central & south planning committee - · pdf filecentral & south planning ... u1, u3,...

Central & South Planning Committee

Meeting date: TUESDAY 20th APRIL 2006

Time: 7.30PM

Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 3, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH S

To Members on the Planning Committee

Councillors Conservation Area AdvisHenry Higgins (Chairman) John Hensley (Vice-Chairman) Geoff Courtenay Alf Langley

Mo Khursheed Janet Duncan Dave Allam

Dr Robin Wakelin (GreenRalph Chenery (Canal LoDale Venn / Beryl Lakin (Douglas Adams (Old Uxb

Substitute Councillors Ann Banks Josephine Barrett Bruce Baker David Bishop George Cooper Brian Crowe

Catherine Dann Shirley Harper-O’Neill Albert Kanjee Scott Seaman-Digby Michael White

DavidTony PeterLee GNorm

Further information

For information about the planning applications please telephone 018

This agenda was published on 10th April 2006. If you would like furthethe meeting please call Gill Brice in Hillingdon’s Cabinet Office on [email protected] the Council’s website www.hillingdon.gov.u

Involving the Public in the way we do business… The Public have a right to petition and speak at this committee, but must notify the Cabinet Office beforehand on 01895 250693.

Members of the Public and Press are very welcome to attend this meeting. Free parking is available via the entrance to the Civic Centre in the High Street. Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away.

Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be directed to the Council Chamber. Please switch off your mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council operates a no-smoking policy in its offices.

TREET, UXBRIDGE

ory Panel Members way/Cowley Church) cks) Hillingdon Village) ridge)

Horne Burles Curling riffin

an Nunn-Price

95 250400.

r information about 895 250693, email k

This agenda is available in large print

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/

Agenda

1. Apologies for absence and to report the attendance of any substitute Members 2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting 3. To sign and receive the minutes of the meetings held on 14th March (attached) and

4th April 2006 (to follow). 4. To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and

that any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private.

5. Consideration of the reports from the Director of Planning and Transportation (detailed below)

Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. Reports are split into ‘major’ and ‘minor’ applications. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned. Major Application without a Petition Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 1. Barnhill Methodist

Church Welbeck Avenue Hayes

Barnhill Erection of a part two, part three storey residential block to provide ten units with associated car parking and landscaping (Involving demolition of existing Church) Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 agreement

1

2. Camborne Way Central Terminal Area Heathrow Airport

Heathrow Villages

Erection of a four storey building for use as a central welfare facility within the Central Terminal Area (Consultation under Schedule 2, part 18 of the Town ad Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) Recommendation : No objection subject to informatives

21

Non Major Application with Petition Address Ward Description & Recommendation . 22 Parkway and land

to the rear of 18-22 Parkway Hillingdon

Uxbridge North

Erection of 3 four-bedroom detached dwelling houses with integral garages and 1 four-bedroom detached dwelling house with single storey detached garage and creation of new access road (Involving demolition of existing dwelling house Recommendation : Would have been refused had an appeal not been lodged

27

Non Major Applications without Petitions Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 4. Land at junction of Bath

Road and Newport Road Heathrow Airport

Heathrow Villages

Display of a single sided internally illuminated scrolling advertisement hoarding Recommendation : Delegated consent subject to no objections being received

41

5. Land at junction of Bath Road and Nene Road Heathrow Airport

Heathrow Villages

Display of a single sided internally illuminated advertisement hoarding Recommendation : Delegated consent subject to no objections being received

46

6. Car Spares 1 Riverside Cottage The Common West Drayton

West Drayton

Retention of 20M high telecommunications tower comprising 3 antennas, one 300MM dish, radio equipment cabinet and ancillary fencing for a temporary period of 12 months Recommendation : Approval

51

Central & South Planning Committee – 20 April 2006 Page 1

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 APRIL 2006 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (CENTRAL & SOUTH) OF PLANNING AND

TRANSPORTATION

A Item No. 1 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: BARNHILL METHODIST CHURCH, WELBECK AVENUE,

HAYES

Development: ERECTION OF A PART TWO, PART THREE STOREY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK TO PROVIDE TEN UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH)

LBH Ref Nos: 9024/APP/2006/280 Drawing Nos: 05923/P/001; Planning Statement (Holmes.Antill), Planning

Statement (Yurky Cross), received 31/1/2006; 05923/P/010 rev. B, 05923/P/011 rev. A, 05923/P/012 rev. A, 05923/P/013, 05923/P/014 and 05923/P/015 received 5/4/2006.

Date of receipt: 31/1/2006. Date(s) of Amendment(s): 5/4/2006 1.0 SUMMARY Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the former Barnhill Methodist Church site, involving the erection of a part 2 part 3 storey block of 10 flats, comprising 2 x one bed and 8 x two bed apartments, together with under-croft parking, amenity space and access. The loss of the existing church and the use of the site for residential purposes is considered acceptable in principle, given that the church has been vacant for several years and that better equipped and more accessible community facilities exist in the locality. It is considered that the overall layout, siting, design and scale of the proposed development would be in keeping with adjoining properties and the character of the surrounding area. The proposal would not detract from the amenities of adjoining residents and provides satisfactory accommodation for future occupiers. Parking provision accords with this Council’s standards and the Council’s Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposed means of access. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject a Planning Obligation requiring contributions towards the funding of additional school places and community facilities. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant or a

unilateral agreement is provided under Section 106 of the Town and



Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation to secure:

(i) £32,883 towards the provision of additional nursery, primary and

secondary school places in the area (ii) A financial contribution of £ 6,500 towards community facilities in

the locality.

2. That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

3. That officers be authorized to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of

the proposed agreements. 4. The applicants pay a sum to the Council equivalent to 2% of the value of

contributions for compliance, administration and monitoring of the completed planning (and/or highways) agreement(s).

5. The applicants pay a sum to the Council of up to 3% of the value of

contributions for specified requirements to project manage and oversee implementation of elements of the completed planning (and/or highways) agreement(s).

6. If the above Section 106 agreement has not been finalized within 6

months, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Transportation, then the application is to be referred back to the Planning Committee for determination.

7. That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination

by the Director of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the completion of legal agreement(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

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

1. (T1) Time Limit - full planning

application 1. (T1) Standard

2. (M1) Details/Samples to be Submitted

2. (M1) Standard

3. (M3) Boundary treatment – details 3. (M3) Standard 4. (MRD7)Dustbin Siting 4. (MRD7) Standard 5. (OM1) Development in

accordance with Approved Plans 5. (OM1) Standard

6. (RPD3) Obscured Glazing (The kitchen and bathroom windows of flat 5 facing 8 Sherwood Avenue’)

6. (RPD3) Standard



7. (H1) Traffic Arrangements 7. (H1) Standard 8. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme -

Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100),

Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken,

Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate,

Implementation programme

8. (TL5) Standard

9. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme - implementation

9. (TL6) Standard

10. (TL7) Maintenance of Landscaped Areas

10. (TL7) Standard

11. Provision shall be made within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway.

11. To ensure that the development does not cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining pavement and highway.

12. Details of a designated area for the storage of waste recycling receptacles adjacent to the bin store shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This recycling area shall be permanently retained for so long as the development remains in existence.

12. To provide a designated area in addition to the bin store where residents can store and handle recycled waste before it is removed from the site.

13. Unobstructed visibility above the height of 0.6 metres must be maintained from the site access for vehicles at least 2.4 metres in both directions along the back edge of the footway. Any fencing/hedging above 0.6 metres would have to allow drivers to be able to see through it.

13. To ensure that pedestrian and vehicular safety is not prejudiced by the development.

14. The development hereby approved shall incorporate measures to minimize the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the application site and the development. Details

14. In pursuance of the Council's duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in excising its planning functions; to promote



of security measures shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any security measures to be implemented in compliance with this condition shall seek to achieve the 'Secured by Design' accreditation award by the Hillingdon Metropolitan Police.

the well being of the area in pursuance of the Council's powers under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, and to reflect the guidance contained in Circular 5/94 'Planning Out Crime' and the Council’s SPG on Community Safety By Design.

15. (H13) Installation of Gates onto a Highway

15. (H13) Standard

16. Details of the internal design and layout of the disabled persons unit shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Hereafter, the disabled persons unit shall be constructed on accordance with the approved details.

16. In accordance with ‘access for all principles’ and policy H9 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

17. No development shall take place until details of external lighting have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

17. To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents.

INFORMATIVES 1. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 2. (36) Property Rights/ Rights to Light 3. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 4. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 5. (23) Works affecting the Public Highway - Vehicle Cross-over 6. To encourage more effective resource management in demolition and new

builds, it is recommended that you establish an 'audit trail' for demolition materials based on an established demolition protocol. The protocol should demonstrate that the most valuable or potentially contaminating materials and fittings can be removed from the site safely and intact for later re-use or processing.

7. To promote the development of sustainable building design and construction methods, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems and use of high quality insulation.



8. (23) Works affecting the Public Highway –Vehicular crossover 9. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the

area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space. BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to

neighbours. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in developments proposals H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential

development. H9 Provision for people with disabilities in new residential

developments OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties

and the local area OE11 Development involving hazardous substances and contaminated

land - requirement for ameliorative measures OE12 Energy conservation and new development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate

sites AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of

recreation, leisure and community facilities. AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality 3.1 The application site is located in a predominantly residential area on the

corner of Welbeck Avenue and Sherwood Avenue in Hayes. There are no policy designations on this site the east is a relatively recent flatted development that is predominantly 3 storey with the top floor set into a mansard roof form. The site is bounded to the south and west by 2 storey terraced housing along Sherwood Avenue. To the north lies the Welbeck Avenue Green, beyond which is a 3 storey parade of shops with flats above.

3.2 The site is broadly square in shape measuring 0.09 ha (0.22 acres). A vacant

church building, comprising a main worship room, small ancillary hall, kitchen and 2 side rooms, totalling 185 sq. metres currently occupies the site.



Scheme

3.3 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part 2, part 3 storey residential blocks to accommodate 10 flats with under-croft parking for 10 cars, with vehicular access off Sherwood Avenue. Shared amenity space is provided in the south east corner, while landscaped areas are provided along the Sherwood Avenue frontage and along the southern boundary.

3.4 The schedule of accommodation is as follows: Ground Floor

1 x one bedroom flat; 2 x two bedroom flats; cycle storage; bin storage and undercroft parking.

First floor 4 x two bedroom flats; 1 x one bedroom flat.

Second floor 2 x two bedroom flats.

Planning History

3.5 There is no relevant planning history. The authorised use of the site is as a

church (Class D1).

Planning Policies and Standards

UDP Designation: Developed Area National Policy

Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG’s) 1 General Policies & Principles 3 Housing 13 Transport 24 Planning & Noise

Regional Policy The London Plan - sets out the Mayor's strategic objectives for the delivery of new housing.

Local Policy

UDP Designation: Developed Area.

Part 1 Policies: Pt 1.10 To seek to ensure that new developments will not adversely affect

the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.



Pt 1.13 To seek to ensure the provision of 8,000 additional dwellings in the Borough between January 1987 and 31 December 2001.

Pt 1.39 To seek where appropriate planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed.

Part 2 Policies:

BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the

area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in developments proposals OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and

the local area OE11 Development involving hazardous substances and contaminated land -

requirement for ameliorative measures OE12 Energy conservation and new development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites H4 Mix of housing units H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential

development H8 Change of use from non-residential to residential R5 Safeguarding community facilities R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation,

leisure and community facilities AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ SPG ‘Roads in Residential Layouts’

Consultations External Consultees

91 neighbours were consulted and one letter of objection has been received. Comments: 1. The proposed development is too large for the site. 2. The development will result in additional on street parking 3. Additional housing would impose a further burden on already over-

stretched local services.



The application has been advertised as a ’Major Development’. Hillingdon Primary Care Trust (PCT)

No response

Metropolitan Police (CPDA)

Access control to undercroft parking, including CCTV is required. All front landscaped areas should be fenced off to provide defensible space

Internal Consultees

Policy & Environmental Planning

London Plan The London Plan sets strategic targets to increase the overall provision of housing in London. Detailed development control criteria are not considered in the London Plan with the exception of density (PTAL- public transport accessibility level) and parking. Policy 3A.15, Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities requires that Local Authorities should resist the net loss of community facilities. Land Use The main land use issue in relation to this development is the demolition of the existing Church required for the erection of 10 flats with associated parking spaces. Policy R5 will not allow the granting of permission for proposals involving the loss of community facilities such as this unless adequate alternative facilities are available. The applicants have stated that community groups in the area have a wide choice of better equipped and more accessible facilities nearby including Hayes End Church and facilities in Hayes Town Centre. It appears that there are alternative facilities elsewhere and that the congregation used to be small. It is considered that the loss of this facility would be acceptable under the terms of policy R5.

Policy H8 is relevant to this application with a change of use from a non-residential development to residential. Under the terms of Policy H8 the change of use will be permitted if the existing use is unlikely to meet a demand for such and a successful residential environment can be achieved. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and it is likely that the site can provide a satisfactory



residential environment. The demand for this facility is clearly low given that the congregation was made up of just 8 people and, therefore, the change of use would be acceptable with regard to Policy H8. Density Policy H6 states that residential densities should harmonise with the surrounding densities of that area and that new housing is generally expected to be within the range of 100-200 hr/ha. The proposed development includes approximately 311hr/ha or 111u/ha, which exceeds the Draft London Plan density guidelines of 150-200hr/ha or 30-50u/ha within a suburban area with a PTAL score of between 1 and 2 (this site has a PTAL score of approx 1-2). The proposed development may therefore be contrary to Policy H6 as the site may not be capable of accommodating a density over 200hr/ha, in terms of car parking, amenity space and impact on the surrounding site/area. Car Parking With regard to parking, 10 car parking spaces are to be provided on site. The car parking provision would be within the maximum current parking standards ‘Parking Policies and Standards 2nd Deposit Draft’ of 1.5 spaces per dwelling for flatted schemes. The London Plan parking standards for flats is between 1-1.5 spaces per unit and the provision of 10 spaces would be in accordance with London Plan objectives. However, given the poor access to public transport in this location officers and transport engineers should be satisfied that this level of parking is sufficient for the level of density of the proposed scheme. In addition, the guidance set out in SPG on Planning Obligations, ‘Educational Facilities’, should be brought to the attention of the developers and an appropriate contribution, on the basis of the formulae set out in the SPG, should be sought. PEP would not have an “in-principle” objection to the proposed loss of the existing church and more intensive redevelopment of the site for residential units so long as alternative community facilities are available nearby to meet the needs of the local community and the development is consistent with the policies of the UDP in relation to the built environment and in particular policies BE13, 19-24



and OE1.

Trees/Landscape Officer

The site is not affected by any TPO or Conservation Area designation. There are no trees on the site. There is a street tree on Sherwood Avenue (south-west corner) and in the rear garden of 1-13 Green Acres (south-east corner), as shown on the site plan, neither of which should be affected by the proposed development. The proposed layout features undercroft parking which, in this case, has the benefit of providing 10 of the 12 car spaces under the building/within the built footprint, thereby freeing up much of the external space for private gardens and communal amenity space. Most of the front garden spaces are shown to be protected by railings. However, between the Welbeck Avenue bus stop and the bike store there is a narrow strip of green (<1.00m wide) which is outside the railings. This is unlikely to be maintained by residents and may be prone to abuse by others. It should be incorporated/contained within the site boundary. Subject to the quality of the detailing of the external spaces, the quality of the landscape should be an improvement on the current situation and in accordance with policy BE38. No objections are raised, subject to relevant landscaping conditions.

Education Service There is a requirement for Education Facilities from proposed developments in this area. The amount that should be sought is £32,883.

Waste Strategy The developer needs to provide a bin store big enough for the safe operation of 2 x1100 litre bins for refuse and 2x1100 litre bins for recycling. The bin stores should be sited no more than 10 metres from the closest point of access for a refuse collection vehicle. Dropped curbs need to be provided where appropriate.

Urban Design/Conservation Officer

From an urban design point of view, the principle of redevelopment of the site is supported, in order to improve the local townscape of the area. The proposed building conforms with the scale and height



of the local neighbourhood. The building design gives strength to the edges of the site, thereby creating a visual link to the existing built form to the east and south. The provision of green landscaping along the road frontage and southern boundary will create structure as well as a more interesting appearance. The elevational treatment gives visual interest and enhances the character of the street scene. It is recommended that the bin enclosures and cycle stores are fully enclosed.

Environmental Protection Unit (EPU)

No contaminated land, noise, air quality or other environmental protection issues that might prejudice the proposal have been identified. Accordingly, no objections are raised and no conditions are recommended.

Social Services & Housing Development Group

The scheme falls below the threshold for affordable housing. Ideally this development should achieve Secure by Design certification,

Projects and Implementation Team

Likely S106 contributions include: 1. Transport and transport related issues as advised by the Highway Engineer 2. Education in line with the Supplementary Planning Guidance and advice from Education Directorate. 3. Community Facilities/Open Space/ Recreational open space - In line with our Supplementary Planning Guidance Open Space = £471 per person x 24 residents (2 1bd's and 7 2bd's) = £9,891. 4. Project Management and Monitoring contribution in line with our SPG seeking 5% of the total cash contributions to be provided for the management and monitoring of the agreement.

Highway Engineer The vehicular access to the undercroft car park does not provide two way access and would result in incoming vehicles having to wait in the public highway affecting the free flow of traffic. Note: Amended plans provide for two vehicles to pass within the site entrance Parking space 11 alongside this access must be relocated for reasons of highway safety. A visitor parkingspace over which the resident of unit 2 has no control must not be located outside the window of bedroom 2.



Parking space 12 should be allocated to the resident of the ground floorunit 2. Note: These issues have been addressed. No objections to site access and parking layout.

Main Planning Issues 3.6 The main planning issues are considered to be: (i) Acceptability of the principle of the development (ii) Whether the density of development is appropriate (iii) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding

area (iv) Impact on the amenities of adjoining properties (v) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers (vi) Security (vii) Highway and pedestrian safety (viii) Planning Obligations

(i) Acceptability of the principle of development.

3.7 The site is located within the Developed Area, as identified in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Whilst general policies are supportive of residential development in principle, this is subject to compliance with a number of detailed criteria, including the consideration of the loss of any existing use of the site.

3.8 Policy R5 will not allow the granting of permission for proposals involving the

loss of community facilities such as the existing Church, unless adequate alternative facilities are available. The applicants have stated that community groups in the area have a wide choice of better equipped and more accessible facilities nearby including the Barnhill Community Centre, Hayes End Church and facilities in Hayes Town Centre. It appears that there are alternative facilities elsewhere and given that the congregation was fairly small it is considered that the loss of this facility would be acceptable under the terms of policy R5.

3.9 Policy H8 is relevant to this application with a change of use from a non-residential development to residential. Under the terms of Policy H8 the change of use will be permitted if the existing use is unlikely to meet a demand for such and a successful residential environment can be achieved. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and, subject to scale and detailed design, it is likely that the proposed site can provide a satisfactory residential environment. The demand for this facility is clearly low with the last known congregation made up of just 8 people. Therefore the change of use would be acceptable with regard to Policy H8.



3.10 In addition, the proposal is consistent with Central Government advice contained in PPG3, encouraging the re-use of previously developed land more efficiently, There is therefore no objection in principle to residential development on the site, subject to the proposal satisfying other policies within the UDP.

(ii) Whether the density of development is appropriate

3.11 Policy H6 of the UDP states that an acceptable density depends on a balance

between the full and effective use of available housing land and a combination of the following considerations:

- The quality of the housing layout and design; - Its compatibility with the density, form and spacing of surrounding

development; - The proposed dwelling mix; and - The location, configuration and characteristics of the site. 3.12 Policy H6 further states that new housing will generally be expected to be in

the range of 100-200 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha). Where the density exceeds 150 hr/ha, it is expected that applicants demonstrate that the design and layout of the scheme ensures that good environmental conditions are maintained. In addition, the supporting text in the UDP states that circumstances such as site characteristics, dwelling mix, the character of the surrounding area and contributions to meeting local housing needs may enable an appropriate level of density above or below these figures to be achieved.

3.13 Since the adoption of the UDP, density guidelines have also been provided

within the London Plan. These density controls take into account public transport accessibility, the character of the area and type of housing proposed. The site has a PTAL of 1 to 2, which is considered to be remote within a suburban context. Taking this into account, the London Plan density guideline is 150 to 200 hr/ha or 30 to 50 units per hectare (u/ha).

3.14 The scheme currently under consideration comprises 2, one bed and 8 two

bedroom flats. This equates to a residential density of approximately 310 hr/ha or 111 u/ha. This is higher than the density parameters within the UDP (100-200hr/ha) and the density parameters for a site with a PTAL score of 1-2 in the London Plan, within a suburban setting. However, the units per hectare in the London Plan are calculated on the basis of an average of 4 habitable rooms per unit (hr/u), while the proposed scheme averages only 2.8 hr/unit. In addition, it is considered that the proposed scheme will result in a layout that produces good environmental conditions for future/neighbouring occupiers and will harmonise with its surroundings, in compliance with Policy H6 of the UDP. On this basis, no objections are raised to the proposed density. It should be noted that the use of undercroft parking, as in this case, enables a higher density to be achieved by enabling a greater proportion of the site to be used for amenity open space.



(iii) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area.

3.15 This application proposes an ‘L’ shaped building the greater proportion of

which faces onto Welbeck Avenue in a 2½ / 3 storey form, stepping down to 2 storey along Sherwood Avenue. The corner element of the design is emphasised as a 3 storey focal point. The building, in plan, elevation and roofspace is highly articulated, while the gable features reflect the local built form. It is considered that the building responds to the 3 storey properties on Welbeck Avenue, including the recently built flatted development to the east and provides a suitable transition between the larger scales of buildings on Welbeck Avenue and is therefore in scale with surrounding built development.

3.16 The indicative landscaping scheme demonstrates that adequate soft landscaping and tree planting in scale with the building can be provided at the front of the property and along all site boundaries. The Tree/Landscape Officer raises no objection to the housing development in principle, subject to a high quality landscape scheme, which provides satisfactory amenity space for the residents and complements the development. This could be secured by relevant landscaping conditions.

3.17 The Urban Design/Conservation Officer welcomes the opportunity to improve

the existing townscape and fully supports the proposed scheme in terms of land use, scale and design approach, subject to the use of high quality materials. This can be secured by condition. It is considered that the siting of the proposed building and the detailing of the elevations reflect the layout, building lines and character of the immediate area, and harmonise with the existing street scene, in compliance with Policies BE13 and BE19 of the UDP and relevant design guidance.

(iv) Impact on residential amenity

3.18 The design guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ advises that for two

or more storey buildings, adequate distance should be maintained to avoid over dominance. A minimum distance of 15m is required from a rear elevation although this distance will be dependent on the extent and bulk of the buildings. For the proposed scheme these distances are well in excess of the 15m requirements and comply with design guidance. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would result in an over dominant form of development which would detract from the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, in compliance with policy BE21 of the UDP.

3.19 Design guidance advises that a minimum distance of 21m is required between

the windows of adjoining residential properties, and to adjoining patio areas, in order to ensure that no loss of privacy will occur. This distance has been maintained. No windows are proposed in the north elevation of the residential flats. The internal layout and fenestration of the first and second floor units have been designed to ensure that there is no overlooking into the rear private amenity area of the adjoining property at 8 Sherwood Avenue. In



addition, all balconies have been located on the street elevations, or in positions where the proposed building layout prevents views to neighbouring gardens. Where a balcony adjoins 8 Sherwood Avenue, the flank wall prevents overlooking. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in a loss of privacy to occupiers of surrounding dwellings, in compliance with Policy BE24 of the UDP and relevant design guidance.

(v) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers

3.20 Policy BE23 of the UDP requires the provision of external amenity space,

sufficient to protect the amenity of the occupants of the proposed and surrounding buildings, and which is usable in terms of its shape and siting. The Council’s Residential Design Guidelines do not specify amenity space standards for flats, but seek an adequate amount of conveniently located space. The current proposal provides for a total amenity space of approximately 200m2 or 20m2 per flat. 2 of the ground floor flats will have access to private gardens and all of the proposed flats would have access to the communal garden, which is located at the rear of the building. In addition, 4 of the flats on the first floor and one flat on the second floor will have private balconies.

3.21 In addition, a landscaped frontage area will be created, although its value as

usable private amenity space will be limited because of its proximity to the road. In general, the landscape solution has sought to provide a secure perimeter treatment, which protects the privacy of future occupiers and existing neighbours, while providing attractive front gardens to the ground floor units, by creating a defensible and attractive area along the site’s street frontages. Overall, it is considered that adequate amenity space has been provided for future occupiers, in compliance with Policy BE23 of the UDP.

3.22 One of the ground floor units have been designed to be built to recognised

standards for wheelchairs, comprising 10% of the total units. This is considered an acceptable provision for this development, in accordance with Policy H9 of the UDP. One wheelchair user parking space has also been provided on the site in compliance with Policy AM15 of the UDP.

3.23 With regard to waste disposal, adequate provision is shown to be provided for both refuse and recycling storage, in accordance with advice from the Waste Strategy Manager and the objectives of Policy OE13 of the UDP

3.24 In terms of security, it is considered that the layout and design of the

development will not give rise to significant potential for the generation of anti-social behaviour or criminal activity, in accordance with to Policy BE19 of the UDP and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Secured by Design.



(vi) Access and highway issues

3.25 12 car parking spaces, including 1 space for use by people with disabilities

have been provided. This equates to 1:1.2 spaces per flat. This level of provision is less than the Council’s maximum car parking standard and within the range of between 1-1.5 spaces per unit as set out in the London Plan. The Council’s Highway Engineer raises no objection to the number of spaces provided, given that the mix of residential units is one and 2 bed flats. In addition, secure bicycle storage for 10 cycles has been provided in accordance with adopted standards. The Highway Engineer raises no objections to the scheme in terms of traffic generation and access arrangements, subject to appropriate conditions.

(vii) Planning Obligations

3.26 Policy R17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan states that: ‘The Local

Planning Authority will, where appropriate, seek to supplement the provision of recreation open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and entertainment activities, and other community, social and education facilities through planning obligations in conjunction with other development proposals’.

3.27 The applicants have agreed to make a financial contribution of £32,883

towards education places based on the Education Services’ projected child yield of this development. The applicant has also agreed to make a contribution of £6,500 towards community facilities based on the formulae set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance. It is considered that the level of planning benefits sought is adequate and commensurate with the scale and nature of the proposed development and is necessary to deal with the likely impacts of the scheme.

Comments on Public Consultations

3.28 90 neighbours were consulted. One letter making representations has been

received, the contents of which are summarised above. The issues raised have been addressed in the main body of the report.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable



to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the

developer, and the developer will make a S106 contribution to the Council towards associated public facilities. The developer will also meet all reasonable costs of the Council in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or the Council.

CONCLUSION 6.1 The loss of the existing church and use of the site for residential purposes is

considered acceptable in principle. The proposed scheme will make a valuable contribution to the Borough’s housing stock in the form of smaller dwellings, in accordance with the aims and objectives of the UDP housing policies. It is considered that the proposal will not detract from the visual amenities of the street scene or the amenities of adjoining residents. It provides a satisfactory form of accommodation for future residents and would not harm highway or pedestrian safety. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies of the UDP and as such planning permission is recommended subject to a Planning Obligation towards the provision of school places and community facilities.



Reference Documents: (a) Unitary Development Plan (b) London Plam (c) Supplementary Planning Guide: ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ (d) Letter of objection. Contact Officer: KARL DAFÉ Telephone No: 01895 250727



BLOCK PLAN



B

Item No. 2 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: CAMBORNE WAY, CENTRAL TERMINAL AREA, HEATHROW

AIRPORT Development: ERECTION OF A FOUR STOREY BUILDING FOR USE AS A

CENTRAL WELFARE FACILITY WITHIN THE CENTRAL TERMINAL AREA (CONSULTATION UNDER SCHEDULE 2, PART 18 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995).

LBH Ref Nos: 61608/APP/2006/481 Drawing Nos: 00335/P3, RC1613-02/A, 00339/PS, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Date of receipt: 16/02/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: This application was advertised by press and site notices. NATS (National Air Traffic Services) No objection.

BAA (Safeguarding) No objection subject to informatives

regarding the use of cranes, and flat/shallow pitched roofs.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The proposed site is located just off Camborne Way in the Central Terminal

Area at Heathrow Airport. It currently houses a large brick built boiler house building of approximately 8.5m in height, five oil storage tanks of approximately 4.4m in height, a smaller two-storey engineering building and ancillary car parking and service yard area. The Multi-Storey Car Park 2 bounds the site to the south east, Terminal 3 lies to the south west, and various airport buildings are located to the north east and north west, at the other side of the Inner Ring Road West, and Control Tower Road. The site falls within the boundaries of Heathrow Airport as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development is directly related to the provision of services and facilities at Heathrow Airport on “operational land.” It is therefore “Permitted Development” in accordance with Class A of Part 18 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and does not require planning permission. However, in accordance with the Order, the airport operator must consult with the local planning authority before commencing any development.



3. The implementation of most large development projects in and around Heathrow is accompanied by on-site welfare facilities for site construction workers and project teams. In the Central Terminal Area it has proven increasingly difficult to find suitable space for such facilities, particularly if they have to be located airside where they require additional security processes and regulations. BAA therefore proposes to provide a centrally located welfare facility in a landside location within the Central Terminal Area to provide site offices for both current and future development projects. Current projects include the erection of the Multi-Storey Car Park West, the demolition of Multi-Storey Car Park 3, the completion of the Terminal 3 Arrivals extension, and the improvement works to the Central Bus Station. Future development projects will include the eastern apron redevelopment, Terminal 3 forecourt improvements and potentially the redevelopment of Terminal 2.

4. A review of the boiler house site has identified that two of the large oil storage tanks are no longer required and part of the engineering building can be removed to provide space within the south west corner of this site. The proposed welfare facility would comprise a four storey block, made up of 16 grey coloured prefabricated buildings, measuring approximately 13.2m by 6m by 6.4m high in total, with an external staircase serving each floor located on the north east elevation and an external staircase serving the second floor only on the south west elevation. Its location between the five storey Multi-Storey Car Park 2, the existing boiler house building and the three remaining oil tanks would largely screen it from surrounding roads.

5. No parking is required in connection with the proposed welfare facility, as users of the site would access the Central Terminal Area via public transport. As such, it would not interfere with the parking or access arrangements for the boiler house site. Deliveries vehicles would use the existing boiler house yard.

6. The proposed building is of a similar design and colour to many other airport buildings within the Central Terminal Area and it would be well screened from surrounding roads and areas which are well used by members of the public. It is not considered that it would have any detrimental impact upon the character or appearance of this part of the airport. The proposal complies with policies Pt1.27, BE13, BE15, BE17 and A4 of the Unitary Development plan and it is recommended that no objection be raised.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of



public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIVES:

1. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane

may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, ‘Cranes and Other Construction Issues’ available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome.

2. Flat/shallow pitched roofs must be constructed to allow access to all

areas by foot using permanent fixed access stairs, ladder or similar. Gulls must not be allowed to nest, roost or loaf on the building. Checks must be made weekly during the breeding season, which for gulls typically runs from March to June. Outside of the breeding season gull activity must be monitored and the roof checked regularly to ensure that gulls do not utilise the roof. Any gulls found nesting; roosting or loafing must be dispersed by the owner/occupier when detected or when

http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome



requested by BAA Airfield Operations staff. Any nests or eggs found on the roof must be removed. Before any nests or eggs are removed the appropriate licences must be obtained by Defra.

3. The decision to raise no objection has been taken having regard to all

relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the first Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

4. The decision to raise no objection has been taken having regard to the

policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:

Pt1.27 To ensure that development at Heathrow Airport for airport

purposes mitigates or redresses any adverse effects of the environment.

BE13 BE15

Layout and appearance of new development. Alterations and extensions to existing buildings.

BE17 Design and layout of new development at Heathrow Airport.

A4 New development directly related to Heathrow Airport.

Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone No: 01895 277580



BLOCK PLAN



A Item No.3 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 22 PARKWAY AND LAND TO THE REAR OF 18-22

PARKWAY, HILLINGDON Development: ERECTION OF 3 FOUR-BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING

HOUSES WITH INTEGRAL GARAGES AND 1 FOUR-BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE WITH SINGLE STOREY DETACHED GARAGE AND CREATION OF NEW ACCESS ROAD (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE)

LBH Ref Nos: 60093/APP/2005/3379 Drawing Nos: 1:1250 Site Plan, 05/3355/2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9, 10A,

11 and tree survey received on 21/12/06.

Date of receipt: 21/12/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4, four bedroom detached

houses in the rear gardens of 18, 20, and 22 Parkway involving the demolition of22 Parkway to facilitate access. A similar application was refused in 2005. An appeal against the refusal of this application is due to be heard at a Public Inquiry on 20/06/06. This current application is now also the subject of an appeal against non-determination and this appeal is to be conjoined at the Inquiry in June. This current application proposes minor changes to the overall layout and dimensions of the proposed houses and garages. It is considered that the changes are not sufficient to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and that the proposal would represent an obtrusive form of development being out of keeping with the layout of the surrounding Area of Special Local Character and harmful to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. The proposed driveway, by reason of its proximity close to 24 Parkway, would result in noise nuisance to the detriment of the occupiers of 24 Parkway. In addition the proposal fails to make provision for additional school places. Had an appeal against non determination not been received the application would have been recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION: That had an appeal against non determination

not been received this application would have been REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of its siting and location, would represent an

obtrusive form of development out of keeping with the layout of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would detract from the visual amenities of Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character,



contrary to Policies BE5, BE13 and BE19 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal, by reason of its proximity to the adjacent Green Belt

land would be harmful to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy OL5 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed driveway by reason of its proximity close to 24 Parkway

would result in noise nuisance to the detriment of the occupiers of 24 Parkway, contrary to Policies H12 and OE1 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposal fails to make provision for additional school places in

accordance with Policy R17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations.

INFORMATIVES

1. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals of the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: OL3 Development adjacent the Green Belt BE5 Development within Areas of Special Local Character BE13 Layout and appearance of development BE19 Amenity and character of the area BE20 Adequate levels of sunlight and daylight BE21 New Buildings / Extensions and Residential Amenity BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed

developments AM14 New development and car parking standards H6

Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development

H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development

H12 Tandem development of backland in residential areas BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and

provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities

Residential Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design Guide



3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality 3.1 The application site comprises the site of 22 Parkway and the rear gardens of

18 and 20 Parkway. The site is an ‘L’ shaped development site boarded to the west by Hillingdon Court Park Recreation Ground which lies within the Green Belt. The application site lies within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character, as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

3.2 22 Parkway is an attractive, symmetrically designed, large detached house of

red brick and roughcast, with hipped roof, and flank wall stacks. It dates from the 1920’s, or thereabouts, as do its neighbours on the north side of Parkway and, together with its neighbours, it is set well back from the road and part of the characteristically staggered building line. This house, which contributes to the character of the area by virtue of its design, location and setting. It backs on to Hillingdon Court Park at the rear. The houses in Parkway are predominantly detached properties on spacious plots. The rear gardens of neighbouring Parkway properties to the north of the application site have been developed for residential purposes with access via Holme Grove.

Scheme 3.3 This application proposes to demolish the existing detached house No.22

Parkway and erect 3 four-bedroom detached dwelling houses with integral garages and 1 four-bedroom detached dwelling house with a detached single garage. The houses would be located within the rear gardens of 18 and 20 and what was 22 Parkway, accessed via a new access road formed over 22 Parkway. The table below provides the measurements of the proposed houses:

House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 Width 7.8m 8m 8m 8.4m Depth 11.8m 12.4m 12.5m 14.6m Eaves Height 4.8m 4.9m 5m 4.9m Ridge Height 9.4m 9.4m 9.5m 8.5m Amenity Space 200m2 133m2 145m2 187m2 Distance from boundary with Hillingdon Court Park

12m 13.6m 14.4m 18m

3.4 The previous scheme had the following measurements: -

House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 Width 7.7m 7.6m 7.7m 8.4m Depth 12.2m 13.4m 13.5m 15.1m Eaves Height 4.7m 4.7m 4.7m 4.7m



Ridge Height 8.3m 8.0m 8.0m 8.8m Amenity Space 175m2 120m2 138m2 172m2 Distance from boundary with Hillingdon Court Park

10.5m 12.5m 14.4m 18.6m

3.5 The main differences between the previous application and the current

scheme is that proposed houses Nos.1-3 have increased in their overall width and all the houses have increased in the overall height, the overall depth of houses Nos.1-4 has reduced. The reduction in the depth of the proposed houses has resulted in an increase in the distance from the rear boundary and increased the amenity space. In addition, to these changes the other differences are as follows: -

(i) The width of the proposed access road has increased from 4.1m to

4.2m wide and has a more curved design. (ii) The garage which serves house No.4 has been reduced from a double

garage to a single garage and parking space. The proposed garage would be 3.25m wide, 5.2m deep and 4.2m high with a hipped roof. Screen planting and fencing would abut both sides of the driveway. Houses 1, 2 and 3 would be provided with an integral garage in addition to a parking space at the front of each of them.

Planning History

3.6 Planning application ref: 60093/APP/2004/2941 was refused on 11/07/05 for

the following reasons: -

1. The proposal, by reason of its siting and location, would represent an obtrusive form of development out of keeping with the layout of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would detract from the visual amenities of this Area of Special Local Character, contrary to Policies BE5, BE13 and BE19 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal, by reason of its proximity to the adjacent Green Belt

land would be harmful to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy OL5 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed driveway by reason of its proximity close to 24 Parkway

would result in noise nuisance to the detriment of the occupiers of 24 Parkway, contrary to Policies H12 and BE24 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan.



4. The proposal fails to make provision for additional school places in accordance with Policy R17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations.

An appeal against the refusal of this application is due to be heard at a Public Inquiry on 20/06/06. This current application is also the subject of an appeal against non-determination and this appeal has been conjoined at the Inquiry in June. Planning Policies and Standards

PPG3 and PPG13

UDP Designation: Developed Area The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:- Part 1 Policy: Pt1.10 New development should not adversely affect amenity and character

of residential areas Part 2 Policies: BE5 Development within Areas of Special Local Character BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and

improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in developments proposals OL3 Development adjacent the Green Belt H12 Tandem development of backland in residential areas H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential

development R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation,

leisure and community facilities AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design, principles: 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 and 9.1.



Consultations External Consultees 19 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. 4 letters of objection 1 lett3er of support and a petition of objection with 24 signatures have been received: Letters of objection: (i) Unacceptable increase in traffic, congestion and noise; (ii) Means of access would be unacceptable; (iii) Loss of security;

(iv) Inadequate surface water and foul sewerage system; (v) The proposal would exacerbate existing subsidence problems. (vi) Loss of existing trees; (vii) The proposal would set an undesirable precedent; (viii) Inadequate access for pedestrians, refuse and emergency vehicles; (ix) Overdevelopment of the site; (x) Adverse impact on school places; (xi) Access road would be prejudicial to pedestrian safety; (xii) Loss of privacy. (xiii) Unacceptable loss of amenity space. (xiv) Inadequate parking - existing street parking causing problems.

Petition with 24 signatures requesting rejection of the scheme. Letter of support highlights the changes made since the last application to overcome reasons for refusal.

Internal Consultees Director of Education An education contribution of £22,573.69

towards primary and £19, 707.19 towards secondary school places should be sought in relation to the scheme.

Highway Engineer No objection in principle to the scheme.

Trees/Landscape Officer No objection subject to conditions TL1,TL2,TL3,TL5,TL6 and TL7.

Urban Design/Conservation Officer

The site lies within Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character. The house, itself, 22 Parkway, is an attractive, symmetrically designed, large detached house of red brick and roughcast, with hipped roof, and flank wall stacks. It dates from the 1920’s or



thereabouts, as do its neighbours on the north side of Parkway and, together with its neighbours, it is set well back from the road and part of the characteristically staggered building line. It is an attractive, relatively unaltered house, which contributes to the character of the area by virtue of its design, location and setting. It backs on to Hillingdon Court Park at the rear.

It is proposed to demolish this house and to use the front of the site as an access road for four small houses at the rear. This would not be acceptable, as it would create an undesirable and uncharacteristic gap in the building line due to the demolition of the house and the introduction of an access road.

The backland development would also be undesirable as it would detract considerably from the character of Hillingdon Court Park,

by virtue of its location close to the Park’s perimeter, and also by virtue of the uncharacteristically high density of its development.

Main Planning Issues

3.7 The main planning issues in this case are:

(i) Whether the proposal is acceptable in principle (ii) The impact of the proposal upon the character and visual amenities of

the area (iii) The impact of the proposal upon the amenities of surrounding

residential properties (iv) Whether suitable amenities are provided for future occupiers; (v) Pedestrian and vehicular access, trees and landscaping and security

(i) Whether the proposal is acceptable in principle

3.8 Government policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing

seeks to concentrate most additional housing development within urban areas and make more efficient use of land by maximising the re-use of previously



developed land. It is therefore considered that residential development is acceptable in principle.

(ii) The impact of the proposal upon the character and visual amenities of

the area 3.9 This application seeks planning permission for backland development in the

rear gardens of 18 and 20 Parkway. The site is located within an Area of Special Character. The western side of the Parkway are characterised by low density housing with a staggered building line and substantial rear gardens. It is considered that the proposed access would introduce a gap in the building line due to the demolition of 22 Parkway and that it would create an uncharacteristic gap in the building line which would be out of keeping with the layout of the surrounding area.

18, 20 and 22 Parkway are currently situated 68m, 64m and 51m from the eastern boundary with Hillingdon Court Park. The proposed row of houses in the rear gardens of Nos. 18-22 would be visible between the gap between 20 and 24 Parkway and from Hillingdon Court Park. The proposed houses would substantially reduce the size of the rear gardens of these properties. Although proposed houses (Nos. 1, 2 and 4) have been set back a further 1.5m, 1.1m and 0.6m from the boundary with Hillingdon Court Park, the heights of houses 1, 2 and 3 has increased by 1.1m, 1.4 and 1.5m respectively. It is therefore considered that the siting, location, overall scale of development and proximity to Hillingdon Court Park has not substantially changed from the previous application. As such, it is considered that the proposal would result in an obtrusive form of backland development out of keeping with the layout of the surrounding area detrimental to the Area of Special Character and harmful to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies BE5, BE13 and BE19 of the UDP and the first and second reasons for refusal of the previous application would therefore still apply.

3.10 It is accepted that there has been a previous approval for back land development further north to the rear of properties on this side of Parkway approved in July 1992 (ref: 30278/M/92/0674). However, this development was not accessed from Parkway and was granted before the Unitary Development Plan was adopted in September 1998. It is considered that these houses have a detrimental impact on the openness of Hillingdon Park Drive and the further extension of a row of houses sandwiched between the Park and the houses in Parkway would further detract from the openness of the area.

3.11 The density of the development is 102 habitable rooms per hectare, which is

within the level considered acceptable by Policy H6 of the UDP. It is also comparable to the density of the back land development adjacent to the application site in Holme Grove.



3.12 The trees on this site are not protected by a TPO or Conservation Area designation. However, the site is an Area of Special Local Character - to which the trees are an important feature. The tree survey (carried out in 2004) is in accordance the BS 5837:1991 guidance current at that time. It confirms that the best trees, graded 'B' are on the parkland boundary and are offsite (not attributed a rating). The BS has recently been updated and is now presented in the form of recommendations. The safeguarding of trees 'to be retained' will need to adhere to the latest recommendations.

3.13 The 9 No. trees, shown to be removed (Drg No 2A), are generally short-lived,

smaller specimens, of lower landscape value. Approximately 21No trees around the boundaries, including those immediately off site, are shown to be retained.

3.14 Indicative areas of planting, including new tree planting, are shown on the

proposed layout drawing which could be further enhanced and detailed via planning conditions. Some of the areas of soft landscape appear to be communal - not obviously associated with specific properties. In order to ensure that these areas are suitably maintained, the LPA would need to know to which properties the areas are to be ascribed or whether they will be maintained by a management company on behalf of residents. The Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy BE38 of the UDP.

(iii) The impact of the proposal upon the amenities of surrounding

residential properties

3.15 The Council’s design guide advises that a minimum distance of 21m is required between adjoining residential properties in order to ensure that no loss of privacy will occur. The front elevation of house 1 would be situated 28m from the rear of 24 Parkway and houses 3 and 4 would be situated 36m from the rear of 18 and No. 20 Parkway. It is considered that these distances sufficient to maintain privacy between the application site and the houses in Parkway.

3.16 House 4 would be sited 1m from the side boundary adjacent 19 Holme Grove,

with the front building line of the proposed house in line with the rear of 19 Holme Grove. The sight lines, measured at a 45-degree angle from first floor habitable room windows, are not breached by the proposal. The rear amenity space of 19a Holme Grove is located 19m from the rear windows of house 4 however a large detached double garage between 19 and 19a Holme Grove ensures that there would be no overlooking onto the outdoor living area.

3.17 Given these separation distances, it is considered that the proposal would not

adversely affect the residential amenities of surrounding properties, in compliance with policies BE19, BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP and meets



the requirements of design principles 5.1 and 7.1 of the Design Guide: Residential Layout & House Design.

3.18 Policy H12 of the UDP states that proposals for backland development bin

residential areas will only be permitted provided no undue noise and disturbance is likely to be caused to adjoining occupiers. In this case, the access would be sited a minimum distance of 7.2m from the flank walls of 20 and No.24 Parkway. The siting of the proposed access road and its proximity to No.20 and No. 24 has not substantially changed from the previous application. No. 24 has habitable room windows at ground and first floor level which face towards the proposed access. It is considered that the proposed driveway by reason of its proximity close to 24 Parkway would result in noise nuisance to the detriment of the occupiers of 24 Parkway, contrary to Policies H12 and BE24 of the Borough's adopted Unitary Development Plan. The third reason for refusal therefore would still apply.

(iv) Whether suitable amenities are provided for future occupiers

3.19 The proposed houses would provide private rear amenity space ranging between 133m2 and 200m2. The amenity space for the existing houses Nos. 18 and 20 would be 420m2 and 280m2 respectively. The guidance in the Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design indicate that the minimum provision for 4-bedroom house should be 100sqm. The proposed amenity space would therefore meet standards for existing and future occupiers and would meet the requirements of design principle 7.1 and policy BE23 of the UDP. The houses are of a size that is considered to provide suitable accommodation for future occupiers.

(v) Pedestrian and vehicular access, trees and landscaping and security

3.20 The proposal would not give rise to additional congestion to justify refusal. Two parking spaces for each house would be provided in line with the Council’s Parking Standards. The proposed access to the site is located to the south of No. 22 Parkway.

3.21 The Traffic Engineer does not consider that the proposal would prejudice

highway and pedestrian safety or result in a significant increase in traffic and parking on Parkway. Visibility splays are provided onto Parkway and proposal is not considered likely to result in a significant increase in traffic in line with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.

3.22 The proposed boundary treatment and landscaping, particularly along the

assess way, are sufficient to prevent the development from having an adverse impact on the security and safety of adjacent residential properties.

3.23 The Design Guide: ‘Car Parking in Front Gardens’, advises that a separate

pedestrian access from the vehicular access should be provided. The submitted drawings demonstrate that a separate pedestrian access can be



provided for each house and therefore meets this requirement of the design guide.

Planning Obligation

3.24 The Director of Education has advised that this development would generate

the need for additional school places in the Hillingdon area. It has been calculated that a contribution of £42,280 should be sought from the applicant towards additional school places in pre-school, primary and secondary schools. The applicant has failed to provide a financial contribution and the proposal is therefore fails to comply with Policy R17 of the UDP. The fourth reason for refusal would therefore still apply.

Comments on Public Consultations

3.25 With regard to the letters of objection received point (i), (ii), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x),

(xi), (xii) and (xiii) are addressed in the main body of the report. Points (iii), (iv) and (v) are not material planning considerations.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant

planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

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

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

Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or



other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the

developer, and the developer will make a contribution to the Council towards school places. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or the Council.

6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The proposed development is considered to have an adverse impact on the

adjoining Green Belt land and the Area of Special Local Character. The proposed access road would adversely affect the amenities for existing occupiers of No.24 Parkway and the applicant has failed to contribute towards additional school places in the Hillingdon area. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with the relevant UDP policies, and Council’s design guides.

Reference Documents: (a) Unitary Development Plan (b) Design Guide: Residential Layout & House Design (c) Letters of objection and Petition Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 556774



BLOCK PLAN



B Item No. 4 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND AT JUNCTION OF BATH ROAD AND NEWPORT ROAD,

HEATHROW AIRPORT Development: DISPLAY OF A SINGLE SIDED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED

SCROLLING ADVERTISEMENT HOARDING. LBH Ref Nos: 49766/ADV/2006/26 Drawing Nos: 2031, ELEVATIONAL DRAWING, PHOTOGRAPHS. Date of receipt: 23/03/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: Transport for London Awaiting response

NATS (National Air Traffic Services) Awaiting response

BAA (Safeguarding) Awaiting response

Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents’ Association

Awaiting response

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site currently comprises a 5.8m high single-sided, internally

illuminated free standing advertisement sign on a central support pole, located on a high quality landscaped area adjacent to the junction of Bath Road and Newport Road, Heathrow. The existing advertisement display was allowed at appeal on 4th June 1996 (ref: 50701/95/3138). A later application for the display of an externally illuminated unipole sign was approved by the Council on 18th January 1999 (ref: 50701A/98/3181). The site is bounded by the A4 (Bath Road), a busy dual carriageway, to the north, Newport Road to the east and Newbury Road to the south. The site falls within the boundaries of Heathrow Airport as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.

2. It is proposed to replace the existing advertisement sign with a new internally illuminated, single-sided, scrolling advert sign, which would measure 6.5m by 3.35m by 6.5m high and scroll every 7 seconds. The display would face the traffic travelling westbound on the A4 Bath Road with the reverse side blank, and would be supported by a single side column.

3. The area surrounding the proposed advertisement is characterised by busy roads and commercial properties, and there are numerous forms of advertisement used all along Bath Road and around the main airport entrances. Although the proposed advertisement is in a prominent location and would be marginally wider and taller than the existing advertisement, thus



increasing its visual impact, it is considered that the proposal is visually acceptable. Of particular relevance is the decision by the appeal Inspector to allow the existing sign. The Inspector considered the sign to be acceptable in terms of amenity and public safety.

4. Although the scrolling advertisement may be slightly more visually prominent

than a static display, the rear of the advertisement would be blank. This would remove the existing west facing advertisement and offset the proposed sign enlargement.

5. As the proposal is replacing an existing sign, it is not considered that road

safety should be an issue, however, the Council is still awaiting a response from Transport for London, who have responsibility for Bath Road. It should be noted that Newport Road is managed by the airport operator. Should the highway authority object to the scrolling nature of the advertisement as representing an additional distraction to drivers travelling westbound on the A4, delegated powers are available to refuse the application on this basis.

6. The proposed advertisement is generally similar in size to that which it is

replacing but instead of two static displays it would be replaced by a single scrolling display. It is considered that any possible increase in visual impact would be marginal. The proposal is considered to comply with polices pt1.27, BE13, BE17 and BE27 of the Unitary Development Plan. As such it is recommended that Advertisement Consent be granted subject to receipt of comments raising no objections from Transport for London, BAA Safeguarding and National Air Traffic Services.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be



proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to no objections from Transport for London (TfL), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and BAA Safeguarding, delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Transportation to grant Advertisement Consent subject to the conditions below. Should an objection be received from TfL, NATS or BAA Safeguarding then the application would be refused on highways safety or/and safeguarding grounds. 1. ADV1 – Standard Advertisement

conditions 1. (ADV1) Standard

2. The intensity of illumination of the advertisement shall not exceed 800 candelas per metre².

2. (ADV4) Standard

3. ADV7 – Type of illumination 3. (ADV7) Standard 4. ADV8 – Removal of existing

signs 4. (ADV8) Standard

5. OM1 – Development in accordance with approved plans

5. (OM1) Standard




BLOCK PLAN



B

Item No. 5 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND AT JUNCTION OF BATH ROAD AND NENE ROAD,

HEATHROW AIRPORT Development: INSTALLATION OF A SINGLE SIDED INTERNALLY

ILLUMINATED ADVERTISEMENT HOARDING. LBH Ref Nos: 49766/ADV/2006/27 Drawing Nos: 2030, ELEVATIONAL DRAWING, PHOTOGRAPHS. Date of receipt: 23/03/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: Transport for London Awaiting response NATS (National Air Traffic Services) Awaiting response BAA (Safeguarding) Awaiting response Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents’ Association

Awaiting response

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The proposed site currently comprises a double-sided, internally illuminated

free standing advertisement sign on a 3m high support pole. This sign, which measures 6.3m by 3.3m by 5.8m high is located on a high quality landscaped area adjacent to the junction of Bath Road and Nene Road, Heathrow, and was allowed at appeal on 11th March 1996 (ref: 35261/B/94/3085). This sign replaced two internally illuminated triangular signs at this site which were approved in 1984 (ref: 35261A/84/3133). The site is bounded by the A4 (Bath Road), a busy dual carriageway, to the north, Nene Road to the west and Nene Road Roundabout and Nettleton Road to the south and east. The site falls within the boundaries of Heathrow Airport as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.

2. It is proposed to replace the existing advertisement sign with a new internally illuminated, single-sided, scrolling advert sign, which would measure 6.5m by 3.35m with a total height of 6.5m above ground level and scroll every 7 seconds. The display would face the traffic travelling westbound on the A4 Bath Road with the reverse side blank, and would be supported by a single side column.

3. The area surrounding the proposed advertisement is characterised by busy roads and commercial properties, and there are numerous forms of advertisement used all along Bath Road and around the main airport entrances. Although the proposed advertisement is in a prominent location and would be marginally wider and taller than the existing advertisement, thus



increasing its visual impact, it is considered that the proposal is visually acceptable. The considerations of the Inspector who permitted the existing sign are particularly relevant. The Inspector stated:

“…the impact of the display as a whole would tend to be softened by the well established landscaping on this corner site, and I do not consider that the unit would raise any conflict of scale or character with the substantial commercial and other buildings in the wider street scene.”

4. The Inspector concluded that the advertisement was acceptable in terms of amenity and public safety.

5. Although the scrolling advertisement may be slightly more visually prominent

than a static display, the rear of the advertisement would be blank. This would remove the existing west facing advertisement and offset the proposed sign enlargement.

6. As the proposal is replacing an existing sign of comparable size and design, it

is not considered that road safety should be an issue, however, the Council is still awaiting a response from Transport for London, who have responsibility for Bath Road. It should be noted that Nene Road is managed by the airport operator. Should the highway authority object to the scrolling nature of the advertisement as representing an additional distraction to drivers travelling westbound on the A4, delegated powers are available to refuse the application on this basis.

7. This site has been used for large advertisements since the mid 1980s. The

proposed advertisement is generally similar is size to that which it is replacing but instead of two static displays it would be replaced by a single scrolling display. It is considered that any possible increase in visual impact would be marginal. The proposal is considered to comply with polices pt1.27, BE13, BE17 and BE27 of the Unitary Development Plan. As such it is recommended that Advertisement Consent be granted subject to receipt of comments raising no objections from Transport for London, BAA Safeguarding and National Air Traffic Services.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for



private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to no objections from Transport for London (TfL), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and BAA Safeguarding, delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Transportation to grant Advertisement Consent subject to the conditions below. Should an objection be received from TfL, NATS or BAA Safeguarding then the application would be refused on highways safety or/and safeguarding grounds. 1. ADV1 – Standard Advertisement

conditions 1. (ADV1) Standard

2. The intensity of illumination of the advertisement shall not exceed 800 candelas per metre².

2. (ADV4) Standard

3. ADV7 – Type of illumination 3. (ADV7) Standard 4. ADV8 – Removal of existing

signs 4. (ADV8) Standard

5. OM1 – Development in accordance with approved plans

5. (OM1) Standard




BLOCK PLAN



B

Item No. 6 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: CAR SPARES, 1 RIVERSIDE COTTAGE, THE COMMON,

WEST DRAYTON Development: RETENTION OF 20M HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER

COMPRISING 3 ANTENNAS, ONE 300MM DISH, RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINET AND ANCILLARY FENCING FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS.

LBH Ref Nos: 4161/APP/2006/948 Drawing Nos: 00208440-111, 00208440 and 00208440 Date of receipt: 24/03/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS:

Consultation letters were sent to 21 local owner/occupiers, West Drayton Residents’ Association and a site notice was posted. To date no responses have been received.

BAA Safeguarding Awaiting response NATS Awaiting response South Bucks District Council Awaiting response

KEY PLANNING ISSUES

1. The application site is located immediately south of a commercial car

breakers facility, and approximately 20m north of the M25/M4 eastbound slip road. Three residential properties are located approximately 80m northwest of the application site, with Riverside Cottages located a similar distance northeast of the site. There is a large earth mound separating the site from the scrap yard. The site and surrounding area is within the Green Belt.

2. This full planning application is submitted by Hutchison 3G (UK) Ltd in order

to provide continued 3G coverage to the M4/M25 interchange area as part of its licence obligations. It seeks continued retention of a temporary telecommunications mast for a period of 12 months. The mast is 20m high and supported by cable stays. A 300mm diameter dish is sited at the top with 3 panel antennas at 15m. Temporary fencing surrounds the mast, together with an electricity generator, fuel tank and ancillary ground based equipment.



3. This installation was given temporary permission in November 2004 (ref: 4161/APP/2004/809) whilst the applicant progressed a mast share option with an existing Vodafone installation which is located approximately 685m to the north west within South Bucks. Hutchison 3G has now secured full planning permission, dated 4th November 2005, from South Bucks District Council for the redevelopment of the Vodafone site, which will house antennas, dishes and ancillary apparatus belonging to Vodafone, Hutchison 3G, O2 and Orange. Given the number of operators involved, the redevelopment of the mast has taken longer to progress than originally envisaged. As such Hutchison wish to retain this existing facility until the Vodafone mast is ready for use.

4. The application site also contains a 30m high T-Mobile (UK) Ltd installation

comprising three antennas, a 300mm dish and associated equipment cabin and generator enclosed within perimeter fencing. This is located adjacent to the Hutchison 3G installation. Planning permission was refused for the temporary retention of this T-Mobile mast on 20.8.03 (ref: 4161/APP/2003/1383) but a 12-month temporary permission was allowed on appeal on 8.1.04. The Inspector concluded that very special circumstances applied – specifically that the installation was needed only temporarily pending establishment of a permanent site on an electricity pylon for which prior approval had been obtained.

5. Officers are aware that this T-Mobile mast is now time expired and have been

advised by T-Mobile’s Project Manager that negotiations with Gridcom to use a nearby electricity pylon are ongoing. The Council will be updated on progress on this matter after a meeting between T-Mobile and Gridcom before the end of the month.

6. The current application has been assessed against policy OL1 of the Unitary

Development Plan, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. It has also been assessed against policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. Both seek to find solutions which minimise the impact of telecommunications development on the appearance of the surrounding area. However, the considerations of the Inspector who determined the T-Mobile appeal are particularly relevant as the sites are adjacent and the circumstances similar. The Inspector stated:

“…the impact on the green belt would not be permanent. In view of the pressing need, as demonstrated by the use by the operators of emergency powers under the GPDO, and the fact that the cell to be covered is almost entirely within the green belt, I consider that there are very special circumstances in this case.”

7. In terms of visual impact he stated:

“In my assessment, the proposed slimline mast would be a point feature within the flat landscape of this area but it would be on a narrow strip of land



sandwiched between the major highway infrastructure of the M4/M25 interchange and a landscape bund for an extensive scrapyard to the north. In mid views the mast would be viewed against one of these features. Despite the green belt location the characteristics of the area are not primarily open but mainly those of development, albeit that the scrap yard uses pre-date 1948. On this basis I conclude that the proposal would not have any significant impact on the overall character and appearance of the area or on the visual amenities of the green belt.”

8. The T-Mobile mast is 10m higher than the 3G mast and as such is more

visually prominent. Given the greater visual impact of the T-Mobile mast and the decision of the appeal Inspector to allow it in this location, it is considered that very special circumstances exist to allow this less obtrusive H3G installation for a further temporary period of 12 months.

9. In terms of concerns about setting a precedent for a permanent mast at the

site the Inspector stated:

“…for a proposal for a permanent mast to succeed all alternatives would need to be very fully evaluated in order to establish very special circumstances as well as to comply with UDP policy BE37. It would be a rigorous test.”

10. In terms of potential health concerns, the previous Inspector stated:

“I recognise that residents have concerns about the effect of radio emissions on health. However, the appellants have confirmed that the signal strength would be within ICNIRP guidelines and, as advised in PPG8, this represents a precautionary approach in accordance with the Stewart report. As this would be a temporary installation there would be no long term effect and the overall quality of the residential environment would not be seriously affected.”

11. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed installation complies with the

ICNIRP guidelines. 12. The application is recommended for approval for a temporary period of 12

months. Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to



planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Recent court cases concerning telecommunications development, including the Harrogate Case which went to the Court of Appeal on 12.11.04, have clarified the primacy of Government health advice in this field. The Court of Appeal ruled that a proposed telecommunications mast was acceptable despite a planning inspector having dismissed a planning appeal because he was not convinced that the appellants had provided enough reassurance that there would be no material harm to young children at local schools.

This significant legal judgement backs Government policy and clearly limits the ability of local planning authorities to resist telecommunications installations close to schools or houses on grounds of any adverse health impacts. Observations of The Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Planning and Transportation Group and the wider Council. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. The structures hereby permitted

shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on a date which is either immediately following the first

1. The development is not considered to be acceptable as a permanent structure by reason of siting and appearance.



transmissions from a replacement installation or upon the expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of this decision, whichever is the earliest.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), there shall be no floodlighting or other form of external lighting within the site.

2. To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy BE13 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone Number: 01895 277580



BLOCK PLAN