North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 1

Date: THURSDAY 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 North Planning Time: 7.00 PM Committee Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 5, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE

To Councillors on the Committee: Visiting the Civic Centre:

Bruce Baker (Chairman) Members of the Public and Press Michael White (Vice-Chairman) are welcome to attend this Allan Kauffman meeting. Please note that Michael Markham recording of meetings is not Ian Oakley permitted. David Allam Anita Smart Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Conservation Area Advisory Members Uxbridge underground station, Michael Platts / Chris Groom (Eastcote) with the Piccadilly and Clive Pigram (Ruislip) Metropolitan lines, is a short John Ross / Michael Dent (Harefield) walk away. Please enter from Michael Hirst (Canal Locks) the Council’s main reception Pamela Jeffreys (Ickenham) where you will be directed to the Committee Room.

Please switch off your mobile phone when entering the room.

th Publication Date: 13 February 2008 This agenda is Contact Officer: Nadia Williams available in

large print

Cabinet Office – Decision Team T.01895 277655 F.01895 277373 [email protected] London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Hugh Dunnachie –Chief Executive

A useful guide for those attending Planning Committee meetings

Security and Safety information Reports with petitions will normally be taken at the beginning of the meeting. Fire Alarm - If there is a FIRE in the building the fire alarm will sound continuously. If there is a The procedure will be as follows:- BOMB ALERT the alarm sounds intermittently. Please make your way to the nearest FIRE EXIT. 1. The Chairman will announce the report;

Recording of meetings – This is not allowed, 2. The Planning Officer will introduce it; with a either using electronic, mobile or visual devices. presentation of plans and photographs;

Mobile telephones - Please switch off any 3. If there is a petition(s), the petition organiser mobile telephones and BlackBerries before the will speak, followed by the agent/applicant meeting. followed by any Ward Councillors;

4. The Committee may ask questions of the Petitions and Councillors petition organiser or of the agent/applicant;

Petitions – Those who have organised a petition 5. The Committee debate the item and may of 20 or more borough residents can speak at a seek clarification from officers; Planning Committee in support of or against an application. Petitions must be submitted in writing 6. The Committee will vote on the to the Council in advance of the meeting. Where recommendation in the report, or on an there is a petition opposing a planning alternative recommendation put forward by application there is also the right for the applicant a Member of the Committee, which has or their agent to address the meeting for up to 5 been seconded. minutes.

Ward Councillors - There is a right for local About the Committee’s decision councillors to speak at Planning Committees about applications in their Ward. The Committee must make its decisions having regard to legislation, policies laid down by Committee Members - The planning committee National Government, by the Greater London is made up of experienced Councillors who meet Authority – under ‘The London Plan’ and in public every three weeks to make decisions on Hillingdon’s ‘Unitary Development Plan 1998’ applications. and supporting guidance - approved by the Council, material planning considerations and Representatives of Conservation Area Advisory case law. Panels are also members of the Committee and they advise on applications in their conservation When making their decision, the Committee area. They do not vote at Committee meetings. cannot take into account issues which are not planning considerations such the effect of a development upon the value of surrounding How the Committee meeting works properties, nor the loss of a view (which in itself is not sufficient grounds for refusal of The Planning Committees consider the most permission), nor a subjective opinion relating to complex and controversial proposals for the design of the property. development or enforcement action. If a decision is made to refuse an application, Applications for smaller developments such as the applicant only has the right of appeal householder extensions are generally dealt with against the decision. A Planning Inspector by the Council’s planning officers under appointed by the Government will then consider delegated powers. the appeal. There is no third party right of appeal, although a third party can apply to the An agenda is prepared for each meeting which High Court for Judicial Review, and within 3 comprises reports on each application. months of the date of the decision.

Agenda

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

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

4. Consideration of the reports from the Director of Planning and Community Services

Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press

Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned.

Major Applications

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 1. RAF Eastcote Eastcote and Variation of condition 40 (To 1 A Lime Grove East Ruislip remove the requirement for traffic Ruislip signals on Eastcote Road and on the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street) of Outline Planning Permission ref:10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006 ‘Redevelopment for residential purposes at a density of up to 50 dwellings per hectare, including affordable housing , live- work units, a community facility and open space’.

Recommendation: 1) Approval 2) S257 Order 3) S106 – Deed of Variation B Land adjacent to Eastcote and Proposed new access road from RAF Eastcote East Ruislip Eastcote Road to the boundary of Lime Grove RAF Eastcote to facilitate the Ruislip redevelopment of RAF Eastcote for residential purposes. (WITH PETITION) Recommendation: 1) Approval 2) S257 Order

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page C RAF Eastcote Eastcote and Reserved matters (Details of siting, Lime Grove East Ruislip design, external appearance and Ruislip landscaping) for erection of 385 residential units in compliance with Condition 2 together with details of residential density, community facility, sustainability and energy assessment, refuse and recycling storage, site survey plan, landscaping and access statement in compliance with Conditions 7, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26 and 37 of Outline Planning Permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006 ‘Redevelopment of site for residential purposes, community facilities, open space and associated car parking and landscaping’.

Recommendation: 1) S106 – Deed of Variation 2) S257 Order 3) Finalise S106 Agreement within 6 months otherwise refer back to Committee 4) Subject to signing of Deed of Variation defer for determination by Corporate Director of Planning & Community Services D RAF Eastcote Eastcote and Reserved matters (Details of siting Lime Grove East Ruislip , design, external appearance and Ruislip landscaping)for erection of 385 residential units in compliance with (WITH PETITION) Condition 2 together with details of residential density, community facility, sustainability and energy assessment, refuse and recycling storage, site survey plan, landscaping and access statement in compliance with Conditions 7, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26 and 37 of Outline Planning Permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated

09/03/2006 ‘Redevelopment of site for residential purposes, community facilities, open space and associated parking and landscaping’.

Other Business

PLANNING COMMITTEE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (NORTH) - SPECIAL OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

A Item No. 1 Report of the Corporate Director of Planning and Community Services

Address (A): RAF EASTCOTE, LIME GROVE, RUISLIP

Development (A) VARIATION OF CONDITION 40 (TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS 0N EASTCOTE ROAD AND ON THE INTERSECTION OF EASTCOTE ROAD AND FORE STREET) OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REF:10189/APP/2004/1781 DATED 09/03/2006 'REDEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AT A DENSITY OF UP TO 50 DWELLINGS PER HECTARE, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LIVE-WORK UNITS, A COMMUNITY FACILITY AND OPEN SPACE '

LBH Ref Nos: 10189/APP/2007/3383

Drawing Nos: 789006/01 AND LETTER DATED 18/10/2007

Date of receipt: 06/11/2007 Date(s) of Amendment(s):

Address (B): LAND ADJACENT TO RAF EASTCOTE, LIME GROVE, RUISLIP

Development (B): PROPOSED NEW ACCESS ROAD FROM EASTCOTE ROAD TO THE BOUNDARY OF R A F EASTCOTE TO FACILITATE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF R A F EASTCOTE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES

LBH Ref Nos: 10189/APP/2007/2954

Drawing Nos: 789006/02, HG005 REV. P1 DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT, FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT, HIGHGROVE ACCESS OPTION REPORT, RECEIVED 25/9/2007. COMMENTS ON FROM THE PUBLIC EXHIBITION 16TH OCTOBER 2007

789006/03 – LOCATION PLAN WIM16061-01-B WIM16329-03 TREE REPORT REF:WIM16061TR., RECEIVED 21/11/2007 WIM6329-16 REV. A RECEIVED 3/12/2007.

Date of receipt: 25/09/2007 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 21/11/2007, 3/12/2007.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 1

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Development (C): RESERVED MATTERS (DETAILS OF SITING, DESIGN, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING ) FOR ERECTION OF 385 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 2 TOGETHER WITH DETAILS OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, COMMUNITY FACILITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY ASSESSMENT, REFUSE AND RECYCLING STORAGE, SITE SURVEY PLAN, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS 7, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26 & 37 OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 10189/APP/2004/1781 DATED 09/03/2006 'REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING'

THIS RELATES TO THE APPROVED ACCESS

LBH Ref Nos: 10189/APP/2007/2463

Drawing Nos: HOUSES: 5585/WIM.WL/ P/E2, P/P1, 713/E1, 713/P1, 1089/P1, 1089/P2, 1216/P1, 1225/E1, 1225/E3, 1225/P1, 1225/P2, 1396C/E2, 1396SP/P1, 1396C/P2, 1396/P1, 1400+/E1, 1400+P1, 1402C/E2, 1402C/P1, 1735+/E1, 1735+/P1, 2000/E1, 2000/E2, 2BCH/E1, 2BCH/P1, 3BCH/E1, 3BCH/P1A, 4BWC/E1, 5BH/E1A, 5BH/E2A, 5BH/P1A; RECEIVED 20/09/2007.

REVISED DRAWINGS: 5585/WIM.WL/ B/E1 REV. A, B/E2 REV. A, B/P1 REV. A, P/E1 REV. A, 1089/E2 REV. A, 1216/E1 REV. A, 1216/E2 REV. A, 1225/E2 REV. A, 1396C/E1 REV. A, 1402C/E1 REV. A, 2000/P1 REV. A, 4BWC/P1 REV. A, RECEIVED 30/11/2007.

APARTMENTS: 5585/WIM.WL/ /E2A, B/E1, C/E1, C/E2, C/P1, C/P2, C/P3, D/E1, D/E2A, D/P1A, D/P2A, F/E1 A, F/E2 A, F/P1 A, F/P2 A, F,P3 A, 1396C/E1, G/E2, G/P1, G/P2, G/P3, J/E1, J/E2, J/E3, J/P1, J/P2, J/P3, L/E1, L/E2, L/E3, L/P1, L/P2, L/P3, , M/E2, N/E1, N/E2, , R/E1, R/E2, R/E3, R/E4, R/P2 A, R/P3 A, S/E1, S/E2, U/E1, U/E2, 789006/01 – LOCATION PLAN, .RECEIVED 20/09/2007

REVISED DRAWINGS: 5585/WIM.WL/ A1/E1 REV. A, A1/E2 REV. A, A1/P1 REV. B, A/E1 REV. B, A/P1 REV. B, A/P2 REV. B, A/P3 REV. B, A/P4 REV. B, B/E2 REV. A, B/P1 REV. A, B/P2 REV. A, B/P3 REV. A, D/E2 REV. A, D/P1 REV. A, D/P2 REV. A, E/E1 REV. B, E/E2 REV. B, E/P1 REV. B, E/P2 REV. B, E/P3 REV. B, EAA/P1, EAA/P2, EAA/P3, G/P1 REV. A , K/E1 REV. B, K/E2

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 2

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

REV. B, K/E3, REV. A K/E4, REV. A, K/P1 REV. B, K/P2 REV. B, K/P3 REV. B, M/E1 REV. B, M/E3 REV. A, M/E4 REV. A, M/P1 REV. B, M/P2 REV. B, M/P3 REV. B, M/P4 REV. B, P/E1 REV. A, P/E2 REV. A, P/E3 REV. A, P/E4 REV. A, P/P1 REV. A, P/P2 REV. A, P/P3 REV. A, Q/E1 REV. A, Q/E2 REV. A, Q/E3 REV. A, Q/P1 REV. B, Q/P2 REV. B, Q/P3 REV. B, R/P1 REV. B, S/P1 REV. A, U/P1 REV. A, U/P2 REV. A, U/P3 REV. A, V/E REV. A, V/E2 REV. A, V/E3 REV. A, V/P1 REV. A, V/P2 REV. A, V/P3 REV. A, V/P4 REV. A, W/E1 REV. A, W/E2 REV. A, W/E3 REV. A, W/E4 REV. A, W/P1 REV. A, W/P2 REV. A, W/P3 REV. A; H1/E1, H1/E2, H1/E3, H1/E4, H1/P1, H1/P2, H2/E1, H2/E2, H2/E3, H2/P1, H2/P2, H2/P3, T/E1, T/E2, T/E3, T/E4, T/P1, T/P2, T/P3. DDA/P1 RECEIVED 30/11/2007

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS: 5585/WIM.WL/ , 05 A, SS/A, SS/B, SS/C, SS,D, GAR/P1, GAR/P2, GAR/P3, GAR/P4, GAR/P5, GAR/P6, BCS/P1,SS/P1; RECEIVED 20/09/2007

REVISED DRAWINGS: 5585/WIM.WL/ 01 REV.C , 02 REV.C, 03, 04 REV.C, 06, 07, GAR/P6, GAR/P7, GAR/P8, GAR/P9, CAR/P1, BCS/P1,SS/P1; WP0111, WP02, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 3BWC/E1, 3BWC/E2, 3BWC/P1, 3DABB/E2, 3DAB/P1, 4BH/E1, 4BH/E2, RECEIVED 30/11/2007

PDFMERE400 REV. C01, HG005 REV.P2, RECEIVED 3/12/2007

LANDSCAPING: WIM16329- 10C, WIM16329- 11C, WIM16329- 12C, WIM16061-13, WIM160161-14B, RECEIVED 20/9/2007.

REVISED DRAWINGS: 16061-03 A; WIM 6061-09A , WIM16329- 12A, M16329-15 A, SHEETS 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 9; RECEIVED 3/12/2007

PLANNING STATEMENT, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT, TREE REPORT, SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, ENERGY STRATEGY, NOISE ASSESSMENT, FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT, DESK TOP ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY, ALL RECEIVED 20/9/2007. COMMENTS ON FROM THE PUBLIC EXHIBITION 16TH OCTOBER 2007 ARBOROCULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT, ECO HOMES ASSESSMENT, ARBOROCULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT, HABITAT SURVEY, RECEIVED 4/12/2007

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 3

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Date of receipt: 20/09/2007 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 30/11/2007

Address (D): RAF EASTCOTE, LIME GROVE, RUISLIP

Development (D): RESERVED MATTERS (DETAILS OF SITING, DESIGN, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING ) FOR ERECTION OF 385 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 2 TOGETHER WITH DETAILS OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, COMMUNITY FACILITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY ASSESSMENT, REFUSE AND RECYCLING STORAGE, SITE SURVEY PLAN, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS 7, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26 & 37 OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 10189/APP/2004/1781 DATED 09/03/2006 'REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING'

THIS RELATES TO THE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

LBH Ref Nos: 10189/APP/2007/3046

REVISED DRAWINGS: 5585/WIM.WL/ B/E1 REV. A, B/E2 REV. A, B/P1 REV. A, P/E1 REV. A, P/P1 REV. A, 1089/E2 REV. A, 1216/E1 REV. A, 1216/E2 REV. A, 1225/E2 REV. A, 1396C/E1 REV. A, 1402C/E1 REV. A, 2000/P1 REV. A, 4BWC/P1 REV. A, RECEIVED 30/11/2007.

REVISED DRAWINGS:

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 4

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

5585/WIM.WL/ A1/E1 REV. A, A1/E2 REV. A, A1/P1 REV. A, A/E1 REV. B, A/P1 REV. B, A/P2 REV. B, A/P3 REV. B, A/P4 REV. B, B/E2 REV. A, B/P1 REV. A, B/P2 REV. A, B/P3 REV. A, E/E1 REV. B, E/E2 REV. B, E/P1 REV. B, E/P2 REV. B, E/P3 REV. B, EAA/P1, EAA/P2, EAA/P3, G/P1 REV. A , K/E1 REV. B, K/E2 REV. B, K/E3, REV. A K/E4, REV. A, K/P1 REV. B, K/P2 REV. B, K/P3 REV. B, M/E1 REV. B, M/E3 REV. A, M/E4 REV. A, M/P1 REV. B, M/P2 REV. B, M/P3 REV. B, M/P4 REV. B, P/E1 REV. A, P/E2 REV. A, P/E3 REV. A, P/E4 REV. A, P/P1 REV. A, P/P2 REV. A, P/P3 REV. A, Q/E1 REV. A, Q/E2 REV. A, Q/E3 REV. A, Q/P1 REV. B, Q/P2 REV. B, Q/P3 REV. B, R/P1 REV. B, S/P1 REV. A, U/P1 REV. A, U/P2 REV. A, U/P3 REV. A, V/E REV. A, V/E2 REV. A, V/E3 REV. A, V/P1 REV. A, V/P2 REV. A, V/P3 REV. A, V/P4 REV. A, W/E1 REV. A, W/E2 REV. A, W/E3 REV. A, W/E4 REV. A, W/P1 REV. A, W/P2 REV. A, W/P3 REV. A; H1/E1, H1/E2, H1/E3, H1/E4, H1/P1, H1/P2, H2/E1, H2/E2, H2/E3, H2/P1, H2/P2, H2/P3, T/E1, T/E2, T/E3, T/E4, T/P1, T/P2, T/P3. DDA/P1 RECEIVED 30/11/2007

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS: 5585/WIM.WL/ , 05 A, SS/A, SS/B, SS/C, SS,D, GAR/P1, GAR/P2, GAR/P3, GAR/P4, GAR/P5, GAR/P6, BCS/P1,SS/P1; 789006/01 – LOCATION PLAN - RECEIVED 2/10/2007

AMENDED PLANS 5585/WIM.WL/ 01 REV.C , 02 REV.C, 03, 04 REV.C, 06, 07, GAR/P6, GAR/P7, GAR/P8, GAR/P9, CAR/P1, BCS/P1,SS/P1; WP0111, WP02, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 3BWC/E1, 3BWC/E2, 3BWC/P1, 3DABB/E2, 3DAB/P1, 4BH/E1, 4BH/E2, PDFMERE400 REV. C01, HG005 REV.P2, RECEIVED 3/12/2007

LANDSCAPING: WIM16329- 10C, WIM16329- 11C, WIM16329- 12C, WIM16061-13, WIM160161-14B, RECEIVED 2/10/2007.

REVISED DRAWINGS: 16061-03 A; WIM 6061-09A , WIM16329- 12A, M16329-15 A, SHEETS 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 9; RECEIVED 3/12/2007

COMMENTS ON FROM THE PUBLIC EXHIBITION 16TH OCTOBER 2007

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 5

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

ARBOROCULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT, ECO HOMES ASSESSMENT, ARBOROCULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT, HABITAT SURVEY, RECEIVED 4/12/2007.

Date of receipt: 2/10/2007 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 3/12/2007 3/12/2007.

1.0 SUMMARY (A,B, C and D)

1.1 Application A is a section 73 application which seeks to vary condition 40 outline planning permission, to remove the requirement for traffic signals on Eastcote Road and on the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street, as the signals will no longer be necessary, if the alternative access (Application B) is implemented.

1.2 This report relates to four separate applications pertaining to the former RAF Eastcote site. Applications C and D seek approval of reserved matters for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of two alternative schemes for residential purposes, at a density of 50 dwellings per hectare, pursuant to discharge of condition 3 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006. With application C relating to the approved access and application D relating to the alternative access.

1.3 Both schemes C and D seek permission for 385 residential units, including 12 live work units and 134 affordable dwellings, along with a Community Hall and associated parking, landscaping and open space. Whereas application C incorporates the access points approved at outline stage from Eastcote Road and Lime Grove, application D will utilise an alternative access from Eastcote Road which will also service Highgrove House. The location and specific details of the alternative access are the subject of Application B, which seeks full planning permission for the necessary works.

1.4 The applicants have agreed to enter into a deed of variation and have signed a separate legal agreement, so that in the event that applications A, B, and D are approved, the development will proceed utilising the new access off Eastcote Road, rather than the signalised access which was approved at outline stage, subject to conditions.

1.5 In addition to the reserved matters details, applications C and D include details pursuant to the discharge of various outline planning conditions; namely residential density, community facility, sustainability and energy assessment, refuse and recycling storage, site survey plan, landscaping, and access statements.

1.6 Extensive consultations were carried out on all four applications, including re- consultations on amended plans for both reserved matters schemes. In addition the applicants organised a public exhibition on the reserved matters.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 6

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

1.7 The site represents an extremely important source of brownfield land that will contribute significantly towards delivering the Borough's strategic housing requirements. The proposed level of development is in accordance with the provisions of the outline consent, whilst also satisfying the aspirations of PPS3 by exceeding the minimum indicative density target of 30 dwellings per hectare.

1.8 It is considered that the layout, design and external appearance of the proposed built development would be satisfactory, and the scheme would produce an acceptable standard of urban design, subject to suitable materials. The landscaping schemes for both options are considered appropriate. The impact on residential amenity of surrounding properties is considered to be minimal. It is therefore recommended that the reserved matters details for both schemes be approved, in compliance with condition 3 of the outline planning permission.

1.9 It is recommended that details relating to residential density, community facility, sustainability and energy assessment, refuse and recycling storage, site survey plan, landscaping, and access statement for both schemes, in compliance with conditions 7, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23 (i), (ii), (iii) & (v), 26 & 37 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/app/2004/1781 be discharged.

1.10 However, insufficient information has been submitted to discharge outline conditions 5, 32, 23 (iv), 33 and 34, relating to samples of all materials, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures. It is proposed that these details, which originally formed part of this application be dealt with separately, once adequate information becomes available.

1.11 With regard to the new access from Eastcote Road (application B), the proposed priority junction would accommodate the level of traffic generation estimated to result from the proposed development and that of the Highgrove House site and is considered acceptable in terms of highway and pedestrian safety.

1.12 The following provides for a summary of the principle design considerations for reserved matters applications:

Guideline Proposed Density Maximum density of 50dph 385 residential units, approved by the outline at an average density consent. of 50 dwellings per hectare Parking Maximum of 654 parking A total of 612. spaces across the site. parking spaces is proposed across the site, which equates to an average of 1.58 spaces per unit. Amenity Space HDAS Residential Layouts: Informal areas of North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 7

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Flats should provide 20sq.m green public open for 1 bed and 25 sq.m for 2 space are spread bed of amenity space (which around the site up to can be communal space). 0.7ha. Communal Houses should have garden areas minimum gardens of 60sq.m provided around the for 2/3 bed units. various blocks, while houses are all provided with private garden areas. Over 90% of houses have gardens exceeding the HDAS minimum standard. The garden sizes vary for virtually every unit to enable choice for purchasers, furthermore the small number of dwellings in total just below the HDAS standard are all located close to a large communal amenity area with play equipment. Internal Floor HDAS Residential Layouts: The scheme has Area Minimum floor areas are been designed in specified in the HDAS for compliance with studios, flats and houses. HDAS floor area guidance. Unit Mix Policy 3A.4 of The London A mix of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Plan seeks to maximise and 6 bedrooms housing choice by securing properties, with an appropriate mix of unit storey heights sizes across all new housing ranging from 2 sites, whilst Hillingdon storey houses and Unitary Development Plan 3.5 storey apartment Saved Policies (September blocks. 28% 1 2007) Policy H4 seeks to bedroom ensure that a mix of housing households, 40% units of different sizes is 2/3 bedroom secured on all sites, with a households and particular emphasis on 32% 4 bedroom or providing large family larger households. houses. The scheme The outline planning proposes 12 live- permission requires 3-5% work units live-work units.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 8

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Accessibility 10% of the development to be 10% of the units provided to full wheel chair have been designed accessible and remainder to be built to designed to Lifetime Homes. recognised standards for wheelchairs. Lifetime Homes addressed by condition.

Sustainability The development to supply Covered by 10% energy by onsite recommended renewable and sustainable conditions. measures.

2.0 Consultations

London Borough of Hillingdon Consultation

2.1 Applications C and D have been advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Procedure Order 1995 as Major Developments. 545 surrounding property owners/occupiers have been consulted on all four applications. At the time of writing the report, 35 letters have been received objecting on the following grounds: 1. Concerned about the loss of privacy with houses overlooking adjoining homes and gardens. 2. Increase of residents, traffic and congestion without any changes to the infrastructure, roads, parking, education and health facilities. No thought appears to have been given to how an influx of possibly several hundred people into a small area would affect it. 3. The density of new housing will be significantly higher than the surrounding housing. 4. The density should be similar to the surrounding area. 5. The proposed new housing on the south side of RAF Eastcote would appear to have very short gardens. The new houses should be built at least 15 metres from the boundary. 6. Height of blocks fronting Eastcote Road. 7. With regard to plots 131-133, these seem to be quite narrow houses and I think that the one in the middle, 132, gets a particularly raw deal with a very narrow, short garden. 8. There is a lot of confusion over what shape or form the proposed community centre should take. If there is insufficient demand for it, I would suggest that the housing is spread out more evenly instead, without increasing the overall number of dwellings. 9. When the houses are built, local residents will demand a high level of lighting and security along the public footpath.

2.2 In addition, one petition bearing 25 signatures has been received relating to both applications C and D, raising the following matters of concern:

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 9

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

1. Against the plan to build 2 blocks of flats fronting Eastcote Road (Blocks C and W with ref. to the alternative access application) and Blocks C and B with ref. to the original access point). Flats are totally out of keeping with the street scene in this area and any approval to build flats will at a stroke set a clear precedent for other developers to follow. There are no flats in Eastcote Road and in order to preserve the character of our area it must stay thus. Flats will be immediately adjacent to the Eastcote Village Conservation Area and thus would completely mar the historic village appearance and essence of the area. Flats will be the outward appearance of the site – those passing by and living opposite will see nothing else. They would thus be an unacceptable landmark. 2. Against any structure which has 3 levels of windows facing onto Eastcote Road. There are two storey semi-detached houses opposite and thus 3 levels (also bearing in mind the ground level rises) would be far too intrusive, again marring the street scene and particularly affecting the privacy of those living opposite each other houses (semi or detached) with just two levels of windows giving out onto Eastcote Road must be the obvious conclusion. 3. The adopted design of Modern Arts and Crafts bears no relation to the houses opposite. This style will not complement or blend into the existing street scene Traditional Arts & Crafts design which includes some timber detailing would provide some match with existing and provide a far better blend with the Eastcote Village area.

2.3 6 letters have been received in support of application D. Any further representations will be reported verbally to Committee.

Revised plans:

1. Height of buildings: Concern at having 3 storey buildings overlooking property. It appears to be the policy throughout the rest of the site that the new properties do not exceed the height of existing properties. Plots 12, 13 and 14 do not conform. 2. Cycle/foot path: In respect of the cycle and footpath between Eastcote Rd I hope that the lighting specification is substantially better than that which is currently in place otherwise efforts to promote modal shift will be undermined. 3. Eastcote cycle and pedestrian crossing facility: Existing traffic levels are such that crossing this road is extremely difficult. It is essential that facilities are up graded to cope with increased demand, both in terms of priority but also safety.

Taylor/Wimpey Exhibition

2.4 As well as the consultations carried out by the Council, the applicants organised a public exhibition, which was held at St Lawrence Parish Church, Eastcote on Tuesday 16th October 2007. The comments made by local residents, resulting from the exhibition are summarised below: North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 10

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

1. How are local amenities to manage with huge influx of people? 2. Boundary fence/line of the car parking area for the Sigers – boundary line seems a little mean. 3. Very concerned about traffic access and problems on Eastcote Road. 4. Parking will be difficult. 5. Far too many houses. 6. Concerned about access to Eastcote Road and possibility of traffic lights. 7. Additional access should be made available to/from Field End Road. 8. Would like to see the street names reflect the RAF history of the site. 9. Can less traffic be directed to Eastcote Road, more to Lime Grove? 10. 35% Social Housing is very high and undesirable in Eastcote. 11. Very strongly support alternative access onto Eastcote Road. 12. Under provision for parking on site. 13. Extremely concerned about the access for Lime Grove 14. Anyone on site going shopping in Field End Road will use their car – definitely not walk. This will greatly increase traffic along Lime Grove. 15. Future of school crossing point at Eastcote Road close to Fore Street? – no ‘lollipop’ person at present. 16. Live work units have failed in other areas of London. 17. No infrastructure has been planned within this development i.e. doctors surgery, schools, open spaces. 18. I am concerned about the density of housing in the south in comparison with the rest of the site. 19. Too many dwellings/hectare. 20. Plot 122 directly overlooks my garden. This plot is very close to the fence, much closer than any building in the rest of the plan. The 2½ storey building will directly block the sun from my garden and flat during the afternoon. 21. No mention of improved public transport links. 22. Concerned about the bollards at the south end of the site to prevent traffic from Eastcote Rd using it as a rat run. They need to be substantial and permanent. 23. The junction with the exit and Eastcote Road will become an accident black spot. 24. Trees already extend out in the land adjoining 26 & 27 Flag Walk should be retained if possible. 25. Concerns about the alternative means of access and the lack of formal protection for pedestrians crossing Eastcote Road. 26. Farthings Close. We are all very concerned regarding the footpath and trouble it brings. From the plans it is noted that an additional access point is to be implemented causing even more of a problem to the residents of these 8 houses. 27. Affordable housing cramped into the southern area behind Deane Way. The types of housing distributed between the two regions is unbalanced. 28. Footpath should be a cycle route. 29. Seriously concerned about the entrance proposed at Eastcote Road. There have been numerous accidents on this bend.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 11

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

External Consultees

Environment Agency The Agency did not recommend landscaping condition 26 and we are unable to recommend discharge. However we do advise that native species should be planted, particularly on the perimeter of the site adjacent to the wild life site.

With regard to surface water control measures (condition 34), we accept the principles of surface water design detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment, involving the reduction to 51/s/ha, using permeable paving and storm cell, to attenuate up to and including the 1 in 100 year (plus climate change) critical storm duration. However in order for us to discharge this condition, the following information must be submitted: a) A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation ponds, soakaways and drainage storage tanks. This plan should show any pipe 'node numbers' that have been referred to in network calculations and it should also show invert and cover levels of manholes. b) Confirmation of the critical storm duration. c) Where infiltration forms part of the proposed stormwater system such as infiltration trenches and soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365. d) Where on site attenuation is achieved through attenuation ponds or tanks, calculations showing the volume of these are also required. e) Where an outfall discharge control device is to be used such as a hydrobrake or twin orifice, this should be shown on the plan with the rate of discharge stated. f) Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during a 1 in 100 year critical duration storm event. If overland flooding occurs in this event, a plan should also be submitted detailing the location of overland flow paths.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 12

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

NHS Hillingdon Primary Comments were submitted at outline stage. Care Trust Three Valleys Water No response

M O D Safeguarding – No response R A F Northolt Metropolitan Police The whole development must achieve Secured by Design (SBD) Accreditation. SBD can not be granted for the affordable housing element only. It is therefore requested that this be secured by condition.

Thereafter most, if not all, of the designing out crime issues on the development should be resolved by following the guidelines in the SBD documentation on the www.securedbydesign.com website. I will however allude to a number of site- specific issues that need addressing on this site for it to achieve SBD, most notably the design & layout of the public footway running east to west through the site, and also the use of CCTV to cover specific areas within the site.

Pedestrian link to Azalea Walk

This issue is one that I have mentioned to you several times, not least of all because of the existence of a petition from the residents in Azalea Walk asking for the link from Azalea Walk onto the East/West public footpath to be access controlled (in the petition, a gate is mentioned though I suggest that CCTV coverage of this pedestrian link would also constitute a means of control). It is understood that the current gap in the fence is not a public right of way, and did originally have a gate, however, the fact that this gate has apparently been missing for several years and that local residents have since been making regular use of this link might well make a gate in this location difficult to achieve, even if indeed it was desirable. In any event the current location of this gap is totally inappropriate and is much improved by its new location as indicated on the plans. Furthermore, a gate in this location would be totally useless, with the current

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 13

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

standard of fencing along this length of the public footway, as the current chain link fencing would be constantly breeched and pushed out of the way. I have assumed that the perimeter treatments of both sides of the public footpath will be addressed as part of the Section 106 improvements agreements. It must be strongly borne in mind that an open link from the new development into Azalea Walk will result in much greater levels of pedestrian traffic, which at certain times could have the potential to expose the residents there to greater levels of crime and disturbance. Section 17 put an onus on the Planning system to find ways in which to mitigate and reduce this risk.

SBD and the Improvements to East/West Public Footpath

This footpath has been the subject of much anti-social behaviour in recent years (most notably at the Sigers end), and the new development has been seen as the golden opportunity to improve both its function and safety. The increased footfall and greater levels of natural surveillance from surrounding buildings will go a long way to achieving this, but there are certain areas where formal surveillance by CCTV cameras would not only deter crime and anti-social behaviour but also help Police to identify offenders to reduce that behaviour. Alleyways (as natural choke points) lend themselves to obtaining good ID standard images from fixed cameras. They would primarily be for deterrence and retrospective investigation and would not therefore need to be constantly monitored. That said, all cameras on this development, whether covering public footpaths, L.E.A.Ps or other public space areas of concern, would all feed back to a recorder in the Community Hall, which could then be accessible via modem links back to the Council CCTV Control Room if this is needed. The exact locations for cameras needs detailed consideration but in essence both ends of the footpath should

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 14

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

have CCTV coverage, as should the Azalea Walk and raised table vehicle intersection by blocks T & H1. Reservations are raised about this vehicle intersection both on safety grounds (vehicles conflicting with cyclists and pedestrians) but also because this will become a vehicular rat run. I would strongly urge that a gate with FB (fully bolted) lock is used at this location to stop vehicular movement.

My preferred layout for the footpath at the Western end (with respect to safety and greater visibility for and of pedestrian users) is that of the Alternative Access Scheme, but again CCTV should be able to mitigate for any shortcomings in whatever scheme is used. With respect to the general layout of the footpath itself, I would expect the requirements of SBD New Homes - Footpath Design to be closely followed where ever possible. This will obviously be impossible at the Sigers end of the path, which will have to funnel pedestrians and cyclists into a 4 foot wide path with a dogs-leg in it - not ideal by any standards. Break-speed barriers should be installed at various points along the footpath, particularly where the CCTV cameras are trained, as these will reduce the speed of both cyclist as well illegal motorcycle users, thus allowing better images to be obtained. The barriers should be designed to deter youths sitting around on them.

The perimeter treatments of the footpath should be, wherever possible, of a robust (15 to 20mm diameter round bar) park-style railings, to maximise vision both in and out. Where there is a need for 1.8m close board privacy fencing (at the rear & side of plots 82 to 100) this should be topped with an extra 200mm of (flimsy) trellis and protected from graffiti with defensive planting. I note on the legend on the main site plan (5585/WIM/01) that metal railings will be 1.2m. Whilst I accept that this height might well be appropriate in many areas on the site, I have no doubt that there will be

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 15

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

some locations where a greater security needs will require them to be higher. Certainly the car parking and communal areas abutting the footpath by blocks T, H1 & H2 would benefit from greater security.

The security of this public footpath is, to my mind, critical for the potential feel-good / feel-safe factor of the whole development and the adjoining environs, and failure to adequately control this single feature will have the potential to disrupt the future tranquillity of the area.

General SBD issues :

Together with the requirements list in the SBD documentation under 'Secured by Design Principles', 'New Homes (Code for Sustainable Homes)', 'Multi-Storey Dwellings' and 'Secured by Design Award Playing Areas' I would like to highlight some individual issues we have had problems on other developments recently, in the hope of avoiding them on the RAF Eastcote site.

Doors and Windows : Recessed front doors well beyond 600mm or secluded in other ways may preclude granting the SBD Award. All external (front and back) doors must be to PAS24 Standard and accessible windows to BS 7950, with the correct glassing in the appropriate areas.

Car Parking areas: All car parking areas must meet Safer Parking Standards. All basement parking must have access control and CCTV. Any parking areas to the rear of houses should also be access controlled for those residents only. Where there are a number of vehicles using an access controlled parking area a locally recorded CCTV system should be considered for both security as well as health and safety regarding moving gates.

Bin and bike stores for blocks :

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 16

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Wherever possible these should be within the shell of buildings. Double leaf doors should be avoided on bin stores and 'empty space' within the bin stores kept to a minimum. Bike stores to have a Pass24 standard door and racks inside broken up into cages of 2 bikes maximum - these stores must be fit for purpose. No signs outside saying 'Bicycle Store'. All Designs and security details for bike stores to be submitted before being built. No bike or bin stores to block sight lines to front doors and car parking areas etc. and wherever possible should be located within the 'private' areas of blocks of flats ie not in the public space.

Alleys leading to the rear of houses: These must be gated flush with the front building line of the houses. Gates should have stout frames capable of housing a BS3621 mortise lock and capable of being locked/unlocked from both sides. Likewise with gates to rear gardens. Flimsy C/B gates with inadequate locks and hinges are not acceptable.

Isolated Sub Stations : Any sub stations on the site should be well protected with 1.8m high railings, standing off at least 1.5m from the building itself. The proposed new sub station in the north of the site should not allow access behind it.

Ambiguous ownership of land : There must be no ambiguity of ownership of any land near buildings. Perimeter treatments should be such that responsibility for that land is clearly defined. This will empower resident (and if necessary the Police) to challenge unauthorised persons from being there. Defensible space in front of houses must be clear and have adequate fend off for front rooms next to footways. Planting and railings should be used to achieve this - planting alone is often not enough. Fencing/railings should be used to stop unauthorised persons entering and or using

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 17

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

the residents amenity space on the flated developments, particularly around the High Road Eastcote entrance.

Security and CCTV around the Community Hall and LEAP. The LEAP should have railings around the perimeter as well as the play area itself and it's play equipment should be covered by CCTV. The hall itself should have good CCTV coverage all around it. Please discuss operational requirements for CCTV on the site with CPDA.

Transport for London Developments C and D: Due to the nature (TfL) of the applications (i.e. siting, design, external appearance and landscaping) TfL have no comments to make on these planning applications.

Development B: 10189/APP/2007/2954 – New access due to the location of RAF Eastcote, TfL believes that the new access road will not have an impact on the safe operation of the TLRN and therefore have no objection.

Thames Water Developments C and D Reserved Matters Schemes 1and 2 -

Waste Comments Surface Water Drainage - with regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 18

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.

Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.

Water Comments With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the Three Valleys Water Company. For your information the address to write to is - Three Valleys Water Company P.O. Box 48, Bishops Rise, Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AL Tel - (01707) 268111

Supplementary Comments With regard to foul sewerage based on the information provided, Thames Water does not have any objection to conditions being discharged, if executed as per detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment and associated Appendix G.

London Fire Brigade The applicant is advised to ensure that the plans conform to Part B of Approved Document of the Building Regulations and that the application is submitted to Building Control who in some circumstances may be obliged to consult the Fire Authority.

London Ambulance No response Service

Natural England The Landscape Design Statement lays out (London Region) some principles for landscaping which we welcome, in particular:

• The retention of important boundary features, reinforced by additional planting which would enhance their

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 19

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

value as wildlife corridors. • Encouraging habitat diversification on less formal areas of open space, relaxing mowing regimes, sowing meadows around the boundaries of sports pitches and allowing understorey habitats to develop in hedges and under trees.

Whilst such measures have the potential to deliver biodiversity benefit across the site, it concerns me that this opportunity will be lost during future implementation and management. The Landscape Management and Maintenance Report, which seems to be key to delivering the landscaping proposals, does not take forward the above bulleted recommendations and this is disappointing. In fact in places the management prescriptions directly conflict with any aspirations to increase the wildlife value of the site, for example blanket application of herbicide and fertilisers, flattening out areas of lawn that have settled into hollows, mowing intervals of not more than 10-14 days and removal of dead wood. Although these forms of management may be appropriate in more formal areas of the site, if applied indiscriminately, this will lead to an overly manicured and wildlife poor area and will not be able to provide for key species such as great-crested newts. The management plan for site therefore needs to be much more flexible and include management prescriptions in the relevant areas that are specifically designed to promote biodiversity. Unless these measures are formalised into a management plan, which places a legal responsibility on the owner to implement them throughout the lifetime of the development, they are unlikely to be carried forward. We would also recommend that enhancements are put forward for Highgrove Site of Borough Importance (Grade II) for Nature

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 20

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Conservation because the increase in the number of residents in the area will increase the recreational pressure on an important wildlife area which, as I understand it, is a potential candidate Local Nature Reserve. The Council will be aware that the applicant is in the process of applying for a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) for great-crested newts. This process stands outside the planning system but it will not be possible to start works on the site until one has been granted by our wildlife licensing unit in Bristol. There may be requirements for further on-site and off-site biodiversity enhancements to cater for this species as a result of the licensing process. This response is therefore made separately from and without prejudice to that decision.

Response to amended plans.

I am pleased the Landscape Management and Maintenance Report and the Landscape Design Statement have been amended to reflect the comments in or letter dated 5 November 2007. However, I am still keen to ensure that the ecological potential of the site is fully realised. It would not seem unreasonable, for example, to expand on the 0.9 Ha that is specifically termed as a ‘Wildlife Area’ to include a new pond, in addition to the hibernacula, which would in turn merge into the wildflower meadow (itself a good newt habitat). This would be an asset to the development and its residents and could include some interpretation and sensitively cited wildlife walks. This in turn would complement other recreational and play areas, which are already a key feature of the site. The Ecological Management Plan, which I assume is still work in progress, should expand further on the themes that have already been touched upon within the current documentation and as a result be able to fully demonstrate the ability for wildlife permeate through and disperse across the site. North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 21

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

These comments are made separately from and without prejudice to the application for a European Protected Species Licence from Natural England’s Wildlife Licensing Unit in Bristol.

London Wildlife Trust Developments C and D. (Herts & Middx Wildlife Trust) Tree and hedgerow planting and management: species should comprise a good variety with plenty of berry bearing natives appropriate to the local area. Hedgerow management should ideally promote dense hedgerow growth.

English Heritage The assessment has shown that the site does retain some archaeological potential, although this is likely to be restricted to features and/or deposits associated with High Grove, adjacent to the southwest corner of the site, and a general background of prehistoric and medieval activity that a site of this size and in this location will generate. Accordingly, I have no comment on the siting or landscaping.

However, there is need for the archaeological potential of the site to be further clarified through field evaluation, which is in accordance with Condition 32 of the approved permission. This will take the form of trial trenches across the site, but concentrated in the southwest corner. A Written Scheme of Investigation will need to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the evaluation works.

Transco No response

Eastcote Chamber of No response Commerce.

Eastcote Residents’ Developments B, C and D. Association 1. Planning Approval Process.;- ERA are very concerned that there are three planning applications to be heard at the same time. Residents would prefer the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 22

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

alternative access at Highgrove, [10189/APP/2007/3046] thereby removing the need of traffic lights at the Fore Street/ Eastcote Road junction, bordering the Eastcote Village Conservation Area. It would appear that there are still some legalities to be overcome before the alternate access can proceed. Please can we urge that these legal matters be settled before these applications come to the Planning Committee, so that residents can be assured that the Highgrove entrance will be instituted. 2. Public Footpath from the Sigers to Eastcote Road:-The discussions with Wimpey are covered extensively in the attached minutes. This area must not be allowed to become enclosed, it needs to be open, overlooked and well lit, so that pedestrians and cyclists can use the path at all times in safety. There is another route shown on the drawings, running from the centre of the new estate to an exit on Eastcote Road, which can be used as an alternative. However the old footpath is a public right of way and must remain. Wimpey have been asked to give clearer plans for this area now, rather than waiting until the perimeter at this side of the estate has been finalised. 3. Community Centre Facility:- According to outline conditions Wimpey are required to provide a shell, with a Section 106 payment. ERA consider that it would be very sensible if the Eastcote Safer Neighbourhood Team could have a base here. Is it possible to use some of the Section 106 payments for the SNT? Also, the Mother and Baby Clinic have lost their base at Devonshire Lodge Medical Centre, to make room for a Physiotherapy Unit formerly at the Northwood & Pinner hospital before it was closed. If the unit thought that this location useful, they could be based here. Other uses could be decided once the age range and the needs of the new residents are known. 4. Locally equipped area of play.[LEAP]:-

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 23

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

As already pointed out the size of this area does seem to be smaller than required in schedule 4 part B of the agreement. The public open space area should be 0.7 hectare, does the play area count as part of this open space, or should it be allocated its own separate area over and above the 0.7 hectare? 5. Trees:- An extensive tree survey was carried out on behalf of Wimpey, showing the location and condition of most of the trees on the site. The majority of mature trees are located around the perimeter of the site, most of which are to remain. However, it would appear that tree no 53, a Maple, Norway, that is situated just outside the site near the proposed footpath entrance is to be removed. According to the report this tree has another 20-40 years of life left and is in good health. This is a beautiful, mature tree and should be saved if possible, it has good landscape value and will enhance the outward appearance of the estate. The remaining trees act as a buffer between old and new, they will be for the most part situated in gardens of the new estate, will Hillingdon place TPO’s on these trees to prevent future residents removing them? This matter is causing concern to existing residents. 6. Traffic Matters:- A) There is still a certain vagueness concerning the traffic measures to be taken at the Lime Grove/Elm Avenue junction. We understand that there will be widening of the road at the top of Lime Grove to make improvements to visibility. Unfortunately, there is a staggered junction here with Oak Grove, which is a very narrow and difficult turning, this should be taken into consideration and improved when redesigning this junction. Has any decision been made for the location of the pedestrian crossing destined for this area? We have been given to understand that this decision rests with Hillingdon Council. B) Eastcote High Road, is destined to become part of the London Cycle Network,

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 24

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Link93/Route89 Uxbridge to Pinner. There are two proposed routes through Eastcote, the first is totally unsatisfactory as it destroys a great part of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, and Eastcote House Grounds .The cost of this route would be £230,000. The second choice is to utilize the existing footpath running through the RAF site. This would necessitate a crossing on Eastcote Road, for cyclists and pedestrians, however this would be considerably less expensive than the plans, which would annihilate the Conservation Area. It is understood that the Eastcote section of the link will be assessed by Hillingdon in November. This assessment should be brought forward to co-inside with this planning application. 7. Social Housing for the Elderly:- Frank Welch Court, formerly situated at Daymar Gardens, could be relocated to this estate. It is near to shops, medical facilities and public transport. ERA understand that there are legal matters outstanding, but urge Hillingdon to move forward as quickly as possible in this matter, so as to be able to reinstate FWC at RAF Eastcote. 8. Flats fronting Eastcote Road:- It has been requested, by existing residents, that the windows in the upper storey/roof be situated away from the boundary so as not to overlook Eastcote Road and consequently their properties. Extensive planting of more large trees along the boundary could take away the impression of being overlooked also it would soften effect of flats in this location. 9. Land Drainage:- Residents of Spring Drive and Flag Cottage state that there is a culvert running under their properties, carrying an underground spring. The culvert was found when a swimming pool was being dug in the garden of 2 Spring Drive. ERA have asked Wimpey to investigate this matter, and consider that investigations should be carried out and a report made before the Planning Committee Meeting.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 25

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Ruislip, Northwood and Suggestions for road names on the Lime Eastcote Local History Grove site Eastcote which reflect the history of the site first as an outstation of Bletchley Park 1943-1945 and then as GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) 1946-1977/78. The main body of staff had moved to Cheltenham by 1954 but a small department CESD (Communications-Electronic Security Department) remained at Eastcote until the 1970s.

The suggested name/names are given first, followed by the reason for their inclusion.

1) Russia, France, Belgium, Greece, Holland, Poland, Norway, China- while the site was an outstation of Bletchley Park each bay of bombe machines was named after one of these allied countries.

2) Danzig, Athens, Warsaw, Krakow, Stavanger, Zeebrugge, Canton, Hankow, Shanghai, Moscow and Avignon. Each bay named after one of the allied countries housed approximately 8 to 10 individual bombe machines. These were named after cities within that allied country.

3) Wren/ Wrens - 800 Wrens were stationed at Eastcote when it was an outstation of Bletchley Park.

4) Enigma- the famous German code machine with which Bletchley Park and Eastcote was associated.

5) Pembroke- the site was known as HMS Pembroke V during the war.

6) Tommy Flowers- he was appointed to lead the team that designed Colossus which was the forerunner of the modern computer. He was not employed at Eastcote but he was an employee at the nearby GPO

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 26

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Engineering Research Station at Dollis Hill, which had strong links with Eastcote and former staff recollect him working on-site at Eastcote and feel that his contribution should be recognised.

7) Colossus- the first semi- programmable electronic computer which was used at Eastcote and Bletchley Park.

8) Coleridge- this was the code name given to the GCHQ’s operation at Eastcote in 1946 to break ciphers that were used by the Soviet army, navy and air force on main communication networks in the USSR.

9) Edith Gordon Blagrove, later Lady Brind – She was Superintendent in the Wrens and was in charge of HMS Pembroke V at Bletchley Park and all its outstations including Eastcote.

10) Cobra - one of the systems used by Bletchley Park to break the German North Atlantic Naval Codes.

11 (Ultra – the name of the intelligence generated to save allied convoys in the Atlantic.

12) James Ellis - a noted cryptomathematician who worked initially at Eastcote in the 1950s,

13) James Macrae Aitken - another noted mathematician associated with Bletchley Park and Eastcote in WW2 and after.

14) William Gordon Welchman – he helped to break the Enigma code with a device which revolutionised the effectiveness of the bombe machines (there were 110 bombes housed at Eastcote).

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 27

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

15) Leslie Yoxall – an elite cryptographer who spent some time at Eastcote after the war before moving to the new headquarters of GCHQ at Cheltenham.

16) Josh Cooper, Hugh Alexander, and Hugh Denham – these were all famous code breakers who worked at Bletchley Park and transferred to Eastcote after the war to continue working for GCHQ.

17) Sir Leonard Hooper- served at Bletchley Park and then at Eastcote as Director GCHQ.

18) Sir Eric Jones - Assistant Deputy Director 1944 - Group Head at Eastcote.

19) Air Vice Marshall Arthur Foden – was a senior in the Communications-Electronic Security Department (CESD) which remained at Eastcote until the 1970s.In fact he oversaw their move to Cheltenham when all departments were finally brought together. He was thus the last Director at Eastcote.

20) Brigadier C D Gardiner- Deputy Director at Eastcote in the CESD which remained at Eastcote until the 1970s.

21) Adstock Manor, Wavendon House, Gayhurst Manor and Stanmore- other Bletchley Park outstations similar to Eastcote.

The Historian at GCHQ has also suggested you might like to consider the names of closed UK wartime wireless intercept stations which would have been associated with Eastcote and Bletchley Park. They are as follows:

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 28

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Knockholt, Cheadle, Flowerdown, Hawklaw, Cupar, Bower, Brora, Magask, Ford End, Wincombe, Beaumanor, Gilnahirk, Barnet, Poundon, Denmark Hill, Sandridge, Whitchurch, Forest Moor, Montrose, Sutton Valance and Highbridge.

Revised Plans:

Neither of the two applications have addressed the problem of three storey flats fronting onto Eastcote Road, Blocks C & W Alternate access and Blocks C & A Approved access, although submissions against these buildings have been made by Residents and ERA.

Mr. Armstrong of DPP in his letter to ERA dated 15th November 2007 states, pages 3/4 ...that apartment block C is to be moved further from the boundary at the request of Officers.... If there has been any movement it is minimal. Although more landscaping has been added, during the winter months there will be no tree canopy to soften the effect of these buildings. The main concerns of the residents are overlooking, and setting a precedence for more flatted developments along Eastcote Road which would change the character of the area.

The problem could be overcome by reducing the buildings to 2 storeys [ both applications]. This would require the loss of 4 two bedroom apartments. This loss could be made up by increasing Blocks J, K, L, & M to 3 1/2 storeys. At present Block M is part 3 1/2 storey as it incorporates the Community Hall. The square formed by J.K.L.M. is at present uneven because part of M is 3 storey and part 3 1/2 to increase the height of the other blocks to match would give a more even appearance to the street scene.

Blocks P &Q could also be raised, without causing overlooking to the existing

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 29

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

residents. Alterations to these 6 blocks could give a possible 6 dwellings.

The Sigers.

There has not been any alterations made to the arrangement of the houses backing on to the Sigers. Plot 122 is still very close to the boundary, and will overshadow the amenity space of 35 The Sigers, which being a first floor maisonette has the amenity space in the second half of the garden. This dwelling could be removed, and replaced with a flat in one of the blocks mentioned above. It is a great pity that whilst the layout was being redesigned the problem of the closeness of the dwellings backing onto The Sigers was not addressed.

We ask that action be taken in these matters, and Taylor/Wimpey be asked to amend the plans again, to accommodate the residents concerns.

The lack of time to deal with these applications is appreciated, however once this estate is built the residents of Eastcote will have to live with it for all time, and a small delay now will surely be beneficial to the future of Eastcote. Perhaps these minor alterations could be dealt with by way of conditions instead of delaying the applications further.

• The footpath/pedestrian link from The Sigers to Eastcote Road – the proposals for this footpath/cycle way are in places unclear and in other areas unsatisfactory. • According to schedule 14 – pedestrian network works, this link is to be surfaced and lighted for pedestrians and cyclists throughout its whole length from The Sigers to Eastcote Road. We believe it is agreed that this link is to be a minimum of 3 metres wide, where practical, therefore phrases on the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 30

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

drawings such as “potential localized widening of public right of way to 3meters (indicated by dashed lines)” is not satisfactory as this indicates doubt that this work will take place. The ownership of this footpath, or whether this footpath is inside or outside the site, is irrelevant as the obligation to improve the footpath remains and should be clearly indicated on the drawings. • This footpath from plot 17 up to the access road from Eastcote Road, near block V, is shown as fenced off from the site and the link from the footway to the main site through-road, between block V and plot 349, has been lost. This will isolate the footpath and turn it into a corridor for potential danger and vandalism. This footpath should be linked to the site main through-road, as per previous drawings, and should be blended/adjacent to the green areas south of block V and plots 338 to 349, there should be no dividing fence. It should be as if the site extends through to the fencing at the rear of Highgrove House and properties in Kent Gardens. • From Eastcote Road to the new access road where the footpath is alongside 204/206 Eastcote Road, the situation should be as above without fencing between the footpath and the green areas as this would also create an unsafe area. Alternatively if the link between the footpath and the main through-road between block V and plot 349, mentioned above, is provided the footpath alongside 204/206 could be abandoned as it is already duplicated twice on other alignments. • Where the Cycle/Footway link exits onto Eastcote Road there should be a pedestrian controlled crossing across Eastcote Road. • It is not acceptable to have 3 storey houses on the boundary overlooking existing properties. This refers to plots 12 and 13 and also partly plot 14, which overlook Kent Gardens. There North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 31

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

has been some improvement from the previous layout but it is still unacceptable on these plots. • The footpath at the rear of plot 120 against the fencing of 19, Deane Way is unnecessary and a potential unsafe area. • It is considered that the building on Plot 117 will overshadow and be too close the garden of 35, The Sigers. At one point the 3-bedroomed house on plot 117 is only about 2 metres from the garden of number 35. Number 35 is a first floor maisonette and its garden is the space next to plot 117. • Would you please confirm that it is proposed to put TPO’s on all trees which are to be retained under the current proposal? • Could you please confirm how the uses of the community building in Block M will be developed and how the £250,250 Community Facility contribution will be allocated? • It is felt that bearing in mind the historical links of the site and the naming of roads and building to reflect the connections with RAF Eastcote, it would be appropriate to provide a small memorial garden with seating and a plaque, etc detailing the site history. This garden could be by the cycle/footway link (near blocks C and W) on Eastcote Road or in the green area south of block V and plots 338/349.

Eastcote Village No response Conservation Panel

John Grooms Housing The tenants are very concerned about the Association. potential effect on traffic, local school provision, drainage and other social and medical facilities.

Internal Consultees

Policy and No objections. Environmental Planning Waste Development With respect to the dwelling houses, their North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 32

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Manager design should incorporate storage provision for an average of two bags of recycling and two bags for refuse per week, plus garden waste bags every two weeks.

For the flats, the developer should provide 2,200 litre refuse and recycling bins on a ratio of 1:10 + 1 per waste stream, as a minimum. Urban Design Officer The area is situated on the boundary of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, to the north west, which includes two adjacent listed buildings situated along High Road Eastcote. No conservation designations apply to the application site itself, and the existing buildings within the site boundary are considered to be of no special architectural or historic merit. A Grade II listed property, Highgrove House, is situated to the south east of the site.

The proposal relates to a large, coherent area of land, situated in residential surroundings, relatively close to the London Underground Station. The site itself is divided in two parts, of quite different character. The northern part has a more dramatic and interesting topography, while the south area is very flat. One of the greatest qualities of the site is the substantial tree belt which surrounds the site, and which provides a pleasant backdrop and a valuable framework to the site. The existing vegetation gives the site character and some climatic shelter.

Proposal

Site Access

No objection is raised to either proposed access scheme. However the approved access scheme is the preferred option from a heritage conservation and urban design point of view, because the configuration causes less impact on the access to Highgrove House (A grade II

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 33

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Listed property) and because this option results in a clearer, more distinct and more balanced configuration of the master plan, with a more direct approach to the site, two landmark buildings at the entrance and a larger coherent area to the north of the crescent. The alternative access scheme proposes the transformation of the main access to Highgrove House into a shared access, to serve both the emerging Highgrove House development site and the RAF Eastcote site by extending the existing access from High Road Eastcote to Highgrove House further to the east.

However, the proposed design does not fully recognise the importance of the historic approach to Highgrove House, and does not take the opportunity to actively retain and enhance the qualities of the historic setting, local and national planning policies seek that applicants aim to positively improve the character of an area and the way it functions, whilst retaining the historic character and appearance (PPS3, PPG15, BE10).

The alternative access proposal results in a re-configured access to Highgrove House, which loses its currently straight and direct historic link to High Road Eastcote. The historic approach will be perceived as a secondary access, whilst the new development access, designed as a curving ‘boulevard’ (page 21, Movement structure, Design and Access Statement) becomes the visually prominent element, dwarfing the Highgrove access.

The proposal also results in an indirect access to and a less distinct layout in terms of configuration and land use.

For the new development, the shared access configuration is perceived as less direct, and less clear, because of the winding layout and the configuration of the road, which is underlined by the fact

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 34

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

that the access will be shared with the adjacent development at Highgrove House. The existing properties Nos. 200- 206 Eastcote High Road at the proposed new entrance adds to this confusion. From an urban design point of view, a direct access linked directly, and exclusively to the RAF site is preferred because of the increased legibility that the consented access provides for the RAF development, and the retention of the historic access to and setting of Highgrove House.

A direct access provides increased ease of movement and better opportunities to create a stronger sense of place for each one of the two development sites. The shared access scheme offers a less distinct building layout, and lacks the gateway effect of the other alternative layout. The proposed layout also results in a less strong sense of place because of the configuration of sub-areas in the north west part of the area. Another disadvantage is that the proposed crescent of car parking becomes a prominent element in the street scene along the main pedestrian approach from High Road Eastcote..

Site Layout

Officers have been given feedback and advice throughout the design process on the development principles, the master plan approach, the detailed layout and the building and landscape design. As a result of this dialogue, the proposal has been redesigned on a number of aspects, such as the overall layout, configuration, size and form of key areas, design of open spaces and the access approach. Changes have also occurred with regards to the positioning of some individual blocks, building lines and building height.

The formalisation and strengthening of the crescent from Eastcote Road, has resulted in a distinct and coherent

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 35

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

approach to the site (Block A1-1396), with a strong character. The buildings B, C and E and the northern part of the crescent now form a group of suitable scale, to function well. The re-design of block H, and the introduction of block T in place of plots 335-337 in order to create a focal point at this prominent corner, all have a beneficial impact on the coherence of the scheme, and contribute to a better relationship between built elements and open spaces. The two major blocks B & C at the entrance from High Road Eastcote provides a gate-like effect. Block E has been positioned to create a better spatial organisation. Also the re-organisation of the landscaping to the south of Block A, has improved both form, functionality and safety.

The schemes as a whole are considered to provide distinct sub-areas, and group of buildings of pleasant scale. The scheme as a whole is considered to provide distinct sub-areas, and group of buildings of suitable size, and to be well balanced in terms of scale, height and massing. Following the latest revision, the scheme now also provides a strong landscape framework and a high quality public realm, both important drivers for a successful scheme.

Building design

Officers have given detailed advice throughout the design process with regards to the building design, including materials and details, to ensure that the building design will be of high design quality, and that the buildings would be interesting and attractive, sustainable and suitable in terms of approach, material and detailing for local circumstances.

Unfortunately, from an urban design point of view, there are still some outstanding design issues with regards to specific house types, linked to the roof design, proposed details as well as the use and

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 36

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

combination of building materials which all have been brought to attention during the design process. Especially the lack of detailing, in combination with the use of certain materials, such as vast amount of hanging tiles on Block A, front and side elevations, given the scale and bulk of the buildings, causes concern. Although natural terracotta tiles can be a vivid, beautiful material when used in a suitable context, as on small scale heritage buildings, huge areas of artificial tiles can appear very domineering, bleak and unattractive. A high quality, functional and attractive design is vital for a sustainable long term result. Given the importance to the site, all building materials should be controlled by condition, and the detailed design adjusted where required in order to achieve top design quality for one of the Council’s key developments.

Conditions

Samples of building materials to be submitted to the LPA and agreed in writing prior to the commencement of works

Fully detailed drawings of balcony railings, roof details, porches, fenestration types and doors including comprehensive colour schemes for all built details.

Highway Engineer Application B

Provides an alternative access from Eastcote Road via a widened and improved access road that currently serves Highgrove House. The junction with Eastcote Road is located on the outside of a bend providing adequate sight lines. This priority junction is estimated to provide adequate capacity for the traffic generated from the proposed development as well as that from Highgrove House.

The design of the new access road

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 37

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

leading to the boundary of the site, although acceptable in engineering terms, provides a very steep gradient (maximum 1 in 14), sloping down into the site thereafter. There are services, particularly two gas mains, which would need to be lowered if the gradient of the access road is to be improved. The developer is not proposing to lower or divert these services. Until the precise levels of the gas main are determined by trial holes, it is not possible to confirm that the maximum acceptable gradients would not be exceeded.

Maximum permissible gradient for wheelchair users is 1 in 20. A separate footpath linking the site to Eastcote Road is proposed at the location of the previously approved junction signals. The Section 106 agreement should provide a Toucan (pedestrian/cycle) crossing in Eastcote Road. The location of this crossing has not been determined as yet. In order to provide ample visibility in both directions it is unlikely that the crossing would be sighted where this proposed footpath terminates in Eastcote Road.

Internal Roads (Both schemes)

The main access road from Eastcote Road terminating close to the public right of way in the middle of the site will be designed to the Council’s adoptable standards and is likely to be offered for adoption. The layout of the remaining roads will conform to the national Home Zone guidance.

No objections are raised to the layout; the provision of detailed design to LB Hillingdon’s approval will be achieved by Condition.

Footpath from Eastcote Road to the Sigers

For both schemes a Condition is required ensuring a minimum 3 metre wide strip of

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 38

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

land in the applicant’s control and elsewhere where feasible to be provided for a footpath/cycle way. Detailed design to be submitted to include a street lighting scheme.

Construction Management

A Condition is required for the applicant to submit a Construction Management plan to include a method statement and phasing programme for construction which is to include means of ensuring continued and uninterrupted access to Highgrove House.

The outline planning consent for the approved scheme included a Condition requiring junction signals at the access to Eastcote Road and Fore Street to be in place prior to commencement of construction. With the alternative access scheme it is highly probable that Lime Grove would be used as a construction access for the development of the bulk of the site.

Access from Lime Grove

A Condition of the outline planning consent requires waiting restrictions in Lime Grove to be in place prior to commencement of the development. Details of these have been submitted to the Council and a public consultation will be carried out in due course. Ward Councillors will be notified in advance.

Detailed design of the Lime Grove/ Elm Avenue/ Oak Avenue junctions have been submitted to the Council which also include waiting restrictions at the junctions. These works have yet to be approved and would have to be completed prior to the commencement of the development. The priority of traffic emerging from Kent Gardens to Lime Grove will be altered, with Lime Grove becoming the main road. A speed table is required within the site boundary just

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 39

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

north of the Kent Gardens/ Lime Grove junction.

No objections are raised on Highway grounds.

Trees Officer 10189/APP/2007/2954 (Application B – New Access Road)

The revised Tree Report (April 2007)(‘The Report’) includes additional trees on and close to the site of the proposed new access off High Road, Eastcote. The revised ‘Landscape Proposals’ drawing (no. WIM16329-16/A)(‘The Drawing’) includes details of the landscaping alongside the proposed access.

A clump of eight trees (138-144 and two trees in the group g141 in the Report) on the triangle of land on the southern side of the access to Highgrove House and the westernmost tree in the linear group (g136) alongside the existing driveway to Highgrove will be removed to facilitate this access. The scheme retains the other trees in the groups g136 and g141, and makes provision for the landscaping of the land alongside the new access, includes grassed areas and evergreen hedges on both sides of the new access, and an avenue of 14 semi-mature Maples designed to emphasise the access to Highgrove House, as opposed to the site. However, the black line on the does not correspond with the revised red line (site boundary) nor the tree retention/removal and protection drawing, and consequently the Drawing does not include details of the proposed landscaping of the area of land (within the site) beyond the proposed hedge to the south of the new access.

With the exception of tree 140, the trees to be removed are small and/or young trees with low values, such that their removal will not have an adverse landscape and visual impact. Tree 140 (a mature, 16 metre-high Oak - graded as category A) is, however, a conspicuous

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 40

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

feature on the Eastcote Road frontage. It has a high landscape value and is, in terms of policy BE38, a landscape feature of merit. Even with mitigation in the form of new specimen trees, the loss of this mature Oak tree would have an adverse environmental impact in the short- medium term.

Given the removal of the Oak as part of this scheme, the revised landscaping scheme should be amended to incorporate the land to the south of the access and include the planting of a new feature comprising two or three specimen trees (with appropriate under-storey / ground cover planting) adjacent to the access and close to the Eastcote Road frontage. This additional planting would compensate for the loss of T140 and restore the visual amenity in the longer term. Furthermore, in order to aid the establishment of the new avenue of trees, and avoid the risk of damage to them by grass-cutting machinery, I would also suggest that they be located within the hedge rather than on the fringe of the grassed areas in the further amended scheme.

If this scheme is approved (with the further revisions to the landscaping scheme), conditions TL1 (services), TL2, TL3, TL6 , TL7 and TL8 (…1.5m…) should be imposed. If landscaping is not approved at this stage (pending further amendments to the scheme), then condition TL5 should also be imposed.

Application C (10189/APP/2007/2463)

The site comprises two parts, which are largely enclosed by belts of trees. These belts of trees located close to the site boundary, including the High Road frontage and nature reserve, and lining the public footpath are major landscape features. The group of trees in the middle of the northern part of the site is a subordinate feature of relatively low value. The main tree belts / masses are

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 41

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

large-scale features that provide a buffer and some screening between the existing development and the surrounding residential areas, nature reserve and the nearby conservation area, and contribute to the arboreal setting and character of the area.

In terms of policy BE38, most of the trees forming the tree belts close to the boundaries and many, but not all, of the trees alongside the footpath merit retention as part of any scheme and therefore constrain the redevelopment of the site. At the present time public views of the trees are limited to the road frontage and footpath, but the visibility and amenity value of the trees will increase significantly when the site is redeveloped for housing with associated roads and open space. The layout of the site should therefore be designed to secure the long-term retention of the valuable trees.

At the outline planning stage it was recognised in the supporting statement/development brief that the belts of mature trees have a role in screening the site from the surrounding areas, and that ‘the new development will retain and reinforce this buffer and structure through new planting to help strengthen the site’s landscape character’ and that ‘new planting can be used to screen the new development from existing properties and will provide an opportunity to enhance the nature conservation value of the site’ (page 22 of the brief - 2004). The retention and protection of the trees throughout the planning process has been secured by the legal agreement, which preceded the granting of the outline permission. The agreement would also be binding if and when the residential scheme is implemented and occupied, such that the trees of merit are safeguarded. However, if expedient, a new tree preservation order (TPO) could

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 42

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

be made in the future.

The (reserved matters and details) application includes information about the existing trees in the form of a tree survey / Tree Report (amended), which was updated in April and amended in November 2007 (‘the Report’). The Report indicates that many of the 148 trees and groups of trees (approximately 190 trees in total) on the site are in moderate or good condition and are expected to live for another 20-40 years or more, and that about 70 of the trees are 10-20m+ tall. However, 78 of the trees / groups are small, immature, and/or of poor form / low value (BS Category C1 or C2). Furthermore, eleven dead, dying, defective, or suppressed trees and a moribund conifer hedge (BS Category R) are, for reasons of sound arboricultural management and/or safety, recommended for removal in any event.

Another of the design principles in the development brief contained in the planning statement (2004) was the enhancement of the landscape of the site. In line with policy BE38, new landscaping should be used to integrate the development into the surrounding area and provide a high quality landscape setting.

The ‘Illustrative Layout’ (2004) suggested that the key individual and groups of trees would be retained and supplemented by new tree planting and landscaping to provide a landscape setting to the residential development and the open spaces, and to enhance the High Road frontage.

The proposed development (revised layout) retains all of the 16 high value (BS Category A) trees, 42 (of 46) BS Category B trees (T53, T71, T108 and T 113) and 35 (of 78) Category C trees, including tree T111. Of the four Category B trees to be removed, tree T53 (Norway

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 43

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Maple, BS Category B1) is removed to facilitate the new access (as per the outline scheme); T71 (Red Oak, Category B2) is in the middle of the site; T108 (Ash, Category B2) is the weaker of two specimens and its removal will benefit T109 and allow a sustainable relationship with the nearest building; and T113 (Sycamore, Category B1) is not a tree of significant value. Due to the design (revised) the retained trees should not cause unreasonable inconvenience to future occupiers such that there would be irresistible pressure to prune the trees. In that context and for the reasons outlined above, the loss of these 4 Category B and 43 category C trees (in addition to the hedge and 11 category R trees), mostly in the middle of the site and including a group (G87) of four Ash and T11, which have been heavily reduced in the past and/or have limited useful lives, will not have an adverse landscape impact, because the vast majority (58 of 62) of the best trees (BS Category A & B) and the large-scale features close to the site boundaries and frontages are retained. Additionally, a lot of space is reserved for new planting as part of the comprehensive landscaping scheme. The planting and development of new trees and hedges will compensate for the loss of a proportion of the tree population on the site, in particular where some trees close to the boundaries are removed, and the reinforcement and creation of new features and screens will enhance the landscape.

The application also includes an Arboricultural Impact Appraisal (amended) and Method Statement (amended) (to BS 5837:2005)(AIA & AMS), and an amended Tree Protection Plan (TPP), which take account of numerous points that were raised with the applicants, including the retention of Big Cone Pine, tree T111 (described as a White Pine in the Report), located in the grounds between Flag Walk and Spring

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 44

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Drive. The AIA identifies and mitigates the impact of the proposed development. The implementation of the protection and special construction methods described in the AIA and AMS will ensure that the retained trees will not be affected by the proposed development. In five areas the revised scheme includes new surfacing (footpaths) close to retained trees, and a bin store close to tree T57, the detailed design of is controlled through the AMS. The proposed (revised) layout takes account of the site conditions, such as the extent of hard surface and buildings (removed) in proximity to some of the trees, and constraints identified in the AIA. The AMS includes provision for site supervision, monitoring and reporting throughout the development period.

The AIA indicates that there will need to be some pre-commencement tree surgery to allow the erection of scaffolding, and five trees will need to be pruned to provide a 1.5m clearance between the branches and buildings. Whilst this pre-development pruning is mentioned (together with the removals mentioned above) in the AMS, it is not specified under ‘tree surgery’. Therefore, a schedule of tree work should be submitted at this stage, or a condition should be imposed to require the submission and approval of details of this tree surgery prior to works commencing.

The amended Landscape Design Statement (LDS) includes an evaluation of the landscape and design principles for the landscaping of the site. The LDS mentions, at paragraph 4.5, that ‘the retention of boundary trees has resulted in the creation of good areas of usable amenity space that is ideal for passive and possibly active recreation. This is in addition to the gardens provided for all houses as private amenity space and the communal amenity space associated with apartments’. The landscape concept for the site is based on the retention of the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 45

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

important boundary trees and individual trees, which provide a focus and features. Structure trees are proposed in the larger open spaces and on the boundaries of the site. Feature trees are proposed at focal points, including the access from High Road, and formal tree planting is proposed along the crescent and internal roads. The amended landscape masterplan and landscaping scheme, which incorporate additional tree planting, and habitat enhancement areas and wild flower meadows, represent a high quality scheme. However, the amended landscape proposals drawing (no. WIM 16061-15 sheet 2 of 9 / B) should be revised to include the retention of T111 (as per the other amended drawings).

I note that Natural England consider that the LDS and Landscape Management and Maintenance Report have been revised to reflect their earlier comments, and are generally acceptable, subject to further detailing as part of the nature conservation scheme and ecological management plan and without prejudice to the application for a European protected species licence.

Details of proposed services, which should take account of the retained trees and proposed landscaping, are still to be submitted for approval.

If necessary, could a condition or conditions be imposed, or informative(s) added that require(s) (a) the erection of fencing and implementation of other tree protection measures detailed in the AIA, AMS and TPP, (b) details of supervision (referred to in the approved method statement) allied to a programme of arboricultural input / works be submitted to and approved prior to works commencing, and (c) the scheme should be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement, and the requirements of Natural England?

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 46

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Overall, the revised scheme complies with policy BE 38. Subject to further revisions and/or conditions necessary to address the points I have raised, the proposed development is acceptable.

Application D (10189/APP/2007/3046)

The proposed development (revised layout) retains all of the 16 high value (BS Category A) trees, 43 (of 46) BS Category B trees (T71, T108 and T 113 are removed), including the Maple (T53) on the High Road frontage, which is removed as part of the original scheme, and 35 (of 78) Category C trees, including tree T111. Of the three Category B trees to be removed, tree T71 (Red Oak, Category B2) is in the middle of the site; T108 (Ash, Category B2) is the weaker of two specimens and its removal will benefit T109 and allow a sustainable relationship with the nearest building; and T113 (Sycamore, Category B1) is not a tree of significant value.

The landscape concept for the site is based on the retention of the important boundary and road frontage trees, and individual trees, which provide a focus and features. Structure trees are proposed in the larger open spaces and on the High Road frontage and boundaries of the site. Feature trees are proposed at focal points, and formal tree planting is proposed along the crescent and internal roads. The amended landscape masterplan and landscaping scheme, which incorporate additional tree planting, and habitat enhancement areas and wild flower meadows, represent a high quality scheme. However, the amended landscape proposals drawing (no. WIM 16329-15 sheet 2 of 9 / B) should be revised to include the retention of T111 (as per the other amended drawings).

Overall, the revised (new access) scheme complies with policy BE 38. Subject to

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 47

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

further revisions and/or conditions necessary to address the points raised, the proposed development is acceptable.

Social Services and Housing Services supports in principle Housing Development the development of this site to provide Group new homes. This will provide us with the opportunity to secure on site through planning obligations much needed affordable housing.

The total affordable housing provision is 135 units for both schemes, equating to 35% bases on unit numbers.

Affordable Rented Mix (for both)

% Requi unit red split Requir unit prop Number ed Mix split osed proposed 15 1 bed % 14 15% 17 35 2 bed % 34 35% 33 25 3 bed % 24 25% 24 15 4 bed % 14 13% 12 10 5+ bed % 10 10% 10 96 96

This is an acceptable mix. However, concerns are raised as to the smallness of units provided. 2-bed units should accommodate 4 people, unless by exception.

Only a minority (13) of the proposed 33 x 2-bed units will accommodate a 4-person household, whilst the remaining 20 only accommodate mostly 3 persons, including 4 cases of 2-person households.

We will not accept 2-person, 2-bed units for affordable housing. There are 21 other 2-bed, 4p units in the development, some of which could be used for affordable housing. There are no 2-bed affordable

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 48

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

houses – only flats – and this needs to be addressed.

Shared Ownership Mix

Approved Alt access access 1-bed flat 39 35 2-bed flat 0 4

Demand for one and two-bed shared ownership properties is almost equal, therefore, we need a major re-balancing in terms of size of property – and they should be 4-person.

Again, there are only flats provided – there should be some 2-bed houses.

There is scope to provide some 3-bed properties for the intermediate market – we have a waiting-list of just under 100 – and possibly a few 4-beds – but they must be affordable.

Live/Work Apartments

I would question whether there is any demand for such units – and, unless Economic Development say there is a demand, we would not want any for affordable housing at this time.

Wheelchair - housing

Tenure and Design

We prefer the wheel-chair housing to be located within the affordable rented housing, and there are currently 10 flats in the private, and some in shared ownership.

These need to meet the standards in the Wheelchair Design Guide, produced by Habinteg Housing Association (and referred to in the Housing Corporation’s Design and Quality Standards)

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 49

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

House-type

There are still some larger houses, which are labelled as wheel-chair standard or wheelchair “friendly” in some cases. We have already stated that we do not have a great deal of demand for wheel-chair housing of this size, so we would prefer that the wheel-chair housing is 2-bed (no one-beds) – or that the larger properties can be used as general needs family property.

Lifetime homes requirement

The remaining affordable properties must be designed to Lifetime Homes standards, and this is also a local requirement for all residential developed property.

Other Design Issues

Issue of heat pump-room integral to 2 blocks of affordable flats – this is not an acceptable design as there would be noise issues for adjoining properties.

This is a poor design and appears rather tokenistic in an attempt to meet the 10% renewables target. There is no explanation as to the approach to designing in renewables, how the developer arrived at this as the best solution for the site, nor how much of the site would be powered/heated by the systems.

Issue of incorporation of a extra-care home

This is something that has previously been raised but not addressed in any of the applications.

Education Directorate No comments at this stage.

Projects & The S299A Agreement was signed at Implementation Team outline stage. As the result of this, the Agreement uses formulae to secure the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 50

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

majority of the planning obligations arising from this proposal.

Access Officer All the elevation drawings show stepped access to the proposed dwellings (houses and flats). Please use Condition DIS 2 to ensure that all these entrances provide either level or ramped access. All the proposed dwellings must be designed to Lifetime Homes standards, as specified in the SPD HDAS Accessible Hillingdon as adopted July 2006. Please use Condition DIS 5. The recommended space standards in the Table below (see 6.) should be exceeded. Very few of the wheelchair accessible units comply fully with the guidance as set out in the above document (these standards are based on those in the Wheelchair Design Guide, produced by Habinteg Housing Association. I will identify in detail many of the inadequacies inherent in these designs - see below (points 7-16). Please use Condition DIS 5 to ensure that the units are designed fully to meet the criteria expected. This could be reinforced by the following Non- Standard Condition: NS 1 'The wheelchair accessible units must be designed according to all of the detailed guidance regarding wheelchair accessible housing as set out in the SPD HDAS Accessible Hillingdon and the guidance sheet regarding Residential Development which clarifies some of these points'. I would also concur with advice from the Housing Dept who have requested that all of the wheelchair accessible units should be located in the affordable rented housing. The current ratio is 14 affordable units and 24 private. This must be changed so that the majority of the wheelchair accessible units are located in affordable units. Also, as the Housing Dept have identified an established need for dwellings of over 2-bed size for wheelchair accessible dwellings, please ensure that the ten proposed 1-bed units are considerably reduced in number (particularly Block B

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 51

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

1BC Ground floor; Block G 1BAWC Ground floor; Block P x 2 1BAWC Ground floor; Block R 1BFWC Ground floor; Block A x 4 1 BFWC First and Second floor); and that 2-bed units are provided instead. It must be recognised that wheelchair housing requires additional floorspace and structural arrangements. Table 2 Recommended standards relating to floor space (SPD HDAS Residential Layouts, 2006), cannot therefore relate to the increased floor space required for a wheelchair accessible unit. The attached table must therefore only be used as a starting point and increased floor space must be demonstrated for these units.

In particular, the following units must be changed: Block E 2BFWC Ground floor 62.8 m2; Block K 2BFWC Ground floor, although the floorspace of the flat is acceptable, the layout is not and revised drawings should incorporate a 2.5 x 2.7m bathroom; Block M 2BFWC Ground floor 69.7 m2, the bathroom is not large enough and the space allocated for the wheelchair storage/charging is not in a suitable location. Additionally, the following proposed units all demonstrate poor design: House type 3BCW Drawing No. 4485/WIM.W.L/3BCW/P1 The bathroom in this 3-bed house is not large enough - currently the dimensions appear to be 2.4 x 2.4m. However, the basic dimensions must be at least 2.5 x 2.7m to achieve the degree of manoeuvrability necessary. House type 3DAB Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/3DAB/P1 Although the length of the bathroom exceeds the minimum requirement, the width appears to be just 2m - this should be changed to a width of at least 2.5m. House type 4BH Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/4BH/P1 Again, the bathroom dimensions are inadequate (2.1 x 2.2m) and should be changed to at least 2.5 x 2.7m. Additionally, the identified through-floor lift space is not in a suitable location.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 52

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

House type 4BCW Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/4BCW/P1 Again, the bathroom dimensions are inadequate (2.1 x 2.6m) and should be changed to at least 2.5 x 2.7m. Flat type 3BAWC Block A Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/A/P2 The bathroom dimensions are inadequate and the location of the space for the wheelchair storage/charging point is not acceptable. Flat type 2BAWC Block A Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/A/P2 The bathroom dimensions are inadequate and the location of the space for the wheelchair storage/charging point is not acceptable. Flat type 1BAWC Block A Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/A/P2/3 Regarding the First and Second floors x 4 - currently these units are unsuitable as wheelchair accessible units. Flat type 2BAWC Block A Drawing No. 5585/WIM.W.L/A/P 4 The bathroom dimensions appear to be slightly inadequate and the location of the space for the wheelchair storage/charging point could be improved. Following our meeting with representatives of DHA Architecture I sent them an email to clarify which of the proposed blocks of flats would require a lift. I had consulted with our policy team, referred to the London Plan as well as the SPD HDAS Accessible Hillingdon which states 'In larger schemes lift access to upper floor units should normally be provided'. From this I determined that Blocks P (16 units), K (14 units) and Q (14 units) should have a passenger lift. I did not receive a reply to this email, furthermore, the amended drawings did not demonstrate this request. As lift access must be provided in all blocks which serve ten or more units I believe that if planning permission is granted a Condition should be imposed relating to provision of passenger lifts. The Condition should be: NS 2 'In all blocks of flats serving ten or more units a passenger lift must be provided'. Regarding the wheelchair standard units

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 53

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

in blocks of flats, if these units are provided above ground level, ideally more than one passenger lift should be provided in case of lift breakdown. NS 3: 'For all wheelchair accessible units above ground level, these units should have access to more than one lift'.

Environmental The noise sources are identified as the Protection Unit site generated traffic and from the ‘LEAP’.

However the noise source from the Biomass Boiler & Plant Store was not assessed in the noise report, and therefore requires further information to be submitted. This is to ensure that the plant room and residential dwellings can co-exist alongside each other by showing that the noise levels will comply with the Borough’s Noise SPD internal noise criteria. The plant rooms are situated at;

Block E – This has a bedroom adjacent to the plant room on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms immediately above on the first floor.

Block R – This does not have bedrooms adjacent to it on the ground floor and a bedroom located immediately above it on the first floor.

EPU is therefore unable to recommend discharge of Condition 30 due to insufficient information at this time, specifically in respect of noise levels and projected emissions of air pollutants.

EPU does not have any comments to make regarding application ref: 10189/APP/2007/2954 – New Access.

Estates and Valuations Development (B): Office 10189/APP/2007/2954 – New Access Notice has been received in the Estates department as landowner. The Council is negotiating with the developer a suitable agreement of terms for such an access. Development D:

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 54

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Reserved Matters Scheme 1 - Ref:10189/APP/2007/2463 Estates has no comments on this application other than to remind that the access to the north part of the development will probably be from a new access off the Highgrove House access. The public footpath on the northern side does not appear to be owned by the developers. Gas and foul sewers are under this footpath.

Adult Social Care, It is important that the residents of the Health and Housing new Highgrove Annexe have access to the Eastcote Road and High Street Eastcote. The most important is High Road Eastcote which is to the right of the access road as you exit the site as this is the way to the nearest community facilities.

Two of the residents have to use wheelchairs and two of them use mobility trolley's. Therefore the footpaths must be wide enough to accommodate them and at not too steep a gradient. I note in one of the drawings that should the residents use the footpath on the north side of the access road they will need to cross the new access road to the Wimpey development. The plan shows a speed bump at this point but a pelican crossing light should also be fitted. The crossing is near a bend in the road and the residents will be slow to cross.

I note that the public footpath to the north of the access road that runs behind the High Road Eastcote properties will be upgraded but I am concerned that it will be partly designated as a cycle track. If this decision cannot be changed and steps taken to prevent cyclists using this path then there should be warning signs to cyclists that disabled people use this footpath.

This footpath is currently not well lit so we welcome the news that the lighting will be improve

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 55

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Building Control No response

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.

RECOMMENDATION A:–

1. To grant planning permission for redevelopment for residential purposes at a density of up to 50 dwellings per hectare, including affordable housing, live-work units, a community facility and open space, in accordance with the application ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006, without compliance with condition number 40 previously imposed, but subject to the other conditions imposed therein, so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of taking effect and subject to the following new condition :

New condition 40 The development shall not commence until satisfactory waiting restrictions and traffic calming are in place along Lime Grove and the intersection of Lime Grove and Elm Avenue, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The erection of residential units north of public footpath R154 shall not commence until, either satisfactory traffic signals are in place at the site’s intersection with Eastcote Road and at the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street, or until an alternative access, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority is provided. The details of any signalisation and associated highway works along Eastcote Road and Fore Street, to minimize the visual impact on the adjacent conservation area, are to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, in consultation with the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer.

2. That Committee resolve that an Order be made under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended):

(i) authorising that part of the registered footpath R154 be stopped up at a point A, east of the proposed new estate road to a point B, west of the new estate road, more particularly shown on the plan attached to this report. (ii) authorising that part of the registered footpath R154 be stopped up at a point north east of the proposed new access road for 5 metres, to a point south west of the new access road, more particularly shown on the plan attached to this report.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 56

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(iii) authorising the carrying out of works to registered footpath R154 on both sides of the proposed new access road to improve gradients (iv) preserving the rights of statutory undertakers in respect of their apparatus in, on, over, along or under footpath R154 (v) requiring the developer to cover the costs of carrying out the works.

3. That Committee grant authority to enter into a deed of variation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to the S299 Agreement dated 24 February 2006, to ensure that the S299A Agreement shall continue to have effect, subject to a new definition being inserted in the Highway Works contained in Schedule 13 of the S299A agreement, to allow for the site using either traffic light controlled access or an alternative access off Eastcote Road.

INFORMATIVES: 1. (I52) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family lift); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 1. (I53) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan, namely Policies BE13, BE14, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE38, OE5, OE13, H4, H5, H9, H11, R17, T4, AM7, AM8, AM9, AM13, AM14 and AM15, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. 3. You are reminded that only condition 40 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781, dated 09/03/2006 has been varied by this permission. All the other conditions attached to the aforementioned permission remain in force.

RECOMMENDATION B: To grant planning permission for the construction of a new access road from Eastcote Road to the boundary of RAF Eastcote, subject to the following: 1. That Committee resolve that an Order be made under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended): (i) authorising that part of the registered footpath R154 be stopped up at a point north east of the proposed new access road for 5 metres, to a point south west of the new access road, more particularly shown on the plan attached to this report.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 57

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(ii) Authorising the carrying out of works to registered footpath R154 on both sides of the proposed new access road to improve gradients (iii) preserving the rights of statutory undertakers in respect of their apparatus in, on, over, along or under footpath R154. (iv) requiring the developer to cover the costs of carrying out the works

2. That the following conditions be attached:- 1. (T8) Time Limit - full 1. (T8) Standard planning application 2. (M1) Details/Samples to 2. (M1) Standard be Submitted 3. (M3) Boundary treatment 3. (M3) Standard – details 4. (OM1) Development in 4. (OM1) Standard accordance with Approved Plans 5. Not withstanding the 5. (H1) Standard submitted plans, development shall not begin until details of all traffic arrangements including carriageways, footways, turning space, safety strips, sight lines at road junctions, kerb radii, car parking areas and marking out of spaces, loading facilities, closure of existing access, traffic calming measures (raised table), a parking management scheme and means of surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved development shall not be occupied until all such works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the parking areas, sight lines and loading areas must be permanently retained

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 58

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

and used for no other purpose at any time. 6. Prior to development 6. (H1) Standard commencing, details of replacement parking bays for the occupants of Nos. 200-206 High Road Eastcote shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these parking areas, must be permanently retained and used for no other purpose at any time. 7. (TL1) Existing Trees - 7. (TL1) Standard Survey 8. (TL2) Trees to be 8. (TL2) Standard retained 9. (TL3) Protection of trees 9. (TL3) Standard and plants during site clearance and development 10. (TL5) Landscaping 10. (TL5) Standard Scheme - • Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), • Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, • Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, • Implementation programme 11. (TL6) Landscaping 11. (TL6) Standard Scheme - implementation 12. (TL7) Maintenance of 12. (TL7) Standard Landscaped Areas 13. (TL8) Screen Planting 13. (TL8) Standard ‘at a minimum height of 1.5 metres’. 14. (DRC1) Surface 14. (DRC1) Standard North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 59

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Water/Sewage Disposal 15. Provision shall be made 15. To ensure that the within the site to ensure development does not cause that all vehicles danger and inconvenience to associated with the users of the adjoining construction of the pavement and highway in development hereby accordance with Policy AM7 approved are properly of the Hillingdon Unitary washed and cleaned to Development Plan Saved prevent the passage of Policies September 2007. mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 16. No development shall 16. In order to ensure that take place until a method adequate access is retained statement and phasing during construction and to programme ensure that trees and other incorporating details of vegetation to be retained are the order of construction not damaged during works and associated construction work, in work including means of accordance with Policies ensuring continued AM7 and BE38 of the access to Highgrove Hillingdon Unitary House and Highgrove Development Plan Saved Annexe during Policies September 2007. construction, the provision of fencing to protect retained trees and hedgerow, the layout of storage areas and temporary site buildings/works compounds; has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement. 17. All construction noise 17. To protect the amenity of and thereafter, occupiers of neighbouring operational noise should residential premises in not exceed 5dB above accordance with Policy OE1 background level in of the Hillingdon Unitary accordance with BS4142. Development Plan Saved Times of construction Policies September 2007. work should be managed so as not cause nuisance to

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 60

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

neighbouring residents. 18. The development hereby 18. To ensure the protection of a approved shall not be European Protected Species commenced until and that the proposed evidence is provided to development will not have the Local Planning unacceptable ecological Authority that a effects on a Nature Reserve Department for and Nature Conservation Site Environment Food and of Borough Grade 1 Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Importance in accordance Licence, in respect of the with Policy EC1 of the protection of the Hillingdon Unitary population of Great Development Plan Saved Crested Newts, has been Policies September 2007. obtained.

19. Development shall not 19. To safeguard the amenities commence until an of nearby residents, to external lighting scheme ensure that highway and has been submitted to pedestrian safety is not and approved by the prejudiced and to Local Planning ensure that the work does Authority. The scheme not undermine landscaping shall include details of proposals, in underground works and accordance with Policies measures to eliminate OE1, AM7 and BE38 of the vertical and horizontal Hillingdon Unitary light spillage. Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

20. No development shall 20. To ensure that adequate commence until details facilities are provided in of a pedestrian crossing accordance with the in Eastcote Road, standards set out in the including the location of Hillingdon Unitary this crossing and the Development Plan Saved timescale for its Policies (September 2007). implementation have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The crossing shall be provided in accordance with the approved details.

INFORMATIVES:

1. (2) Encroachment 2. (3) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 61

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3. There is need for the archaeological potential of the site to be further clarified through field evaluation, which is in accordance with Condition 32 of the approved outline permission. This will take the form of trial trenches across the site, but concentrated in the southwest corner. A Written Scheme of Investigation will need to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the evaluation works. 4. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 5. (11) The Construction Regulations 1994 6. (12) Notification to Building Contractors 7. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 8. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc. 9. (24) Works affecting the Public Highway – General 10. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 11. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 12. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan, namely policies EC1, EC2, EC3, EC5, EC6, BE3, BE4, BE8, BE9, BE10, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE15, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE32, BE34, BE38, BE39, OE1, OE6, OE7, OE8, OE12, OE13, H4, H8, H9, R17, AM2, AM7, AM14 & AM15 and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. In reaching this decision the Planning Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application, namely the impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the area . 13. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 14. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 15. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 62

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

RECOMMENDATION C: Approval, subject to the following:

1. The Council enter into a deed of variation with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 (as amended) to the S299A Agreement dated 24 February 2006, to ensure that the S299A Agreement shall continue to have effect, subject to a new definition being inserted in the Highway Works contained in Schedule 13 of the S299A agreement, to allow for site using either traffic light controlled access or an alternative access off Eastcote Road.

2. That Committee resolve that an Order be made under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended): (i) authorising that part of the registered footpath R154 be stopped up at a point A, east of the proposed new estate road road to a point B, west of the new estate road, more particularly shown on the plan attached to this report. (ii) requiring the developer to cover the costs of carrying out the works.

3. If the above Section 106 agreement has not been finalised within 6 months, then the application is to be referred back to the Planning Committee for determination.

4. That subject to the signing of the Deed of Variation, the application be deferred for determination by the Corporate Director of Planning and Community Services under delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the completion of legal agreement(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

5. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached: 1. (M1) Details/Samples 1. (M1) Standard Add: Such details shall include: • balcony railings, • roof details, • porches, • fenestration types and doors comprehensive colour schemes for all built details.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Environment Food and Rural will not have Affairs (DEFRA) Licence, in unacceptable respect of the protection of the ecological effects on a population of Great Crested Nature Reserve and Newts, has been Nature Conservation obtained. Site of Borough Grade 11 importance, in accordance with Policy EC1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

3. The development hereby 3. In pursuance of the approved shall incorporate Council's duty under measures to minimize the risk section 17 of the Crime of crime and to meet the and Disorder Act 1998 specific security needs of the to consider crime and application site and the disorder implications development. Details of in excising its planning security measures shall be functions; to promote submitted and approved in the well being of the writing by the Local Planning area in pursuance of Authority before development the Council's powers commences. Any security under section 2 of the measures to be implemented in Local Government Act compliance with this condition 2000, and to reflect the shall aim to achieve the guidance contained in 'Secured by Design' Circular 5/94 'Planning accreditation awarded by the Out Crime' and the Hillingdon Metropolitan Police Council’s SPG on Crime Prevention Design Community Safety By Adviser (CPDA) on behalf of the Design. Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

4. Restrictions on Erection of 4. So that the Local Extensions, Garages, Sheds Planning Authority can and Outbuildings. ensure that any such Notwithstanding the provisions development would of the Town and Country not result in a Planning (General Permitted significant loss of Development) Order 1995 (or residential amenity in any order revoking and re- accordance with policy enacting that Order with or BE21 of the Hillingdon without modification), no Unitary Development extension to any Plan Saved Policies dwellinghouse(s) including September 2007. enlargement of roofs, nor any

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 64

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

garage(s), shed(s) or other out- building(s) shall be erected without the grant of further specific permission from the local planning authority 5. (MCD13) Extraction Vent or 5. In order to safeguard Chimney the amenities of No development shall take place adjoining properties in until details of the height, accordance with Policy position, design and materials OE1 of the Hillingdon of any chimney or extraction Unitary Development vent or flue to be provided in Plan Saved Policies connection with the Bio Mass September 2007. boilers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out until the vent/flue or chimney has been installed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter it shall be permanently retained and maintained in good working order for so long as the use continues. 6. (RPD1) No Additional Windows 6. To prevent overlooking or Doors to adjoining properties Notwithstanding the provisions in accordance with of the Town and Country policy BE24 of the Planning (General Permitted Hillingdon Unitary Development) Order 1995 (or Development Plan any order revoking and re- Saved Policies enacting that Order with or September 2007. without modification), no additional windows or doors shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of any of the residential units hereby approved. 7. The first and/or second floor 7. To prevent overlooking side windows of all dwelling to adjoining properties houses shall be glazed with in accordance with obscured glass and non- policy BE24 of the opening except at top vent level Hillingdon Unitary for so long as the development Development Plan remains in existence. Saved Policies September 2007. 8. (DIS2) Access to Buildings for 8. (DIS2) Standard People with Disabilities 9. (DIS3) Parking for Wheelchair 9. To ensure that people

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 65

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Disabled People (residential in wheelchairs are with communal parking) provided with adequate car parking and convenient access to building entrances in accordance with policy AM13 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

10. Details of the internal design of 10. To ensure that the wheelchair units and the sufficient housing compliance of the remaining stock is provided to units to lifetime homes standard meet the needs of shall be submitted to and people with disabilities approved in writing by the Local and the elderly in Planning Authority before accordance with development commences. London Plan Policy Hereafter, the units shall be 3A.10 and the constructed in accordance with Hillingdon Design and the approved details. Accessibility Statement (HDAS) ‘Access for All’.

11. Development shall be 11. (T3 Standard) commenced until the fencing to protect the entire root areas/crown spread of trees, hedges and other vegetation to be retained has been erected in accordance with the details in the approved Aboricultural Impact Appraisal, approved Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. The fencing shall be retained in position until development is completed. The area within the approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works and in particular in these areas: 12. Details of the supervision of 12. (TL5) Standard the tree protection referred to in the approved Method Statement received on 4/12/2007, in relation to the approved development,

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 66

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

together with a programme of arboricultural input / works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development commencing. The scheme should be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement

INFORMATIVES:

1. (1) Building to Approved Drawings 2. (2) Encroachment 3. (3) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 4. There is need for the archaeological potential of the site to be further clarified through field evaluation, which is in accordance with Condition 32 of the approved outline permission. This will take the form of trial trenches across the site, but concentrated in the southwest corner. A Written Scheme of Investigation will need to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the evaluation works. 5. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 6. (11) The Construction Regulations 1994 7. (12) Notification to Building Contractors 8. (13) Asbestos Removal 9. (14) Installation of Plant and Machinery 10. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 11. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 12. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc. 13. (24) Works affecting the Public Highway – General 14. In order to check that the proposed storm water system meets their requirements, the Environment Agency will require the following information be provided to discharge condition 34of the outline planning permission: a) A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation ponds, soakaways and drainage storage tanks. This plan should show any pipe 'node numbers' that have been referred to in network calculations and it should also show invert and cover levels of manholes. b) Confirmation of the critical storm duration. c) Where infiltration forms part of the proposed stormwater system such as infiltration trenches and soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365. d) Where on site attenuation is achieved through attenuation ponds or tanks, calculations showing the volume of these are also required.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 67

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

e) Where an outfall discharge control device is to be used such as a hydrobrake or twin orifice, this should be shown on the plan with the rate of discharge stated. f) Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during a 1 in 100 year critical duration storm event. If overland flooding occurs in this event, a plan should also be submitted detailing the location of overland flow paths. 15. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 16. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 17. The decision to discharge conditions 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 36, 37 and 42 relating to the outline planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2007, namely policies OL1, OL2, OL3, OL4, OL14, OL16, OL17, OL26, EC1, EC2, EC3, EC5, EC6, BE3, BE4, BE8, BE9, BE10, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE15, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE32, BE34, BE38, BE39, OE1, OE6, OE7, OE8, OE12, OE13, H4, H8, H9, R17, AM2, AM7, AM14 & AM15 and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. In reaching this decision the Planning Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application, namely the impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the area and the. outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006 18. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 19. To promote the development of sustainable building design, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, such as solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems. 20. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 21. You are advised that Insufficient information has been submitted to discharge conditions 11,13, 15,16, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31, relating to tree protection measures, samples of all materials, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures, site investigations, foundations, surface and foul drainage.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 68

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

22. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts. 23. You are advised that the second floor ‘bonus rooms’ in House Types B and P shall be treated as bedrooms for the purposes of calculating the level of contributions relating to planning obligations for education and primary health care facilities. 24. Specific security needs identified for the application site include the following:

• The whole development must achieve Secured by Design (SBD) Accreditation. SBD can not be granted for the affordable housing element only. • Pedestrian link to Azalea Walk CCTV coverage of this pedestrian link would constitute a means of control. • Improvements to East/West Public Footpath formal surveillance by CCTV cameras and perimeter treatments of both sides of the public footpath. The requirements of SBD New Homes - Footpath Design to be closely followed where ever possible. Break-speed barriers should be installed at various points along the footpath, particularly where the CCTV cameras are trained. The perimeter treatments of the footpath should be, wherever possible, of a robust (15 to 20mm diam round bar) park-style railings, to maximise vision both in and out. Where there is a need for 1.8m close board privacy fencing (at the rear & side of plots 82 to 100) this should be topped with an extra 200mm of (flimsy) trellis and protected from graffiti with defensive planting. • Doors and Windows : Recessed front doors well beyond 600mm or secluded in other ways may preclude granting the SBD Award. All external (front and back) doors must be to PAS24 Standard and accessible windows to BS 7950, with the correct glassing in the appropriate areas. • Car Parking areas: All car parking areas must meet Safer Parking Standards. All basement parking must have access control and CCTV. Any parking areas to the rear of houses should also be access controlled for those residents only. Where there are a number of vehicles using an access controlled parking area a locally recorded CCTV system should be considered • Bin and bike stores for blocks : Wherever possible these should be within the shell of buildings. Double leaf doors should be avoided on bin stores and 'empty space' within the bin stores kept to a minimum. Bike North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 69

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

stores to have a Pass24 standard door and racks inside broken up into cages of 2 bikes maximum - these stores must be fit for purpose. No signs outside saying 'Bicycle Store'. All Designs and security details for bike stores to be submitted before being built. No bike or bin stores to block sight lines to front doors and car parking areas etc. and wherever possible should be located within the 'private' areas of blocks of flats ie not in the public space. • Alleys leading to the rear of houses: These must be gated flush with the front building line of the houses. Gates should have stout frames capable of housing a BS3621 mortise lock and capable of being locked/unlocked from both sides. Likewise with gates to rear gardens. Flimsy C/B gates with inadequate locks and hinges are not acceptable. • Isolated Sub Stations : Any sub stations on the site should be well protected with 1.8m high railings, standing off at least 1.5m from the building itself. The proposed new sub station in the north of the site should not allow access behind it. • Ambiguous ownership of land : There must be no ambiguity of ownership of any land near buildings. • Security and CCTV around the Community Hall and LEAP. The LEAP should have railings around the perimeter as well as the play area itself and it's play equipment should be covered by CCTV. The hall itself should have good CCTV coverage all around it.

You are advised to submit details to expedite the specified security needs in order to comply with Condition 3 of this planning permission.

In addition to the above, and for this site to achieve ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation, doors and windows should also comply with the specifications set out in the ‘SBD New Homes’ documentation in the Design Guides & Publications section of the www.securedbydesign.com website. Consultation with the local Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser (CPDA) will be required to achieve this award. The CPDA’s contact number is 0208 246 1769.

RECOMMENDATION D: Approval, subject to the following:

1. The Council enter into a Deed of Variation with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 (as amended) to the S299A Agreement dated 24 February 2006, to ensure that the S299A Agreement shall continue to have effect, North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 70

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

subject to a new definition being inserted in the Highway Works contained in Schedule 13 of the S299A agreement, to allow for site using either traffic light controlled access or an alternative access off Eastcote Road.

2. That Committee resolve that an Order be made under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended): (i) authorising that part of the registered footpath R154 be stopped up at either side of the proposed new estate road (ii) requiring the developer to cover the costs of carrying out the works.

3. If the above deed of variation has not been finalised within 6 months, then the application is to be referred back to the Planning Committee for determination.

4. That subject to the signing of the deed of variation, the application be deferred for the determination by the Corporate Director of Planning and Community Services under delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the completion of legal agreement(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

5. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:

1. (M1) Details/Samples 1. (M1) Standard Add: Such details shall include: • balcony railings, • roof details, • porches, • fenestration types and doors comprehensive colour schemes for all built details.

2. The development hereby 2. To ensure the approved shall not be protection of a commenced until evidence is European Protected provided to the Local Planning Species and that the Authority that a Department for proposed development Environment Food and Rural will not have Affairs (DEFRA) Licence, in unacceptable respect of the protection of the ecological effects on a population of Great Crested Nature Reserve and Newts, has been Nature Conservation obtained. Site of Borough Grade 11 importance, in North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 71

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

accordance with Policy EC1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 72

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

No development shall take place adjoining properties in until details of the height, accordance with Policy position, design and materials OE1 of the Hillingdon of any chimney or extraction Unitary Development vent or flue to be provided in Plan Saved Policies connection with the Bio Mass September 2007. boilers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out until the vent/flue or chimney has been installed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter it shall be permanently retained and maintained in good working order for so long as the use continues. 6. (RPD1) No Additional Windows 6. To prevent overlooking or Doors to adjoining properties Notwithstanding the provisions in accordance with of the Town and Country policy BE24 of the Planning (General Permitted Hillingdon Unitary Development) Order 1995 (or Development Plan any order revoking and re- Saved Policies enacting that Order with or September 2007. without modification), no additional windows or doors shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of any of the residential units hereby approved. 7. The first and/or second floor 7. To prevent overlooking side windows of all dwelling to adjoining properties houses shall be glazed with in accordance with obscured glass and non- policy BE24 of the opening except at top vent level Hillingdon Unitary for so long as the development Development Plan remains in existence. Saved Policies September 2007. 8. (DIS2) Access to Buildings for 8. (DIS2) Standard People with Disabilities 9. (DIS3) Parking for Wheelchair 9. To ensure that people Disabled People (residential in wheelchairs are with communal parking) provided with adequate car parking and convenient access to building entrances in accordance with policy AM13 of the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 73

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 74

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

The scheme should be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement

INFORMATIVES:

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 75

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

15. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 16. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 17. The decision to discharge conditions 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 36, 37 and 42 relating to the outline planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2007, namely policies OL1, OL2, OL3, OL4, OL14, OL16, OL17, OL26, EC1, EC2, EC3, EC5, EC6, BE3, BE4, BE8, BE9, BE10, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE15, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE32, BE34, BE38, BE39, OE1, OE6, OE7, OE8, OE12, OE13, H4, H8, H9, R17, AM2, AM7, AM14 & AM15 and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. In reaching this decision the Planning Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application, namely the impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the area and the. outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006 18. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 19. To promote the development of sustainable building design, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, such as solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems. 20. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 21. You are advised that Insufficient information has been submitted to discharge conditions 11,13, 15,16, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31, relating to tree protection measures, samples of all materials, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures, site investigations, foundations, surface and foul drainage.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 76

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

23. You are advised that the second floor ‘bonus rooms’ in House Types B and P shall be treated as bedrooms for the purposes of calculating the level of contributions relating to planning obligations for education and primary health care facilities. 24. Specific security needs identified for the application site include the following:

• The whole development must achieve Secured by Design (SBD) Accreditation. SBD can not be granted for the affordable housing element only. • Pedestrian link to Azalea Walk CCTV coverage of this pedestrian link would constitute a means of control. • Improvements to East/West Public Footpath formal surveillance by CCTV cameras and perimeter treatments of both sides of the public footpath. The requirements of SBD New Homes - Footpath Design to be closely followed where ever possible. Break-speed barriers should be installed at various points along the footpath, particularly where the CCTV cameras are trained. The perimeter treatments of the footpath should be, wherever possible, of a robust (15 to 20mm diam round bar) park-style railings, to maximise vision both in and out. Where there is a need for 1.8m close board privacy fencing (at the rear & side of plots 82 to 100) this should be topped with an extra 200mm of (flimsy) trellis and protected from graffiti with defensive planting. • Doors and Windows : Recessed front doors well beyond 600mm or secluded in other ways may preclude granting the SBD Award. All external (front and back) doors must be to PAS24 Standard and accessible windows to BS 7950, with the correct glassing in the appropriate areas. • Car Parking areas: All car parking areas must meet Safer Parking Standards. All basement parking must have access control and CCTV. Any parking areas to the rear of houses should also be access controlled for those residents only. Where there are a number of vehicles using an access controlled parking area a locally recorded CCTV system should be considered • Bin and bike stores for blocks : Wherever possible these should be within the shell of buildings. Double leaf doors should be avoided on bin stores and 'empty space' within the bin stores kept to a minimum. Bike stores to have a Pass24 standard door and racks inside broken up into cages of 2 bikes maximum - these stores must be fit for purpose. No signs outside saying 'Bicycle Store'. All Designs and security details for bike stores to be submitted before being built. No bike or bin stores to block sight lines to front doors and car parking areas etc. and wherever possible should be North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 77

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

located within the 'private' areas of blocks of flats ie not in the public space. • Alleys leading to the rear of houses: These must be gated flush with the front building line of the houses. Gates should have stout frames capable of housing a BS3621 mortise lock and capable of being locked/unlocked from both sides. Likewise with gates to rear gardens. Flimsy C/B gates with inadequate locks and hinges are not acceptable. • Isolated Sub Stations : Any sub stations on the site should be well protected with 1.8m high railings, standing off at least 1.5m from the building itself. The proposed new sub station in the north of the site should not allow access behind it. • Ambiguous ownership of land : There must be no ambiguity of ownership of any land near buildings. • Security and CCTV around the Community Hall and LEAP. The LEAP should have railings around the perimeter as well as the play area itself and it's play equipment should be covered by CCTV. The hall itself should have good CCTV coverage all around it.

You are advised to submit details to expedite the specified security needs in order to comply with Condition 3 of this planning permission.

4.0 CONSIDERATIONS (A, B C and D)

Site and Locality

4.1 The site is 7.7 hectares in area and is dissected into a ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ area by an existing public footpath. An internal private road links the northern and southern areas. The northern portion is 4.2 hectares and was last used as a US Navy facility. The land in this area is undulating, and becomes lower towards the north western boundaries. The southern portion of the site is 3.5 hectares, is generally flat, and formally comprised a number of vacant buildings, previously used by the Ministry of Defense,which have now been demolished. Prior to demolition, the total floor space for the entire site was approximately 28,000sqm of which 22,500m2 was administration space and 5,500m2 barracks (for 200 personnel). These buildings were North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 78

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

generally of poor quality and added little in terms of architectural value to the local vernacular.

4.2 The site has three vehicular access points, two from Eastcote Road and one leading from Lime Grove. The Lime Grove access also provides a pedestrian route via footways along both sides of the driveway. The MoD closed the two accesses from Eastcote Road some years ago due to safety concerns. The site formerly had 246 marked parking spaces and 169 unmarked parking spaces.

4.3 The site has an average PTAL score of 1b, which is a low score within a possible range of 1 to 6. A number of trees and hedges of varying size and value surround the site boundary and the edge of the public footpath. The site is bounded to the west by Eastcote Road and on all remaining sides by residential properties. To the north the residential character is predominantly 1960/70s in style, with a large number of three storey town houses and flats, many of which have communal garage courts. To the southeast, the area has a larger number of semi-detached two storey dwellings dating to the 1930s.

4.4 Highgrove Nature Reserve which is of Borough Grade II importance is situated to the south of the site, adjacent to which is Highgrove House which is at present disused, but previously provided hostel accommodation in two and three storey buildings set within enclosed grounds. The northwest corner of the site lies adjacent to Eastcote Village Conservation Area, which includes a number of listed buildings.

Schemes

Application A

4.5 Application A seeks to vary condition 40 of the previous outline planning permission to remove the requirement for traffic signals on Eastcote Road and on the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street, as the signals will no longer be necessary if the alternative access scheme (Application D) goes ahead.

4.6 The condition as currently worded reads: ‘The development shall not commence until satisfactory waiting restrictions and traffic calming is in place along: Lime Grove; the intersection of Lime Grove and Elm Avenue; Eastcote Road; and the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not commence until satisfactory traffic signals are in place at the site’s intersection with Eastcote Road and at the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details of all signalisation and associated highway works along Eastcote Road and Fore Street, to minimize the visual impact on the adjacent conservation area, are to be submitted to the Local planning Authority for approval, in consutation with the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer’. .

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 79

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.7 The applicants have therefore requested that the condition be reworded, in order that the development of RAF Eastcote, with the proposed alternative access may commence, without the installation of the traffic signals referred to above. The varied condition will require the developer to provide a traffic light controlled access, as per the outline planning permission, or such alternative access as the Local Planning Authority shall approve in writing. The condition will then allow the developer to commence construction on the southern portion of the site whilst, the technical issues concerning the alternative access are resolved. `

Application B

4.8 The location and specific details of the alternative access associated with the alternative access scheme (Application D) are the subject of Application B, which seeks full planning permission for the necessary works to provide a priority junction and an access link road to the development site. This will utilise the access currently serving the Highgrove House site, which has planning permission for redevelopment as 16 residential units.

4.9 The junction has been designed to include a 3 metre wide ghost island for right turning traffic into the site access. The new link road would be 5.5 metres wide with footways of 1.8 metres on each side. The carriageway turns northward towards the RAF site after approximately 30 metres, at which point, a priority junction is formed between the link road and the Highgrove access road, the latter forming the minor arm of the junction. As a result of an existing gas main running below the proposed alignment, the carriageway and associated footways have a maximum gradient of 1:14. The proposed alignment will also bisect the existing public footpath. Both the Highgrove access road and public footpaths will be regraded to meet the new footway and carriageway levels.

Application C

4.10 Application C (the approved access scheme) seeks approval of reserved matters for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping for the redevelopment of RAF Eastcote for residential purposes at a density of 50 dwellings per hectare, pursuant to discharge of condition 3 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006. The application proposes the clearance and remediation of land formally occupied by the RAF and more recently the US Navy, and the erection of 385 residential units including 12 live/work units and a Community Centre, together with associated parking, open space and landscaping. The development would comprise a mix of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 bedrooms properties, with storey heights ranging from 2 storey houses and 3.5 storey apartment blocks.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 80

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.11 A detailed breakdown of the mix of units is provided below:

No. of Affordable Private Total Bedrooms 1 56 57 113 2 33 67 100 3 24 32 56 4 12 63 75 5 10 22 32 6 0 9 9 Total 135 250 385

4.12 The total provision is 385 units, of which 135 (35%) would be affordable, resulting in a density of 50 units per hectare. The affordable units would comprise of a mix of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom units, including both apartments and houses of which 14 of which will be accessible to people with disabilities. In total 38 wheelchair units are provided cross the site.

4.13 The scheme would provide a 188m² community centre to be located in the southern part of the site, which will complemented by an area of public open space, including a children’s play area (LEAP). In addition every house will have a private rear garden, whilst most of the apartments will be provided with individual balconies and have shared communal amenity areas. Additional large areas of informal public open space will be provided to the rear of blocks A, B, and C, along with smaller areas along the northern boundary of Flag Walk.

4.14 A total of 491 parking spaces are to be provided, along with 121 garages/car ports, which equates to an average of 1.58 spaces per dwelling. A combination of parking facilities will be provided across the site via private driveways, garages and car ports, basement parking and small parking courts to serve flatted development. In addition, secure, communal cycle parking facilities are provided within each apartment block, whilst each house has a secure rear garden and in some cases a private garage in which cycles can be stored.

4.15 Application C includes the signalised vehicular access arrangements from Eastcote Road that were approved by the outline consent. The application proposes to provide a signalised intersection to Eastcote Road (requiring other ancillary signals in the vicinity of Fore Street) and another access to the southern portion of the site via Lime Grove. It is proposed to formalise a shuttle system in Lime Grove via the use of waiting restrictions (yellow lines).

4.16 In addition to seeking to discharge the reserved matters, the application also seeks to discharge various outline planning conditions relating to residential density, the community facility, sustainability and energy assessment, refuse and recycling storage, site survey plan, landscaping, flood risk assessment, surface water source control measures and access statements.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 81

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.17 The applicant has submitted a series of detailed technical papers that assess the impact of the proposal. These are summarised below:

• Planning Statement

4.18 The Statement assesses the proposal against the terms of the outline permission and relevant policy and the appropriateness of the development to the surrounding area in terms of townscape, open spaces and residential amenity.

• Design and Access Statement

4.19 The statement details the development design principles, setting out the strategy for urban design, landscape design and the architectural approach. This statement includes the philosophy and approach to inclusive design, how the principles of inclusive design will be implemented and subsequently maintained and managed.

• Tree Report

4.20 Provides details of a tree condition survey.

• Landscape Design Statement

4.21 The Statement includes an evaluation of the landscape and design principles for the landscaping of the site.

• Arborocultural Method Statement,

4.22 This report has been compiled to aid the safe and healthy retention of all trees to be retained.

• Arborocultural Implications Assessment

4.23 The report assesses the direct and indirect impact of the proposed development on trees has been assessed, quantified and mitigated for. The retained trees can be protected during construction.

• Landscape Management and Maintenance Report

4.24 The report sets out measures to ensure successful planting, establishment and continued healthy growth through to maturity of trees, shrubs and grass.

• Eco Homes Assessment,

4.25 The report provides the results of a workshop to review sustainability issues. A preliminary assessment indicates that a “Very Good” rating is achievable.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 82

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• Preliminary Energy Strategy,

4.26 The report investigates options for reducing energy demand and providing 10% of predicted remaining energy requirements through renewable energy. The preliminary report covers: - Energy issues - Transport issues - Pollution Issues - Materials Issues - Land use and ecology issues - Health and well-being issues - Management Issues

• Noise Assessment

4.27 The study assesses the possible noise impact of the scheme on the surrounding area. The report concludes that noise impact on the surrounding area due to increased traffic, from amenity areas and the proposed LEAP would not require any special mitigation measures.

• Flood Risk Assessment

4.28 The assessment states that the Environment Agency information for the site indicates it to be at low risk of flooding. The report concludes that redevelopment of the site should be possible with careful consideration of sustainable drainage solutions such that the overall drainage regime is improved. The proposals do not impact on flood storage volumes or impede flood flows.

• Desk top Archaeological Study

4.29 This desk based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of the site. It concludes that since the site remained undeveloped until the middle of the 20th Century and subsequent development seems unlikely to have had much below ground impact, it is possible that archaeological deposits have survived relatively intact. Further information on the archaeological potential of the site should be provided by means of a field evaluation.

• Highgrove Access Option Report (Application B)

4.30 The report covers the main aspects of junction design, capacity and the residential link road connection to the development site.

• Statement of Community Involvement

4.31 This statement provides an explanation of the consultation exercise carried out as part of the preparation of the planning application and how this complies with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. It also provides a summary of the comments made by local stakeholders and the means by which the scheme has responded to these. North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 83

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• Consultation Report

4.32 Details the outcome of the public exhibition, organised by the applicants, which was held at St Lawrence Parish Church, Eastcote on Tuesday 16th October 2007.

Application D

4.33 Application D (the alternative access scheme) seeks reserved matters approval for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping for the redevelopment of RAF Eastcote for residential purposes at a density of 50 dwellings per hectare, pursuant to discharge of condition 3 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006. Application D is similar to Application C other than the vehicular access arrangements from Eastcote Road and modifications to the site layout to reflect the new access road, which is the subject of application B.

4.34 A detailed breakdown of the mix of units is provided below:

No. of Affordable Private Total Bedrooms 1 56 57 113 2 33 67 100 3 24 32 56 4 12 63 75 5 10 22 32 6 0 9 9 Total 385

4.35 Application D proposes to provide a new priority junction and access via the Highgrove House access and an access from Lime Grove. It is proposed to formalise a shuttle system in Lime Grove via the use of waiting restrictions (yellow lines). The applicant has indicated that it is not intended to provide a public vehicle link between the northern (4.2hectare) and the southern (3.5 hectare) portions of the site.

4.36 Application D, in common with Application C also seeks to discharge various other outline planning conditions relating to residential density, the community facility, sustainability and energy assessment, refuse and recycling storage, site survey plan, landscaping and access statements. The detailed technical reports referred to in paras. 4.17 to 4.37 are applicable.

Planning History

4.37 The site was owned by the Ministry of Defence, and had been used for a variety of military and government purposes since 1946, comprising 28,000m2 of predominantly administration/office floor space. Land around the site boundaries was leased by the MoD to neighbouring properties who used this land for garden space. The licences have now been withdrawn. While the site North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 84

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

presently has two driveways to Eastcote Road, these access points were closed by the MoD some years ago for safety reasons. As a result, the site was last serviced solely via a driveway to/from Lime Grove.

4.38 During World War II, the buildings at RAF Eastcote were constructed for use as a hospital however the land was never used for this purpose. From 1946 the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) moved into the premises, with the buildings housing cryptography machines (bombes). Up until 1977 various communications and security agencies were accommodated on the site. Since that time, the site has been used for a variety of military uses, most recently operating as a US Navy administrative centre and for the housing of military personnel.

4.39 A planning application to redevelop the site for residential purposes was submitted to the Council in June 2003, (ref: 10189/APP/2003/1438), but was withdrawn 2004.

4.40 Outline planning permission Ref: 10189/APP/2004/1781 for the 'redevelopment for residential purposes at a density of up to 50 dwellings per hectare including affordable housing, live-work units, a community facility and open space' was granted permission on 9 March 2006, following considerationat the north Planning Committee.

4.41 The planning permission was granted with all matters, other than access, reserved for consideration at a later date. Floor plans and elevations, including a masterplan, were indicative only, the purpose of which were to indicate how the level of development proposed could be accommodated on site and to provide a framework for future reserved matters schemes. The indicative site layout is summarised below:

Northern Area: • Community Facility- 170sqm • 78 Apartments- 50-100sqm floor space, 3 storey, 1.5 parking spaces per unit • 108 houses- 80-180sqm floor space , 2 storey, 2 parking spaces per house • 0.42 ha open space

Southern Area: • 108 Apartments - 50-100sqm floor space, 3 storey, 1.5 parking spaces per unit • 81 houses – 80 -180sqm floor space, 2 storey, 2 parking spaces per house • 0.31 ha open space

4.42 In addition a Legal Agreement was signed to secure the following: A financial contribution towards nursery; primary and secondary school places in Ruislip and Eastcote; primary health care facilities; improvements in leisure, youth and cultural services; one equipped children’s play space on-site; improving pitch sport facilities off-site; off site highway works; improvements North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 85

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

to the public right of way;. improvements to the London Cycle network; installation of a pedestrian crossing over Elm Avenue; protection of trees; improvements to the habitat of Highgrove Nature Reserve, including upgrading the path network; public consultation; construction management and affordable housing.

Planning Policies and Standards

Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – September 2005 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) PPG17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation – September 2001 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise) PPS25: Development and Flood Risk – July 2007

London Plan

Policy 4B.3 – Housing provision Policy 3C.2 – Transport Policies 4A.8 and 4A.9 – Renewable Energy

HILLINGDON UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SAVED POLICIES (SEPTEMBER 2007) Designation: Within the Developed Area Adjacent to Local Distributor Road (B466 Eastcote Road) Adjacent to Nature Reserve Site of Borough Grade II Importance Adjacent to Conservation Area

The following Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.10 , Pt1.17, Pt1.21, Pt1.35, Pt1.38, Pt1.39

Part 2 Policies:

ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION EC1 Protection of sites of special scientific interest, nature conservation importance and nature reserves (Highgrove Eastcote) EC2 Nature conservation considerations and ecological assessments EC3 Potential effects of development on sites of nature conservation importance EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats

BUILT ENVIRONMENT BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 86

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OE1 Character of surrounding properties OE2 Environmental Assessments OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance OE10 Phasing of development in areas of potential flooding or inadequate sewerage capacity OE11 Development involving hazardous substances and contaminated land - requirement for ameliorative measures

HOUSING H4 Mix of housing units H5 Dwellings suitable for large families H8 Change of use from non-residential activity to residential

RECREATION, LEISURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES R1 Recreational open space R10 Proposals for new meeting halls and buildings for education, social, community and health services R16 Accessibility for elderly people, people with disabilities, women and children R17 Recreation Open space planning obligations

ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT AM1 Development and the public transport system AM2 Which assesses development against their contribution to traffic congestion and on public transport availability AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM8 Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and implementation of road construction and traffic management schemes AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities AM10 Incorporation in new developments of additions to the proposed cycle network AM11 Improvement in facilities and promotion of safety and security at bus and rail interchanges; use of planning agreements to secure improvement in public transport services

Also considered relevant are:

Supplementary Planning Document– Accessible Hillingdon Supplementary Planning Document– Residential Layouts Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Obligations Strategy Council’s Affordable Housing SPD (May 2006)

Main Planning Issues

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 87

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.43 The principle of residential development on this site has already been established by virtue of the outline planning permission. The main planning issues are therefore considered to be:

(i) Density of Development (ii) Housing Mix (iii) Layout and Design (iv) Trees and Landscaping (v) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers (vi) Access for People with Disabilities (vii) Impact on Neighbouring Properties (viii) Highway Matters (ix) Alternative Access (x) Parking (xi) Public Footpath (xii) Flooding and Contamination (xiii) Ecology (xiv) Noise Attenuation (xv) Energy Efficiency and Waste Disposal (xvi) Archaeology (xvii) Affordable Housing (xviii) Planning Obligations

(i) Density of proposed development

4.44 From a strategic land use planning viewpoint, the Governments land use planning policy is outlined in National Planning Policy guidance. This is reflected in the Mayor’s London Plan, which provides planning policy at the regional level. On matters of density of housing, the Mayor’s London Plan superceded the Adopted Unitary Development Plan for Hillingdon at the time the outline application was considered.

4.45 The Mayor’s London Plan seeks to accommodate demand for housing growth through maximising the density of development on previously development land. This is done with reference to density guidance to guide the extent of development that might be acceptable on individual sites.

4.46 In this case, an outline planning permission has already been granted. That application considered the matter of the acceptable density of development for the site and defined this as up to 50 units a hectare. This was stipulated by way of a planning condition on the outline permission. This is a material consideration, which has to guide determination of the reserved matters applications.

4.47 Condition 7 of the outline consent requires details of the residential density of the whole site to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development. Both reserved matters applications propose the development of 385 residential units, at an average density of 50 dwellings per hectare (dph). This is in excess of the national indicative minimum target of 30dph set by

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 88

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PPS3 and is in accordance with the maximum density of 50dph approved by the outline consent.

4.48 Having regard to the locational constraints of the site in terms of proximity to Highgrove Nature Reserve, Eastcote Conservation Area and the surrounding residential areas, this level of development is considered to be appropriate, given that the proposal would make the most efficient use of the land without adversely impacting on upon the amenity of the surrounding area or of future residents.

(ii) Housing Mix

4.49 Policy 3A.4 of The London Plan seeks to maximise housing choice by securing an appropriate mix of unit sizes across all new housing sites, whilst Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) Policy H4 simply seeks to ensure that a mix of housing units of different sizes is secured on all sites, with a particular emphasis on providing large family houses.

4.50 Both reserved matters schemes propose a wide range of house types and sizes, comprising 28% 1 bedroom households, 40% 2/3 bedroom households and 32% 4 bedroom or larger households. It is considered that the proposed scheme generally complies with the London Plan and is acceptable in terms of unit mix. In addition the scheme would provide a varied mix of unit types comprising 203 flats and 182 houses, including detached, semi-detached and terraced units.

4.51 Condition 9 of the outline planning permission requires that a minimum of 3% and maximum of 5% of the proposed residential dwellings are to comprise live-work units. The scheme proposes the provision of 12 live-work units to be located in Block J and K. This level of provision represents 3.11% of the total number of units proposed which complies with the provisions of Condition 9.

4.52 In terms of the affordable housing element, the submitted plans indicate an allocation of 42 one bedroom, 31 two bedroom apartments and 50 three, four and five bedroom houses, to be spread across both the northern and southern parts of the site. However, the precise details are to be finalised as part of the S299A Agreement associated with the outline planning permission.

4.53 In general, notwithstanding the Housing Officer’s concerns, it is considered that the proposed schemes provide a range of unit types and sizes in accordance with the provisions of relevant planning policy and where applicable the outline consent. The development would offer a choice of properties to perspective residents that would facilitate the creation of a mixed and diverse community, in compliance with Policy H4 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and the London Plan.

(iii) Layout and design

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 89

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.54 Both PPS1 and PPS3 place particular emphasis on the importance of improving the quality of design in all new housing developments in order to create usable, adaptable and sustainable mixed communities. PPS3 states that ‘new housing development, of whatever scale, should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality’.

4.55 Polices contained within the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) seek to ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of appearance and layout. Of particular relevance are Policies BE4, BE13, BE19 and BE38, which cover the impact of development on the visual amenities of the street scene and character of the area.

4.56 Both reserved matters schemes include a mixture of 2 storey houses and 3.5 storey apartment blocks. This scale of development is consistent with submissions which formed part of the outline planning application. It was acknowledged that the blocks of flats would be necessary to achieve a density of up to 50 units per hectare. Points that were considered in agreeing such a density were that a large site such as RAF Eastcote would develop its own identity, that there are no planning policy arguments stating that density must mirror that of surrounding development and that the density of development complied with the Mayors London Plan.

4.57 In terms of layout, the Urban Design Officer considers that the approved access scheme (A) is the preferred option from a heritage conservation and urban design point of view. This is because the configuration causes less impact on the access to Highgrove House (Grade 2 listed) and because this option results in a clearer, more balanced configuration at the Eascote road entrance, with two landmark buildings at either side and a larger coherent area to the north of the crescent.

4.58 Nevertheless, it is considered that the disposition of buildings across the site for both schemes, ensures that the new estate will in general integrate appropriately with existing development and not appear over dominant or out of character. The layout of the schemes respect the sensitive southern boundary of the site close to Highgrove Nature Reserve and the adjoining built environment, including Eastcote Conservation Area, to the northwest. The tallest buildings have been located in the centre of the site away from the boundaries of adjoining properties and where possible, existing vegetation has been retained, in order to maintain natural screening. In addition, the rear gardens of new units have been situated around the boundary, increasing the distance between new and existing properties. The concerns of the Urban Design Officer also do not consider the role of landscaping. The landscaping proposals, through an avenue of trees will guide the eye towards the Highgrove access.

4.59 The rationale behind the schemes is one of creating clearly defined spaces that relate appropriately to their specific context and intended use and are

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 90

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

linked together, to provide an integrated and comprehensive layout. Buildings have been largely which are more likely to attract crime, such as public open spaces and parking courts. Parts of the scheme are based upon home zone principles, the objectives of which are to integrate pedestrians with vehicular movements, such that the home zone areas themselves represent additional amenity areas.

4.60 In terms of the impact of the schemes from the surrounding roads, the proposed development will only occupy an existing road frontage at Kent Gardens, where four units have been sited to extend the existing row of houses up to the Lime Grove access. Consequently, surrounding street scenes will not be significantly impacted upon. Views into the site will however be possible from Eastcote Road, where Blocks B and C (Application A) and Blocks C/D and W (Application D) will occupy the gateway into the site, but will be set back at least 15 metres from the road. Existing trees and additional planting will screen the blocks and soften the appearance of the development from this aspect.

4.61 At the boundary with the Eastcote Conservation Area (New Cottages), it is proposed to locate low level parking facilities, 3 spaces of which will be allocated for use by the residents of the cottages. Development would be screened from the cottages by a landscape buffer.

4.62 In terms of design, the buildings incorporate the principles of the ‘Arts and Crafts’ vernacular. The Design and Access Statement specifies the particular characteristics of the materials used and discusses the concept behind the chosen pallet which reflects the styles and tendencies associated with this movement.

4.63 The Urban Design Officer, whilst raising no objections to the general design principles, considers that there are still some outstanding design issues with regards to specific house types, linked to the roof design, proposed details, as well as the use and combination of building materials. It is considered that external materials and detailed design adjustments can be controlled by condition, in order to achieve a high quality, functional and attractive design.

4.64 Overall, the scale of development is considered to be consistent with the surrounding residential properties to the north, east and south. Additionally, the set back from Eastcote Road and Lime Grove and the distance from neighbouring properties would further reduce the perceived scale and bulk of the buildings. Subject to conditions removing permitted development rights, it is considered that the development would respect the character of the local area and protect the amenity of surrounding residents, without compromising the internal character of the development or the amenity of prospective occupiers, in compliance with Policies BE13, and BE19 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

(iv) Trees and Landscaping

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 91

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.65 In accordance with Condition 23 of the outline consent, a Tree Survey was conducted in July 2006 in order to fully establish the extent and quality of trees on the site. A Tree Report has also been submitted in support of the reserved matters applications, which assesses the value of each tree on site without reference to site layout proposals. The scheme has been designed and laid out to ensure that trees which area considered by the report to be of value are retained and integrated into the scheme. Trees to be retained will be protected from damage throughout the construction process via a combination of methods, including the introduction of tree protection areas, protective fencing and continued monitoring. The Arboricultural Method Statement and Implications Assessment, and the Tree Protection Plan provide the specific details required by Condition 25 of the outline consent.

4.66 Ten trees on the triangle of land on the southern side of the access to Highgrove House and one tree alongside the existing driveway to Highgrove House will be removed to facilitate the proposed new access road (application B). All but one of the trees to be removed are small and/or young trees with low amenity value, such that their removal would not have an adverse landscape and visual impact. However, one of the trees to be removed is a mature, 16 metre-high Oak, graded as category A. This is a conspicuous feature on the Eastcote Road frontage. The Tree Officer considers that this tree has a high landscape value and is, in terms of policy BE38, a landscape feature of merit. The loss of this mature Oak tree would therefore have an adverse environmental impact, although the tree planting will partly offset the loss of this tree..

4.67 Nevertheless the scheme retains the other trees and makes provision for the landscaping of the land alongside the new access road. The landscaping scheme includes the planting of a new feature / specimen tree adjacent to the access and close to the Eastcote Road frontage, to compensate for the loss of the Oak and restore the visual amenity in the longer term. In addition, a new avenue, designed to emphasise the historic approach to Highgrove House, as opposed to the site is to be created.

4.68 The proposed landscape schemes for the site for both reserved matters options are based on the retention of important boundary screens and individual trees, providing a focus and natural feature to inform the landscape character of the site. Accordingly the proposed scheme seeks to reinforce existing boundary vegetation as a feature and as ecological corridors throughout the site.

4.69 A fully detailed scheme of planting has been submitted in accordance with the provisions of Condition 26 of the outline consent. This provides written and illustrative specifications, giving details of species, plant size, number and location of soft landscaping. These details are complemented by the Landscape Masterplan, offering a broader overview of the scheme within the wider context of the development.

4.70 As many trees as possible will be retained on the site in order to maintain the existing character of the area, limit the impact of development on surrounding

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 92

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

uses and to encourage the ongoing development of localised flora and fauna. Additional planting of both trees and hedges is proposed throughout the site in order to mitigate the loss the those trees that are to be removed and to soften the built form, creating an interesting and attractive place to live.

4.71 A Landscape Management and Maintenance Report has also been submitted, which provides specific details of the processes and operations required to secure the healthy growth of new and existing planting through to maturity and to achieve a clean and tidy appearance for all external areas.

4.72 With regard to specific concerns from local residents, the Big Cone Pine on land formerly rented from the MOD is to be retained and protected as part of the amended schemes. The Maple (T53) along the Eastcote Road frontage, which is lost as part of the original scheme, is retained on the revised access scheme. Both layouts include the planting of a group of trees on that part of the High Road frontage, as mitigation and/or enhancement, as part of a comprehensive scheme that also includes the planting of many trees close to the boundaries of the site, to enhance and create landscape buffer screens along the new roads and in gardens of the new houses/flats.

4.73 The retention and protection of the trees throughout the planning process has been secured by the legal agreement, which preceded the granting of the outline permission. The agreement would also be binding if and when the residential scheme is implemented and occupied, such that the trees of merit are safeguarded. However, if considered appropriate, the Trees Officer has indicated that a new tree preservation order (TPO) could be made in the future.

4.74 Subject to compliance with conditions (and the legal agreement with regard to tree protection) the retention of topographical and landscape features of merit would be safeguarded, while the provision of new planting and landscaping would be in accordance with Policy BE38 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

(v) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers

4.75 Policy BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) requires the provision of external amenity space, sufficient to protect the amenity of the occupants of the proposed and surrounding buildings, and which is usable in terms of its shape and siting. The communal garden areas have been provided around the various blocks of flats, while the layout of the blocks provide access to these garden areas. In addition, the various houses are all provided with private garden areas.

4.76 A number of informal areas of ‘green’ public open space are spread around the site and cumulatively equate to approximately 0.7ha. This space is provided as follows: Land along the public right of way adjacent to the boundary with Highgrove House. This space is rising ground and incorporates a number of existing good quality trees.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 93

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Land along the northern boundary with Flag Walk. This space comprises a small copse of existing trees which are retained. They provide a setting for and act to protect the amenity of these properties which lies within close proximity of the Conservation Area. Land within the southern part of the site. This parcel incorporates the LEAP, informal space and a meeting space for the Community Building.

4.77 A very small number of houses would have gardens smaller than the 60 sqm. HDAS standard. However, these houses overlook the LEAP and overall, it is considered that the amenity space is sufficient to meet the needs of future occupiers in accordance with Policy BE23 and the Council’s Design Guide SPD, ‘Residential Layouts’.

4.78 Most of the units benefit from a reasonable level of privacy, outlook and light. Also, all units would comply with the minimum overall space standards for residential properties as set out in the ‘Residential Layouts’ Supplementary Planning Document. The development would offer a choice of properties to perspective residents that would facilitate the creation of a mixed and diverse community and generally provide good environmental conditions, in compliance with relevant policy and design guidance.With regard to waste disposal, adequate provision is shown to be provided for both refuse and recycling storage, in accordance with advice from the Waste Strategy Manager and in compliance with Policies 4A and 4A.2 of the London Plan.

4.79 All regard to security, the Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Officer has identified various designing out crime issues. Matters relating to the public footpath are dealt with elsewhere in this report, while boundary treatments, including fencing along the footpath and road frontages, are covered by separate conditions on the outline planning permission These do not form part of the applications currently under consideration. Conditions are however recommended for the submission measures to minimise the risk of crime on both reserved matters applications. The applicants are to be advised of the specific security needs of the application site, which need to be addressed in order to achieve Secure by Design accreditation by way of an informative.

(vi) Access for people with disabilities

4.80 The Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) adopted on the 20th December 2005 requires all new residential units to be built to lifetime home standards and 10% of units should be designed to wheelchair accessible standards. The applicants have submitted that 10% of the units have been designed to be built to recognised standards for wheelchairs. This is considered an acceptable provision for this development. Parking spaces for people with disabilities are also proposed in all the communal parking areas. The Access Officer is has expressed concerns regarding the internal layout of some of the units, but is satisfied that these could be addressed by conditions. In addition, information provided by the applicant indicates that Life Time Home Standards will be met for the majority of the units. This provision can be secured by way of a condition in the event of planning permission being granted, but would likely require further amendments to the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 94

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

internal layout of some of the private units to comply with Lifetime Home Standards.

(vii) Impact on Neighbouring Properties

4.81 Policy BE24 states that the development should be designed to protect the privacy of future occupiers and their neighbours. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – HDAS – ‘Residential Layouts’ also provides further guidance in respect of privacy, stating in particular that the distance between habitable room windows should not be less than 21 metres. In relation to outlook, Policy BE21 requires new residential developments to be designed so as to ensure adequate outlook for occupants of the site and surrounding properties. In relation to sunlight, Policy BE20 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) seeks to ensure that buildings are laid out to provide adequate sunlight and preserve the amenity of existing houses. It is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on level of daylight and sunlight currently enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining properties.

4.82 With regard to properties in Deane Way, separation distances of between 35 to 45 metres have been achieved with plots 117 - 198, which far exceeds the required minimum standards. Separation distances of between 22 to 29 metres have been provided between plots 100 - 116 and properties in The Sigers. This exceeds the minimum distance between habitable room windows, while a new landscape buffer on the eastern boundary will provide screening to help prevent the overlooking of neighbouring gardens. Distances of between 25 and 39 metres are provided between plots 314 - 325 and properties in Azalia Walk. The existing dense boundary vegetation is to be retained, with new buffer planting to fill any gaps. Similarly, adequate separation distances are provided between plots 236 - 312 and properties in Flag Walk and Spring Drive to the north.

4.83 Generally, existing trees and hedgerows have been retained wherever possible at the site boundaries and have been complemented by addition planting, creating screening to help prevent the overlooking of neighbouring properties. Furthermore, to protect against the loss of daylight and sunlight and to maintain an acceptable distance between habitable rooms, buildings have been sited to ensure that the rear gardens of new houses abut the boundary of existing properties, whilst larger blocks have been located in the centre of the site, away from sensitive receptors. It is therefore considered that the proposed layout respects the sensitivities of the surrounding area and limits any adverse impact to the amenity of neighbours, in accordance with the provisions of Policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and relevant design guidance.

(viii) Highways Issues

4.84 The proposed means of access and the capacity of the surrounding highway infrastructure were considered at outline stage. The approved points of

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 95

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

access off Eastcote Road and Lime Grove are reflected in the layout of the reserved matters application C. The proposed new access road from Eastcote Road to the boundary of the RAF site is the subject of a full planning application (B). The alternative reserved matters application (D) has been modified to take into account the revised access. Application A has been submitted to vary condition 40 of the outline permission to provide flexibility to allow for an alternative access from Eastcote Road and Fore Street, as these signals will no longer be necessary should the alternative access scheme (D), incorporating a different access point from Eastcote Road, go ahead.

4.85 With regard the site layout, both schemes C and D are accessed from two points, at the northern end of the site via Eastcote Road, and at the southern end via Lime Grove. In order to avoid 'rat-running' through the site, there will be no continuous link between the two access points, in accordance with Condition 8 of the outline consent. A combination of removable bollards and low level landscaping will prevent vehicles from passing directly through the site. It is proposed that the Eastcote Road access (which ever option) would serve 236 units, whilst the Lime Grove access would support the traffic flow from 146. units.

4.86 The road layout has been designed to incorporate the general principles of ‘home zones’, whereby the emphasis of hard and soft landscaping is on the pedestrian and cyclist and not the motorist. This form of traffic calming is considered to provide a safer and more attractive environment than the traditional car dominated street scene. The design also incorporates a network of footpaths and cycleways to ensure permeability through the site, including additional pedestrian/cycle access points from Highgrove House and adjacent to plot 102 in the east of the site. Movement between different areas will be aided and controlled by changes in the road surface and narrowed sections of the highway. This method of traffic management is designed to alert drivers to potential hazards.

4.87 The Highway Engineer considers that the road widths and surfaces proposed, and the road layout for both reserved matters schemes are satisfactory. In addition, the turning spaces provided are appropriately orientated and are of sufficient size to allow large vehicles such as refuse lorries to manoeuvre safely around the development without risk to pedestrians or property. The main access road from Eastcote Road terminating close to the public right of way in the middle of the site will be designed to the Council’s adoptable standards and is likely to be offered for adoption. The layout of the remaining roads will conform to the national Home Zone guidance. The Highway Engineer therefore raises no objections to the layout; subject to the provision for detailed design. This is covered by condition 22 of the outline consent(s).

4.88 A condition of the outline planning consent requires waiting restrictions in Lime Grove to be in place prior to commencement of the development. The Highway Engineer advises that details of these have been submitted to the Council and a public consultation will be carried out in due course. Ward Councillors will be notified in advance. In addition, detailed design of the Lime Grove/ Elm Avenue/ Oak Avenue junctions have also been submitted to the

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 96

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Council, which includes waiting restrictions at the junctions. These works have yet to be approved and would have to be completed prior to the commencement of the development. The priority of traffic emerging from Kent Gardens to Lime Grove will be altered, with Lime Grove becoming the main road. A speed table is required within the site boundary just north of the Kent Gardens/ Lime Grove junction. This is shown indicatively on the submitted drawings (both schemes), details of which will be submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 22 of the outline planning permission(s).

(ix) Aternative Access.

4.89 With regard to the proposed vehicular access to the site, Council granted outline planning permission for redevelopment of the site with access off Eastcote Road and Lime Grove. The main access would be Eastcote Road and due to existing traffic conditions on that particular road, the access point would be controlled by a set of traffic lights. During consideration of the matter, Members were made aware of local residents of concerns in respect of delays which would occur to traffic movements along Eastcote Road if traffic lights were installed.

4.90 The applicant was asked to investigate whether an alternative access adjacent to the Highgrove House access could be used instead of installing traffic lights on Eastcote Road. This issue has resulted in the submission of application B. However, there are a number of technical and timing issues which need to be overcome, in order for the alternative access to be delivered.

4.91 Firstly, the applicants have applied to vary the condition attached to the existing outline planning permission concerning the traffic light controlled access, to enable them to offer an alternative access point and at the same time commence construction on site (whilst issues concerning the alternative access are resolved). This approach could result in two scenarios. Firstly, the applicants will have their existing outline planning permission, with reserved matters approved (should Members be so minded), showing access via a traffic light controlled junction on Eastcote Road. This will form the fall back position if matters concerning the alternative access cannot be progressed.

4.92 The Developer will then also have a new outline planning permission issued, pursuant to the application to vary the condition of the existing outline planning permission concerning the traffic lights. This is the S73 application ref:10189/APP/2007/3383 (Application A). The varied condition will require them to provide a traffic light controlled access, as per the original outline planning permission, or such alternative arrangements as the Local Planning Authority may approve. The condition will then allow them to commence construction on the southern portion of the site, whilst the technical issues concerning the alternative access are resolved. What will then happen, via the terms of a separate legal agreement, is that by the 31st December 2008, the Developer will have to elect whether to proceed with the traffic light controlled access or the alternative access.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 97

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.93 In order to enable this to work, the Council will need to consider two reserved matters applications in relation to the new outline planning planning permission. One will allow for a traffic light controlled access and one will allow for an alternative access. This is because if the developers elect to commence development prior to the installation of the signals on Eastcote Road, they will be committed to the new Section 73 outline permission (if granted). Otherwise they will be in breach of condition 40 of the original outline planning permission. The developers will have the option to submit a duplicate reserved matters application for the signalised access scheme, relating to the existing outline planning permission.

4.94 The separate Legal Agreement between the Council and developers referred to as ‘The Development Agreement’ would oblige the developers to implement the Alternative Access Layout Application (application D) and the High Grove House Access Application (application B) in place of the Eastcote Road Access scheme approved by the Reserved Matters Application C, subject to the resolution of the following conditions: a) The grant of temporary rights of access to the Owner by the Council and/or the Owners of the land required to facilitate the construction of the Alternative Access Road b) The completion of an agreement pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of works to provide a junction at the Highgrove House Access Land with Eastcote Road c) The dedication by the Council of the Alternative Access Road and/or completion of an agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 by the owners of the land comprising the Highgrove House Access Land in respect of the Alternative Access Road to enable it to be maintained at public expense following construction d) All necessary approvals being obtained from the relevant statutory utility companies for the construction of the Alternative Access Road over the gas mains e) The approval of English Nature or its successor to a scheme for [the removal] of great crested newts present on the RAF Eastcote Site to enable the Alternative Access Road to be constructed f) The grant of planning permission for the Highgrove House Access Application (B) and the Alternative Access Layout Application (D) g) The expiry of the Challenge Period in respect of the planning permission referred to at paragraph (f) h) The making of a stopping up order pursuant to Section 257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of that part of the public footpath crossing the Alternative Access Road and completion of an agreement pursuant to Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of the same

4.95 Two deeds of variation of the outline S299A Agreement will also be necessary, in order for the aternative access scheme to proceed. The first of these amends the definition of off site highway works, making a distinction between the Eastcote Road works and the Lime Grove works, which currently fall under one definition. The second deed of variation would delete reference to the provision of traffic signals at Eastcote Road and Fore Street. The latter

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 98

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

deed of variation would only come into effect on the granting of the Alternative Access Permission and Implementation of the Alternative Access Permission.

4.96 With regard to the suitability of the alternative access from Eastcote Road, the Highgrove Access Option Report submitted in support of application B has assessed the capacity of the access junction. The report demonstrates that the junction would accommodate the level of traffic generation estimated to result from the proposed development and that of the Highgrove House site. Visibility at the junction from a 4.5 m setback is 90 metres both left and right, commensurate with a carriageway speed limit of 30mph. A swept path analysis demonstrates that the junction is suitable to accommodate all types of vehicles anticipated to use the site.

4.97 As a result of an existing gas main running below the proposed alignment, the carriageway and associated footways will have a maximum gradient of 1:14. The public footpath which the carriageway will bisect will be regraded, resulting in an approximate 0.5 metre increase in height at its intersection with the access road, resulting in an overall gradient of less than 1:20.

4.98 The Highway Engineer raises no objections to the new access road (application B), in terms of sight lines and junction capacity for the traffic generated from the proposed development as well as that from Highgrove House. In terms of the proposed gradient, the Highway Engineer notes that the maximum permissible gradient for wheelchair users is 1 in 20. However, given that a separate footpath linking the site to Eastcote Road is proposed at 1:20, the proposed 1:14 road gradient is acceptable in this case.

4.99 The Highway Engineer has also identified a need for a pedestrian crossing in Eastcote Road, should the alternative access scheme be implemented. The location of this crossing has not been determined as yet. However, in order to provide ample visibility in both directions it is unlikely that the crossing would be sighted where the footpath leading into the site terminates in Eastcote Road. The provision of the crossing would be secured by way of a condition, should Members be mindful to approve application B.

4.100 In addition the Highway Engineer highlights the fact that under the existing outline planning permission junction signals at the access to Eastcote Road and Fore Street need to be in place prior to commencement of construction. However, should the developers opt to implement the S73 outline application ref:10189/APP/2007/3383 (Application A) with the varied condition 40, it is highly probable that Lime Grove would be used as a construction access for the development of the bulk of the site. A Condition already exists on the outline planning permission (and is included in the new S73 outline permission if granted) requiring a construction Management Plan which should include a construction vehicle HGV route and timing scheme, together with a number of measures to protect surrounding areas from dust and noise.

4.101 With regard to continued access to Highgrove House during construction of the alternative access scheme, it is understood that this would be included in a separate agreement between the Council and the developers.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 99

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(x) Parking

4.102 Based on the Council’s maximum parking standards, the proposed development would generate a requirement for a maximum of 654 parking spaces across the site for both reserved matters schemes, based on the following calculation:

No of Type Rate Spaces Units 191 Apartments with communal 1.5 spaces 286 parking 12 Live/Work units 2 spaces 24 48 Houses with parking outside 1.5 spaces 72 curtilage 134 Houses with parking inside 2 spaces 268 curtilage 1 Community Centre 1/50 sq.m 4 654

4.103 The level of provision proposed has regard to these standards and the national objective to reduce car usage, whilst also accepting that the convenience of future residents should not be compromised. Consequently, the provision of a total of 612 parking spaces is proposed across the site, which equates to an average of 1.58 spaces per unit. Considering the sustainability of the site in terms of accessibility to local services and facilities and to the public transport network, this level of provision, close to the maximum standard is considered acceptable.

4.104 With regard to secure cycle storage facilities, each of the apartment blocks offer secure cycle stores, with capacity for one bicycle per unit in accordance with Council standards, whilst each house has a secure rear garden and in some cases a private garage in which cycles can be stored. The site is therefore considered suitable for the level of parking proposed and the application complies with Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) Policies AM14 and AM15.

(xi) Public Footpath

4.105 The existing footpath which runs from Eastcote Road to the Sigers and bisects the application site is at present a route for pedestrians. The proposed new road is to be used to form a vehicular access to the site if the alternative access scheme (application D) is to go ahead. Clearly if there remains a registered footpath which prohibits vehicles crossing it, the road cannot be used for vehicular traffic. Therefore, the footway needs to be stopped up on both sides of the new road, in order for the development to proceed. A resolution to issue a stopping up Order under S256 of the Act for the public foot path, at its intersection with the new Highgrove access road is recommended (Recommendation B).

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 100

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.106 In addition, both reserved matters options (applications C and D) show the proposed main north south internal estate road crossing the existing public footpath. It is proposed that for both schemes, the Eastcote Road access would serve 236 units, whilst the Lime Grove access would support the traffic flow from 146 units. In this regard, Blocks H, J, K and 15 houses to the south of the public footpath (which bisects the site) will utilise vehicular access from Eastcote Road.

4.107 Clearly construction of this internal estate road would be in breach of legislation preventing vehicles using a public footpath (R154). It will therefore be necessary to stop up the right of way where the new north-south estate road serving these units intersects the public footpath. A resolution to issue stopping up Orders under S256 of the Act for the public foot path, at its intersection with the internal estate road is therefore recommended.

4.108 The upgrading of the existing public footpath between Eastcote Road and The Sigers is to be carried out within 3 months of substantial completion of the last of the housing units, under the terms of the S299A Agreement, which forms part of the outline planning permission. The upgrading shall include the provision of adequate lighting and surfacing to ensure that both cyclists and pedestrians can use the link safely. Although details of the scheme do not form part of the reserved matters applications currently under consideration, the drawings do indicate that the existing pedestrian link can be widened to 3 metres with a dedicated cycle lane and pedestrian footpath.

(xii) Flooding and Contamination

4.109 In order to ensure that the proposals comply with the provisions of PPS25 'Development and Flood Risk' and Conditions 33, 34, and 35 of the outline consent, a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment (FRA) has been submitted, which considers issues of flooding and drainage relating to the proposed development. The report concludes that, based on Environment Agency (EA) information, the site is at low risk of flooding and in accordance with Condition 34, that surface water drainage can be satisfactorily dealt with via SUDS components, such as permeable paving and hydrobrake units. With regard to foul drainage, Thames Water has carried out an impact study to review the capacity of the public foul drainage system in the area. The report, dated May 2007, concludes that the existing public foul system in Eastcote Road has capacity to serve the site and limits on discharge levels will be required.

4.110 With regard to surface water control measures (condition 34), the Environment Agency accepts the principles of surface water design detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment. However in order for them to discharge this condition, further information is required. It is proposed that these details, which originally formed part of this application be dealt with separately, once adequate information becomes available.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 101

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(xiii) Ecology (Condition 29)

4.111 The ecological report accompanying the outline application concluded that the site was of little ecological merit and that redevelopment would not have a detrimental effect on ecology. The outline permission did not include specific conditions to conserve existing flora and fauna. Condition 29 does however seek to enhance localised ecosystems and therefore requires a scheme to create a wildlife habitat within the site. The applicants have also advised that they will be undertaking mitigation regarding the Great Crested Newts, which will be the subject of a separate European Protected Species Licence.

4.112 Natural England welcome the schemes overall objectives of retaining important boundary features, reinforced by additional planting, which would enhance their value as wildlife corridors and the encouragement of habitat diversification on less formal areas of open space. They however advise that these aspirations should be carried forward as part of the Landscape Management and Maintenance regime.

4.113 The applicants have advised that a Wildlife Corridor Strategy which provides specific details on how the required wildlife habitat will be developed and managed is to be submitted for consideration at a later date. They have confirmed that the following recommendations, contained in the submitted ecological reports will be implemented: • The retention, enhancement and extension of the existing woodland strip (0.8ha) and the creation of an area of grassland, woodland and scrub, which will include native species of trees and shrubs (0.1ha) • An Ecological Management plan will be produced to protect the ecologically important features of the site and safeguard Highgrove SINC, particularly in relation to great crested newts. • Additional tree planting • A possible newt hibernaculum within the wild life area (to follow Natural England guidelines) • Consideration of sustainable drainage • Bat and bird roosting boxes

(xiv) Noise Attenuation (Condition 30)

4.114 Condition 30 of the outline consent requires that appropriate provisions are made for the control of noise emanating from the site. Accordingly, a Noise Report has been submitted, which assesses the possible noise impact of the proposed scheme on the surrounding area. The Report discusses the noise emanating from the local road system and also amenity and community areas. It is acknowledges that National Planning Guidance (PPG24) does not consider residential development in itself to be a major source of noise. Nonetheless, potential increases in noise have been assessed and have established that on most local roads, the difference in noise level would be imperceptible with or without development, whilst Lime Grove would experience a marginally perceptible change in noise.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 102

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.115 It is concluded that the impact of traffic noise generated by the development would not be significant enough to require any special noise mitigation measure. Similarly, noise levels emanating from a nearby LEAP are well within required guidelines for such facilities and as such, it is unlikely that the proposed LEAP will have any adverse impacts on existing residents or new residents.

4.116 However the noise source from the Biomass Boiler & Plant Store was not assessed in the noise report. The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit therefore requires further information to be submitted, in order to ensure that the plant room and residential dwellings can co-exist alongside each other without detriment to residential amenity. The plant rooms are situated in close proximity to habitable rooms in blocks E and R;

4.117 Given the lack of information with respect of noise levels and projected emissions of air pollutants, it is recommended that condition 30 not be discharged for both schemes.

(xii) Energy Efficiency and Waste Disposal (Condition 14)

4.118 Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan advises that boroughs should require major developments to show how the development would generate a proportion of the site’s electricity or heat needs from renewable sources, wherever feasible. Condition 14 of the outline consent requires the submission of a Sustainability and Energy Assessment report that addresses, amongst other issues, the conservation of energy, water and other resources; buildings design; energy generation; and the reuse of water. A Preliminary Eco Homes Assessment and a Preliminary Energy Strategy have been submitted.

4.119 The Preliminary Eco Homes Assessment demonstrates that a 'Very Good' rating is achievable, with a likely score of 60.63%. This rating demonstrates that the proposed development would be sustainable in the long-term, when assessed against accessibility, energy consumption, materials and ecological enhancement. The Eco Homes rating system has been replaced with the ode for Sustainable Homes. A Very Good Rating is eqivalent to level 3 rating under the new system. In addition, the Preliminary Energy Strategy investigates options for reducing energy demand and providing 10% of predicted remaining energy requirements through renewable energy. Measures proposed include: - Passive design through various design features including improved insulation, air tight construction, balanced ratios of glazing to solid walls as well as use of natural daylight. - Two combined heat and power plants erected on the site - Two biomass boilers biomass boilers and combined heat and power plant, which will be incorporated into Block R.

4.120 It is considered that the report does demonstrate that 10% renewable energy can be provided across the site, in accordance the aims of Renewable Energy- Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 103

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(xvi) Archaeology

4.121 Condition 32 requires a programme of archaeological work to be prepared and submitted, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation. Discussions are currently being held with English Heritage to agree the scope of archaeological work and a desk top study has been conducted by Thames Valley Archaeological Services to inform this process. The desktop study has been submitted in support of this application, although this submission does not seek to discharge Condition 32.

4.122 English Heritage has commented that there is need for the archaeological potential of the site to be further clarified through field evaluation. This will take the form of trial trenches across the site, but concentrated in the southwest corner. A Written Scheme of Investigation will need to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the evaluation works. The applicant has stated that once advice has been received from English Heritage, a programme of works will be prepared and submitted to discharge the condition.

(xvii) Affordable Housing (S106 Agreement)

4.123 The S299 Agreement, associated with the outline consent requires that a minimum of 35% (units rather than habitable rooms) of the entire development should be affordable housing, comprising of 25% rented units and 10% shared ownership.

4.124 Both reserved matters schemes propose the provision of 134 affordable units, which equates to 35% of the total development, of which 95 (25%) will be rented and 39 (10%) will be shared ownership. The applicants have advised that an agreement has been reached with Pioneer Housing Association to ensure that the affordable units will be managed by the Housing Association and retained in perpetuity. The level and mix of affordable housing provision generally complies with the requirements of the associated S299A Agreement and therefore is considered acceptable.

4.125 Although the applicants have indicated the affordable housing provision as part of the reserved matters applications, the actual obligation to provide the affordable housing, including details of their number, type, mix and location is set out in schedule 6 of the outline S299 Agreement. This information is to be provided and agreed prior to implementation of the development.

(xviii) Planning Obligations

4.126 In addition to the affordable housing obligation mentioned in the preceding section, the S299A Agreement, which was signed at outline stage, provided for a wide range of supporting provisions. These are listed in para. 4.42 above.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 104

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.127 In accordance with Condition 11 of the outline consent and Schedule 3 of the associated S299 Agreement, the scheme proposes the provision of a 188m² Community Hall. The Hall will be transferred to the Council or a suitable management company in accordance with the timescales outlined in the S299 Agreement. In addition, the scheme will also provide a children’s play area (LEAP), adjacent to the Community Hall, which will be fully equipped to Fields in Trust (FIT) standards. The LEAP will equate to 400m² in area and will be complemented by a landscaped buffer around the activity zone. The Community Hall and LEAP have been situated centrally, so that they can contribute towards creating a safe and vibrant community, promoting use and discouraging crime.

4.128 The proposed scheme would contribute to the provision of community facilities in the locality and will offer sufficient public open space to accommodate the needs of local residents and in compliance with Policies R10 and R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007), supplementary planning guidance and the objectives of the London Plan. The obligations relating to education, cycle, primary health care, off site out door sports and community facilities, all use formulas to calculate the level of contributions. The issue of off site highway works, footpath upgrading and public consultation requirements have been dealt with elsewhere in the report.

5.0 Comments on Public Consultations

5.1 The issues raised in the submissions have been address in the main body of this report under the relevant headings. The overwhelming sentiment expressed by local residents is that if the scheme is to go ahead, the alternative access option (application D) be adopted, thus removing any need for traffic lights to be installed in Eastcote Road.

6.0 OBSERVATIONS OF BOROUGH SOLICITOR

6.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

6.2 In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

6.3 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 105

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

6.4 Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

6.5 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

7.0 OBSERVATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

7.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the developer, and the developer has made a Section 106 contribution to the Council towards associated public facilities. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee and the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The variation of condition 40 of the outline planning permission is necessary, in order to enable the implementation of the alternative access to the site, off Eastcote Road. The alternative access is considered acceptable in highway safety terms. Both alternative reserved matters schemes seek the redevelopment of a previously developed site located within a predominantly residential area, providing a mix of unit types and sizes, including 12 No. live/work units and 134 affordable homes. The proposals include a Community Hall and a variety of usable and accessible areas of public and private open space, together with a comprehensive landscaping scheme, including the retention and addition of trees and hedges where appropriate. In addition, a new wildlife habitat will promote localised ecosystems. Adequate car parking and cycle parking have been provided to meet the needs of future residents, while a series of pedestrian/cycle links between the site and local facilities and amenities will be provided.

8.2 The proposed schemes would be sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area, while creating good environmental conditions for future occupiers, incorporating the general principles of 'home zones'. The proposal has sought to limit the impact of the development on the amenity of surrounding residents.

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 106

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

8.3 The development provides a high quality scheme that will make maximum use of an extremely important source of Brownfield land, in accordance with the general advice of PPS3 and other relevant development plan policies.

Reference Documents:

(a) London Plan (b) Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing (c) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport (d) Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 – Planning and Noise (e) Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) (f) Supplementary Planning Document– Accessible Hillingdon (g) Supplementary Planning Document– Residential Layouts (h) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design (i) Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Community Safety by Design (j) Council’s Affordable Housing SPD (May 2006) (k) Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Obligations Strategy (l) Letters of objection and petition against the development (m) Letters of support for the development

Contact Officer: KARL DAFÉ Telephone No: 01895 250727

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 107

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN1

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 108

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN2

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 109

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN3

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 110

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN4

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 111

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN5

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 112

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN6

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 113

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN7

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 114

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN8

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 115

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN9

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 116

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN10

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 117

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN11

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 118

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN12

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 119

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN13

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 120

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN14

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 121

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN15

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 122

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN16

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 123

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLAN17

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 124

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 125

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 126

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 127

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 21 February 2008 Page 128

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS