burnetta van stipriaan sustainable development committee 8 ...... · 5.1.3 four site notices dated...

Burnetta Van Stipriaan e-mail: [email protected] Sustainable Development Committee 8 December 2008

References: P/2008/1131 P/2008/1119

01119/M/CA3 01119/M/P4

Address: Campion House, Thornbury Road, Isleworth TW7 4NN

Ward: Osterley and Spring Grove

Proposal: 01119/M/CA3: Demolition of existing extensions to Campion House and associated outbuildings including the chapel, refectory, dormitories and classrooms but excluding Tigar Hall.

01119/M/P4 (amended description): Retention of Campion House and Tigar Hall, demolition of annex buildings and outbuildings other than Tigar Hall, and redevelopment of the site including - Conversion of Campion House and erection of 13 new buildings to create 154 units (13 one-bedroom units, 95 two-bedroom units, 19 three-bedroom units (including 16 maisonettes) and 27 four-bedroom units (including 22 terraced houses and two semi-detached houses)); and - Conversion of Tigar Hall to provide a community facility and also to house an IT suite, exhibition space and site management office; and with associated parking, access and landscaping to site.

Drawing numbers: Reported separately (see attachment)

Applications received: 26 March 2008

1.0 Summary 1.1 This 3.22 hectare site comprises a redundant residential seminary (Use Class C2

(residential institutions)) on the western side of Thornbury Road, within the Spring Grove Conservation Area. The existing buildings are concentrated on the eastern part of the site and include Campion House, which is on the Council’s list of Buildings of Local Townscape Character. There is a Grade II listed statue towards the centre of the Thornbury Road frontage. The open space to the rear (west) of the site is designated Local Open Space under the Unitary Development Plan and the site falls within an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency under the same.

1.2 The applications follow on from planning application 01119/M/P3 – that, in short, proposed the retention of Campion House and No. 104 Thornbury Road, demolition of existing annex and outbuildings and the redevelopment of the site including conversion and erection of two new buildings to create 239 units – and application for conservation area consent 01119/M/CA2, both of which were dismissed at a non-determination appeal in July 2007.

1.3 The applications that are the subject of this report (01119/M/P4 and 01119/M/CA3) propose the retention of Campion House and Tigar Hall, demolition of annex buildings and outbuildings other than Tigar Hall, and redevelopment of the site. Residential units (reduced from 168 as originally submitted to 160 as first amended to 154 as now proposed) would be provided through the conversion of Campion House and the erection of 13 new buildings. Tigar Hall would provide a community facility and also house an IT suite, exhibition space and site management office.

1.4 The issues addressed in the body of this report are: • Issue 1: The principle of the proposed development • Issue 2: The suitability of the site for residential purposes in terms of noise, air quality,

flood risk, wind and contamination o Issue 2(a): Noise o Issue 2(b): Air quality o Issue 2(c): Flood risk o Issue 2(d): Wind o Issue 2(e): Contamination

• Issue 3: Whether the development is acceptable in terms of amenity space and open space, daylight and sunlight, privacy, refuse and recycling storage, internal space provision and accessibility o Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? o Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space o Issue 3(c): Daylight and sunlight o Issue 3(d): Privacy o Issue 3(e): Refuse and recycling storage o Issue 3(f): Internal space standards o Issue 3(g): Accessibility

• Issue 4: Would the development provide a sufficient range of housing provision and levels of affordable accommodation and would the development be accommodated in terms of community infrastructure? o Issue 4(a): Range of housing provision including affordable housing provision o Issue 4(b): Community infrastructure

• Issue 5: The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character and (or) appearance of the conservation area

• Issue 6: The impact on residential amenity • Issue 7: Parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement • Issue 8: Are sustainable building principles applied? • Issue 9: The potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations. • Issue 10: Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and

01119/M/CA2 were dismissed?

1.5 Officers consider that the proposed re-development would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation and a sufficient range of housing provision including affordable housing provision; would enhance the character and appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area subject to safeguarding conditions; would not unduly harm neighbours’ living conditions or impact on the use of the Indian Gymkhana Club to the rear (west); and is acceptable in parking, servicing and traffic movement terms.

1.6 Whilst the proposal would encroach upon the existing Local Open Space to the rear (west) of the site, the view of officers is that there are, on balance, very special circumstances to allow the loss including the proposed provision of publicly accessible open space in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency.

1.7 The proposal, which would repair and restore Campion House (included on the Council’s list of Buildings of Local Townscape Character) to beneficial use and which would have a beneficial impact on the street scene and the setting of Campion House therefore overcomes the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed at appeal. Subject to conditions and a Section 106 Deed, including to secure community facilities in Tigar Hall, the proposal is, therefore, in accordance with development plan policy.

1.8 Accordingly, approval of planning permission and grant of conservation area consent is recommended.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is located on the western side of Thornbury Road, lying south of Thornbury

Road’s junction with Thornbury Avenue and so south of where Thornbury Road meets the southern side of the A4 Great West Road to form a traffic light controlled junction.

2.2 The application site measures 3.22 hectares (as set out at Question 4 – Site Area of the Non-Householder planning application form) and falls within the Spring Grove Conservation Area, which was designated in April 2002. The area is referred to as “an estate planned to be a grand Victorian suburb” within the Spring Grove Conservation Area Appraisal.

2.3 Campion House, built at 3½ storeys in height (3 storey plus semi-basement), is included on the Council’s list of Buildings of Local Townscape Character (is a ‘locally listed’ building).

2.4 Campion House is connected to the Chapel building, which is itself linked by bridge to the three-storey accommodation block to its south. The bridge link lies opposite Church Road and allows views into the site at ground level.

2.5 No. 104 Thornbury Road lies to the south of the accommodation block and is a two-storey detached house. No. 104 Thornbury Road is outside of the application site.

2.6 Tigar Hall lies to the rear of No. 104 Thornbury Road and falls within the application site.

2.7 Other buildings within the application site include Nazareth and Bethlehem Cottage.

2.8 There are various statues on site; that known as ‘Ghost or Descent from the Cross’ that lies south of Campion House and south of Thornbury Road’s junction with Church Road is Grade II listed.

2.9 The site is landscaped, including a formal garden to the rear of Campion House and mature trees especially along the site frontage. There is also a pond and orchard to the rear of the existing buildings.

2.10 The open space to the rear (west) of the site is designated Local Open Space under the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the site falls within an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency (UDP Map ENV-N.1), being an area in the Borough that is more than 400 metres from any publicly accessible open space, taking into account barriers to movement, such as railways and major roads (as defined at Paragraph 3.14 of the UDP).

2.11 Access to the site is via three entrances on Thornbury Road, with the main entrance lying opposite Thornbury Road’s junction with Church Road, about midway along the site’s frontage. Car parking areas are currently provided within the gravelled forecourt area to the front of Campion House and between the accommodation block and Tigar Hall at the southern end of the site.

2.12 As a residential seminary, the site falls within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions – unless abandoned) under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), rather than Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions).

2.13 In terms of surrounding development, the site lies within a predominantly residential area outside of the town centre where the neighbouring and adjoining built development is predominantly two-storey in scale, although the houses on the opposite side of Thornbury Road are set at a higher level and there are pockets of three-storey development opposite and to the south.

2.14 It is bounded immediately to the north by the flank boundary of No. 114 Thornbury Road, a two-storey semi-detached house, and the rear gardens of Thornbury Avenue properties.

2.15 Its western rear boundary abuts the playing fields of the Indian Gymkhana Club that are also designated Local Open Space under the UDP. The Club is accessed from Thornbury Avenue, through a gap to the south between No's 30 and 32.

2.16 The site’s southern flank boundary abuts: • No. 104 Thornbury Road (see Paragraph 2.5 above); • Kilberry Close properties, planning permission for seven two-storey homes and 54

flats in three-storey blocks with garages, parking spaces and amenity areas having been granted in 1984; and

• cul-de-sac development at Oakley Close.

2.17 Two-storey semi-detached properties form the predominant character of development opposite, with those dwellings to the north of Church Road sitting above Campion House due to changes in ground level and three-storey development opposite, to the south of Church Road.

2.18 No.s 2 and 17 Thornbury Road and the properties No.s 101-111 Thornbury Road opposite are locally listed.

2.19 Part of Thornbury Road (north of its junction with Church Road) is a route signed for cyclists (UDP Map T1 London Cycle Network).

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 Applications for the erection of buildings were approved in the 1950s and 1960s, with planning permission for the erection of extensions comprising a chapel, classrooms, a study hall and three-storey dormitory block approved in 1961.

01119/M/P1 and 01119/M/CA1

3.2 The Council registered the development proposed by planning application 01119/M/P1 using the following description:

“Retention of Campion House and existing gate lodge to the South of the site, demolition of existing annex and outbuildings, and the redevelopment of the site including conversion of Campion House and erection of two new buildings ranging from 3-5 storeys (one block at 3 storeys and one block with lower ground level and 3-5 storeys above) to create 273 units (21 four- bedroom terraced houses, 62 one-bed[room] flats, 170 two-bed[room] flats and 20 three-bed[room] flats) with associated parking, access and landscaping to site.”

3.3 Officers were thereafter advised (by email sent 6 September 2006) that there would be 64 (rather than 62) one-bedroom units, 168 (rather than 170) two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units and 21 four-bedroom units.

3.4 The Council registered application for conservation area consent 01119/M/CA1 using the description “Demolition of existing extensions to Campion House and associated outbuildings including the Chapel, Refectory, dormitories and classrooms.”

3.5 Both applications (01119/M/P1 and 01119/M/CA1) were appealed on the grounds of non-determination.

3.6 Both applications were reported to the meeting of the Council’s SDC on 11 December 2006. Members resolved that, had the applicant not appealed, planning application 01119/M/P1 would have been refused for 11 reasons. In relation to the application for Conservation Area consent 01119/M/CA1 it was further deemed that had the applicant not appealed the proposed works of demolition would have been refused given the absence of an acceptable redevelopment of the site.

3.7 Both appeals (APP/F5540/A/06/2026897/NWF (Planning) and APP/F5540/E/06/2026895/NWF (Conservation Area)) were withdrawn.

01119/M/P2 3.8 The planning application received on 14 July 2006 for the retention of a 2.4m high site

security hoarding at the site (01119/M/P2) was refused on 7 September 2006 by reason of its siting, height and unsympathetic design creating a structure that is overbearing and visually intrusive having a detrimental impact upon the appearance and character of the site, the Thornbury Road street scene and the Spring Grove Conservation Area. The London Borough of Hounslow’s Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning), at its meeting on 14 December 2006, granted authority for service of an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the hoarding and all resultant debris. This notice was served on 10 January 2007, taking effect on 15 February 2007, requiring compliance by 15 March 2007. An appeal (APP/F5540/C/07/2037900) was made against the notice and the appeal allowed.

01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 3.9 The Council registered the development proposed by planning application 01119/M/P3

using the following description:

“Retention of Campion House and existing gate lodge to the south of the site, demolition of existing annex and outbuildings, and the redevelopment of the site including conversion of Campion House and erection of two new buildings ranging from 3-5 storeys (one block at 3 storeys and one block with lower ground level and 3-5 storeys above) to create 239 units (38 one- bedroom flats, 163 two-bedroom flats, 17 three-bedroom flats and 21 four- bedroom terraced houses) with associated parking, access and landscaping to site.”

3.10 The Council registered application for conservation area consent 01119/M/CA1 using the description “Demolition of existing extensions to Campion House and associated outbuildings including the chapel, refectory, dormitories and classrooms.”

3.11 Both applications were appealed on the grounds of non-determination by way of letter dated 13 February 2007.

3.12 Both applications were reported to the meeting of the Council’s SDC on 28 March 2007.

3.13 In summary, Members of the Council’s SDC considered that: • less than the required private and communal amenity space was being proposed; • that the applicant's reasons and the officer's assessment had not provided sufficient

justification for the proposed level of encroachment upon the existing Local Open Space;

• that it would not be obvious that the proposed publicly accessible open space was there, so that it might not be accessed and used; and

• that encroachment onto the Local Open Space should be included as an additional deemed reason for refusal to those set out in the officer’s report.

• Members resolved that, had the applicant not appealed, planning application number 01119/M/P3 would have been refused for the following reasons: o The proposed development, by reason of its position, size, design and

appearance and landscaping, would have an undue adverse impact on the street scene and on the setting of Campion House;

o The proposed development, by reason of its position, size, design and appearance and landscaping, would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area; and

o The proposed level of encroachment upon the existing Local Open Space in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency.

3.14 In relation to application for conservation area consent 01119/M/CA2 it was deemed that, had the applicant not appealed, the proposed works of demolition would have been refused given the absence of an acceptable redevelopment of the site:

“…because, in the absence of an acceptable redevelopment of the site, the proposed works of demolition would be contrary to UDP Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation areas), ENV-B.2.3 (Reuse of redundant historic buildings) and ENV-B.2.7 (alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character)”

3.15 Both appeals were dismissed, with the Inspector’s decision dated 18th July 2007 setting out (in part) the following:

“14. …Overall, Spring Grove has a cohesive, distinctive, and well established character and appearance.

15. Thornbury House itself – renamed Campion House – has been identified under

UDP Policy ENV-B.2.6 as a building of local townscape character worthy of protection, effectively a ‘locally listed’ building in the terms of paragraph 6.16 of PPG15. Some of the attractive group of Edwardian and ‘Arts and Crafts’ houses opposite the site are similarly protected. The remainder of the seminary buildings, including an extension to Thornbury House, are of limited architectural value.

While the chapel is of some interest, the parties agree that these buildings generally make no positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, indeed the hostel accommodation is of poor design quality and, if anything, makes a negative contribution. As envisaged by paragraph 4.7 of PPG15, there is an opportunity to replace them by an imaginative, high quality development designed to enhance the area.

16. …in my view the local context falls squarely within the Table’s description of a

suburban location... In such a location, the density indicated for a scheme of terraced houses and flats is 200-250 habitable rooms/hectare (hr/ha) or 50-80 units/hectare (u/ha).

17. Density calculations should be based on net residential area which, bearing in

mind the description given in Annex B of PPS3, should only include incidental open space and landscaping which is necessary to meet the needs of the occupants. …

19. Selective demolition at Thornbury House would restore its integrity and provide a

more open setting, akin to the original design intention and more appropriate to its origins as a key part of the Victorian suburb and to its status as a locally listed building. Conversion to flats, if sensitively done, would ensure its repair and survival. This would be of real benefit to the area. The small 3-storey block of flats to the north, designed as a ‘villa’, would make an appropriate transition between the large scale Thornbury House and the 2/3 storey semi-detached houses beyond. This arrangement would also open up views of the grounds.

… 26. The appellant refers to Thornbury House as the ‘jewel in the crown’. I consider

that, to reflect this, it would be more appropriate for Thornbury House to stand out from the surrounding development, in the way other surviving mansions do, rather than be subsumed by new development of an unrelenting similarity of height. The existing street frontage is acknowledged to have a neutral or negative effect on the conservation area. In my view, this more continuously built-up frontage would have a far greater adverse effect, since it would entirely alter the nature of Thornbury Road. As a consequence of excessive density, the scale, height and massing of the new building would have a much more harmful effect on the suburban character of the conservation area. It would not be compatible with its local context and I consider that neither the character nor the appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.

… 29. The footprint of the proposed building would encroach substantially into the area

designated as local open space, perhaps by about 20-25% of its area. The remaining land would be laid out with paths and gardens, and part of the original garden of Thornbury House would be restored. The layout would include a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play and an all-weather multi-use games area, screened by existing trees. The grounds and these facilities would be open to the public, thereby increasing the area of publicly accessible open space in the area.

30. This very real benefit has to be balanced against the extent of encroachment and

loss of open space. The appellant argues that encroachment totals no more than 10% and that this limited amount is acceptable, given the benefits of the scheme. However this calculation, as a form of compensation, depends on the inclusion of the landscaped frontage area on Thornbury Road and the southern internal courtyard as part of the area of publicly accessible open space.

The landscaped frontage strip is not currently part of the area designated as local open space. This area would provide a degree of privacy for the basement bedrooms, and paths within it would lead to the building’s entrances. It is not an area which would naturally lend itself to use by the public, and I do not consider it reasonable to include this strip as part of the area of public open space.

… 32. In my view, the extent of the actual encroachment of the building onto the local

open space is much greater than claimed and the provision of suitable publicly accessible open space much less. While opening the grounds to the public is an undoubted benefit of the scheme, there would be a substantial loss of open space within the site. On balance, I consider the benefits of public access insufficient to provide the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the development plan policy objectives intended to prevent such a substantial loss of local open space.

33. There was originally a football pitch in the grounds. There is evidence to show

that, at one time, it was used informally by local schools and others, as well as seminarians, but it has clearly not been used for some time. I am not convinced that it can be considered a playing field as such, worthy of retention. …The appellant would make a substantial contribution to the improvement of community infrastructure, which could be used to provide higher quality sports facilities in an appropriate location. With this in mind, I do not consider that the consequent loss of the pitch is a major disadvantage of the scheme. Nonetheless, overall I consider that the proposal would have a negative impact on the provision of local open space.

34. … statue… Providing it remains accessible to public view, there seems to me to

be every advantage in relocating the statue to a more sheltered location on the site. This would ensure the preservation of the statue in association with the seminary site.”

4.0 DETAILS The applications

4.1 The application for conservation area consent (01119/M/CA3) seeks the demolition of existing extensions to Campion House and associated outbuildings.

4.2 As amended, the application for planning permission (01119/M/P4) seeks retention of Campion House and Tigar Hall, demolition of annex buildings and outbuildings other than Tigar Hall, and redevelopment of the site including: • conversion of Campion House and erection of 13 new buildings to create 154 units; • conversion of Tigar Hall to provide a community facility and also to house an IT suite,

exhibition space and site management office; and with • associated parking, access and landscaping to site. Design concept

4.3 The applicant states at 4.2 of the Design & Access Statement that,

“Our design proposals for the Campion House site have emerged as a response to two primary influences: firstly, the existing qualities of the site and its setting, and secondly our work with the local community in understanding how any redevelopment should be responsive to its local context.”

4.4 The applicant’s design concept is of “distinct blocks, ‘pavilions’, in a strongly defined landscape”1. As set out at 4.3 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement,

“An interconnected network of routes and open spaces is proposed and a conceptual form of development based on ‘pavilions in the landscape’ has been the defining principle of the proposal. These ‘pavilions’ would take various forms, and are a direct response to the wonderful opportunities offered by the spaces and qualities of the Campion House site.”

Layout and form of development 4.5 The applicant states2:

“The proposed layout emerged from an analysis of desirable routes, views, and open spaces across the site. A ‘permeable’ layout of smaller buildings set in the landscape was prepared, offering a finer grain of development with long range views between buildings to open spaces beyond. The proposal therefore comprises 15 separate and distinct buildings with a clear layout of routes and spaces between them – including a wide footpath along a historically established route aligned with Church Road. The resultant variety of character areas, open spaces and architectural styles would enhance the already richly diverse character of the Conservation Area.”

4.6 The 154 units now proposed are discussed below from Paragraph 4.19.

Elements of landscape 4.7 “The Design & Access Statement includes a landscape strategy by Neil Tully

Associates and incorporates a tree survey”3.

4.8 The current structure of the formal garden to the rear (west) of Campion House would be “…retained and enhanced”4. This “…newly enhanced and accessible area of landscape”5 would be named ‘Thornbury Gardens’. There would also be two other ‘major open spaces’, Church Walk and Thornbury Green:

“The ‘extended’ Church Road route, a wide pedestrian route into the full depth of the site…named Church Walk [and] Thornbury Green…a meaningful new green space along Thornbury Road…[that] would also allow long range views of Campion House from the south-east such that it would be glimpsed from some 150 metres away…”6

4.9 The proposed development would encroach on the Local Open Space to the rear (west) of the site.

1 4.3 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement. 2 Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee Members Briefing Note September 2008. 3 The applicant’s Planning Statement, Paragraph 6.98. 4 1.1 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement refers to “…the retention of elements of

the original landscaping scheme…” and 4.19 reads “The current structure of the garden will be retained and enhanced…”

5 4.3 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement. 6 4.3 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement.

4.10 At Paragraph 6.44 of the applicant’s Planning Statement it is stated that, “To summarise”, the following benefits amount to the very special circumstances which justify the encroachment:

“Achieving an area of open space which provides multiple functions in line with PPG17 Adequate private amenity space to meet UDP standards Provision of local publicly accessible open space in an area with a deficiency of local open space and associated facilities Reconfiguration of the open land pattern on the site, to include more open land on the main road frontage, and new and enhanced views into the depth of the site Provision of a mix of housing that includes a significantly higher proportion of houses with gardens than would be possible if development stuck rigidly to the open land line defined in the UDP”

4.11 The applicant has provided supplementary information in relation to the very special circumstances demonstrated by the proposal7. Inter alia, it is stated:

“Planning policies cannot define the scope of VSC [very special circumstances] – there are no fixed rules and each case must be assessed on its merits. Whilst we continue to acknowledge that the aims of planning policy seek to generally protect such open space, we consider that limited encroachment should be permitted where this is necessary as enabling development to secure significant local recreational and other local planning benefits.”

4.12 The applicant’s drawing entitled ‘Masterplan_open space’ (13_CHO_S_012 Revision D) has the following categorisations for the scheme as now proposed: • 14,409sqm (1.44ha) proposed publicly accessible open space (includes play space

both for residents and the wider community); • 1,178sqm (0.11ha) proposed private amenity space (ground floor only); • 1,061sqm (0.10ha) proposed private amenity space (balconies & terraces); • 8,725sqm (0.87ha) proposed shared amenity space (shared gardens and open

spaces for use by residents); • 1,222sqm (0.12ha) proposed incidental open space (areas of soft and hard

landscaping not categorised as public, private or shared); and • 2,795sqm (0.27ha) proposed circulation space (areas routes for vehicles and

pedestrians including shared surfaces).

4.13 The applicant thus submits, • the total amenity space for residents (private and shared) would be 10,964sqm (1.09ha)8; • the publicly accessible open space plus shared amenity space would be 23,134sqm

(2.31ha)9; and • the publicly accessible open space plus the total amenity space for residents (private

and shared) would be 25,373sqm (2.53ha)10,

7 By email sent 19 June 2008, reported by addendum to the 19th June 2008 meeting of IBAC. 8 1,178sqm + 1,061sqm + 8,725sqm 9 14,409sqm + 8,725sqm 10 14,409sqm + 10,964sqm

noting that the scheme would provide the 0.09ha play space required of it under London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’11.

4.14 2.11ha is proposed for designation as Local Open Space (see Figure 1 below), with the applicant stating there would be,

“…an area for designation that matches [exceeds] the existing [2.09ha]…by retaining a significant part of the existing designated land as open space, and supplementing this area by replacement local open space from the current “built area”. 12

4.15 The applicant remains willing to include a term in the proposed Section 106 Agreement which places restrictions on build development (i.e. on the 2.11ha as defined on the plan (Figure 1) below).

Figure 1: Proposed designated Local Open Space (2.11ha) (applicant’s ‘redistribution strategy’) (Source: Drawing 016_CHO_S_12)

4.16 The applicant considers that the overall quality of the proposed Local Open Space is,

“…significantly higher than both the space proposed in the appeal scheme and the existing designated area, because it would be more visible from a wider range of public viewpoints and provides new areas of publicly accessible open space.” 13

11 Applicant’s letter dated 23 October 2008 and workings entitled ‘Campion House Assessment of Playspace Requirements based on Mayor’s SPG.” 12 Note entitled ‘Campion House: Clarification of Designated Local Open Space Issue’ (CGMS October 2008). 13 Note entitled ‘Campion House: Clarification of Designated Local Open Space Issue’ (CGMS October 2008).

4.17 Thus the applicant states,

“…in conclusion, the Hounslow UDP considers private amenity space may contribute a local open space function and in our opinion the local open space contribution of that proposed is of significantly greater value than the area currently designated (as the latter is nor [not] accessible and neither visible).” 14

Ecological assessment 4.18 A revised Ecological Assessment has been submitted15. It states that Phase II

protected species surveys carried out during the summers of 2007 and 2008 have “…allowed a detailed assessment of the presence/absence and status of protected species at the site…” and details the results of the survey work carried out. It, • presents the results of the bat survey, finding that bat activity is generally low; • concludes that the Great Crested Newt is absent from the site; • concludes that reptiles are absent from the site; • states that no evidence of badger activity was recorded on site; • lists bird species recorded on site during the surveys, including three species

currently listed as species of high conservation concern and three currently listed as species of medium conservation concern; and

• states that there is the possibility of stag beetle (a protected species) at the site and that it will be important to establish presence/absence of the species – but notes “However, during the various surveys…there were no records of adult stag beetle.”

4.19 Section 4.0 provides an outline of recommended ecological management and

enhancement that should be instigated at the site to increase its ecological value, including: • mitigation for the loss of the bat roosts on site, including a total of 10 Schwegler bat

boxes or similar erected on the south elevations of buildings and trees around the site, a total of 10 traditional wooden bat boxes, and 10-20 roost units;

• incorporation of bird nest boxes; • an updating badger survey; • that “Deadwood on site should be maintained where possible and where any large

native species broad-leaved trees are to be felled main areas of trunk should be retained on site to decompose so as to provide the species ‘[stag beetle] with continued larval feeding areas”; and

• the preparation of an ecological management plan “…so as to ensure that management is carried out in a correct manner so as to enhance the ecological resource.”

The 154 units now proposed 4.20 The applicant states:

“Further to the last IBAC meeting earlier this month [25th September 2008], we have proposed some further significant changes. We do feel that the current submitted scheme through a significant continued series of amendments has responded to the majority of concerns raised by yourselves previously during the consultation period. However in light of the councillors IBAC comments, we feel that we can respond further, positively and seek to take on board the issues raised.”

14 Note entitled ‘Campion House: Clarification of Designated Local Open Space Issue’

(CGMS October 2008). 15 Received 28 October 2008.

4.21 Further to the IBAC meeting on 13 November 200816, the applicant has proposed further changes; about the same the applicant states (by letter dated 20 November 2008),

“Amended floor plans and elevations for Blocks C and D. The amendments have been made in response to concerns over the scale and massing of, in particular, Block D. Further to the omission of the fifth floor level previously proposed, we have revised the elevations to express the ground, first and second storeys, whilst effecting a lightweight treatment at third floor level. This reduces the visual impact of the four storeys and offers an approach more consistent with that of the townhouse elsewhere on the scheme. The floorplan of Block D has been slightly amended to reflect these changes. Minor amendments to Block C have also been made, to ensure consistency of details with Block D. This has had no effect on the floorplans for Block C. The Block D floor plans have also been amended to create two units wheelchair housing compliant in size and general layout. … Amended floor plans and elevations for Blocks Hii and Hiii These blocks have been slightly amended to create at second and third floor levels two units wheelchair housing compliant in size and general layout, i.e. eight units overall.”

4.22 In addition, a flue has been added to Building F since the November IBAC meeting.

4.23 The 154 units would comprise 13 one-bedroom flats, 95 two-bedroom flats, 19 three-bedroom units and 27 four-bedroom units. Table 1 shows the dwelling mix (size) of the scheme as now proposed compared to the application as originally submitted (168 units) and as first amended (160 units). It also compares the scheme as now proposed to previous schemes.

Table 1: Dwelling mix (size) Application

01119/M/P1 (appeal withdrawn)

Application 01119/M/P3 (appeal dismissed)

Application 01119/M/P4 as originally submitted

Application 01119/M/P4 as first amended

Application 01119/M/P4 as now proposed

One-bedroom units 64 (23.4%) 38 (15.9%) 9 (5.4%) 13 (8.1%) 13 (8.4%) Two-bedroom units 168 (61.5%) 163 (68.2%) 112 (66.7%) 99 (61.9%) 95 (61.7%) Three-bedroom units 20 (7.3%) 17 (7.1%) 22 (13.1%)

Blocks D, Hii and Hiii

20 (12.5%) 19 (12.3%)

Four-bedroom units 21 (7.7%) 21 (8.8%) 25 (14.9%) Blocks Hi, Ji, Jii, Jiii and Hiv

28 (17.5%)17

27 (17.5%)18

Totals 273 (99.9% due to rounding)

239 (100%)

168 (100.1% due to rounding)

160 (100%)


16 At which the applicant’s amendment to the second floor plan of Campion House was

presented (flat B7 amended from a two-bedroom to a three-bedroom unit). 17 The increase is due to counting two units in Campion House as four-bedroom units

and the four-bedroom unit proposed in Block G. 18 See the previous footnote.

4.24 Of the 154 units 46 (29.9%) would be affordable, comprising two one-bedroom flats, 27 two-bedroom flats, 16 three-bedroom units and one four-bedroom unit. The tenure split proposed is 32 units (70%) rented, 14 units (30%) shared ownership. The applicant remains willing to include a “cascade clause” to provide for a financial contribution to off-site provision, if the viability of the development rises above an agreed base-level.

4.25 Campion House would provide eight units (one one-bedroom unit, two two-bedroom units, three three-bedroom units and two four-bedroom units).

4.26 The three-storey block to the north of Campion House, Block A, has been reduced in size and scale with an increased separation distance from No. 114 Thornbury Road and, following “Discussions between the architect and…the Council’s refuse department”19, its bin store is now proposed on the southern elevation of the building. It would still provide nine units, but a revised mix of three one-bedroom and six two-bedroom units20. Three units would be wheelchair housing compliant in size and general layout.

4.27 There would be four frontage blocks to the south of Campion House, being Blocks C, E, F and G.

4.28 Block C and the block to its rear, Block D, would be contemporary.

4.29 Block C has been redesigned and reduced in size and scale. It would be four-storey and provide 16 units (two one-bedroom and 14 two-bedroom), a loss of four units21. Three units would be wheelchair housing compliant in size and general layout.

4.30 Block D has had its penthouse (fifth) floor and apartments removed. It has also had revisions to its floor plans and elevations (see Paragraph 4.21 above). As amended, it would be four-storey and would provide 32 units (five one-bedroom and 27 two-bedroom), a loss of two units22. Two units would be wheelchair housing compliant in size and general layout.

4.31 Blocks E, F and G would be villa blocks.

4.32 Block E has been redesigned to remove one storey (would be three-storey). It has also had its roofscape redesigned. It would provide for nine two-bedroom units, a loss of three two-bedroom units23.

4.33 Block F has been redesigned to remove one storey (would be three-storey). It has also had its roofscape redesigned. It would provide for 12 two-bedroom units, a loss of four two-bedroom units24. Two of the 12 units would be affordable.

19 Applicant’s letter dated 23 October 2008. 20 As originally submitted, Block A was for nine two-bedroom units. 21 As originally submitted, Block C was for 20 units

(one one-bedroom unit and 19 two-bedroom units). 22 As originally submitted, Block D was for 34 units

(five one-bedroom, 27 two-bedroom and two three-bedroom). 23 As originally submitted, Block E was for 12 two-bedroom units. 24 As originally submitted, Block F was for 16 two-bedroom units.

4.34 Three-storey Block G has been redesigned in terms of its elevations (to better relate to the entrance to the underground parking) and its roofscape. It would still provide 12 units, but a revised mix of two one-bedroom, nine two-bedroom and one four-bedroom units25. All 12 units would be affordable.

4.35 Seven blocks are proposed to the rear of Blocks E, F and G, being Blocks Hi, Hii, Hiii, Hiv, Ji, Jii and Jiii. They are described in the applicant’s Design & Access Statement (page 27) as “Contemporary Housing (Townhouses & Maisonettes with Apartments above); terraces of dwellings that form three sided courts, landscape routes and communal gardens.”

4.36 Block Hi would provide seven four-bedroom houses in a terrace.

4.37 Block Hii and Block Hiii would each provide eight two-bedroom units and eight three-bedroom maisonettes. All 32 units would be affordable. Four units in each block would be wheelchair housing compliant in size and general layout.

4.38 Block Hiv is a pair of semi-detached houses. Each would provide four-bedrooms.

4.39 Blocks Ji, Jii and Jiii are terraces providing four-bedroom houses (Block Ji would provide six, Block Jii five and Block Jiii four). As compared to the application as originally submitted, one house has been lost from Block Jiii and Block Ji has been relocated eastward. Both amendments have been made to increase the distance from the western site boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club.

4.40 Materials proposed are brick, timber, stone and render26. Roof materials would comprise slate or reconstituted slate to pitched roods and a single-ply membrane system to flats roofs or those with a gentle monopitch27.

Tigar Hall 4.41 Tigar Hall, to the south of the site, would be retained28. It would provide 241sqm as a

community centre29. The applicant states, “This facility is being provided in direct response to the current deficiencies in existing facilities and as a result of the public consultation exercise”30. It would also house an IT suite31 and permanent historical exhibition and house the site management office.

25 As originally submitted, Block G was for two one-bedroom and 10 two-bedroom units. 26 See 4.12 and 4.13 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement. 27 Paragraph 9c of the applicant’s completed Sustainability Checklist. 28 Paragraph 6.66 of the applicant’s Planning Statement reads (in part), “In design terms,

other than the locally listed building and Tigar Hall the existing buildings are considered to make little contribution to the character of the wider area.”

29 Paragraph 6.59 of the applicant’s Planning Statement. 30 As above. 31 Paragraph 6.130 of the applicant’s Planning Statement states “…the drawings highlight

that 10 terminals are to be located within the IT suite”.

4.42 Full disabled access would be available to Tigar Hall32. The applicant states33,

“Tigar hall will be refurbished and brought up to current building regulation standards, including full disabled access…it will be maintained by the service charge generated by the prospective purchasers on the development. It will provide an on site office base for the managing agents appointed person within an estates office. A permanent exhibition of the local history will be displayed within the building along with the Green Travel Plan for the site. An area will be set aside for an IT suite. The building will also contain community hall space along with the necessary sanitary facilities for local residents and on site resident’s use. It is proposed to protect the creation of this facility by writing it into the S106 agreement.”

Parking 4.43 As shown on drawings 14_CHO_S_040 (Parking Strategy – surface level) and

15_CHO_S_050 (Parking Strategy – basement level) dated 07/11/2008 186 parking spaces are proposed.

4.44 Of the 184 residential parking spaces proposed: • 106 would be basement car parking spaces beneath Blocks C, D, E, F and G,

serving Blocks A, B (Campion House), C, D, E, F and G and monitored by CCTV34 • 44 would be integral garage parking (Blocks Hi, Ji, Jii and Jiii); • 2 would be garage parking (Block Hiv); and • 32 would be surface car parking.

4.45 A further two parking spaces are proposed at surface level to serve Tigar Hall.

4.46 Motorcycle and bicycle parking is also proposed. There would be 10 motorcycle parking spaces at basement level and the drawings show that there would be 142 bicycle spaces (including four for Tigar Hall) plus, as set out in the applicant’s letter dated 23 October 2008, “…the 27 required for the 4 bed units remaining integral.”

4.47 The applicant’s revised travel plan for the site would be co-ordinated by the management company in the hope of achieving a 10% reduction in traffic generation, with subsequent benefits to air quality35.

4.48 In terms of delivery/servicing and emergency vehicle access it is stated, “Parking and loading controls will be necessary, and late night and early morning deliveries not permitted.”36 It is also stated that ‘Church Walk’ (the main pedestrian access to the site) would serve as an alternative entrance for emergency vehicles should the main entrance (that at the south-eastern corner of the site) be blocked.

32 Paragraph 6.179 of the applicant’s Planning Statement 33 Applicant’s letter dated 23rd October 2008 34 Paragraph 6.62 of the applicant’s Planning Statement 35 Paragraph 6.134 of the applicant’s Planning Statement 36 Paragraph 6.132 of the applicant’s Planning Statement

Amenity (daylight/sunlight) and environmental impact (water, wind and energy) 4.49 The following paragraphs discuss the reports submitted with regard to daylight /

sunlight, water (including flooding), wind and energy.

Amenity – daylight/sunlight 4.50 The applicant submitted (by email sent 16 June 2008) an updated daylight/sunlight

assessment in respect of the 160 unit scheme. It states, inter alia:

“Conclusion [in relation to existing buildings] Insofar as light from the sky is concerned, the scheme is fully BRE compliant… Conclusion [in relation to existing buildings] The scheme is fully BRE compliant in that the existing sunlight to neighbouring properties will not be affected. … Conclusion [assessing the proposed development] Insofar as daylight is concerned, the proposed development will be fully BRE compliant in that either the vertical sky component will be at least 27%, or the average daylight factor to the rooms served by the windows will be a minimum of 1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms. The light to the rooms which have had secondary windows will be substantially higher than the recommended levels.”

4.51 The applicant submitted a supplementary report dated 6 November 2008. The

supplementary report relates to the 154 unit scheme excluding the amendment to flat B7 in Campion House and post 13 November 2008 IBAC amendments. It states, in conclusion,

“Insofar as daylight is concerned, the proposed development as amended will be fully BRE compliant in that either the vertical sky component will be at least 27%, or the average daylight factor to the rooms served by the windows will be a minimum of 1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms.”

Environmental impact – water (including flooding) 4.52 A water conservation strategy has been developed for the proposed development,

“…which focuses on reducing water demand through design…through the specification of low consumption sanitary fittings…”37

4.53 The applicant states that the revised Flood Risk Assessment “…highlights that surface water discharge from the site will be restricted to greenfield runoff rates and the surface water system is now acceptable.”38 Porous paving and overflow swales would be utilised.

Environmental impact – wind 4.54 The Wind Microclimate Desk Study submitted found that no mitigation measures would

be required.

37 Paragraph 6.172 of the applicant’s Planning Statement. 38 Email sent 18 June 2008.

Environmental impact – energy 4.55 The applicant has submitted details requested regarding renewables39. The Energy

Statement (October 2008 Rev 01) sets out the basement car park would be naturally ventilated and that the affordable housing would meet Code 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

4.56 It is stated that a saving per annum of 74,690 kg CO2, which equates to 24.8% overall, would be achieved. Of the percentage savings 18.8% would through renewables, with the choice of renewable technology solar panels and biomass wood pellet fire boilers.

4.57 The conclusion states, in part,

“A detailed assessment of the potential generation from the renewable energy technologies and their integration into the scheme will be required which will require a condition attached to the planning permission thus giving a proper opportunity of evaluation and pre design to take place.”

Wheelchair adaptable units 4.58 Sixteen units have been designed as wheelchair adaptable units (“…have the spatial

and construction layout to allow for future adaptation to become Wheelchair Housing units with the addition of specific equipment, such as handrails etc.”40). They would be in Blocks A (3), C (3), D (2), Block Hii (4) and Block Hiii (4).

5.0 CONSULTATIONS This section of the report is structured as follows: 5.1 Application as originally submitted (168 unit scheme)

o Consultation undertaken o Consultation responses (third party responses) o Comments of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning)

5.2 Application as first amended (160 unit scheme) o Consultation undertaken on amendments o Consultation responses (third party responses) o Comments of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) o Consultation responses received post IBAC (third party responses)

5.3 Application as further amended (154 unit scheme excluding the amendment to flat B7 in Campion House and post November IBAC amendments) o Consultation undertaken on amendments o Consultation responses (third party responses) o Comments of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning)

5.4 Consultation responses from statutory consultees

39 Received on 3 November 2008. 40 Applicant’s letter dated 21 November 2008.

5.1 Application as originally submitted (168 unit scheme) Consultation undertaken

5.1.1 670 letters of consultation were sent to owners/occupiers including of Burlington Road, Church Road, Davies Walk, A4 Great West Road, Kilberry Close, Moreton Avenue, Oakley Close, Spencer Road, St Christophers Close, Thornbury Avenue and Thornbury Road. It also includes the letters sent to: • the Head Teacher of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School; • the Head Teacher of the Cardinal Wiseman School; • the Secretary of the Indian Gymkhana Club; • Campion Concerns Monitoring Group; • a representative of the residents of Thornbury Avenue (south side); • Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes; • Dominican Sisters; • Isleworth Society; • the Chairman of the Residents of Copper Beeches/Witham Road Residents (Isleworth) Ltd; • Orchard Court Residents’ Association (Osterley) Limited; and • Osterley & Wyke Green Residents’ Association.

5.1.2 Letters of consultation were also sent to the following consultees: • Environment Agency; • Thames Water; • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority; • Transport for London; • NHS Hounslow Primary Care Trust; • Sport England – London Region; • English Heritage • Victorian Society; • Chiswick Police Station – Crime Prevention Office; • Feltham Police Service – Crime Prevention Office; • Metropolitan Police Service; and • BAA.

5.1.3 Four site notices dated 17 April 2008 were posted on 17 April 2008.

5.1.4 Notices placed in the Hounslow Chronicle dated 17 April 2008 advertised the applications as ‘Works Within Conservation Area and Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building” and as “Major/Significant Development”.

Consultation responses (third party responses) 5.1.5 56 representations have been received, including from the Osterley & Wyke Green

Residents’ Association, the Indian Gymkhana Club and the Campion Concerns Monitoring Group.

5.1.6 The following comments/objections have been raised, by topic. Where examples are reproduced they are meant to illustrate comments/objections, by topic. The response of the Campion Concerns Monitoring Group is set out separately, from Paragraph 5.1.7 below.

Improvements/good points

• “…especially compared to the previous…Having separate blocks E, F, and G gives views into the space beyond…set back from the pavement and we like the proposed frontage ‘Thornbury Green’…further away from the boundary with the Indian Gymkhana…solar panels…”

• “…a reduction in the number…” • “…a better ratio of houses to flats…” • “…like and approve of…The planned garden space with public access.” • “…open and user-friendly consultation process with the local residents and

community. …several of our concerns have been addressed.” • “…in October 2007 enabled residents to visit the site…” • “The communal heating and hot water system for the flats…” • “…personally have no objection to modern and more traditional together…

The town houses having their own parking and the resultant smaller underground car park for the blocks should make the latter easier to manage and cause fewer problems. Because it follows the building line of blocks C, D, E, F & G, there should be very little degrading of the open spaces.”

Officers’ comment/s: Noted.

“…the Consultation process was incomplete.” Officers’ comment/s: The applicant carried out consultation at the pre-application stage and following submission of the applications. The Council carried out consultation on the application as originally submitted (see Paragraphs 5.1.1 to 5.1.4 above) and limited re-consultation twice thereafter (see Paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.3.1 below).

Recognition that the site will be redeveloped and of the need for new housing

• “…some development of the site is inevitable and desirable” • “…there is a duty to provide housing…”

Officers’ comment/s: The application is assessed at Section 7.0 below.

Conflict with planning objectives/policy/guidelines and with the appeal decision Officers’ comment/s: The application is assessed at Section 7.0 and includes Issue 10: Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed at appeal?

Bulk, scale and massing & impact on the Spring Grove Conservation Area (including appearance) – out of character and out of proportion, too high and too large

• “…too high…especially…Blocks H being 4 – 4.5 storeys high. …in Kilberry Close – which would run adjacent…are 3 storeys maximum.”

• “…new houses should front Thornbury Road with their front gardens; …taller buildings should be behind…and…away from the listed building…”

• “…a little misleading. Block D will be FIVE storeys high!” • “…proposed fascias…too “modern and futuristic” looking...” • “…blocks C, D, E and F will dwarf the Edwardian houses opposite and…will

dominate…[they should be]…a maximum of 3 stories…” • “Blocks C & D…in particular, block C is overbearing…its size and its proximity to

Campion House…immediately south of “Thornbury Gardens” and would therefore deprive…[the Gardens of] sunlight…”

• “…blocks C and D…Their flat roof lines contrast…height…related to the roof ridge line of…Campion House rather than the eaves line…”

• “…Blocks C & D…size and massing…disproportionately large…C detracts from the “deferential staggering” of the villa blocks E, F & G. …architectural style of C & D is…insensitive. …and [together with] the oppressive size…would seriously detract from the…Gardens…”

• Block A: o “…so close to Thornbury Road and in front of…Campion House” o “too close to the existing buildings” o “…will be a significant loss of amenity and privacy” o “…will block all sunlight and most of the natural light…” o “…will feel closed in. …inappropriate in terms of: it’s

location…design…height…density…9 flats…and it’s length.” • “To avoid an “estate” atmosphere, any development should reflect a diversity of

architectural styles in the conservation area.” • “…the design for all the units should be the same through…the mix of two

different designs in a small area is a good idea…” • “…Given the location of the ‘bulge’ looking centrally down Church

Road…architecturally it was placed there to purposely ‘intrude’ and signify a dominance.”

• “The roofs are not pitched and possibly unsuitable materials re SGCA” • “Bin Store in front of Campion House…harms the setting…Views into site will /

could be blocked by fencing not shown…Addition of false chimney stacks on block E F G might enhance look and feel.”

Officers’ comment/s: Blocks A, C, D, E, F and G and the bin store to serve Block A have been amended (see Section 4.0 above). The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area are assessed at Issue 5 of Section 7.0 below.

Car parking & transport (including cumulative impact) • “…Thornbury Road is currently congested…would exacerbate the problem” • Possible need for traffic measures:

o “A mini-roundabout…at the Church Road/Thornbury Road junction…” o “…Thornbury Road…widened or “NO PARKING” either side” o “…will the existing residents have to put up with them on the surrounding

roads? …Much revolves about allowing free access to the car park? There is no parking problem at the present.”

o “…controlled parking zones…I am strictly against this idea.” • Comment that the proposed car parking would be inadequate (e.g. “Too little

parking for nine apartments [Block A] and…the entrance will be a hazard to road users” and “Inadequate parking for visitors”)

• Comment about the traffic implications of the proposed development (increased danger, noise, congestion and pollution and that “…People will not be able to park around the proposed entrance…reducing the spaces we have…”)

• Concern that the underground car park “…will attract vandalism and that drainage in the area will suffer”; and that “At the first sign of trouble some residents would stop using it and park in the streets instead…and it’s a struggle to find a space on most days…”

Officers’ comment/s: There would be 186 parking spaces (see Paragraphs 4.43 to 4.45 above), motorcycle and bicycle parking (see Paragraph 4.46 above) and a travel plan (see Paragraph 4.47 above). Parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement are assessed at Issue 7 of Section 7.0 below.

The impact on neighbouring amenity (of both future occupiers of the scheme and neighbouring properties)

• Loss of outlook (e.g. “…a monstrosity…to gaze at out of my bedroom window rather than the…unobstructed views of primarily open space.”)

• Block A would “invade my privacy..block out daylight [and would be]..obstructive”. • “…concerns that privacy [of No. 104] remains intact and no extraneous

noise…There are four windows [in Tigar Hall] that look onto…[No. 104’s] garden and conservatory…who would own and maintain this building? …also…five windows which look onto the site facing block G and expect any roadway or pedestrian routes to be sited sensitively...”

• “[would]…the developer’s excavation for the large underground car park…adversely affect the stability or foundations of [No. 104]?”

• “…as a public open space there will be people coming by day and night…” • “The houses at the back…will be very near to the Gymkhana club sports pitch –

floodlighting, ball noise and general sports activity sounds. …” • “…how long the proposed work…will last until the development is completed?

…throughout the development period current residents…will suffer greatly by – Pollution and poor air quality… - Noise from the building site…want compensation…and reparations…”

Officers’ comment/s: The impact on neighbouring amenity (of both of future occupiers of the scheme and neighbouring properties) is assessed at Issue 6 of Section 7.0 below. Noise is considered at Issue 2(a), air quality at Issue 2(b), wind at Issue 2(d), amenity space and open space at Issue 3(b), daylight and sunlight at Issue 3(c) and privacy at Issue 3(d). The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area are assessed at Issue 5.

There is an existing vehicular access at the south-eastern corner of the site (see Paragraph 2.11 above). Parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement are assessed at Issue 7 of Section 7.0 below. The applicant states that Tigar Hall would “…be maintained by the service charge generated by the prospective purchasers on the development” and that “It is proposed to protect the creation of this facility by writing it into the S106 agreement” (see Paragraph 4.42 above). The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 covers, inter alia, excavating or constructing foundations for a new building within three metres of a neighbouring owner’s building, where that work will go deeper than the neighbours’ foundations; and excavating or constructing foundations for a new building within six metres of a neighbouring owner’s building, where that work will cut a line drawn at 45° from the bottom of the neighbour’s foundations. A building owner intending to carry out work covered by the Act must give notice in writing of the intended works to all the relevant adjoining owners. Adjoining owners cannot stop someone from exercising the rights given to them by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, but may be able to influence how and at what times the work is done. The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is not, however, a material planning consideration. The applicant anticipates that the publicly accessible areas of open space would be closed between dusk and dawn41 and that there would be signage “…outlining opening hours and a contact telephone number at the Council”42. See also Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space of Section 7.0 below. There would be a minimum separation distance of 28m between the site’s rear (western) boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club and the nearest proposed building, Block Ji (scaled measurement). Planning permission (01118/B/P1) for “Installation of fencing around synthetic hockey pitch and floodlighting” at the Indian Gymkhana Club site was granted on 21st September 1989 subject to conditions including “That no floodlights be used between the hour of 10.30pm and 8.00am”. Hours of construction can be controlled by condition.

Demand on services and community infrastructure (schools, health services, doctors, dentists, water, energy and drainage, transport, hospitals, fire, ambulance and police (including cumulative impact) Officers’ comment/s: Comments from statutory consultees are reported elsewhere in this section. The suitability of the site for residential purposes in terms of noise, air quality, flood risk, wind and contamination is considered at Section 7.0 below – see Issue 2. See also Issue 4(b): Community infrastructure and Issue 9: The potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations.

41 Paragraph 6.104 of the applicant’s Planning Statement. 42 Paragraph 15a of the applicant’s completed Sustainability Checklist.

Comment that the density still seems high and with the number of units having increased since the residents’ consultation meeting in January 2008 (e.g. “…doctors’ surgery has ‘disappeared’ and become a residential block”); not convinced by the applicant’s arguments for encroachment (e.g. “…no justification for this”); difficult to calculate the amount of encroachment (e.g. “…of perhaps 30 – 40%…” and “…on about 50% of the existing open space.”); call for more family homes and fewer one and two bedroom flats (ratio)

• “…at 74dph…only marginally below the upper limit…” • “…would mean an increase of well over 30%. The many references in the

developer’s documentation to the Mayor’s support for high density development disregards this, as well as the wider context of Hounslow’s record of provision over and above the target figure for the Borough.”

• “…the secluded courtyards and parkland…still not visible from Thornbury Road. …hot-spots for antisocial activity…”

• “Block H iv hide the open space (Residents Gardens) from view from Thornbury Road. How many will use…?”

• “…how to protect the newly-created open space (eg on the frontage) from future development…as in the previous application, there appears to be some dual use arguments…”

• “…do not believe that PPG17- appropriate community approval of the encroachment…has yet been obtained…”

• “…consult Mr Nick Pratt of your Leisure Department…” • “…do not provide the necessary requirement of open space…” • “By creating a playing area for young children…assuming that these flats and

houses are to be used by families with small children? What about facilities for young people. …Our suggestion is that either one or two 6 a side pitches are built adjacent to the club. We as a club are quite willing to look after these pitches for the community. …In addition…suggest that there should be some sort of keep fit items fitted around the green area where public will be able to do running, exercises etc.”

• “…an over supply of one and two bedroom flats…with Brunel Campus scheme nearing completions…needs family homes, of 3 or more bedrooms with their own gardens.”

Officers’ comment/s: Density is assessed at Issue 3 of Section 7.0 below – in particular, see Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? and Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space. Whether the development would provide a sufficient range of housing provision including levels of affordable accommodation is assessed at Issue 4(a).

Sustainability and biodiversity

• “…is there sufficient open land for rain water absorption…” • “…must be constructed using sustainable materials and in a manner that will

allow occupants to conserve resources.” • “Loss of biodiversity – is pond replaced or not for instance. …Tree Loss – not

advised by application, but many / most mature trees…will be lost. …Protected species – Surveys still not complete after 3 years. Mitigation for now known protected species is required prior to works commence as well as surveys. …Loss of ‘soak away’ quality…”

• “The water systems are to be pumped – will storage tanks be included to maintain sanitation if there are power cuts on plant breakdown?”

Officers’ comment/s: The Environment Agency has no objection to the applicant’s revised Flood Risk Assessment (see Paragraph 5.4.2 below). See also Paragraph 4.53 above and Issue 2(c): Flood risk of Section 7.0 below.

The applicant has submitted a revised Ecological Assessment (see Paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19 above). Recommended ecological management and enhancement can be secured by condition and/or obligation.

Thames Water has no objection with regard to either sewerage infrastructure or water infrastructure (see Paragraphs 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 below).

See also Issue 8: Are sustainable building principles applied? of Section 7.0 below.

Other matters

• Cumulative impact (e.g. with The Grove, Brunel, Osterley Road, the Court) • “…unsightly fence…has still to be removed…” • “…no security on the site anymore.” • “…I think we will be left with either social housing or rentals which is sad when we

are owner-occupiers…” • “…The social and shared ownership/Housing Trust residents will inevitably

generate some trade vehicles/vans.” • “Hopefully there will not be any subsequent planning applications to increase unit

numbers or replace Tigar Hall with a block of flats.”

Officers’ comments: The application is assessed at Section 7.0 below – including the proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area (Issue 5), parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement (Issue 7) and the potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations (Issue 9).

The fence was allowed on appeal (see Paragraph 3.8 above).

Campion Concerns Monitoring Group

5.1.7 The response of Campion Concerns Monitoring Group (CCMG), in objection, includes a paper entitled “Protecting Designated Local Open Space on the Campion House Site” and analysis entitled “The Campion Application Habitable Rooms – A minimal room count”.

5.1.8 CCMG believe the following to be the principal grounds for refusal:

• Encroachment on Local Open Space • Harm to the Conservation Area • Density too high • Harm to the Thornbury Road street scene in a sensitive part of the Conservation Area

5.1.9 Light and noise from the Indian Gymkhana Club’s Astroturf is also considered a “fundamental issue”, “…a constant source of friction between residents and the club” and an issue that has not been evaluated.

5.1.10 CCMG also believe that there are additional problems/grounds for refusal (e.g. the Environment Agency objection). Problems requiring a solution before approval is given are said, in summary, to be the following:

• Block A has become a block of 9 flats and has moved closer to No. 114 with a gap of about 2.7m (if retained it should revert to the former villa approach with 6 flats, moved away from No. 114).

• A clear play strategy has not been produced failing to meet London Plan Policy 3D.13 and SPG.

• The proposed housing mix does not match known market demand (will contribute to the over-supply of one and two bedroom units).

• Lack of 3D images in the Design and Access Statement and “…several other respects in which the CABE guidelines have not been followed” (e.g. the form (A3) does not make for the easiest on-line reading and printing).

• The water tank on Block D, rising above the fifth level, would be an eyesore (would tanks not be required on the top of all four-storey blocks?).

• The claim in the Planning Statement that local schools are within walking distance is highly misleading. The only primary school within walking distance is full.

5.1.11 CCMG state, “The current consultation process has not been the farce of the so-called

consultation for the previous applications conducted by Green Issues Communications.” CCMG consider, however, that John Thompson and Partners have,

“…been obviously constrained from the outset by the Linden Homes' objectives of the number of units they want on the site - contrary to Government and CABE advice concerning Design and Access Statements (design should come first and not as a way of fitting in a preconceived number of units).

A clear indication of the Linden preconceptions which JTP had to work to is the issue of open space. From the beginning they asked us individually and collectively if we would find a certain amount of encroachment acceptable if other objectives were met.”

5.1.12 CCMG seek the removal or significant reduction of some of the blocks:

“We are convinced that in order for the application to be acceptable it would be necessary to remove or significantly reduce some of the blocks both in terms of height and massing. This should be done both to avoid encroachment on open space and to meet the objective of fitting into a particularly sensitive spot in a conservation area as well as a number of other design objectives mentioned above.”

but in their conclusion, state:

“Even though this application has overcome some of the worst aspects of previous applications it is still heavily marred by an attempt to get too much onto the site. …because design was approached with a pre-determined target number of dwellings rather than by allowing this to arise from the design process in the light of planning guidelines and the local context into account. If the design process were allowed to take its course we can see how another approach could produce result that would enhance the area. However, this would, in our view, require a new design rather than modifications to the current proposals.”

5.1.13 CCMG commented on the agenda report to the 19 June 2008 meeting of IBAC, as follows:

• No assessment of the exact extent of encroachment on open space, puzzling given that Members are asked to comment on the issue.

• In Paragraph 2.11 the point is made that the housing opposite the site is mainly two-storey housing with “pockets of three-storey developments”. It should be added that those pockets rise no higher than the two-storey housing.

• “The numbers of the houses said to be “locally listed” (paragraph 2.16) are incorrect... It makes no sense to list No.101 and not also 93/95/97/99 since these were all built at the same time (1904) and to the same design. The same thing applies to 103-111 since the houses up to 121 are of similar design and period (Arts & Crafts). The original houses of this group are excluded from the numbers given.”

• “…more than a little disconcerting to find our carefully formulated objections completely ignored in the officers report. ...”

• “At several points in the report the developer's claims are reported apparently without independent evaluation/checking. Thus in paragraph 4.28 the developer's claims about renewable energy are quoted… the number of habitable rooms (next point) is another example…”

• “The section on density (7.25 – 7.28) is potentially misleading. It fails to mention the Inspector's view that “at least” one hectare should be discounted from the site area for density calculation purposes. This point appears later in the document.

A second problem is that the developer's count of the number of habitable rooms is reported without question… the guideline indicative density range for this site should be 35-65 dwellings per hectare and not 40-80 dph.

…The report says that “An assessment needs to be made as to the implications/consequences of the scheme's density”. We find this really strange. Who is supposed to make that assessment if not the officers? If so why has it not been included in the report? …”

• “At paragraph 7.32 the officers say that they “... have requested amenity space diagrams showing the breakdown of the publicly accessible open space, private open space.... and shared amenity space to assess the proposed provision further. Surely these are matters which should be clear before a major application reaches members for comment.”

• “At the post-application public exhibition we asked what had happened to the bin stores in front of Block A (they had been removed from the 3-D model) we were told that the location was being reconsidered. It would seem that the location of this important facility is still undecided. Similar comments go for the “communal compost area” (para 7.45) and other aspects of recycling (paras 7.43-7.47).”

• “We are unclear as to exactly what information is being sought under paragraph 7.51.” • “It seems to us that the frequency of statements indicating that officers have still to

consider major issues such as “Officers are assessing the proposal's character and design...” are too high for the report to provide members with adequate information.”

• “We are really surprised that at this late date a tree survey has still not been provided (para 7.81)”

• “What is the “alternative method for drying their washing” that is alluded to in para 7.171. No details are given.”

5.1.14 In summary, CCMG’s comments on the agenda report to the 19 June 2008 meeting of IBAC are as follows:

“Overall, we feel that the officers report, while providing a great deal of important background information has nevertheless (1) ignored information that we have provided, (2) left too many issues open for future assessment and information, and finally (3) has relied too much on the developer's claims without subjecting them to independent evaluation/checking.”

5.1.15 The conclusions of CCMG include:

• “There is…no reason to calculate the housing density on the site in any other way than that required by the London Plan and in the light of the Inspector's report on the last application. …”

• “The development area for the site is 1.22 ha (3.22 ha – 2.0 ha of open space). It is also important that public and private spaces are clear and distinct. Private amenity space both shared and individual is a part of the development area.”

• “The appropriate level of private amenity space is based on the number of habitable rooms. If our demonstration that the number of habitable rooms is significantly greater than that given in the application papers then it follows that the private amenity space required by the development needs to be recalculated.”

Officers’ comment/s on the response of CCMG

5.1.16 The application is assessed at Section 7.0 below – in particular, see Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space, Issue 4(a): Range of housing provision including affordable housing provision and Issue 5: The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

5.1.17 As has been noted above (see officers’ comment/s at Paragraph 5.1.6), there would be a minimum separation distance of 28m between the site’s rear (western) boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club and the nearest proposed building and hours of floodlighting are controlled.

5.1.18 Other houses will be recommended for inclusion on the local list at next review.

Comments of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning)

5.1.19 IBAC commented on the application as originally submitted (the 168 unit scheme) on 19 June 2008; the minutes of the meeting read:

“Minutes: See report from the Director of Planning, Agenda Item 8.

See Addendum Report, Agenda Item 12.

Members noted that an addendum had been tabled which contained information relating to this application, which had not been available at the time of the publication of the main agenda.

The planning officer explained that this application proposed demolition of existing extensions to Campion House and associated outbuildings including the Chapel, refectory, dormitories and classrooms but excluding Tiger Hall.

Members made the following comments: • Members queried whether the developer had plans for further development/s on the

site. • Members requested views/photomontages from street level and from within the site

before the scheme was presented to SDC. • Members expressed concerns about the heights of the buildings in terms of outlook

as the development could lead to a sense of enclosure for neighbours. • Members queried whether the proposal would result in loss of light to future

occupiers of the ground floor rooms at the rear of some blocks. Members requested that the daylight/sunlight calculations be reviewed before the scheme was presented to SDC.

• Members’ expressed concerns about the level of parking proposed, and questioned whether the application would result in an increase in trip generation to the site. Members also queried whether the proposal would provide adequate parking.

• Members expressed concerns about the open space and requested further detailed information on the amenity space provision and requested that the information be included in the SDC report.

• Members emphasised that the accessible public space proposed within the grounds of Campion House should remain accessible to the public, should planning permission be approved, by a Section 106 Deed.

• Members welcomed the offer of four bedroom units as part of the affordable housing provision, which was being discussed with the Council’s Housing Enabling Officers. Members requested that the percentage figure of affordable housing by habitable rooms be presented at SDC.

• Members’ suggested that the developer provide a S106 contribution towards education and healthcare facilities, and transport and highway works.

• Members noted that the site was located in the heart of the conservation area and emphasised that any developments would need to fit in with the design and character of the conservation area including surrounding properties.

Resolved: That members’ comments be referred to the Sustainable Development Committee for decision if an acceptable scheme can be negotiated.”

5.1.20 On 17 July 2008 the above minutes were agreed as an accurate record.

5.2 Application as first amended (160 unit scheme) Consultation undertaken on amendments Consultation undertaken by the applicant

5.2.1 The applicant held a public exhibition on the amendments to the scheme on 12th August 2008 at St Mary’s Church Millennium Hall from 4:00pm to 8:00pm43.

43 The applicant advises that a leaflet was circulated on 7 and 8 August 2008, inviting attendance.

Consultation undertaken by the Council 5.2.2 By either letter dated 19 August 2008 or email sent 20 August 2008 the following were

consulted (21 day consultation) about the amendments: • the Head Teacher of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School; • the Head Teacher of the Cardinal Wiseman School; • the Secretary of the Indian Gymkhana Club; • Campion Concerns Monitoring Group; • a representative of the residents of Thornbury Avenue (south side); • Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes; • Dominican Sisters; • Isleworth Society; • the Chairman of the Residents of Copper Beeches/Witham Road Residents

(Isleworth) Ltd; • Orchard Court Residents' Association (Osterley) Limited; • Osterley & Wyke Green Residents' Association; • Environment Agency; • Thames Water; • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority; • Transport for London; • NHS Hounslow Primary Care Trust; • Sport England - London Region; • English Heritage; • Victorian Society; • Chiswick Police Station - Crime Prevention Office; • Metropolitan Police Service; • BAA; • Anyone we received a representation from; and • Thornbury Road, Thornbury Avenue, Church Road, Moreton Avenue, Kilberry

Close and Oakley Close residents.

5.2.3 The consultation letter stated (in part) "Please note amended description and amended drawings: Changes to buildings A,C,E,F and G (to the new buildings along the Thornbury Road Frontage) with the total number of residential units reducing from 168 to 160)".

Consultation responses (third party responses)

Consultation responses to consultation undertaken by the applicant 5.2.4 The applicant has submitted attendance forms and comment forms.

Consultation responses to consultation undertaken by the Council 5.2.5 The Council has received 43 written representations from owners/occupiers, many of

which comment on: • improvements/good points; • open space/encroachment issues; • Block D; and/or • support for Campion Concerns.

5.2.6 In their entirety, the following comments/objections have been raised, by topic. Where examples are reproduced they are meant to illustrate comments/objections, by topic.

Comment

Improvements/good points • New buildings along the Thornbury Road “much more acceptable”. • “The design is more in keeping with the area and the reduction in the number of

units will help alleviate concerns around traffic, parking of cars and the impact…on local sewage system.”

Officers’ comment/s: Noted.

Open space/encroachment • “Any loss of designated local open space area is not acceptable, unless replaced

by equal or enhanced designated local open space. Amenity space required by the development is not acceptable replacement…”

• “…not been consulted on this issue…” • “…children need access to plenty of open space…[and] important for the

environment and protecting wildlife.” • How to secure public access? “Establishing public rights of way…would go some

way towards achieving this…along with restrictive covenants…”

Officers’ comment/s: See Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space of Section 7.0 below.

“With the threat of recession there may not be the need for more & more housing” Officers’ comment/s: Under London Plan Policy 3A.1 (Increasing London’s supply of housing) the minimum target for housing provision is 30,500 additional homes per year. The policy states, inter alia, “The Mayor will, and Boroughs should, promote policies that seek to achieve and exceed this target.” London Plan Policy 3A.2 (Borough housing targets) calls for Boroughs seek to exceed their 2007/8 to 2016/17 target (for Hounslow 4,450 net additional homes, an annual monitoring target of 445) and to address the suitability of housing development in terms of location, type of development, housing requirements and impact on the locality. The supporting text for the policies states at Paragraph 3.10 “There is considerable housing capacity in London to respond to both existing and future housing demand…”

Bulk, scale and massing & impact on the Spring Grove Conservation Area (including appearance) • No higher than existing and surrounding buildings. • “…squared blocks…should not be included (The writer does not think much of

Campion House itself!). As much variety in design, to blend in with housing in the area…should be paramount.”

• Blocks C and D need (further) work. Officers’ comments: The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area are assessed at Issue 5 of Section 7.0 below.

Car parking & transport (including cumulative impact) “…like to see some form of traffic calming measures to be introduced.”

Officers’ comment/s: There would be 186 parking spaces (see Paragraphs 4.43 to 4.45 above), motorcycle and bicycle parking (see Paragraph 4.46 above) and a travel plan (see Paragraph 4.47 above). Parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement are assessed at Issue 7 of Section 7.0 below.

The impact on neighbouring amenity • Query about the bicycle shed proposed for Campion House (whether it is also going

to be used a bin store) and the main wall dividing Campion House and No. 114 Thornbury Road.

• Proximity to the Indian Gymkhana. • Impact (noise, loss of privacy and loss of outlook) on Thornbury Avenue properties. Officers’ comments:

The impact on neighbouring amenity (of both of future occupiers of the scheme and neighbouring properties) is assessed at Issue 6 of Section 7.0 below. Noise is considered at Issue 2(a), air quality at Issue 2(b), wind at Issue 2(d), amenity space and open space at Issue 3(b), daylight and sunlight at Issue 3(c) and privacy at Issue 3(d). The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area are assessed at Issue 5. As has already been noted in this section, there would be a minimum separation distance of 28m between the site’s rear (western) boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club and the nearest proposed building and hours of floodlighting are controlled.

Demand on services and community infrastructure Officers’ comment/s: Comments from statutory consultees are reported elsewhere in this section. The suitability of the site for residential purposes in terms of noise, air quality, flood risk, wind and contamination is considered at Section 7.0 below – see Issue 2. See also Issue 4(b): Community infrastructure and Issue 9: The potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations.

Density still too high; why so many 2-bed units? That the area to be used for density purposes should be between 1.17ha and 2.24ha as a minimum and maximum.

Officers’ comment/s: Density is assessed at Issue 3 of Section 7.0 below – in particular see Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? and Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space. Whether the development would provide a sufficient range of housing provision including levels of affordable accommodation is assessed at Issue 4(a).

Support for Campion Concerns Officers’ comment/s: Noted.

Other matters • “…[want to] attract the right kind of people…” • “Where are the developer’s SUDS plans?…How do the proposed playing facilities

measures against the standards of the London Plan SPG?” • “The energy proposals are good. …site management will be important…Will the

earth removed to make the car park be taken away – or left mounded on site as one drawing seemed to show?”

Officers’ comment/s: Whether the development would provide a sufficient range of housing provision including levels of affordable accommodation is assessed at Issue 4(a).

As has already been noted in this section, the Environment Agency has no objection to the applicant’s revised Flood Risk Assessment and the applicant has submitted a revised Ecological Assessment with recommended ecological management and enhancement able to be secured by condition and/or obligation.

A condition requiring full details of landscaping can be imposed on any planning permission granted.

5.2.7 The Council has also received written representations from:

• Osterley and Wyke Green Residents’ Association commenting “The reduction of 6 units is minimal and it is imperative that the open spaces must be protected”;

• Ashton House School commenting about open space (including that “It is not

enough for a piece of land to be open, If that land is required amenity space for residents then it can not be local open space.”) and supporting the work of Campion Concerns;

• The Isleworth Society commenting about open space and supporting the work of

Campion Concerns in relation to encroachment; • Indian Gymkhana Club about loss of both a football pitch and tennis courts,

consulting Sport England and the Director of the Council’s Leisure Department, reverse sensitivity effects (noise and light) and facilities for young people (with the suggestion that one or two 6 a side pitches be built and some sort of keep fit items fitted); and

• Campion Concerns Monitoring Group (CCMG) who in their response dated

5 June 2008 (by email sent 5 September 2008) comment about open space / encroachment (“…amenity space…distinct from local open space…clear that the encroachment on existing open space is of the order of 40%”), density, there being far too many two-bedroom units, play facilities (provision of), height and massing (of Blocks D, E and Hiv), proximity to the Indian Gymkhana Club (“…too close…”) and SUDS. The summary of the CCMG view, as set out in their response dated 21 September 2008, is:

“1. The proposed modifications significantly improve the application.

2. The modifications do not come close to overcoming the substantial objections to the main application.

a. The encroachment on Designated Local Open Space is contrary to the London Plan Objective No.1 of protecting Open Space. …

b. The density of the proposed development is too high to enable it to respect the surrounding built environment. …”

Officers’ comment/s on the responses summarised at Paragraph 5.2.7

5.2.8 The application is assessed at Section 7.0 below. In particular see Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? and Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space that includes the comments of the Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services (Interim). Whether the development would provide a sufficient range of housing provision including levels of affordable accommodation is assessed at Issue 4(a). The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area are assessed at Issue 5.

5.2.9 As has already been noted in this section, there would be a minimum separation

distance of 28m between the site’s rear (western) boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club and the nearest proposed building and hours of floodlighting are controlled; and the Environment Agency has no objection to the applicant’s revised Flood Risk Assessment.

Comments of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning)

5.2.10 IBAC commented on the application as first amended (the 160 unit scheme) on 25 September 2008; the minutes of the meeting read:

“Decision: The following comments were made: i) The amended scheme was still too bulky and dense to be built within the

conservation area, it was in excess of the guidelines in the London Plan. ii) The scheme still did not contain sufficient units with three and four bedroom units

to accommodate families. iii) There were still concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the balance between

Locally Designated Open Space, publicly accessible open space and shared amenity space, and the definitions involved.

iv) Members requested that officers re-consult the Council’s new Leisure provider regarding the potential need for sports facilities, fields in this area.

Minutes: (See the report of the Director of Environmental Services, Agenda Item 8 ref P/2008/1131 01119/M/CA3 P/2008/1119 0119/M/P4) Cathy Gallagher (Head of Development Control) noted that the report followed on from the comment report presented to Members on the 19 June 2008. It updated Members on amendments to the scheme and the consultation responses received.

The attention of Members was drawn to the Addendum report, which detailed the further statutory and non-statutory representations that had been received.

The scheme had been amended; the total number of units had been reduced from 168 to 160. A model had been presented to Members that evening.

The planning application 01119/M/P4 and the application for the conservation area consent 01119/M/CA3 proposed the retention of Campion House and Tigar Hall, demolition of annex buildings and outbuildings other than Tigar Hall, and redevelopment of the site.

Since June 2008, amendments had been made to the new buildings along the Thornbury Road frontage (Blocks A,C,E, F and G). The new site plans were shown to Members.

The three storey Block A, north of Campion House had been reduced in size and scale, with an increased separation distance from no.114 Thornbury Road. It would still provide 9 units, but a revised mix of three one-bedroom and six two-bedroom units.

Block C, to the south of Campion House, had been re-designed and reduced in size and scale. It would now provide 16 units (two one-bedroom and 14 two-bedroom, a loss of four units.

Block E had had its roof re designed, to be less bulky; it would provide for 12 two-bedroom units.

Block G had been re-designed in terms of its elevations (to better relate to the entrance to the underground parking) and its roofscape. It would still provide 12 units, but a revised mix of two one-bedroom, nine two-bedroom and one four-bedroom units. The applicants A3 “Proposed Masterplan: Recent Amendments” notes that the four-bedroom unit in Block G would be an affordable unit.

The applicant had submitted an updated daylight/sunlight assessment, which stated that the application was BRE compliant.

With regard to the revisions with regard to open space the applicant had submitted that the total amenity space for residents (private and shared) and publicly accessible open space would be 2.33ha. The existing Local Open Space in the rear (west) of the site has an area of 2.08ha.

Questions/Comments Councillor Shirley Fisher asked about Block D still as it had been prior to the other amendments.

Cathy Gallagher (Head of Development Control) noted that it was. It was the five storey curved building shown on the plan.

Councillor Reid noted that she was conscious of the queries received by Councillors from local residents regarding the effect the development would have upon Open Space. She asked for clarification as to what part of the design would be Open Space and what part amenity space? She asked what amount of Open Space would be lost.

It was noted that a recent letter (21 September, 2008, tabled) from “Campion Concerns Monitoring Group” and this had noted, amongst other points that there was a lack of clarity in that amenity space and Local Open Space had not been adequately defined.

Cathy Gallagher (Head of Development Control) commented that the Council’s Planning officers would undertake its own assessment of the balance of Public and Private space. The Inspector had looked at this issue during a recent Planning Inquiry and had noted that there would be 1 hectare of publicly accessible open space behind Campions House, which was not accessible at the moment.

Open space could be defined in a number of ways and it was possible to redesignate Public Open Space as Local Open Space for example.

Councillor Cadbury asked about the responses received from Sport England, and the Indian Gymkhana Club. She noted that at the time of the Planning Inquiry the current leisure provider to the Council, CIP had commented that they did not require a sports field in this site, but she felt that the new leisure provider would now need to be consulted, and the issue re-visited with them. There were significant issues regarding the restoration of the listed building; landscaping and restoration issue to be discussed in further detail.

Councillor Carey noted the comments of Campion Concerns Action Group and noted their points regarding the use of Open Space. He expressed the view that, in his view the design of the scheme was unattractive, and would be over development in a Conservation Area, using up, in his view too much Local Space. Councillor Carey expressed the view that there was a need to reduce the size and bulk of the larger block, and produce a scheme that was more relevant and sympathetic to the Conservation Area.

The following comments were made: i) The amended scheme was still too bulky and dense to be built within the

conservation area, it was in excess of the guidelines in the London Plan. ii) The scheme still did not contain sufficient units with three and four bedroom units

to accommodate families. iii) There were still concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the balance between

Locally Designated Open Space, publicly accessible open space and shared amenity space, and the definitions involved.

iv) Members requested that officers re-consult the Council’s new Leisure provider regarding the potential need for sports facilities, fields in this area.”

5.2.11 On 23 October 2008 the above minutes were agreed as an accurate record.

Consultation responses received post IBAC (third party responses)

5.2.12 With regard to the applicant’s plan showing 2.07 ha44, the following comment has been received by email sent 15 October 2008:

“…my main point remains: - I found it misleading and not a true reflection of the application being made. If it is part of the official application, then all applicants documentation must be revised to reflect this and reasons for refusal should be reviewed. …The bottom line is the numbers do not add up, too much designated open space would be lost and/or not enough separate amenity space is being provided. …”

44 As reported to IBAC on 25 September 2008 by addendum.

5.2.13 Campion Concerns Monitoring Group (by email sent 16th October 2008) asks about the

proposed affordable housing provision and notes that the applicant’s plan showing 2.07 ha (that reported to IBAC by addendum)

“…makes no distinction of any kind! We believe this cannot be justified and that the claim that open space proposed will be 99.22% of the existing open space is ridiculous.”

Officers’ comment/s on the responses summarised at Paragraphs 5.2.13 and 5.14

5.2.15 The application is assessed at Section 7.0 below – in particular see Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space, Issue 4(a)(ii): Affordable housing provision and Issue 10: Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed?

5.3 Application as further amended (154 unit scheme excluding the amendment to

flat B7 in Campion House and post November IBAC amendments)

Consultation undertaken

5.3.1 By letter dated 3 November 2008, sent/emailed on 4 November 2008, the following were consulted (14 day consultation) about the application as further amended: • the Head Teacher of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School; • the Head Teacher of the Cardinal Wiseman School; • the Secretary of the Indian Gymkhana Club; • Campion Concerns Monitoring Group; • a representative of the residents of Thornbury Avenue (south side); • Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes; • Dominican Sisters; • Isleworth Society; • the Chairman of the Residents of Copper Beeches/Witham Road Residents

(Isleworth) Ltd; • Orchard Court Residents' Association (Osterley) Limited; • Osterley & Wyke Green Residents' Association; • Environment Agency; • Thames Water; • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority; • Transport for London; • NHS Hounslow Primary Care Trust; • Sport England - London Region; • English Heritage; • Victorian Society; • Chiswick Police Station - Crime Prevention Office; • Metropolitan Police Service; • BAA; • Anyone we received a representation from; and • Thornbury Road, Thornbury Avenue, Church Road, Moreton Avenue, Kilberry

Close and Oakley Close residents.

5.3.2 The consultation letter stated (in part) "Please note further amended description and

amended drawings: Changes include amendments to Blocks D, E, Jiii and Ji with the total number of residential units further reducing to 154)".

Consultation responses (third party responses)

5.3.3 The Council has received six written representations from owners/occupiers, in objection (as at 24 November 2008).

5.3.4 The following comments/objections have been raised, by topic. Where examples are

reproduced they are meant to illustrate comments/objections, by topic. The response of the Campion Concerns Monitoring Group is set out separately, from Paragraph 5.3.5 below. • surprised that the applications are on the IBAC agenda (13th November 2008) before

the end of the re-consultation period; • additional modifications welcomed; • concern about Blocks C and D (materials, height, footprint, roofscape and massing); • housing is still too close to the Indian Gymkhana and the ‘let the buyer beware’

attitude of the Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services seems a bizarre approach;

• any loss of Local Open Space is unacceptable; • the level of encroachment remains unacceptable; • the density is still too high; • loss of biodiversity, trees; concern about landscaping (spoil); concern about protected

species – surveys still not complete and mitigation; loss of ‘soak away’ quality; • details of fencing needed – views will/could be blocked; • materials to be used still not clear; • “I wish to re-assert my objection…encroachment on open space is

unacceptable…object to the housing mix being proposed…vague nature of many key sustainability issues…still too close to the IGC [Indian Gymkhana Club]…within sighting distance of an eventual application that could be acceptable…haven’t got there yet.”

• “…still do not go far enough, in terms of density and height, to…be in keeping with the rest of the Spring Grove conservation area. …especially disappointed…(Blocks Hiv and Jiii) - that I will be looking directly out at…higher than flats elsewhere in the area.”

• support for Campion Concerns; and • impact on local infrastructure.

5.3.5 The Council has also received written representations from Campion Concerns

Monitoring Group (CCMG).

5.3.6 In their email sent 11 November 2008 CCMG state, “We are very surprised that the Officers find a 26.7% encroachment on open space acceptable and have said so to the councillors.” In their email sent to IBAC Members on 10 November 2008 CCMG state (in part) “We were somewhat surprised to find that Campion was coming up at this week’s IBAC”. In their response CCMG state (in part),

“...Many of the changes made are welcome. In particular we are very pleased that now none of the buildings along Thornbury Road rise above three stories. It is good that the fifth level has been removed from the D block, although our doubts about this block as a whole still remain. It is also clearly an improvement that the housing in the south-west corner has been moved a little further from the Indian Gymkhana Club. Finally, the reduction in the number of units is a move in the right direction. Despite these welcome changes we believe that the basis for our objections remain intact. …Our main points remain A. On any reasonable analysis the level of encroachment is both high and unacceptable. B. The massing of the D block is out of character with the area and with the rest of the site. C. The proportion of 2-bed flats is too high and does not respond to the known needs

for family accommodation nor to the character (predominantly family housing). According to the current and previous London Mayors, London is already oversupplied with 2-bed flats.

D. The south west corner housing is still too close to the Gymkhana. This is not solved by saying that people would be made aware of the problem at the time of purchase.”

5.3.7 In their email sent 12 November 2008 to IBAC Members copied to the case officer, CCMG states (in part) that “Despite some welcome improvements…the main grounds for our objection to the current application are not significantly affected by the latest amendments” and “…the developer has only dealt with a series of key environmental issues in a vague way, with details to be fleshed our after approval.”

5.3.8 In their email sent 13 November 2008 CCMG states in addition to the objections raised

in previous correspondence,

“…the application should be refused on the ground that it does not meet the housing needs of the area in a way that either fits with the character of the local housing (predominantly family housing) or with the known needs for housing. London is already oversupplied with two-bedroom housing. Even though formally it might be possible to classify two-bedroom flats as "family accommodation" it is clear that such units could only meet the needs of a limited range of families…

We also believe that approval should not be given while important sustainability items such as renewable energy and water management remain at the stage of possibilities requiring further investigation. …”

Officers’ comment/s:

5.3.9 The application is assessed at Section 7.0 below. Issue 3(a) assesses whether this is an appropriate residential density, Issue 3(b) amenity space and open space and 4(a) whether the development would provide a sufficient range of housing provision including levels of affordable accommodation. The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area are assessed at Issue 5. See also 10: Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed?

5.3.10 As has already been noted in this section,

• there would be a minimum separation distance of 28m between the site’s rear (western) boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club and the nearest proposed building and hours of floodlighting are controlled;

• the Environment Agency has no objection to the applicant’s revised Flood Risk Assessment;

• the applicant has submitted a revised Ecological Assessment with recommended ecological management and enhancement able to be secured by condition and/or obligation; and

• a condition requiring full details of landscaping can be imposed. • See also Issue 8: Are sustainable building principles applied? Comments of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning)

5.3.11 IBAC commented on the application as further amended including the amendment to flat B7 in Campion House (as the amendment to flat B7 was reported by addendum) on 13 November 2008; the draft minutes of the meeting read:

Members commented as follows: • Concerns were raised about the current level of encroachment upon the existing

Local Open Space and Members asked under what special circumstances such encroachment is permitted (see paragraph 7.48 and 7.58 of the submitted report). Officers indicated that the Local Authority decided on the special circumstances. Members were reminded that the application would still referable to Government Office with there being an objection from Sport England.

• Clarification was sought on long-term arrangements for the future management and maintenance of the community hall and publicly accessible open space. In addition members requested details of how the public interest and the needs of different age groups would be catered for with regard to quality of maintenance, safety, antisocial behaviour, etc.

• Members acknowledged that access to and publicity of the publicly accessible areas of the completed site would be governed by a management agreement.

• Members asked who would hold responsibility for establishing service charges and access policies and the long-term revenue terms. Officers confirmed that the Local Authority would hold the responsibility for the S106 (that is, for negotiating S106 obligations) and enforcement where negotiated obligations (and conditions) were breached. Officers would want to ensure that the service charges would not be prohibitive upon the affordable housing occupiers/tenants. However, there was no intention of burdening the Council with the responsibility for general management of the site.

• Members queried whether further negotiations could be held with the developer to further reduce the level of encroachment on the Local Open Space and to increase the balance of family housing provision, in particular the number of 3-bedroom properties on site.

• The density and compatibility of the development with the local area was raised. Members commented that the reduction of Blocks C and D could serve to improve (reduce) both the density of the development and its impact on the Local Open Space.

• Members sought clarity on the ‘cascade clause’ (paragraphs 1.11, 4.21 and 7.92 of the submitted report) and were informed that the ability of the development to pay this off-site contribution would be assessed and therefore payable (if due) on the completion of the development.

• Members requested the inclusion of detailed elevations and designs for the proposed buildings, in particular for Blocks C and D, in preparation for the submission of the application to the Sustainable Development Committee in December.

Resolved: That members’ comments as set out above be reported to the Sustainable Development Committee.

5.4 Consultation responses from statutory consultees

Environment Agency (EA)

5.4.1 The EA initially (by letter dated 9 May 2008) objected:

OBJECTION: There is insufficient evidence to indicate that the surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner in line with Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25).

REASON: It is necessary to demonstrate how the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) have been applied…in line with the guidance contained in Appendix F of PPS25…

RESOLUTION: The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) needs to show calculations that the surface water discharge from the developed site will mimic that of an undeveloped Greenfield site…

5.4.2 The EA has now (by letter dated 2 September 2008) removed their objection:

“…confirm that we consider the Flood Risk Assessment titled ‘Flood Risk Assessment for the Proposed Redevelopment of Campion House, Revision A’ to be acceptable…However we request…conditions…”

Thames Water

5.4.3 Thames Water (by email sent 10 April 2008) advised of having no objection with regard to either sewerage infrastructure or water infrastructure. Thames Water seeks an informative with regard to minimum pressure and comment:

“Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure…carried out by Thames Water…have determined that a suitable connection point has been established for the development. The 12” diameter main in Thornbury Road has sufficient capacity to meet the new demand”, however it is recommended that blocks of flats incorporate water storage and boosted internal systems to ensure adequate supply to the upper storeys”.

5.4.4 Thames Water has (by email sent 21 August 2008) confirmed their views.

London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) 5.4.5 The LFEPA (by letter dated 14 April 2008) is satisfied with the proposals “…subject to

access requirements as required under Section 33 of the Middlesex County Council Act and Section B5 of Approved Document B are met. This may require Dry Rising mains to be fitted to buildings to achieve the 45 metre rule as required by the 2006 Building Regulations.”

5.4.6 The LFEPA has (by letter dated 22 August 2008 and again by letter dated 18 November 2008) confirmed their views.

Transport for London (TfL) 5.4.7 TfL’s initial comments (by letter dated 17 April 2008) included,

“Parking 195 car parking spaces are proposed on site, which exceeds the maximum standard as set out in Annex 4 of the London Plan. The proposed car parking provision should be reduced accordingly. The TA makes no reference to cycle parking. The cycle parking provision should be consistent with TfL’s cycle parking standards which would equate to approximately 208 spaces. Junction Assessment … Travel Plan The TA makes reference to the implementation of a travel plan which could reduce development traffic generation by up to 10%. …TfL requires a statement of intent to be submitted detailing how this reduction will be achieved and by when. Subject to the above, and the model validation issues being resolved, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the TLRN [Transport for London Road Network] or the SRN [Strategic Road Network].”

5.4.8 TfL comments (by email sent 11 August 2008) that they will no longer object subject to the revised modelling report being submitted.

NHS Hounslow Primary Care Trust 5.4.9 On the application as originally submitted (168 units), NHS West London Health

Estates and Facilities Management (by letter dated 18 May 2008) sought a capital planning contribution of £186,319 and a revenue planning contribution of £693,396 based on a 4 year development to “…increase capacity at the nearby Thornbury Road Centre for Health to support the additional health care services required by the additional population this development produces”.

5.4.10 On the application as first amended (160 unit scheme assuming zero affordable housing provision), NHS West London Estates and Facilities Management (by letter dated 23 September 2008) sought a capital planning contribution of £177,719 and a revenue planning contribution of £669,711 based on a 4 year development.

Sport England – London Region 5.4.11 Sport England (by letter dated 8 May 2008) objects, on grounds that the proposal

would be detrimental to the interests of sport.

5.4.12 Sport England advises:

“… Sport England's criteria for assessing applications affecting playing fields are largely incorporated in PPG17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation (2002), paragraph 15 of which specifically addresses Playing Fields. … It should be emphasised that the legislation contains no requirement for the playing pitch and playing field either to have had public access or to have been used on a frequent basis. The purpose of the legislation is to protect playing fields against unnecessary loss to development. The Inspector's comment in paragraph 33 of his report (APP/F5540/A/07/2040494) that he is not convinced that the area in question can be considered a playing field as such, worthy of retention, is not explained by reference to the statutory definition of playing fields in SI No. 1817 (1996) or to paragraph 15 of PPG17. Sport England is not convinced by the documents accompanying the current application that any of the above exceptions apply. The application includes proposals for publicly accessible open space. However, the disposition of these areas precludes the provision of a replacement sports pitch. The area of the playing field/sports pitch to be lost to development has also been increased compared with the earlier application. … the existence of unused pitches does not constitute reliable evidence that pitches or playing fields are surplus to requirements. A detailed audit of supply and demand for playing pitches is needed to provide such evidence. …PPG17 compliant methodology…should be followed to provide a sound basis for assessing the adequacy of provision. …Given that the next door neighbour to the application site (the Indian Gymkhana Club) remains keen to use the playing field area on the application site for an additional football pitch or junior pitches to facilitate sports development, the absence on the application site of changing accommodation is not an issue. Whatever the position is regarding over or undersupply of pitches within the borough as a whole, in this location there is clear evidence of local need (the Indian Gymkhana Club) that the playing field on the application pitch can meet. Sport England considers there is no justification to regard the playing field on the application site as "surplus to requirements". It follows that, in Sport England's view, the application also remains in conflict with the Council's own UDP Policy ENV-N.1.12 - Retention of playing fields.”

English Heritage 5.4.13 English Heritage (by letters dated 9 May 2008) do not wish to offer any comments on

the applications, advising that they should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice.

5.4.14 English Heritage (by letter dated 22 September 2008) recommends an archaeological condition to secure a programme of archaeological work.

Metropolitan Police Service, Crime Prevention Office

5.4.15 The Metropolitan Police Service, Crime Prevention Office states (by letter dated 15 April 2008),

“…I have already met with the planners of this development and raised several concerns. Specifically, I have asked them to consider the amount of pedestrian entrances required from Thornbury Road. The security of the park area at night could become an issue if free access is allowed. There is potential for anti social behaviour. I have also asked them to consider how the park could be entered via the vehicle access An electronic roller shutter should secure the basement parking area with no potential for pedestrian incursion. The developers seem keen to achieve Secured by Design for this development and I believe that this is possible.”

BAA

5.4.16 BAA (by letter dated 23 May 2008) advises that the proposed development could conflict with safeguarding criteria unless conditions with regard to a bird hazard management plan, landscaping (soft and water landscaping works) and Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) are imposed on any planning permission granted. BAA also makes an observation with regard to the use of cranes during construction, drawing the applicant’s attention to the requirement for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome.

5.4.17 BAA has (by letter dated 27 August 2008) confirmed their views. 6.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

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

The Development Plan

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

Material considerations and emerging policies

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

6.4 The authority has also prepared two draft development plan documents (‘DPDs’): the

Employment Development Plan Document and Brentford Area Action Plan, which were subject to Examination Hearings in March to May 2008 and have been found sound subject to the implementation of the Inspector’s recommendations. As emerging policy, the two DPDs are material considerations in determining applications for planning permission, but are not relevant to this scheme.

Determining applications in respect of listed buildings 6.5 In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a

listed building or its setting, the authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Determining applications for conservation area consent 6.6 In considering whether to grant planning permission with respect to any buildings or

other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Relevant policies of the UDP (Amended September 2007)

6.7 The following UDP policies are of relevance to the applications. Implementation policies Policy IMP 1.1 Integrating patterns of land use and the provision of transport Policy IMP 1.2 The reuse and recycling of urban land and buildings Policy IMP 6.1 Planning Obligations Natural environment policies Policy ENV-N.1.10 Provision of new local open space Policy ENV-N.1.11 Protection and improvement of local open space Policy ENV-N.2.3 Promotion of nature conservation management Policy ENV-N.2.3A Species protection Policy ENV-N.2.4 Habitat protection Policy ENV-N.2.5 Habitat reconstruction Policy ENV-N.2.6 Landscape features Policy ENV-N.2.7 Trees and community woodlands Policy ENV-N.2.8 Tree Preservation Orders Built environment policies Policy ENV-B.1.1 New Development Policy ENV-B.1.5 Environmental improvements Policy ENV-B.1.9 Safety and security Policy ENV-B.2.2 Conservation areas Policy ENV-B.2.3 Reuse of redundant historic buildings Policy ENV-B.2.6 Identification and protection of buildings of local townscape character Policy ENV-B.2.7 Alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character Policy ENV-B.3.2 Sites of archaeological importance

Environmental protection policies Policy ENV-P.1.1 Environmental sustainability: environmental impact statements and sustainability checklist Policy ENV-P.1.2 Water pollution and water quality Policy ENV-P.1.3 Surface water run off Policy ENV-P.1.4 Waste water management Policy ENV-P.1.5 Noise pollution Policy ENV-P.1.6 Air pollution Policy ENV-P.1.7 Light pollution Policy ENV-P.1.8 Development proposals on or near contaminated land Policy ENV-P.1.9 Remediation of contaminated and potentially unstable land Policy ENV-P.2.1 Waste management Policy ENV-P.2.4 Recycling facilities in new developments

Housing policies Policy H.4.1 Housing standards and guidelines Policy H.4.4 Provision for children’s play in housing developments Policy H.4.5 Associated facilities for residential developments Policy H.6.2 Environmental improvements in residential areas

Community and leisure policies Policy C.1.4 New social and community facilities Policy C.2.1 Educational facilities Policy C.3.1 Statutory undertakers and public authorities Policy C.4.1 Facilities for young children Policy C.4.3 Physical access to social and community facilities Policy C.5.6 Access routes Policy C.6.2 Provision of new arts, cultural, entertainment and library facilities

Transport PoliciesPolicy T.1.2 The movement implications of development Policy T.1.4 Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments Policy T.2.1 Pedestrian access Policy T.2.2 Pedestrian safety and security Policy T.2.3 Strategic and local cycle networks Policy T.2.4 Public transport infrastructure Policy T.2.6 Safety of public transport Policy T.3.1 Improvements sensitive to particular uses Policy T.4.2 Oppose overall increases in highway capacity for private vehicle and seek reduction in traffic levels. Policy T.4.3 Traffic implications of new development Policy T.4.4 Road safety Policy T.4.5 On-street parking Policy T.5.1 Air quality implications of traffic Policy T.5.2 Reducing traffic nuisance in residential areas Policy T.5.3 Vehicle crossovers and hardstandings

Relevant policies of the 2008 London Plan 6.7 The following London Plan policies are of relevance to the applications:

The Mayor’s objectives Policy I.1 The Mayor's objectives The broad development strategy: The overall strategy Policy 2A.1 Sustainability criteria Policy 2A.9 The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities

Thematic policies:

Living in London Policy 3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing Policy 3A.2 Borough housing targets Policy 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites Policy 3A.5 Housing choice Policy 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision Policy 3A.8 Definition of affordable housing Policy 3A.9 Affordable housing targets Policy 3A.10 Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed-use schemes Policy 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population Policy 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities Policy 3A.19 The voluntary and community sector Policy 3A.23 Health impacts Policy 3A.24 Education facilities

Working in London Policy 3B.6 Improving London’s ICT infrastructure Policy 3B.7 Promotion of e-London Connecting London Policies – Improving Travel in London Policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development Policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity Policy 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London Policy 3C.9 Increasing the capacity, quality and integration of public transport to meet London’s needs Policy 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic Policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking Policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling Policy 3C.23 Parking strategy Enjoying London Policy 3D.8 Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure Policy 3D.11 Open space provision in DDPs Policy 3D.12 Open space strategies Policy 3D.13 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies Policy 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation Policy 3D.15 Trees and woodland Policy 3D.16 Geological conservation The Crosscutting Policies:

Climate change and London’s metabolism: mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and using and managing natural resources Policy 4A.1 Tackling climate change Policy 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 4A.7 Renewable energy Policy 4A.9 Adaptation to climate change Policy 4A.14 Sustainable drainage Policy 4A.16 Water supplies and resources Policy 4A.17 Water quality Policy 4A.18 Water and sewerage infrastructure Policy 4A.19 Improving air quality Policy 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes

Designs on London Policy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city Policy 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm Policy 4B.4 London’s buildings: retrofitting Policy 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment Policy 4B.6 Safety, security and fire prevention and protection Policy 4B.8 Respect local context and communities Policy 4B.11 London’s built heritage Policy 4B.12 Heritage conservation Policy 4B.13 Historic conservation-led regeneration Policy 4B.15 Archaeology Implementing the London Plan:

Delivering the Vision Policy 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations Policy 6A.5 Planning obligations National and strategic planning policies

6.8 The relevant national planning policies are:

• PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development • PPS3: Housing • PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation • PPS12: Local Development Frameworks • PPG13: Transport • PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment • PPG16: Archaeology and Planning • PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation • PPS22: Renewable Energy • PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control • PPG24: Planning and Noise • PPS25: Development and Flood Risk

6.9 The Circulars of relevance to the proposed development are:

• 11/95: Use of Planning Conditions in Planning Permission • 05/05: Planning Obligations • 09/08: Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

6.10 Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance)

6.11 Sustainable design and construction (May 2006) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance)

6.12 London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997)

General standards and controls: Section 1 Design and layout Section 3 Safety and security guidelines Section 4 Daylight and sunlight

Residential standards and controls: Section 9 Form and design Section 10 Private amenity space Section 12 Internal space provision

6.13 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document to the Hounslow Local Development Framework (March 2008)

6.14 Air Quality Supplementary Planning Document to the Hounslow Local Development Framework (March 2008)

6.15 Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Recreation (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance) (March 2008)

Other relevant documents 6.16 Spring Grove Conservation Area (report to the Sustainable Development Committee

meeting of 18 April 2002)

6.17 Campion House: Draft Planning Position Statement (report to Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) meeting of 14 July 2005)

6.18 Conservation Area Character Appraisals (report to and minutes of Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) meeting of 19 January 2006)

With regard to the special architectural and/or historic interest of the Spring Grove Conservation Area the report to Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) states:

“Although based on an historic house, the special interest of Spring Grove derives from an estate planned to be a grand Victorian suburb. The Davies original estate planning still remains, albeit in an evolved form, in much of its splendour, with the prevailing pattern of development mostly being respectful. Tall classical-style villas standing in spacious gardens, the grandiose Italianate stuccoed mansion of Campion House, the characteristic Gothic structure of Lancaster House, and more subtle Arts and Crafts styled semi-detached properties, along with others, amalgamate into the whole. The classical element was emphasised by the “Bath-stone” of the prevailing material. Davies used large, lipped terracotta facing tiles bedded onto a backing block; this enhances the apparent quality of the buildings. The “limestone” was set as ashlar with a fine joint, with genuine stone surroundings and detail. A very smooth surface and the squarish regular pattern gives them away, but the large numbers of properties in this or a similar form of construction, remaining, give a further harmony of material, colour and form. The conservation area has many other components, in terms of its built form, that were not envisaged in the original Davies scheme but still form an essential part of the area known as Spring Grove, whilst other elements make the area cohesive and contribute to the quality environment, such as the greenery afforded by tree-lined roads and front garden settings.”

The character appraisal then sets out (in part):

“Spring Grove estate benefits from the wide-open spaces of the large institutions, and nearness to Osterley Park. It played an important part in the development of the area east of Hounslow. Several core historical areas can be identified in the existing street pattern, which are linked together by the readily identifiable original street network. The earliest networks are on the western side of the estate, with routes to St. Mary’s church and Lancaster House (Brunel University) dominating the eastern side. Spring Grove House continues to dominate the whole area, mainly through the road patterns made to form around it and its lodges, which are more visible than the house. Of particular note is the junction of Osterley Road and The Grove, where despite the open streetscape and attractive green space, the design has not changed since its conception in the 1850s.”

6.19 Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statements: Report on Presentations to Area Committees (Planning and Resulting Recommendations) (report to and minutes of Sustainable Development Committee meeting of 21 March 2006)

The minutes read (in part), “That the individual conservation area base line appraisal statements be adopted for current use.”

6.20 The London Housing Strategy – draft for consultation with the London Assembly and functional bodies (November 2008)

The draft states, at page 22, "As well as housing that is appropriate to the needs of Londoners in terms of income, there is also a significant unmet need for more family homes. ...The most pressing need is for affordable homes, and this strategy sets a target for 42 per cent of social rented and 16 per cent of intermediate homes to have three bedrooms or more... Evidence suggests that there is not nearly the same level of need for new family sized homes in the private market. ...Nevertheless...the mix of provision should be sensitive to the characteristics and requirements of local areas."

6.20 Hounslow Plan 2006-2010 The Hounslow Plan has as one of its top ten promises "Bring new affordable family-sized homes into the Borough". The intended outcome/performance indicator for this promise is that 35% of new affordable dwellings built in the Borough are three-bedroom plus (start on site). Another intended outcome/performance indicator is that "35% of new dwellings built in the Borough are 3 Bedroom plus houses."

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

1. The principle of the proposed development; 2. The suitability of the site for residential purposes in terms of noise, air quality,

flood risk, wind and contamination; 3. Whether the development is acceptable in terms of amenity space provision and

open space, daylight and sunlight, privacy, refuse and recycling storage, internal space standards and accessibility;

4. Would the development provide a sufficient range of housing provision and levels of affordable accommodation and would the development be accommodated in terms of community infrastructure?

5. The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character and (or) appearance of the conservation area;

6. The impact on residential amenity; 7. Parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement; 8. Are sustainable building principles applied? 9. The potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations; and 10. Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and

01119/M/CA2 were dismissed at appeal?

Issue 1: The principle of the proposed development 7.2 The site is vacant, with the most recent use of the site as a Roman Catholic Seminary

(Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions))45. The actual teaching space was for private use as part of the religious residential seminary and only covered a small portion of the site area.

7.3 There is no specific UDP policy relating to religious residential seminaries. The policies relating to religious meeting places are not considered suitable to assess the application as these refer to uses providing and retaining facilities that serve a local need; as a religious residential seminary the site provided for a specific need at a greater than local scale. In relation to the training role of the religious residential seminary UDP Policy C.2.1 (Educational facilities) states that the Council will retain and provide educational facilities where there is a local need and that, where the educational use of a building is no longer required, the future use will be determined by the nature and location of the site and by the application of policies and priorities of the UDP. However, again, it is considered that the site provided for a wider scale of need so that the proposal must be assessed on its merits.

7.4 The proposal for community facilities within the retained Tigar Hall would meet the aspiration of UDP Policy C.2.1 to provide educational facilities where there is a local need – subject to local need for the facility being demonstrated and securing the provision of terminals within the IT suite as shown on drawing 61_CHO_1_101 (Tigar Hall; Proposed Plan). The facility would also need to be assessed against UDP Policy C.1.4 (New social and community facilities), criterion (vii) of which requires that “the local need for a new facility of the proposed scale of provision and level of use in the catchment area is demonstrated”.

7.5 As set out at Paragraph 4.41 above, the applicant states that the community centre at Tigar Hall is proposed “…in direct response to the current deficiencies in existing facilities and as a result of the public consultation exercise”. The applicant also states that it would “…be maintained by the service charge generated by the prospective purchasers on the development” and that “It is proposed to protect the creation of this facility by writing it into the S106 agreement” (see Paragraph 4.42 above). Officers concur that the provision of the community facilities in perpetuity can be secured by a planning obligation, as a measure directly related to the proposed development.

45 The applicant’s Design & Access Statement reads, at 1.1, that the Jesuit seminary closed in 2004.

The exact terms would be negotiated in conjunction with the Borough Solicitor; amongst other things officers would need to be satisfied that the service charge would not be prohibitive upon the occupiers of the 46 units proposed as affordable.

7.6 Campion House would also be retained46. The demolition of the remainder of the seminary buildings, including an extension to Thornbury House, is acceptable with the Inspector having found that they are “…of limited architectural value” (see Paragraph 3.15 above).

7.7 The footprint of proposed buildings would encroach into the area designated as Local Open Space and very special circumstances must be established to justify this loss of private open area47.

Summary of Issue 1 7.8 In summary and in principle the (re)development of this site would seem acceptable –

subject to careful consideration of the proposed level of encroachment upon the designated Local Open Space in an area of Publicly Accessible Local Open Space Deficiency (discussed below at Issues 3(b) and 5).

Issue 2: The suitability of the site for residential purposes in terms of noise, air quality, flood risk, wind and contamination

7.9 This section of the report assesses the site’s detailed suitability for residential purposes in terms of noise, air quality, flood risk, wind and contamination.

Issue 2(a): Noise 7.10 PPG24 (Planning and Noise) outlines some of the main considerations when

determining planning applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources.

7.11 The guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should consider carefully in each case whether proposals for new noise sensitive development would be incompatible with 'existing activities', in this air traffic, road traffic and the Indian Gymkhana Club48.

7.12 Under PPG24 residential development should not normally be permitted in areas that are subject to unacceptably high levels of noise:

46 Would provide eight residential units. See Paragraph 4.25 above. 47 UDP Policy ENV-N.1.11 (Protection and improvement of local open space) states (in part)

that “Planning permission will not normally be granted for any development or change of use which would result in the loss of, encroachment upon or form an intrusive element in, the overall open aspects of:” Local Open Space.

48 With planning permission (01118/B/P1) for “Installation of fencing around synthetic hockey pitch and floodlighting” at the Indian Gymkhana Club site having been granted subject to conditions including “That no floodlights be used between the hour of 10.30pm and 8.00am”.

“When assessing a proposal for residential development near a source of noise, local planning authorities should determine into which of the four NECs the site falls…LPA's should then have regard to the advice in the appropriate NEC as below… A Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning

permission, although the noise level at the high end of the category should not be regarded as a desirable level.

B Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise.

C Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.

D Planning permission should normally be refused.”

7.13 This issue of exposure to noise is referred to under UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 (New development); new development and the uses being proposed should respect the local environment and community and should “ensure any noise is minimised at source and provides measures to protect local and neighbourhood amenity; ensure protection from any adverse impact of external noise.”

7.14 In addition, the Council has a general policy on noise pollution, UDP Policy ENV-P.1.5 (Noise pollution), which states that the Council will not allow any development proposals that could result in unacceptable levels of noise nuisance to nearby existing or future occupiers. The stated reason for the policy is to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers, the aim being to reduce as far as practicable noise from all sources.

7.15 London Plan Policy 4A.20 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) states that noise should be reduced by, amongst other things, “minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals” and “separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources wherever practicable”.

The applicant’s PPG24 Noise Report 7.16 The applicant has submitted a ‘PPG24 Noise Report’. Undertaken by noise.co.uk it

presents the findings of a noise survey carried out on 27th and 28th July 2006 to “…assess aircraft noise affecting the site”, which is stated to be the “…dominant noise source on site”. The site is categorised as NEC C for night time and NEC B for day time49 with recommendations for glazing and acoustic ventilators.

7.17 Glazing and acoustic ventilators can be secured by condition should planning permission be granted.

49 The Environmental Noise Assessment undertaken by Acoustic Design Consultants

from 1100 on Thursday 27th July 2006 to 1100 on Friday 28 July 2006 set out that the site is in NEC C during both the day-time and night-time periods.

Issue 2(b): Air quality 7.18 The whole Borough was declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in March

2006. If it is considered that the proposal would impact on levels of air pollution this would not be ground for refusal and could be mitigated by a Section 106 contribution with the money to be spent on projects related to air-quality management as allowed by PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control).

7.19 186 car parking spaces are proposed (see Paragraphs 4.43 to 4.45 above). This is 60 less than the previous scheme, which proposed 246 parking spaces.

7.20 The impact on levels of air pollution was not a putative reason for refusal of the previous scheme dismissed at appeal and it not considered that the impact on levels of air pollution is a reason for refusal of the current proposal.

Issue 2(c): Flood risk 7.21 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (this zone comprises land assessed as having a

low probability of flooding).

7.22 The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment proposing the use of porous paving and overflow swales (designed to stay dry in all but the most extreme events) and a revised Flood Risk Assessment (see Paragraph 4.53 above), which the Environment Agency considers acceptable (see Paragraph 5.4.2 above).

7.23 The Environment Agency seeks the imposition of conditions, inter alia, to ensure that no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than as approved (see Paragraph 5.4.2 above)

7.24 BAA seeks the imposition of a condition with regard to SUDS to avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Heathrow Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the site (see Paragraphs 5.4.16 and 5.4.17 above).

Issue 2(d): Wind 7.25 The applicant has submitted a ‘Wind Microclimate Desk Study’ that uses the Lawson

Comfort Criteria (accepted methodology). Concluding remarks include:

“7. No mitigation measures have been proposed (or are considered necessary), the development is relatively low-rise and the assessment indicates that the wind conditions are compatible with the desired pedestrian use of the use. The proposed planting is expected to be beneficial and to enhance the wind environment particularly during the summer season when trees are in full leaf.”

Issue 2(e): Contamination 7.26 The applicant has submitted a completed Sustainability Checklist. Undertaken by

CgMs Ltd it states at Paragraph 4b that a site survey has found small pockets of contaminated land, as a result of the introduction of fill material to the site and in areas where heating fuel was stored.

7.27 A ‘phased contamination condition’ would need to be imposed on any planning permission.

7.28 The Environment Agency also seeks the imposition of conditions (see Paragraphs 5.4.2 and 7.23 above).

Summary of Issue 2 7.29 This section of the report has found that the site is suitable for residential purposes in

terms of noise, air quality, flood risk, wind and contamination – subject to the imposition of safeguarding conditions.

Issue 3: Whether the development is acceptable in terms of amenity space and open space, daylight and sunlight, privacy, refuse and recycling storage, internal space provision and accessibility

7.30 The next consideration is the residential development itself.

Issue 3(a): Is this an appropriate residential density? 7.31 London Plan Policy 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites) states that the Mayor will,

and boroughs should, ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles in Policy 4B.1 and with public transport capacity. The policy calls for boroughs to “…adopt the residential density ranges set out in Table 3A.2 and which are compatible with sustainable residential quality”.

7.32 Table 3A.2 provides a 'density matrix', wherein appropriate density ranges (habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare) are related to setting in terms of location, existing building form and massing, and the index of public transport accessibility. In a suburban setting with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2 to 3, the London Plan identifies a residential density range of between 150 to 250 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) (35 to 95 units per hectare (u/ha)) as appropriate.

7.33 The residential density of the proposal, based on 569 habitable rooms50 (154 units) and a site area of 3.22ha (see Paragraph 2.2 above), would be 176.7 hr/ha (47.8 u/ha). If one hectare were excluded from the red line application site as serving a wider area, then the residential density of the proposal would be 256.3 hr/ha (69.4 u/ha). Using a site area of 1.87ha (i.e. excluding 1.44ha proposed publicly accessible open space but adding back in 0.09ha of play space (see Paragraphs 4.12 and 4.13 above)), the residential density of the proposal would be 304.3 hr/ha (82 u/hr). Table 2 shows the residential density of the scheme as now proposed, summarising these three methods of calculation.

Table 2: Residential density of the scheme as now proposed London Plan In a suburban setting with a PTAL of 2 to 3 the London Plan

identifies a residential density range of between 150 to 250 hr/ha (35 to 95 u/ha) as appropriate (the appropriate density range for schemes with between 3.1 and 3.7 habitable rooms per unit is 40 to 80 u/ha)

Site area Site area less 1ha Site area less 1.35 haArea 3.22 ha 2.22 ha 1.87 ha Residential density based on 569 habitable rooms

176.7 hr/ha 47.8 u/ha

256.3 hr/ha 69.4 u/ha

304.3 hr/ha 82.4 u/ha

50 Applicant’s letter dated 23 October 2008 and schedule of accommodation.

Revision received 24 November 2008.

7.34 Table 2 shows that the density of the scheme exceeds the London Plan residential density range of 150 to 250 hr/ha when one hectare or more is excluded from the red line application site. When expressed as units per hectare, the density of the scheme falls within the London Plan residential density range of 35 to 90 u/ha whether using a site area of 3.22ha, 2.2ha or 1.87ha. Using a site area of 1.78ha (i.e. excluding 1.44ha proposed publicly accessible open space) the density of the scheme (86.5 u/ha) also falls within the London Plan residential density range of 35 to 90 u/ha.

7.35 Table 3A.2 of the London Plan gives a residential density range of 40 to 80 u/ha for suburban area schemes with between 3.1 and 3.7 habitable rooms per unit where the PTAL is between 2 and 3 (i.e. sets different residential density ranges for different indicative average dwelling sizes, which when taken together give the range of 35 to 95 u/ha cited at Paragraph 7.32 above). The proposal has an indicative average dwelling size of 3.7 habitable rooms per unit (i.e. dividing 569 habitable rooms by 154 units). The proposal would, therefore, fall within the residential density range of 40 to 80 u/ha when using a site area of 3.22ha and 2.22ha, but exceed it when using 1.87ha.

7.36 In the view of officers, more than 1ha but less than 1.35ha ought to be subtracted from the red line application site (i.e. from 3.22ha). This is because, with reference to the applicant’s drawing entitled ‘Masterplan_open space’, officers do not accept that all of the 1.44ha shown as proposed publicly accessible open space would be publicly accessible without constraint. Using a site area of 1.97ha (i.e. excluding 1.25ha), then the residential density of the proposal would be 288.8 hr/ha (78.2 u/ha). At this density the scheme would still exceed the London Plan residential density range of 150 to 250 hr/ha, but fall within the residential density range of 40 to 80 u/ha for suburban area schemes with between 3.1 and 3.7 habitable rooms per unit where PTAL is between 2 and 3.

7.37 Members should note here that adopting the definition of habitable rooms in the UDP, as has been advocated by objectors including Campion Concerns Monitoring Group, would give the scheme higher residential density figures. However, because our own density policy was not saved, it is considered that our definition of habitable rooms should not apply in density calculations51. Thus, only straight room counts are now reported for monitoring purposes.

7.38 An assessment needs to be made as to the implications/consequences of the scheme’s density – and follows.

51 UDP Policy H.4.2 (Residential density) was not saved in September 2007, as it was not

consistent with the density policy in the London Plan. The supporting text for the policy is no longer part of the UDP as a result. This is to say that the definition of habitable rooms at Paragraph 8.31, which read as follows:

"The definition of habitable room includes all rooms normally used for living or sleeping, and kitchens having a floor area of 11 sq.m. or over. Small kitchens, halls, bathrooms and WCs are excluded. Large rooms over 20 sq.m. which are readily capable of division will be counted as two rooms."

was not saved (see page 155a of the UDP, which shows UDP Policy H.4.2 and supporting text in ‘strike through’). Whilst the same definition of habitable rooms remains in the Glossary to the UDP, no saved UDP policy itself uses the term “habitable rooms”. Members should also note that no definitions in the Glossary were 'removed'. For example, the definition of “affordable housing” remains in the Glossary even though UDP Policy H.2.1 (Affordable Housing) and the supporting text for the policy were not saved.

Issue 3(b): Amenity space and open space Amenity space 7.39 Under the UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997) (UDP SPG 1997),

the Council seeks that useable amenity space, providing a suitable shape, aspect and siting and having appropriate boundary treatment, normally be provided at no less than 60sq.m for each house with four habitable rooms and 75sq.m for each house with five habitable rooms and over. Other forms of residential development should provide communal amenity space having safe and convenient pedestrian access that is well landscaped and maintained and screened (e.g. from parking areas and roads). The standard for each flat with three habitable rooms and under is 25sq.m and for those with four habitable rooms it is 30sq.m. The standard for five habitable rooms and over is 40sq.m. The guidance also states (at Section 1.0) that developments should be designed to show a clear distinction between the public and private areas.

7.40 The 154 units proposed would, based on 569 habitable rooms, generate a UDP SPG 1997 amenity space requirement of 5,230sq.m (0.52ha). This is shown in Table 3 below.

7.41 Adopting the definition of habitable rooms in the UDP52, the scheme as now proposed would, based on 621 habitable rooms53, generate a UDP SPG 1997 amenity space requirement of 5,450sq.m (0.55ha).

Table 3: UDP SPG 1997 amenity space requirement One-

bedroom units

Two-bedroom units

Three- bedroom units

Four-bedroom terraced houses

Habitable rooms (hr)

Required amenity space (sq.m)

Two habitable rooms

13 26 hr (13 x 2 hr)

325sq.m (13 x 25sq.m)

Three habitable rooms

95 1 288 hr (96 x 3 hr)

2,400sq.m (96 x 25sq.m)

Four habitable rooms

1 16 68 hr (17 x 4 hr)

510sq.m (17 x 30sq.m)

Five habitable rooms

1 2 15 hr (3 x 5 hr)

120sq.m (3 x 40sq.m)

Six habitable rooms

3 18 hr (3 x 6 hr)

225sq.m (3 x 75sq.m)

Seven habitable rooms

22 154 hr (22 x 7 hr)

1,650sq.m (22 x 75sq.m)

Totals 13 units 96 units 18 units 27 units 569 hr 154 units

5,230sq.m (0.52ha)

52 See the previous footnote. 53 Applicants’ assessment.

7.42 The applicant’s Design & Access Statement sets out54 that a clear hierarchy of spaces would be established, with primary landscaped open space representing the public areas of the scheme and secondary landscaped open space the semi-private areas for residents.

7.43 The main publicly accessible open space would be ‘Thornbury Gardens’, which would serve as “…a backdrop to the rear elevation of Campion House”. It would have a water feature and a wildlife pond. There would be a wildflower meadow and, to the rear (west) of Block D, a “Possible location for Play area and seating”.

7.44 ‘Thornbury Green’, described as “…the wide landscaped margin between the new buildings and the road”, would also be publicly accessible and is shown to have a play area and seating.

7.45 The ‘Thornbury Green’ play area would be created to adoptable standards and would be the equivalent of a LAP (Local area of play)55.

7.46 Separation between the primary and secondary areas of open space (see Paragraph 7.42 above) would be achieved “…via simple railings”56.

7.47 The applicant states that “The total private levels of amenity space, whilst not always according with the standards sought for individual properties, exceeds the standards as an overall total”57 – and based on the applicant’s figure of 1.09ha for total amenity space for residents (see Paragraph 4.13 above), the scheme as now proposed would meet the UDP SPG 1997 amenity space requirement, whether calculated based on 569 habitable rooms (0.52ha) or 621 habitable rooms (0.55ha).

7.48 The applicant’s assessment is that 0.09ha play space is required (see Paragraph 4.13 above). Officers consider that the quantitative requirement is 0.10ha using the child occupancy calculations developed for the purpose of calculating education contributions (i.e. using the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (March 2008)) and note that play space • is proposed within ‘Thornbury Green’; • is shown as being able to be provided to the rear (west) of Block D; and • could be designed into the proposed shared amenity space.

7.49 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation provision is discussed further below under ‘Open space (encroachment)’.

Open space (encroachment) 7.50 UDP Policy ENV-N.1.11 (Protection and improvement of Local Open Space) and the

Glossary define Local Open Space as follows:

“Local Open Spaces are public and private open areas outside the Green Belt and MOL which provide essential visual breaks in built up areas, contribute to local amenity, and meet, or are capable of meeting recreational needs.”58

54 4.9 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement. 55 4.19 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement (page 45). 56 4.9 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement. 57 Paragraph 6.51 of the applicant’s Planning Statement. 58 The supporting text for the policy gives examples of Local Open Spaces as including

“…private sports grounds, allotments, cemeteries, school fields, covered reservoirs, nature reserves and incidental open spaces found in housing areas.”

7.51 The existing Local Open Space in the rear (west) of the Campion House site has an area of 2.09ha (64.9% of the red line application site). The 2.09ha includes the existing tennis court (approximately 425 sq.m) that is fenced.

7.52 UDP Policy ENV-N.1.11 seeks to protect, maintain and enhance the openness, landscape quality and wildlife habitats of Local Open Spaces in the Borough. The Policy states, inter alia,

“Planning permission will not, except in very special circumstances, be granted for development on Local Open Spaces, especially where it would lead to a deficiency in publicly accessible open space. It is important not only to protect open space from development, but also to ensure that opportunities are taken to improve the amenity value and to increase public access within areas identified as having an Open Space Deficiency. …Planning permission will not normally be granted for any development which would result in the loss of, encroachment upon or form an intrusive element in, the overall aspects of: …(ii) playing fields…(iii) private open space, particularly where this forms part of a larger open area, and is of benefit to the local community…”

7.53 The supporting text for the policy (Paragraph 3.16) sets out that it is especially in areas identified as having a Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency where the Council will seek to ensure that public access to Local Open Space is improved.

7.54 As set out at Paragraph 2.10 above, the site falls within an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency.

7.55 Similarly, UDP Policy ENV-N.1.10 (Provision of new local open space) states that the Council will seek to increase “…the provision of Local Open Space in the Borough, especially in areas of Open Space Deficiency” and also “…public accessibility to areas of Local Open Space.”

7.56 London Plan Policy 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure) states,

“The Mayor will work with strategic partners to protect and promote London’s network of open spaces, to realise the current and potential value of open space to communities, and to protect the many benefits of open space, including those associated with health, sport and recreation, children’s play, regeneration, the economy, culture, biodiversity and the environment.”

7.57 Paragraph 3.200, which supports the policy, states that “As London becomes more compact and intensive in its built form, the value of these open spaces will increase and developments should help to meet the consequential increase in demand, especially for public open space and provision for children” (emphasis added). The paragraph also states, “Poor quality is not in itself reason to justify the loss of open space.”

7.58 In addition to London Plan Policy 3D.8, London Plan Policy 3D.11 (Open space provision in DPDs) is relevant. It states that UDP policies should, amongst other things,

“identify broad areas of public open space deficiency and priorities for addressing them… encourage functional and physical linkages within the network of open spaces and to the wider public realm, improve accessibility for all through the network and create new links based on local and strategic need …include appropriate designations and policies for the protection of local open spaces that are of value, or have the potential to be of value, to local communities.”

7.59 The applicant’s Planning Statement sets out the justification for the encroachment proposed (see Paragraph 4.10 above)59; Appendix A states that the boundary of the Local Open Space designation, having been drawn tightly round the backs of the existing buildings, should not act as a rigid constraint on the proper replanning of the site because “If this was the case, development would be severely restricted to the frontage of the site.” The applicant assesses the proposed level of encroachment against the criteria within the report for the previous scheme, dismissed at appeal, finding that this application as originally submitted (168 units): • has sufficient open land provision to meet the amenity/play space requirements of

the scheme itself; • would result in the provision of publicly accessible open space, which would be

clearly visible from Thornbury Road and with open land on the road frontage, in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency;

• would enhance and improve the quality of the open land retained as new open spaces providing various functions; and

• proposes a Section 106 Obligation to ensure adequate management and maintenance of the proposed open space areas in the future, with the applicant also willing to contribute a lump sum payment for off site facilities should this be required, in order to enable currently underutilised pitches in the locality to be brought back into active use.

7.60 The application as originally submitted (168 units) proposed encroachment – assessing the extent the footprint of any building would encroach upon the existing Local Open Space – of 0.24ha (approximately 11.4%), with roads and bin/recycling stores adding 0.12ha to this figure (increasing the proposed encroachment to approximately 17.1%).

7.61 The scheme as now proposed (154 units) has reduced the proposed level of encroachment. The extent the footprint of any building would encroach upon the existing Local Open Space would be 0.23ha (approximately 11.2%).

7.62 UDP Policy ENV-N.1.11 (Protection and improvement of Local Open Space) refers not only to the “…loss of, [and] encroachment upon” Local Open Spaces, but also to development which would “…form an intrusive element in, the overall open aspects of…” these open spaces (see Paragraph 7.52 above). Taking the space between buildings into account, the encroachment (i.e. actual and perceived) upon the existing Local Open Space totals approximately 0.56ha (approximately 26.7%).

7.63 The Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services (Interim) believes that there would be an “…on-going public benefit with the opening up of additional public space, particularly with play equipment”, recommending that the publicly accessible space be signed the same as is Council public space, “…so that the local community is fully aware that the space is publicly accessible”, and also that maintenance be secured.

7.64 The Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services (Interim) further recommends that,

“…new residents [be made] aware of the existing flood-lights at the adjacent Indian Gymkhana sports ground, as this club provides important local sports and recreation opportunities for the community. If the new residents are aware of these lights prior to purchasing units, any potential future concerns about the lights by the new residents will be minimised.”

59 See also Paragraph 4.11 above.

7.65 Regarding the Indian Gymkhana Club it should also be noted that: • planning permission (01118/B/P1) for “Installation of fencing around synthetic

hockey pitch and floodlighting” was granted on 21st September 1989 subject to conditions including “That no floodlights be used between the hour of 10.30pm and 8.00am”; and

• there would be a minimum separation distance of 28m between the site’s rear (western) boundary with the Indian Gymkhana Club and the nearest proposed building, Block Ji (scaled measurement).

7.66 As such, officers do not consider that the proposed development would impact on the

sports club.

7.67 As well, the Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural services (Interim) suggests that outdoor equipment for older children and adults, for example 'trim trail' type equipment (again subject to securing on-going maintenance) be considered as this could then help to provide an open spaces link from the Osterley Track at the old Brunel university site (note here Paragraph 7.77 below).

7.68 Officers consider, taking into account: • that the UDP SPG 1997 amenity space requirement would be met (exceeded, as

discussed above); • that the current structure of the formal garden to the rear (west) of Campion

House would be “…retained and enhanced” (see Paragraph 4.8 above); • the proposed provision (quantum60, location61 and function62) of publicly

accessible open space in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency: • that the applicant remains willing to include a term in the proposed Section 106

Agreement which places restrictions on build development (on 2.11ha (see Figure 1)); and

• the comments of the Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services (Interim)

that the proposed level of encroachment upon the existing Local Open Space is acceptable on balance, subject to securing the layout of, and public access to, the publicly accessible open space and the management and maintenance of the same63, by way of a Section 106 Deed.

60 Notwithstanding that officers do not accept that all of the 1.44ha shown as proposed

publicly accessible open space would be publicly accessible without constraint. 61 For example, with the frontage area on Thornbury Road measuring 10.5m deep in front

of Block G increasing to 25.5m in front of Block E (scaled measurements). 62 For example, with play space proposed within ‘Thornbury Green’ and with ecological

management and enhancement able to be secured by condition if planning permission is granted (see Paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19 regarding the applicant’s revised Ecological Assessment).

63 Including signage as recommended by the Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services (Interim).

7.69 Officers note here that Objective 1 of the London Plan reads “To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces (see Chapter 2)”, but also note Objective 2, which reads “To make London a healthier and better city for people to live in (see Chapter 3A)” and has, amongst its key policy directions, “improve the quality of Londoners’ lives and the environment through better designed buildings and public spaces (see also Chapter 4B)” and “improve the provision of playspace”.

7.70 As well, officers note the supporting text to London Plan Policy 3D.12 (Open space strategies), in that Paragraph 3.308 begins,

“Opportunities for creating new public open spaces should be promoted where possible, targeting areas of deficiency…Where appropriate this should include opening up public access to privately owned open spaces such as sports pitches and utilities land, including sites that are no longer required for their original purposes.”

7.71 The application would, as has been discussed, provide publicly accessible open space in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency, including play space on the Thornbury Road frontage within ‘Thornbury Green’.

7.72 The publicly accessible open space proposed east of Blocks C, E, F and G totals approximately 0.19ha and would be the first publicly accessible frontage space in the Spring Grove Conservation Area, which is a benefit of the scheme. Taking into account the opening up of this space on the Thornbury Road frontage, the net encroachment would be 0.37ha (approximately 17.6%).

7.73 Members should note that any formal designation of land as Local Open Space would come about through a review of open space provision. This is to say that Thornbury Green may, but would not necessarily, be designated as Local Open Space should planning permission be granted (the Council’s review of open space provision as part of the Core Strategy for the Local Development Framework is underway, but is not expected to be completed until mid 2009). Notwithstanding, public access, management and maintenance can be secured by planning obligation. See also Paragraphs 4.14 and 4.15 and Figure 1. Accordingly, officers do consider that the provision of Thornbury Green is a new publicly accessible open space and would be beneficial for the community, street scene and the Conservation Area.

7.74 Open space (encroachment) is discussed further under Issues 5: The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character and (or) appearance of the conservation area and 10: Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed at appeal?

Playing field7.75 Sport England objects to the proposal on grounds that the proposal would be

detrimental to the interests of sport (see Paragraphs 5.4.11 and 5.4.12 above).

7.76 The applicant states64 that the issue of whether the open space constituted a playing field was discussed during the course of the previous application and subsequent appeal, which included the submission to the Council of a written opinion from Russell Harris QC dated 3 October 2006.

64 CgMs letter dated 21st May 2008.

The applicant states that in light of the expiry of approximately a further 18 month period since the date of that opinion it is surprising that Sport England were consulted on this occasion and “In this regard I assume the Government Office for London will not be notified should the Council be minded to grant consent for the development.” Amongst other things the applicant draws attention to the Inspector’s decision and “…respectfully request[s] that…the Sport England representation stating that the land constitutes a playing field is given little weight.”

7.77 The Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services (Interim) agrees with the Inspector’s comment at paragraph 33 of the appeal decision (reproduced at Paragraph 3.15 above) that there will not be an issue with the loss of the pitch, “…particularly as a new athletics track with an opportunity of a[n] in field pitch is to be provided at the old Brunel university site as of January 2009.”

7.78 Notwithstanding, the application would need to be referred to the Government Office for London under the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 should the Council be minded to grant planning permission for the development.

Issue 3(c): Daylight and sunlight 7.79 UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) states that in relation to the context, form

and layout of buildings and spaces, new development should “(A.5) ensure adequate daylight and sunlight reaches properties, and minimise any detrimental impact on adjoining properties, by applying the Council’s adopted standards (see SPG).” The reference to adopted standards (see SPG) is to the UDP SPG 1997, which gives daylight and sunlight standards at Section 4.

7.80 The applicant submitted a daylight and sunlight report prepared by Mike Sindic, in respect of which further information/clarification was sought.

7.81 The updated daylight/sunlight assessment in respect of the application as first amended (160 units) is noted at Paragraph 4.50 above. In summary, it finds that the existing daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties would not be affected and that the proposed development would have adequate sunlight.

7.82 As also noted at Paragraph 4.51 above, the applicant submitted a supplementary report that states, in conclusion,

“Insofar as daylight is concerned, the proposed development as amended will be fully BRE compliant in that either the vertical sky component will be at least 27%, or the average daylight factor to the rooms served by the windows will be a minimum of 1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms.”

7.83 Based on the updated daylight/sunlight assessment and supplementary report, officers

are satisfied that adequate daylight and sunlight would reach properties (of both future occupiers of the scheme and neighbouring properties).

Issue 3(d): Privacy 7.84 UDP Policy H.4.1 (Housing standards) requires proposals to, amongst other things,

have regard to standards and guidelines for privacy and spacing between buildings. These are set out at Appendix 1 of the UDP and read:

“1.0 The design and layout of a development should ensure sufficient privacy for its

intended residents in the dwelling and to a smaller area of garden close to each dwelling…

2.0 A distance of at least 21m (70ft) is recommended 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 day; in the case of windows of non-habitable rooms, within 21m of another facing window, obscured glazing would be considered acceptable.

3.0 Roof terraces and balconies are not acceptable where they would directly overlook neighbouring habitable rooms or gardens.

4.0 In calculating the effects of a particular development on outlook, the natural features of the site, including slope, will need to be taken into account, together with the effects of existing and potential extensions.”

7.85 With reference to the recommended distance, the Planning Statement states at Paragraph 6.108 that “The proposals are generally set in sufficient space and reflect the prevailing character of the area and consequently there are no issues of overlooking in relation to habitable rooms in relation to both proposed and existing dwellings, and between proposed dwellings themselves”65.

65 Paragraphs 6.109 to 6.113 then read (in part):

“Where exceptionally the 21m guideline is breached, this is between the new build blocks. There are three areas of the site that have been designed as pedestrian or pedestrian-priority ‘streets’ has been carefully considered to ensure suitable enclosure, definition and natural surveillance… The main pedestrian route into the site (Church Walk) is faced by apartment blocks (Blocks C and D) and terraced housing (Block Hi) and varies in width between 11 metres…and 25 metres…The other two ‘streets’ vary between 13 and 16 metres in width, where faced on both sides by habitable rooms of apartment blocks and terraced housing. … …the rear section of…Block A is level with the rear building line of Campion House addressing issues in relation to privacy to Thornbury Avenue properties. This reflects the existing layout… There is no issue in relation to the east of the site in relation to properties across Thornbury Road, nor to the west at the Gymkhana club. In relation to the south of the site there would be approximately 10m distance from the nearest gable wall on the Kilberry Close properties from the southernmost elevation of Blocks Hiv and Jiii. The windows on the flank elevation at Kilberry Close which fall within 21m are non-habitable rooms.”

7.86 Officers consider that there are no issues of undue overlooking subject to privacy screens to balconies and terraces, which can be secured by condition. Regarding neighbouring properties, • the windows proposed in the northern flank elevation of Block A would be

secondary windows and those at ground and first floor level would be obscured glazed (this can be secured by condition should planning permission be granted);

• there would be a separation distance of more than 21m from the windows proposed in the Thornbury Road elevation of Block A to the properties opposite (scaled measurement), with Block A the forward (east) most of the new buildings proposed;

• Tigar Hall is an existing building; • the site management office and WCs would be housed in the forward (east) most

part of Tigar Hall; • the community hall space would be housed within the ‘spine’ of Tigar Hall, north

of a car parking/bin store area for Kilberry Close properties; • Block Hiv is a pair of semi-detached houses with attached single-storey double

garage to south having no flank windows, doors or other glazed openings; • there would be a separation distance of minimum 19.5m from the southern

elevation of Block Jiii to the southern site boundary (scaled measurement).

Issue 3(e): Refuse and recycling storage 7.87 New applications for housing developments should “…provide space for composting

facilities and readily accessible recycling facilities for storage and the collection of materials such as glass, cans, paper, plastics and textiles” under UDP Policy ENV-P.2.4 (Recycling facilities in new developments). These facilities should be sited in convenient locations and screened.

7.88 The proposed provision of bin stores and recycling stores is set out in the applicant’s Refuse & Recycling Strategy66, as amended/updated67. For example and as set out at Paragraph 4.26 above, the bin store to serve Block A is now proposed on the southern elevation of the block (the application as originally submitted proposed the bin store in front (east) of Campion House, about which officers had concerns).

7.89 It is also proposed to incorporate communal compost areas as part of the landscape strategy for the site.

7.90 The Council’s Senior Supervisor, Waste Collection found the locations of the bins as originally submitted (168 unit scheme) “…appropriate, with the potential query surrounding the pulling distance of the bins situated near the communal garden” and also querying the waste provision for Tigar Hall.

7.91 The comments of the Council’s Senior Supervisor on the amended/updated refuse and recycling strategy are awaited.

7.92 The Council’s Senior Recycling and Operations Officer is satisfied with the amended/updated refuse and recycling strategy, but recommends that provision for the collection of plastics be made.

7.93 Refuse and recycling storage can be secured by condition.

66 4.16 of the applicant’s Design & Access Statement. 67 Received by email sent 11th November 2008 14:27.

Issue 3(f): Internal space standards 7.94 The UDP SPG 1997 sets out the minimum floor areas in all new dwellings that the

Council is seeking to secure. These floor area standards are set out in Table 4 below.

Table 4: UDP SPG 1997 floor area standards Floor area standard (sq.m)

Number of occupants UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997)

1 30 2 45 3 57 4 70

72 for a two-storey house or a maisonette 5 79

82 for a two-storey house or a maisonette 94 for a three-storey house

6 86 92 for a two-storey house or a maisonette 98 for a three-storey house

7.95 The UDP SPG 1997 sets out minimum room sizes in conversions that “all converted

self-contained residential units shall normally accord with” and allows a more flexible approach to the floor area of individual rooms in new dwellings:

“The Council is concerned to ensure that satisfactory accommodation is provided within converted flats. Unlike applications for new residential developments, where a more flexible approach to internal space standards can be adopted, the conversion of dwellings requires the adaptation of existing layouts and rooms originally designed for different purposes. All rooms should be of a size and shape to allow satisfactory arrangement of furniture and circulation space.”

7.96 The applicant has provided a schedule of accommodation with reference to internal space standards along with compliance/non-compliance. All units comply with the UDP SPG 1997 total floor area standards, with all two-bedroom units meeting or exceeding 57sq.m.

7.97 On the applicant’s figures and with reference to UDP Policy H.3.4 (Conversions of houses to flats), which defines a family size unit/family accommodation as having at least three bedspaces, all two-bedroom units can be considered as providing for family accommodation.

7.98 Some rooms would not comply with the UDP SPG 1997 minimum room sizes. In respect of Campion House three kitchens and one main bedroom would not, but are considered satisfactory. See here Paragraph 7.95 above.

Issue 3(g): Accessibility 7.99 UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 (New development) seeks to ensure that new development is

fully accessible to people with disabilities or impaired mobility; UDP Policy H.4.1 (Housing standards and guidelines) encourages developers to have regard to housing for people with disabilities; and UDP Policy C.1.4 (New social and community facilities)68 requires social and community facilities to be accessible by a range of travel modes. London Plan Policy 4B.5 (Creating an inclusive environment) requires all development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and London Plan Policy 3A.5 (Housing choice) requires all new housing be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards (a set of 16 standards that can be universally applied to housing design at minimal cost). The latter also requires that 10% of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users, with London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance69 setting out that the target should be applied to both market and affordable housing70.

7.100 The applicant’s Design & Access Statement sets out that all new buildings would be accessible to people in wheelchairs and that all buildings would offer a level access to their main entrance except Campion House, about which the applicant states:

“…raised ground floor makes level access impossible without major intervention externally. However…a purpose-built temporary ramp that is stored within the building when not in use will be provided to allow access to disabled visitors.”

7.101 As noted at Paragraph 4.42 above, full disabled access would be available to Tigar Hall.

7.102 As noted at Paragraph 4.58 above, there would be 16 (10.4%) wheelchair adaptable units.

7.103 The Council’s Access Officer is satisfied with the details relating to the proposed wheelchair adaptable units, which can be secured by condition and/or obligation (as can that all new housing be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards).

Summary of Issue 3 7.104 The density of the scheme exceeds the London Plan residential density range of 150

to 250 hr/ha when one hectare or more is excluded from the red line application site.

7.105 In the view of officers, more than 1ha but less than 1.35ha ought to be subtracted from the red line application site (i.e. from 3.22ha). The residential density of the proposal, based on 569 habitable rooms and a site area of 1.97ha (i.e. excluding 1.25ha), would be 288.8 hr/ha (78.2 u/ha). At this density the scheme would exceed the London Plan residential density range of 150 to 250 hr/ha, but fall within the residential density range of 40 to 80 u/ha for suburban area schemes with between 3.1 and 3.7 habitable rooms per unit where PTAL is between 2 and 3.

68 See Paragraph 7.4 above. 69 Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004). 70 See also London Plan Policies 3A.17 (Addressing the needs of London’s diverse

population) and 4B.3 (Enhancing the quality of the public realm).

7.106 As it is the consequences of excessive density that can result in the refusal of planning permission, not a density figure itself, an assessment has been made as to the implications/consequences of the scheme’s density. This has shown that, • the scheme would meet (exceed) the UDP SPG 1997 amenity space requirement

(Issue 3(b)); • the scheme would/can meet the London Plan play space requirement (Issue 3(b)); • adequate daylight and sunlight would reach properties (of both future occupiers of the

scheme and neighbouring properties) (Issue 3(c)); • there are no issues of undue overlooking subject to privacy screens to balconies and

terraces, which can be secured by condition (Issue 3(d)); • refuse and recycling storage can be secured by condition (Issue 3(e)); • internal space standards would be satisfactory; and that • the accessibility of the scheme can be secured by condition and/or obligation (Issue

3(g)).

7.107 The proposed level of encroachment upon the existing Local Open Space was discussed at Issue 3(b). Taking the space between buildings into account, the encroachment (i.e. actual and perceived) upon the existing Local Open Space totals approximately 0.56ha (approximately 26.7%). On balance (e.g. with Thornbury Green reducing the net encroachment to 0.37ha (approximately 17.6%), this level of encroachment is considered acceptable, subject to securing the layout of, and public access to, the publicly accessible open space and the management and maintenance of the same, by way of a Section 106 Deed.

Issue 4: Would the development provide a sufficient range of housing provision and levels of affordable accommodation and would the development be accommodated in terms of community infrastructure?

Issue 4(a): Range of housing provision including affordable housing provision 7.108 London Plan Policy 3A.5 (Housing choice) seeks to ensure that new developments

offer a range of housing choices, in terms of the mix of housing sizes and types, taking account of the housing requirements of different groups and London Plan Policy 3A.6 (Quality of new housing provision) seeks mixed and balanced communities by taking account of changes in household characteristics and lifestyles and by offering a range of housing types and sizes.

7.109 The strategic target for affordable housing is 50 per cent of all additional housing, of which 70 per cent should be social housing and 30 per cent intermediate housing.71 London Plan Policy 3A.10 (Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed-use schemes) states that boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes.

7.110 Officers and the Council’s external valuer have assessed the applicant’s viability statement and the further information received on economic viability and affordable housing provision. Officers were satisfied that the ability of the scheme as first amended (160 units) to provide a substantive amount of affordable housing had reached a critical threshold – and, therefore, consider that the scheme as now proposed (154 units) is at a critical level of viability (the affordable housing offer exceeds the applicant’s viability statement and further information).

71 London Plan Policy 3A.8 (Definition of affordable housing).

http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/policies/3a-10.jsp

7.111 The applicant remains willing to include a “cascade clause” in the proposed Section 106 agreement to provide for a financial contribution to off-site provision, if the viability of the development rises above an agreed base-level.

Issue 4(a)(i): Range of housing provision 7.112 The 154 units would comprise 13 one-bedroom flats, 96 two-bedroom flats, 18 three-

bedroom units (including 16 maisonettes) and 27 four-bedroom units (including 22 terraced houses and two semi-detached houses). See Table 1 above.

7.113 Of the 154 units, 141 would have at least two-bedrooms. With all of the two-bedroom units meeting the UDP SPG 1997 minimum floor area for three occupants, 91.6% of the units would be provided as family accommodation as defined under UDP Policy H.3.4 (see Issue 3(f) above).

7.114 The scheme would achieve 29.2% (45) three bedroom units or larger.

7.115 See also Issue 3(g): Accessibility above and Issue 4(a)(ii): Affordable housing provision below.

Issue 4(a)(ii): Affordable housing provision 7.116 Of the 154 units 46 (29.9%) would be affordable, comprising two one-bedroom flats, 27

two-bedroom flats, 16 three-bedroom units and one four-bedroom unit (Block F would provide two two-bedroom units, Block G would provide two one-bedroom, nine two-bedroom and one four-bedroom units and Blocks Hii and Hiii would each provide eight two-bedroom units and eight three-bedroom maisonettes). As noted at Paragraph 4.55 above, the affordable housing would meet Code 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The tenure split proposed is 32 units (70%) rented, 14 units (30%) shared ownership as set out in Table 5 below. See also Table 6.

Table 5: Affordable housing provision

70% Rented – 32 units in total:12 units in Block G (two one-bedroom, 9 two-bedroom and one four-bedroom) 16 units in Block Hiii (eight two-bedroom flats and eight three-bedroom maisonettes) 4 units in Block Hii (one two-bedroom flat and three three-bedroom maisonettes) 30% Shared Ownership – 14 units in total: 2 units in Block F (two two-bedroom flats) 12 units in Block Hii (seven two-bedroom flats and five three-bedroom maisonettes)

7.117 Of the 46 units, 44 would have at least two-bedrooms. With all of the two-bedroom

units meeting the UDP SPG 1997 minimum floor area for three occupants, 95.7% of the affordable housing provision would be provided as family accommodation as defined under UDP Policy H.3.4 (see Issue 3(f) above). Table 6 below shows the range of affordable housing provision.

Table 6: Range of affordable housing provision

Application 01119/M/P4

Rented provision

Shared ownership provision

Affordable housing provision

One-bedroom units 13 (8.4%) 2 (6.3%) 2 (4.3%)

Two-bedroom units 95 (61.7%) 18 (56.3%) 9 (64.3%) 27 (58.7%)

Three-bedroom units 19 (12.3%) 11 (34.4%) 5 (35.7%) 16 (34.8%)

Four-bedroom units 27 (17.5%) 1 (3.1%) 1 (2.2%)

Total 154 (99.9% due to rounding)


14 (100%) 46 (100%)

7.118 The Hounslow Plan, which sets the Council's vision for Hounslow has as one of its top

ten promises "Bring new affordable family-sized homes into the Borough". The intended outcome/performance indicator for this promise is that 35% of new affordable dwellings built in the Borough are three-bedroom plus (start on site). The affordable housing provision would achieve 37.0% (17) three bedroom units or larger, meeting the Executive’s 35% target.

7.119 The Council’s Housing Development & Partnerships Team states, • the proposal would provide a range of unit sizes for all tenures including five

three-bedroom units for shared ownership, with the provision of family homes for shared ownership a high priority;

• the tenure split satisfies the London Plan target and meets the Borough’s requirements; and

• there would be 37% three-bedroom plus units (17 units) of the total number of affordable units thereby satisfying the target of the Hounslow Plan to provide 35% three-bedroom plus units.

7.120 Officers would need to be satisfied that the affordable housing provision would remain

affordable (as noted at Paragraph 7.5 above, officers would need to be satisfied that the service charge would not be prohibitive upon the occupiers of the 46 units proposed as affordable). The Council’s Housing Development & Partnerships Team “…require[s] that we approve the affordability assessment that must be carried out” and seeks a scheme specific letting plan. Both can be secured by obligation.

Issue 4(b): Community infrastructure 7.121 The retained Tigar Hall would provide a community centre, an IT suite, permanent

historical exhibition and site management office (see Paragraphs 4.41 and 4.42 above). The community facilities can be secured by a planning obligation (see Paragraph 7.5 above) and, in the view of officers, the on-site management office would have a functional relationship to the residential use (154 units) proposed, with this relationship able to be secured by condition and/or obligation.

7.122 The matter of the playing field aside (see Paragraphs 7.75-7.78 above), the scheme proposes publicly accessible open space in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency.

7.123 Community infrastructure is further discussed at Issue 9 with regard to planning obligations.

Summary of Issue 4 7.124 This section of the report has found that:

• the development would provide a sufficient range of housing provision with o 141 units (91.6%) proposed as family accommodation as defined under UDP

Policy H.3.4; and o 45 units (29.2%) three bedroom plus size

• that the affordable housing provision would be satisfactory with o 46 units (29.9%) proposed as affordable, which exceeds the applicant’s

viability statement and further information received on economic viability and affordable housing provision;

o a 70:30 tenure split; o 44 of the affordable units (95.7%) proposed as family accommodation as

defined under UDP Policy H.3.4; and o 17 of the affordable units (37.0%) three bedroom plus size, meeting the

Executive’s 35% target; and that • community infrastructure can be secured by planning obligation and is further

discussed at Issue 9.

Issue 5: The proposal’s built form and whether the proposal would preserve and (or) enhance the character and (or) appearance of the conservation area

The application 7.125 The applicant’s Design & Access Statement states (at 4.3) that the underlying principle

of the design concept is “…distinct blocks, ‘pavilions’, in a strongly defined landscape”. See also Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 above regarding the design concept and, as well, Paragraph 4.5 above regarding the proposed layout and form of development.

7.126 The applicant’s Conservation Area Statement [and] Design & Access Statement: Campion House & Tigar Hall is “…primarily concerned with the effect of the proposed redevelopment of the site on the existing buildings on the site and the character of the Spring Grove Conservation Area”.72 It concludes:

“The impact of the proposed development on the conservation area and building of local townscape character has been assessed and demonstrated to preserve and enhance the appearance of both:

• None of the buildings proposed for demolition are considered to make a positive contribution to the conservation area.

• The proposals restore the original residential use of Campion House and return it to its nineteenth century detached character.

• The new development is an imaginative, high quality design, which has regard for the scale, height, form, massing and materials of existing buildings within the area.

• The new scheme provides publicly accessible open space to the rear, increasing the recreational space available to the local community.

It is concluded that the proposals accord with…policy and guidance, and…enhance the character and appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area and Campion House…”

72 1.1 of the applicant’s Conservation Area Statement [and] Design & Access Statement:

Campion House & Tigar Hall.

7.127 As reported by addendum to IBAC on 19th June 2008, regarding the very special circumstances demonstrated by the proposal (then 168 units) the applicant states, with regard to ‘Campion House/Conservation Area’,

“…The demolition of the poor quality buildings on the site and the restoration of Campion House including the reinstatement of some historical features secures the long term retention of not only this building of local townscape character, but also its detached setting and the conservation area itself. It also allows aspects of the original Davies plan to be reinstated, such as the relationship between Campion House and St Mary’s Church. The benefits to the local area are an undoubted and recognised benefit. In addition, the demolition of existing buildings and the proposed break up of the built form along the Thornbury Road frontage creates a series of views when approaching or leaving the site. This arrangement allows for both long range views and glimpsed views deep into and out of the site, both enhancing the character of the conservation area and the quality of the open spaces provided. These benefits do not currently exist…”

7.128 Members should also note the applicant’s comments set out at Paragraphs 4.20-4.22 above regarding the scheme as now proposed.

Officers’ comments Demolition

7.129 Although the removal of the additions to the locally listed building would restore its integrity and its individuality, at the same time allowing for views into (and out of) the site, officers would wish to retain the additions and the buildings proposed for demolition – and in particular the Chapel building – in the absence of an acceptable redevelopment of the site (e.g. UDP Policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation areas) states that consent for demolition will not be given unless there are approved plans for redevelopment or re-use of the land).

Re-use of Campion House 7.130 UDP Policy ENV-B.2.6 (Identification and protection of buildings of local townscape

character) seeks to protect buildings of local townscape character and their settings and ENV-B.2.7 (Alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character) to ensure that any new development preserves and (or) enhances these buildings and their settings.

7.131 The re-use of Campion House would help to bring the building back to beneficial life and good repair. Assessed against UDP Policy ENV-B.2.3 (Reuse of redundant historic buildings), the applicant states that the proposals promote the retention of an historic building’s original use by returning Campion House to residential accommodation.73 Officers concur that the proposal would repair and restore the locally listed building to beneficial use.

7.132 The specific proposals for the redevelopment of the locally listed building (proposed refurbishment and conversion and internal treatment) would be subject to condition and/or obligation should planning permission be granted.

73 2.5 of the applicant’s Conservation Area Statement [and] Design & Access Statement:

Campion House & Tigar Hall.

Grade II listed statue 7.133 The list description for the statue ‘Ghost or Descent from the Cross’ notes that

Campion House was not the originally intended destination, but was negotiated as a presentation to the Jesuit community, and that "its outdoor position is leading to deterioration in terms of condition".

7.134 With regard to the statue, the Inspector’s decision74 sets out: “…Demolition of the seminary and replacement by other buildings would clearly affect its original setting. However, while the statue is clearly part of the history of development of the seminary, there seems to me no specific architectural or historic value in its exact positioning. … Providing it remains accessible to public view, there seems to me to be every advantage in relocating the statue to a more sheltered location on the site. This would ensure the preservation of the statue in association with the seminary site.”

7.135 In terms of this application, the applicant’s Conservation Area Statement [and] Design

& Access Statement: Campion House & Tigar Hall sets out that the statue is still owned by the Jesuits. The applicant has not stated whether it is to be retained or relocated.75 Its relocation would require listed building consent.

The proposal’s built form (character and design, including scale and appearance) 7.136 An issue in relation to the Spring Grove Conservation Area is the way in which the

development addresses the boundaries of the site and in particular public realm areas, with the provision of new publicly accessible open space resulting in new public elevations.

7.137 Officers consider that, from a townscape point of view, the plan ‘theme’ is generally quite convincing; for example, with: • the proposal having the benefit of removing the existing three-storey

accommodation block; • a series of buildings being proposed to break up the built form and open up views

into (and out of) the site (the applicant’s design concept is based on ‘pavilions in the landscape’);

• the blocks along the Thornbury Road frontage (Blocks C, E, F and G) being set further back (west) than the existing three-storey accommodation block;

• variety in the blocks proposed; and • the majority of car parking to occur either at basement level or within integral

garages (see Paragraphs 4.43 to 4.45 above).

7.138 Block A, designed as a villa, would make an appropriate transition between Campion House to its south and the semi-detached houses to the north. The bin store on the southern elevation of the building would need to be high quality both in appearance and materials. The bicycle storage on the northern elevation of the building also provides an opportunity for an interesting wall surround.

74 On applications 01119/M/P2 and 01119/M/CA3 dismissed at appeal. 75 Subject to an application for listed building consent having been granted.

7.139 To the south of Campion House, because of the set back from Thornbury Road there is capacity in street enclosure and variety terms to provide a small area of greater height. However, the applicant has chosen to amend Blocks E and F (both were redesigned to remove one storey) so that they, and Block G, would be three-storey. See Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Blocks E, F, G Thornbury Road elevation (Source: Drawing 140_CHO_E_EL01 Rev C)

7.140 The exact roof configuration and materials of Blocks A, E, F and G would be held for condition. Details of the ‘gateway’ structure between Blocks E and F and between Blocks F and G (see Figure 2 above) would also be held for condition.

7.141 Blocks C and D, the contemporary blocks, have been amended (as noted at Paragraphs 4.29 and 4.30 above, have been redesigned and reduced in size and scale).

7.142 Officers consider it an advantage that Block C has been designed not to be a pastiche of the locally listed building alongside. Officers also consider the space given to Campion House and to the southernmost cedar tree when seen from the south an advantage, both to the street and the Spring Grove Conservation Area.

7.143 Whilst the articulation of Blocks C and D at roof level has improved, officers are not convinced that the amendments achieve sufficient variation in height or scale. However, the elevations of Blocks C and D can be subject to condition should planning permission be granted to allow officers to negotiate further amendments to the elevations without affecting the internal layout of units (e.g. officers consider that there is an opportunity to use the stairwell fenestration of Block C as a divider to further articulate the building and also wish to re-visit the distribution of materials on both buildings)76.

7.144 The set-back position of Blocks E, F and G allows for publicly accessible open space on the Thornbury Road frontage and the separation distance between Blocks A and Campion House and between Campion House and Block C allows for appreciable views to the rear (west) of the site, which are benefits of the scheme. ‘Church Walk’ extends the historical route between the site and St Mary’s Church.

7.145 The frontage buildings and their materials are, with the exception of Block C, proposed to be traditional in design and form. The enlarged villa style of Blocks E, F and G acts as a screen for the linear blocks behind them and Blocks C and D define the side of the publicly accessible Local Open Space (i.e. acts to contain the space).

76 Officers would assess the impact on any elevational amendments on daylight and

sunlight and privacy.

7.146 The remaining blocks to the rear (west) of the site are Blocks Hi, Hii, Hiii, Hiv, Ji, Jii and Jiii. The ‘H’ and ‘J’ series blocks are terraces of dwellings, except for Block Hiv, which is a pair of semi-detached houses with attached single-storey double garage to south. They have been designed to act as a group with vehicles sheltered from public views and slowed by the configuration of the ‘streets’, and with an opportunity through the use of materials for the ‘streets’ to be used as a shared surface. They are short lengths of ‘street’ and would be seen obliquely or in small glimpses between gaps. They would also allow for slot views from the Indian Gymkhana Club (Local Open Space) back towards Thornbury Road.

7.147 Blocks Hi, Hii, Ji, Jii and Jiii would not be conventional in the sense that the front doors of these blocks would front routes for pedestrians rather than ‘streets’. The network of paths (both shared and pedestrian only) would allow approach from varying directions and also access to the varying amenity (landscaped) areas (e.g. the communal garden between Blocks Hii and Hiii).

7.148 Whilst materials to the new buildings would be held by condition many of those proposed would be traditional.

Trees and ecological management and enhancement 7.149 A number of trees and shrubs, predominantly ornamental species and all of which are

moderate to low quality/ landscape and amenity value would require removal, as would some low grade improved grassland of low ecological value77.

7.150 New trees, shrubs, hedges and wildflower grassland are proposed to provide a variety of replacement wildlife habitats that the applicant submits would result in a net improvement for nature conservation78.

7.151 Full details of landscaping (including root protection areas79) and the recommended ecological management and enhancement (see here Paragraph 4.19 above) can be secured by condition and/or obligation.

Archaeology 7.152 A condition requiring a programme of archaeological work to be submitted and carried

out as approved would be imposed on the grant of any planning permission. English Heritage seeks such a condition (see Paragraph 5.4.14 above).

Summary of Issue 5 7.153 In summary, officers consider that whereas the existing street frontage has a neutral or

negative effect on the Spring Grove Conservation Area, the proposed street frontage would have a positive effect, relating well to its local context. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area (as noted above, subject to further amendments to the elevations of, in particular, Blocks C and D facing north and acceptable detailed design of the landscaping).

77 Paragraph 5a of the completed Sustainability Checklist. See also Paragraphs 4.18

and 4.19 above. 78 See the previous footnote. 79 The applicant submitted a Root Protection Drawing (drawing D0063_003 produced by

Neil Tully Associates) with the application.

Issue 6: The impact on residential amenity 7.154 Noise is discussed at Issue 2(a); daylight and sunlight at Issue 3(c); privacy at Issue

3(d); community infrastructure at Issue 4(b) and also below at Issue 9; the proposal’s built form and the proposal’s impact on the conservation area at Issue 5; and parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement at Issue 7. Given the proposal’s built form, it is not considered that the proposal would result in undue enclosure/loss of outlook.

Issue 7: Parking and servicing facilities and traffic movement 7.155 All developments must provide parking and servicing facilities in accordance with the

Council’s standards under UDP Policy T.1.4 (Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments) and Appendix 3 (Parking standards). The standards are considered to be the maximum desirable provision; there are no minimum standards except in relation to disabled parking.80

7.156 Assessed against the UDP, the 154 units generate a maximum off-street parking requirement of 183.7 spaces (including 15.4 visitor spaces) and 184 are proposed (see Paragraph 4.44 above). A further two parking spaces would serve Tigar Hall.

7.157 London Plan Policy 3C.23 (Parking strategy) also seeks to ensure that on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary and that there is no over-provision that could undermine the use of more sustainable non-car modes. Maximum residential car parking standards are set out in Table A4.2 of Annex 4 by ‘predominant housing type’. Applying the standard for 1 – 2 bed units, of one to less than one per unit, the 154 units generate a maximum off-street parking requirement of, at most, 154 spaces.

7.158 The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for this site is calculated at level 2, which is regarded as ‘poor’. Consequently, whilst the proposed residential parking provision (184, which includes spaces for use by disabled persons) exceeds the London Plan maximum off-street parking requirement (154), the Council’s Head of Traffic and Road Safety considers this level of provision to be acceptable for this location and for this type of development – subject to the allocation of 15 spaces as visitor parking spaces and of (at least) one space as a car club space (i.e. leaving (maximum) 168 residential parking spaces) (this includes securing disabled parking by condition).

7.159 Motorcycle and bicycle parking are also proposed. As set out at Paragraph 4.46 above, 10 motorcycle parking spaces would be provided at basement level and 142 bicycle spaces (including four for Tigar Hall) would be provided plus 27 spaces in the integral garages for the four bedroom units. This total provision of bicycle spaces is considered satisfactory and meets TfL’s cycle parking standards. Motorcycle and bicycle parking can be secured by condition.

7.160 The applicant has now carried out swept vehicle path assessments for both the ground level layout and the basement. Commentary from the applicant on these is that the loop section of the basement car park should be one-way and that it may be worth including an additional metre of hard standing on the corner of Block Hiii. The Council’s Head of Traffic and Road Safety agrees that these are necessary changes and that the revised layout is safe and allows for all necessary manoeuvres.

80 The policy requires that “Car parking which is essential to the operation of the building

(i.e. spaces for servicing, loading and unloading and other traffic directly associated with the function of the premises), together with appropriate provision for people with disabilities” be met on site.

7.161 In terms of traffic generation, development traffic flows are estimated – for the

application as originally submitted (168 units) – to increase AM and PM peak hour travel volumes on Thornbury Road by approximately 2-8% in the vicinity of the site. This assessment has been checked and accepted.

7.162 The impact of development traffic on junctions in the vicinity of the site, including the

junction of Thornbury Road with the A4 Great West Road, where peak hour queues already develop on the northbound approach to the A4, has been assessed – again, for the application as originally submitted (168 units). The one junction where the impact requires changes to be made to accommodate the increased levels of traffic resulting from the development is the Thornbury Road/A4 Great West Road junction and the applicant proposes a relatively minor improvement to provide a flared approach to this signalled junction. This can be secured by obligation.

7.163 The applicant considered that no improvement to pedestrian, cycle or public transport

facilities was required to meet demand generated by the development as originally submitted (168 units), but sought to encourage greater use of sustainable modes of travel and reduce traffic generation by implementation of a travel plan.

7.164 The Council’s Transport Planner states that the applicant’s revised travel plan now

meets the minimum standard. The revised travel plan (i.e. targets, monitoring and management) can be secured by obligation.

Summary of Issue 7

7.165 Swept path analysis has been carried out and shows that the proposed vehicle layouts are satisfactory. Subject to the allocation of 15 residential parking spaces as visitor parking spaces and of (at least) one residential parking space as a car club space, the proposed parking provision is considered to be acceptable for this location and this type of development. The proposed motorcycle and bicycle parking provision is also considered to be acceptable. Implementation of the revised travel plan should reduce journeys by car to and from the site and a minor widening of Thornbury Road to provide a flared approach to the signalled junction with the A4 Great west Road will provide the necessary increase in the capacity of the junction to handle increased traffic flows.

Issue 8: Are sustainable building principles applied?

7.166 Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning (Paragraph 3 of PPS1).

7.167 The proposed re-use of the locally listed building and Tigar Hall (retrofitting) accords

with the principles of sustainable development. 7.168 The applicant has submitted a completed Sustainability Checklist81. Amongst other

things, it sets out that all external light fittings would be automated to only come on at sundown and to turn off at sunrise; that residents would be provided with an alternative method for drying their washing (said verbally to be an over-bath airer); that demolition materials would be used as far as possible as hard-core; and that there would be communal compost areas. The same can be secured by condition and/or obligation.

81 There is no 'pass mark' for the Sustainability Checklist because its purpose is to

encourage developers to address the issues raised and thereby submit proposals that are more sustainable than they would otherwise have been.

7.169 The proposal would also enable the contamination on site to be remedied (see Issue

2(e)). 7.170 The 2008 London Plan calls for developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide

emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible (Policy 4A.7 (Renewable energy)) and the proposal would provide 18.8% through renewables, with the choice of renewable technology solar panels and biomass wood pellet fire boilers (see Paragraphs 4.55-4.57 above). The inclusion of renewable energy technology and design can be secured by condition and/or obligation.

7.171 It has already been noted that the Environment Agency no longer objects to the

proposed development on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that surface water would be managed in a sustainable manner (see Paragraphs 5.4.2 and Issue 2(c) above).

Issue 9: The potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations

7.172 London Plan Policy 6A.4 (Priorities in planning obligations) states that affordable housing and public transport should generally be given the highest importance with “…priority also given to tackling climate change, learning and skills and health facilities and services and childcare provisions”. London Plan Policy 6A.5 (Planning obligations) states (in part) that negotiations should seek a contribution towards the full cost of all provision made necessary by and related to the proposed development that is fairly and reasonable related in scale and in kind to the proposed development and its impact on the wider area. The supporting text for both policies states82 that there is also a need for pooling of contributions in cases where partial contributions towards a larger objective may be appropriate.

7.173 UDP Policy IMP.6.1 (Planning obligations) seeks to secure planning benefits related to

the proposed development, with the supporting text for the policy (Paragraph 2.36) providing examples as a guide.

7.174 On 11 March 2008 the Council’s Executive agreed to adopt the Planning Obligations

Supplementary Planning Document and, as well, the Air Quality Supplementary Planning Document.

7.175 If Members consider the scheme acceptable it will need to provide a balanced package

of planning obligations for inclusion into a Section 106 Deed, to prescribe the nature of the development (e.g. regarding affordable housing provision) and mitigate the development’s impact (e.g. the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure). Obligations would be required and secured in respect of (but not necessarily limited to) the following:

82 At Paragraph 6.23.

• the publicly accessible open space (to secure public access and the layout and ongoing management and maintenance of the open space) (see Issues 1, 3(b) and 5);

• Tigar Hall (see Issues 1 and 4(b)); • affordable housing provision (see Issue 4(a)) • health care services (NHS West London Health Estates and Facilities

Management seek a capital planning contribution and a revenue planning contribution83);

• primary and secondary education provision; • sustainability (see Issue 8); and • transport (to provide a flared approach to the Thornbury Road/A4 Great West

Road junction and to secure implementation of the revised travel plan).

7.176 All payments would be index linked and the phasing of the payments and the construction programme/phasing subject to detailed negotiation.

7.177 Officers note here that the applicant offers, “…against the background that several

toolkit appraisals have been carried out which demonstrate the severe constraints on the viability of the scheme”, the sum of £1m, “…to be distributed by the Council”84. The applicant states that this could fund, amongst other things, “A public realm contribution (possibly for air quality monitoring and improvements to nearby playing fields…)”.

7.178 Members are referred here to Paragraphs 7.110 and 7.111 above regarding viability

and also to Paragraph 7.120 regarding a scheme specific letting plan.

Issue 10: Does the proposal overcome the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed at appeal?

7.179 Applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 are discussed at Paragraphs 3.9 to 3.16 above.

7.180 In summary, the Inspector considered there to be two main issues in the appeals:

(i) the effect the proposed development would have on the character and appearance of the area, bearing in mind the location of the site within the Spring Grove Conservation Area; and

(ii) the impact of the proposal on the provision of local open space. 7.181 The Inspector found that the appeal scheme would not be compatible with its local

context and considered that neither the character nor the appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area would be preserved. He also found that the extent of the actual encroachment of the building upon the existing Local Open Space would be much greater than claimed (e.g. he did not consider that an enclosed courtyard, entirely within the overall footprint of the building can realistically be described as Local Open Space) and the provision of suitable publicly accessible open space much less. On balance, he considered the benefits of public access insufficient to provide the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the development plan policy objectives intended to prevent such a substantial loss of Local Open Space.

83 Comment on the scheme as now proposed has been invited but has yet to be received

(see Section 5.0 above). 84 Applicant’s letter dated 19 September 2008 regarding the application as first amended

(160 units) and letter dated 23 October 2008.

Whilst finding that the appeal scheme would bring some benefits to the area, on balance, he considered that the benefits would be far outweighed by the substantial harm it would cause to the local area and that this harm could not be overcome by conditions or by the provisions of the unilateral undertaking submitted by the applicant at the Inquiry.

7.182 In the absence of an acceptable scheme of redevelopment the Inspector considered it

necessary to withhold conservation area consent, stating “Notwithstanding the general view that part of the existing street frontage is of negative value, this is in order to ensure that a very large and ugly gap in the conservation area is not created as a result of demolition far in advance of redevelopment”.

7.183 With regard to the first main issue, officers consider that the development as now

proposed would not be “overlarge, monolithic, out of scale and far too intensive in use” (the Inspector’s view of the appeal scheme). Overall, officers consider that the design of the development as now proposed is appropriate in its particular context and that the scheme takes opportunities available for improving or enhancing the character and quality of the area, with further opportunities able to be secured by condition (see Issue 5 above). In officers’ view, the proposal would contribute positively to making the area better for people and would respect the local character, context and community. See here Issue 5 above.

7.184 With regard to the second main issue, officers have calculated actual and perceived

encroachment as approximately 0.56ha (approximately 26.7%) (see Paragraph 7.62 above). This is similar to the appeal scheme’s proposed level of encroachment upon the existing Local Open Space (the Inspector found “The footprint of the proposed building would encroach substantially into the area designated as local open space, perhaps by about 20-25% of its area” including for reason that he did not consider “…that an enclosed courtyard, entirely within the overall footprint of the building, can realistically be described as local open space.”)

7.185 The Inspector’s view of the appeal scheme was that the more continuously built-up frontage would have a far greater adverse effect than the existing street frontage. In his view there would be little public perception of the grounds to the rear (west) of the site and from the western side of the site, within the proposed publicly accessible Local Open Space, he found that the appeal scheme would be “…perceived as a massive continuous wall, 4 to 5 storeys high, with an almost continuous plane of metal roof punctuated only by 2 6-story projections of some substance.” Such a massive building would, he said, “…have a particularly overbearing impact on visitors to the recreation ground.”

7.186 Unlike the appeal scheme, the current proposal would also provide a substantial frontage area on Thornbury Road as publicly accessible open space.

7.187 As noted at Paragraph 7.72 above, Thornbury Green would be the first publicly accessible frontage space in the Spring Grove Conservation Area, which is a benefit of the scheme. Furthermore and as noted at Paragraph 7.142 above, the space given to Campion House and to the southernmost cedar tree when seen from the south are an advantage, both to the street scene and the Conservation Area.

7.188 Officers consider that this area (e.g. measuring 10.5m deep in front of Block G increasing to 25.5m in front of Block E and in which play space is proposed) would lend itself to use by the public. As the frontage buildings would not have an overbearing impact (see here Issue 5 above), Officers therefore consider it reasonable to include Thornbury Green as publicly accessible open space and, taking into account the opening up of this space, the net encroachment would be 0.37ha (approximately 17.6%).

7.189 The development as now proposed would also deliver publicly accessible Local Open Space to the rear (west) of the site. Officers consider that there would be public perception of openness from Thornbury Road due to the proposed breaking up of the built form along the Thornbury Road frontage (in particular, the separation distance between Blocks A and Campion House and between Campion House and Block C); perceptually, by way of the angled path leading through Thornbury Green; and with signage able be secured by condition (see here the comments of the Council’s Client Manager Leisure and Cultural Services at Issue 3(b) above). Officers also consider that Blocks C and D would act to contain the space (i.e. would not have an unacceptably overbearing impact on visitors to the formal garden to the rear (west) of Campion House (see here Issue 5 above).

7.190 The Inspector did not find that encroachment on Local Open Space is prohibited in all cases, but rather that “Development on local open spaces is prohibited unless there are very special circumstances to indicate otherwise” (emphasis added) – and there has been no material change in development plan policy regarding open space since the appeal decision, albeit that London Plan Policy 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure) now not only calls for the protection and promotion of open space but also improved access. The 2008 policy reads, “The Mayor will work with strategic partners to protect, promote and improve access to London’s network of open spaces, to realise the current and potential value of open space to communities, and to protect the many benefits of open space…”

7.191 On balance, therefore, and as set out more fully at Issue 3(b) above, officers consider that the proposal overcomes the Inspector’s conclusion on the second main issue. This is to say that officers consider that there are very special circumstances to allow the proposed level of encroachment upon the existing Local Open Space, subject to securing the layout of, and public access to, the publicly accessible open space and the management and maintenance of the same, by way of a Section 106 Deed (again, see Issue 3(b) above).

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The equal opportunity implications of the proposal are discussed in the body of the

report and, in particular, at Issues 3(g) and 4(a).

9.0 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 Grant planning permission 01119/M/P4

It is recommended that planning application 01119/M/P4 be approved for the reasons set out below and that: in the event that the Government Office for London issue no direction with respect to the proposed scheme;

the Director of Environment be authorised to grant planning permission subject to (i) the imposition of conditions and (ii) securing the planning obligations set out in this report by the prior completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Deed, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated in conjunction with the Borough Solicitor; and

officers report back to Members at the next meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee on the conditions and the details of the legal agreement;

and further provided that: should the Section 106 Deed outlined above not have been completed and planning permission issued by 8th June 2009 then the Director of Environment be authorised to refuse planning permission for reason that the proposal should, amongst other things, secure public access and the layout and ongoing management and maintenance of the open space and mitigate the development’s impact; and

in the event that the planning application is refused (for non-completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Deed within set timeframe), the Director of Environment (in consultation with the Chair of SDC) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission that duplicates planning application 01119/M/P4 provided that the Section 106 Deed outlined above is agreed and completed.

Reason: The proposed re-development would provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation and a sufficient range of housing provision including affordable housing provision; would enhance the character and appearance of the Spring Grove Conservation Area subject to safeguarding conditions; would not unduly harm neighbours’ living conditions or impact on the use of the Indian Gymkhana Club to the rear (west); and is acceptable in parking, servicing and traffic movement terms.

Whilst the proposal would encroach upon the existing Local Open Space to the rear (west) of the site, there are, on balance, very special circumstances to allow the loss including the proposed provision of publicly accessible open space in an area of Publicly Accessible Open Space Deficiency. The proposal, which would repair and restore Campion House (included on the Council’s list of Buildings of Local Townscape Character) to beneficial use and which would have a beneficial impact on the street scene and the setting of Campion House therefore overcomes the reasons applications 01119/M/P3 and 01119/M/CA2 were dismissed at appeal. Subject to conditions and the prior completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Deed, including to secure community facilities in Tigar Hall, the proposal is, therefore, in accordance with development plan policy including Unitary Development Plan Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation areas), ENV-B.2.3 (Reuse of redundant historic buildings), ENV-B.2.7 (Alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character), H.4.1 (Housing standards and guidelines), ENV-N.1.10 (Provision of new local open space), ENV-N.1.11 (Protection and improvement of local open space) and T.1.4 (Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for

developments) and London Plan Policies 4B.11 (London’s built heritage), 4B.12 (Heritage conservation), 3A.9 (Affordable housing targets), 3A.10 (Negotiating affordable housing in individual private residential and mixed-use schemes), 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure), 3D.11 (Open space provision in DPDs), 3D.12 (Open space strategies), 4B.5 (Creating an inclusive environment) and 3C.23 (Parking strategy).

Conditions: To be reported by addendum.

9.2 Grant conservation area consent 0111/M/CA3 Reason: The proposed demolition of existing extensions to Campion House and associated outbuildings including the chapel, refectory, dormitories and classrooms but excluding Tigar Hall is considered acceptable for reason that they are of limited architectural value and as there is an acceptable scheme of redevelopment. The proposed demolition is therefore in accordance with UDP Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation areas), ENV-B.2.3 (Reuse of redundant historic buildings) and ENV-B.2.7 (Alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character).

Conditions:

1 Time limit

The works to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this consent. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990.

2 Commitment to build and details for protecting Campion House during demolition

Notwithstanding Condition 1, the works of demolition hereby approved shall not be commenced before planning permission has been granted pursuant to planning application reference 01119/M/P4 and arrangements made for procuring the works, as well as for the works of demolition (including details for protecting Campion House), have been made and evidence of the same submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works of demolition shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the absence of an acceptable redevelopment of the site the proposed works of demolition would be contrary to Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation areas), ENV-B.2.3 (Reuse of redundant historic buildings) and ENV-B.2.7 (alterations to listed buildings and buildings of local townscape character) of the Hounslow Unitary Development Plan.