Ealing Council Democratic Services Officer: Town Hall Gordon Williams New Broadway Tel: 020 8825 6058 London W5 2BY Fax: 020 8825 6909 e-mail: williamsg@ealing.gov.uk
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Date: Wednesday 3 July 2013
Time: 7.00pm
Venue: Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Ealing Town Hall
Plans will be on display inside the Council Chamber in advance of the meeting.
MEMBERSHIP: Councillors Summers (Vice Chair), Kate Crawford, Gulaid, Kang, Midha, Padda, Kausar, Potts, Anderson, Eileen Harris, Ashok Kapoor, Stacey and Bakhai.
A G E N D A
N.B. Please note the attached site visit details and agreed seating arrangements as set out in the guide to proceedings.
(Items will not necessarily be taken in the order listed)
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Urgent Matters Any urgent matters that the Chair has agreed should be considered at the meeting.
3. Matters to be Considered in Private
4. Declarations of Interest
5. Minutes To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2013
6. Site Visit Attendance
7. Planning Applications and Enforcement Reports: Summary Schedule (Pink) and Background Reports (White) – (Head of Planning Services)
NB: (1) A copy of the standard conditions is available to members of the public in the Planning Reception Area, Perceval House, and copies will be available at the meeting. Copies have been previously circulated to members of the Committee.
(2) The source documents for the planning applications are as follows: - The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 The Adopted New Plan for the Environment (2004) Relevant planning application file – the reference number is indicated in the top right corner of each report.
8. Date of Next Meeting. The next scheduled meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Wednesday 24 July 2013.
MARTIN SMITH Chief Executive 25 June 2013
NOTE: In the event of an emergency your attention is drawn to the evacuation instructions displayed on the wall by the entrance to the Council Chamber. First aid advice will also be found here.
Please note that the filming or recording of proceedings is not permitted unless prior approval has been obtained in accordance with the Council’s filming protocol. *Please switch off all mobile phones*
**Fire or Emergency** - If an alarm sounds please leave by the nearest exit and gather in front of Perceval House on Uxbridge Road. WelcomePlanning Eastto the Committee Planning - Committee4th July 2001
**Please note that entry to the Public Gallery is up a steep staircase. Persons suffering from a physical impairment which would not permit them to climb stairs are welcome to be seated at the back of the Council Chamber**
What does the Planning Committee do?
decides approximately 5% of applications made for planning permission within the borough (a senior officer decides the rest). decides applications for listed building consent. decides applications for conservation consent. approves enforcement action against work carried out without prior permission. is responsible for carrying out the Council’s conservation policies within the borough.
Agenda
Spare copies of the agenda are available at the meeting. In addition all Committee reports are available via the Council's Internet site (http://www.ealing.gov.uk/meetings/committee/21/planning_committee) Planning applications being considered at tonight’s meeting are listed on the pink schedule attached. The reports of the planning officers are on the white papers with recommendations on whether to allow or refuse the application.
Who is present at the meeting?
Elected Councillors make up the membership of the Committee and they decide whether applications should be allowed or refused. Also present are a Senior Planning Officer, a Legal Adviser, a Committee Administrator and any other officers as necessary (e.g. Environmental Health Officer). The layout used is:
Planning G A L L E R Y Committee P U B L I C
Officers/ Councillors Ward Registered Councillors Speakers
SCREEN
Legal Officer Planning Officer Chairman Committee Officer Public Speaking
Public Speakers will have registered with the Council in accordance with the agreed protocol and are permitted a maximum of three minutes each, apart from when an interpreter is used. If an interpreter is used, the submission will be limited to six minutes. One speaker may be heard in objection and one speaker may be heard on behalf of the applicant for any application on the agenda. Where members of the public have registered to speak in advance of the meeting these applications will be taken first. Although other members of the public are not permitted to speak they are welcome to sit, listen and observe the meeting.
Site Visits
Site Visits are generally held the Saturday morning before the Committee. However, site visits can also be made at a later date arising from a decision of the Committee.
Decisions
The Committee can take decisions which include:
planning permission is granted (allowed) with or without conditions attached. approval subject to a legal agreement being signed. refusal, i.e. planning permission is not granted. referral, for example for further reports or a site visit.
If an application is not clearly gaining consensus from the Committee then a vote will be taken by means of a show of hands and a simple majority will win. If there is no majority then the Chair will vote a second time.
Record of Decisions
The minutes from tonight's meeting will be available ten working days after the meeting. These will be available from the Committee Section and also on the Council's Internet site. The Planning Department will also send decision letters to the applicants.
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON HOW YOU FEEL THIS MEETING COULD BE BETTER ORGANISED OR IMPROVED PLEASE SEND THESE TO MIKE DAVIDSON AT THE TOWN HALL, EALING BROADWAY OR EMAIL HIM AT [email protected].
Planning Committee: 3 July 2013 Schedule for Site Visits: 29 June 2013
The minibus will collect members beside Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road W5 at 9.00 am.
SITE PROPOSAL APPROX TIME
Green Man Lane Estate, Internal and external alterations in 9-10 1. Singapore Road, West Ealing conjunction with the conversion of W13, Part of ground floor the proposed gymnasium and cycle phase 1 (Agent Savills) store on ground floor fronting Singapore Road to eight one (Ward: Elthorne) bedroom flats (2 wheelchair accessible, the other 6 with rear courtyards), revised cycle storage and provision of two storey, internal access route and 11 car parking spaces (including 2 wheelchair accessible spaces)
Oak Wharf, Green Lane, Provision of a terrace of four three- 9-20 2. Hanwell W7 2PF (Agent: storey three-bedroom dwellings with Hampson Williams) integral garages and associated access, visitors parking space, hard (Ward: Elthorne) and soft landscaping, amenity areas and boundary treatment (following partial demolition of existing buildings) Demolition of existing single storey buildings in association with the accompanying planning application for the construction of four dwellings (Conservation Area Consent)
18 Chinnor Crescent, Redevelopment of the site to 10-00 3. Greenford UB6 9NU (Agent: provide 5 dwellinghouses with Red and White Design) associated outdoor amenity space, parking, refuse storage and (Ward: Greenford Green) landscaping
Beaumont, Ealing Road, Two storey side and part two storey, 10-25 4. Northolt UB5 6AD (Agent: part single storey rear extension Architech) (following demolition of existing garage and kitchen extension to (Ward: Northolt Mandeville) side)
6 Stanley Gardens, Acton W3 Change of use from Class B1(a) 10-50 5. 7SZ (Agent: CRI) (offices) to Class D1 (non- residential institutions) to create (Ward: Southfield) integrated drug and alcohol recovery centre (The D-1 non- residential use is considered to be a departure from adopted UDP policy - Departure Application)
Page 1 of 2
L O N D O N B O R O U G H O F E A L I N G
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS TO PLANNING COMMITTEE – 3 July 2013
Contact officers: Alex Jackson – Extension: 8803, Sandra Winwood – Extension: 7784, Neil Bleakley – Extension: 8102, Simon Dunn-Lwin – Extension: 7724
No. Location/Applicant/ Particulars of Remarks and Conditions and/or Ref. No. Agent Application Recommendation Reasons for Refusal
01. Green Man Lane Internal and external Grant with Time Limit PP/2013/1576 Estate, Singapore alterations in conditions Approved Plans EPI/ET Road, West Ealing conjunction with the Matching materials W13, Part of conversion of the Cycle storage ground floor phase proposed gymnasium Refuse and cycle 1 (Agent Savills) and cycle store on storage ground floor fronting Lifetime homes (Ward: Elthorne) Singapore Road to Wheelchair housing eight one bedroom Code for Sutainable flats (2 wheelchair Homes – Level 4 accessible, the other Access to communal 6 with rear open space courtyards), revised External noise cycle storage and attenuation provision of two Devlopment served storey, internal by communal access route and 11 heating system car parking spaces Undercroft parking (including 2 layout wheelchair accessible Electric car charging spaces) points
(Received: 14/05/2013) (Due: 09/07/2013)
02. Oak Wharf, Green Provision of a terrace Grant with Time Limit P/2013/0104 Lane, Hanwell W7 of four three-storey conditions Approved plans PEL/WT 2PF (Agent: three-bedroom Permitted Hampson dwellings with integral development Williams) garages and restricted associated access, Parking retained (Ward: Elthorne) visitors parking space, Landscaoing details hard and soft Floodable voids landscaping, amenity Construction areas and boundary logistics plan treatment (following Bat survey
e:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\00b350b9-a303-4985-a833-85f9df5f9c20\d4d6aa55-3dd4-474e- 937f-df3f08bbbc56.doc Page 1 of 4 25/06/13
No. Location/Applicant/ Particulars of Remarks and Conditions and/or Ref. No. Agent Application Recommendation Reasons for Refusal
partial demolition of Aircraft noise existing buildings) attenuation Contaminated land (Received: Remediation 10/01/2013) scheme submission (Due: 07/03/2013) Implmenting remediation Flood warning detail Sustainable drainage Site levels Materials Archaeology
03. Oak Wharf, Green Demolition of existing Grant with Time Limit P/2013/0229 Lane, Hanwell W7 single storey buildings condition PEL/WT 2PF (Agent: in association with the Hampson accompanying Williams) planning application for the construction of (Ward: Elthorne) four dwellings (Conservation Area Consent)
(Received: 10/01/2013) (Due: 07/03/2013)
04. 6 Stanley Gardens, Change of use from Grant with Time limit PP/2013/1022 Acton W3 7SZ Class B1(a) (offices) conditions Approved plans AVA/ET (Agent: CRI) to Class D1 (non- Travel Plan residential institutions) Hours of use (Ward: Southfield) to create integrated Restricted use drug and alcohol recovery centre (The D-1 non-residential use is considered to be a departure from adopted UDP policy - Departure Application)
(Received: 18/03/2013) (Due: 13/05/2013)
e:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\00b350b9-a303-4985-a833-85f9df5f9c20\d4d6aa55-3dd4-474e- 937f-df3f08bbbc56.doc Page 2 of 4 25/06/13
No. Location/Applicant/ Particulars of Remarks and Conditions and/or Ref. No. Agent Application Recommendation Reasons for Refusal
05. Beaumont, Ealing Two storey side and Grant with Time limit 3 years. PP/2013/1043 Road, Northolt part two storey, part conditions Approve plans. MMA/WT UB5 6AD (Agent: single storey rear Materials. Architech) extension (following No further demolition of existing windows/openings. (Ward: Northolt garage and kitchen Mandeville) extension to side)
(Received: 11/094/2013) (Due: 06/06/2013)
06. 18 Chinnor Redevelopment of the Grant with Time limit PP/2013/0693 Crescent, site to provide 5 conditions Approved plans MM/WT Greenford UB6 dwellinghouses with Materials 9NU (Agent: Red associated outdoor Landscaping and and White Design) amenity space, boundary details parking, refuse Lifetime homes (Ward: Greenford storage and Car Parking Green) landscaping Secured by design Noise mitigation (Received: Site contamination 25/02/2013) Remediation (Due: 22/04/2013) scheme submission Carrying out remediation Implementing remediation Tree protection Pprotection of off site trees Constrcution method statement Refuse and recycling storage Lighting Existing boundary walls Remote controlled gates Permitted development restriction Sustainable drainage
e:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\00b350b9-a303-4985-a833-85f9df5f9c20\d4d6aa55-3dd4-474e- 937f-df3f08bbbc56.doc Page 3 of 4 25/06/13
No. Location/Applicant/ Particulars of Remarks and Conditions and/or Ref. No. Agent Application Recommendation Reasons for Refusal
07. 2 Beaconsfield Demolition of existing Grant with Time limit 3 years. PP/2013/0732 Road, Southall building and conditions Approve plans. RLE/WT UB1 1BA (Agent: construction of a part Materials. RDP Architects two and three storey Construction Ltd) building with part management plan. basement for use as a Lifetime homes. (Ward: Southall safety deposit box Air quality mitigation Broadway) storage operation at (ventilation). ground floor, first floor Noise mitigation. and basement levels, Plant & machinery and two x two noise. bedroom flats at the Site contaminaton. second floor level with Submission of associated bike remediation scheme. storage, refuse and Implementation of recycling approved remediation scheme. (Received: Crime prevention 06/03/2013) measures. (Due: 01/05/2013) Roof terrace. Obscure glass panels.
e:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\00b350b9-a303-4985-a833-85f9df5f9c20\d4d6aa55-3dd4-474e- 937f-df3f08bbbc56.doc Page 4 of 4 25/06/13
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Wednesday 12 June 2013 at 7.00pm
PRESENT: Councillors: Mohan (Chair), Anjum, Gordon, Kang, Midha, Kate Crawford, Rennie, Dabrowska, Brooks, Costello, Anderson, Reen and Ball.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Walker, Gulaid and Popham.
1. Apologies for Absence Councillor Brooks provided his apologies for lateness.
2. Urgent Matters There were none.
3. Matters to be Considered in Private There were none.
4. Declarations of Interest Councillor Reen declared a prejudicial interest in Application 02, 60A Lowfield Road, by virtue of him submitting a written objection to a previous application concerning the site. He said that the fact that he had commented negatively on the site in the past was a material consideration and he would exclude himself from the meeting for that item only.
Councillor Reen declared a personal interest in Applications 03 and 04, The Arcadia Centre, by virtue of him being a board member of the Ealing Centre for Independent Living (ECIL) that run ShopMobility based in the Arcadia Centre. He said that his interest was personal rather than prejudicial now that ECIL have withdrawn their objections to the scheme and that he would remain in the meeting for the items.
5. Minutes
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2013 are agreed as a true and correct record of the meeting subject to the following changes.
6. Site Visit Attendance The Chair confirmed that he and Councillors Anjum, Gordon, Kang, Midha, Kate Crawford, Dabrowska, Brooks, Costello, Anderson, Reen and Ball attended the site visits on 8 June 2013. Councillor Rennie did not attend the site visits and provided his apologies in advance.
7. Planning Applications and Enforcement Reports The Head of Planning Services submitted reports in relation to the following planning applications for determination by the Committee.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 1
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Application 09 in respect of 19-23 Berrymede Road, Chiswick, London W4 5JE (Ward: Southfield). Redevelopment of the site (following demolition of no 19 and 23 Berrymede Road and machine workshop) to provide 4x one bedroom and 5x two bedroom flats; associated car parking; landscaping and refuse store (Received: 11/09/2012) (Due: 06/11/2012).
Application 10 in respect of 9-23 Berrymede Road, Chiswick, London W4 5JE (Ward: Southfield). Redevelopment of site to create a four storey residential building comprising of nine self-contained units (two, one bedroom flats and seven, two bedroom flats) with associated access and landscaping following demolition of 19 and 23 Berrymede Road and machine workshop (Received: 16/04/2013) (Due: 11/06/2013).
Sandra Winwood (West Area Team Leader, Planning Services) briefly introduced the applications and explained that both were for the demolition and redevelopment of the site. The recommendation for 09 is a minded to approve application. This was because an appeal had been lodged against non-determination of the application and 10 is to grant with conditions subject to legal agreement.
Jill Morris, Berrymede Road resident, outlined a number of points against the application. Residents are not against the redevelopment of the site but it should be appropriate and in keeping with the surrounding roads and not diminish the amenities and living conditions of neighbours. Policies 4.1 and 5.5 of Ealing Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) seek to encourage high quality architecture of an appropriate height and scale, which is respectful of the setting of existing buildings. The proposed development does not meet the criteria and is totally out of character, style, scale and mass compared to the architectural mix of Berrymede, Priory, Somerset and the surrounding roads. The inspector said that the proposal “will represent a significant departure from the appearance of the original buildings in the street”. There are no buildings in the area of four storeys and none have street front balconies or flat main roofs. The statement that the development “will continue the saw toothed rhythm of the street and echo the pitched roofs of the neighbouring houses” is incorrect. The materials proposed in the development, including wood cladding and PVC roofs, will also be alien to other buildings in the area and there will not be a transition in scale to neighbouring properties, as outlined in the design statements, as there are 2-3 not 4 storey houses in the area. The proposed balconies are also unacceptable as they will invade the privacy of residents opposite the development. Juliet balconies would be an acceptable alternative. With regards to the onsite parking, it seems as though the recent proposals deal with the inspector’s serious concerns and residents expect any development to be based on this moving forward.
Councillor Brooks arrived mid way through Jill Morris’s submission and did not, therefore, take part in any votes pertaining to the application as he had not listed to all of the debate.
Catherine Day, Priory Road resident, outlined the following supplementary points against the application to those made by Jill Morris. With three applications and two appeals overlapping one another, the situation with regards to the site has been confusing and there has been a general lack of consultation. Despite featuring heavily in the design statement, Priory Road was not included in the Council’s original consultation list and, despite a request from Councillor Rose (Ward Councillor); they were not consulted on either the second or third applications. The applicant, Kebbell Homes, has not consulted Priory Road residents at any time. Contrary to what is stated on p15 of the report concerning Application 09, comments on the character and appearance of the property have been submitted, including her own, and the consultation exercise generally has not been rational or informed by either the Localism Act (2011) or
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 2
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Ealing’s Statement of Community Involvement. Kebbell Homes are now attempting to force a decision on the third application (10), pre-empting a decision by the Planning Inspectorate on the second application (09), without taking proper account of its context and character. The only safe decision is to turn these applications down in the sure knowledge that there will be a better design option that takes proper account of the wishes of all local constituents.
Ben Thomas, agent speaking on behalf of the applicant, outlined a number of points in support of the applications. Both are recommended for approval by Planning Services with the most recent application (10) taking on the board the points made by the Inspector. In dismissing the first application, the Inspector accepted the scale; bulk, mass, materials, size, density and the principles of rear access and balconies at the front and rear. The main issues in dismissing were the car parking arrangements, the overlooking and the adequacy of private amenity space. The applicant has sought to address these issues with Planning Services and the proposals have been amended accordingly. On the car park and amenity space, the original plan for 9 spaces has been reduced to 3 following the site visit on 8 June and boundary screening has been incorporated. This will result in an increased amenity, less vehicle movement and a reduction in the overall impact. On overlooking, some balconies have been moved and adjusted, others will be kept small and discreet and a barrier will include trees and buttressing. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Briefing Notes, including a revised plan, and they were asked to approve the applications.
Sandra Winwood, following her initial introduction, noted that the appeal decision had been circulated following the site visit and referred to the main issues why it had been dismissed. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the Briefing Notes and the differences between Applications 09 and 10 set out on p13 of the Application 10 report. These include the removal of two front entrances on Berrymede Road a change of unit sizes from 4 x one bedroom and 5 x two bedrooms to 2 x one bedroom and 7 x two bedroom flats, landscaping and acoustic buffer details included along the rear and side boundary of the site, privacy screen details shown on the side elevations of the private balconies on the rear elevation and additional screening details for the increased private amenity areas of units 1 and 2 (lower-ground level). The car pool place will now be on Berrymede Road. Some further consultation may be required on Application 10 further to the change in the car parking arrangements detailed as part of the revised plan attached to the Briefing Notes.
The Committee expressed a variety of views on the application.
Councillor Rennie expressed concern that the proposals would not be inkeeping or maintain the rhythm of the street. Councillor Costello expressed concern that the proposals were overly dense with 114 dwellings per hectare proposed compared to the recommended level of 50-95 dwellings per hectare. Both councillors queried how much weight they should give to the fact that the Inspector did not list these as reasons for refusing the appeal. Sandra Winwood said that the Inspector agreed that the bulk, design and scale were acceptable at the appeal. Alison Luff (Legal Adviser) said that the Inspector’s conclusions would be a strong material consideration for the Committee.
Councillor Brooks asked what the situation would be if the Committee decided that the proposals were acceptable subject to the changes to the car park made since the site visit. Alison Luff and Sandra Winwood explained that the Committee could agree conditional approval, subject to a further consultation exercise on the parking element. The results of the consultation would be
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 3
Planning Committee – 12/06/13 considered by ward councillors with the Chair signing off the final car parking plans at a briefing session.
Councillor Kate Crawford said that she would feel uncomfortable making a conditional approval on Application 10 without knowing the results of the consultation exercise on the parking element. She further suggested that the applicants should be given a strong steer on the out of keeping materials proposed. Councillor Kang agreed that the design proposed was wrong for the location and that the development would look odd. Councillor Reen agreed with Councillor Costello that the density is materially above what would be considered reasonable and with Councillor Crawford on making a conditional approval. He further added that he was not entirely convinced that the car parking and amenity matters had entirely been addressed and would be minded to refuse the application. Sandra Winwood re-iterated Alison Luff’s previous point that the Inspectors findings are a strong material consideration. The Inspector, at the appeal, seemed to say that similar examples of infill developments such as this have been successful in other locations close by.
Councillor Ball agreed with the previous points made on the inappropriate, poor quality design and the need for a stronger condition on the materials. He agreed that car parking issue could be crucial and, as per Councillor Crawford’s comments, that he would find it difficult to make a conditional recommendation not knowing the outcome of further consultation on the matter. Councillor Brooks said that residents should be given time to reflect on the amended parking proposals and that it would be preferable for Application 10, including details of the consultation results, to come back to Committee in due course.
Councillor Kate Crawford proposed a motion that Application 10 be deferred to allow time for further consultation on the parking proposals suggested since the site visit on 8 June. The motion was seconded by Councillor Anjum and carried by the Committee.
The Committee proceeded to make final points on Application 09. Councillors Ball and Reen said that, in light of this application not including the changes in Application 10, they would be minded to refuse the application.
Resolved (Application 09): OVERTURN – MINDED TO REFUSE
1. The proposed development, by reason of the close proximity of the parking spaces to the rear gardens of properties in Somerset Road, would cause noise and light disturbance that would adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties contrary to policies 4.1, 5.5, 9.1 and 9.8 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan Document, policies Local Variation 6.13 and 7.4, and policy 7B of the Publication Stage Development Management Plan Document, policies 3.5, 6.3, 6.13, and 7.4 of the London Plan 2011.
2. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site that is out of character with the surrounding area by reason of its detailed design, scale and massing contrary to policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan Document, policies Local Variation 7.4 and 7B of the Publication Stage Development Management Plan Document, policies 3.5, 6.3, 6.13, and 7.4 of the London Plan 2011.
Resolved (APPLICATION 10): DEFERRED for consultation on revised parking layout.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 4
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Application 01 in respect of Land to Rear of Peacehaven, 3 Creswick Road, Acton, W3 9HE (Ward: Acton Central). Construction of three storey residential dwelling comprising of four, self- contained units (three, two bedroom flats and one, three bedroom flat) with parking for 4 cars and associated access and landscaping. (Received: 21/01/13) (Due: 18/03/13) (Deferred from last meeting to investigate and clarify current use).
Nicholas Ozegovic outlined a number of points against the application. Peacehaven is a locally listed building so, with reference to Policy 4.7 of the UDP, the Council should protect and enhance its character. The Council should also expect to see evidence that that any proposed alterations to the structure or its setting is enhancing both the character and appearance. With regards to the use of Peacehaven, Planning insist that it is a hostel contrary to Housing who refuse to register it as a hostel because all 36 self contained studio units each have separate kitchens and bathroom facilities with no meaningful shared facilities. What is known, however, is that that the site has grown from a 16 room hostel to 36 studios without planning permission and the owners now wish to add four extra flats making 40 units with no adequate off street parking. Windows in 7 Pierrepoint Road facing Peacehaven will lose sunlight from the higher elements of the proposed building and, because of its three storey height at the front, its footprint, site coverage and proximity to site boundaries, will result in over development and a loss of privacy from overlooking contrary to Policy 5.5 of Ealing’s UDP. The proposals would also lead to a loss of parking space. Planning Services state that there are existing spaces for the 36 units in the main property but the allocated spaces will be taken up by the proposed infill development leaving zero parking available to the host property. This is also an infill and back-land garden development, contrary to UDP Policy 5.5 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 3.9. The members of the Committee were called upon to reject the application.
Kuldip Malhotra, Architect, outlined a number of points in support of the application. The officer’s report concludes that the development is of an appropriate scale and designs for the site and would not result in any harm to the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. On the potential development being based on land that is subject to garden grabbing, the building use for Peacehaven is as a hostel and, consequently, the amenity space requirements is not as determined in the planning guidelines. On the claim that the existing building is a self-contained flatted development, the Committee were asked to note points concerning the management of the site, payment of bills, the existence of common facilities and the types of tenancy in place in support of it being a hostel. On the use of the hard-standing area on which the practically all of the proposed building would be located, it was never meant to be utilised by the residents in the hostel for parking. In 1979 an application was approved by Ealing Council for the retention of widened vehicular crossover, gates and hard-standing for coach parking. No coaches drop off residents/hostel users which is why the hard-standing is not utilised. The Committee were asked to agree the application.
Councillor Walker, Ward Councillor, outlined a number of points against the application. She said that she did not think that the issue of Peacehaven was irrelevant. Many people live in the units and the loss of garden space will impact negatively on the residents.
Councillor Gulaid, Ward Councillor, outlined a number of points against the application. He said that he had visited the site twice and was sure that the 36 units are flats. He also queried why the results of the consultation exercise were not being acted on with over 200 residents in objection to the scheme. The scheme is out of character and incongruous with the surrounding area and should be refused for the reasons stated by the objector.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 5
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Sandra Winwood outlined the details of the application and referred the Committee to the Briefing Notes, particularly the notes on Parking Provision for Peacehaven and Amenity Space. On parking provision, research indicates that the hardstand area has not been used for car parking and permission for a single storey extension in 1993 did not approve car parking in this location. It is not considered, therefore, that the approval of the proposed development would impact upon car parking. On Amenity Space, the Peacehaven development, if approved, would provide for approximately 400m squared of communal open space which would be sufficient to meet the standards within the London Plan for hostels and self contained flats.
The Committee expressed a variety of views on the application.
Councillors Ball and Anjum said that they had seen clear evidence that Peacehaven is self contained flats rather than a hostel and asked why enforcement was not being carried out before considering the application. Alison Luff referred the Committee to the Briefing Notes which set out the characteristics of a hostel. A high level of evidence would be required before enforcement could be carried out following determination that there had been a change of use. Whether there had been a change of use should not, however, influence this decision because there would be the requisite amount of amenity space regardless of whether they are classed as self contained flats or hostel rooms. Councillor Rennie agreed that the distinction was not relevant. He said that great efforts had been made to maintain the rhythm of the street and that the development would be in keeping with the surrounding area. It was not an overdevelopment and he was minded to support the application.
Councillors Dabrowska and Anderson disagreed that the hostel/flat distinction was irrelevant here as parking requirements would be higher under the UDP for the latter. Francis Torto (Transport Development Manager) made two points on the issue of parking. The site is in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) so restrictions are permitted and, on the figures of 36 spaces for 36 flats and nine spaces for a hostel with 36 beds, these are the maximum standards that do not have to be adhered to. Councillor Ball said that parking was a material consideration because, if Peacehaven is re-categorised as flats, it would not be a zero car scheme. He said that he thought the situation should be resolved before a recommendation is considered. Councillor Brooks agreed on the importance of resolving the use issue in light of parking and said that he also had concerns about this being an infill / back-land development that does not meet all of the criteria set out in Table 5F of the UDP.
Councillor Kang said that he did not think that parking was an issue due to the sites location in a CPZ. There would be enough amenity space for both existing and new residents and it is a well balanced application. Councillor Rennie said that it was clear to him that the proposals would not lead to a loss of parking spaces for the reasons provided and that the Committee should solely be considering the proposals for four new flats. It is a reasonable development and he could not see any planning grounds to reject the application.
The Chair summarised the issues raised by councillors and said that he was minded to support the application.
Resolved: OVERTURN - REFUSED.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 6
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
1. The proposed development would entirely screen existing protected trees at the rear of the development site which have a high amenity value and provide a valuable contribution to the area. The development would, therefore, be contrary to policies 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004, policies 1.1 and 1.2 of the Adopted Development (Core) Strategy and policies 7.21 of the London Plan 2011.
2. The design of the proposed development fails to reflect the character of the area and would be of an inappropriate scale to the size of the site and would for these reasons be contrary to policy 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004, emerging policies 7.4 and 7C of the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan, policies 1.1 and 1.2 of the Adopted Development (Core) Strategy and policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011.
3. The proposal would fail to protect and enhance the character of the existing locally listed building on site and would therefore be contrary to policy 4.7 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004, emerging policy7C of the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan, policies 1.1 and 1.2 of the Adopted Development (Core) Strategy and policies and policy 7.8 of the London Plan 2011.
4. The development proposal provides insufficient information with respect to the current use of the existing Peacehaven building on site and for this reason the development has the potential to give rise to car parking and other planning related issues. Therefore, the development would be contrary to policies 9.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004, emerging policy 6.13 of the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan, policies 1.1 and 1.2 of the Adopted Development (Core) Strategy and policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2011.
Application 02 in respect of 60A Lowfield Road, Acton, W3 0AZ (Ward: Acton Central). Construction of a single storey three-bedroom bungalow (with accommodation in the roofspace) (Received: 06/09/12) Due: (01/11/12). (Deferred from last meeting for site visit and to clarify recent High Court ruling relating to materiality of covenants).
Councillor Reen left the meeting at this point further to his previous disclosure of a prejudicial interest in the application.
Rosco White outlined a number of points against the application. The development of the garden of this small, single, suburban house will lead to a construction that will not form part of the Lowfield Road street scene. Developments should balance and complement but what is proposed is an overdevelopment and will have a detrimental impact on the remaining dwellings due to it being out of keeping and not in-character with the surrounding area. Why are suburban garden being developed when a number of brown-field sites are available for development. Contrary to the officers report there are various reasons for rejection and there is a presumption against back garden developments in the UDP. What is proposed will also breach health and safety requirements as 60A would be more than the 45m away from a pump appliance with vehicle access. There are also issues concerning access to the site that have not been addressed.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 7
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Piet Smith outlined a number of points in support of the application. With regards to access, the path to 60 belongs to the Council and there is not, to the best of his knowledge, a law that says you cannot pass through your own gate. He explained that he and his partner have been maintaining the property for the last two years and are self builders that want to develop the property for their own futures.
Sandra Winwood introduced the application and explained that it was for a semi detached bungalow that will adjoin 60 Lowfield Road. The Committee were referred to the Briefing Notes and specific points on the Right of Way, Covenant and Fire Brigade. On the Right of Way, in order to provide access to 60A the applicants have submitted a drawing showing that access would be provided through 60. On the Fire Brigade, the furthest point of 60A will be located approximately 48m from the road so a fire hydrant will have to be provided to comply with Building Regulations. On the Covenant, the Committee noted the legal advice that restrictive covenants are private interests in land that operate separately from the planning regime. Although a covenant may touch on land issues that are relevant to the planning regime, as private interests they are not material considerations.
The Committee expressed a variety of views on the application.
Councillor Ball queried how the Committee should approach the applicant’s assertion that access to the site will be via 60 Lowfield. Sandra Winwood explained that this access is shown on a drawing which is part of Condition 2, which includes a new drawing with gate entrance from No 60. It was confirmed that Planning Services have received the drawing in question although this was missing from the overhead presentation. Councillor Ball, whilst noting the generic advice on covenants, asked whether there was any specific relevance to the Stringer case raised by Councillor Potts as the previous meeting when the item was deferred. Alison Luff confirmed that the broad point from Stringer is that the decision maker is entitled to have regard to all planning considerations, including covenants, but covenants are not material per se.
Councillor Kang said that now the query concerning access had been answered he would be minded to grant the application. Councillor Costello agreed that the access and covenant issues had been answered and, with reference to Table 5F of the UDP, it does not contravene any of the requirements for an Infill Development on a Back Land Site.
Resolved: GRANT with conditions, amend condition 2 as per briefing note, subject to legal agreement.
Amend condition 2 to include the new drawing title 60A Lowfield final plan with Gate Entrance _1 (Sheet A-1) received 11/06/2013.
Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan, Block Plan, Foundations plan (Sheet 2), Ground floor plan and loft area/1first floor received 11th December 2012, Ground floor plan (Sheet 2) received 11th December 2012, Side elevation and roof plan (Sheet A-1) , received March 2013, Front elevation and Rear elevation (Sheet A-1) received March 2013 and 60A Lowfield final plan with Gate Entrance_1 (Sheet A-1) received 11/06/2013. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 8
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Application 03 in respect of The Arcadia Centre, 1-8 The Broadway, Ealing W5 2ND (Ward: Ealing Broadway). Internal and external alterations to the building in conjunction with the formation of a retail unit on each of the ground and first floors and rearrangement of the restaurant with hot food takeaway facilities on the south-west corner and alterations to the pedestrian access to the building, roof top parking and servicing arrangements, plant and canopy over loading area (Received: 20/03/2013) (Due: 15/05/2013).
Councillor Reen re-entered the meeting at this point.
Dr Robert Gurd, speaking on behalf of Ealing Civic Society, Save Ealing’s Centre and the Central Ealing Residents Association, outlined a number of points against the application. Although the groups he represents do not have any objection to the proposed redevelopment in principal they do have some concerns about the design of the proposed replacement facades, particularly the corner treatment with the clock that is plain and out of character. It is believed that higher quality materials are needed with red brick rather than buff terracotta panels and constituted stone. A re-design of the clock and its relationship to the facade is needed too since it overlooks the Grade II* listed Christ Church. The Springbridge Road frontage retains unattractive blank walls too, not helped the long expanse of uninterrupted cream terracotta parapet panelling. These, however, are relatively minor points which could be resolved at a detailed planning stage. The application could, therefore, be agreed in principle with consideration of detailed issues on facade design delegated to officers after discussion with the church authorities, Civic Society and Conservation Area Panel.
Paul Appleton, Planning Perspectives, outlined a number of points in support of the application. Transforming this existing building will inject new life into Ealing Broadway. Planning Perspectives have enjoyed a good dialogue with Ealing Council, Ealing Civic Society and Ealing Broadway Neighbourhood Forum throughout the planning process but they are satisfied now that those discussions have reached a satisfactory conclusion. The differences now are ones of style rather than quality. With regards to the corner / clock tower, the design incorporates the best of Edwardian Ealing and will complement the existing red stone work. The composition will have a good vertical rhythm and return life to the street by having the units facing the Broadway. This will be a catalyst for regeneration, an exciting redevelopment and the applicant is happy with all of the conditions requested by the Council. It is hoped that the development would be ready for a Christmas 2014 opening.
Sandra Winwood introduced the application and explained that the proposals incorporated internal and external alterations. Enlarged units will be created in the centre although the proposals will not increase the overall floorspace. The materials that will be used respect the architecture of the area. The Committee were also referred to the Briefing Notes and the amended conditions.
The Committee expressed a variety of views on the application.
Councillor Dabrowska said that she thought the design was a little bit bland. The design could have been bolder to make the Arcadia Centre more of a feature and focal point.
Councillors Crawford, Rennie, Midha, Anjum and Brooks commended the design and agreed that it was a welcome development for the centre of Ealing.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 9
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Councillors Reen and Costello agreed that the proposals represented a huge improvement on what is already there. Councillor Reen agreed with the points made by Dr Gurd about the need for more red brick and that opening up the dead frontage on Springsbridge Road would have been good.
Councillor Ball said that although the proposal was the right thing to do, he did have some concerns about the designs but they are not fundamental problems. He agreed with Dr Gurd that the design of the clock needed to be looked at in a bit more detail.
Resolved: GRANT with conditions, amend conditions 12, 18 & 19 as per briefing note, subject to legal agreement.
Amend Condition 12 Access to Servicing Land adjacent, inserting following words at end of text: `…as shown on drawing (`Plan A`).` Amend Condition 18 Anti-Vibration Mountings as follows: Replace, `Before the development is commenced…`, with `Prior to the permanent occupation of the reconfigured retail units…` Amend Condition 19 External Lighting as follows: Add the word `permanently` before the word `occupied`.
Application 04 in respect of The Arcadia Centre, 1-8 The Broadway, Ealing W5 2ND (Ward: Ealing Broadway). Variation of condition 9 (vehicular access for parking and servicing) of planning permission TPE/4111/11 dated 22 February 1985 for the provision of vehicular access and erection of three storey building comprising retail units and food hall on lower floors and car park and ancillary facilities on upper floor together with associated ramps and ancillary accommodation to allow parking between 06:30 and 23:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 and 17:00 Sundays and servicing between 05:00 and 23:00 daily (Received: 20/03/2013) (Due: 15/05/2013).
There were no objector or applicant speakers.
The Committee moved straight to the vote.
Resolved: GRANT as per agenda.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 10
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Application 08 in respect of Manor Works, Manor Road, West Ealing W13 0LJ (Ward: Cleveland). Demolition of existing building and erection of a new stepped five, six and seven storey building to provide 44 residential units (8x 1 bedroom, 27x 2 bedroom and 9x 3 bedroom) together with four disabled parking spaces, secure cycle parking, communal garden space and play area, wider landscaping and refuse/recycling stores (Received: 12/02/2013) (Due: 14/05/2013).
Simon Baker, speaking on behalf of Draytons Community Association, outlined a number of points against the application. The development will increase the impact on local infrastructure. Since 2004, almost 800 new flats have been built in the area and the new Green Man Lane estate will result in an additional 200 homes and 500 plus people. The local infrastructure for transport, health, recreation and education struggles to support the increase in population. Local schools are already full, doctors and dentists are oversubscribed. With no Sunday rail services, road traffic has increased yet the transport plan does not appear to address the impact from neighbouring developments on the Drayton area. The proposals will also impact negatively on safety. The development will increase traffic flow along Manor Road bringing more congestion, queues and, most importantly, increase the risks of road accidents. With regards to the environment, rapid uncontrolled development in the Draytons is leading to the degradation of an environment which in other areas could be a conservation zone. Simon Baker concluded by stating that the development is hugely out of character with the Draytons. At six storeys, this modern building is out of context with no other buildings more than three storeys in height anywhere in the immediate vicinity.
Tim Gaskell, Family Mosaic, outlined a number of points in support of the application. The Manor Works site already has planning permission for 38 live/work units which Family Mosaic could go ahead and build. Family Mosaic believes, however, that improved proposals are possible that meet design requirements and contain affordable housing. The proposals before the Committee include 50% affordable housing; meet all design and amenity standards and are contained within the same design envelope as the application already agreed for the site. Car Park provision is reduced compared to the agreed application but this is justified on the grounds that the site is 500m from West Ealing Station, which will be a CrossRail station. The Committee were asked to agree the application on the basis that it is a sensitive, high quality design that represents a huge improvement on what has previously been agreed for the site.
Councillor Popham, Ward Councillor, outlined a number of points against the application. He agreed that the application granted for 38 live/work units on appeal may not be viable but what is before the Committee is an increase to 44 units in total. The agreed application includes 38 car park spaces plus two disabled spaces but this proposal has 3 spaces. Overall, at seven storeys high, the proposals represent an overdevelopment and are way outside the density range.
The Committee expressed a variety of views on the application.
Councillor Reen said that although he did not have a problem with the design he thought the proposals were too big and dense with a lack of amenity space. The £22K Section 106 contribution is not enough either to offset, or provide an answer to, the lack of internal space for residents. He said that he was minded to refuse the application.
Councillor Ball said that if it were not for the previous scheme approved on appeal he would be minded to refuse the application. This new scheme, however, fits within the existing envelope and contains 50% affordable housing.
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 11
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Councillor Costello agreed that the existing permission was an issue but he had concerns about the modern design, lack of amenity space, density and parking. It is likely that, despite there not being spaces, families with children will have a car and need to park somewhere. With regards to density, this has 220 dwellings per hectare compared to the London Plan recommended level of 70-100 dwellings per hectare. Councillor Brooks agree that there are a number of issues with the application. The proposals seem to be contrary to Policy 4.1 of the UDP concerning high buildings, the design is not good and the seven storeys will overlook Drayton Green. He did not feel comfortable about the affordable housing element being around the back near the railway line and it is too dense.
Councillor Anjum agreed that although the high percentage of affordable housing was positive she had concerns about the density and parking situation, which requires improvement. Councillor Kang said that he had concerns about it being an overdevelopment and the lack of car parking spaces. Councillor Crawford said that she was concerned about the lack of amenity space and was surprised that a community room/space had not been included as part of the proposals. Councillor Rennie agreed that parking was a key issue and queried why Planning Services had allowed a drop from 38 to three spaces.
Francis Torto said that he believed that the site met the requirements for low car housing set out in Policy 9.8 of the UDP. It is on the edge of the West Ealing Town Centre boundary, about 500m from West Ealing station and, although this is 300m over the recommended 200m from a train station, it is only a 6-7 minute walk to the train station. This scheme also satisfies criteria three, as it is in a CPZ, and criteria four, as there are on-street parking restrictions in the area, and criteria five, as the applicants will be required to submit a travel plan for the site. To qualify for low car housing, a development needs to meet one of the five criteria. This site meets three out of the five (CPZ, on-street parking restrictions, travel plan and car club). Furthermore, the applicant would contribute £25K towards highway safety improvements and a car club.
Councillor Gordon said that he was not convinced about the parking situation. The proposals are too big, dense and tall and will dwarf the adjacent park. He agreed with Councillor Brooks that it was wrong to shovel the affordable element round the back of the site. Councillor Costello, referring to Francis Torto’s comments, said that Transport Services, due to the site being 500m from the station, were being far too liberal in their interpretation of the Low Car Housing criteria in this instance. Councillor Reen said that he thought the site was a long way from the West Ealing Town Centre and did not, therefore, satisfy that criteria either.
Resolved: OVERTURN – REFUSED
1. The proposed development, by reason of the cramped and contrived layout of the dwellings and their respective private amenity space, and the lack of on-site communal amenity space, results in a poor living environment for future occupiers symptomatic of too high a density of development, contrary to policies 4.1, 4.5 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, policy 7B of the Publication Stage Development Management Plan Document, policies 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9 of the London Plan 2011.
2. The proposed development, by reason of the sites out of centre location, the lack of on-site car parking spaces and reliance on parking in the surrounding streets, would result in parking stress, nuisance and a loss of amenity to neighbouring residential dwellings,
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 12
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
contrary to policies 4.1, 5.5, 9.1 and 9.8 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan Document, policies Local Variation 6.13 and 7.4, and policy 7B of the Publication Stage Development Management Plan Document, policies 3.5, 6.3, 6.13, and 7.4 of the London Plan 2011.
Application 05 in respect of 37 St Andrews Road, Acton W3 7NF (Ward: East Acton). Construction of a two-storey three-bedroom detached dwelling with associated landscaping and parking space (Received: 12/03/2013) (Due: 07/05/2013).
There were no objector or applicant speakers.
The Committee moved straight to the vote.
Resolved: GRANT as per agenda.
Application 06 in respect of St Raphael School, Hartfield Avenue, Northolt UB5 6NL (Ward: Northolt West End). Erection of a single storey nursery building; siting of three sheds, formation of pedestrian access off Hartfield Avenue, erection of two fun houses with activity panels and associated landscaping (Deemed Consent) (Received: 15/04/2013) (Due: 10/06/2013).
There were no objector or applicant speakers.
The Committee moved straight to the vote.
Resolved: GRANT deemed consent as per agenda.
Application 07 in respect of Three Horseshoes, 2 High Street, Southall, Middlesex UB1 3DA (Ward: Southall Broadway). Construction of a part single part two and part three storey rear extension to public house; alterations to frontage; construction of an attached part single part three storey building at 1-3 South Road; to accommodate four retail units and associated storage at ground floor and basement levels; and 6 residential units on the upper floors (Received: 22/02/2012) (Due: 18/04/2012) (Revised: 28/05/2013).
There were no objector or applicant speakers.
Councillor Rennie said that it was a shame that a pub was being lost but there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.
Councillor Kang asked for clarification on the waste disposal arrangements. Sandra Winwood explained that the details of the separate arrangements for the residential and retail units are set out in the report and the arrangements were shown on the presentation drawings
Councillor Ball said that although some aspects of the application were not ideal, the applicants had done a good job retaining a lot of the features of this landmark Southall building. Councillor
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 13
Planning Committee – 12/06/13
Dabrowska agreed that the renovation would be sympathetically done and that it was positive that so many of the original features would be maintained.
Resolved: GRANT as per agenda, subject to legal agreement.
8. Confirmation of Article 4 Direction on The Grove, Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area
The Committee moved straight to the recommendations.
Resolved: i.) To note the consultation response set out in Appendix 1. ii.) Authorise the Director of Legal and Democratic Services to take the necessary steps to confirm the Article 4(2) Direction, issued 23rd January 2013 in relation to dwelling- houses fronting the public highway along The Grove, within the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area, and including Part 1, Classes A,B,C,D,F,G and Part 2 Classes A and C, and Part 31 Class B, and Part 40 Class A of the General Permitted Development Order 2010.
9. Date of Next Meeting It was noted the next meeting would take place on Wednesday 3 July 2013.
The meeting finished at 10:08 pm.
Councillor Karam Mohan ………………………………………………………………………
The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 14
Part of ground floor Phase 1, Green Man Lane Est W13 Schedule Item No. 01
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 21/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 516182 E 180393 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Part of ground floor Phase 1, Green Man Lane Est W13 Schedule Item No. 01
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 21/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 516182 E 180393 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 01
Ref: PP/2013/1576
Address: Part of the ground floor, Phase 1, Green Man Lane Estate, Singapore Road, West Ealing W13
Ward: Elthorne
Proposal: Internal and external alterations in conjunction with the conversion of the proposed gymnasium and cycle store on ground floor fronting Singapore Road to eight one bedroom flats (2 wheelchair accessible, the other 6 with rear courtyards), revised cycle storage and provision of two storey, internal access route and 11 car parking spaces (including 2 wheelchair accessible spaces).
Drawing numbers: Planning Statement, prepared by Savills; Internal Daylight Study (ref: CTBC258338), prepared by Savills; Design & Access Statement, prepared by Conran + Partners; Proposed Addendum to Energy Statement (March 2013), prepared by URS; Letter prepared by Mr V Dean (Commercial Manager) on behalf of Rolfe East, dated 20/02/2013; Marketing Report prepared by Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward Chartered Surveyors, dated 22/02/2013; Drawings – (DP)- 207; (DP)-210 Rev A; P-211 Rev A; P-212; L-DP-90-001 Rev D.
Type of Application: Full application
Application Received: 14/05/2013 Revised: -
Report by: Elizabeth Piper
RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions
1 of 28 Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
Executive Summary
1. Planning permission is sought for the conversion of part of the ground floor of the part five, six, seven and eight storey high apartment building currently under construction as part of Phase 1 of the Green Man Lane Estate regeneration master plan for eight one- bedroom flats in private sale tenure. Permission was originally granted for the application site to be used as a gymnasium. However the original gym operator has since occupied the first floor of the former Daniel’s Department Store scheme (Lovelace House, 96-122 Uxbridge Road).
2. A 2 year marketing report has been submitted which demonstrates that there has been little interest in the uptake of the site by a ‘D’ use class operator despite the applicant marketing the site at a comparable rent to other similar properties in the local area; that the applicant was prepared to offer a rent free period in order to incentivise a tenant to take the space; and that the site was marketed flexibly to a range of ‘D’ use class operators.
3. The proposal to convert the application site to provide additional housing is supported by various policies contained within the Development Plan and is therefore considered to be acceptable.
4. The space standards of the proposed residential units would exceed the Mayor’s minimum space standards. All except two of the proposed flats would have access to private amenity space, and all units would have access to the communal garden located within the centre of the Phase 1 apartment building (the host building). The layout of the proposed flats would meet the Lifetime Homes Standards and two of the flats would be provided to wheelchair adaptable standards.
5. The converted flats would be contained within the original building envelope and the appearance of the proposed development would be consistent with the residential development on the upper floors of the host building.
6. The proposal to convert the existing floorspace would not result in any overshadowing, loss of light or loss of privacy by neighbours to the application site.
7. The development would be constructed to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and the flats would be connected to the CHP unit incorporated into the Phase 1 energy centre, which will provide the heat and hot water to the entire Green Man Lane Estate regeneration scheme.
8. The proposal to supplement the Phase 1 off street parking with an additional 11 spaces was considered acceptable by the Council’s Transport Officer, subject to the submission of further details to illustrate that cars could manoeuvre into all of the spaces.
9. On balance, it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and that consent could be granted subject to conditions.
Page 2 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant subject to conditions
Grant subject to the following conditions and informatives:
1. Time Limit (prescriptive)
The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. Approved Plans and Documents (prescriptive)
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents:
Internal Daylight Study (ref: CTBC258338), prepared by Savills; Proposed Addendum to Energy Statement (March 2013), prepared by URS; Drawings – (DP)-207; (DP)-210 Rev A; P-211 Rev A; P-212; L-DP-90-001 Rev D.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
Page 3 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
3. Materials to match (prescriptive)
The facing materials of the development hereby approved shall match the existing building in terms of colour, texture, appearance, window frame detailing and architectural detailing and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the resulting appearance of the development is of a high standard and that the external finishes are consistent with the detailing and appearance of the apartment block within which the converted flats are located, in accordance with policies: 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011; 1.1(h), 1.1(k), 1.2(f) and 1.2(h) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) 4.1 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.4 and policy 7B of the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
4. Cycle storage facilities (details)
Prior to the first occupation of the development details of the cycle storage facilities located in the forecourt gardens shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The approved cycle stores shall be installed prior to the first occupation of development.
Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking storage is provided within the development in pursuance of the objectives of sustainability and encouraging the use of modes of transport other than private motor vehicles; and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies 6.9, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011; policies 1.1(e), 1.1(f), 1.1(g), 1.1(h) and1.1 (k) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) and policies 4.1, 5.5 and 9.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
5. Refuse and recycling storage (prescriptive)
The dedicated refuse and recycling storage facilities shown on the approved drawings and Design and Access Statement shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development.
Reason: To secure the necessary recycling and waste enclosures to support the development and to ensure that responsible waste management practices are adhered to in the interests of the environment and the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies 5.17, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, policies 1.1(h) and1.1(k) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) and policies 2.10, 4.1 and 5.5 and of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and SPG 4: Refuse and Recycling Facilities.
6. Lifetime Homes (prescriptive)
The approved residential units shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards, in accordance with the approved drawings and Design and Access Statement.
Reason: To ensure that the development is adaptable, flexible, convenient and appropriate to the changing needs of the future occupiers, in accordance with policies 3.5, 3.8, 3.9 and
Page 4 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
7.2 of the London Plan 2011; policy 1.1(h) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) and policies 4.1, 4.3 and 5.3 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 7 'Accessible Ealing'.
Page 5 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
7. Wheelchair Housing (prescriptive)
The wheelchair adaptable units shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and Design and Access Statement.
Reason: To ensure the provision of wheelchair housing that would address the current unmet housing need; produce a sustainable mix of accommodation; and provide appropriate choices and housing opportunities for wheelchair users and their families, in accordance with policies: 3.5, 3.8, 3.9 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011; policy 1.1(h) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) and policy 5.3 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and SPG 7: Accessible Ealing.
8. Code for Sustainable Homes - Pre-Design and Pre-Commencement (details)
The development hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 (as deemed relevant under the registered version). Within six months of the commencement of the development, evidence that the relevant part of the development is registered with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) (or similar approved body) under the Code for Sustainable Homes and an Interim Code for Sustainable Homes Assessment and Interim Design Certificates shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.
Post Construction Code for Sustainable Homes certificates shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practically possible following completion of construction and prior to the first occupation of the relevant part of the development. In the event that certificates are outstanding from the approved body, a copy of the completed report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority confirming the sustainability measures achieved and the certificates forwarded to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practicable following this.
Reason: To ensure a sustainable living environment is secured in accordance with policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.9 of the London Plan 2011; 1.1 (k) and 1.2(f) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) 2.1; 4.1; and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.2 of the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013)
9. Access to Communal Open Space (prescriptive)
Suitable arrangements to allow access to the communal open space within the centre of the perimeter apartment block by the future occupiers of the eight residential units hereby approved shall be put in place prior to the first occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the future occupiers of the development are afforded access to the children’s play facilities and communal open space within the centre of the apartment building in the interests of good living conditions and in accordance with policies 3.5, 4.1, 4.5 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004 policy 7D and Tables 7D.1 and 7D.2 of Ealing’s emerging Development Management DPD and policies 3.6, 7.1 and 7.6 of the adopted London Plan (2011).
10. External Noise Attenuation (details)
Page 6 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
Prior to the commencement of the development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for mitigation works to protect sensitive rooms from external noise. The criteria to be met and the assessment method shall be that specified in Ealing’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 10, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works, as approved, shall be completed before the first occupation of the development.
Reason: The development will be affected by external noise, including aircraft noise, and noise attenuation would be necessary to ensure an acceptable residential amenity is achieved in accordance with policies 3.2 and 7.15 of the London Plan 2011; policy 1.1(j) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012); policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004, policy 7A of the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and the Council’s SPG10: Noise and Vibration.
11. Development to be served by the communal heating system (prescriptive)
Prior to the first occupation of the development the eight residential units hereby approved shall be connected to the on-site energy centre, which shall provide heating and hot water to the development in accordance with the recommendations of the approved ‘Proposed Addendum to Energy Statement’ (dated 01.03.2013), prepared by URS.
Reason: In the interest of sustainable development and to ensure that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that C02 emission reduction targets by energy efficient measures/features are met in accordance with policies: 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 5.5 and 5.6 of the London Plan 2011; policies 1.1(k) and 1.2(f) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012); policies 2.1 and 4.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004 and Local Variation to the London Plan policy 5.2 of Ealing’s emerging Development Management DPD (2013).
12. Undercroft car parking layout
Notwithstanding the approved drawings, within six months of the date of the planning permission a revised car parking layout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which demonstrates, through tracking diagrams, that access to all car parking spaces is practicable. The approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate manoeuvring space for vehicles to access all car parking spaces in accordance with Policies 9.1 and 9.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004).
13. Electric Car Charging Points
Prior to the commencement of the development details of the electric car charging facilities to be provided for each parking space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall provide as a minimum 20% active and 20% passive electric charging spaces. The agreed details shall be available for the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Page 7 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
Reason: In the interests of improving air quality and encouraging the use of more sustainable and lower noise generating technology in accordance with policy 2.9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 1.2 (k) of the adopted Ealing Development (Core) Strategy (2012), policy 6.13 of the adopted London Plan (2011).
Page 8 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
REASON FOR GRANT AND INFORMATIVES
1) The decision to grant full planning permission has been made, taking account of the relevant national, regional and local planning policies and the information provided in the application submission. It was considered that, on balance, the proposed development would broadly accord with the policies contained within the adopted Development Plan, comprising the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), London Plan (2011), Ealing’s Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012), the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004 and Ealing’s emerging Development Management DPD. The relevant policies include:
The following sections of the NPPF were considered relevant to this proposal:
1. Building a strong competitive economy 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
London Plan 2011
Context and Strategy 1.1 (Delivering the Strategic Vision and Objectives for London)
London’s Places 2.6 (Outer London: vision and strategy) 2.7 Outer London: Economy 2.8 Outer London: Transport
London’s People 3.1 (Ensuring equal life chances for all) 3.2 (Improving health and addressing health inequalities) 3.3 (Increasing housing supply) 3.4 (Optimising housing potential) 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments) 3.6 (Children and young people’s play and informal recreation facilities) 3.7 (Large residential developments) 3.8 (Housing choice) 3.9 (Mixed and balanced communities) 3.13 (Affordable housing thresholds) 3.15 (Coordination of housing development and investment) 3.16 (Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure)
London’s Economy 4.6 (Support for and enhancement of arts, culture, sport and entertainment provision) 4.12 (Improving opportunities for all)
London’s response to climate change
Page 9 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
5.1 (Climate change mitigation) 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions) 5.3 (Sustainable design and construction) 5.5 (Decentralised energy networks) 5.6 (Decentralised energy in development proposals) 5.7 (Renewable energy) 5.8 (Innovative energy technologies) 5.9 (Overheating and cooling) 5.16 (Waste self-sufficiency) 5.17 (Waste capacity)
London’s transport 6.1 (Strategic approach) 6.3 (Assessing effects of development on transport capacity) 6.5 (Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure) 6.9 (Cycling) 6.10 (Walking) 6.13 (Parking)
London’s living places and spaces 7.1 (Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities) 7.2 (An inclusive environment) 7.3 (Designing out crime) 7.4 (Local character) 7.5 (Public realm) 7.6 (Architecture) 7.14 (Improving air quality) 7.15 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) 7.19 (Biodiversity and access to nature)
Implementation, monitoring and review 8.1 (Implementation) 8.3 (Community infrastructure levy)
London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance /Documents - Housing (Nov, 2012) - Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment - Sustainable Design & Construction - The London Housing Strategy - The London Plan: Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (November, 2012) - The Mayor’s Energy Strategy - London Housing Design Guide (Interim Edition) (Aug, 2010) - Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation (Sep, 2012) - Planning for Equality and Diversity in London
Ealing’s Development (or Core) Strategy, April 2012
1.1 Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 – (a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) 1.2 Delivery of the Vision for Ealing – (a), (d), (f), (h), (k), (m) 2.1 Realising the potential of the Uxbridge Road/Crossrail Corridor (a), (c), (e)
Page 10 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
2.6 Regenerate the Green Man Lane Estate 5.4 Protect the Natural Environment – Biodiversity and Geodiversity 5.5 Promoting Parks, Local Green Space and Addressing Deficiency 6.1 Physical Infrastructure 6.2 Social Infrastructure 6.4 Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements
Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ Saved Policies
Chapter Two: Environmental Resources and Waste 2.1 Environmental and Other Sustainability Impacts 2.5 Water – Drainage, Flood Prevention and Environment 2.6 Air Pollution and Quality 2.9 Energy 2.10 Waste Minimisation and Management
Chapter Three: Green Space and the Natural Environment 3.5 Land for Sport’s, Children’s Play and Informal Recreation
Chapter Four: Urban Design 4.1 Design of Development 4.3 Inclusive Design – Access for All 4.4 Community Safety 4.5 Landscaping, Tree Protection and Planting 4.11 Noise and Vibration
Chapter Five: Housing 5.2 Affordable Housing 5.3 Lifetimes Homes and Wheelchair Housing 5.4 Range of Dwelling Sizes and Types 5.5 Residential Design 5.6 Small Dwellings and Flats
Chapter Nine: Development, Access and Parking 9.1 Development, Access and Parking 9.7 Accessible Transport 9.9 Highways and Traffic Management
Ealing Draft Development Management DPD (February 2013)
3A Affordable Housing 4C Main Town Centre Uses 7A Operational Amenity 7B Design Amenity 7D Open Space Ealing Local Variation to the following policies of the London Plan 2011 - 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions 6.13 Parking
Page 11 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
7.3 Designing Out Crime 7.4 Local Character
Ealing Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
- SPG 1 Sustainability Checklist - SPG 2 Water, drainage and flooding (draft) - SPG 3 Air Quality (draft) - SPG 4 Refuse and recycling facilities - SPG 6 Plot Ratios - SPG 7 Accessible Ealing - SPG 8 Safer Ealing - SPG 9 Trees and development guidelines - SPG 10 Noise and Vibration - Draft SPD 9 Legal Agreements, Planning Obligations and Planning Gain
In reaching this decision, specific consideration was given to the loss of the gymnasium use from the site and the principle of converting the permitted D2 (Use Class) floorspace to housing. It was considered that the loss of the gymnasium use from the site was acceptable from a land use policy perspective and that the use of the site to provide additional housing was in line with Ealing’s adopted Development Strategy. The quality of the residential accommodation was considered to be acceptable, despite two of the proposed flats (both disabled units) not having access to private amenity space and having to rely on the use of the communal garden that is being delivered as part of the Phase 1 apartment building within which the development is located. The design and appearance of the development was considered to blend sufficiently with the host building to ensure a high quality development. The sustainability and energy reduction measures and associated CO2 emissions savings resulting from the proposals were considered to be acceptable. It was concluded that on balance, the proposal would comply with the relevant policies contained in the Development Plan. It was not considered that there were any other material considerations which would warrant a refusal of the application.
2) The Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was adopted on 01/04/2012. This has introduced a charging system within Ealing of £35 per sqm of gross internal area to be paid to the GLA.
3) Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be carried on between the hours of 0800 - 1800hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300hrs on Saturdays and at no other times, including Sundays and Bank Holidays.
The maximum permitted noise levels are:
not greater than 72 dB LAeq,10hr Mondays to Fridays not greater than 72 dB LAeq,5hr Saturdays
4) Prior to the commencement of any site works, all sensitive properties surrounding the site boundary shall be notified in writing of the nature and duration of works to be undertaken, and the name and address of a responsible person, to whom an enquiry/complaint should be directed.
Page 12 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
5) No bonfires shall be lit on site.
Page 13 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
SITE DESCRIPTION
10. The application site forms a relatively small element of the recently constructed ground floor of the part five, six, seven and eight storey high apartment building fronting the northern side of Singapore Road. The application site forms part of Phase 1 of the Green Man Lane Estate master plan, which was granted planning permission under refs: P/2010/0418 and P/2010/0419 on 29 September 2010.
11. The site comprises a total area of 1410sqm. This area encompasses 1071sqm floorspace that was intended for use as a gym (D2 Use Class), as well as other areas of the original building that would be reconfigured to accommodate the proposed development.
12. The site has its main elevation onto Singapore Road, opposite the junction with Walsingham Road, West Ealing. The West London mosque is located on the southern side of Singapore Road, opposite the application site. Singapore Road contains a number of residential and commercial uses, as well as a surface car park that will be redeveloped as part of the Green Man Lane Estate master plan.
13. The application site is located immediately to the north of the Ealing Metropolitan Centre boundary, as defined. The site is located in a predominantly residential area in close proximity to the facilities provided within the West Ealing centre and wider-Ealing Metropolitan Centre. The site’s proximity to the Ealing centre and its transport links is reflected by the site’s Public Transport Accessibility Level of 4 (good). West Ealing station is located approximately 800m to the north-east.
14. The site has the following designations within Ealing’s adopted Development Strategy (April, 2012): - Uxbridge Road Corridor (Map 2); - Potential Housing Site with capacity for 200+ units (Map 3); - Located within the 800m buffer at Crossrail Station (Map 3); - Public Transport Accessibility Level 4 (Map 11);
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
15. Full planning permission is being sought for the conversion of the existing floorspace permitted under the Green Man Lane Estate master plan for use as a gymnasium (D2 Use Class) to form eight one-bedroom flats, reconfigured cycle store, new access route between ground floor and the podium level communal garden within the centre of the apartment block and an additional 11 car parking spaces within the private, enclosed car park.
16. Two of the eight flats would be provided to wheelchair adaptable standards. Both wheelchair units would be single-aspect, south-facing with a frontage to Singapore Road. Each flat would have a double-bedroom and open plan living room / dining room / kitchen provided with full-height glazing with an outlook over Singapore Road.
17. The remaining six one-bedroom flats would have dual-aspect (north & south). Each flat would contain a double-bedroom located on the southern side of the unit with an outlook over Singapore Road and an open plan living room / dining room / kitchen with access to a 4m-deep terrace / light well with a northerly-aspect.
Page 14 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
18. The eight residential units are proposed for private sale.
19. The reconfigured cycle store would be located to the northern side of the two wheelchair adaptable flats, within the apartment building. The cycle store is of a sufficient size to accommodate 51 bicycles for the occupants of the upper-floor flats who access the building from Core A1 (which is accessed from the newly created street immediately to the west) and three of the proposed flats. The remaining five flats would have cycle storage facilities within their own private forecourt garden.
20. The new, ramped access route between the ground and first floor of the development is entirely contained within the original building structure and would not be visible externally.
21. The eleven car parking spaces would be accommodated within the enclosed car park in the centre of the apartment building. Access to the car park is provided from a gated entrance off the new residential street (currently un-named) located to the west. Two of the 11 parking spaces would be for wheelchair users.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
22. The most relevant historical planning applications for this site is the hybrid planning application submitted in 2010 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the estate –
Ref: Date: Description of development Decision: P/2010/0418 29.09.2010 Full Planning Application for redevelopment of Granted part of the Green Man Lane Estate comprising conditionally + demolition of the multi-storey car park and S106 Agreement Wigmore Court (47 units) and the construction of 154 dwellings in two buildings 3 to 8 storeys high (63 one-bedroom flats, 42 two-bedroom flats including 11 wheelchair units, 15 two-bedroom maisonettes, 6 three-bedroom flats, 21 three- bedroom maisonettes, 5 three-bedroom houses including one wheelchair unit, and 2 four-bedroom houses, comprising a net gain of 107 dwellings) together with new and altered roads, car and cycle parking, an energy centre, public and private open space and the provision of 1,302 square metres of floorspace for use as a gym, cafe and enterprise units. PHASE 1.
P/2010/0419 29.09.2010 Outline planning application seeking approval of Granted layout, scale and access for the redevelopment of conditionally + the Green Man Lane Estate comprising the S106 Agreement demolition of the multi-storey car park and surface car parking areas, Dean Hall and the existing housing stock (464 homes) and the erection of 706 new residential units and houses (to comprise a net gain of 242 dwellings) together with new and altered roads, car and cycle
Page 15 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
parking, an energy centre, public and private open space and the provision of a gym, cafe, community floorspace and enterprise units. PHASES 1 to 4.
P/2010/4484 20.01.2011 Reserved matters application detailing Granted appearance and landscaping for the construction conditionally + of a terrace of four three-storey houses (1 x three- Deed of bedroom and 3 x four-bedroom) and a four-storey Modification to the building comprising 10 flats (2 x one-bedroom and original S106 8 x two bedroom including 2 wheelchair units) for Agreement Phase 2A of the Green Man Lane Estate redevelopment, in pursuance of conditions 2 and 3 of Outline Planning Permission ref: P/2010/0419 dated: 30/09/2010 for Outline planning application seeking approval of layout, scale and access for the redevelopment of the Green Man Lane Estate comprising the demolition of the multi-storey car park and surface car parking areas, Dean Hall and the existing housing stock (464 homes) and the erection of 706 new residential units and houses (to comprise a net gain of 242 dwellings) together with new and altered roads, car and cycle parking, an energy centre, public and private open space and the provision of a gym, cafe, community floorspace and enterprise units. PHASE 2A.
P/2011/1922 20.06.2011 Non material amendment to reserved matters Non material application ref: P/2010/4484, dated 30/01/2011. amendment The non material amendments include: AGREED
[A] Alteration to the composition of the fenestration in the front and rear elevations of the development;
[B] Alteration to the design of four roof lights in the rear roof elevation of the four no. houses;
[C] Increase in the parapet height by 400mm to the front elevation and 350mm to the rear elevation of the four no. houses;
[D] Re-configuration of the ground floor of the flat building comprising of changes to the bin stores and bicycle store and associated amendment to the appearance of the front elevation.
P/2012/0176 20.03.2012 Non material amendment to planning permission Non material ref: P/2010/0418, dated 29/09/2010. The non- amendment material amendments include: AGREED
Page 16 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
A) Rearrangement of internal layouts; B) External alterations to the appearance of core entrances and the reconfiguration and relocation of cycle and refuse stores; C) Amendment to building heights to include secondary parapets, roof access and plant locations and revisions to (core J1) houses; D) Change from cladding to render of the top two- storeys of the internal Block A courtyard elevations; E) Alteration to fenestration detailing.
23. Phase 2A has been completed and residents have occupied the four houses and 10 flats.
24. Phase 1 construction is progressing on-site and practical completion / occupation is expected to take place in February 2014.
PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION BY THE APPLICANT
25. Pre-application consultation has been carried-out with the Green Man Lane Estate Residents’ Steering Group at their meeting on 28th February 2013. According to the applicant, the Resident’s Steering Group were satisfied that the proposal was acceptable as it was the “only alternative” for the use of the ground floor floorspace.
STATUTORY CONSULTATION
Neighbour Notification: 51 existing Estate residents and neighbours in Singapore Road and Broadway, as well as West Ealing Neighbours, were consulted about the application by letter dated 21/05/2013. Consultation ended on 11/06/2013.
At the time of completing this committee report no responses had been received.
Internal Consultation
Regulatory Services Confirmed that the development would be affected by aircraft noise and that (Air, Noise, Land noise attenuation measures should be incorporated into the development. Contamination)
Transport The original cycle store contains a total of 48 cycles in a secure undercover lockable compound. The proposal would result in the need to provide 56 cycles in a secure undercover lockable compound, the cycle store is being relocated and enlarged to contain spaces for 51 cycles. The communal cycle store would provide storage facilities for 3 of the proposed flats and the other five flats would have their own storage facilities within each private forecourt garden.
The 2 proposed disabled parking spaces would be difficult to manoeuvre
Page 17 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
into and out of; therefore transport would require either tracking diagrams to demonstrate it is practicable or revisions to the layout.
Housing Regeneration The original scheme proposed a commercial gym that would have produced a rent or a lease that would be sold to produce income set against the cost of building the gym space. The expectation was that there would be additional income against the cost of providing the gym space producing a cross subsidy to the scheme.
The developer has expended the cost of building the gym and has to pay back the loan associated with this element of the scheme. The proposal is to produce residential units for sale which will mean additional costs of building out the units but this and other costs will be recouped by the sale of the new units and mean the cross subsidy will continue. It is not viable to lose any units for sale and convert to social rent without losing the cross subsidy element and affecting the viability of the scheme as a whole.
PLANNING POLICIES
National Planning Policy Framework
26. On 27 March 2012 the Government adopted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document replaces most Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes, as well as some Circulars and other documents. The NPPF came into effect immediately with regard to plan making and decision taking.
27. The NPPF states that, “Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development” (paragraph 186). However, it reiterates that “the planning system is plan-led” and that applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan (paragraph 196).
28. Where the Local Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should generally be granted unless adverse impacts demonstrably and significantly outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF, or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 14).
29. The adopted Local Plan in this instance includes the London Plan (July 2011), Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (April 2012) and the saved policies of the Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004. It is anticipated that Ealing’s ‘Development Sites’ and ‘Development Management’ DPDs, and a new Proposals Map will be fully adopted by late 2013; at which point all Ealing UDP policies will expire. Ealing’s ‘Development Sites’ and ‘Development Management’ DPDs, and a new Proposals Map have been through Examination in Public and have been given weight in considering the proposed development.
30. The development plan was prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and to this end is considered to be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the NPPF, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF makes clear that development plans should provide
Page 18 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
clear policies that will guide how the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally.
31. The relevant policies of the Local Plan are set out in the ‘Reason for Grant’, which forms part of the recommendation.
EVALUATION
32. The following matters are considered to form the main planning considerations in the appraisal of the proposal:
- Acceptability of the loss of the approved gymnasium (D2 Use Class); - Acceptability of the change of use to residential housing; - Quality of resulting accommodation; - Impact on neighbouring residential amenity; - Private amenity space; - Car parking and cycle parking; - Refuse and recycling proposals; - Energy efficiency/sustainability proposals; and - Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy.
LAND USE
33. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states -
“In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should (inter alia) allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local Planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites”.
34. Appendix 3 (Infrastructure Delivery Schedule) of Ealing’s adopted Development Strategy identifies the Council’s planned infrastructure provision across the Borough over the plan period. This is supplemented by Ealing’s emerging Development Sites DPD, which allocates land for particular use or type of development. It is a material planning consideration that the application site is not identified as a site for the delivery of leisure facilities and is also not located within a designated town centre where such facilities should be located as a priority. Consequently there is no policy requirement to provide a gymnasium within the Green Man Lane Estate master plan area.
35. It is also of minor note that the intended gym operator has relocated to the former Daniels’ Department Store redevelopment at No’s 96-122 Uxbridge Road (now known as Lovelace House), which is approximately 400m to the east of the application site. Given the relatively close proximity between the application site and Lovelace House, it is likely that the gym would serve the same catchment area as if the gym was located in Green Man Lane Estate. The relative advantage of the gymnasium being within Lovelace House is that the site is located within the designated Ealing Metropolitan Centre, thereby fulfilling the relevant objectives of paragraph 23 of the NPPF, which seeks to prioritise the siting of leisure uses within designated town centres to ensure their on-going viability.
Page 19 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
36. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has submitted marketing evidence that demonstrates that gymnasium floorspace within the development has been marketed between October 2010 and February 2013 (2 years, 4 months). The marketing evidence demonstrates that the site was marketed at a rent that is comparable to other similar properties within the local area; that the developer was prepared to offer a rent free period in order to incentivise a tenant to take the space; and that the site was marketed to a range of D1 (Use Class) and D2 (Use Class) tenants despite the planning permission specifically relating to a gymnasium use. The marketing evidence demonstrates that there was very little interest in the take-up of the floorspace by ‘D’ Use Class operators and that a lease could not be agreed.
37. It could therefore be concluded that there is no demand or planning policy requirement for the provision of leisure facilities within the development site, which should preferably be located within the Borough’s defined town centres, and that sufficient marketing evidence has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that there is not a suitable tenant to take up the floorspace for a gymnasium use.
38. The proposal to convert the application site to residential housing is considered to be acceptable in policy and land use terms. Policy 2.6 of Ealing’s Development Strategy allocates the Green Man Lane Estate for regeneration and the provision of additional mixed-tenure homes. Furthermore, the principle of locating residential accommodation within the ground floor frontage to Singapore Road has been accepted as part of the approved master plan proposals for the wholesale regeneration of the Estate.
TENURE AND MIX OF HOUSING AND DENSITY
39. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF recognises that “Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and cost in plan-making and decision-taking”. Policies contained in chapter 3 of the London Plan acknowledge that securing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is in the interests of securing sustainable development, and particularly to meet the needs of future generations. Paragraph 50 of the NPPF reinforces this, clarifying the need to plan for a mix of housing which meets the current and future needs of different groups in the community.
40. Affordable Housing London Plan policy 3.13 states that Boroughs should normally require the provision of affordable housing on sites that have a capacity to provide 10 or more homes, and this is reiterated within the sub-text to policy 1.2(a) of Ealing’s Development Strategy. Policy 1.2(a) also requires that “At least 50% of housing developed in Ealing up to 2026 will be affordable housing, as defined in the London Plan, to achieve mixed communities with a range of housing types across the borough and to meet need”.
41. The proposal for eight units would not trigger the requirement for affordable housing using the threshold contained at policies 3.13 of the London Plan and 1.2(a) of Ealing’s Development Strategy. Even so, it is clear that the proposal forms part of a larger-scale development and the proposal should be considered in this context.
42. Of the 154 units (443 habitable rooms) provided within the Phase 1 development, only 13 units (37 habitable rooms) would currently be provided in private sale tenure. With the addition of the proposed eight one-bedroom units the total number of private sale units in
Page 20 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
Phase 1 would be 21 units (53 habitable rooms). This equates to a tenure split between affordable housing and private sale housing of 87% affordable housing / 13% private sale housing.
43. The S106 Agreement attached to the Phase 1-4 outline permission secures the provision of 401 units (1196 habitable rooms) in affordable tenure, with the balance of 305 units (844 habitable rooms) provided in private sale tenure. With the addition of the eight one- bedroom private sale units proposed under the current planning application, the tenure split between affordable housing and private sale housing would be 56% affordable housing / 44% private sale housing across the entire Green Man Lane Estate master plan.
44. It could therefore be concluded that the objectives of the policies relating to the provision of affordable housing are met by the overall master plan for the regeneration of the Green Man Lane Estate. It is also clear from the comments provided by the Council’s Housing Regeneration Manager for the Green Man Lane Estate that it would adversely affect the financial viability of Phase 1 of the master plan if additional affordable housing was required as part of the current proposal.
45. Housing Size Mix Policy 3.8 of the London Plan requires that new development proposals offer a range of housing choices, in terms of the mix of housing sizes and types.
46. Given the site is on the edge of the Ealing Metropolitan Centre and that the units would have restricted access to private garden space, it is considered that the provision of one- bedroom flats is acceptable in the circumstances. It is noted that there is a good mix of bed-sizes provided by the 13 private sale flats being provided within the Phase 1 development, which is 4 x one-bedroom; 7 x two-bedroom and 2 x three-bedroom. Consequently, an objection is not raised to the proposed bed-size mix.
47. Density London Plan Policy 3.4 seeks to optimise the housing potential of sites, having regard to local context, design principles and public transport accessibility. With regard to estate renewals, the Mayor’s ‘Housing SPG’ (2005) acknowledges that increased density may be necessary to generate sufficient value from market development to support the replacement of affordable housing.
48. Policy 1.2(h) of Ealing’s Development Strategy provides support for higher development densities in areas of good public transport accessibility. The policy identifies that whilst proper regard shall be made to relevant London Plan policies, the Council will take into account primarily the quality of the design, the location of the site and the need to provide a suitable housing mix.
49. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 4 (good) and is classified as urban in character. The London Plan density matrix (Table 3.2) recommends a residential density range of between 200-700 hr / ha and between 70-260 u / ha, on the basis of units having an average of 2.7-3.0 hr/unit.
50. The developable area of the site has an area of 0.14Ha and the proposal is for 8 units with 16 habitable rooms. The density of development would be 57 u/ha and 113 hr / ha in isolation of the development within which the current proposal forms part. This is a fairly meaningless calculation in this context and it would be more appropriate to consider the
Page 21 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
density of development across the entire Green Man Lane Estate master plan area with the additional 8 units (16 habitable rooms) added to the total development. The site is 4.64ha and 714 units with 2056hr could be delivered. This would produce a density of 153 u/ ha and 443 hr / ha. Both figures sit comfortably within the London Plan density matrix at Table 3.2 for an urban site with a PTAL of 4.
HOUSING STANDARDS
51. Internal Space Standards Policy 5.5 of Ealing’s UDP requires that residential development provides good living conditions for residents by ensuring that the accommodation offers an attractive outlook and sense of privacy; adequate indoor living space and garden space related to the accommodation; adequate sunlight and daylight; and play space for children. The Council’s SPG 14 ‘Indoor Living Space’ has been replaced by policy 3.5 of the London Plan and supporting Table 3.3 ‘Minimum space standards for new development’. Policy 3.5 seeks to ensure that new development is of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to its context. Table 3.3 sets the minimum indoor living space requirements for new development in relation to the number of occupants and taking account of the typical space required for furniture and different activities within the home.
52. London Plan Policy 7.2 requires that new development meets the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and expects design and access statements to explain how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development. London Plan Policy 3.8 and UDP policy 5.3 expect all new housing to meet Lifetime Homes standards and 10% of new housing to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair users.
53. Paragraph 9 of the NPPF states that ‘pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to): …replacing poor design with better design; and, improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and widening the choice of high quality homes’.
54. Internal Space Standards A comparison of the internal space standards of the development in and the space standard requirements contained at Table 3.3 of the London Plan is provided below:
Dwelling London Plan Proposal GIA Amenity Space Table 3.3 GIA (sqm) (sqm) (balcony, (sqm) terrace, garden) Single storey 1b/2p (wheelchair) 50 67 16.2 (forecourt) flat 1b/2p (wheelchair) 50 74 19 (forecourt) 1b/2p 50 64 9.7 (forecourt) + 13.6 (rear courtyard) 1b/2p 50 64 9.7 (forecourt) + 13.6 (rear courtyard) 1b/2p 50 64 9.7 (forecourt) + 13.6 (rear courtyard) 1b/2p 50 67 9.7 (forecourt) + 22 (rear courtyard) 1b/2p 50 67 9.7 (forecourt) + 22
Page 22 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
(rear courtyard) 1b/2p 50 67 9.7 (forecourt) + 22 (rear courtyard)
* Wheelchair adaptable flat
Table 1: Internal space standards: Source – GIAs scaled from drawing (DP) 207 Rev A (prepared by Conran + Partners)
55. All units would exceed the London Plan minimum space standards.
56. The floor to ceiling height of the proposed units would be 2.7m, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 2.5m.
57. Aspect Due to the layout of the development, the majority of units would have a dual north-south aspect with small forecourt gardens located on the southern elevation and private courtyards located on the northern elevation.
58. The two wheelchair adaptable units would have a single south-facing aspect, which is considered to be acceptable.
59. The main aspect of the new properties within the development would be onto Singapore Road. The proposal to provide residential accommodation at ground level with private entrances from Singapore Road would increase natural surveillance of the street and help to activate the main public frontage of the development.
60. Private amenity space Ealing UDP policies 4.1, 4.5, 5.5 seek to ensure that private and communal amenity spaces are provided as an integral part of new development and that these spaces are accessible, attractive, ecologically diverse, well designed, and inclusive. Policy 7D and Tables 7D.1 and 7D.2 of Ealing’s emerging Development Management DPD requires that new developments of between 1-9 units provide private and / or communal garden space of 5qm per 1-2 person flat. This minimum baseline requirement will typically take the form of a private balcony for upper floor flats and private garden areas for ground floor flats.
61. Six of the eight units would have private courtyard gardens to the northern side of the flats. The courtyard gardens would be in constant shadow, but even so, would provide private space for growing pot plants, sitting out and clothes drying. The courtyards would be accessible directly from the open plan living room / dining room and kitchen and would offer an adequate outlook.
62. The two wheelchair adaptable units would have access to a forecourt garden located on the southern side of the unit. Whilst the forecourt garden would provide an opportunity to grow pot plants and store bicycles and bins, the space would not be private amenity space and would function more as a defensible space between habitable room windows and the public realm. Due to the constraints of the site it is not possible to provide private open space for the two wheelchair adaptable flats. However, it is relevant to consider the availability of the communal garden that will be delivered within the centre of the Phase 1 apartment building and which will be accessible to the occupants of the proposed
Page 23 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
development. The communal open space would provide a total area of 1894sqm of landscaped gardens and children’s play space.
63. Whilst noting this area of technical non-compliance with the Council’s policies, it is considered that on balance it would be difficult to sustain a refusal of the application on the grounds of two of the eight flats not having their own private gardens, particularly as the future occupants would have access to the large communal garden in the centre of the apartment block. A condition securing access to the communal garden by the occupants of the eight flats is included in the recommendation.
64. Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing All of the proposed units would meet the Lifetime Homes Standards. In addition, and whilst not a requirement for proposals containing less than 10-units, the applicant has provided two wheelchair adaptable units. This is welcomed, particularly as there is evidence that wheelchair occupiers prefer to be accommodated at ground level.
65. It is therefore considered that the proposal fully meets the objectives of policies 3.5, 3.8, 3.9 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011; policy 1.1(h) of Ealing’s adopted Development (or Core) Strategy (April, 2012) and policy 5.3 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and SPG 7: Accessible Ealing.
66. Daylight and Sunlight An assessment of the daylight and sunlight distribution to individual dwellings within the development scheme was undertaken by an assessor using the 2011 BRE Guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. It is a relevant consideration that there are no minimum requirements in the Building Regulations for daylight or sunlight provision in new buildings and the daylight credits in the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) are optional, not mandatory. Ealing UDP policy 5.5 (Residential Design) states that residential development should provide good living conditions for residents that ensure adequate sunlight and daylight, and as such the results of the sunlight and daylight assessment are of material consideration.
67. The BRE Guidance recommends targets for the average daylight factor (ADF) of at least 2% to be achieved in kitchens, and 1.5% for living rooms, dining rooms and studies and 1% for a bedroom. The submitted Daylight & Sunlight Assessment identifies that majority of habitable rooms within the development would meet or exceed the recommended ADF requirements for the specific room type.
68. Shadow plot diagrams were also included within the Daylight and Sunlight Report and demonstrate that the private gardens to the six flats with courtyards would not receive any direct sunlight. This is a consequence of the northern orientation of the gardens. Whilst this is regrettable, on balance, it would be difficult to sustain the refusal of the application on this basis particularly as the occupants of the proposed development would have access to a relatively large area of communal open space in the centre of the apartment block.
69. Noise and Vibration Policy 4.11 of Ealing’s UDP restricts noise-sensitive development where its users would suffer noise above acceptable levels, unless it could be acceptably mitigated. The policy also states that development generating noise or vibration will not be permitted where it would cause noise or vibration above acceptable levels, particularly where it would harm existing or proposed noise sensitive development, unless it could be adequately attenuated.
Page 24 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
70. The Environmental Health officer has confirmed that the development would be affected by aircraft noise and that noise attenuation measures should be incorporated into the development. A condition has been included in the recommendation that requires the submission of details of noise attenuation measures for the Council’s written approval, in pursuance of policy 4.11 and the adopted SPG 10: Noise and Vibration.
Design, Scale and Siting
71. Policies within chapters 4 and 5 of the Ealing UDP (policies 4.1, 4.5 and 5.5) are concerned with guiding the design quality of Ealing’s urban form. Good urban design is considered to be fundamental to the provision of an attractive, safe, accessible and sustainable Ealing, in which people want to live, work and spend leisure time.
72. Good design is central to the objectives of policies of the London Plan and is specifically promoted within chapter 7 (policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6). The NPPF also requires the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development (sections 6 and 7).
73. Appearance The design of the southern elevation, fronting Singapore Road, has been prescribed by the architectural approach to the upper floors of the apartment building and also by the use of the space behind the facade. In this regard, the upper floors are predominantly brickwork with full height glazing. This architectural approach will be carried through to ground floor level so that the conversion of the ground floor would blend in with the residential elements of Phase 1.
74. The materials to be used in the development would be an identical match to the upper floors – part Reglit and part metal framed full height windows (grey powder coated) and red brick. The proposed use of timber entrance doors would also be consistent with those used in the east and west elevations of the apartment building.
75. The proposed boundary treatment comprises a masonry dwarf wall with black painted railings, which have been designed to match the front walls and railings used elsewhere within the development. There would be areas of the boundary treatment where the railings have not been used because the cycle and bin stores need to be concealed behind a solid wall.
76. The approach to the design and finish of the development is considered to be acceptable and would provide a high quality development.
Neighbouring Amenity
77. Given the residential nature of the Green Man Lane Estate and the proposal for eight residential flats, it is not considered that the operational use of the development would diminish the residential amenity of the site. In fact, it is likely that the conversion of the ground floor for use as residential accommodation would reduce the opportunity for noise nuisance within the site.
78. As the eight flats would be wholly contained within the originally approved envelope of the apartment building, the proposed development would not result in any overshadowing, loss of light or loss of privacy by neighbouring occupiers.
Page 25 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
Transport, Parking and Servicing
79. Policy 6.1 of the London Plan provides details of the Mayor’s strategic approach to the integration between transport and development. In particular, the Mayor encourages patterns and nodes of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car, and states that maximum parking standards for new residential developments should be less than 1 parking spaces for 1 or 2 bedroom units; 1-1.5 spaces for 3 bedroom units; and 1.5-2 parking spaces for 4+ bedroom units. Policy 6.1 also seeks to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling, particularly in areas of greatest demand. Policy 6.13 of the London Plan recommends an appropriate balance is struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.
80. Policy 1.1(f) and (g) of Ealing’s Development Strategy also recognise the importance of supporting sustainable, safe and convenient transport networks, promoting healthy travel behavior and reducing the need to travel. These objectives are proposed to be achieved through improvements to public transport, cycle and pedestrian links to the borough’s development corridors and neighbourhoods.
81. Car parking The proposal to provide an additional 11 car parking spaces within the secured undercroft car park within the centre of the apartment block A is considered to be acceptable. The addition of the 11 parking spaces would increase the number of spaces within the undercroft car park to 31 spaces. These spaces would serve 162 residential units being provided in Phase 1 of the master plan (including the current proposal for 8 units). The undercroft car parking would be supplemented with 22 on- street parking spaces within the new street being delivered as part of the Phase 1 development. The overall level of car parking for the Phase 1 development (53 spaces for 162 units) would remain to be substantially less than the maximum parking standards set out in Ealing’s UDP (Table on Parking Requirements, appendix 1).
82. The Transport Officer has reviewed the proposal and has not raised an objection to the addition of 11 parking spaces within the undercroft car park. However, the officer is concerned that two of the spaces would be difficult to manoeuver into. The Transport Officer has recommended that a condition be included in the recommendation requiring the applicant to submit tracking diagrams that demonstrate that all parking spaces could be accessed. An appropriately worded condition has been included in the recommendation to secure the details.
83. Cycle Parking A secure, lockable, covered cycle store large enough to accommodate 51 bicycles has been integrated into the building for use by three of the proposed flats and the occupants of the upper floor flats within core A1 of the Phase 1 apartment building. The five other proposed flats would have their own secure, lockable, covered stores located in the forecourt garden to each unit. Details of the design of the cycle store has been conditioned. The cycle storage provision meets TfL’s cycle parking standards.
84. Refuse Storage and Servicing Policy 5.17(E) of the London Plan requires that suitable waste and recycling storage facilities be provided in all new developments. It is proposed that refuse and recycling storage be provided within the forecourt gardens to each of the individual flats. Collection would take place from Singapore Road. These arrangements would meet the requirements set out in Ealing’s adopted SPG 4: Refuse and recycling facilities.
Page 26 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01
Energy and Sustainability
85. It is Council’s and the Mayor’s objective when considering major developments that there is an achievement of a significant and measurable improvement in energy efficiency and reduction in carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. Chapter 5 of the London Plan set out the climate change policies and require that new development makes the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change and to minimise C02 emissions.
86. Whilst it is material to note that the current application is not a major planning application, it is relevant that the proposal does form part of a wider regeneration scheme that incorporates a CHP plant that will provide the heat and hot water to the development. The applicant has submitted an addendum to the original energy strategy approved strategy and this confirms that the eight flats will be connected to the CHP plant. The report also confirms that the flats will be constructed to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
87. The sustainability proposals are welcomed and it is considered that the development would satisfy the policies contained within chapter 5 of the London Plan and policies 1.1(k) and 1.2(f) of Ealing’s Development Strategy.
Community Infrastructure Levy
88. The Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was adopted on 01/04/2012. This has introduced a charging system within Ealing of £35 per sqm of gross internal area (GIA) to be paid to the GLA. An informative is included on the decision notice reminding the applicant that they are CIL liable.
Conclusion
89. The recommendation to grant planning permission has been taken having assessed the application against the relevant policies contained in the NPPF and the Development Plan, which is comprised of the London Plan 2011, Ealing’s Development Strategy 2012, the saved policies of Ealing’s UDP 2004 and the policies contained within Ealing’s emerging Development Management DPD.
90. On balance, it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and that consent could be granted subject to the imposition of conditions.
Human Rights Act:
In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control
Page 27 of 28
Planning Committee: 03/07/2013 Item No. 01 the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
Page 28 of 28
Oak Wharf, Green Lane W7 Schedule Item No. 02
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 515020 E 179668 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Oak Wharf, Green Lane W7 Schedule Item No. 02
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 515020 E 179668 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Oak Wharf, Green Lane W7 Schedule Item No. 03
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 515020 E 179668 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Oak Wharf, Green Lane W7 Schedule Item No. 03
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 515020 E 179668 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3
Ref : P/2013/0104
Address: OAK WHARF GREEN LANE HANWELL W7 2PF
Ward: Elthorne
Proposal: Provision of a terrace of four three-storey three- bedroom dwellings with integral garages and associated access, visitors parking space, hard and soft landscaping, amenity areas and boundary treatment (following partial demolition of existing buildings)
(Conservation Area Consent Application also received ref P/2013/0229)
Drawing numbers: HW253 P001; HW253 P002; HW253 P003; HW253 P100 Rev G; HW253 P101 Rev G; HW253 P102 Rev G; HW253 P103 Rev G; HW253 P200 Rev G; HW253 P201 Rev G; HW253 P300 Rev G; and HW253 P400 Rev G (received 08.01.2013)
Type of Application: Full Application
Application Received: 10/01/2013 Revised:
Ref : P/2013/0229
Address: OAK WHARF GREEN LANE HANWELL W7 2PF
Ward: Elthorne
Proposal: Demolition of existing single storey buildings in association with the accompanying planning application for the construction of four dwellings (Conservation Area Consent)
Drawing numbers: HW253 P001; HW253 P002; HW253 P003; HW253 P100 Rev G; HW253 P101 Rev G; HW253 P102 Rev G; HW253 P103 Rev G; HW253 P200 Rev G; HW253 P201 Rev G; HW253 P300 Rev G; and HW253 P400 Rev G (received 08.01.2013)
Page 1 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 Type of Application: Conservation Area Consent
Application Received: 10/01/2013 Revised:
Report by: Peter Lee
Executive Summary :
Recommendation: Grant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent with Conditions
The application site is located toward the southern end of Green Lane, Hanwell, a predominantly residential road accessed from Lower Boston Road. Oak Wharf occupies an area of 0.07 hectares and is accessed from Green Lane via a gated access between 10 and 11 Oak Cottages, Green Lane, which are two-storey end-of-terrace dwellings. The site is currently in use as a builders’ yard. There are currently two permanent buildings located within the application site, a two-storey brick built, pitched roof, commercial building situated in the northern corner of the site, abutting the boundary of the site with the rear garden of 10 Oak Cottages to the north- east and allotment gardens to the north-west and a single storey, brick built, mono pitched roof commercial building situated on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the rear garden area of 11 Oak Cottages. There are also two wooden sheds, two metal storage containers and various building materials, scaffolding and equipment stored on the site.
The site abuts the River Brent to the south-west and on the opposite side of the river is located Lock Cottage, 97 Green Lane, a detached two-storey residential dwelling.
The application site is located within an area identified as Metropolitan Open Land, a Nature Conservation Management Area and an Archaeological Interest Area as shown on the adopted UDP Proposals Map. The site is also located within the St. Mark’s Church and Canal Conservation Area and within a Zone 3 Flood Risk area.
The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing structures upon the site and for the redevelopment of the site to provide four three-storey three-bedroom dwellings. The proposed dwellings would be located centrally within the site running to the rear of and parallel to the existing Victorian dwellings comprising 1 to 10 Oak Cottages. The dwellings would have an integral garage, a utility/store area, WC and refuse storage area at ground floor level, a living/dining and kitchen area and an en-suite bedroom at first floor level and two bedrooms and a bathroom/WC at second floor level.
Each dwelling would have a covered floor area of between 133 and 145 square metres, with the ground floor providing non-habitable, partly floodable, accommodation of between 40 and 48 square metres, the first floor would provide between 50 and 55 square metres and the second floor between 38 and 43 square metres. The height of the proposed development would be up to 8.1 metres to ridge level and 6.4 metres to the eaves. This would compare with the existing two- storey building on the site that has a ridge height of 7.05 metres and an eaves height of 4.85 metres and the adjacent dwellings at 10 and 11 Oak Cottages that have ridge heights of 8.3 metres and 9 metres respectively and eaves heights of 6 metres and 5.9 metres respectively.
The dwellings would have a total frontage width of 19.4 metres, widening to a maximum width of 23 metres and a depth of 12.6 metres at ground level.
Page 2 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3
The houses would be constructed of brickwork with timber doors to the garage and timber doors and windows. The roofs of the dwellings would be completed with natural slate.
Each dwelling would be provided with a private rear garden area of between 32.5 and 42 square metres running between the units and the boundary wall to the Billets Hart allotments. The frontage area would be retained with cobble sets that would be re-used and matched where required to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the dwellings, including the provision of one visitor/disabled user parking space adjacent to the flank wall of 11 Oak Cottages.
The existing access to Green Lane would be retained to provide vehicular and pedestrian access.
The main issues in respect of the proposal are the implications of the development on flood risk, due to the location of the site within a high risk flooding zone (Zone 3a), on the open character of this area of designated Metropolitan Open Land, on the character and appearance of the St. Mark’s and Canalside Conservation Area, on neighbouring residential amenity and on the character of the area as a whole, taking account of the design of the proposal, the residential density of the proposed development and having due regard to the existing, authorised, commercial use of the site in this predominantly residential area and the need to optimise the opportunity to provide new residential development on already developed, brownfield, sites.
The proposed development is considered to represent a ‘departure’ from the requirements of the development plan for the area both in terms of development in flood risk areas and appropriate development in designated Metropolitan Open Land. However, taking account of all material planning considerations it is considered that the proposal does constitute appropriate, sustainable development and that planning permission could reasonably be granted, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land likely to be caused by the development and the effect of the proposal on flood risk and the number of people at risk in a flood event are considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme in terms of the removal of the non-conforming commercial use, the provision of appropriately sized family dwellings, the increase in floodwater storage capacity and reduction in surface water run-off and the increase in biodiversity value.
On balance, therefore, it is recommended that planning permission and Conservation Area Consent should be granted. Recommendation:
Planning Application P/2013/0104
Grant with Conditions
Conditions/Reasons:
1. Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission
The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Page 3 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 2. Approved Plans
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title number(s) HW 253 P001 ; HW263 P100 Rev G ; HW253 P101 Rev G ; HW253 P102 Rev G ; HW253 P103 Rev G ; HW253 P200 Rev G ; HW253 P201 Rev G ; HW253 P300 Rev G ; and HW253 P400 Rev G, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.
3. Permitted Development Restricted
Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, or any Order revoking and replacing that Order, with or without modification, no extensions or alterations shall be carried out to the dwellings, including forming permanent accommodation within the ground floor floodable area, nor any outbuildings or other structures shall be constructed within the curtilages of the dwellings, without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority, obtained through the submission of a planning application.
REASON: To prevent further development of the site in order to safeguard the flooding capacity of the site and in the interests of the integrity of the design and appearance of the buildings and site layout and the character of the St. Mark’s and Canal Conservation Area, the Blue Ribbon Network and the Metropolitan Open Land and the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with policies 2.18, 5.12, 7.1, 7.4, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9, 7.17, 7.28 and 7.30 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(g), (h), (i), (k), 1.2(f), (g), (h), (m), 2.1(c), 2.10, 5.2(f), 5.3(a) and (d) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variations to London Plan policies 2.18, 5.12 and 7.4 and policies 7B, 7C and 7D of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policies 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.8, 5.5 and 5.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
4. Parking Retained
The visitors car parking space shown on the approved plan HW253 P100 Rev. G shall be marked out on the site prior to first occupation of any part of the development, and this space shall be kept continuously available for car parking and shall not be used for any other purpose.
REASON: To ensure that there is adequate provision for visitors car parking within the site, in accordance with policy 6.13 of the London Plan (2011) and policy 9.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
5. Details of Landscaping
Notwithstanding the submitted information, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, demonstrating how the site would minimise the potential for flood water displacement through the use of permeable and/or porous materials and these
Page 4 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 works shall be carried out as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the development. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. Any permeable or porous treatments should not be subsequently replaced by an impermeable finish.
REASON: To ensure that the development is landscaped in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area and to ensure flood water displacement is minimised, in accordance with policies 3.5, 5.12, 5.13, 7.4, 7.6, 7.19 and 7.21 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(g), (h), (i), 1.2(g), (m), 2.1(c), 2.10, 5.2(f) and 5.3(d) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), policy 7D of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policies 2.5, 4.1, 4.5 and 4.8 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
6. Floodable Voids
The floodable timber structure to the ground floor areas of the dwellings shall be permanently retained as such and no infilling, blocking or other alteration shall be carried out, nor shall any habitable use be made of the ground floor accommodation provided.
REASON: In order to limit flood risk, in accordance with policy 5.12 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(k) and 1.2(m) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.12 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
7. Construction Logistics Plan
Prior to the commencement of any development, including any works of demolition, details of a demolition and construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented during demolition and construction. The method statement should include details of access, parking, loading and unloading arrangements for construction vehicles, the method of demolition and construction, parking facilities for site operatives, location of storage areas for demolition materials and materials used in the construction of the new development, details of noise, vibration and dust mitigation measures and details of protective fencing and segregation of working and public areas.
REASON: To protect the living conditions of surrounding occupiers and maintain an attractive and safe environment in the locality in accordance with policies 5.3 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2011), policy 1.1(g) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Stragey (2012) and policies 4.1, 4.11 and 9.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
8. Bat Survey
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, including demolition, details of a bat survey and action to protect any bats shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any action as approved shall be implemented prior to commencement of any works.
Page 5 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 REASON: To comply with the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), in accordance with policy 7.19 of the London Plan (2011) and policy 3.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
9. Aircraft Noise Attenuation
Details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before the development is commenced, for the insulation of the building envelope, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided, which will achieve the internal criteria for sensitive rooms, as specified in Ealing Regulatory Services Document 5.3 “Guidance for developers”, using the specified worst mode one hour LAeq,1hr spectrum noise level. The details should also include the provision of alternative means of ventilation in each room in accordance with the Authority’s criteria. The works should be completed before occupation and permanently retained thereafter.
REASON: To ensure occupiers are not subjected to excessive noise levels from aircraft movements, in accordance with policies 3.5 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2011), policy 1.1(j) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), policy 7A of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing unitary development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
10. Contaminated Land
No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment is completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site.The report of the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
· human health,
· property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,
· adjoining land,
· groundwaters and surface waters, particularly the River Brent and Grand Union Canal,
· ecological systems,
· archeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
Page 6 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 REASON: To ensure the site is appropriate for residential use, in accordance with policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(e) and (j) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.21 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.7 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
11. Submission of a Remediation Scheme
No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use is submitted to and subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
REASON: To ensure the site is appropriate for residential use, in accordance with policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(e) and (j) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.21 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.7 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
12. Carrying Out of Remediation Works
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure the site is appropriate for residential use, in accordance with policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(e) and (j) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.21 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.7 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
13. Flood Warning Details
Prior to first occupation of any part of the developer details of flood warning procedures to be utilised to give occupiers of the development sufficient warning of a likely flood event, to allow them time to prepare for such a situation and put in place appropriate measures to allow protection of people, goods and possessions, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the procedures shall be put in place prior to first occupation of any part of the development and shall thereafter be permanently retained.
Page 7 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 REASON : In order to ensure residents of the development are adequately protected in the event of a flooding incident, in accordance with policy 5.12 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(k) and 1.2(m) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.12 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
14. Sustainable Drainage
No development shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before first occupation of any part of the development and shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include :
i. a timetable for its implementation ; and
ii. a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
REASON : To ensure the development does not have any adverse impact on existing drainage, in accordance with policy 5.12 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(k) and 1.2(m) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.12 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
15. Site Levels
There shall be no raising of existing site levels as part of the development.
REASON : In order to prevent any potential flood water displacement, in accordance with policy 5.12 of the London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(k) and 1.2(m) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.12 of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policy 2.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
16. Materials
Details of the materials and finishes to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with these approved details, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON : To ensure the materials and finishes harmonise with the surroundings and enhance the St.Mark’s and Canal Conservation Area, in accordance with policies 3.5, 7.1, 7.4, 7.6, 7.8, 7.17 and 7.30 of the adopted London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(g), (h) and (k), 1.2(f), (g) and (h), 2.1(c), 2.10, 5.2(f) and 5.3(a) and (d) of the adopted Ealing Development
Page 8 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 (or Core) Strategy (2012), Local Variations to London Plan policy 7.4 and policies 7B and 7C of the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and policies 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.8 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004)
17. Archaeology
A) No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological mitigation with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority ;
B) No development or demolition shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Part A) ;
C) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Part A) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of the results and archive deposition has been secured.
REASON : Heritage assets of archaeological interest may survive on the site. The planning authority wishes to secure the provision of an archaeological investigation and the subsequent recording of the remains prior to development, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policy 7.8 of the adopted London Plan (2011) and policy 4.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Deve lopment Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004).
Informatives
The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy framework, to the policies and proposals in the London Plan (2011), in the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, in the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance:
National Planning Policies:
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)
London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London - July 2011
Policy Summary 2.6 Outer London: Vision and Strategy 2.7 Outer London: Economy 2.8 Outer London: Transport 2.18 Green Infrastructure: The Network of Open and Green Spaces 3.2 Improving Health and Addressing Health Inequalities 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments 3.6 Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation Facilities 3.8 Housing Choice Page 9 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 3.9 Mixed and Balanced Communities 4.1 Developing London’s Economy 4.4 Managing Industrial Land and Premises 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 5.10 Urban Greening 5.12 Flood Risk Management 5.13 Sustainable Drainage 5.14 Water Quality and Wastewater Infrastructure 5.15 Water Use and Supplies 5.17 Waste Capacity 5.21 Contaminated Land 6.1 Strategic Approach 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity 6.5 Funding Crossrail and Other Strategically Important Transport Infrastructure 6.9 Cycling 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London's Neighbourhoods and Communities 7.2 An Inclusive Environment 7.3 Designing Out Crime 7.4 Local Character 7.6 Architecture 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology 7.13 Safety, Security and Resilience to Emergency 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes 7.17 Metropolitan Open Land 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature 7.21 Trees and Woodlands 7.24 Blue Ribbon Network 7.28 Restoration of the Blue Ribbon Network 7.30 London’s Canals and Other Rivers and Waterspaces 8.2 Planning Obligations 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy
Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy - April 2012
Policy 1.1 – Spatial Vision for Ealing 2016 (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) Policy 1.2 - Delivery of the Vision for Ealing 2026 (f), (g), (h), (m) Policy 2.1 – Realising the Potential of the Uxbridge Road/Crossrail Corridor (a), (c) Policy 2.10 – Residential Neighbourhoods Policy 5.2 – Protect and Enhance Metropolitan Open Land (f) Policy 5.3 – Protect and Enhance Green Corridors (a), (c) Policy 5.4 – Protect the Natural Environment – Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 6.4 – Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements
Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (February 2013)
Local Variation to London Plan policy 2.18 – Green Infrastructure: The Network of Open and Green Spaces
Page 10 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 Local Variation to London Plan policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential Local Variation to London Plan policy 3.5 – Quality and Design of Housing Developments Policy 4A – Employment Uses Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.2 – Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.10 – Urban Greening Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.11 – Green Roofs and Development Site Environs Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.12 – Flood Risk Mamagement Local Variation to London Plan policy 5.21 – Contaminated Land Local Variation to London Plan policy 6.13 – Parking Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.3 – Designing Out Crime Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.4 – Local Character Policy 7A – Operational Amenity Policy 7B – Design Amenity Policy 7C – Hertitage Policy 7D – Open Space
Unitary Development Plan 'Saved' Policies
Policy Summary 2.1 Environmental and Other Sustainability Impacts 2.5 Water - Drainage, Flood Prevention and Environment 2.7 Contaminated Land 2.10 Waste Minimisation and Management 3.1 Major Open Areas (MOAs) - Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt 3.2 Green Corridors and the Waterway network 3.8 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation 3.9 Wildlife Protection 4.1 Design of Development 4.3 Inclusive Design - Access for All 4.4 Community Safety 4.5 Landscaping, Tree Protection and Planting 4.8 Conservation Areas 4.9 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Interest Areas 4.11 Noise and Vibration 5.3 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing 5.4 Range of Dwelling Sizes and Types 5.5 Residential Design 9.1 Development, Access and Parking
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
SPG/SPD Summary SPG6 Plot Ratio SPG7 Accessible Ealing SPG8 Safer Ealing SPG10 Noise and Vibration SPG13 Garden Space
In reaching the decision to grant permission very careful consideration was given to the impact of the proposed development on flood risk, on the character and appearance of the St. Mark's and Canal Conservation Area, on the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties and on the
Page 11 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 character of the area as a whole and on the open character of an area of designated Metropolitan Open Land, balanced against the need to make optimum use of already developed sites for housing provision. The proposed development is considered, on balance, to have benefits that outweigh the policy conflicts and approval is therefore recommended.
2. The Council's Environmental Health Service has powers to control noise and disturbance during buildings works. It considers that normal and reasonable working hours for building sites are 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturday and not at all on Sunday or Public Holidays. If any activities take place on the site beyond these times which give rise to noise audible outside the site the Council is likely to take action requiring these activities to cease.
3. Prior to commencement of construction and demolition works, involving materials containing asbestos, details of mitigation measures to control the release of asbestos fibres shall be submitted to Environmental Health section for approval.
4. No bonfires shall be lit on site.
5. 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 development should be designed to 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 development is proposed to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.
6. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at a point where it leaves Thames Water pipes. The proposal should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development
7. The proposed landscaping should take account of the Canals and Rivers Trust current guidance
Conservation Area Consent P/2013/0229
Grant with Conditions
1. Time Limit
The demolition works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
REASON : To comply with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended.
Informative
Page 12 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 The decision to grant Conservation Area Consent has been taken having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, to the policies and proposals in the London Plan (2011), in the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy, in the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance:
National Planning Policies:
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)
London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London - July 2011
Policy Summary 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology
Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy - April 2012
Policy 1.1 – Spatial Vision for Ealing 2016 (h) Policy 1.2 - Delivery of the Vision for Ealing 2026 (g)
Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (February 2013)
Policy 7C – Hertitage
Unitary Development Plan 'Saved' Policies
Policy Summary 4.8 Conservation Areas
In reaching the decision to grant consent very careful consideration was given to the historic and archaeological significance of the buildings, the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the St. Mark's and Canal Conservation Area and on the character of the area as a whole. The proposed demolition is considered to be acceptable on these grounds, and it is not considered that there are any other material planning considerations that would warrant refusal of the application.
Site Description:
The application site is located toward the southern end of Green Lane, Hanwell, a predominantly residential road accessed from Lower Boston Road.
Oak Wharf occupies an area of 0.07 hectares and is accessed from Green Lane via a gated access between 10 and 11 Oak Cottages, Green Lane, which are two-storey end-of-terrace dwellings. The site is currently in use as a builders’ yard. There are currently two permanent buildings located within the application site, a two-storey brick built, pitched roof, commercial building situated in the northern corner of the site, abutting the boundary of the site with the rear garden of 10 Oak Cottages to the north-east and allotment gardens to the north-west and a single storey, brick built, mono pitched roof commercial building situated on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the rear garden area of 11 Oak Cottages. There are also two
Page 13 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 wooden sheds, two metal storage containers and various building materials, scaffolding and equipment stored on the site.
The site abuts the River Brent to the south-west and on the opposite side of the river is located Lock Cottage, 97 Green Lane, a detached two-storey residential dwelling.
The application site is located within an area identified as Metropolitan Open Land, a Nature Conservation Management Area and an Archaeological Interest Area as shown on the adopted UDP Proposals Map. The site is also located within the St. Mark’s Church and Canal Conservation Area and within a Zone 3b Flood Risk area.
Surrounding development comprises predominantly residential dwellings. To the north east, the site adjoins 10 Oak Cottages, the last unit in a terrace of 10 two-storey residential units; to the south east the site abuts 11 Oak Cottages, the end unit in a terrace of 4 two-storey residential properties; to the south west, on the opposite bank of the River Brent, the site fronts onto the former lock keepers cottage at 97 Green Lane, a two-storey detached dwelling. To the north west the site adjoins the area of the Billet Hart allotments. To the east, on the opposite side of Green Lane, lie further dwellings – Fox Villas, a pair of semi-detached houses – and beyond that are located further dwellings in Mallard Close. The Fox Public House is located to the north east of the site.
The Proposal:
This application seeks permission for the part demolition of the existing structures upon the site and for its redevelopment to provide a terrace of four three-storey three-bedroom dwellings. The proposed dwellings would be located close to the north western boundary of the site and would be located to the rear of, and run parallel to, the existing terraced dwellings at 1 to 10 Oak Cottages. The dwellings would have an integral garage, utility room/store, WC and refuse storage area at ground floor level, a living/dining/kitchen area, shower/WC and bedroom at first floor level and two bedrooms and a bathroom/WC at second floor level.
The dwellings would have a total frontage width of 19.4 metres, widening to a maximum width of 23 metres, a depth of 12.6 metres at ground level, and a maximum height of up to 8.5 metres to the ridge and 6.7 metres to the eaves.
The houses would be constructed of brickwork with timber floodable doors to the garage. The roofs of the dwellings would be completed with natural slate.
Each dwelling would be provided with a private rear garden area of between 32.5 and 42 square metres running between the units and the boundary wall to the Billets Hart allotments. The frontage area would be retained with cobble setts that would be re-used and matched where required to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the dwellings, including the provision of one visitor/disabled user parking space adjacent to the flank wall of 11 Oak Cottages.
The existing access to Green Lane would be retained to provide vehicular and pedestrian access.
Relevant Planning History
Ref: Date: Proposal: Decision:
Page 14 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 60/0600 08.08.1960 Erection of single storey addition to Refused office building
60/0609 05.09.1960 Erection of single storey addition to Approved office building
60/0614 10.10.1960 Reconstruction of wood store, Approved workshop and office
65/5800 10.12.1965 Retention of single storey addition to Approved office building
65/6099 14.01.1966 Reconstruction of wood store, Approved workshop and office
70/1464 17.02.1970 Retention of single storey addition to Approved office building
72/00e1 10.01.1972 Use of land for repair works for Not Proceeded With machinery and fork lift trucks (Established Use Certificate)
P/2010/4391 07.01.2011 Construction of 5 x 3 storey 2 Withdrawn bedroom terraced dwellings with off street car parking and associated amenity space following the demolition of existing buildings
P/2010/4393 07.01.2011 Demolition of existing buildings Withdrawn (Conservation Area Consent)
P/2011/3434 02.10.2012 Construction of five three-storey, Refused two-bedroom terraced dwellings with associated car parking and amenity areas following demolition of existing buildings
P/2011/3435 Demolition of existing single storey Pending buildings in association with the accompanying planning application for the construction of five dwellings (Conservation Area Consent)
Consultation:
Public Consultation - Summary
Neighbour Initiated on the 25/01/2013 (expired on 22/02/2013). 90 surrounding residential and Notification: commercial occupiers notified. Advertised by site notice and public notice in the local paper.
Page 15 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3
72 responses, from 55 households, were received raising the following summarised comments/points of objection:
The scale and form of the block of 4 dwellings is bulky in relation to the Victorian architecture in the immediate locality; Overlooking of the rear gardens of adjacent dwellings would be an invasion of privacy, particularly for occupiers of 11 Oak Cottages; Windows in the north west elevation of the development would directly overlook and be extremely close to the allotments and would cause an intrusion into the privacy of allotment users; The proposed external materials are unlike anything existing in the area and the contrast would not add to the character of the locality/Conservation Area; The proposed building would not complement the Green Corridor that is the River Brent nor would it sit well in the Metropolitan Open Land; The additional cars attracted to the already congested area around the Fox Public House would only serve to make matters worse as regards on-street parking and traffic movements; The allotments are an arm of agriculture and should be treated as such; Concern that the wall between the application site and allotments would be demolished in whole or in part; The re-building of the wall would be disruptive to cultivation activities and may necessitate the demolition of structures within the allotments; The proposal constitutes overdevelopment and, were it not for the access to the road, would be “back land development”. The concentration of habitable rooms at first and second floor level seems to be unjustified by the risk of flooding. The risk of flooding for the proposed houses is exactly the same as for the existing Oak Cottages; Proposal would result in the loss of an employment opportunity; Overbearing effect and overshadowing issues; Adverse visual impact on views within the Conservation Area and Brent River Park; Possible flooding issues if any part of the flood defence wall is to be demolished; Proposal should be treated as Green Belt development and is therefore inappropriate; Impact on primary school places and utilities; Loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy for adjacent houses; Increased noise nuisance; Development would not be accessible to the disabled; Submitted drawings are inaccurate in terms of height of existing buildings; Previous reasons for refusal have not been adequately addressed
Officer’s Response: The issues raised are material planning considerations that are referred to in detail within the following report.
External Consultation List Page 16 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3
Brent Object to the proposal on the grounds that the development is inappropriate for the River/Canal site in terms of materials, density and design. While there are fewer dwellings in Society comparison with earlier refused scheme, there is an increase in the number of inhabitants. The character of design and materials proposed would not be in keeping with the surrounding Victorian architecture. The development would be readily visible from several points along the Capital Ring and would be visually intrusive and would irreparably damage the openness, views and atmosphere of this carefully preserved part of the St Mark’s and Canal Conservation Area.
Officers’ Response: The site is visible from a number of locations and the design does differ from properties in the vicinity that were constructed over 100 years ago, but the scale of the proposed terrace is similar and some of the details and materials relate to those used in the local buildings. It is therefore not considered to be significantly out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area.
Canal & River Have made the following general comments: The Trust owns and manages the Trust Grand Union Canal but not the River Brent, which lies adjacent to the site. They do however have an interest in the River, as it links into the canal just south of the application site, and material from the river flows into the canal. It is noted that new tree planting is proposed along the side boundary of the site, which will hopefully help to soften the appearance of the development. However, there is concern that these trees will drop vegetation into the river, which will then flow into the canal and may require additional clearance works. The size and species of the trees should therefore be considered so as to minimise this, and they should be a species type whose roots will not pose future threat to the waterway walls. It is also requested that the Council ensures these trees are planted with adequate root protection. The towpath is a useful link for walking and cycling, and a valuable amenity resource for the local community. It is suggested that a contribution towards improving the access from Green Lane onto the towpath would help improve this resource for the benefit of future occupiers and the existing community, and help to mitigate the impact from the development.
Indicate that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission that an appropriate condition regarding the submission of landscaping details and an informative regarding the need to refer to current Trust guidance.
Officers’ Response: Noted. Appropriate condition/informative are recommended should the Committee be minded to grant permission.
Crime No comments received. Prevention Design Advisor
Ealing Civic No comments received. Society
Environment Object to the proposal because the proposed development falls into a flood risk Agency vulnerability category that is inappropriate to the Flood Zone in which the application site is located; and on the basis that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not
Page 17 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 9 of the Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework and therefore does not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development.
Officers’ Response: Noted. Whilst the concerns raised noted are acknowledged, it is considered that overall the scheme would result in benefits that would outweigh the flood risk associated with the proposal. The Environment Agency have however confirmed that they consider the development proposed is not appropriate in this location and have requested that if it recommended that permission be granted, despite their objections, that they be re-consulted outlining the reasons why the Council is minded to grant permission.
Hanwell & Consider the proposal would be extremely harmful to the St. Mark’s and Canals Canals Conservation Area, the adjoining Metropolitan Open Land (Green Belt), the Brent Conservation River Park Nature Conservation areas and the adjacent properties, particularly No’s Areas 9 and 10 Oak Cottage, Green Lane and the nearby listed Lock Cottage. Concerns Advisory are raised in respect of: loss of an employment opportunity; that the development is Panel an in-fill, back land form of development that is out of scale and character with surrounding development; loss of and damage to views within the Conservation Area and Brent River Park; flooding concerns due to partial demolition of the existing flood defence wall; density of habitable space; inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and traffic and car parking concerns.
Officers’ response: These issues are addressed in the following report.
Hanwell No comments received. Community Forum
Inland No comments received. Waterways Association
Thames Water Confirm that there are public sewers crossing or close to the development site and Utilities have indicated that Thames Water would normally refuse approval for any new buildings where works would be over the line of, or within 3 metres of, a public sewer. With regard to surface water drainage they recommend the imposition of informatives on any permission granted. They have confirmed that they raise no objection with regard to water infrastructure, subject to the imposition of an appropriate informative.
Officers’ Response: Noted. Appropriate informatives are recommended should the Committee be minded to grant permission.
The Billets Object to the proposal on the following grounds: Hart Allotment Society The scale and form of the block of 4 dwellings is bulky in relation to the Victorian architecture in the immediate locality;
Overlooking of the rear gardens of adjacent dwellings would be an invasion of privacy, particularly for occupiers of 11 Oak Cottages;
Page 18 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3
Windows in the north west elevation of the development would directly overlook and be extremely close to the allotments and would cause an intrusion into the privacy of allotment users;
The proposed external materials are unlike anything existing in the area and the contrast would not add to the character of the locality/Conservation Area;
The proposed building would not complement the Green Corridor that is the River Brent nor would it sit well in the Metropolitan Open Land;
The additional cars attracted to the already congested area around the Fox Public House would only serve to make matters worse as regards on-street parking and traffic movements;
The allotments are an arm of agriculture and should be treated as such;
Concern that the wall between the application site and allotments would be demolished in whole or in part;
The re-building of the wall would be disruptive to cultivation activities and may necessitate the demolition of structures within the allotments;
The proposal constitutes overdevelopment and, were it not for the access to the road, would be “back land development”. The concentration of habitable rooms at first and second floor level seems to be unjustified by the risk of flooding. The risk of flooding for the proposed houses is exactly the same as for the existing Oak Cottages.
Officers’ Response: The issues raised re-iterate comments made by local residents and allotment users who have written in individually and are addressed in the following report.
The Charity of Initially confirmed that they consider the application to be inappropriate for a number William of reasons comprising 1/. The form and scale of the block of four dwellings would be Hobbayne bulky in relation to the Victorian architecture in the immediate vicinity and would appear oppressive and overbearing when viewed from the far side of the River Brent; 2/. The proposal would result in overlooking of rear gardens of existing dwellings, particularly 11 Oak Cottages, and the development would appear overbearing and oppressive when viewed from the rear windows and small garden of 10 Oak Cottages and would result in loss of light to that property; 3/. The proposed windows and balconies to the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings would result in direct overlooking and loss of privacy to users of the allotments adjacent to the site; 4/. The proposal would not complement the River Brent green corridor nor would it sit well within the Metropolitan Open Space/Conservation Area; 5/. The additional vehicle movements generated by the development would exacerbate existing on-street parking and traffic movement problems; 6/. The allotments are an arm of agriculture and should be treated as such by the Local Planning Authority. Comments have also been made about the part demolition of the ‘flood defence’ wall between the application site and the allotments; that the proposal is overdevelopment and would be “back land development” if it weren’t for the access road; and that the
Page 19 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 overconcentration of habitable rooms at first and second floor level is unnecessary in flooding terms and means the scheme would not meet the Lifetime Homes Standards.
A further representation has subsequently been received stating that more information (in respect of flooding issues) is required before the application can be determined and that the scheme does not appear to satisfy the Sequential Test requirement for development in the flood plain laid down in the NPPF.
Officers’ Response: These issues are addressed in the following report.
Internal Consultation List
Ealing Access No comments received. Officer
Environmental No comments received. Services (Refuse)
Parks & No comments received. Countryside – Landscape
Planning No comments received. Policy
Regulatory No comments received. Services (PEHO)
Transport No comments received. Services
Planning Policies:
These are set out within the first Informative above.
Reasoned Justification:
Background Information:
Members may recall that a similar application, for five dwellings, was considered by the Planning Committee at their meeting held on 26 September 2012. At that meeting Members resolved to refuse permission for the residential redevelopment of the site for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would not be well related to the existing character of the St. Mark's and Canal Conservation Area, due to its design, scale and massing, and
Page 20 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the adopted London Plan (2011), policy 1.1(h) of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012), 'saved' policies 4.1, 4.8 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and the guidance contained within the Council's adopted St. Mary's and Canal Conservation Area Management Plan (2007).
2. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of existing dwellings in the vicinity of the application site. In particular the proximity of the development to Lock Cottage, 92 Green Lane, Hanwell would result in significant overlooking and loss of privacy due to the location of the living/kitchen/dining room window openings in the rear elevations of the properties within 17 metres of habitable room windows in the side elevation of Lock Cottage and the proximity of the window openings to the proposed second floor bedrooms of the dwellings to the rear gardens of existing dwellings at 8 and 9 Oak Cottages, Green Lane, would also give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy of these garden areas. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the adopted London Plan (2011), policies 1.1(g) and 2.10 of the adopted Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy (2012) and 'saved' policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
The current application seeks to address these reasons for refusal and the scheme has been amended accordingly. The main changes to the scheme refused permission last year comprise:
1. The reduction of the number of new residential units proposed from 5 to 4 dwellings; and 2. The relocation of the proposed dwellings so that they would run parallel to and behind the existing terrace of dwellings comprising 1 to 10 Oak Cottages, Green Lane, Hanwell, fronting toward Green Lane and with their rear elevations addressing the allotments to the north west of the site, rather than running parallel to the River Brent.
Principle of Development:
The principle of the development again needs to be considered in the light of the need to meet the housing supply targets laid down in the London Plan, where Ealing is required to meet a minimum ten year target, for the period 2011 to 2021, of 8,900 new homes (or 890 units per year), balanced against the zoning of the site as having a high risk of flooding and the location of the site within an area of designated Metropolitan Open Land where there is a general presumption against new residential development and located within a designated Conservation Area and in close proximity to a statutory listed building.
Current national guidance on development in areas liable to flood is provided within the National Planning Policy Framework and the accompanying Technical Guidance published in March 2012. These documents indicate that: “inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” The application site is considered to lie within a Flood Risk Zone 3a location, as identified in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, that being one with a ‘high probability’ of flooding occurring, defined as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%).
Page 21 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 The Technical Guidance to the NPPF also includes a Table providing flood risk vulnerability classifications and indicates that ‘buildings used for dwelling houses’ should be considered as ‘more vulnerable’. Table 1 of the Technical Guidance states that, in Zone 3a locations, ‘more vulnerable’ uses should only be permitted if the Exception Test is passed.
Before applying the Exception Test it is however necessary to apply the Sequential Test, the aim of which is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. The NPPF indicates that: “Development should not be…permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.”
Within the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), produced by Capita Symonds in March 2008, it is confirmed that: “River Flooding: The River Brent is the only significant source of fluvial flood risk in the London Borough of Ealing. The River Brent floodplain is well defined as the Brent passes from north to south through the London Borough of Ealing. Existing development which is located in the functional floodplain is at risk of flooding, but this is mainly limited to open space and rural or semi-rural areas. In addition to these areas, further more developed areas fall within the 1 % annual exceedence probability (AEP) flood extents, and more again when the future impact of climate change is considered.”
The SFRA also details the requirements for the carrying out of a Sequential Test and Exception Test and how these should be used in the development control process. It is confirmed that: “Where developers promote development outside of the allocated areas identified in the LDDs and within flood risk areas defined by the SFRA the onus is on the developers to:
• demonstrate compliance with PPS25 (now replaced by the NPPF and accompanying Technical Guidance) notably the Sequential Test and if appropriate the Exception Test; • provide an assessment of the impact of flooding on the development and of the development on flood risk elsewhere; and • satisfy the LPA that flood risk to the development and the impact of the development on flood risk elsewhere will be appropriately managed.”
The developers have submitted an updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), produced by Water Environment Ltd, that indicates that the most significant source of potential flooding on the site is from the River Brent, which flows along the south western boundary of the site. The Assessment indicates that the Environment Agency has provided information that the 1 in 20 year floodwater level in the River Brent is 10.66 metres AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). The Assessment also indicates that the site is protected against flooding up to this event by formal flood defence walls along the western and northern site boundaries. The potential future impact of climate change on flood water levels has been included by adding a 20% increase to the modelled flood flows. The peak flood water level on-site in a 1 in 100 year + 20% flood event is therefore estimated to be 11.63 metres AOD and this level has been used as the design standard for the development.
The Assessment indicates that overtopping of the flood defences is expected for larger flood events (1 in 50 year and larger) and the site may be simultaneously inundated by overland flooding from the north-east. Ground floor uses in the proposed development would therefore be restricted to garage and utility areas, which would be of open construction to allow for the free ingress of flood waters. Flood-proof construction would be utilised to the proposed lobby areas. All living accommodation would be provided at first floor level or above, at a minimum height of 12.30 metres AOD. It is therefore argued that, even in the event of flooding on the site, living accommodation in the proposed development would remain dry and habitable throughout.
Page 22 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 The non-floodable footprint of the proposed built development would be 42 square metres, less than the existing non-floodable footprint of built development on the site. The existing no- floodable areas would be demolished such that no loss in floodplain storage capacity would result from the proposed development.
The FRA indicates that the site is expected to remain dry and fully accessible for all events up to the 1 in 20 year flood event and during the early stages of larger flood events. Residents would be required to subscribe to a flood warning service and evacuation prior to the peak of any flood events is expected to be possible in most cases. However, it is considered that due to the design and construction of the properties, it would be safe to remain in the dwellings should the site flood.
The site is currently 92% hard standing. Following development, significant areas of permeable surfaces including garden areas and permeable paving would be provided. The FRA concludes that this would significantly reduce the peak rates and volumes of rainwater leaving the site. A rainwater harvesting scheme would also be incorporated into the development which would promote sustainable water use.
In summary the FRA argues that the proposed development would utilise a currently derelict site for residential use within an established residential area. The FRA concludes that the site would flood in a 1 in 50 year event or above but that all living areas of the site would remain dry. It is recognised that dry access may be unavailable at the peak of an extreme event, but it is argued that appropriate evacuation plans would be put in place to ensure safe evacuation of future residents and that it would be safe to remain inside the proposed dwellings for the duration of the event if necessary.
The FRA indicates that the development on the site has been designed to remain safe in the 1 in 100 year event, including an allowance for climate change, and the risks of flooding from all sources have been identified and would be addressed through appropriate mitigation and management. Similarly, it is indicated that the impact on third-party landowners as a result of the development and with regard to fluvial, tidal, surface and groundwater flooding are considered beneficial. It is therefore advocated the site satisfies the Exception Tests laid down in the NPPF and is appropriate for residential development.
At present the two permanent buildings on the site have a total built footprint of some 79.1 square metres and occupy approximately 11% of the 689 square metre site, the rest of which is almost entirely covered with impermeable materials, mostly concrete hardstanding, with the exception of a 53 square metre area in the far eastern corner which is laid to grass. The proposed development would have a total non-floodable footprint of 47 square metres. The proposal would therefore represent a reduction in built area on the site, thus potentially improving the floodplain storage capacity of the site. In addition the removal of significant areas of hardstanding and the provision of landscaping and permeable paving and the removal of significant quantities of building materials that would also displace floodwater in a major flooding event could reasonably be argued to increase the floodwater storage capacity of the site.
Whilst the proposal would not therefore meet the Sequential Test requirements, as there are clearly other housing sites available in the borough that are at lower risk of flooding, albeit that the proposed development would help to meet one of the core planning objectives detailed in the NPPF – “Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing…needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth”, it is considered that overall the proposal would not lead to an increase in flood risk and, whilst there would be a marginal
Page 23 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 increase in the numbers of people at risk in the event of a major flood, in overall terms, given that properties in Green Lane, Billet’s Hart Close, Mallard Close and St. Margaret’s Road would also be flooded in such an event, the numbers would be small. In any event the River Brent catchment at this location is approximately 155 square kilometres in area, with a time to peak of approximately 4 hours, so there would be prior warning for occupiers of potential severe flood events.
With regard to the Metropolitan Open Land designation of the site the London Plan and adopted UDP both contain policies that seek to protect such areas. London Plan policy 7.17 states that: “The strongest protection should be given to London’s Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances, giving the same level of protection as in the Green Belt” and policy 3.1 of the adopted UDP states that: “The Council will: (i) Seek to retain, improve and enhance the open character of and access to, Major Open Areas…(iii) Permit only appropriate and essential developments required for open-air recreation, nature conservation, nature education, agriculture and forestry, which conserve and enhance the Major Open Area.” The reasoned justification for policy 3.1 also includes the statement that: “Inappropriate development will not be permitted merely because the land has become unused or derelict, and infilling will not be considered a justification for development.”
The site is however currently enclosed by high boundary walls to all boundaries with the exception of the gated access to Green Lane. The site does therefore not currently have an ‘open character’ and has an extremely limited biodiversity role with only some 7 per cent of the site being grassed with the rest of the site being hard-surfaced, built on or covered by building materials/equipment. The role the site therefore plays in terms of the open nature, character and biodiversity role of Metropolitan Open Land is therefore minimal. As part of the Local Development Framework process the Council has reviewed some of the boundaries of the designated Metropolitan Open Land areas within the borough and has resolved to remove some areas subject to such designation further along St. Margaret’s Road from the MOL, where the residential development comprising Billet’s Hart Close and Mallard Close has been built (in 1995), but is currently intending to keep the application site area within the MOL as it is considered to provide a ‘link’ between the open allotment areas to the north-west and the woodland area to the south-east, albeit that the rear gardens of 13 and 14 Oak Cottages abut the River Brent between Oak Wharf and the woodland.
The application proposal seeks to provide landscaped garden areas to the rear of the new dwellings and would provide a greener frontage to the River Brent through the provision of soft landscaping, including trees along the river frontage. The proposal would also enhance the biodiversity value of the site by providing a 24 metre by 6 metre soft landscaped area between the allotments and the rear of the proposed dwellings in addition to the landscaping proposed along the river frontage of the site. Whilst the proposed development would technically constitute ‘inappropriate development’ in Metropolitan Open Land, as does the existing authorised commercial use, the scheme could actually be argued to accord with the spirit of relevant development plan policies in that it would improve and enhance the open character and biodiversity role of the site in Metropolitan Open Land terms.
Design, Scale and Siting:
The design approach seeks to provide a traditional brick, timber and slate roofed development with external materials selected to reflect the character of the existing dwellings in the Conservation Area with simple, functional elevations.
Page 24 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3
Each dwelling would have a covered floor area of between 133 and 145 square metres, with the ground floor providing non-habitable, partly floodable, accommodation of between 40 and 48 square metres, the first floor would provide between 50 and 55 square metres and the second floor between 38 and 43 square metres. The height of the proposed development would be up to 8.1 metres to ridge level and 6.4 metres to the eaves. This would compare with the existing two- storey building on the site that has a ridge height of 7.05 metres and an eaves height of 4.85 metres and the adjacent dwellings at 10 and 11 Oak Cottages that have ridge heights of 8.3 metres and 9 metres respectively and eaves heights of 6 metres and 5.9 metres respectively.
The dwellings would be located parallel to and between 5.4 metres and 7 metres from the north west boundary of the site with the existing allotments. ‘Cottage 4’ would be sited 2.5 metres from the wall alongside the River Brent and the frontage of ‘Cottage 1’ would be located 1.9 metres from the boundary with 10 Oak Cottages, although the property would abut the mutual boundary toward the rear of the property. The closest dwelling would be located 5.9 metres from the boundary with 11 Oak Cottages at its nearest point. The dwellings would be set a minimum of 18.2 metres back into the site from the carriageway of Green Lane.
Residential Density:
The development site has an area of some 0.07 hectares and a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1a (Poor). The development would provide a total of 4 residential units, each containing 4 habitable rooms. As such, the residential density of the development would equate to 57 units per hectare and 229 habitable rooms per hectare. The guidance contained within Table 3.2 (Sustainable residential quality (SRQ) density matrix (habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare)) of the London Plan (2011) indicates that in a suburban setting the appropriate range for habitable rooms per hectare on a site with a PTAL of 0 to 1 should be between 150 and 200 and, for a development with between 3.8 and 4.6 habitable rooms per unit, the appropriate range for units per hectare should be between 35 and 55 units.
The proposed residential density, in terms of both units per hectare and habitable rooms per hectare, would be above the appropriate range detailed in the London Plan. The London Plan does however indicate, in paragraph 3.28, that: “It is not appropriate to apply Table 3.2 mechanistically” and that, whilst a rigorous appreciation of housing density is “crucial to realising the optimum potential of sites”, it is “only the start of planning housing development, not the end”.
In general terms however it is considered that the residential density proposed is appropriate and would not represent an overdevelopment of the site.
Amenity of Future Occupants – indoor & outdoor (amenity space) & living standards:
The proposed dwellings would have gross internal areas of between 133 and 145 square metres, with these figures including 15 square metres of ‘floodable’ non-habitable floorspace at ground floor level. Table 3.3 of the London Plan specifies minimum space standards for new development. There is no specified standard for a three-bedroom/six person three-storey dwelling. The nearest equivalents are three-bed/six-person flats which require a minimum of 95 square metres, a four-bed/six-person two-storey house (107 square metres minimum) or a four- bed/six-person three-storey house (113 square metres minimum).
Page 25 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 Three of the dwellings (Cottages 2, 3 & 4) would be provided with a living/dining/kitchen area. Cottage 1 would have a separate kitchen. All would be served by a large north-west facing French window/door opening onto an external terrace area (in addition Cottage 4 would have a side projection to the living/dining area provided with a north-west facing and south–east facing window) and an en-suite bedroom served by either a pair of south-east facing windows (in respect of Cottage 1 & 2), a south-west facing window in the flank elevation of Cottage 3 or a north-west and south-east facing window in a projecting bay to the side of Cottage 4 at first floor level. Cottage 1 would have a separate living/dining area, served by a north-west facing French window/door opening up onto an external terrace area, and a kitchen area served by a north- west facing window. Each dwelling would have two further bedrooms with north-west and south- east facing windows and a bathroom/WC at second floor level. This standard of accommodation is considered to provide appropriate internal living standards.
In terms of outdoor private useable amenity space the submitted Design & Access Statement indicates that each dwelling would be provided with a rear garden area ranging in size from 44 to 53 square metres (to give a total of 191 square metres) and a first floor external terrace of 7 square metres (to give a total of 28 square metres). In total each dwelling would be provided with between 51 and 60 square metres of outdoor amenity space.
The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note 13: ‘Garden Space’ indicates that the Council would require a minimum provision of 50 square of private useable amenity space for a dwelling with under 5 habitable rooms.
The proposal is therefore considered to provide appropriate indoor and outdoor living/amenity space and to accord with relevant development plan requirements.
Impact on Residential Amenities of Adjoining Properties:
The properties most likely to be directly affected by the proposed development are considered to be 10 and 11 Oak Cottages, to the north-east and south-east of the application site respectively, and Lock Cottage, 97 Green Lane, located to the south-west of the site on the opposite side of the River Brent. The impact of the proposal on other dwellings in the vicinity, including 1 to 9 Oak Cottages, to the north-east, and 12 to 14 Oak Cottages, to the south of the application site, would also need to be considered. 10 Oak Cottages would be located around 2 metres from the nearest point of the frontage of the new residential dwellings, but part of the new dwelling termed Cottage 1 would abut the side boundary of the property at ground and first floor level.. The property at 10 Oak Cottages has a door opening and two window openings at ground floor level and one window opening at first floor level in the flank, south-west elevation of the property facing toward the application site. The property also has window openings in the first floor rear elevation. The door opening constitutes the access door to the property and the ground floor windows serve the lounge and dining room of the dwelling – the lounge is also served by a front window. The first floor side window serves the front bedroom which also has a window to the front elevation. The proposed windows in the front elevation of the new dwellings would not result in any direct overlooking of existing habitable room windows in 10 Oak Cottages due to the juxtaposition of the developments and the offset location of the window openings.
In respect of any potential overlooking of the rear garden area of 10 Oak Cottages the existing 3.6 metre high boundary wall along the boundary, for a length of approximately 6 metres beyond the first floor rear extension to the dwelling that was constructed in 2003, would be retained. The
Page 26 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 flank wall of the existing two-storey building that currently runs along the rear part of the boundary of 10 Oak Cottages for a distance of 12 metres would be retained at a height of 5 metres, partly forming the side wall of Cottage 1. There would be a first floor rear window provided to the kitchen of Cottage 1 and a rear terrace area outside the living/dining area of this property, but the retained 5 metre high boundary wall would prevent any overlooking. At second floor level there would be window openings to the bedroom of the new dwellings but again these would be set at 90 degrees to the mutual boundary and would again not result in direct overlooking.
The dwelling at 11 Oak Cottages has an entrance porch and door opening in the side elevation fronting onto the application site with a first floor window above. At its nearest point the new dwellings would be located 8.6 metres from the nearest part of 11 Oak Cottages. The new dwellings have been designed to try and limit potential overlooking of the rear garden of 11 Oak Cottages by providing brick reveals, rather than window openings, in the front first floor elevations of Cottages 3 and 4. These dwellings would have second floor bedroom windows to the front roofslope, but because these windows would be set into the roof, it is not considered that unacceptable direct overlooking would result. The proposed Cottage 4 would also have a window in the projecting first floor bay to the side of the dwelling that would face onto the rear garden of 11 Oak Cottages. This window would be located 6.4 metres from the boundary line at its nearest point, but would not afford views over the majority of the rear garden of 11 Oak Cottages because of the fact that it would be set back some 1.2 metres from the front wall of the new dwelling. It is not therefore considered that any overlooking or loss of privacy would be experienced by the occupiers of 11 Oak Cottages as a result of the proposed development.
Lock Cottage, 97 Green Lane, is located some 12.5 metres from the application site on the opposite side of the River Brent. The dwelling has a glazed conservatory along its rear, north- east, ground floor elevation with a bedroom window at first floor level. The development as now proposed would have no window openings in the flank elevation of the nearest dwelling to Lock Cottage. There would be one window at first floor level to the side elevation of Cottage 3 facing toward Lock Cottage, but this would be located 21 metres from Lock Cottage and, because of the presence of Cottage 4, would not provide a line of sight to the conservatory or bedroom window of that dwelling. Cottage 4 would also be provided with a first floor rear balcony, the side of which would face toward the rear garden of Lock Cottage. However, this garden area is completely screened by coniferous tree planting which would preclude any views. In addition the terrace would be inset from the side wall of Cottage 4 by 1.8 metres which would further restrict visibility toward Lock Cottage. It is not therefore considered that the proposed development would have any direct impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of Lock Cottage. Whilst views from the side garden area of Cottage 4 would be available, this would be no different than those views available from 11 to 14 Oak Cottages.
In terms of the impact on other adjacent properties the location of the development would be such that no direct impact should result. Clearly the development would be visible from other dwellings from rear windows and garden areas, but would not have a significantly greater impact than the existing two-storey building on the site in views from 1 to 10 Oak Cottages – the built development would run for the same 12 metre distance along the boundary as the existing structure, but would be located 6 metres further forward. With regard to views from 11 to 14 Oak Cottages again the new development would be visible but its impact needs to be balanced against the visual impact of the existing, authorised, use of the site as a builders’ yard and would not, it is considered, have a detrimental impact.
Page 27 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 Other issues raised by local residents relate to potential car parking issues and this issue is discussed in the Car Parking, Access and Traffic section below.
On balance, it is not considered that the proposed development would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity and would comply with the requirements of relevant development plan policies.
Impact on Heritage Assets:
In terms of possible impact on heritage assets, the application site lies within the St. Mark’s and Canal Conservation Area. Lock Cottage, opposite the application site, is a Grade II listed building and the Hanwell Flight of Locks are a Scheduled Ancient Monument.
The application site is located toward the eastern end of the St. Mark’s and Canal Conservation Area which was first designated in 1982 and extended to include part of the St. Bernard’s Hospital site in 1991. The site is located within Sub Area 2: River Brent from Hanwell Bridge to the Canal as identified within the St. Mark’s and Canal Conservation Area Character Appraisal produced in March 2007 which is described as follows: “The main interest of the second sub- area is the tranquil and unspoiled character of the short stretch of the River Brent, despite in parts being visually disturbed by modern developments. The way the river curves adds to the heightened sense of interest, complexity and scale. But as it moves beyond the Wharncliffe Viaduct and Hanwell Bridge, the new hospital is a prominent feature that dominates the valley and eliminates the axial dynamism of the river curving around this part of Hanwell. FitzHerbert Walk running along the western bank of the River Brent is the link between this part of the CA with the Flight of Locks on the southern side, thus offering the opportunity to enjoy two of the most pleasantly constructed and natural environments of the Brent River Park and St. Marks and Canal CA. Along the FitzHerbert footpath it is possible to gain visual access to Billet Hart allotments that occupy a good portion of the eastern bank of the Brent. Further south, the walk leads to the attractive Fox public house neighbourhood.
The Fox public house (Locally Listed) originally built in 1820 has strong connotations for Hanwell’s inhabitants. The pub – initially called The Fox and Goose – was still used as the meeting place for the local fox hunt at the turn of the 20th century. As it appears now the attractive yellow brick building with detailing in red brick creates visual interest and diversity in this section of the CA where 14 early cottages are nicely arranged around it. The two-storey cottages in yellow bricks were originally known as Oak Cottages and were built sometime prior to 1875 which makes them probably amongst the earliest in the area. Some of the cottages have been rendered and so create a pleasant contrast with the yellow brick surfaces of the remaining unrendered ones. The cottages bear clear signs of alterations and joinery replacements but in general those changes have been executed in a sensitive manner reflecting the traditional context.”
The proposed development would replace the existing non-conforming builder’s yard use of the site with a residential development. The existing unsightly external storage of builder’s material, plant and machinery would be removed and replaced with residential dwellings and landscaped garden areas more reflective of surrounding development. The proposed dwellings would be constructed from traditional materials reflective of the brick and slate construction of the neighbouring Victorian dwellings. External elevations would be completed in brickwork and timber doors and windows would be utilised, including for the garage doors. The design of the
Page 28 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 proposed development, in its amended form, would, it is considered, complement the local architectural character as required by relevant development plan policies.
The existing two-storey brick structure is reflective of the historical commercial usage of this riverside site, but the building itself is of no particular architectural or historic merit and has been extensively altered with modern doors and windows and an external staircase. The original structure would appear to date from around 1900 (it is shown on the 1910 Ordnance Survey map but not on the map from 1890), post-dating by some years the Oak Cottages development. Its loss is therefore considered to be acceptable given that the building is not statutory or locally listed.
It is also not considered that the proposed development would have any adverse impact on the character or setting of Lock Cottage, given the presence of the River Brent between the two sites.
The scheme is therefore considered to be likely to enhance the character of the conservation area and should not adversely affect any existing heritage assets.
Car Parking, Access and Traffic:
The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular and pedestrian access to the site from Green Lane. Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with an integral garage and a disabled standard parking space would be provided adjacent to the flank wall of 11 Oak Cottages, around between 8 and 16 metres from the entrances to the dwellings. A shared surface access would be provided into the site and this would have a sufficient width to allow vehicles to turn within the site so that they could enter and leave in a forward gear. Each dwelling would also have extensive non-habitable ground floor areas to provide secure cycle storage. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 1a (poor). Bus stops are present in Lower Boston Road and Uxbridge Road (Half Acre Road) which are located 680 metres and 750 metres from the application site respectively. Hanwell Railway Station is a 20-minute (1.3 kilometres) walk from the site. Traffic generation from the proposed residential units would, it is considered, be less disruptive than that likely to be associated with the intensive use of the site as a builders’ yard, in terms of both the frequency and type of commercial vehicle likely to be used. The proposal should not therefore give rise to any highway safety issues and would meet current car parking standards.
Accessibility:
The site is relatively level and would have level accesses to the front of all the dwellings.
Given the need to have a floodable void area at ground floor level, the dwellings have no habitable accommodation at ground floor, but the staircases have the capacity to be fitted with stair lifts or a hoist could be provided from first floor level if required in future. A disabled standard car parking space would also be provided on site.
Page 29 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with relevant accessibility requirements.
Refuse & Recycling:
The proposal includes refuse storage areas within the ground floor garage accommodation with capacity to contain both household and recyclable waste. The proposed provision is considered to accord with relevant development plan policies.
Energy Efficiency/Sustainability:
The development has been designed to achieve appropriate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through the principles of making the maximum use of natural light by way of the orientation of the dwellings; by utilising passive ventilation; by building to high insulation levels; and via positive thermal massing.
The proposal is therefore considered to represent a sustainable development of the site.
Biodiversity:
The site currently provides no biodiversity value, being laid predominantly to hardstanding with only limited areas of self-sown vegetation. The proposal would introduce larger areas of soft landscaping that would provide opportunities to encourage wildlife, particularly birds and bats. Whilst it would not be possible to provide an open ‘corridor’ along the canal, due to the need to retain the high boundary walls for flood defence reasons, it is proposed to provide tree planting along the riverside.
The proposal is therefore considered to represent a significant improvement in biodiversity terms over the current situation and to accord with relevant development plan policies.
Loss of Employment Land:
The site has a history of commercial use, but is located within a principally residential area and has a very poor Public Transport Accessibility Level. The site is not subject to any restrictive employment use designations and is considered to constitute a non-conforming use that is at odds with the residential nature of surrounding development. The level of employment generated by the existing builders yard use is very low, with only occasional visits by employees based at other sites within the borough. As such, the site is not considered to constitute an appropriate employment location and its loss from employment use would not raise any concerns in employment policy terms.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):
The development would be liable to pay the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy of £35 per square metre of gross internal floorspace created. This would amount to a charge of £19,600 for this scheme.
Conclusion:
Page 30 of 31
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item: 2 and 3 Whilst the proposed development clearly represents a ‘departure’ from the requirements of the development plan for the area, both in terms of policy in respect of flooding and Metropolitan Open Land, it is considered that, on balance, the benefits of the redevelopment of this already developed site for residential purposes outweighs the potential harm to flood risk and the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land.
The scheme is not referable to either the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London as although it is a ‘departure’ it does not constitute a ‘major’ development, that being one that exceeds 10 residential units, nor is the site area or amount of floorspace proposed sufficient to require referral.
As such, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Human Rights Act:
In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
Page 31 of 31
6 Stanley Gardens Acton W3 Schedule Item No. 04
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 521066 E 180005 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 6 Stanley Gardens Acton W3 Schedule Item No. 04
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 521066 E 180005 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
Ref : PP/2013/1022
Address: 6 STANLEY GARDENS ACTON W3 7SZ
Ward: Southfield
Proposal: Change of use from Class B1(a) (offices) to Class D1 (non-residential institutions) to create integrated drug and alcohol recovery centre.
Drawing numbers: Site Location Plan and plans under ref: existing ground, first and second CM/SG/E/01 and proposed ground, first and second floor plans CM/SG/P/01, Access Statement, Covering Letter (Received 18/03/2013).
Type of Application: Full Application
Application Received: 18/03/2013 Revised:
Report by: Andrew Vaughan Executive Summary:
Recommendation: Grant with Conditions
This proposal is for a change of use from Use class B1 (Offices) to Class D1 (Non- residential institution) to create an integrated drug and alcohol recovery centre. The premises would be occupied by RISE (Recovery Intervention Service Ealing). It is proposed to use the space to offer a range of services including one to one counseling, group counselling and aftercare integration training.
This is a ‘departure’ planning application as the intended use is not in accordance with the adopted development plan in force in the area where the application is being made as there is no provision for D1 (non-residential institution) uses in MEL (Major Employment Location) / LSIS (Local Strategic Industrial Sites).
It is considered that an exception to normal planning policy could be supported in this instance as there are a variety of D1 (Non-residential institution) uses in the local area and due to the nature of the proposed use and the reversible changes proposed to the interior of the unit, it is not considered that the proposed D1 use, would prejudice the future use of the premises for employment use, nor would it prejudice any of the adjoining uses within the Major Employment Location in accordance with the aims and
Page 1 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04 objectives of policy 1.1 (c_ in the adopted Ealing Development strategy, policy 6.4 of the Ealing Unitary Development Plan and policy 4.4 in the adopted London Plan (2011).
The National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012 and whereas this does not change the status of relevant development plan policies at paragraph 22 it addresses the reasonable prospect of sites being used for their allocated uses. Whereas the main thrust of development plan policies is to protect use class B (Business uses) and thus the employment function of the designated employment area as a whole, due to its reversible nature the proposed use would not entail the permanent loss of a business use or floor space. It is considered that the proposed D1 use shares many complementary components to the existing office use and there are several other material considerations which are considered to support the application, despite conflict with a strict interpretation of development plan policies.
Views have been expressed about the fear of crime and increased anti-social behaviour resulting in community fracture arising from the proposal. This use can only be assessed in land use planning terms and the facility would need to be vetted by Social Services and the appropriate authorities in this respect, subsequent to any approval of planning permission.
It is considered that the proposed use in this location is acceptable in planning terms, the need for the use has been demonstrated and a D1 (Non-Residential Institution) is considered to be compatible with the character of the area and to share several of the attributes of the office use it would replace and is in a reasonable location for accessibility to public transport. The premises would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for the intended purpose and there should be no significant detrimental harm caused to the amenities of the neighbouring residents. There is also adequate room for the suitable provision for refuse and parking. Recommendation:
Grant with Conditions
Conditions/Reasons:
Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission
1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Approved Plans
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title number CM/SG/P/01 Proposed Ground, First and Second Floor Plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.
Page 2 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.
Green Travel Plans
3. Prior to the first operation of the use hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed Travel Plan shall be continuously monitored and operated by the existing and future occupiers in perpetuity.
Reason: In order to promote sustainable transport modes and encourage the use of alternatives to car travel in accordance with policy 9.1 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004), and policy 1.1 (j) of the Ealing Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012) and Policy 6.1 of the adopted London Plan (2011).
Hours of Use/Operation
4. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers except between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 on Mondays to Fridays 08:00 -18:00 Saturdays and not at anytime on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties and in accordance with policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 10, policy 1.1 (e), (f), (j) of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy 7A of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), and policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Use Restriction
5. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, or any subsequent order revoking and reenacting that Order with or without modification, the premises shall only be used as an integrated drug and alcohol recovery centre and associated ancillary uses within use class D1 and shall be used for no other purpose within this or any other use class as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (As Amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to retain control over the nature of the use in the interests of the Council’s employment policies, highway safety and the impact on the general amenity of the area. All in accordance with policies 4.1, 4.11 and 6.4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 10, policy 1.1 (c ) (f) and 1.2 (b) of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy 7A of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), and policies 6.1 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Page 3 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
Informatives
The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, the adopted Ealing Development (core) Strategy (2012), the draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and the adopted London Plan (2011) and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance: NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
National Planning Policy Framework 1. Building a strong, competitive economy. 4. Promoting sustainable transport. 8. Promoting healthy communitites
London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (July 2011):
2.6 Outer London: Vision and Strategy 2.7 Outer London: Outer London: Economy 2.8 Outer London: Transport 3.1 Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All 3.2 Improving Health and Addressing Health Inequalities 3.16 Protection and Enhancment of Social Infrastructure 3.17 Health and Social Care Facilities 4.1 Developing London's Economy 4.4 Managing Industrial Land and Premises 4.12 Improving Opportunities for All 5.16 Waste Self Sufficiency 6.1 Strategic Approach 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity 6.9 Cycling 6.10 Walking 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London's Neighbourhoods and Communities 7.2 An Inclusive Environment 7.3 Designing Out Crime 7.4 Local Character 7.13 Safety, Security and Resilience to Emergency 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes 8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy
Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004): 2.10 Waste Minimisation and Management 4.1 Design of Development 4.3 Inclusive Design - Access for all 4.4 Community Safety 4.11 Noise and Vibration Page 4 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
6.4 Industry and Warehousing in Major Employment Locations 6.5 Ancillary Development in Major Employment Locations 9.1 Development, Access and Parking 9.5 Walking and Streetscape 9.7 Accessible transport
Supplementary Planning Document/Guidance:
SPG7 Accessible Ealing SPG8 Safer Ealing SPG10 Noise & Vibration
Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2012)
1.1 Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j) 1.2 Delivery of the Vision for Ealing (d) 6.4 Planning Obligations and Legal Agreements
Draft Ealing Development Management - Development Plan Document (version February 2013)
Ealing Local Variation to LP policy 6.13 Parking Ealing Local Variation to LP policy 7.4 Local Character Policy 4A Employment Uses Policy 7A Operational Amenity
In reaching the decision to grant consent, specific consideration was given to the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring uses, the appearance and character of the property and the area as a whole and the introduction of a D1 (non- residential institution) into an industrail estate, given the nature of this use. The proposal is considered overall acceptable on these grounds, and is also considered to comply with the relevant policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004), Ealing Core Strategy (2012), Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). It is not considered that there are any other material considerations in this case that would warrant a refusal of the application.
2. The Council's Environmental Health Service has powers to control noise and disturbance during buildings works. It considers that normal and reasonable working hours for building sites are 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday, from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturday and not at all on Sunday or Public Holidays. If any activities take place on the site beyond these times which give rise to noise audible outside the site the Council is likely to take action requiring these activities to cease.
3. To assist applicants in a positive manner, the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, and offers and encourages a comprehensive pre- application advice service, all of which is available on the Council's website and outlined Page 5 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04 in a 24 hours automated telephone system.
The scheme complied with policy and guidance. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision proactively in accordance with requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Site Description:
The application property is a three-storey building in Stanley Gardens in the centre of the Acton Park Industrial Estate which forms part of an MEL (Major Employment Location) as defined by the Proposal map accompanying the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Locally Significant Industrial site (LSIS) as defined on the Proposal map to the Local Plan. The building is currently being used as an office (Use Class B1) by the Groundwork Trust.
The site is located close to the junction with The Vale, which is served by a number of major bus routes (buses Nos. 207, 607 and 266). The site has a PTAL (Public transport accessibility Level) of 3, which is moderate and has a floor area of 484 square metres.
Immediately to the North is Gregory House a four storey mixed use building comprising B1 a (office) at ground-floor level, with 4 one bed, 5 2-bed (C3) and 2 live work units above, consented in 2002. On the Vale frontage opposite Gregory House is a B1 (a) serviced office block (191 the Vale) marketed by Jones LangLasalle and CBRE) and directly to the east of this also fronting The Vale is Kiss Gym (D2). Next door to Kiss Gyms is the 14 Stanley Gardens - Vale Business centre (B1).
To the west is the Acton Park Industrial Estate an area of MEL/LSIS accessed from Eastman Road from the Vale and on the east side of Stanley Gardens (separated by pallisade fencing) an established industrial site used for B1c, B2 and B8 purposes. The flaghip occupier is Access Storage. Other occupiers include Allan Reeder, Namco, Clearspring, Gallowglass ltd, Jack Morton, PTS, Wagamama distribution, Reeds and Pirtek. The estate appears exclusively for B1c , B2 and B8.
Businesses with Acton Park Industrial estate operates on a 24-hour basis and is accessed from a secure barrier from Eastman Road. Beyond this is a variety of other B1, B2 and B8 uses, including Nijjar Dairies (B2), Bombay Duck (Homeware distributors) and a sui generis petrol filling station at the entrance of The Vale.
Immediately to the south is 8 Stanley Gardens , which was last used for employment purposes and beyond this 10 Stanley Gardens a preparatory school (Oneworld Preparatory school) a D1 (Non-Residential Institution) Use. To the east is the long established Allied Industrial Estate an area of MEL (Major Employment Location)/LSIS (Locally Strategic Industrial Site) serviced from Allied Way, via Larden Road to the east
Page 6 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04 of Stanley Gardens. Further along the Vale is an industrial area, consisting of B1, B2 and B8 type uses.
The Proposal:
Change of use from Class B1 (Business) to Class D1 (non-residential institution) to create an integrated drug and alcohol recovery centre. The premises would be occupied by RISE (Recovery Intervention Service Ealing). It is proposed to use the space to offer a range of services including one to one counselling, group counselling and aftercare integration training.
Relevant Planning History There is no planning history for 6 Stanley Gardens. However the following uses and planning history is noted in the vicinity of the site, which are of interest:
Gregory House a four storey mixed use building comprising B1 a (office) at ground-floor level, with 4 one bed, 5 2-bed (C3) and 2 live work units above, consented in 2002 (3822/3).
Tech West House – 4-14 Stanley Gardens,W3 0UE - Planning permission ref: PP/2011/0632 – change of ground floor of building from B1 use to B1 and D1 use (for use as a higher education establishment)
60 Stanley Gardens, W3 – Use of school for the teaching of music (use class D1) (Lawful Development Certificate for Existing use)
64-66 & 70 Stanley Gardens, W3 – P/2004/4766 - New entrance doorway to workshop frontage.
1-7 Bradford Road, W3 – LDC P/2010/1168 – Use of school for the teaching of music (use clad D1) (Lawful Development Certificate for existing use)
P/2007/1926 - Use as a high tech resource/study centre, museum of Asian music, housing digital archives, interactive multi-media displays, lecture/workshop space together with ancillary administrative office.
Acton Park – P/2001/1732 – External transformer to north and west elevation of industrial building.
19 Acton Park Estate, W3 - P/2000/2806 – Change of use from B8 (Warehouse) to B1c or B2 or B8 (light industrial or warehousing) (Flexible Consent)
3 Warple Way, W3 - P/2006/2618 – External alteration to existing office and showroom building including new front door, new stairs and enclosure and use of part of roof ad as terrace and replacement of 8 rooflights.
Page 7 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
27-35 Warple Way, W3 – P/2005/0854 – D1 Education centre.
Consultation:
Public Neighbour notification Yes Press Notice Yes Site Yes Notice Public: 21 neighbouring properties were consulted initially on the 25/03/2013
The original consultation period expired 15/04/2013. The application was re- advertised to a wider audience on the 30/05/2013 and letters sent to 129 surrounding occupiers/uses. The application was advertised as a departure planning application and by site and press notice. The second round of consultation expired on the 20/06/2013.
7 responses were received to the initial consultation and at the time of writing this report a further 6 consultation responses had been received at the time of finalising this report. The majority of representations received to the second consultation were from residents who had also objected to the original planning application and which reflected the original concerns raised. The main concerns could be summarised as; -
- Not the right location for the proposed use, alternative locations should be considered - Unsuitable location for such a unit in close proximity to a preparatory school - Use would significantly increase crime - Safety of area would be compromised - Change the environment in an adverse manner/destroy local community - Detrimental impact upon road safety and local traffic conditions - Noise and disturbance
Officer’s Response: Noise on the site should be considered in the context of its location on an industrial estate and any alternative commercial and the existing office use. The Council’s Regulatory Service has raised no objection to the proposal. This service has powers to control noise and disturbance in the event that these arise from the development. The operating hours are stipulated as 08:00-20:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00-18:00 on Saturdays. It has been advised that normal operating hours for the centre would be from 08:00-18:00, but to enable additional counselling sessions on two early evenings per week. A condition is recommended restricting hours of operation as per the terms of the application.
Provision for 10 car parking spaces is available on-site. such is the nature of the use it is likely that car use by visitors would in fact be very low. Sufficient parking provision for the intended use is considered to be available on the site and the traffic would not be significant in this industrial estate.
This is a facility for a vulnerable user group, within a predominantly commercial area. Page 8 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
There is no evidence to support the view that such a facility would result in a direct increase of crime or anti-social behaviour in the area. Indeed the users of the facility would themselves be vulnerable people in need and would benefit from the continuous support of professionals.
It is not considered that it would be reasonable to contend that a facility providing drug treatment and rehabilitation support, supported by professionals would result in increased criminality in the area. The day to day management of the facility would have to be vetted by the appropriate public authorities.
Acton like most areas of London is populated by a diverse population from a diverse socio-economic background. Drugs and alcohol addiction is a social reality and is evident in many areas. The provision of a treatment centre to specifically address this social issue is not considered likely to increase problems in this regard. It is not considered that significant problems for immediate neighbours would result from this proposal.
Any building with a D1 (Non-residential institution) use could be utilised for the proposed use without requiring planning permission and there are several buildings in this area established for D1 (Non-residential) use, albeit currently in occupation. There are a variety of units being advertised for D1 uses in the neighbouring block and the preparatory school is also a D1 use. For clarity D1 (non-residential institutions), cover the following uses, but not including any residential use. This includes a) for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner, b) as a créche, day nursery or day centre, c) for the provision of education d) for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire), e) as a museum, f) as a public library or public reading room, g) as a public hall or exhibition hall, h) for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction.
The proposed use within this industrial estate is considered acceptable as it would have a limited impact upon surrounding uses and should not materially affect the independent school use in the locality.
Vale Residents Association – On behalf of 9 residents the association have commented that the area is blighted by parking problems and high crime. Concerned that the siting of a charity/business would attract high traffic volumes.
Response: Noted Concerns addressed above and also in the main body of the report.
Internal Consultation List
Page 9 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
Planning The application site is located in The Vale Industrial Estate which Policy is designated as a Locally Significant Industrial Site in the Development (Core) Strategy, and is shown as such on the Policies Map. However, it should be noted that the existing use does not conform to this site designation and is currently being used as office space (B1a) with a non-residential use component (D1).
Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states that: “Planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land and buildings should be treated on their merits…” the Council has recently reviewed its site allocations and this process was informed by an Employment Land Review (ELR)(published September 2010) – see in particular the summary provided at Appendix 1, Site 31.
Policy 1.2(b) of the adopted Development Strategy sets out the approach to development on Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) and Strategic Industrial Sites (SIL), namely that these sites are protected for general industrial/warehousing and industrial type activities, in line with London Plan Policies 2.17 (SIL) and 4.4 (Managing Industrial Land and Premises). The purpose of SIL/LSIS designations is to ensure that we have a sufficient reserve of land and premises to meet existing and future needs for industrial uses in the borough.
Paragraph 4.9 of the Mayor’s Land for Industry and Transport SPG accords LSISs the same degree of strategic protection as SILs. Thus there is little or no scope to introduce non industrial/warehousing type uses in such locations as this would be counter to the statutory Development Plan and could compromise the integrity and effectiveness of the LSIS in accommodating industrial type activities.
The premises do not lend themselves easily to conversion to a general industrial / warehousing type activity but would support ancillary functions such as office space. Indeed, the ELR notes an “equal split between B1 business centres and industrial distribution and workshop units.” The proposal also offers the potential to retain/create significant new employment opportunities and could create synergies with existing/complementary uses within the immediate vicinity of the Page 10 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
site.
Response: Noted. Given the nature of surrounding uses, it is not considered that the proposed use as would undermine the function of other buildings in the industrial area and it is considered to be an appropriate alternative use in policy terms.
Regulatory No objection. Services (Waste)
Transport Raise no objection, subject to a travel plan and capping the Services number of staff and visitors, which is unlikely to exceed 30 staff and visitors at any one time. Operating hours 10-8pm Monday to Saturday.
Response: Noted. Capping overall numbers would be overly onerous, considered to be unnecessary and would be unenforceable so by definition would not meet the tests of Circular 5/05. An appropriate Travel Plan condition is also recommended. Adequate parking and cycle space provision for the intended use is available on site and there is unrestricted parking in the immediate vicinity. The use would predominantly operate during daytime hours.
Regulatory (Pollution and technical team) Services The Eproposed centre is within a commercial/industrial area and is thereforen likely to be subjected to noise from the surrounding use. This vmay impact on the use of rooms for therapy and clinical consultations.. A condition is recommended to mitigate noise that wouldH be emitted from the use. e Response:a Noted. However on a site visit no particular noisy uses werel noted in the general vicinity, with predominantly B1 a (Offices)t and other D1 (non-residential Institution) uses including a schoolh and live/work residential most apparent. The proposed D1 (non -residential) use is considered to have many of the attributes( of the B1(a) existing office use and the suggested conditionE is considered overly onerous in the context of the existingn site and not necessary to make the development acceptablev in planning terms.
Social Sevices Have expressed support for this proposal. Substance Misuse Team Page 11 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
Crime Prevention No comments received. Officer - Metropolitan Police
Planning Policies:
(See Informative)
Reasoned Justification:
Departure This is a ‘departure’ application. A departure application is not in accordance with, or 'departs from', the development plan in force. There is no provision for D1 (non- residential institution) uses in MEL/LSIS. In April 2009 a new circular and direction, The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, providing guidance on which applications local authorities must notify the Secretary of State of came into force. This direction removed the need for local authorities to inform the Secretary of State if they intend to approve a departure application. The 2009 Direction does still require local planning authorities to notify the Secretary of State before approving certain types of very significant development. Local planning authorities must notify the Secretary of State if they intend to approve a planning application above a certain size limit for the following types of development.
in the Green Belt
of a large retail, office or leisure use outside a town centre
in, or affecting the setting of, a World Heritage Site
leading to the loss of a playing field
in a flood risk area. . All departure applications have to be publicised locally. When a local authority receives a departure application, it must:
display a notice at the development site for at least 21 days
place an advertisement in the local newspaper The key issues raised by this application are:
1. The principle of the use of the building 2. Highway, Parking and Access Issues
Page 12 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
3. Access, internal layout and Security are also considered
The Principle of the use:
The property is located within the Acton Park Estate, designated as a Major Employment Location (MEL) on the UDP Proposals Map. UDP Policy 6.4 ‘Industry and Warehousing in Major Employment Locations’ applies, with industry the preferred use in MELs. It indicates that industry is the preferred use in such localities, with other employment uses potentially being acceptable subject to access and amenity considerations.
Policies 1.2b of the Ealing Development (Core) Strategy and 4.4 of the adopted London Plan 2011, seeks to ensure that there is a sufficient stock of employment land designated in the borough. Any loss must be managed through the plan making process. The Council's Employment Land Review (ELR) (2010) establishes where such releases may be acceptable. With regard to this part of the MEL, the ELR notes that this area provides a mixture of well-maintained distribution, warehouse and office units with vacancy levels typical for such an estate. Accordingly it recommends the retention of the existing employment status of the site.
The Council’s Development (Core) Strategy sets the key strategic spatial vision for the Borough until 2026. The retention of and viability of the industrial uses is a key theme within the Council’s strategic planning policy. Policy 1.1(c) of this document encourages the promotion of business and enterprise by securing the stock of employment land. The Neighbourhood Profile for Acton, Appendix Two, states that “Acton Vale and South Acton will be maintained as Major Employment Locations”.
As part of Development Sites DPD the Council are proposing to replace the MEL designation with two new designations - Strategic Industrial Locations and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS). The site itself forms part of the Vale industrial area and is to be redesignated as an LSIS.
Therefore, the use is not generally supported within the relevant local and regional plans, as follows:
(1) Ealing’s Development Strategy DPD and associated Policies Map (adopted April 2012) at Policy 1.2(b) sets out the approach to development on Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) and Strategic Industrial Sites (SIL), namely that these sites are protected for general industrial/warehousing and industrial type activities, in line with London Plan Policies 2.17 (SIL) and 4.4 (Managing Industrial Land and Premises).
(2) The application site 6 Stanley Gardens falls within The Vale LSIS, which is not identified in the Development Sites DPD for transfer to mixed use development over the plan period. As per paragraph 4.9 of the Mayor’s Land for Industry and Transport SPG (adopted September 2012), LSISs are accorded the same degree of strategic protection as SILs.
Page 13 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
However, it is acknowledged that the premises is not suitable for alternative ‘B’ type uses (e.g B2 General Industrial or B8 Storage and Distribution) other than B1 a (offices) and as the application has been advertised as a departure it is considered that an exception to normal planning policy could be supported in this instance. There are a variety of D1 (non-residential institution) uses in the local area and due to the nature of the proposed use and the reversible changes proposed to the interior of the unit, it is not considered that the proposed use, would prejudice the future use of the premises for B1(a) Use, nor would it prejudice any of the adjoining uses within the Major Employment Location in accordance with the aims and objectives of UDP policy 6.4.
The National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012 document does not change the status of relevant development plan policies. However, does address whether there is a reasonable prospect of sites being used for their allocated uses. Whereas the main thrust of development plan policies is to protect use class B (business uses) and thus the employment function of the designated employment area as a whole, due to its reversible nature the proposed use would not necessarily entail the permanent loss of a business use or floor space. It is considered that on balance that the proposed D1 use shares many complementary components to the existing office use and there are several other material considerations which are considered to support the application, notably:
It would also provide a significant number of both full and part-time jobs, a benefit which both national and local policies support. 20 full-time jobs and 10 part-time jobs would be created. (A total of 25 full-time equivalent). The proposed use would provide an element of training There is no evidence or reason why it would conflict in any way with, or compromise the day to day operations of any surrounding or nearby uses There are only limited residential properties in the area and the proposal does not raise any significant residential amenity concerns, such as might arise in potential alternative locations Further, the layout and design of the unit is considered appropriate for the proposed use and can easily be adapted for this purpose. The proposal would ensure that the unit is occupied and the proposed use is therefore considered acceptable in principle.
There are considered to be number of material considerations which support the proposed use, despite some degree of conflict with a strict interpretation of development plan policies.
In terms of an overall planning balance members should also be mindful of the proposal in light of guidance with the NPPF (The Framework), a strand of which is that development that is sustainable should go ahead, identifying three dimensions to sustainable development, economic, social and environmental.
The first of these requires the planning system to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The proposed job creation (25 full-time
Page 14 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04 equivalent) and training opportunities associated with the facility would provide economic benefits. In addition and on the second point the proposed scheme would serve a clear social role as it would provide an accessible local service that would reflect the needs of the community and thereby support social well-being. This would be enhanced by the training provision. The scheme would support the aims of the London Plan policies 3.1, 3.16, 3.17 and 4.12.
Finally by providing a use in demand and adapting an existing building the proposal serves a sustainable role.
Taking account of these, it is concluded that significant benefits would flow from this proposal, and that these would outweigh any disbenefits arising from the conflict with the development plan. The proposal is considered to represent sustainable development and therefore should be allowed to proceed.
Whereas the concerns of some residents is noted in terms of the nature of the use and concerns expressed about crime, anti-social behavior it must also be stressed that there is a variety of premises in the local area already benefiting from a non-residential D1 use (albeit occupied) that could if they became vacant be adapted for the proposed use without requiring planning permission. For example any school, educational building, clinic, surgery, public or community building. This alone is considered sufficient reason to discount the argument in relation to the inappropriateness of the use due to social concerns in this vicinity, given that there are potential opportunities to introduce the use within an alternative premises in close proximity. The local planning authority can only consider this use as it would any other use in the same D1 (non-residential institution) class. The point being that if the occupier could find a building with an established D1 use elsewhere in the local area, for example a school or educational building, they could move in and adapt the premises for their needs without requiring planning permission.
It is therefore concluded that the proposal also offers the potential to both retain and create significant new employment opportunities, contains many similarities with the existing B1(a) office and that the benefits far outweigh any perceived problems that would arise.
Highway, Parking & Access
The site has moderate access to public transport and has a PTAL 3 rating. UDP policy 9.1 ‘Development, Access and Parking’ provides a suite of policies to assess the transport impact of development proposals requiring development to ensure traffic safety. On-site parking provision for 10 car parking spaces would exceed Unitary Development Plan and London Plan standards. 3 bicycle parking spaces were noted on a site visit and parking for upto 10 vehicles is available on site, which would more than satisfy projected demand for a D1 Use No objections are raised on highway, parking & access grounds.
Page 15 of 16
Planning Committee 03/0/7/2013 Schedule Item 04
Internal Arrangements, Disabled Access and Security Issues
The proposal is for a change of use so no external alterations are proposed. Access to the property would be through the main front door and the building would be suitable for disabled access, with all doors DDA compliant. The reception would be permanently staffed
All CRI (safer communities, healthier lives) run premises benefit from security installations. This includes CCTV, Panic Alarms.
Conclusion
On balance, it is considered that the proposed D1 (Non-residential institution) would be acceptable at this location in a mixed but predominantly commercial area and it would satisfy a demand for such a facility in the locality.
Sufficient off street car and cycle parking is available to serve the use, which would create significant new employment opportunities and which it is considered contains many similarities with the existing B1(a) office use. As such approval is recommended, subject to appropriate conditions,
Human Rights Act:
In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
Page 16 of 16
Beaumont, Ealing Road, Northolt Schedule Item No. 05
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 513036 E 184015 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Beaumont, Ealing Road, Northolt Schedule Item No. 05
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 513036 E 184015 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05
Ref: PP/2013/1043
Address: BEAUMONT, EALING ROAD, NORTHOLT, UB5 6AD
Ward: Northolt Mandeville
Proposal: Two storey side and part two storey rear extension, part single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing garage and kitchen extension to side)
Drawing numbers: BU 1-2B and BU 2-2B (Received 05/06/2013)
Type of Application: Full Application
Application Received: 11/04/2013 Revised: 05/06/2013
Report by: Miguel Martinez
Recommendation: Grant, subject to appropriate conditions.
Executive Summary:
The proposed side and rear extensions would replace an existing single storey garage and extension. The proposed development would be an acceptable match in terms of traditional materials and overall appearance to this semi-detached house.
The single storey rear extension would project 3 metres and have a shallow mono-pitch roof. The two storey side extension is 3.1 metres wide and is set back 1.5 metres at first floor and 0.50 metres at ground level at the front and extends 3 metres beyond the rear of the building line.
The width and depth of the proposed extension are some of the key issues involved in this application, as the site is located in the Northolt Village Green Conservation Area that features a suburban low density character and appearance. Other concerns arising from this application is the suitability of the extensions to the property in relation to the semi-detached properties sited south of the subject site. An objection from the Conservation Panel was received about the appearance of the extensions in their context.
The proposed development has been amended to address the concerns raised and it is considered to represent a suitable addition to the property. The proposal, as modified, is considered to respect the character and appearance of the property and the conservation area as a whole. Consequently, this application is recommended for approval.
1 of 9
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05
Recommendation: Grant, subject to appropriate conditions. Conditions/Reasons:
Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission
1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Approved Plans
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title number BU 1-2B and 2-2B received 5th June 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.
Materials 3. All external materials to be used in the development shall match the appearance of those of the existing building.
REASON: In the interest of securing a high quality development and to ensure that the resulting appearance and construction of the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the property and the Northolt Village Conservation Area as a whole in accordance with sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1, 4.8 and 5.9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policies 1.1 (h) (i) (k), 1.2 (f) (g) , 3.1 (b) and 3.8 of the Ealing's Development (Core) Strategy and policies ELV to London Plan policy 7.4, policies 7B and 7C of the Ealing's Draft Development Management Document. No further windows/openings 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the submitted plans) shall be formed in the walls or roof of the building permitted.
REASON: To protect the living conditions of neighbouring properties and to ensure that the resulting appearance and construction of the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the property and the Northolt Village Conservation Area as a whole in accordance with sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1, 4.8 and 5.9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policies 1.1 (h) (i) (k), 1.2 (f) (g) , 3.1 (b) and 3.8 of the Ealing's Development (Core) Strategy and policies ELV to London Plan policy 7.4, policies 7B and 7C of the Ealing's Draft Development Management Document.
2 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05
Informatives
National Planning Policy Framework 7. Requiring good design 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
London Plan 2011 7.1 Building London's neighbourhoods and communities 7.4 Local character 7.6 Architecture 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archeology 7.16 Green belt
Unitary Development Plan 'Saved' Policies 3.1 Major open areas – Metropolitan open land and green belt 4.1 Design of development 4.7 Locally listed buildings, buildings with façade value, and incidental features 4.8 Conservation areas 5.9 Extensions and Alterations to Private Houses and Gardens
Ealing's Development (Core) Strategy 2026 1.1 Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 - (e) (h) (i) (k) 1.2 Delivery of the Vision for Ealing - (f) (g) 3.1 Realising the potential of the A40 & Park Royal corridor - (b) 3.8 Residential neighbourhoods 5.1 Protect and enhance metropolitan green belt
Supplementary Planning Documents / Guidance SPD 04 Residential Extensions Northolt Village Green Conservation Area Appraisal Northolt Village Green Conservation Area Management Plan
Ealing's Draft Development Management - Development Plan Document (published 29 June 2012) Ealing Local Variation to London Plan policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7B : Design amenity Policy 7C: Heritage Policy 7D: Open space
In reaching the decision to grant consent, specific consideration was given to the impact on the visual amenity of the Northolt Village Conservaiton Area and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the character and setting of neighbouring Locally Listed Buildings and the Green Belt opposite the site. The proposal is considered acceptable on these grounds, and is also considered to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, the relevant policies in the London Plan, the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Ealing’s Development (Core) Strategy and Ealing's Draft Development Management, Development Plan Document. It is not considered that there are any other material considerations in this case that would warrant a refusal of the application.
3 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05 2. Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays. The maximum permitted noise levels are:
- not greater than 72 dB L Aeq.10 hr Mondays to Fridays - not greater than 72 dB L Aeq.5 hr Saturdays.
3. To assist applicants in a positive manner, the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, and offers and encourages a comprehensive pre-application advice service, all of which is available on the Council's website and outlined in a 24 hours automated telephone system.
The scheme complied with policy and guidance. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision proactively in accordance with requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Site Description:
The property is located within the Notholt Village Green Conservation Area, which is characterised by its green setting, suburban/rural character and buildings with locally listing and statutory listing status, which gives the Council greater control in the protection of the character and appearance of the area.
The application relates to a semi- detached,hipped roof two-storey property, that forms part of a group of four pairs of semi detached properties with similar design proportions and scale. The subject property and its semi-detached neighbour are sited in deep plots of land. As a result their rear gardens and their frontage are substantial. All but two of the eight forecourts feature soft landscaping. The subject dwelling has a garage that obtained planning permission in 1979, that is linked to the main property.
The application site is surrounded by locally listed buildings at the north and east, the Northolt Village Community centre and its grounds adjoining the to the north and Herbert’s Cottages and Fern Cottage on the opposite side of the road. The immediate vicinity, whithin the Conservaiton Area features large open green areas.
The Proposal:
The proposal is for the construction of a two storey side and part two storey, part single storey rear extension, which would replace the existing single storey side garage.
The two storey side extension, at ground floor, would be set back by 0.50m from the main frontage of the property and 1.5m at first floor. It would have a width of 3.16m and would have a depth of 10.6m at ground floor and 9.6m at first floor. The two storey side extension would project 3 metres beyond the rear elevation of the house and link in with a similar depth single storey extension across the width of the original property.
The two sotrey element would follow the height of the eaves and its ridgeline would be 0.6m lower than that of the original dwelling. The rear projection of the two storey side extension would feature a pitch roof of smaller proportions as its ridgeline would be 2m lower than that of
4 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05 the original property. The single storey section of the rear extension would feature a mono-pitch roof with a maximum height of 3.58m and a height to the eaves of 2.6m.
The front elevation of the proposed extension would have a matching window unit at first and ground floor, which a mono-pitch roof over the ground floor projection. The flank elevation would feature two windows, one at each level. The rear elevation of the two storey section would feature one window at each level and the single storey rear extension would feature a set of sliding doors and two roof lights in the mono-pitch roof.
The extension would be constructed in matching materials.
Relevant Planning History
Application Development Description Decision Decision Date Number 69/566 Erection of conservatory rear of Granted conditionally 01-10-1969 dwellinghouse. 73/294 Erection of two storey extension at Granted conditionally 15-08-1973 side of dwellinghouse (time expired). 74/427 Erection of domestic garage. Granted conditionally 12-06-1974 P/1992/0941 Erection of conservatory rear of Planning permission required 02-06-1992 dwellinghouse. (section 64 determination) P/1992/0963 Erection of conservatory rear of Planning permission required 02-06-1992 dwellinghouse (section 64 determination). P/2012/3822 Two storey side and part two Refused 06-12-2012 storey, part single storey rear extension (following demolition of existing garage and kitchen extension to side)
Consultation:
Public Consultation - Summary
Neighbour Notification: 17 surrounding residential occupiers notified. No public Initiated on the representations were received. 17/04/2013
Site Notice/ Press Advert displayed on 19/04/2013.
Consultation expired on 10/05/2013.
5 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05
External Consultation
Northolt Village Green Objection Conservation Advisory Panel The property complements well with the semi-rural design of surrounding properties, a number of them are locally listed. The proposal is an ‘inappropriate extension’ which is discouraged by London Borough of Ealing own appraisal of this conservation area. It would irrevocably alter the character of this conservation area.
Planning officers’ response: Since the initial submission, the side extension now proposed has been reduced in width and is considered to have reasonable proportions in relation to the host building. It has been set back from the front elevation at both levels and it is set in from the side boundary. The resultant extension is considered to better reflect the requirements of Development Plan policy and the Conservation Area appraisal.
It is noted that the subject semi-detached property along this side of the road would be one of the few properties were side extensions would be acceptable due to the fact that it does not have neighbouring properties sited in close proximity and its curtilage is slightly wider than that of the remaining semis along this side of the road.
The property already features a single storey element where the extension is proposed. The front elevation of the property is set back approximately 20m from the back edge of pavement and the elevational design and roof profile fits with the host dwelling. Hence it is considered the character and appearance of the conservation area would not be significantly affected by this proposal.
Planning Policies:
The relevant planning policies are set out in the informative section of this report.
Reasoned Justification:
The impact of the appearance of the property and the conservation area
The main issues that need to be considered with regards to this application are whether the proposal would cause a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the property, the adjacent pairs of semi- detached properties and the conservation area as a whole, the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the green Belt, and whether it is in accordance with national, regional and local policies.
London Plan policy 7.8 states ‘Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. Development affecting heritage assets and their
6 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05 settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.’
The supporting text from policy 4.8 of the adopted UDP states ‘ Within a Conservation Area, development must enhance the special character and appearance of the area and its settings, including the spaces, buildings and structures, landscape, green settings, historic features and views into the area.’
The proposed extensions integrate with the host property; it is considered that their scale and proportions are subsidiary and reasonable when compared to the original property. It is noted that the proportions of the existing roof profile are small scale and when taking the adjoining semi-detached property into account, the overall proportions of the roof profile for the pair of semis appears as a prominent and visually attractive feature of the building. The roof profile of the property and the overall roofscape of the immediate surroundings within the conservation area, have not been altered in a significant manner. The proposal is set back 1.5m at first floor level at the front and therefore would have reasonable proportions and massing and the simple and clear shape roof profile would integrate satisfactorily and would be reasonable in scale to the host building.
The property and rhythm with the adjoining three pair of semi- detached properties maintain a largely unaltered setting, massing and roof profile. Despite being different buildings, the four pair of semis can be read as an almost identical group of properties that present minor variations in their external appearance in terms of paint colour and front porches. It is considered the extensions proposed would not alter this relationship in a significant manner as they are proposed with an acceptable set back and the outline of the original property in relation to neighbouring building would still be clearly seen.
The Northolt Village Management Plan does not specifically discuss side extensions, but makes reference to proliferation of unsightly and overscale extensions, which should be resisted. It also states that rear extensions should be restricted to 2m in depth. Although this particular parameter has not been complied with, it is not considered that it would warrant refusal. The reason being that the 3m depth to the rear would not be considered excessive and/or out of proportions with the subject property. However it should be noted that under current Permitted Development Legislation, ground floor rear extensions can be built 3m in depth.
The extensions would also be seen from the side a due to the views that can be achieved to the site from the vehicular/ pedestrian access to the Northolt Village Community Centre. The set in of the extensions from the side boundary has been increased and this along with the setbacks from the front would result in a side extension with an acceptable scale when seen from this adjoining land.
Furthermore, the history of the area includes not only the buildings themselves and their relationship with each other but also matters such as the vistas between buildings. The designation of the Conservation Area recognises the importance not just of the buildings, but the spaces and settings that contribute to the quality and interest of the area. Therefore, it is considered the proposed extensions in this application would be acceptable within the conservation area.
On balance it is considered the proposal would comply with the objectives of national, regional and local policy in this regard.
7 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05 The impact of the proposal on the neighbouring properties.
In terms of assessing the impact of the extensions on the residential amenity of adjoining properties, the only residential property in close proximity to the extensions is the adjoining semi- detached property sited south named San Remo. This neighbouring property features a rear conservatory with a modest scale. The section of the proposed extensions abutting the shared boundary with this neighbouring property would be single storey and would feature a mono-pitch roof with reasonable height, thus it is not considered the extensions would impinge on the living conditions of occupiers of this neighbouring residential building.
To the north of the site there are no residential properties in close proximity and as such the Council is satisfied that the residential amenity of the closest residential property to the north named the Lodge which is at an approximate distance of 20m from the flank boundary of the site would not experience any significant impact on residential amenity.
Impact on the setting and character of the Locally listed Buildings.
The subject site adjoins the grounds of a Locally Listed building, the Northolt Village Community Centre. The proposed extension would adjoin a small green area that follows the access road to the community centre. This green area increases in size towards the rear (western) end of the site. There is substantial greenery and trees along the shared boundary, towards the western end of these sites; and the proposed two storey side extension would be approximately 38m away from this Locally Listed Building. Hence it is not considered the proposed development would affect the setting and character of the Northolt Village Community Centre.
Opposite to the subject site, across Ealing Road, there is a group of four cottages which are also Locally Listed. Their front elevation is set back from the back edge of pavement by an average of 23m approximately. The total distance from the proposed development to these buildings would be over 60m. Hence their setting and character would remain largely unaffected.
Impacts on the Green Belt
The Major open area is located to the east of the subject site; the boundary of this green area would be approximately 70m away. Therefore no impacts are anticipated arising from this proposal.
The Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
This proposal would not trigger any CIL liability due to the size of the extensions being below 100 square metres.
Conclusion
The proposed extensions would be sympathetically integrated to the existing dwelling and therefore would not impact significantly on the character and appearance of the Northolt Village Green Conservation Area as a whole. The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance to national, regional and local policies in this regard.
Human Rights Act:
You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the
8 of 9 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 05 First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
9 of 9 Land adj to 18 Chinnor Crescent Greenford Schedule Item No. 06
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 514246 E 183262 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Land adj to 18 Chinnor Crescent Greenford Schedule Item No. 06
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 514246 E 183262 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06
Ref: PP/2013/0693
Address: LAND ADJACENT TO 18 CHINNOR CRESCENT GREENFORD UB6 9NU
Ward: Greenford Green
Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide 5 dwellinghouses with associated outdoor amenity space, parking, refuse storage and landscaping
Drawing numbers: 12-007- E100, E-101 (Received 25/02/2013); and 12-007- P100 Rev. A, P101 Rev. B, P102 Rev. A, P103, P104, P200 Rev. A, P201 Rev A, P202, P203, P204 Rev A, P205 and P300 (Received 20/06/2013)
Type of Application: Full Application
Application Received: 25/022013 Revised: 20/03/2013
Report by: Miguel Martinez
Recommendation: Grant, subject to conditions.
Executive Summary:
This proposed application is for a residential development of five dwellings on a site that previously contained 35 garages. The high boundary wall around the site would be retained. The principle of residential use of the site has been previously agreed through 2 applications, one of which is extant.
Two detached two storey hipped roof houses with a ‘Mock Tudor’ style similar to the existing in the street are proposed towards the front of the site with a terrace of three two-storey houses with shallow mono-pitch roofs and a contemporary design located at the rear. Five car parking spaces in a central communal area are proposed.
Some of the key issues involved with this application are the siting, scale and relationship of the development with neighbouring properties and the streetscene. It is considered the proposal would be a suitable development that would relate in a satisfactory manner to neighbouring development. Other concerns relate to the impact of the proposed scheme on neighbouring residents. There were 8 objections received raising concerns related to density, impacts on residential amenity, car parking and traffic; and the character and appearance of the area. However, the residential scheme has been designed to minimise impacts on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and to respect the visual qualities of the area.
Page 1 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 On balance the development is considered an acceptable proposal that would have neither, detrimental impacts on the character and appearance of the site, the area nor neighbouring residents. It is considered the proposal is suitable with regards to density, design, its relationship with neighbouring properties and integration with the surrounding area. Consequently, this application is recommended for approval.
Recommendation: Grant with Conditions. This permission would also be subject to a Community Infrastructure Levy payment of £15,071 to the Greater London Authority (GLA). Conditions/Reasons:
Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission
1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Approved Plans
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title numbers 12-007- P100 Rev. A, P101 Rev. B, P102 Rev. A, P103, P104, P200 Rev. A, P201 Rev A, P202, P203, P204 Rev A, P205 and P300 (Received 20/06/2013), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.
Samples of Materials
3. Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.
REASON: To ensure that the materials and finishes are of high quality and contribute positively to the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with policies 4.1 and 5.5of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policies 1.1 (g) (h), 1.2(f), 3.1(b) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies LV 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2011), and section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Details of Hard/ Soft Landscaping and Boundary Treatment
4. No occupation of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until full details of boundary treatments and hard/soft landscape works and a phased programme of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be completed as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or other plants which die
2 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season.
REASON: To ensure that the development is landscaped in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area, and in accordance with policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011, policies 4.1, 4.5 and 5.5 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 1.1 (e) (g), 1.2(f), 3.1(b) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies LV 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
Lifetime Homes Standards
5. The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards. REASON: To ensure access for all for future occupiers in accordance with policies 3.5 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011 and policy 5.3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004).
Car Parking
6. The car parking spaces and manoeuvring area shown on the approved plans shall be made available and marked out on the site prior to first occupation of any part of the development, this area and parking spaces shall be kept continuously available for manoeuvring and car parking and shall not be used for any other purpose.
REASON: To ensure that there is adequate provision for car parking and access within the site, in accordance with policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2011 and policy 9.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
Secured by Design
7. The development hereby approved shall comply with the aims and objectives of ‘Secured by Design’.
REASON: To ensure the safety of future residents, and to ensure that the proposed development achieves the required crime prevention elements in accordance with policy 7.3 of the London Plan 2011, policies 4.1, 4.4 and 5.5 of the of the adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), and the Council’s Supplementary Guidance 8 ‘ Safer Ealing’, policy 1.1 (h) of the adopted Ealing Development (Core) Strategy (2012) and Ealing Local Variation to London Plan Policy 7.13 of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
Noise Exposure and Mitigation Details
8. Details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before the development is commenced, for the insulation of the building envelope, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided and include the provision of alternative means of ventilation, all in accordance with Authority’s criteria. The works should be completed before occupation and permanently retained thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of the occupiers of the development hereby approved, in accordance with policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011, policies 4.1 and 4.11 of adopted Ealing Unitary
3 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), Supplementary Planning Guidance 10 'Noise and Vibration', policy 1.1 (j) of the Ealing Development (Core) Strategy 2026 and policy 7A of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
9. Site Contamination
No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment is completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site.The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:- o human health, o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, pets, and service lines and pipes, o adjoining land, o groundwaters and surface waters,
(iii) An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 5.21 of The London Plan, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
10. Submission of Remediation Scheme
No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 5.21 of The London Plan, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
11. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
4 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing Local Planning Authority.
The verification report submitted shall be in accordance with the Environment Agency guidance 'Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination', Report: SC030114/R1'.
Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 5.21 of The London Plan, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework. Tree survey/ protection measures
12. No development shall commence until a detailed scheme for the survey and protection of existing trees, hedgerows and groups of mature shrubs to be retained within the site and those off site that are adjacent/close to it, only in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 'Trees In Relation To Construction Recommendations' (or any subsequent revision), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The protection measures shall be erected in the locations agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development works and shall be maintained fully intact and (in the case of the fencing) upright, in its approved locations at all times, until the completion of all building operations on the site (unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority). Details shall include the following: a) Accurate trunk positions and canopy spreads of all existing trees within the site and on adjoining land adjacent to the development. b) Positions and spreads of existing hedgerows and groups of mature shrubs. c) All proposed tree, hedge, shrub removal and retention. d) Increased 'Root Protection Areas' of all existing retained trees within the site and on neighbouring land adjacent to the approved development, calculated in accordance with guidance 5.24 of BS 5837:2005 recommendations. e) Plans of a minimum scale of 1:200 (unless agreed otherwise by the Local Authority) showing the proposed locations and height of protective barrier/s, supported by a metal scaffold framework, constructed in accordance with Section 9 (Figure 2), to include appropriate weatherproof tree protection area signage (such as "Keep Out - Construction Exclusion Zone") securely fixed to the outside of the protective fencing structure at regular intervals. f) Proposed ground protection measures in accordance with Section 9 (Figure 3) g) Annotated minimum distances between fencing and trunks of retained trees at regular intervals. h) Illustration/s of the proposed fencing structure/s to be erected. i) All storage sites of spoil heaps, site cabins and material storage, temporary haul roads and access etc.
5 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06
No activity of any description must occur at any time within these areas including but not restricted to mixing of cement or any other materials, storage or disposal of any soil, building materials, rubble, machinery, fuel, chemicals, liquids waste residues or materials/debris, siting of any temporary structures such as site office/sales buildings, temporary car parking facilities, porta-loos, storage compounds or hard standing areas, soil/turf stripping, raising/lowering of existing levels, excavation or alterations to the existing surfaces/ ground conditions, installation/siting of any underground services, temporary or otherwise including; drainage, water, gas, electricity, telephone, television, external lighting or any associated ducting; parking/use of tracked or wheeled machinery or any other vehicles. In addition to the protection measures specified above, no fires shall be lit within 20 metres of the trunks of any trees or the centre line of any hedgerow shown to be retained; no signs, cables, fixtures or fittings of any other description shall be attached to any part of any retained tree.
REASON: In order to safeguard trees and other vegetation considered to be worthy of retention in the interests of the visual amenity of the area as a whole, in pursuance to the objectives of section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies7.4 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1, 4.5 and 5.5 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan 'The Plan for the Environment' 2004 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 9 'Trees and Development Guidelines' and policies 1.1 (e) (g), 1.2(f), 3.1(b) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies LV 7.4 of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
Existing trees off site
13. Existing trees to the north of the site and adjacent/close to the access to it shall not be lopped, felled or otherwise affected in any way (including raising or lowering soil levels under the crown spread of the trees) and no excavation shall be cut under the crown spread of the trees without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In order to safeguard trees and other vegetation considered to be worthy of retention in the interests of the visual amenity of the area as a whole, in pursuance to the objectives of section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies7.4 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1, 4.5 and 5.5 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan 'The Plan for the Environment' 2004 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 9 'Trees and Development Guidelines' and policies 1.1 (e) (g), 1.2(f), 3.1(b) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies LV 7.4 of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013).
Construction Method Statement
14. No development shall take place until details of a site construction method statement/management plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement/management plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Phasing and programming Anticipated number, frequency and size of construction vehicles parking off site (including contractors) and measures to minimise impacts;
6 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Delivery times and parking arrangements (staggered to avoid morning and afternoon school run peak periods); Vehicle and machinery specifications; Details of any temporary vehicular access including swept path analysis for each type of construction vehicle this document identifies, to avoid damage to trees in the frontage of the site; Dust and vibration suppression measures impacts on neighbouring properties; Wheel washing provisions Site security during construction On site storage Construction vehicle manoeuvring and turning, including sweep path diagrams to demonstrate how vehicles will access the site and be able to turn into and emerge from the site in forward gear. Procedures for on-site contractors to deal with complaints from local residents.
The approved details shall be implemented or phasing agreed in writing, prior to the commencement of works on site and thereafter retained for the duration of the works. REASON: To protect the amenity of local residents, to ensure adequate highway and site safety in accordance with policies 4.1, 4.11, 9.1 and 9.9 of the Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 1.1 (j) of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies 6.3 and 6.13 of the London Plan (2011), section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Greater London Authority Best Practice Guidance 'The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition (2006), BS 5228-1:2009 - Code of practice for noise & vibration control on construction & open sites-Part 1: Noise.
Refuse and Recycling Storage Facilities
15. Details of the refuse and recycling storage proposed shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. The approved details shall be formed and made available for use prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted and retained permanently thereafter. This area shall not be used for any other purpose.
REASON: To provide adequate refuse and recycling storage to protect the amenities of the area and the living conditions of occupiers of the proposed residential units and the surrounding area, in accordance with policies 5.3 and 5.16 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 2.10 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
External Lighting
16. Any external lighting for this residential development shall be installed before the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall comply with the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers at Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution particularly with regard to the following:
(i) reducing glare by · Correctly aiming the luminaires · Using luminaires with double asymmetric beams designed so that the front glazing is kept at or near parallel to the surface being lit
7 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 · Ensuring that the main beam angle of all lights, directed towards a potential observer is kept below 70 degrees.
(ii) controlling vertical illuminance with the lights operating to a maximum of 10 lux at ground level and 5 lux at first floor level at any affected facade.
REASON: In the interest of occupiers of neighbouring properties and community safety in pursuance of policy 7.3 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1, 4.4 and 4.12 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), Supplementary Planning Guidance 08 ‘ Safer Ealing’ and policies 1.1 (e) (h) of the Ealing Development (Core) Strategy 2026.
Existing Boundary Walls
17. Notwithstanding any information submitted with this application, the existing brick boundary walls enclosing the site shall not be altered, removed or re-constructed except with the written permission of the local planning authority and any damage to them during construction shall be made good to reinstate them to their original state.
REASON: In the interest of the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and securing a high quality development to ensure that the resulting appearance and construction of the development preserves or enhances the visual amenity of the area as a whole in accordance with policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 1.1 (g) (h), 1.2(f), 3.1(b) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies LV 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2011), and section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Remote Controlled Gates
18. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, a detailed scheme for the installation of remote controlled vehicular gates to be located between the dwellinghouses hereby approved to the southern end of the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The details approved shall be fully implemented before the first occupation of any of the properties hereby approved and retained in perpetuity.
REASON: In the interest of community safety and in the interest of the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties in pursuance of policy 7.3 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1, 4.4 and 4.12 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), Supplementary Planning Guidance 08 ‘Safer Ealing’ and policy 1.1 (g) (h) of the Ealing Development (Core) Strategy 2026.
Permitted Development Rights
19. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration to the dwellinghouses hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority, obtained through the submission of a planning application.
8 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site to safeguard the living conditions of adjoining properties and visual appearance of the buildings and the area as a whole, in accordance with policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 1.1 (g) (h), 1.2 (f), 3.1(b) and 3.8 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policies LV 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013). Sustainable drainage system 20. Details of a surface drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure the drainage measures comply with Thames Water/Environment Agency requirements, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14 of the London Plan 2011 and policies 1.1 (k) and 1.2 (m) of the Ealing’s Development Strategy 2026 and policy 2.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan (2004)
Informatives
The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in National Planning Policy Guidance, the London Plan 2011 and the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, the adopted Ealing Development (Core) Strategy (2012) and the Draft Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance:
National Planning Policy Framework
4. Promoting sustainable transport. 7. Good quality design. 8. Promoting healthy communitites 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
London Plan 2011
2.6 Outer London: Vision and strategy 2.7 Outer London: Economy 2.8 Outer London: Transport 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalitites 3.3 Increasing housing supply 3.4 Optimising housing potential 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments 3.8 Housing choice 3.9 Mixed and balanced communities 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.12 Flood risk management
9 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 5.13 Sustainable drainage 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure 5.15 Water use and supplies 5.16 Waste self sufficiency 5.21 Contaminated Land 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport structure 6.9 Cycling 6.10 Walking 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.3 Designing out crime 7.4 Local character 7.6 Architecture 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 7.16 Green belt 7.17 Metropolitan open land 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature 7.21 Trees and woodlands 8.3 Community Infrastructure levy
Unitary Development Plan 'Saved' Policies
2.1 Environmental and other sustainability impacts 2.5 Water – drainage, flood prevention and environment 2.7 Contaminated land 2.10 Waste minimisation and management 3.1 Major Open Areas (MOAs) - Metropolitan open land and green belt 3.4 Public and community open space 3.8 Biodiversity and nature conservation 4.1 Design of development 4.3 Inclusive design – Access for all 4.4 Community safety 4.5 Landscaping, tree protection and planting 4.11 Noise and vibration 4.12 Light pollution 5.3 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing 5.4 Range of Dwelling Sizes and Types 5.5 Residential Design 5.6 Small Dwellings and Flats 9.1 Development, Access and Parking 9.9 Highways and Traffic Management
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
SPG 4 Refuse and recycling facilities SPG 7 Accessible Ealing SPG 8 Safer Ealing SPG 9 Trees and development guidelines SPG 10 Noise & vibration
10 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 SPG13 Garden space
Ealing's Development (Core) Strategy 2026
1.1 Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 (a),(b), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) 1.2 Delivery of the Vision for Ealing (f), (g) and (m) 3.1 Realising the potential of the A40 Corridor and Park Royal (a), (b), (e) 3.8 Residential Neighbourhoods 5.1 Protect and Enhance Metropolitan Green Belt (b) 5.4 Protect the Natural Environment - Biodiversity and Geodiversity (a) 6.3 Green Infrastructure 6.4 Planning Obligations nad legal agreements
Draft Ealing Development Management Plan Document (published February 2013)
Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 3.4: Optimising housing potential Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 3.5: Quality and desing of housing developments Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 5.2: Minimising Carbon Dioxide Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 5.10: Urban Greening Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 5.12: Flood risk management Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 5.21: Contaminated Land Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 6.13: Parking Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 7.3: Designing out crime Ealing Local Variation to London Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7B Design amenity Policy 7D Open space
In reaching this decision, specific consideration was given to any impact of the proposal upon the appearance and character of the surrounding area, the living conditions of future residents of the scheme, and neighbouring residents in the vicinity of the site and in the surrounding area and the impact of traffic generation upon the surrounding highway network. It is considered that the proposal generally complies with the National Planning Policy framework, the adopted London Plan 2011 and the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 92004), the adopted Ealing's Development (Core) Strategy 2026 , the draft Ealing Development Management Plan Document and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and that there are no other material considerations that would warrant refusal of this application.
2. Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Public Holidays.
The maximum permitted noise levels are:
- not greater than 72 dB L Aeq.10 hr Mondays to Fridays - not greater than 72 dB L Aeq.5 hr Saturdays.
3. With regards to conditions 8 and 9, contact Rizwan Yunus - Regulatory Service Officer on 020 8825 7390, or email [email protected] for a copy of "Guidance for Developers document
11 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 5.3" and "Guide to help developers meet planning requirements with regard to contaminated land".
6. Thames Water Consultation - Waste and Water 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, watercourses 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 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 advise to contact the Veolia Water Company with regards to water supply in the area. Veolia Water Company, The Hub, Tamblin way, Hatfield Hertz, AL10 9EZ tel. 0845 782 3333.
7. Any damage to the public highway caused during the construction works will need to reinstated at the applicants' expense and to the Council's specification. You should contact the Highways section of the Council to discuss the mechanisms and costs involved in this procedure.
8. The applicant is reminded that the development hereby approved in relation to existing boundary walls would still require agreement from adjoining neighbours. This decision is based on the submitted drawings and does not override legal ownership rights. No development may encroach on land outside their ownership without the prior consent of the relevant owners.
9. This decision does not convey any permission to erect gates or walls at the access hereby permitted. Any gates, walls or fences would require planning permission, obtained via the submission of a formal planning application an the applicant would have to seek the agreement of other interested person (s) that benefit from rights of way to access the retained garage adjoining the subject site.
10. To assist applicants in a positive manner, the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, and offers and encourages a comprehensive pre-application advice service, all of which is available on the Council's website and outlined in a 24 hours automated telephone system.
The scheme complied with policy and guidance. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision proactively in accordance with requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
11. The development should be constructed following sustainable design and construction principles including measures to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. In this regard it is recommended the development should achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Site Description:
12 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06
The development site, land between nos. 12 and 18 Chinnor Crescent, is located on the eastern side of Chinnor Crescent. The site is accessed via a slip road that serves numbers 20, 18 and the subject site. The site has a very narrow frontage (the width of the vehicle access) but then opens out approximately 10m back from the back edge of pavement. The main part of the site has an almost bootleg shape running northeast and then northwards. The frontage of the site is approximately 25m wide and the rear section is 20m wide. The land either side of the driveway is not included within the application site. 35 dilapidated garages were on the site. Only one remains standing which is not part of the application site, located adjacent to the southern corner. The garages were situated in two rows running along the sides boundaries of the site. The development site slopes downwards to the rear boundary.
The land to the northern side of the driveway is owned by the neighbour at No. 18 and part of this area is used for parking for occupiers of that neighbouring property. A tall hedge and a large deciduous tree run along the side and are situated adjacent to the driveway to the development site. The area on the southern side of the driveway is owned by the Electricity Board and it accommodates an electric substation with fencing all around. It is screened from the road by established trees/ shrubbery. Two high brick walls of approximately 2m high run along the front boundaries of the site.
Properties in the immediate area are characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings.
The site is not located within a Conservation Area. Land to the rear (North) of the site is designated as a Green Belt, Public Open space and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
The Proposal:
The current proposal seeks to provide five dwellinghouses. The overall layout proposed sites the access road through the middle of the site and would result in two houses either side towards the southern end of the site and a terrace of three houses towards the northern end of the site. The access road would lead to the communal car parking area with 5 spaces, which is located at the centre of the site and between the front and rear residential buildings proposed. The access road would be wider toward the south eastern corner of the site to provide access to the garage that would be retained located outside the application site. The proposed dwellings would be surrounded with narrow strips of soft landscaped areas and each would benefit from private garden.
The two detached properties to the southern end of the site, closest to the public domain, would have a footprint of 8.2m wide by 6.4m deep with a two storey front gable projecting 0.90m from the main front façade. They would be two storey with a maximum height of 7.9m to the ridgeline and 5.4m to the eaves. The roof profile proposed is hipped. The design of these detached properties would match the vernacular of the locality with half-timber front gables, white render and facing brick. Windows would only be located to the front and rear elevation of the buildings, with the exception of a corner window that wraps around to the flank elevation. Internally, these properties would feature living/dining, kitchen and WC at ground level and two double bedrooms, studio/ home office room and bathroom at first floor level.
At the northern end of the site there is a row of three terrace properties proposed, the total foot print of this terrace row would be 15m wide by a depth of 8.5m deep. The end of terrace properties would feature single storey elements projecting out from the rear and front elevations
13 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 by 1.7m and 0.90m, respectively with the mid terrace property only having a forward ground floor projection. Internally, the two end of terrace properties would feature living/dining, kitchen and WC at ground level and two double bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level. The mid terrace property would feature the same areas, but the only difference is that one of the bedrooms is single.
These three properties are proposed with a contemporary design and the roof proposed is a very shallow mono pitch roof sloping in different directions for each of the properties. The front elevation of each property would feature ground and first floor elements projecting outwards, which accommodate the entrance door and a window. The rear elevation of the end of terrace properties would also feature a ground floor element projection out featuring floor to ceiling glazing.
Relevant Planning History
Ref Date Proposal Decision P/1996/2410 04/02/1997 Erection of three storey building for use as six Refused. residential units together with parking, access and private amenity space (Outline application) P/2005/4242 28/09/2006 Construction of two semi-detached houses Granted (following demolition of existing garages) conditionally access and surface and garage parking (Outline Application for Siting and Access) PP/2011/3619 26/04/2012 Construction of detached building comprising Granted of self-contained 4-two bedroom flats, conditionally provision of landscaping and four off-street car parking spaces
Consultation:
Public Consultation - Summary
1st Neighbour Notification: 30 surrounding residential occupiers notified. 4 letters of objection Initiated on the were received objecting to the development on the following grounds: 26/03/2013 (expired on 16/04/2013). Chinnor Crescent is a quiet residential road; the disruption that would be caused by building 5 houses would be considerable, noise would also be an issue.
Planning Officer’s response: The construction of the scheme is not a land use planning matter. The disruption and inconvenience this would cause is noted. However it would be temporary and necessary to ensure a scheme is implemented. A construction method statement would be requested if this application is supported, which should help to alleviate noise and traffic concerns as a result of construction processes.
There is a grass area badly damaged by lorries that have been used to clear the area.
14 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06
Planning Officer’s response: Noted. If the Council is minded to approve this application, an informative would be suggested to remind the developers that any damage to public highway as a result of the construction process would have to be reinstated.
Landscape in Chinnor Crescent would be changed in a way not fitting to the road.
Planning Officer’s response: The streetscene and landscape along Chinnor Crescent would not be significantly altered with this proposal, particularly as the properties that would be seen along Chinnor Crescent would feature the same vernacular architecture as the existing inter war housing.
The building works would also cause an increase in thefts, as building sites are prime target for metal and scrap thieves.
Planning Officer’s response: A construction method statement would be requested if this application is supported, which should detail the measures that would be in place to secure the site during construction.
There are no guarantees that in the future Velux windows with or without permission could be installed thereby invading my privacy and my neighbours’.
Planning Officer’s response: A condition restricting permitted development rights has been suggested in order to have control over alterations that could potentially harm the visual amenity of the locality and the amenity of neighbouring residents.
If permission is granted for the current plan what is to stop another larger development.
Planning Officer’s response: Independently of any decision on this application, any other type of development of the site would require planning permission and therefore the submission of a planning application. It would be assessed in its own planning merits to determine suitability and whether or not it would be in accordance to national, regional and local policies.
There is no guarantee the existing boundary walls will be of the same height and construction as the existing walls.
Planning Officer’s response: A condition has been suggested requesting the existing boundary walls are not altered and if damaged they would have to be reinstated to the state they were before the
15 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 damage.
There could be more than twenty extra people in residence when the site is only the space for two houses. The new proposal now consists of five houses.
Planning Officer’s response: The site is capable of accommodating more than two houses, as the proposal and previous permission demonstrates. They would be in compliance in terms of size, amenity space, parking provision. The layout is acceptable and it is considered this site accommodates the proposal in a reasonable manner.
Extra noise, lighting and sewerage arrangements. The plans also contained inaccuracies in the amount of space between the new properties and the existing houses.
Planning Officer’s response: It is not expected this proposal for 5 houses would give rise to a level of noise injurious to neighbours. Any incidents of noisy neighbours can be investigated under Environmental Health Legislation and neighbours affected would have to call the Council’s Noise Pollution team. A condition has been suggested in relation to external lighting to avoid light pollution affecting neighbouring properties. In terms of sewerage infrastructure, Thames Water has not objected to the scheme.
The increase traffic would be a danger to large number of children in the area.
Planning Officer’s response: It is not considered that the proposed development would result in a sharp increase in the traffic conditions in the area. Historically the site contained 35 garages.
nd 2 Neighbour notification: The re-consultation exercise was for 21 days, as the first consultation Initiated on the letters stated the application site to be ‘18 Chinnor Crescent’ instead 17/04/2013 (expired on of ‘Land adjacent to 18 Chinnor Crescent’. 08/05/2013). 3 letters of objection were received with the following comments/ objections:
This small area was designed and enclosed to store motorcars and I do not think this area is big enough/suitable for housing.
Planning Officer’s response: The garages originally built on site were dilapidated and not used. Thus this brownfield site was considered suitable for redevelopment. The principle of residential development has been accepted in previous planning permissions granted and it is still acceptable with regards to this application.
Will the surrounding wall be removed?
16 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Planning Officer’s response: the boundary wall should not be removed. A condition requesting its retention and repair if damaged during construction has been suggested.
Existing properties will be overlooked - loss of privacy.
Planning Officer’s response: Originally, there were concerns about the overlooking/views from the rear window opening at first floor in relation to the rear garden of no. 6 West Close and 12 Chinnor Crescent from one of the properties proposed to the front. However the amended plans have been received showing a different layout internally and also with obscured glazing to avoid potential overlooking impacts. The remaining properties were considered to have an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties. On balance, the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties under this proposal would not be significantly different to that achieved between existing properties.
Poor attempt at overdevelopment of the available space, as recommended density is exceeded in terms of units and rooms. The dwellings are designed to try to negate overlooking of other properties. This is in itself is a clear reflection of overdevelopment design which would otherwise not be necessary in an appropriate design for the site.
Planning Officer’s response: Notwithstanding the density of the scheme is slightly over the London Plan guidance, the scheme provides five dwellings with a good layout, acceptable siting within the site and in relation to neighbouring properties, suitable outdoor amenity space and parking. The design of the five properties is considered acceptable and it is considered the layout sought to address the site constrains/opportunities.
The mews development is totally out of character with the area. Private amenity space is particularly out of character with surrounding properties for all the units.
Planning Officer’s response: this small terrace has contemporary appearance and sufficiently high quality of design that is certainly different to the existing local housing. Notwithstanding its design qualities, it is set well into the site and will not be visible form the road. The two detached houses in the local ‘Mock Tudor’ design will be more visible, although views into the site will be restricted by the retained boundary walls.
The gardens for the proposed houses are smaller than those available to existing housing, but they are adequate and demonstrate the desire to optimise the potential of the site.
The development as a whole creates significant issues in respect
17 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 of access and parking. Each property is allocated a single space, however due to the access via a service road no provision is available for any additional parking for the properties which would include its visitors.
Planning Officer’s response: Adequate off-street car park provision proposed is in accordance with policy requirements. At times when this parking is fully utilised, visitor parking could take place on the road.
The garages have been demolished and has caused considerable damage to our party wall. We are concerned that the wall may fall down.
Planning Officer’s response: Noted. Although damages to party walls are a civil matter, officers have suggested a condition in relation to the boundary wall of the site to be retained and repaired if damaged.
The building of these dwellings would affect us considerably. The plans indicate they would be built almost on top of our party wall. They will be directly on our line of sight. And rise above the party wall by at least 2.5m, of which the appearance will be quite hideous.
Planning Officer’s response: The only element of the proposed development that would be in close proximity to the shared boundary with this neighbouring property would be the side elevation containing no openings of the terrace at the rear of the that is set in 2m. This would result in a distance to the rear wall of the rear extension of this neighbouring property of approximately 22m as the rear garden has an average depth of 20m.
The visible section of the flank wall of the terrace row (2.5m in height) above the shared boundary wall would not be considered to be overbearing. The reason being the gap of 2 metres between it and the common boundary, the generous plot of this neighbouring property and the neighbouring ones and the fact that there are large trees overhanging the subject site (within curtilage of this neighbouring property, no. 8 West Close and also the adjoining Green Belt) which would partly screen the flank wall of this terraced properties.
The two detached houses do not fit into the current look of the street at all as all houses are semi-detached.
Planning Officer’s response: It is not considered the introduction of two detached properties would affect the visual amenities of the area in a significant manner. Particularly as the design of these two detached properties is very similar to that of adjoining properties. Additionally their siting having larger set back from the back edge of pavement, the boundary walls on the frontage of the site and
18 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 substantial greenery contribute to their subtle integration to the streetscene along Chinnor Crescent.
The detached house towards no. 12 Chinnor Crescent border is now more or less on the border between plots and on top of that it has been moved forward in comparison to the previous scheme that had the building located at the centre and further back. This house will invade my privacy as the windows at the front will be directly looking into my house and will be around 5m away from my house.
Planning Officer’s response: This detached property would be sited 1 metre away from the shared high brick boundary wall with this neighbouring property. It is noted that existing properties in the surroundings feature a similar distance from side boundaries. The detached property would be sited north at a distance of 10m from no. 12 Chinnor Crescent, at the closest point. As such no loss of light would be experienced. It is worth noting that this proposed detached property would be 1.5m lower than no.12 due to the different ground levels. As such it is considered the distance between properties and difference in ground levels would result in an acceptable relationship between this detached property and no.12 Chinnor Crescent.
With regards to privacy and windows of this detached property. The applicant has been requested to invert the layout of this detached property. As a result the closest first floor corner window in the front/side elevation would serve a staircase (non-habitable room) and the revised scheme shows this window with obscured glazing. There are no other windows in the flank elevation. The first floor window in the front elevation serving a bedroom would be approximately 4.8m away from the shared boundary and therefore oblique views of the rear elevation of no.12 Chinnor Crescent and its rear garden would be limited. It should be noted that the area to the front of the proposed detached property is capable of accommodating soft landscaping which could be designed as a screen between buildings. A condition about soft landscaping has been suggested and this particular landscaping would be addressed within those details.
One of the units has 18% less private usable garden space than the minimum set out in Ealing Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is a significant amount.
Planning Officer’s response: The amended scheme shows the only properties with a minor shortfall are two of the terrace properties located at the rear of the site falling short of the 50 sqm by only 5sqm. It is not considered this would be detrimental to the living conditions of prospective occupiers.
It is clearly mentioned in the ground floor plan that the walls are being reduced to 2 metres. Subsequently it is written that boundary walls will remain unchanged. If they are to remain
19 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 unchanged, it would appear that a 2.4m wall will be standing 1.5m in front of one of the detached houses, blocking most of the light to the downstairs livingroom.
Planning Officer’s response: The boundary walls will remain as existing and a condition has been suggested in this respect. There is no indication in the plans they would be reduced in height. The detached house in close proximity to 18 Chinnor Crescent would be the detached property closer to the front boundary wall of the site, which also adjoins a parking area serving this neighbouring property. The distance between the boundary wall (2m in height from the proposed finished floor level and the façade of the detached property proposed at the front would be 1.5m as stated, however the windows in the front elevation of this property are not serving the livingroom but the kitchen and internally the layout is open plan.
The ground floor plans do not show existing extensions to numbers 18 and 20 Chinnor Crescent. When they are included it can be seen that one of the detached houses would be 2 metres from no. 18 and one of the mews houses will be 9 metres from no. 18. This will be overwhelm and enclose occupants of this property.
Planning Officer’s response: Notwithstanding the single storey side and rear extensions at no. 18 are not shown in the plans submitted; it is noted the distance between, for example nos 20-22 and 24-26 Chinnor Crescent and other buildings in the locality is similar or less towards their frontage. Thus the separation between no 18 and the proposed detached property would not be an unsatisfactory separation. It also has to be noted that the orientation of the proposed detached property angles away from no. 18 towards the rear.
The distance between the terraced houses to the rear and no. 18 would be considered acceptable. Particularly as the 9m refer to would only be at ground floor level and the boundary wall separates them. The distance between these properties at first floor level would be approximately 10.50m. The terrace is also sited to the North of no. 18 and at an angle so would not significantly affect the outlook form this neighbouring house.
The mews units are 6.5m from our garden and 12 metres from our house and one of the detached houses is 9 metres from our house. We will suffer a prejudicial loss of light particularly early and late morning and would also be an enclosure effect.
Planning Officer’s response: Noted. The garden of no. 18 would be located in between the terraced properties (mews) and the northern half of this is rear garden (no.20 Chinnor Crescent). However due to the terraced housing proposed being located east from the northern half of the rear garden of no. 20, it is not considered that the potential overshadowing of this section of the garden early in the mornings only, would be detrimental to the living conditions of these occupiers.
20 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06
The property at no. 20 Chinnor Crescent would be sited in a southwest direction from the terraced housing proposed and there would be a distance of 14m at first floor level in between them and its rear elevation faces north. Thus the terraced properties would not cause any loss of light to the internal spaces of this property. The 12m distance at ground floor does not raise concerns as there would be boundaries and the rear single storey extension of no.18 in between them.
No.18 Chinnor Crescent would stand in between no. 20 Chinnor Crescent and the proposed detached dwelling at the subject site; with only a small section of its north east corner projecting a metre further to the rear from the rear building line at first floor level of nos. 18-20 Chinnor Crescent. This would not cause any demonstrable harm to neither of them.
We are concern that if approval is granted then a precedent has been set and other properties in Chinnor Crescent will be able to build their own two storey buildings at the bottom of their garden.
Planning Officer’s response: Each case is assessed in its own merits and it should be noted that the subject site is just over twice the size of the curtilages of existing properties along Chinnor Crescent and therefore it is unlikely that a similar proposal would be possible.
Internal Consultation
Environmental Services No objection. (Refuse)
Regulatory Services No objection, subject to planning conditions. (Noise/ Air Pollution Control) Suggested conditions to any approval relate to noise mitigation measures, contaminated land and external lighting.
Transport Services No objection.
The applicant has provided the required parking spaces using the existing crossover. Therefore, Transport Planning has no objection to the proposal. A condition should be attached to any planning permission to determine the location/layout of the cycle parking.
Planning Officer’s response: A condition in this regard would not be necessary as occupiers of each dwelling would be capable of accommodating cycles in their rear gardens.
External Consultation
21 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Thames Water No objection
Informative related to surface water drainage, sewerage and water provision to be added to any approved permission.
Crime Design Advisor No objection, subject to security measures being put in place.
Installation of an access controlled gate External lighting Physical security standards (e.g. windows, doors, fencing)
Planning Officer’s response: Noted. A condition requesting compliance with Secured by Design has been suggested and also the installation of a controlled access gate.
Planning Policies:
The relevant planning policies are set out in the informative section of this report.
Reasoned Justification:
Principle of Development
The site is located within a residential area, as identified in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. The site is surrounded by residential development except to the North and is situated within a predominantly residential, suburban setting. The proposed development would result in the residential use of an underused previously developed site. The proposed residential use on the site is considered to be consistent with wider policy guidance in the form of National Planning Policy Framework and London Plan, which encourage housing development in appropriate locations, such as this.
Ealing’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2004 ‘Plan for the Environment’ and emerging policies support the development of residential units as long as it is consistent with local housing needs and there is continuing need to increase the proportion of residential development within the Borough. The policy can therefore be interpreted to have a presumption in favour of development proposals involving residential accommodation on suitable sites. The principle of the proposed re-development of the residential use of the site is therefore considered to be acceptable. This principle has been previously accepted by previous applications, as shown in the planning history above.
Residential Density
Policy 3.4 and Table 3.2 of the London Plan 2011 are appropriate when assessing residential density in Ealing. This regional policy states that boroughs should also develop residential density policies in their local plans in line with these policies and adopt the residential density ranges set out in Table 3.2 of policy 3.4. The site area is 0.08ha and the density proposed in this scheme would be 63 dwellings - 212 habitable rooms per hectare. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) on this site is 1b.
The setting of the site can be described as a suburban area as defined by notes of table 3.2 of the London Plan. Table 3.2 of the London Plan indicates that on suburban sites of 3.8-4.6hr/unit
22 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 and with a Public Transport Accessibility Level of between 0-1 the acceptable density range would be 35-55 units per hectare and 150-200 habitable rooms per hectare. The density of the proposal is slightly over the recommended density within the London Plan. Nevertheless, the density proposed is considered to respond appropriately to the location of the development site its size and configuration and its suburban context.
Design and Appearance
National, Regional and Local policies seek to ensure that new development is appropriate to its setting and is of a high quality design. The policy also requires that development respects existing safety, natural light, health, privacy freedom from traffic nuisance, and disturbance or visual intrusion to neighbouring land uses.
The design and style of the buildings are considered acceptable as the front dwellings would feature the proportions, style and features of the surrounding style of traditional semi-detached two storey properties. This proposed design attempts to reflect the design of the surrounding properties and it is considered that is has been successfully achieved. These front houses would be partly screened from the public realm along Chinnor Crescent, and it is not considered that the views of these two buildings would have a significant effect on the existing character or appearance of the area. The proportions of the detached properties, their roof profile and features would be considered appropriate for the area and would accentuate the character of these elements of the proposal when compared to the pattern of surrounding development.
With regards to the contemporary terraced housing proposed to the rear, it should be noted that due to the ground levels falling towards the rear of the site and the landscaping conditions to the front of the site would result in limited views of these properties from Chinnor Crescent. The contemporary approach proposed for the elevational design of these properties is considered acceptable and provides a positive contrast from the traditional design proposed to the front properties. The shallow mono pitch roof profile and the ground levels at the rear of the site allow for these two storey properties to be modest in scale and at a lower level than their counterparts at the front of the site and also in neighbouring sites. The elements projecting out of the rear and front elevations of these properties provide a reasonable articulation which would be accentuated by the difference of materials proposed. It is considered the overall appearance of these three dwellings would be considered acceptable.
As such it is considered the proposed development would not detract from the character and appearance of the area as a whole and would feature an acceptable design and appearance.; the elevational design, height and scale proposed would accord with the objectives of sections 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 1.1 (g) (h), 3.1 (b) and 3.8 of the Ealing’s Development (Core) Strategy and policy 7.B of the emerging Ealing’s Development Management Development Plan Document (Feb 2013).
Neighbouring Residential Amenity
Policies 4.1 (Design of development) and 5.5 Residential Design (table 5C) respectively state that: The Council will only approve development that respects current standards of safety, natural light, health, privacy and freedom from traffic nuisance, disturbance or visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses.
23 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Table 5C of Policy 5.5 (Residential Design) states that: Residential schemes should allow a distance of at least 21m (70ft) between the windows of habitable rooms which directly face those of another habitable room, or windows of any other premises where these give light and outlook to rooms normally occupied during the greater part of the day or night; and that new windows within 21m of another facing window including halls, stairways and non-habitable rooms shall be non-opening and of obscure glazing or with a lower sill not below 2m above floor level.
The windows of the proposal would not be directly opposite and facing windows of neighbouring dwellings. Neighbouring properties to the south and East of the site are sited on higher ground. Properties fronting onto West Close and backing onto the site are at an approximate distance of 14.50m from the shared boundary at the closest point towards the front of the subject site and approximately 17m towards the rear of the site. Thus the proposed front and rear dwellings would be at a reasonable distance from properties on West Close.
The adjacent property no. 12 Chinnor Crescent is sited South from the proposal, the distance between this neighbouring property and one of the proposed detached properties at the front would be approximately 10m at the closest point, however they are not directly opposite to each other and this neighbouring property is sited on ground that is approximately 1.5m higher when compared to the finished level the proposed detached property.
The finished level of the proposal would be approximately 0.50m higher than that of no. 18 Chinnor Crescent, the immediate neighbour to the northwest. The proposed detached property to the front would be approximately 3.8m away from the upper section of this neighbouring property at the front (closest point) and just over 6m at the rear end, as they are orientated at different angles. These are considered reasonable distances so as to not impinge on residential amenity. No. 18 Chinnor Crescent is mainly served by windows in the front and rear elevations and the proposed detached houses in the subject site would be sited east of this neighbouring property. The terrace properties at the rear would be at a distance of 10.50m from this two storey property and orientated at different angles. These properties at the rear would also be 3.5m away (perpendicular measurement) from the shared boundary with no. 18 which is considered a reasonable distance to respect the residential amenity of this neighbouring property. No windows are proposed in the flank elevation of these properties.
With regards to neighbouring gardens, the detached property proposed to the southeastern end of the site would be sited north and 1m away from the northern corner from the 15m (average) deep rear garden of no. 12 Chinnor Crescent, which also features an outbuilding located in the northern corner of its garden, sited against/or in close proximity to the shared boundary with the subject site. Also this same proposed detached property would be sited west and approximately 2.5m away from the shared boundary with the 14.5m-deep rear garden of no. 6 West Close, which features an outbuilding of modest proportions at the western corner at the end of its garden (in close proximity where the property is proposed). Hence given the depth of the neighbouring rear gardens, the fact these properties are sited on higher grounds when compared to the ground levels of the subject site and they have outbuildings located in close proximity where one of the detached properties is proposed, it is not considered their rear gardens would be affected in a significant manner.
The impact of the proposed housing is also reduced as a consequence of the intention to retain the high boundary brick boundary walls that surround the subject site.
Overall, it is not considered the proposed development would affect in a significant manner the living conditions of adjacent occupiers in the area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
24 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 policy 4.1 and 5.5, London Plan Policy 7.4, and emerging Ealing Development Management DPD Policy 7B.
The Quality and Layout of the Proposed Housing
UDP policy 5.5 (Residential Design) states that residential development should provide good living conditions for residents and refers to the Council’s planning guidance regarding Garden Space (SPG 13). Also table 3.3 of London Plan (July 2011) policy 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments) and Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Housing’ contain minimum requirements for internal and external outdoor space to achieve good living conditions.
Room sizes and layout
The internal floor areas of the proposed residential units have been assessed against minimum floor area standards, as set out in Table 3.3 of the London Plan (July 2011) (refer to table below).
Dwellings Bedrooms Occupancy Gross London Plan Compliance Internal Area table 3.3 - Minimum Floor Area 1 - Type A 2 4 95m2 83m2 Yes 2 - Type A 2 4 95m2 83m2 Yes 3 - Type B 2 4 83.3m2 83m2 Yes 4 - Type B1 2 3 74m2 74m2 Yes 5 – Type B 2 4 83.3[[m2 83m2 Yes
The ground floor layout is proposed with an open plan that would help to improve lighting and the dual aspect would contribute to achieve an internal space with a reasonable natural ventilation and illumination. The upper floors of the dwellings would have bedrooms that would also benefit from natural light and air, with acceptable outlook and privacy levels. There would not be problems of overlooking among the dwellings due to their design, orientation and siting.
Outdoor Amenity Space
The Council’s Supplementary planning Guidance 13 ‘Garden Space’ requires private useable amenity space provision of no less than 50m2 for a residential unit with under 5 rooms and at least 75m2 for a larger house. The London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Housing’ states that a minimum of 5sqm for 1-2 person dwellings and 1sqm extra for each additional occupant.
Dwellings Rooms Outdoor London Plan Unitary amenity SPG Housing Development provision (minimum) Plan SPG 13 1 - Type A 4 50m2 7m2 50m2 2 - Type A 4 62.5m2 7m2 50m2 3 - Type B 4 58.7m2 7m2 50m2 4 - Type B1 4 45.1m2 6m2 50m2 5 – Type B 4 45.6 m2 7m2 50m2
The outdoor amenity space provided is well above the minimum standards of the London Plan SPG and only two properties fall slightly short of the requirements of the SPG 13. However it is
25 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 not considered the 5 sqm below the requirement would result in detrimental living conditions for the prospective occupiers of the proposed development. Their layout, shape and location would offer a reasonable space that would benefit from privacy and a good level of usability. Therefore it is considered that this aspect of the proposal would be acceptable in this instance.
Lifetime Homes Standards
The proposal would not raise concerns in this regard, as a condition would be attached to any planning permission to secure these standards.
Refuse Arrangements
The Council’s Environmental Services (Refuse) Officer has not objected to the proposal, as there would be space available to store bins and any recycling containers in the forecourt. A condition requesting details of this storage has been suggested in order to secure sufficient provision, acceptable siting and appearance. Thus the proposal would not raise concerns in this regard.
Parking and Highways Implications
The only access to the site is via Chinnor Crescent. Transport Services have not objected to the parking arrangement and provision. Additionally there would be sufficient space to manoeuvre and egress the site onto Chinnor Crescent in a forward gear. Thus these aspects of the proposal are also acceptable.
Soft/ Hard Landscaping
The proposal does not offer much detail about this particular aspect, however relevant conditions have been imposed to secure high quality landscaping works for the rear gardens, the forecourt of the development and also along the shared boundaries with neighbouring properties. Also conditions have been suggested for the protection of the existing trees on neighbouring land to the front and rear of the site. The suggested conditions would improve the setting of the proposal, help to screen neighbouring properties and preserve the visual amenities of the area.
The Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
CIL was adopted on 1st April 2012. This has introduced a charging system within Ealing of £35 per sq. of gross internal floor area to be paid to the GLA for applications decided on of after the above date, which seek planning permission for new dwellings. This development is would create 430.6 sqm of floorspace. The liable sum has been calculated to be £15,071.
Other matters
The rear boundary of the site adjoins land that is designated as Green Belt. The local Authority seeks to preserve and enhance the character, open and green nature of this land. In this case it is not considered the proposal would have any effect on this adjacent land.
26 of 27 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 06 Conclusion
The development is considered to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, relevant policies of the London Plan 2011, the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004, Ealing’s Development (Core) Strategy, regional and local supplementary guidance, emerging policies and other material considerations.
Human Rights Act:
You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
27 of 27 2 Beaconsfield Road, Southall Schedule Item No. 07
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/1250 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 512594 E 179942 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 2 Beaconsfield Road, Southall Schedule Item No. 07
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Scale 1/2500 Date 20/6/2013 permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright Centre = 512594 E 179942 N and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LICENCE NO: LA100019807 2009 Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Ref : PP/2013/0732
Address: 2 BEACONSFIELD ROAD SOUTHALL UB1 1BA
Ward: Southall Broadway
Proposal: Demolition of existing building and construction of a part two and three storey building with part basement for use as a safety deposit box storage operation at ground floor, first floor and basement levels, and two x two bedroom flats at the second floor level with associated bike storage, refuse and recycling
Drawing numbers: 822/RDP/FIG1 (Location Plan), 822/RDP/FIG2 (Block Plan), 822/RDP/P01A (Existing Plans & Elevations), 822/RDP/P02E (Proposed Floor Plans), 822/RDP/P03G (Proposed Elevations and Section), Design & Access Statement RDP Architects dated Feb 2013, Air Quality Assessment ref 33247r1 REC dated 21 Jan 2013, Noise & Vibration Assessment ref: 9523.NVA.01 KP Acoustics dated 12 Nov 2012, Ground Investigation Report ref LS0626 Land Science dated 20 Dec 2012, Waste Management, Refuse & Recycling Statement RDP Architects 26 Feb 2013, Letter from Parkfields Estates dated 15 Oct 2012, Energy Statement ref 12/2066A AED Design dated 6 Dec 201
Type of Application: Full Application
Application Received: 06/03/2013 Revised: May/June 2013
Report by: Robert Lester
Recommendation: Grant with Conditions
Executive Summary:
The application site is located on the south side of Beaconsfield Road close to the junction with South Road. The site is located within the Southall Town Centre boundary.
Page 1 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
The site is presently occupied by a brick built warehouse building with a pitched roof design which was constructed in the early 20th century. The building was previously used as a snooker hall (Use Class D2), but is presently vacant.
This application is for the demolition of the existing building on the site and the construction of a part two and three storey building with part basement for use as a safety deposit box storage operation at basement, ground, and first floor levels, and two x two bedroom flats at the second floor level with associated cycle and refuse storage.
Previously a similar scale part 2 and 3 storey redevelopment with 5 retail units on the ground floor and 6 flats on the upper floors was approved in 2010.
The proposed redevelopment scheme is considered to be a suitable mixed use development for this town centre site.
The development would have a suitable height and scale in keeping with the adjacent buildings including the higher 3 storey building at 1-3 The Crescent, and the 2 storey terrace at 1-9 Beaconsfield Road. The development would also have a good quality contemporary design with high quality materials which would enhance the character of the streetscene at the junction of Beaconsfield Road and South Road.
The height and scale of the development would be similar to the building approved in the extant planning permission ref: PP/2010/2388, but with a variation in the function and internal layout.
It is considered that the development would not have a material amenity impact on neighbouring properties at 4-7 The Crescent, 1 Beaconsfield Road, or 1-3 The Crescent.
No car parking would be provided. However this is acceptable as it is an accessible town centre site and is within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).
The development would provide satisfactory living conditions for the residential flats with adequate internal living space and a good internal layout. Planning conditions have been applied to ensure that residential flats would also be fitted with suitable mitigation against noise and air pollution.
Overall the development would comply with the provisions of the development plan.
Conditions/Reasons:
1. Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Page 2 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. Approved Plans
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title numbers: 822/RDP/FIG1 (Location Plan), 822/RDP/FIG2 (Block Plan), 822/RDP/P02E (Proposed Floor Plans), 822/RDP/P03G (Proposed Elevations and Section), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.
3. Materials
Details of the materials and finishes to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any part of the development is commenced. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with these approved details, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the materials and finishes harmonise with the surroundings in accordance with policies 4.1, and 5.5 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policies 1.1 h, and 2.1 c of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy LV 7.4 of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document, policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
4. Construction Management Plan
Details of a site construction method statement and management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. The method statement/management plan shall include the following: i). Construction worker parking ii). Anticipated number, frequency and size of construction vehicles. iii). Delivery times iv). Dust suppression measures v). Site security vi). Locations for the storage of building materials and construction debris and contractors offices vii). Procedures for on-site contractors to deal with complaints from local residents, and viii). details of dust mitigation. Such details shall be implemented and thereafter retained for the duration of the works.
Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents, and to ensure adequate highway and site safety accordance with policies 4.11, 9.1, 9.9 & 9.10 of the Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 10, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy 7A of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), policies 6.11, 6.14, 7.14, and 7.15 of the London Plan (2011), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the Greater London Authority Best Practice Guidance 'The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction
Page 3 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 and Demolition (2006), BS 5228-1:2009 - Code of practice for noise & vibration control on construction & open sites-Part 1: Noise
5. Lifetime Homes
The residential flats hereby approved shall be constructed to the Lifetime Homes Standards, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is accessible by all future occupiers, in accordance with policies 4.1, 4.3 and 5.3 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 7, policies 3.8 and 7.2 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
6. Air Quality Mitigation (Ventilation)
Details of a scheme for providing fresh air ventilation to all habitable rooms of the development, the supply to be provided from the south west of the building at high level shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved details, which shall thereafter be permanently retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of the future occupiers of the site, in accordance with policies 2.6, and 4.1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 3 , policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy 7.14 of The London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
7. Noise Mitigation
Details in line with the criteria specified in SPG10, including, as appropriate, the noise exposure category, the BS4142 rating noise and the predicted vibration levels, and also including the noise mitigation measures with windows closed and other means of ventilation provided and also mitigation of vibration shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved details, which shall thereafter be permanently retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of the future occupiers of the site, in accordance with policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 10, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy 7.15 of The London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
8. Plant & Machinery Noise
The rating noise level emitted from the proposed external plant and machinery at the proposed development, as assessed under BS4142: 1997, shall be lower than the Page 4 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 existing background noise level by at least 5 dBA as measured at 3.5 m from the nearest ground floor sensitive facade and 1m from upper floor noise sensitive facades, during the relevant periods of operation.
Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties and future occupiers of the site, in accordance with policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), SPG 10, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy 7.15 of The London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
9. Site Contamination
No development shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment is completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site.The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:- o human health, o property (existing or proposed) including buildings, pets, and service lines and pipes, o adjoining land, o groundwaters and surface waters,
(iii) An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 5.21 of The London Plan, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
10. Submission of Remediation Scheme
No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
Page 5 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 5.21 of The London Plan, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
11. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing Local Planning Authority.
The verification report submitted shall be in accordance with the Environment Agency guidance 'Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination', Report: SC030114/R1'.
Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 5.21 of The London Plan, policy 1.1 j of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
12. Crime Prevention Measures
The development shall be fitted with security/crime prevention measures to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor. The agreed measures shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, and shall be retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. To ensure that the development incorporates crime prevention measures to help prevent crime and disorder in accordance with policies 4.1, & 4.3 of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policies 1.1 c and h of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), policy LV 7.3 of the Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013), and policy 7.3 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
13. Roof Terrace
No part of the roof of the building between the second floor level and the rear of 1-3 The Crescent shall be used as or altered to form a balcony, roof garden, roof terrace or similar amenity area.
Page 6 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Reason: To protect residential amenity, in accordance with policies 4.1, and 5.5, of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment'(2004), policy 4.1 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (Draft 2013), policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
14. Obscure Glass Panels
The obscure glass screen to the second floor level roof terrace on the northern elevation of the building as shown on the approved plans shall be provided on the site prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, and the screening shall be permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect residential amenity, in accordance with policies 4.1, and 5.5, of the Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment'(2004), policy 4.1 of the Ealing Core Strategy (2012), the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document (Draft 2013), policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2011), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Informatives
The decision to grant deemed consent has been taken having regard to the policies in the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), The Ealing Development (Core) Strategy (2012), the Draft Ealing Development Management Plan Document (2013), The London Plan (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework (2012), and to all other relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Relevant Planning Policies:
Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) - Saved Policies
2.6 Air pollution and Quality 2.7 Contaminated Land 2.9 Energy 2.10 Waste Minimisation and Management 4.1 Design of Development 4.2 Mixed Use 4.3 Inclusive Design - Access for All 4.4 Community Safety 4.5 Landscaping, Tree Protection and Planting 4.10 Commercial Frontages and Advertising Signs 4.11 Noise and Vibration 5.3 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing 5.4 Range of dwelling Sizes and Types
Page 7 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
5.5 Residential Design 5.6 Small Dwellings and Flats 7.7 Other Shopping Centre Uses 8.1 Existing Community Facilities 8.3 Redundant Community Facilities 9.1 Development, Access and parking 9.8 Low Car Housing and City Car Clubs 9.9 Highways and Traffic Management 9.10 Freight
Ealing Supplementary Planning Guidance
SPG 3 Air Quality SPG 4 Refuse and Recycling Facilities SPG 7 Accessible Ealing SPG 8 Safer Ealing SPG 10 Noise and Vibration SPG 13 Garden Space SPG 21 Sustainable Transport: Green Travel Plans SPD 2 Community facilities SPD 3 Low Car Controlled Parking Zones SPG Southall Town Centre
Ealing Core Strategy (2012)
1.1 a, b, d, e, f, j, h & k The Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 1.2 c, d, f, h, & m, Delivery of the Spatial Vision for Ealing 2026 2.1 a Realising the Potential of the Uxbridge Road/Crossrail Corridor 2.8 a Revitalise Southall Town Centre 6.2 Social Infrastructure
Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (2013)
LV 3.4 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential LV 3.5 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments LV 5.2 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions LV 5.12 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood risk management LV 5.21 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 5.21 Contamianted Land LV 6.13 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking 7A Operational Amenity LV 7.3 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 7.3 Designing out crime LV 7.4 Local Variation to London Plan Policy 7.4 Local character 7B Design Amenity
Page 8 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
South East Area Proposals Map Draft (2013)
London Plan (2011)
2.6 Outer London: vision and strategy 2.7 Outer London: economy 2.8 Outer London: transport 2.13 Opportunity areas and intensification areas 2.14 Areas for regeneration 2.15 Town centres 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all 3.2 Improving health and addressing health inequalities. 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Development 3.8 Housing Choice 3.16 Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure 4.1 Developing London's economy 4.3 Mixed Use Development and Offices 4.7 Retail and town centre development 4.12 Improving opportunities for all 5.1 Climate change mitigation 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 5.3 Sustainable design and construction 5.5 Decentralised energy networks 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals 5.7 Renewable energy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs 5.12 Flood risk management 5.13 Sustainable drainage 5.14 Water quality and wastewater infrastructure 5.15 Water use and supplies 5.16 Waste Self Sufficiency 5.17 Waste Capacity 5.21 Contaminated Land 6.1 Strategic approach 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure 6.9 Cycling 6.10 Walking 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion 6.12 Road network capacity 6.13 Parking 7.1 Building London's neighbourhoods and communities 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.3 Designing out crime
Page 9 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm 7.6 Architecture 7.13 Safety, security and resilience to emergency 7.14 Improving air quality 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 8.2 Planning obligations 8.3 Community infrastructure levy
Greater London Authority Supplementary Guidance
Housing Housing Design Guide (draft) Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment Sustainable design and construction Planning for Equality and Diversity in London Health Issues in Planning Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
1 Building a strong, competitive economy 2 Ensuring the vitality of town centres 4 Promoting sustainable transport 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7 Requiring good design 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
In reaching the decision to grant permission, specific consideration was given to the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties and on the character of the area as a whole. Consideration was also given to transport and servicing, and the provision of adequate living conditions for future occupiers. The proposal is considered acceptable on these grounds, and it is not considered that there are any other material considerations in this case that would warrant a refusal of the application.
2. Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be carried on between the hours of 0800 - 1800hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300hrs on Saturdays and at no other times, including Sundays and Bank Holidays.
The maximum permitted noise levels are:
"not greater than 72 dB LAeq,10hr Mondays to Fridays "not greater than 72 dB LAeq,5hr Saturdays
3. Vibration from demolition, breaking of concrete and piling etc., as measured in the
Page 10 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 vertical direction on any floor in surrounding noise sensitive buildings, shall not exceed an overall peak particle velocity level of 1mm/s.
4. Prior to commencement of construction and demolition works, involving materials containing asbestos, details of mitigation measures to control the release of asbestos fibres shall be submitted to this section for approval.
5. No bonfires shall be lit on site.
6. Prior to the commencement of any site works and as works progress, all sensitive properties surrounding the development shall be notified in writing of the nature and duration of works to be undertaken, and the name and address of a responsible person, to whom an enquiry/complaint should be directed.
7. 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 Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. This is to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
8. Recent legal changes under The Water Industry (Scheme for the Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011 mean that the sections of pipes you share with your neighbours, or are situated outside of your property boundary which connect to a public sewer are likely to have transferred to Thames Water ownership. Should your proposed building work fall within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend you contact Thames Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a building over/near to agreement is required, You can contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777 or for more information please visit the website at www.thameswater.co.uk.
9. To assist applicants in a positive manner, the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, and offers and encourages a comprehensive pre- application advice service, all of which is available on the Council's website and outlined in a 24 hours automated telephone system.
The scheme complied with policy and guidance. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision proactively in accordance with requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
10. This permission does not grant consent for the display of external advertisements at this site which are subject to the Town & Country Planning Control of Advertisements (England) Regulations 2007, and which may need to obtain a separate advertisement
Page 11 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 consent from the local planning authority under those regulations.
11. The development should be fitted with Ultra - Low NOx boilers with maximum NOx emissions of under 0.04 g/kWh. The works, as approved, shall be completed prior to occupation and thereafter permanently retained.
12. In relation to planning condition 6, the submitted Air Quality Stage 4 Review and Assessment for the London Borough of Ealing has highlighted that this area currently experiences or is likely to experience exceedances of Government set health-based air quality standards.
The London Borough of Ealing's Review and Assessment of air quality has highlighted the area of the proposed development as currently experiencing or likely to experience an exceedance of one or more of the Government's health-based air quality objectives. Where appropriate, possible options for mitigating poor air quality will include: o use of passive or active ventilation for the affected habitable rooms; supplying clean incoming air from a source as remote as possible from the source of pollution, usually must be supplied from the rear of the premises at high level; o altering the layout to place habitable rooms away from sources of poor air quality; o non-residential usage of lower floors; altering the footprint i.e. setting further away from sources of poor air quality. Care will be needed in designing any fresh air ventilation system to ensure that incoming air is not contaminated either by boiler flue emissions or by air discharged from extract ventilation systems. oThe use of trickle vents on building facades subject to poor air quality is likely to compromise other mitigation measures.
Site Description:
The subject site, approximately 290m² in area, is located on the south side of Beaconsfield Road, approximately 15 metres to the west of the junction with South Road. The site is located within the Southall Town Centre boundary.
The site is rectangular in shape and is bounded by Beaconsfield Road to the north and a row of 6 terraced buildings (No’s 1 – 9 Beaconsfield Road) to the west generally with retail uses at ground floor level and residential flats above.
The building on the site is also located to the rear (west) of the adjoining three storey end of terrace building at 1-3 The Crescent, which contains financial and professional use at ground floor level with offices above.
The site is presently occupied by a brick built warehouse building with a pitched roof design with small dormer windows which was constructed in the early 20th century. The
Page 12 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 eastern part of the building has two storeys and a basement, and the western section contains a large ground floor space only.
The building was used in the past as a snooker hall (Use Class D2), but is presently vacant. This building is not listed or locally list.
The Proposal:
This application is for the demolition of the existing building on the site and the construction of a part two and three storey building with part basement for use as a safety deposit box storage operation at basement, ground and first floor levels and two x two bedroom flats at the second floor level with associated cycle and refuse storage.
Background
The site has extant planning permission ref: PP/2010/2388 for demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part two, part three storey building with basement level providing 5 retail units at ground floor level and 6 residential flats above.
The applicant indicated at the pre-application stage that the proposed building is similar to the above mentioned planning permission but with a variation in the function and internal layout. The proposed safety deposit box business replaces the 5 retail units at ground floor, first floor and basement level and the number of flats have been reduced to 2 at second floor level only.
Relevant Planning History
Application Development Description Decision Decision Date Number P/1989/2475 Erection of three storey Granted 20-06-1990 building comprising night club, Conditionally offices, residential maisonette and car parking (Not implemented). P/2000/1237 External alterations to front Granted 24-07-2001 elevation of premises. Conditionally P/2005/1257 External alterations and Refused 15-08-2005 increase in height of single- storey snooker hall to create two additional floors including four dormer windows along street frontage to provide four split level self-contained flats at
Page 13 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
first and second floor levels, conversion of mezzanine / first floor of snooker club into self- contained flat including insertion of dormer window and velux window and alterations to provide new doors and windows to convert ground floor snooker club into five separate restaurants. P/2006/1642 Installation of 10 dormer No Further 28-03-2007 windows in the roof slope Action along Beaconsfield Road frontage & 13 velux windows in the rear roof slope to create an additional storey over the ground floor club to provide 5 self-contained flats, new doors and windows in the front elevation at ground level and external alterations to the building. P/2006/3524 External alterations including Granted 30-10-2006 alterations to existing Conditionally fenestration and replacement of four existing flat roof dormers with four pitched roof dormers to front roof slope of existing snooker club. P/2008/3030 Three storey building with Withdrawn 16-09-2008 basement. Ground floor to retain use as club house, first and second floor change of use from club building to four one-bed and two two-bed apartments. To include demolition of existing club house building. P/2008/4263 Three storey building to include Refused 05-01-2009 basement and roof terrace, basement and ground floor to retain current use as club house, first and second floor change of use from club building to four one-bed and
Page 14 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
two two-bed self-contained flats. PP/2010/0487 Demolition of existing snooker Withdrawn 08-04-2010 club building . Erection of part 3 storey and part 2 storey building with basement. Change of use of ground floor to accommodate 5 number retail units with storage in basement. 4 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom residential flats at 1st and 2nd floor level with balconies at 1st and 2nd floor level. Associated cycle, refuse and recycling areas PP/2010/2388 Demolition of existing snooker Granted 02-09-2010 club. Erection part two, part Conditionally three storey building with ancillary basement level, providing five retail units, four x one bedroom and two x two bedroom residential flats with first and second floor terrace access areas, and associated cycle, refuse and recyclables storage area.
Consultation:
Public Consultation - Summary
55 neighbouring properties were consulted between 12/03/13 – 02/04/13 including the neighbouring properties at 1-3 The Crescent, and 1-3 Beaconsfield Road. A site notice was also put up at the site and a local advert placed in the local press on the 15/03/13.
No responses were received.
Page 15 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Internal Transport No Objection Services •The site is near a congested traffic junction. •It is in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) therefore no parking permits should be permitted for residents or the business (secured by s106 legal agreement). •The pedestrian pavement fronting the site is narrow and setting the building back/widening the footway would be an advantage. •The commercial use would require deliveries therefore a planning condition should be attached restricting deliveries to outside of peak hours. •The flats would require a minimum of 4 cycle parking spaces.
Case Officer’s Response: As this development would only provide 2 x 2 bedrooms flats it is considered that there would be only a minor potential impact on levels of local car parking congestion. It is therefore considered that no section 106 legal agreement is required in this case.
It is considered unreasonable to seek to widen the present 2 m wide public footpath as this proposed use would generate limited pedestrian activity. Also the front of the development abuts the front wall of 1-3 The Crescent, thereby limiting the effectiveness of any potential footpath widening at this junction.
The nature of the use would generate very little servicing and represents a suitable use for this site and therefore planning conditions controlling deliveries are considered unnecessary.
Regulatory Air Quality Services There are concerns about the developers predicted N02 concentrations. It is noted that there is uncertainty with dispersion modelling and therefore mitigation has been recommended.
An additional concern with the proposal is the presence of the external walkways/balconies which would not be suitable as amenity areas due to the air pollution and the noise.
Page 16 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Recommended Planning Conditions
Provision of fresh air ventilation to habitable rooms with supply from the south west of the building at high level. Provision of low emission boilers.
Noise Mitigation
The noise survey only looks at one measurement position (along the Beaconsfield Rd frontage) with no measurement at the closest point to South Road, or any mention of commercial noise.
This is an area which experiences high traffic volumes and therefore the noise issues associated with it.
Although the revised dual aspect design of the proposal has improved the development from a pollution perspective, pending the results of a noise survey it may still be necessary to have sealed windows on the Beaconsfield Road façade.
Recommended Planning Conditions
Amended noise survey with mitigation. Maximum noise levels for external plant and machinery.
Land Contamination
Due to lead, asbestos, PAH contamination and Land gases (VOC vapours) further contaminated land sampling and gas monitoring is required. Regulatory Services would recommend conditions to ensure appropriate remediation of the site for its intended end use.
Recommended Planning Conditions
Site contamination investigation. Submission of Remediation Scheme Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
Recommended Planning Informatives
Air quality information. Page 17 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Construction phase information
Case Officer’s Response: These conditions are informatives are contained in this recommendation.
Environmental In this case the joint commercial and residential refuse & Services recycling store would be acceptable.
External Thames Water Standard informative on surface water drainage.
Southall Objection. This is an overdevelopment of a restricted site with History difficult pedestrian access. Society
Reasoned Justification:
Main Issues
The main issues for the consideration of this application are an assessment of the principle of the development, consideration of the design and scale and the relationship with the character of the area, the amenity impact on adjacent uses, the provision of adequate living conditions, and assessment of the transport impacts of the development. Other issues include accessibility, environmental pollution, refuse and recycling storage, sustainability, and crime prevention,
The development is assessed in accordance with the provisions of the development plan which is presently made up of the London Plan (2011), The Ealing Core Strategy (2012), The Ealing Draft Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) (2013), and saved policies of the The Unitary Development Plan (2004). Other material considerations include Ealing and Greater London Authority supplementary planning guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). A further material consideration is the previous application at this site ref: PP/2010/2388 for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part two, part three storey building with basement level providing 5 retail units at ground floor level and 6 residential flats above which was approved on the 02/09/2010.
Principle of Development
The vacant building on the site was last used as a snooker hall which as a leisure and recreation use is classified as a redundant community facility in planning terms. The development would result in the loss of this redundant community building.
UDP Policy 8.3 states that the Council will encourage proposals for the improvement of community facilities by private, public and voluntary organisations. Where a community facility is no longer required in its current use, planning applications for uses other than Page 18 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 alternative community facilities will be resisted. However, if the Local Planning Authority is satisfied no appropriate alternative community facility can be identified; affordable housing will be acceptable in principle, on sites in residential areas, and mixed development in shopping centres, ideally with some accommodation for community use.
London Plan Policy 3.16 adds weight to this in stating that proposals which would result in a loss of social infrastructure in areas of defined need for that type of social infrastructure without realistic proposals for reprovision should be resisted. The suitability of redundant social infrastructure premises for other forms of social infrastructure for which there is a defined need in the locality should be assessed before alternative developments are considered.
Therefore it is necessary to demonstrate that: i). The building is not needed for its present leisure and recreational use (Use Class D2), and: ii). The building is not needed for use by other types of community facility.
It acknowledged that satisfactory marketing information was submitted on planning application ref: PP/2010/2388 for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part two, part three storey building with basement level providing 5 retail units at ground floor level and 6 residential flats above which was approved on the 02/09/2010.
A letter has been received from the developer’s estate agent confirming that the property was marketed up to September 2012 but no suitable bids were received as interested parties were concerned that this was a difficult construction site.
It is therefore accepted that a satisfactory marketing update has been submitted and there is no objection to the principle of the a loss of this community facility and its replacement with proposed mixed use development at a site within Southall Major Town Centre.
The proposed safety deposit box storage use is considered to be a suitable use for this site which is located at the edge of Southall Town Centre in accordance with UDP Policy 7.7, and London Plan Policies 4.7. This use would also have a reduced impact in terms of transport and particularly servicing requirements, and amenity compared to the 5 retail units which were previously approved as a part of application PP/2010/2388.
The proposed use of the second floor for two x two bedroom residential flats to create a mixed use scheme is also supported in principle in accordance with UDP Policies 4.2 & 6.2, and London Plan Policies 2.15, 3.3, and 3.4.
There is no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing building which is considered to have limited architectural merit and contribution to the character of the streetscene.
Page 19 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Design & Visual Impact
The relevant policies of the development plan listed above, including UDP Policies 4.1 & 5.5, and London Plan Policies 7.1, 7.4-7.6 require new development to have a high quality design which integrates well with the character and scale of the existing area.
The existing warehouse type building on the site faces onto Beaconsfield Road and extends to a depth of 33.7 m from the rear of the three storey building at 1-3 The Crescent. The existing building also measures 9.2 m in width, 4.2 m in height to eaves level and 7.2 m in height to pitch level.
The proposed replacement part two and three storey building would measure 33.7 m in depth from the rear of 1-3 The Crescent, 9.2 m in width, and 8.7 m in height to roof level. The second floor level would be recessed by 1.5 m from the sides of the roof, and 4.5 m from the rear elevation of 1-3 The Crescent.
The height and scale of the building would provide a suitable transition between the higher 3 storey building at 1-3 The Crescent, and the 2 storey terrace at 1-9 Beaconsfield Road. It is considered that the building would be sufficiently subordinate to the building at 1-3 The Crescent, whilst not over dominating the smaller 2 storey building at 1-9 Beaconsfield Road.
It is noted that the height, scale and design of the development is similar to the building approved in the extant planning permission ref: PP/2010/2388, but with a variation in the function and internal layout. The proposed safety deposit box business replaces the 5 retail units at ground floor, first floor and basement level and the number of flats have been reduced to 2 at second floor level only.
It is considered that the replacement building would have a good quality contemporary design which would enhance the character of the streetscene at the junction of Beaconsfield Road and South Road. It is also acknowledged that the development would also use good quality materials including textured brown/grey brickwork with blue and green opaque glass panels for the main elevations, and a lighter textured grey brick for the recessed second floor level. These materials would integrate well adjacent buildings and enhance the character of the streetscene.
Overall the design of the proposed development is supported in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan including UDP Policies 4.1 & 5.5, and London Plan Policies 7.4-7.6.
Amenity Impact
UDP Policies 4.1 & 5.5 and London Plan Policy 7.6 require new development to protect the amenity of local residents from overlooking, loss of outlook and loss of light.
Page 20 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Impact on no’s 4-7 The Crescent
The buildings at no’s. 4-7 The Crescent are located to the south east of the site. The closest adjacent property is no.4 The Crescent which contains windows on the rear elevation at first and second floor level.
The planning history for- 4-7 The Crescent indicate use as short term guesthouse accommodation known as the Argyll Hotel.
The development would project beyond the rear elevation of no. 4 The Crescent at first and second floor level. The second floor would be recessed by 4.5 m from the rear elevation of 1-3 The Crescent and 1.5 m from the southern elevation to reduce the impact on no. 4 The Crescent,
On the former application ref PP/2010/2388 part of the first floor of the building was recessed from the southern boundary by 2 m. However the second floor was positioned 1 m from that boundary therefore overhanging the first floor. Also the building directly adjacent to no. 4 The Crescent did not include a first floor recess and was built to a height of 7.4 m, with a total height of 9.4 m to second floor level.
The height of the part of the building directly adjacent to no. 4 The Crescent has been lowered to 6 m on this application (compared to 7.4 m on the previous application), and the second floor level would now be recessed by 1.7 m from the southern boundary (compared to 1 m on the previous application).
Considering the reduced height of the building adjacent to the rear elevation of no. 4 The Crescent, and the second floor recess it is considered that the development would have a reduced impact on no. 4 The Crescent compared to previously approved application PP/2010/2388.
It is also acknowledged that the upper floors of no. 4 The Crescent still appear to be in use as a guest house which reduces the materiality of the amenity impact.
Furthermore the development would be sited to the north of 4 The Crescent, and would therefore not obstruct direct sunlight from being received.
The development would be sited a sufficient distance from no.’s 5-7 The Crescent, and would therefore not significantly impact on the amenity of those properties.
The access balcony on the southern side of the building at second floor level would be fitted with a high level obscure glazed balustrade to help prevent overlooking of 4-7 The Crescent.
Impact on 1 Beaconsfield Road
Page 21 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
The building at 1 Beaconsfield Road is located to the west of the site. It contains an existing restaurant at ground and first floor level.
The second floor of the development would be recessed from the proposed front and side walls in order to mitigate the impact on no. 1 Beaconsfield Road.
Overall considering the second floor level set back and the fact that the first floor of 1 Beaconsfield Road is in restaurant use the development would not impact on the amenity of this property.
Impact on 1-3 The Crescent
The first and second floor of no. 1-3 The Crescent directly to the east of the site contains office use. There are 3 windows on the rear elevation, a staircase window between first and second floor level, and 2 second floor windows for the office space.
The second floor of the development would be set back from 1-3 The Crescent by 4.5 m which is designed to protect light and outlook to windows on the rear elevation of that building. It is therefore acknowledged that the light and outlook for the offices at 1-3 The Crescent would be protected.
Living Conditions for Future Residents
The development would provide 2 x 2 bedroom 3 person units each with an internal floorspace of 68 sq m in compliance with policy 3.5 of The London Plan (table 3.3).
The flats would have a small area of outdoor amenity space on the second floor from and rear roof terrace in accordance with London Plan SPG requirements.
The flats would be dual aspect units and would be provided with adequate light and outlook in accordance with UDP Policy 5.5, and London Plan Policy 7.6.
This site does however give rise to noise and air quality concerns which are discussed below.
Transport
Pedestrian Access
The safety deposit box operation would primarily be accessed from a recessed access point on the eastern side of the northern elevation at ground floor level. The flats would be accessed from an access point on the western side of the building via an internal staircase. No lift access to second floor level would be provided however the staircase would be designed to accessible standards. Overall this pedestrian access arrangement is considered to be acceptable in accordance with UDP Policy 9.1, and London Plan Policy 6.10.
Page 22 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
The existing pavement in front of the site measures 2 m in width. The proposal has not been set back from the existing building like the development permitted by permission ref: PP/2010/2388 which was set back from the existing building line by a 1.5 m at ground floor level.
Although it would have been desirable for the building to have been set back it is noted that the proposed use would not generate the same level of pedestrian activity as the 5 ground floor retail units on the former application. Taking into account the level of pedestrian activity to the proposed security deposit use and flats it is considered to be acceptable for the existing building line to be maintained in this case. This would not be detrimental to pedestrian movement and safety.
Car Parking/ Cycle Parking
The site is located in Southall Town Centre, with a Public Transport Access Level of 4 (good) according to Transport for London (TfL). The surrounding streets are located in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The present development offers no on-site parking or servicing.
It is noted that the development would provide no off-street car parking. However this is deemed to be acceptable considering the location of the site within the town centre, in a CPZ, and with good public transport links.
As this development would only provide 2 x 2 bedrooms flats it is considered that it would only have a minor potential impact on levels of local car parking demand. It is therefore considered that no section 106 legal agreement removing rights to car parking permits is required in this case.
The submitted plans show that secure cycle parking would be provided for the flats within the lobby area at ground floor level in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.9.
Servicing
The site is located close to the congested junction of Beaconsfield Road with South Road. The width of the road is also restricted. Servicing of the site from Beaconsfield Road has the potential to restrict the free flow of traffic and conditions of general highway safety during peak hours.
However it is considered that the development would have significantly reduced servicing implications compared to the extant permission ref PP/2010/2388 at this site for 5 retail units at ground floor level and 4 residential flats above.
Page 23 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Transport Services have requested stated that a servicing and refuse management plan should be submitted with the planning application and servicing times should be restricted to outside peak hours (07.30 – 09.30 and 16.30- 18.30). However in view of the very limited servicing required for the proposed uses this is considered to be unnecessary.
Accessibility
Although no lift access would be provided to the second floor flats the staircase would be large enough to accommodate a wheelchair lift. The staircase also complies with the lifetime homes standards having risers of 160mm, treads of 250mm and a width of 1000mm.
The minimum width of hallways would be 900mm, and doors would have a minimum clear opening width of 750mm.
The bathrooms are accessible for disabled persons in accordance with lifetime homes standards.
The development would therefore be accessible for future residents in compliance with the lifetime home standards in accordance with UDP Policies 4.3 and 5.3, SPG 7, and London Plan Policy 3.8 and 7.2.
Environmental Pollution
Noise Mitigation
This is an area which experiences high traffic volumes and therefore the noise issues associated with it. The submitted noise survey only looks at one measurement position along the Beaconsfield Rd frontage with no measurement at the closest point to South Road, or any mention of commercial noise.
Therefore on the basis of advice from Regulatory Services planning conditions have been added requiring an amended noise survey with mitigation, and setting the maximum noise levels for external plant and machinery. It is considered notwithstanding the location of the site a reasonable standard of amenity can be provided for the prospective residents of the flats
Regulatory Services have advised that depending on the results of the amended noise survey it may still be necessary to have sealed windows on the Beaconsfield Road façade.
Air Quality
On the basis of advice from Regulatory Services a planning condition has been added requiring the provision of fresh air ventilation to habitable rooms with supply from the
Page 24 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 south west of the building at high level. In accordance with present sustainability requirements the development would also need to be fitted with low emission boilers.
Regulatory Services are also concerned that the external terrace facing Beaconsfield Road may not be suitable as an amenity area due to exposure to air pollution and noise. However it is acknowledged that the originally approved scheme provided a front facing balcony and that both flats would also have a rear terrace providing better conditions. The previous scheme also proposed flats at first floor level which were deemed to be acceptable.
Land
Regulatory Services have stated that further contaminated land sampling and gas monitoring is required and planning conditions have been applied to ensure the appropriate remediation of the site for its intended end use. These conditions include a site contamination investigation, the submission of remediation scheme and the implementation of approved remediation scheme.
The development will however cover the whole of the site and the residential use is at second floor level.
Refuse Storage
The development would provide adequate refuse & recycling storage to the west of the building with an internal access from the ground floor residential hallway and an external access from Beaconsfield Road. Environmental Services have confirmed that the proposed joint commercial/residential refuse store would be acceptable ion this case. This would comply with UDP Policy 2.10 SPG 4 and London Plan Policy 5.16-5.17.
Sustainability/Energy Efficiency
The development would incorporate sustainability and energy efficiency measures, accordance with UDP Policy 2.9, and London Plan Policies 5.1-5.9.
Crime Prevention
As the development is for a safety deposit storage use it would incorporate crime prevention measures. The Metropolitan Crime Prevention Design Officer has reviewed these proposed measures by visiting one of the applicants existing operations in Wembley and is satisfied that the measures that are proposed would create a safe and secure development for the users of the premises. Access to the residential accommodation and the safety deposit box use is direct and highly visible from Beaconsfield Road in the interests of safety in accordance with UDP Policy 4.4, Ealing Draft Development Management Policy 7.2, and London Plan Policy 7.3.
Page 25 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07
Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL)
This development would be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL) at a level of £35 per square metre of total gross internal floorspace which would be £27,580 for this development.
Conclusion
Overall the redevelopment of the site to provide a safety deposit box storage use at ground and first floor levels and 2 x residential flats at second floor level is considered to be a suitable mixed use development for this town centre site in accordance with UDP Policies 4.2 and 7.7, and London Plan Policies 2.15 and 4.7.
The development would have a suitable height and scale in keeping with the adjacent buildings including the higher 3 storey building at 1-3 The Crescent, and the 2 storey terrace at 1-9 Beaconsfield Road. The development would also have a good quality contemporary design with high quality materials which would enhance the character of the streetscene at the junction of Beaconsfield Road and South Road in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan including UDP Policies 4.1 & 5.5, and London Plan Policies 7.4-7.6.
The height and scale of the development would be similar to the building approved in the extant planning permission ref: PP/2010/2388, but with a variation in the function and internal layout.
It is considered that the development would not have a material amenity impact on neighbouring properties at 4-7 The Crescent, 1 Beaconsfield Road, or 1-3 The Crescent.
It is noted that no car parking would be provided. However this is acceptable as it is an accessible town centre site and is within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The uses would require very limited servicing.
The development would provide satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the residential flats with adequate internal living space and a good internal layout. Planning conditions have been applied to ensure that the flats would also be fitted with suitable mitigation against noise and air pollution in the area.
Overall the development would generally comply with the provisions of the development plan considered above and it is recommended that planning permission be Approved with Conditions
Human Rights Act:
Approval You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family
Page 26 of 27
Planning Committee 03/07/2013 Schedule Item 07 life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
Page 27 of 27