were held at two sites in May and June 2008 and the uptake of allotments continues to rise through continuous promotion with partners and the work of the borough’s allotments officer. 13 sites in the south of the Borough have received improvements to fencing to improve their safety and security and signage to many sites has been improved. The number of plots let now stands at 1182 out of a possible 1450 available plots – 82% of plots have been let. Approximately 44% of allotments are let to people over 60.

(Mary Worrall)

Page 221 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 6.4 The Hillingdon Joint Allotment Strategy is updated by December 2008 and agreed by Cabinet Member lead (Environment).

In progress (Green) – Meetings have been undertaken with the allotments federation and further follow up meetings and discussions have been agreed to complete the update of the strategy by the end of March 2009.

(Mary Worrall)

7. Recruiting 20 volunteers for parks and open spaces conservation project.

Completed (Green) - Two significant new projects have commenced at Eastcote House, which has 14 volunteers, and River Pinn, which has 12 volunteers. This is in addition to over 2000 volunteer days in Ruislip Woods with 50% provided by older people.

(Mary Worrall)

Page 222 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 3 Keeping Sarah Morris Keeping 1. Working with 1. Preventing social isolation through Hillingdon independent Andrew independent health partners to befriending schemes – funded by Social Health and healthy Knight tackle the difficulties Services – 54 volunteers (Increase by 10% Promotion Chris that arise through during 2008/09) Strategy Commerford frailty, poor physical David and mental health, On track (Green) - 44 volunteers are Joint Holdstock poverty and social placed with an older person providing a Commissi Paul Feven isolation. befriending service. oning Maria Obrien Strategy Belinda Norris In addition 2 volunteers are providing for Older Howard Griffin home share day care for 12 older people People each week.

(Chris Commerford)

2. Work with GPs to 2. Promoting physical and mental ensure that older wellbeing through the active age project people have access (17 attendees – increase by 20%). to treatments and therapies which On track (Green) – the active age project support an early takes place every Tuesday and Thursday intervention model. at the Torrington Road Baptist Church, for older people who have left hospital as well as those who need activities that promote health and well-being through social interaction, improve mobility through gentle exercise and build confidence.

The Leader has approved additional resources to support this project through the Leaders Initiative. (Chris Commerford)

3. Increase take-up of older people using Page 223 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies Keeping 3. Reduce the leisure services in Hillingdon by healthy number of older delivering a media campaign. people going into residential care and On track (Green) – A leisure campaign is recognising that this scheduled for the new year, depends on moving encompassing promotion of leisure more resources into services for older people. The launch of intensive home and the campaign is proposed for April 2009. community support. The campaign is in the planning stages and it is proposed that it will focus on ‘real’ services for ‘real’ people, with three key strands:

• Keep it real: for young people • Get real: 20-49 yr olds • Real choices: over 50+

(It has been agreed that for the purposes of this campaign, ‘older people’ will include those from 50 years old and above, to tie in with national guidance from on sport activities.)

Consultation with the Older People’s Forum will be undertaken prior to finalising the campaign details.

Updated information produced for Young at Heart scheme at leisure facilities. Broader information and opportunities to get active for older people will be developed in partnership with Age Concern by recruiting a 55 plus Activator Page 224 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies to identify gaps in provision, co-ordinate and deliver activities.

External Community Investment Fund (CIF) secured for new project working with Age Concern aimed at people aged 55+ that would include additional marketing, research to identify gaps and provide new opportunities for older people to get active. Scheme is subject to securing match funding.

(Sue Drummond)

4. Research trends in participation of leisure services to inform future service development.

On track (Green) - Information on take up of swimming by older people obtained in preparation for Department for Culture Media and Sport free swimming programme that is intended to start in 2009/10. Grant funding for free swimming for older people for 2 years has now been confirmed.

(Sue Drummond)

5. Develop the use of sheltered housing

Page 225 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies by older people in the local community – including particularly vulnerable people (as part of the Sheltered Housing and Extra Care Strategy).

On track (Green). The implementation phase of the Sheltered Housing and Extra Care project is now being launched. This will be composed of a number of distinct projects, each with a project manager, reporting to two Heads of Service in Adult Social Care and Housing. One of these projects will focus on linking schemes to the wider community including use of IT.

Work is ongoing to market the Frank Welch Court site to develop housing to meet the needs of older people.

(Paul Feven)

7. Help to reduce the number of older

Page 226 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies people experiencing a fall by working with health and voluntary sector services to provide practical information and advice to older people.

On track – Hillingdon Council has commissioned handy person schemes to help older people to remain independent, living in their own home. This includes a scheme provided by Age Concern. between 01/04/2008 and 30/09/2008 there have been 1259 enquiries to the handy person scheme (resulting in referrals for 851 service users).

In addition to the scheme provided by Age Concern, there is also a complementary scheme for people aged 65 years or older to provide assistance with minor repairs and urgent problems in the home e.g. blocked sink, leaking tap. For the period 1 April 2008 to end of Nov 2008, there have been 649 referrals to this scheme.

6. Development of pharmacies as sources

Page 227 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies of health information - 2 (out of 6) Choosing Health campaigns are delivered by March 2009 with pharmacists focussed on issues affecting older people.

Completed (Green) - 3 Campaigns run with 64 pharmacies. Information also sent to all libraries and occupational health workers at Hillingdon Hospital, Grassy Meadows Day Service and 2 GP practices involved in developing practice based health promotion.

Campaign themes: Physical Activity (April), Safe in the Sun (July), Mental Health (September). 11,000 leaflets distributed with supporting posters.

Additional campaigns include Keep Warm Keep Well in Winter Campaign currently running.

(Andrew Knight)

7. Mental Health sub-group is developing a care pathway to promote early diagnosis in relation to dementia/mental health.

On track (Green) – the mental health subgroup are continuing to meet to progress the mental health strategy. Consultation on the national dementia strategy has

Page 228 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies been undertaken locally by the subgroup. The final strategy and practice guidance is expected to be published by the Department of Health in January 2009 – this will provide a framework for early diagnosis in relation to dementia and mental health in Hillingdon. (Belinda Norris)

8. Development of an Independent Living strategy by March 2009 which sets out the vision for services which help people to remain living in their own home.

On track – The development of an independent living strategy is underway with stakeholders and is on track to be completed by March 2009. A stakeholder event is scheduled in January 2009. (Gary Collier)

9. Expand take-up of technology that assists people to remain living at home – 150 people by March 2009.

On track (Green) - 209 people have either equipment installed or are awaiting this installation. (Belinda Norris)

Page 229 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 4 Tackling Kevin Byrne Older people 1. Publicise how 1. Monitor and report quarterly on Age Heads of will cease to be older people can complaints received across partners and Discrimination Service part of any age complain about other customer feedback about Age Chris discrimination equality and achieve Discrimination and the action taken to Commerford a successful tackle this. outcome. On track (Green) - The council’s new single equality scheme now includes within its scope age discrimination, and this includes an age duty, which gives us the following responsibilities: • Eliminate unlawful discrimination • Promote equality of opportunity • Promote good relations between people of different ages As well as this the council where appropriate, monitors inputs by age, and will take the following steps: • Collect and analyse accurate data for all relevant policies, practices and functions identified as high priority • Present the data and analysis to the senior management teams. • Determine what action we need to take to tackle any adverse impact, gaps or differences identified by our monitoring. • Make the necessary changes to our policies. • Publish the results of our monitoring.

In addition to this scheme the council use equality impact assessments to ensure Page 230 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies their policies, procedures and services are planned and delivered in a manner that provides equal life chances to all our residents.

Each service has a complaints officer, and all complaints are monitored by age to determine if there is an indirect affect on different age groups.

So far there have been no complaints to the council based directly on age discrimination. Similarly cases to partner organisations (such as CAB) are low.

Age Concern are actively seeking to report and address any cases of age discrimination. (Kevin Byrne)

2. Actively promote how older people can make a complaint, pass on their concerns or access help to make a complaint – a promotional article in Hillingdon People by March 2009.

On track (Green) - Hillingdon People article scheduled for Older People’s Page in March/April 09 edition (Emma Marsh)

Page 231 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 5 Planning for Kevin Older people 1. We will improve 1. By July 2008 publish information about retirement Byrne/David will, if they the Council Website planning for retirement, employment and Holdstock choose to do to assist with volunteering, linked to the life events so, remain information on project for older people. active planning for members of retirement, working On track against revised target (Green) – the community or volunteering. the completion date for publishing the both in the information was re-set to October 2008 by private and the HIP steering group. Following public sector. extensive research and consultation to ensure the Life Changes project meets the needs of older people, the website has now been developed. The HIP Customer Focus Board has approved the completion of the project, which will require a challenge stage with the Social Services, Health & Housing POC in January 2009 before being launched on the public website in February. (Sam Taylor)

2. Assist HAVS to recruit new volunteers 2. We will publicise through Hillingdon People and publish opportunities in their targets. LAA stretch target is 1300 Hillingdon People. (2008 – 2011). Target for 08/09 is 400.

On track (Green) - The Local Area Agreement stretch target is measured through a survey.

HAVS volunteer centre data is being used as a local indicator for progress towards meeting the target, and current figures

Page 232 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies show good progress with 1009 additional volunteers added since April 2007.

The results of the residents survey will be used to further inform the analysis of volunteering.

(Richard Robbins)

3. At least one article per year about planning for retirement, employment and volunteering.

On track (Green) - Hillingdon People article scheduled for a 2009 edition when information on life changes project is finalised. (Emma Marsh)

6 Housing Paul Feven Older people 1. Provide access to 1. Provide information about housing Housing would prefer to information and options, home improvements and Strategy live in extra advice about adaptations, to include information at an care housing improvements and Older Peoples Assembly by March 2009 Sheltered given a choice adaptations that and information in Hillingdon People. Housing between that enable older people and Extra and residential to continue living in On track (Green) - Hillingdon People Care care. their own home. article scheduled for March/April edition. Strategy Scheduled for the Older Peoples Assembly in March 2009. (Paul Feven) Independe nt living strategy

Page 233 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 2. Deliver the 2. By March 2009, launch the Council’s Joint strategy for sheltered publication ‘Housing options and support Commissi housing and extra services for older people: assistance you oning care. can get to help you stay in your own Strategy home and housing options if you want to for Older leave.’ The publication to be launched at People the Older Peoples Assembly, placed on Strategy the Council’s website and ensure all for older relevant agencies have copies. people with On track (Green) – Launch scheduled for mental the Older Peoples Assembly in March health 2009. (Paul Feven) needs

3. Provide a range of 3. Consult with stakeholders on the housing options for Council’s Strategy, particularly those older people living in sheltered housing.

Completed (Green). Implementation phase of strategy now in progress. (Paul Feven)

4. Give greater priority within sheltered housing for vulnerable people and those needing housing support.

On track (Green) – Recommendations for changes to access and assessment for sheltered housing to be reported to Cabinet for approval. (Paul Feven)

Page 234 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 5. Work with partners to deliver specialist extra care within the Borough

On track (Green) – progress is being made with a major developer regarding the development of private sector assisted living housing specifically for older people on the RAF site in West Ruislip.

In addition, extra care facilities will be provided by the council in partnership with Paradigm Housing Association. A target has been set to complete the planning process with a developer by March 2009. A detailed application was heard and approved at planning committee in December 2008. (Paul Feven).

6. Improve the condition of existing council sheltered housing

On track (Green) - Generally, all sheltered schemes meet the decent homes standard. A small programme of works remains in order to make improvements to the environment and to enable compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (e.g. door automation and stair lifts).

Page 235 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies Improvements to sheltered housing has been the focus of a successful bid to the GLA this year. Overall Hillingdon Homes obtained £1.7 million over three years including £180,000 for a pilot programme to improve sheltered schemes.

(Paul Feven)

7. Provide existing social housing specifically to people aged over 55.

Completed (Green) – At Cabinet on 18th December 2008, Cabinet agreed to designate certain blocks of flats in Hillingdon to be let only to people aged 55 years of age or older.

8. Develop new high quality housing for older people as part of the Council’s pipelines sites project.

On track (Green) – this is a core element of the council’s HRA Pipeline Sites programme. This and other strategic objectives of the programme are being reviewed by members of the Affordable Housing Policy Group in January 09. (Paul Feven)

Page 236 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 7 Learning Helen Vincent Older people 1. Older people are 1. By March 2009, target older people and sharing Jan Lynn will learn new helped to develop living in sheltered housing with skills David skills as well skills and knowledge information and advice about the support Holdstock as sharing to use the computer available to improve their computer skills their wealth of experience On track (Green) – A number of initiatives with younger are underway to promote the use of people. information technology for people living in sheltered housing. This includes: • In January 2009 posters within sheltered housing schemes will be used to remind tenants of available IT resources in their area. • All the information packs offered to new tenants have information on how to access IT resources. • Exploring options to install IT facilities in communal areas of sheltered housing schemes and thereby extend access to technology • In the Spring edition of the bi-annual newsletter for tenants we will be informing our tenants about any new facilities and training.

(Jan Lynn)

Page 237 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 2. Ensure access to 2. Promote the support available to language classes for develop skills to make best use of the those who do not computer – an article in Hillingdon People speak English. by March 2009

On track (Green): Article to be included in Jan/Feb edition of Hillingdon People, focussing on the whole offer of adult education classes, with the main focus on computer skills. (Emma Marsh)

3. By March 2009 publish information about how people can access support and assistance to learn English

On track (Green): information about accessing support and assistance will be reviewed and updated on the Council’s website by March 2009.

(Emma Marsh)

8 Consulting David Older people 1. Supporting the 1. Continue to develop access to the and informing Holdstock will have clear Older People’s Older Peoples Assembly through Kevin Byrne accurate and Assembly. telephone conferencing and other timely methods. information On track (Green) – for each Assembly, 380 people in receipt of a service from the Meals Service receive a feedback form inviting comments and questions to be made to the Assembly for those people unable to attend. In addition, 80 care

Page 238 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies homes receive a feedback form for older people and / or their relatives to complete, to pass on requests, issues or comments to the Older Peoples Assembly.

The Chairman for the Older Peoples Assembly is exploring with the FORCE group other possibilities and preferred methods to strengthen access to the Older Peoples Assembly. (John Morgan)

2. Supporting the 2. Collecting bids for Leader’s Initiative. consideration/approval.

On track (Green) - Under the Leader's Initiative 2008-9, the high-profile burglar alarm scheme for older residents was launched and is currently being implemented (see 1.4a). Further bids from the voluntary sector, dining centres and residents have been approved by the Leader.

Ideas for new bids were invited from the Older People’s Assembly on 15 December 2008 and will be followed up with members of the Older Peoples Assembly Steering Group (the ‘FORCE’ Group). (Kevin Byrne)

Page 239 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 3. Supporting other 3. Regular meetings with the Black forums that offer a Minority Ethnic Elders Forum prior to the direct voice to older older people’s assemblies. people in the development of On track (Green) – the Chairman for the service planning and Older Peoples Assembly attended a delivery. meeting of the Black Minority Ethnic Elders Forum on 17th November 11.30am- 12.30pm in preparation for the Older Peoples Assembly on 15th December 2008. The next scheduled meeting with the Black Minority Elders Forum is in February 2009. (John Morgan)

4. Making best use of 4. Page in every issue dedicated to older Hillingdon People to people. inform and consult Completed (Green) - The older people’s on matters which page was introduced in the September/ affect the daily lives October 08 edition of the magazine and of older people. was launched with a feature article on the older people’s plan.

The page was reviewed for the January/February 09 edition to include more information on what the council is doing for older people and provide details of new initiatives available to them e.g. funding for services through the Leader’s Initiative, older people’s assembly etc. (Emma Marsh)

Page 240 Outcome Lead Officer Objective Action Target 2008-2011 Links to taken from the other Plan strategies 5. Improve access to 5. By March 2009: information - find out what best practice information particularly around is already available about key issues / consumer protection concerns affecting older people. and community -actively provide older people with safety information about the advice, support and assistance available using a variety of different routes and databases.

On track (Green) - article regarding bogus callers was included on the older people’s page of the November/December edition of Hillingdon People and promoted at the Older Peoples Assembly in December 2008. (Emma Marsh)

Updated 06/01/09 Ver 6.2 06.01.09

Page 241 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR CAPITAL ITEM 7 EXPENDITURE FOR TRANSPORT FOR LONDON FUNDED PROGRAMMES 2009/10

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Officer Contact Janet Rangeley, Planning and Community Services

Papers with report Appendix: Details of the allocated funding for the various transport schemes and projects in 2009/10.

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report This report requests approval for capital expenditure where projects are funded by Transport for London (TfL). Announcement of the Local Implementation Plan Funding Allocation was made on 20th November 2008. Hillingdon has been awarded £3.6m for a raft of transportation schemes and projects for 2009/10. This report seeks authority to spend the settlement funding for 2009/10.These schemes will form part of the Council’s Capital Programme.

Contribution to our • Sustainable Community Strategy plans and strategies • Local Implementation Plan • Air Quality Action Plan • Network Management Action Plan • Emerging Local Development Framework • Road Safety Plan • S106 Planning Obligations SPD

Financial Cost The report is seeking authorisation of capital expenditure for schemes that are funded by Transport for London (TfL). The Council has no discretion about whether funds from this source can be redirected to other service areas.

Cabinet should be aware that TfL has set in place a rigorous monitoring programme on the delivery of schemes to time and cost. Past performance is critical to awarding future funding to boroughs. Clearly, any undue delay in implementation, or failure to meet agreed performance measures, could adversely influence future funding opportunities for the Council. Therefore it is in the Council's best interests to progress these schemes as soon as possible, and to avoid potential financial difficulties later on. The authorisation of funding for 2009/10 will allow the design of the schemes to commence at an early stage and be ready for delivery at the start of the next financial year. This will ensure completion of the programmed schemes as appropriate by March 2010.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 242 Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Cabinet:

1. notes the outcome of the Local Implementation Plan funding announcement for 2009/10 received from Transport for London;

2. gives approval for capital expenditure to be committed on all projects funded by Transport for London, as part of the annual Local Implementation Plan Funding allocation 2009/10; and

3. delegates authority to the Corporate Directors E&CP and P&CS in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation to allocate the £100k for transport priorities of the borough’s choice, in accordance with the settlement details from TfL.

Reasons for recommendations

Notification of Hillingdon’s 2009/10 Local Implementation Plan Settlement (LIP) was received on 20th November 2008. It is essential that preparatory work can begin now on such matters as design of the schemes, as well as prioritising those schemes for which the settlement is less than the bid submitted. Over the last 5 years, TfL have been making the announcement of LIP settlements early in order to ensure that the boroughs are in a position to commence their programmes from the start of the financial year and that the works can be completed within the year of allocation of funding.

The Mayor has begun to introduce more flexibility in the allocation of funds and this year, on a trial basis, has allocated £100k to each borough to spend on the transport priorities of their choice. Officers in P&CS and E&CP are currently looking at the most appropriate schemes and are recommending that a list be prepared for consideration and delegated approval by the Cabinet Member.

Alternative options considered

To delay authorisation of the capital expenditure funding would result in a delay in starting the programme for which funding has been given. Such a delay is likely to impact on the programme’s delivery and as such future funding may be affected.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None at this stage.

INFORMATION

On the 20th November 2008, the Mayor announced the LIP funding for 2009/10, totalling £168m for London boroughs. This is the highest ever allocation settlement and an increase of £7m from the 2008/09 settlement. In June 2008, all boroughs had to submit their transport funding bids to

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 243 TfL, in accordance with their approved Local implementation Plan (LIP). TfL has assessed each boroughs’ funding applications based on the priorities indicated by the boroughs, the available funding from TfL’s 2009/10 Business Plan and with reference to the authority’s approved LIP. Allocations for Principal Road Renewal, Bridge Assessment & Strengthening, Area Based Schemes, Road Safety and Bus Priority schemes continue to be strongly influenced by the application of needs-based considerations. These transport areas together account for nearly 60% of funding and so strongly influence the total amount allocated to a borough.

2009-10 settlement for Hillingdon

The LIP funding allocation for Hillingdon Borough-specific schemes is £3.6m (which includes £100k for the Borough to allocate to transport priorities of their choice, compared to the pre- designated TfL categories) and Table 1 below indicates what proportion of the overall London allocation the borough received. A summary of the allocation for each programme is contained in Appendix 1 of this report. In addition the Table includes the proposed new consolidated programmes which the Mayor and TfL are considering for future years as part of their aim to give greater flexibility to the boroughs in the funding of transport improvements.

Table 1 – Summary of Borough Allocations by Programme & the Proposed New Consolidated Programmes for 2010/11 Current Programmes Borough London Proposed New Allocation Allocation Consolidated £m £m Programmes Bridge Strengthening & 0.04 6.3 Maintenance Assessment Principal Road Renewal 0.8 17.1 Bus Priority* 0.5 20.6 Corridors Bus Stop Accessibility 0.07 2.2 LCN Plus 0.2 10.0 Cycling 0.2 6.2 Walking 0.1 8.9 Local Safety Schemes 0.5 20.3 20 mph Zones 0.4 8.3 Neighbourhoods Freight 0.0 0.8 Regeneration 0.1 1.6 Environment 0.07 1.6 Accessibility 0.06 2.1 Controlled Parking Zones 0.0 0.4 School Travel Plans 0.3 8.5 Smarter Travel Travel Awareness 0.02 0.7 Education, Training & Publicity 0.02 1.2 Workplace Travel Plans 0.0 1.4 Station Access 0.0 2.9 Major Schemes Streets for People 0.0 7.4 Town Centres 0.0 9.0

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 244 Partnership Funding

In addition to the Borough’s specific allocation, Hillingdon also has access to funding as a partner in the following transport partnerships: • WESTTRANS (West London Alliance - Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow); and • SWELTRAC (South and West London Transport Conference – includes the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond Upon Thames, Hounslow, Sutton, Kensington and Chelsea, Merton, Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Kingston upon Thames and Croydon).

The total allocation to partnerships across London is detailed in Table 2 below:

Table 2 – Summary of Partnership Allocations for 2009/10 Partnership Allocation £m Cross River Partnership 1.6 Clear Zones Partnership 1.5 London European Partnership for 0.2 Transport North London Transport Forum 0.6 North Orbital Rail Partnership 0.5 Park Royal Partnership 0.2 SELTRANS 0.9 SWELTRAC 1.7 Thames Gateway London Partnership 2.2 WestTrans 1.1

Summary Analysis of Hillingdon’s Allocation

1) Hillingdon’s allocation for 2009/10 is £3.6m and this represents a 3% decrease from our 2008/09 allocation of £3.7m. A reduction of only 3% (£100K) is good compared to 19 other boroughs which have reductions of between 4% and 28%. 2) The Borough is ranked 19th out of 33 for allocation size and ranked 14th out of 33 for % change from 2008/09 to 2009/10. 3) Our allocation is in line with our expectations being around 50% of our total bid, which does not include Bus Priority or Bridge Assessment & Strengthening; 4) The average borough allocation is £4m and, given Hillingdon’s allocation is £3.6m, officers consider this to be an acceptable overall settlement. Only 10 boroughs received an increased allocation.

Specific Changes in Hillingdon’s Programme Allocations

Increases

20mph Zones £375k 150% increase Bridge Assessment & £45k 125% Strengthening Regeneration £100k 400% Walking £150k 50% Non LCN+ Cycling £180k 50%

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 245

Decreases

London Cycle Network £238k 73% decrease Bus Stop Accessibility £75k 48% Environment £70k 50% School Travel Plans £28k 35%

Officers have some concerns about specific allocations within the programme and are currently seeking clarification from TfL. From a positive view, Tfl have strongly supported a bid from Hillingdon in a new area of work around reducing crime hotspots (£50k allocated) and removing the ‘dead zones’ from key walking routes to stations and bus interchanges (£150k allocated). Transportation officers worked with the Head of Community Safety in developing these bids and it is hoped that, with successful implementation during 2009, will enable the Borough to increase future allocations for this type of initiative.

More flexibility for LIP funding and reporting processes

The Mayor has clearly stated that he intends to review the approach to transport across London and also how improvements are funded. There is currently a document ‘The Way to Go – Planning for Transport in London’ out for consultation and the Borough’s response is the subject of another item on this agenda. The Mayor intends this document to be a forerunner of a new transport strategy for London and he has already begun to introduce more flexibility into the LIP funding and reporting processes for the boroughs from 2009/10 onwards. TfL has been working with boroughs to reform the current LIP funding processes and reduce bureaucracy. Key changes in this settlement include: • £100k has been allocated to each borough to spend on the transport priorities of their choice. This is on a trial basis and may be used, for example, to expand an existing scheme or initiate some new transport projects; • The proportion of funds allocated for years 2010/11 and 2011/12 has been increased to provide improved certainty for planning of multi-year schemes; • Delegated powers to shift funds between programmes have increased; • There is no longer a requirement for joint branding of schemes; • In delivering the projects covered by the funding received from TfL in respect of traffic calming measures, and other projects where relevant, the Mayor is encouraging boroughs to consider alternatives to road humps or fewer road humps where this is feasible and practical in terms of outcomes; • The Annual Progress Report is no longer completed by borough officers and will be produced instead by TfL. As part of our work on the next round of LIPs, TfL are starting to assess which targets should be used in future, taking account of the LAA process; and • TfL are also working with Borough officers to reduce the number of programmes from 20 plus to only 5 for 2010/11 onwards are also considering whether these funds could be allocated using a funding formula, rather than through an annual submission and assessment process.

The above changes are significant and indicate that TfL is keen to ensure that boroughs have more discretion and flexibility in how these funds are used. A working group of borough representatives from London Councils are working jointly with TfL to develop an appropriate methodology. Hillingdon officers will be attending a workshop in January to discuss these initial proposals and ensure that future funding mechanism safeguards Hillingdon’s interests.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 246 Next Stage

Once approval has been given for the capital expenditure, officers will begin the preparatory work on those schemes which need to be ready for 1 April start. Where appropriate, Ward Members and the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation will be consulted during design stages and also prior to implementation. Some of the proposals require approval from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation and this will be sought as schemes are progressed.

Financial Implications

The report seeks authorisation of the capital expenditure in schemes that are funded by Transport for London (TfL). The Council has no discretion about whether funds from this source can be redirected to other service areas.

The use of external funding to finance capital expenditure does not affect the position of the Council’s own capital resources unless such funding is not utilised within the timescale and the Council is required to complete schemes at its own cost. Funding is provided by TfL in the expectation that the boroughs will undertake such works in a timely manner. Delays in delivering schemes within the programme have a high risk of affecting TfL’s assessment of the Council’s capability to implement such programmes and is likely to affect future funding settlements.

It should be noted that there is an increasing trend of external bodies, such as TfL, towards awarding funding to boroughs on the basis of past performance. Clearly, any undue delay in implementation, or failure to meet promised performance measures, could adversely influence future funding opportunities for the Council. Therefore, it is in the Council's best interests to progress these schemes as soon as possible, and avoid potential financial difficulties later on. Officers are aware of other London boroughs which have received a significantly reduced settlement for 2009/10 on the basis of their performance in 2008/09.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

The funding will enable implementation of key schemes and transport projects, which will lead to improved transport provision in the Borough.

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

Officers will be able to undertake the essential preparatory work for all the schemes identified for funding in 2009/10 and be ready for implementation at April 2009.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

N/A.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

The majority of funding provided now through the Local Implementation Plan allocations from Transport for London for 2009/10 is for capital expenditure, and the draft capital programme for 2009/10 and beyond will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the level of funding announced.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 247 Legal

Legal does not have any additional comments to make on the report. As indicated in the body of the report this report, is merely seeking authority to spend money allocated from TfL.

Relevant Service Groups

N/A.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• London Borough of Hillingdon Local Implementation Plan (approved Feb 2007) • LBH. Local Implementation Plan 2009/2010 Submission (June 2008) • TfL letter dated 20th November 2008 to LBH Chief Executive ‘Local Implementation Plan Funding 2009/10’

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 248 Appendix A

PROGRAMME08/09 ALLOCATION 09/10 REQUESTED AMOUNT 09/10 ALLOCATION % CHANGE 08/09 - 09/10

20mph Zones 150,000 375,000 375,000 150

Bridge Assessment & Strengthening 20,000 2,100,000 45,000 125

Bus Priority 666,000 1,345,000 550,000 -17

Bus Stop Accessibility 145,000 190,000 75,000 -48

Community Transport 0 15,000 0 0

Controlled Parking Zones 0 20,000 0 0

Education, Training & Publicity Schemes 27,000 50,000 25,000 -7

Environment 140,000 328,000 70,000 -50

LCN 866,000 826,000 238,000 -73

Local Area Accessibility 40,000 240,000 60,000 50

Local Safety Schemes 455,000 754,000 550,000 21

Non-LCN+ Cycling Schemes 120,000 825,000 180,000 50

Principal Road Renewal 563,000 2,910,000 812,000 44

Regeneration Area Schemes 20,000 300,000 100,000 400

School Travel Plans 440,000 662,000 287,000 -35

Travel Awareness 25,000 33,000 18,000 -28

Walking 100,000 566,000 150,000 50

Work Travel Plans 10,000 50,000 0 -100

Nominal Borough Allocation 0 0 100,000 100

TOTAL 3,787,000 11,489,000 3,610,000 -3 Appendix B REQUESTED AMOUNT INITIAL ALLOCATION PROGRAMME SCHEME NAME 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 20mph Zones 375,000 0 0 375,000.00 0 0 VICTORIA ROAD, RUISLIP MANOR 150,000 0 0 150,000.00 0 0 GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD (SCHEME 125,000 0 0 125,000.00 0 0 PHASE II) CHURCH ROAD, HAYES (SCHEME 100,000 0 0 100,000.00 0 0 PHASE III) Bridge Assessment & 2,100,000 2,310,000 710,000 45,000.00 0 0 Strengthening PINN WAY BR 160,000 150,000 20,000 0 0 0 BREAKSPEAR RD (N) 350,000 120,000 20,000 0 0 0 TROUT RD BR 60,000 550,000 300,000 0 0 0 YEADING LANE BR 340,000 270,000 20,000 0 0 0 KINGSHILL AVE BR 340,000 270,000 20,000 0 0 0 GLOVERS GROVE BR 165,000 120,000 40,000 0 0 0 COLHAM MILL RD BR (N) 135,000 150,000 10,000 0 0 0 COLHAM MILL RD BR (S) 45,000 150,000 100,000 45,000.00 0 0 GLEBE AVE CULVERT 40,000 210,000 100,000 0 0 0 AUSTINS LANE 135,000 120,000 50,000 0 0 0 GREENWAY CULVERT 200,000 150,000 20,000 0 0 0 SWAN BR SE RETAINING WALLS 130,000 50,000 10,000 0 0 0 Bus Priority 1,345,000 360,000 150,000 550,000.00 180,000.00 50,000.00

GREEN LANE NORTHWOOD (PHASE II) 125,000 40,000 0 125,000.00 0 0

R114 - VICTORIA ROAD RUISLIP MANOR 200,000 0 0 100,000.00 0 0

R114 - VICTORIA ROAD SOUTH RUISLIP 80,000 50,000 0 40,000.00 40,000.00 0 UXBRIDGE ROAD EB APP TO YEADING 150,000 0 0 50,000.00 0 0 LANE CHURCH ROAD HAYES (PHASE III) 40,000 0 0 40,000.00 0 0 ROUTE U1 85,000 65,000 40,000 40,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 MAHJACKS/CEDARS ROUNDABOUT 350,000 0 0 50,000.00 100,000.00 0 ROUTE U4 60,000 45,000 30,000 30,000.00 0 10,000.00 ROUTE U9 85,000 60,000 40,000 0 0 0 ROUTE 282 55,000 50,000 30,000 30,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 ROUTE 331 60,000 50,000 10,000 30,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 ROUTE U7 35,000 00000 BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 20,000 0 0 15,000.00 0 0 Bus Stop Accessibility 190,000 205,000 190,000 75,000.00 0 0 ROUTE U9 - SCHEME 2 40,000 0 0 20,000.00 0 0 ROUTE U9 - SCHEME 3 30,000 0 0 20,000.00 0 0 ROUTE U1/U9 60,000 0 0 30,000.00 0 0 ROUTE U9 - SCHEME 4 25,000 0 0 5,000.00 0 0 ROUTE U9 - SCHEME 1 35,000 00000 ROUTE H13 - SCHEME 1 0 45,000 0000 ROUTE H13 - SCHEME 2 0 25,000 0000 ROUTE H13 - SCHEME 3 0 45,000 0000 ROUTE H13 - SCHEME 4 0 40,000 0000 ROUTE A10/U4 0 0 45,000 0 0 0 ROUTE 195 0 50,000 0000 ROUTE H50 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 ROUTE H50/A10 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 ROUTE A10 - SCHEME 1 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 ROUTE A10 - SCHEME 2 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 Community Transport 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 HILLINGDON COMMUNITY TRANSPORT 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0 0

Controlled Parking Zones 20,000 00000

SOUTH RUISLIP CONTROLLED PARKING 10,000 00000 ZONE UXBRIDGE SOUTH CONTROLLED 10,000 00000 PARKING ZONE REQUESTED AMOUNT INITIAL ALLOCATION PROGRAMME SCHEME NAME 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Education, Training & 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000.00 0 0 Publicity Schemes THE ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000.00 0 0 FORUM MOVING ON 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000.00 0 0 ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION MATERIALS 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000.00 0 0 LIBRARY THEATRE IN EDUCATION 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 JUNIOR CITIZEN 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000.00 0 0 INSET TRAINING FOR TEACHERS 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000.00 0 0 POWERED 2 WHEELER 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 PUBLICITY FOR SUPPORT OF TFL 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 EVENTS STUDENT ROAD SAFETY COUNCIL 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000.00 0 0 SENIOR CITIZENS 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000.00 0 0 CAR SEAT FITTING CAMPAIGN 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000.00 0 0 Environment 328,000 272,000 272,000 70,000.00 50,000.00 0 NETWORK MANAGEMENT - TRAFFIC 60,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 MONITORING NOISE - ANNUAL HEATHROW NOISE 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000.00 0 0 MONITORING NOISE - HEATHROW EXPANSION NOISE 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000.00 0 0 MONITOR WHOLE ROUTE ENVIRONMENTAL 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 IMPROVEMENTS NOISE - ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE 100,000 100,000 100,000 50,000.00 50,000.00 0 REDUCTION NOISE - RAILWAY NOISE REDUCTION 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 FEASIBILITY FOR GREEN FLEET 16,000 00000 OPTIONS LCN 826,000 145,000 0 238,000.00 0 0

LINK 93 - WHITEHALL ROAD 100,000 00000 LINK 93 - ST MARTINS APPROACH; PINN 60,000 00000 WAY LINK 93 - CLEVELAND ROAD/THE 10,000 45,000 0000 GREENWAY/W LINK 94 - UBRIDGE ROAD J/W 30,000 00000 BROOKSIDE RO LINK 93 - SIPSON ROAD NORTH OF M4 80,000 0 0 80,000.00 0 0 LINK 94 - UXBRIDGE ROAD J/W 91,000 00000 COLDHARBOUR LINK 93 - LONG LANE 20,000 00000 LINK 93 - ICKENHAM ROAD 25,000 0 0 25,000.00 0 0 LINK 93 - STATION ROAD; WEST 30,000 00000 DRAYTON LINK 93 - EASTCOTE VILLAGE TO 100,000 50,000 0000 BOROUGH B LINK 93 - UXBRIDGE TOWN CENTRE 50,000 0 0 50,000.00 0 0 LINK 94 - HILLINGDON HILL 42,000 00000 LINK 93 - CHURCH AVENUE 45,000 0 0 45,000.00 0 0 LINK 93 - THE AVENUE 10,000 00000 LINK 93 - HIGH STREET YIEWSLEY 18,000 0 0 18,000.00 0 0 LINK 93 - LONG LANE SERVICE ROAD 40,000 00000 LINK 93 - HIGH STREET RUISLIP J/W 20,000 0 0 20,000.00 0 0 EASTC LINK 93 - BELMONT ROAD; YORK ROAD 55,000 50,000 0000 TO PA Local Area Accessibility 240,000 200,000 200,000 60,000.00 40,000.00 0 ACCESSIBILITY TO GREEN SPACES 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 ACCESS TO AND BETWEEN HEALTH 40,000 00000 CENTRES LOCAL AREA ACCESSIBILITY SCHEME 50,000 50,000 50,000 60,000.00 40,000.00 0 OUTLINE REQUESTED AMOUNT INITIAL ALLOCATION PROGRAMME SCHEME NAME 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012

Local Safety Schemes 754,000 500,000 500,000 550,000.00 0 0

GREEN LANE / STATION APPROACH, 50,000 00000 NORTHWOOD MORGANS LANE / UXBRIDGE ROAD, 50,000 0 0 50,000.00 0 0 HAYES CHERRY LANE ROUNDABOUT, WEST 300,000 500,000 500,000 300,000.00 0 0 DRAYTON YORK ROAD / CHIPPENDALE WAY, 30,000 0 0 30,000.00 0 0 UXBRIDGE FALLING LANE / ROYAL LANE, YIEWSLEY 37,000 00000 WEST DRAYTON ROAD / UXBRIDGE 65,000 0 0 65,000.00 0 0 ROAD, HAYES LANSBURY DRIVE / UXBRIDGE ROAD, 45,000 0 0 45,000.00 0 0 HAYES UXBRIDGE ROAD / SPRINGFIELD ROAD, 30,000 0 0 30,000.00 0 0 HAYES LONG LANE / SWEETCROFT LANE, 50,000 00000 HILLINGDON ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 30,000 0 0 30,000.00 0 0 SPEED INDICATOR DEVICES 15,000 00000 COLDHARBOUR LANE 52,000 00000 Non-LCN+ Cycling 825,000 870,000 845,000 180,000.00 35,000.00 50,000.00 Schemes RUISLIP LIDO - NCR6 ROUTE PHASE I 250,000 0 0 35,000.00 0 0 NCR6 ROUTE - SOUTHERN SECTION 100,000 50,000 100,000 50,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 PHASE I SCHOOL CYCLE ROUTES 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 NCR6 ROUTE - NORTHERN SECTION 10,000 125,000 50,000 0 10,000.00 25,000.00 CYCLE PARKING AT DESTINATIONS 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000.00 0 0 CYCLE ROUTE - WEST END ROAD 100,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 CYCLE TRAINING 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000.00 0 0 ADULT CYCLE TRAINING 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000.00 0 0 HILLINGDON GREENWAYS FOR THE 30,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 OLYMPICS AN

Principal Road Renewal 2,910,000 0 0 812,000.00 428,000.00 0

A404 - RICKMANSWORTH ROAD 403,000 00000 A404 - RICKMANSWORTH ROAD 857,000 00000 A3044 - STANWELL MOOR ROAD 812,000 0 0 812,000.00 0 0 A437 - NORTH HYDE ROAD 428,000 0 0 0 428,000.00 0 A408 - FALLING LANE 410,000 00000 Regeneration Area 300,000 150,000 150,000 100,000.00 50,000.00 0 Schemes UXBRIDGE IBA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 150,000 00000

LOCAL RETAIL PARADE IMPROVEMENTS 150,000 150,000 150,000 100,000.00 50,000.00 0

School Travel Plans 662,000 212,000 212,000 287,000.00 40,000.00 0 FEASIBILITY PROGRAMME 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000.00 20,000.00 0 BOURNE PRIMARY - PEDESTRIAN 40,000 00000 CROSSING CRANFORD PARK - PEDESTRIAN 40,000 00000 CROSSING SIGNING, LINING & FENCING 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000.00 0 0 ANNUAL STP AWARDS EVENT 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000.00 0 0

STP IMPLEMENTATION - SMALL GRANTS 40,000 40,000 40,000 30,000.00 0 0 PINKWELL PRIMARY - RAISED 50,000 00000 CROSSING SCHOOL TRAVEL PLAN DEVELOPMENT 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000.00 20,000.00 0

HOLY TRINITY - RAISED CROSSING 70,000 00000 HILLINGDON PRIMARY - RAISED 40,000 00000 CROSSING HERMITAGE PRIMARY - TRAFFIC 80,000 00000 CALMING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL TRAVEL PLAN 60,000 0 0 40,000.00 0 0 FUNDING WOW 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000.00 0 0 PRIZES FOR PROMOTING STP 25,000 25,000 25,000 5,000.00 0 0 PROGRAMME MONITORING AND PROMOTION FUND 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000.00 0 0 TRANSITION PACKS 70,000 0 0 70,000.00 0 0 REQUESTED AMOUNT INITIAL ALLOCATION PROGRAMME SCHEME NAME 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Travel Awareness 33,000 0 0 18,000.00 0 0

INTER-SCHOOLS CYCLE CARNIVAL 5,000 00000 TRY CYCLING 8,000 0 0 8,000.00 0 0 IN TOWN WITHOUT MY CAR DAY 10,000 0 0 8,000.00 0 0 BIKE TO WORK BREAKFAST 2,000 0 0 2,000.00 0 0 PARTY IN THE PARK 8,000 00000 Walking 566,000 350,000 350,000 150,000.00 0 0

RIVER PINN WALKING IMPROVEMENTS 21,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 YEADING BROOK WALKING 20,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 IMPROVEMENTS STOCKLEY ROAD, WEST DRAYTON 25,000 0 0 25,000.00 0 0 HAYES END COMMUNITY PARK 70,000 00000 PEDESTRIAN LINK WALKING ROUTE SAFETY AUDITS 50,000 0 0 50,000.00 0 0 REMOVAL OF DEAD ZONES IN WALKING 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 ROUTES WINDSOR AVENUE, UXBRIDGE 25,000 0 0 25,000.00 0 0 CRANFORD DRIVE, HAYES 50,000 00000 COWLEY REC FOOTPATH EXTENSION 30,000 00000 CRIME HOTSPOTS 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000.00 0 0 PIELD HEATH ROAD 25,000 00000 UPGRADING LONG DISTANCE WALKING 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 ROUTES Work Travel Plans 50,000 00000

TRAVEL PLANS FOR LEISURE CENTRES 50,000 00000

TOTAL 11,539,000 5,589,000 3,594,000 3,510,000 823,000 100,000 CLG: LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND) (CHARGES ITEM 8 FOR PROPERTY SEARCHES) REGULATIONS 2008

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Report Author Janet Rangeley/Ian Inniss, Planning and Community Services

Papers with report Appendix 1: Statutory Instrument 2008 No. 3248 HOUSING ENGLAND The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008. (Page 9) Appendix 2: List of chargeable items

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report On 20th March 2008, Cabinet considered a report on proposed changes in legislation relating to charges for Property Searches. Although this consultation was undertaken some time ago, little notice was given to Local Authorities before the new Statutory Instrument, “The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008” came into force on 23rd December 2008.

The new Regulations revoke the current 1994 Regulations and their aim is to provide a level playing field between local authorities and personal search companies and to bring clarity and transparency to the charging process.

This report advises Cabinet that this authority is required to come in line with the new Regulations. A review of our current costs and charges is currently being conducted and it is proposed to inform Cabinet, in the February Fees and Charges report, of the revised charges for the service. Cabinet will be asked to endorse these revised charges.

Contribution to our Council Plan; MTFF 2009/10 onwards. plans and strategies

Financial Cost The financial impact to this change in legislation has been anticipated for some time. The only unknown has been the date of implementation and how it was proposed to breakdown the rechargeable costs of the service. The draft MTFF provides for growth for this change and based on current year projections income and expenditure (after allowing for reduced income) shows a net surplus of £121,000 as reductions in fees would be requested to offset the likely surplus. Therefore, based on the current year’s projection the impact will increase the pressure on the budget by £121,000. However further work is required to ensure all legitimate costs have been charged to this account.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 253 Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet:

(1) Note the implications of new Regulations “The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008” made on 16th December 2008, which came into force on 23rd December 2008 require the authority to set charges for property searches that are based on a cost recovery model and to formally adopt these; (2) Note that an urgent review is currently being conducted to calculate the charges for all of the services provided as set out in Appendix 2; (3) Note that details of all revised charges will be set out within the Fees and Charges Report coming to Cabinet in February 2009; and (4) Note the financial implications arising out of this change in legislation and agree to consider these as part of the 2009/10 budget setting.

Reasons for recommendation

New Regulations, “The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008” were made on 16th December and came into force on 23rd December 2008. The Regulations enable the Council to charge for providing access to property records and are required to create a charging model to ensure that the service breaks even over a 3 year rolling programme.

The Regulations also require this authority to provide access to all relevant data to compile a search. This is to allow personal search agents to compete with Local Authorities and ensure fast delivery of information so as not to slow down the buying and selling of property and land.

Alternative options considered

No alternative options were considered as this revised Statutory Instrument obliges all Local Authorities within England to implement the required changes. Although the Statutory Instrument is in force no supporting guidance has been published to assist Local Authorities in implementing the cost recovery model. We are currently forced to utilise the guidance from the “Charging Environment of Local Land Charges” consultation paper.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None at this stage.

Supporting Information

On 20 March 2008, Cabinet considered a report on the proposed changes in legislation relating to charges for Property Searches. Comments were sent to the Communities and Local

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 254 Government. This report outlines the final changes to the Regulations, which came into force on the 23rd December 2008 and the implications for Hillingdon.

These new Regulations allow local authorities to make charges for services provided in connection with property searches, specifically “access to property records” and “answering enquiries about a property”.

The new Statutory Instrument revokes the Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994, but makes transitional provision in respect of the charges to be made by local authorities in respect of requests received while those Regulations were in force.

The Regulations indicate that charges must not amount to more than the costs of granting access for information to compile a search and that over a period of three consecutive years; a local authority must ensure that the total income from charges does not exceed their total costs. In addition, where a local authority has made an under or overestimate of the unit charge, it must take this into account in determining charges for the following year.

These Regulations also require local authorities to publish certain information each year in connection with the charges made under these Regulations. Each year, a local authority must publish information relating to unit charges. Additionally, from 2010, each must publish a yearly summary of the total income and costs relating to access to property records, and a summary of the total income from answering enquiries.

Implications for Hillingdon

Locally set fees for Personal Searches would not only have positive implications for income generation, but also provide more of a level playing field for the provision of the Property Search service in the Borough. By providing a model for setting charges, there is also greater clarity over the justification for the actual fee and subsequently greater transparency in the service provision. The Local Authorities (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008 does set a transparent model for the charging of pre-unrefined, unrefined and refined data. It also sets a clear charging model. However, the model should not restrict Local Authorities (LAs) from revising their charges within each financial year. Such flexibility would work ensure Local Authorities endeavoured to set an appropriate charge even in a fluctuating market and would ensure LA’s do not lose or gain too much money within any financial year.

Financial Implications

The proposals focus on moving the Local Land Charges service delivery to operate on a cost recovery basis. Consequently there are implications for the P&CS annual budget which have been anticipated for some time and partly provides for within the draft budget for 2009/10. The current budgeted surplus for land charges will have to be reduced as the implementation of the recommendations are followed. This has been highlighted in the Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) and has been taken into account by the budget strategy which has provided a contingent allocation that will cover this amount.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 255 EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

There will be a more equitable fee structure for both Personal Searches and other (CON29) searches, which would be reflected in costs associated with information related to the local land charges register. The aim to improve the electronic delivery of the Property Search Services will be of benefit to all users of the service in terms of value for money and should bring greater efficiencies to the service. The proposals would aid in the reduction of search fees and with appropriate investment and better access to information should ensure property searches delivered quickly and efficiently and provide better value for customers.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

N/A.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

The recommendations have been framed to allow the Council to put in place immediately a charging regime that continues charges for property services under the new regulations that have been put in put in place at short notice, and to undertake a more detailed review of the fee structure before charges are finalised for the 2009/10 financial year. The results of this further review will be included in the fees and charges recommendations to be put forward to the February Cabinet meeting as part of the budget setting report.

In the current financial year, the report recommendations are unlikely to result in a material change to the current forecast outturn position for the local land charges service. In 2009/10, the effect of the new regulations is likely to mean that charge income will be less than provided for in the draft budget reported to the December Cabinet meeting. However, the precise financial implications for 2009/10 will only be determined once the further review of charges, arising from recommendation 2 of the report, has been performed.

Cabinet will be aware from the monthly budget monitoring reports that income from local land charges has been extremely volatile over the last year, and accordingly this income budget is one of a number of budget headings that are being reviewed in detail prior to final budget recommendations being made in the budget setting report to the February Cabinet meeting, at which stage the best estimate of the impact of both the new regulations and demand for the service on income levels will be determined.

Legal

(1) The legislation is the Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008. It allows local authorities to make charges for services provided in connection with property searches. It revokes the Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994. The legislation is a statutory instrument approved by Parliament, and applies to the Council (as well as other local authorities). It came into force on 23 December 2008.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 256 (2) The Regulations allow local authorities to make charges for services provided in connection with property searches. The effect of the legislation is that charges for the granting by the Council for access to property records must not amount to more than the costs of granting access (cost recovery). Over a period of three consecutive years, the Council must ensure that the total income from charges does not exceed their total costs. In addition, where there is an underestimate or overestimate of charges imposed to effect the requirement of achieving cost recovery, the Council must take this into account in determining charges for the following year.

(3) The Regulations also give the Council power to make charges in respect of answering enquiries about property. These charges must have regard to the costs to the Council in answering enquiries.

(4) The Regulations require the Council to publish certain information each year in connection with the charges made under the Regulations. Each year, the Council must publish information relating to the charges it has imposed. Additionally, from 2010, the Council must publish a yearly summary of the total income and costs relating to access to property records, and a summary of the total income from answering enquiries.

(5) The officer recommendation is to authorise charges pursuant to the new legislation. The authorisation is to include all charges levied from the date of the coming into force of the legislation (23 December 2008) to the date of this Cabinet meeting. There is a legal requirement to set charges in accordance with the new legislation from 23 December 2008.

(6) The Council's constitution requires that fees and charges are authorised collectively by Cabinet (see Constitution 7.08(c)(10)): "The fixing of fees and charges for Council services".

(7) The officer recommendation in this Report is that earlier fees and charges for property searches will remain unchanged in the near term. Officers will be required to prepare proposals for a revised scheme of charges, which will require Cabinet approval in February. The recommendation in relation to the maintenance of the current charges and revision is lawful.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Statutory Instrument 2008 No. 3248 HOUSING ENGLAND The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008.

2. CLG: Local Authorities (Charges for Property Searches) (England) Regulations: Consultation.

3. Cabinet Report Statutory Instrument 2008 No. 3248 HOUSING ENGLAND The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 257

Appendix 1

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

2008 No. 3248

HOUSING, ENGLAND

The Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008 Made - - - - 16th December 2008 Coming into force - - in accordance with regulation 1(2)

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989(1), and having, in accordance with section 152(6) of that Act, consulted such representatives of local government as appear to be appropriate:

In accordance with section 150(6) of that Act, a draft of this instrument was laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008. (2) These Regulations shall come into force seven days after the day on which they are made. (3) These Regulations apply only to local authorities in England.

Interpretation 2.—(1) In these Regulations, “access to property records” means access to property records granted by a local authority in any of the following ways— (a) allowing a person to inspect or search property records at a place designated by the authority for doing so; (b) allowing the making of or providing copies of, property records; or (c) the electronic transmission of property records, or copies of such records, and in these Regulations, the expression “access to property records” is to be construed accordingly. (2) In these Regulations, a reference to a local authority “answering enquiries about a property” means— (a) the answering by the authority of any specific oral or written enquiries from a person about a property or property records; or (b) the carrying out by the authority of any activities for the purposes of answering such enquiries. (3) In these Regulations— “financial year” means a period of twelve consecutive months ending with 31st March; “free statutory information” means information required to be provided by a local authority under an enactment, where that enactment expressly—

(1) 1989 c. 42. The powers under sections 150 and 152 of the Act are exercisable in relation to Wales, by the Welsh Ministers; see the reference to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/672), and paragraphs 30 and 32 of Schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 258 (a) prohibits a local authority from making a charge for doing so; or (b) requires that the authority provides the information free of charge; “local authority” means— (a) a county council; (b) a district council; (c) a London Borough Council; (d) the Common Council of the City of London; and (e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly; “internal transaction” means the granting of access to property records by one department of a local authority to another department of that authority; “property” means a specified building or structure or specified land in relation to which property records are held by a local authority; “property records”— (a) includes documents, registers, files and archives (held in any form by the local authority), which relate to a property; (b) includes information derived from such documents, registers, files and archives; but (c) excludes the local land charges register kept under section 3(2) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975(2); “request” includes a written, oral, electronic or automated request; and “unit charge” means the charge described in regulation 6(2).

Revocation and transitional provision 3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994(3) are revoked in relation to England. (2) These Regulations apply where a local authority receives— (a) a request for access to property records; or (b) enquiries about a property, on or after the date these Regulations come into force. (3) The Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994 continue to apply where a local authority receives— (a) a request for access to property records; or (b) enquiries about a property, before the date these Regulations come into force.

Scope of regulations 5 and 8 4.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), regulations 5 and 8 apply in respect of a local authority— (a) granting access to property records; or (b) answering enquiries about a property, whether it does so under a power or duty, created or imposed by any enactment. (2) Regulations 5 and 8 do not apply— (a) to anything in respect of which a local authority may or must impose a charge apart from these Regulations; or

(2) 1975 c. 76. (3) S.I. 1994/1885.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 259 (b) in respect of access to free statutory information, except to the extent that a local authority is providing a service which is supplementary or incidental to that described in the enactment in question. (3) Regulations 5 and 8 do not apply in respect of anything done in the course of exercising an excepted function.

Charges for access to property records 5.—(1) This regulation applies where a local authority grants access to property records to a person (including to another local authority). (2) The authority may impose a charge on that person for granting such access if it makes or proposes to make an internal recharge (analogous to a charge) for internal transactions. (3) The charges and recharges made under this regulation must be calculated in accordance with regulations 6 and 7.

Calculation of charges for access to property records 6.—(1) This regulation and regulation 7 make provision for the charges and internal recharges made under regulation 5(2) to be no more than the costs to the local authority of granting access to property records. (2) Subject to paragraph (3), each charge or recharge (the “unit charge”) for access to property records made during a financial year must be calculated by— (a) dividing a reasonable estimate of the likely total costs to the local authority in granting access to property records (and performing internal transactions) during the financial year; by (b) a reasonable estimate of the number of requests for access to property records likely to be received (from another person or different departments of the authority) over that same financial year. (3) A local authority must take all reasonable steps to ensure that over the course of any period of three consecutive financial years, the total income (including notional income from internal transactions) from such charges and recharges does not exceed the total costs of granting access to property records. (4) Where under paragraph (2), a local authority makes an overestimate or underestimate of the unit charge for a financial year, it must take this into account in determining the unit charge for the following financial year. (5) Each unit charge made during a financial year must be the same amount and must be applied on equal terms, regardless of whether it is made in relation to granting access to property records or internal transactions (although multiple unit charges may be made in respect of multiple requests for access or multiple transactions).

Interpretation of costs under regulation 6(1) 7.—(1) In regulation 6(1), “costs” means any costs to the local authority (including related salary costs and the costs of the creation and maintenance of records) reasonably incurred in connection with complying with a request for access to property records. (2) In regulation 6(1), “costs” does not include— (a) such costs as the local authority incurs in granting access to free statutory information; or (b) such costs to the authority as are directly referable to the maintenance of free statutory information.

Charges by local authorities for answering enquiries about a property 8.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local authority may charge a person (including another local authority) in respect of answering enquiries from that person about a property. (2) Any charge made under paragraph (1) may be made at the local authority’s discretion but must have regard to the costs to the local authority of answering enquiries about the property.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 260 Transparency in relation to setting of charges 9.—(1) During each financial year, a local authority must publish a statement setting out— (a) the estimates the local authority has made under regulation 6(2) (estimates of total costs and estimates of numbers of requests) in respect of the unit charge for the following financial year; (b) the basis for those estimates; and (c) the amount of the unit charge it proposes for the following financial year. (2) In respect of every financial year, beginning with that which ends on 31st March 2010, a local authority must publish by 30th June following the end of that financial year, a summary setting out— (a) the total costs to the authority in granting access to property records or performing internal transactions; (b) the number of requests to which these costs relate; and (c) the total income (or notional income) to the authority from charges and recharges made under regulation 5. (3) In respect of every financial year, beginning with that which ends on 31st March 2010, a local authority must publish by 30th June following the end of that financial year, a summary setting out the total income to the authority from charges made under regulation 8 (answering enquiries about a property). (4) The information to be published under this regulation must be approved by the person having responsibility for the administration of the financial affairs of the local authority under — (a) section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972(4); or (b) in the case of the Common Council of the City of London, section 6 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989(5).

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Iain Wright Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 16th December 2008 Department for Communities and Local Government

EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations) These Regulations allow local authorities to make charges for services provided in connection with property searches, specifically “access to property records” and “answering enquiries about a property”. The interpretation of both expressions is dealt with in regulation 2, along with other relevant expressions. Regulation 3 revokes the Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994, but makes transitional provision in respect of the charges to be made by local authorities in respect of requests received while those Regulations were in force. Regulation 4 provides that the charging arrangements set out in the Regulations apply whether or not a local authority provides the services under a power or duty. However, they do not apply where a local authority has another power to charge or is under a duty to do so. They also do not apply in respect of access to “free statutory information” (see regulation 2(3)). Regulations 5, 6 and 7 deal with the calculation of charges for the granting by a local authority of access to property records. Regulation 6 provides that these charges must not amount to more than the costs of granting access. Specifically, each charge made (“the unit charge”), must be calculated by dividing an estimate of the total yearly costs in providing access by an estimate of the number of requests to be received that year. As the unit charge is based on estimates, paragraphs (4) and (5) provide that over a period of three consecutive years, a local authority must ensure that the total income from charges does not exceed their total

(4) 1972. c. 70. Section 151 applies to the Council of the Isles of Scilly by virtue of section 265 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Isles of Scilly Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1844). (5) 1989 c. 42.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 261 costs. In addition, where a local authority has made an under or overestimate of the unit charge, it must take this into account in determining charges for the following year. Regulation 7 provides for the interpretation of “costs”. Regulation 8 gives a local authority power to make charges in respect of answering enquiries about property. These charges must have regard to the costs to the local authority in answering enquiries. Regulation 9 requires local authorities to publish certain information each year in connection with the charges made under these Regulations. Each year, a local authority must publish information relating to unit charges. Additionally, from 2010, each must publish a yearly summary of the total income and costs relating to access to property records, and a summary of the total income from answering enquiries. The information published under regulation 9 must be approved by the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 262 Appendix 2

List of chargeable items

Standard official search Official certificate of search (Form LLC1) only Enquiries of local authority - Form CON29

Part I enquiries - one parcel of land Part II optional enquiries (each) Part III additional enquiries (each) N.B. Part III enquiries should be addressed directly to the relevant department eg environmental health, town planning etc. Additional parcels of land (each) Maximum standard search fee (13 parcels of land) Personal search of local land charges register only Personal search of LLC registers only - additional parcels of land (each) Common land search (where not part of CON 29)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 22 January 2009 Page 263