3.1The application concerns a detached bungalow situated on the

Transcription

AVAILABLE IN
LARGE PRINT
Meeting: North Planning Committee
Date:
Tuesday 22nd June 2004 Time: 7.30pm
Place:
Committee Room 5, Civic Centre Uxbridge
Committee Administrator: Gill Brice
Press Enquiries:
Roy Mills
Tel: 01895 250693
Tel: 01895 250534
Councillors on the Committee
Conservative
Labour
Scott Seaman-Digby (Chairman)
David Horne
Margaret Grant (Vice-Chairman)
Peter Curling
Bruce Baker
Tony Burles
Shirley Harper O’Neill
Substitute Members
Substitute Members
Josephine Barrett
Dave Allam
Ann Banks
Janet Duncan
David Bishop
Roshan Ghei
George Cooper
Paul Harmsworth
Geoff Courtenay
Norman Nunn-Price
John Hensley
Peter Ryerson
Mary O’Connor
Paramjit Sethi
Advisory Members
Michael Platts
Eastcote Conservation Panel
Clive Pigram
Ruislip Conservation Panel
John Ross
Harefield Conservation Panel
Michael Hirst
Canal Locks Conservation Panel
You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached.
David Brough
Head of Democratic Services
Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room
Parking is available to the public attending meetings - entrance off the High Street
Please ensure that your Mobile Phone is switched off before the start of the meeting
Date of Despatch: Monday 14th June 2004
RUISLIP/NORTHWOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE – 22nd June 2004
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Apologies for absence
Declarations of interests
Signature by the Chairman of the Minutes of the meeting held on 27th May 2004.
Disclosure of ‘any other business’ and urgent items to be considered in
public and private.
Confirmation of all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that any items
marked Part 2 will be considered in private.
Report of the Head of Planning Services, copy attached.
PART 1 – PUBLIC
CAVENDISHAND EASTCOTE AND EAST RUISLIP WARDS
Item 1
Proposed Article 4 Directions – Manor Way, Ruislip and Morford Way,
Eastcote
Page 1
EASTCOTE AND EAST RUISLIP WARD
Item 2
18 Pinn Way
Item 3
Land forming part of
63, 65 and 67
Lowlands Road
Eastcote
Erection of a four-bedroom, two-storey
detached house
Recommendation : Approval
Erection of a five-bedroom detached house
Page 8
Page 15
ICKENHAM WARD
Item 4
80 The Drive
Ickenham
Item 5
1 Harvil Road
Ickenham
Item 6
35 The Drive
Ickenham
Re-thatching of roof (Application for Listed
Building Consent) (Retrospective Application)
Recommendation : Consent
Erection of a detached 8-bedroom house with a
rear conservatory (involving demolition of
existing house) and installation of a new
vehicular crossover (Including amendments to
planning permission ref 2539/APP/2001/1943
dated 19/12/01) (Part Retrospective
Application)
Erection of two five-bedroom, two-storey
detached dwellinghouses, provision of parking
and formation of new access (Involving
demolition of existing dwellinghouse)
Recommendation : Approval subject to a
S106 agreement
Page 25
Page 29
Page 39
MANOR WARD
Item 7
175 Beverley Road
Ruislip Manor
Erection of a single storey rear extension and a
rear conservatory
Item 8
47 Ashburton Road
Ruislip
Erection of two-storey side and rear extension
and conversion of house to 2, one-bedroom
flats with associated parking
Page 46
Page 50
NORTHWOOD WARD
Item 9
Block 96
Mount Vernon Hospital
Rickmansworth Road
Item 10
True Lovers Knot
Rickmansworth Road
Northwood
Item 11
Rickmansworth Road
Northwood
Item 12
23B Green Lane
Northwood
Item 13
(A & B)
Dell Court
Green Lane
Northwood
Erection of a temporary single-storey health
centre building to accommodate GP
practice during construction of permanent
building elsewhere (Involving demolition of
existing temporary building)
Erection of 2 storey block with
accommodation in the roof space to provide
13 residential apartments with associated
lower ground floor parking and access and
amenity space (Involving demolition of the
existing building)
Recommendation : Refusal
Erection of a part two storey, part three
storey building as an extension to existing
radiotherapy facilities (Involving demolition
of existing single storey building and
container units) (Outline Application)
Redevelopment of the site to provide a
block of 12 two-bedroom flats and
associated car parking (Involving the
demolition of two existing bungalows)
Erection of a three-storey block of 12
residential units, block of 8 garages and 10
car parking spaces (Involving demolition of
existing building) (Duplicate Applications)
Page 58
Page 70
Page 84
Page 98
Page 114
Item 14
Adjoining South Gate
Rickmansworth Road
Northwood
Item 15
1A Ravenswood Park
Gate Hill Estate
Northwood
Item 16
Erection of a part one part, two-storey
medical centre with associated car parking
and landscaping
Unauthorised erection of timber boundary
fencing
Recommendation : To Consider
expediency of Enforcement Action
Northwood Cricket Club Erection of new clubhouse (Involving
Ducks Hill Road
demolition of existing clubhouse,
Northwood
scoreboard/hut and tea hut
Page 130
Page 151
Page 155
NORTHWOOD HILLS WARD
Item 17 The Woodman
(A) & (B) Public House
Joel Street
Pinner
(A) Erection of a single storey extension and
new pitched roof to storage building
Page 163
(B) Erection of a single storey extension and
new pitched roof to storage building
(Application for Listed Building Consent)
Item 18
7 Hillside Crescent
Northwood
Item 19
Northwood Health
Centre
Neal Close
Northwood
Item 20
Land rear of 29-55
Tolcarne Drive and
Ryefield Crescent
adjacent to
Hawthorne Court
Northwood Hills
Recommendation : Consent
Erection of a single storey side and rear
extension with extended roof (gable end at
rear) front dormer, rear and side window
rooflights and use of extended roofspace as
habitable accommodation
Redevelopment of existing health centre to
provide part single, part two, part three storey
building for the purposes of a health centre
and eight residential flats at third floor, 53 car
parking spaces and associated landscaping
(involving demolition of existing health centre)
Recommendation : Refused
Erection of a part two and single storey
warehouse with ancillary office and associated
car parking
Page 172
Page 176
Page 194
Item 21
Item 22
Madalane House
Hillside Road
Pinner
Replacement of double garage with new
driveway and provision of wall with double
gates on Hillside Road frontage within the
London Borough of Harrow
Land at rear of 154 and
156 Joel Street
fronting Norwich Road
Northwood
Recommendation : That no objections
be raised to the application
Erection of a pair of four bedroom semidetached houses
Page 201
Page 204
Recommendation : Approval subject to
a S106 agreement
WEST RUISLIP
Item 23
Ruislip Underground
Station
Station Approach
Ruislip
Installation of front security gates, a grille
above and the repositioning of information
boards (Listed building consent)
Page 212
Recommendation : Consent subject to
direction from English Heritage an no
material objections being received
ALL WARDS
Item 24
Item 25
7.
New Appeals and Appeal Decisions Received
Officers Delegated Cases
Any other business and urgent items in Part 1
PART 2 – PRIVATE, MEMBERS ONLY
8.
9.
Any items transferred from Part 1
Any other business and urgent items in Part 2
Page 217
Page 221
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 22 JUNE 2004
(NORTH)
REPORT OF THE HEAD
OF PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION
A
Item No. 1
Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
CONTACT OFFICER:
JANET RANGELEY/
JON FINNEY
PROPOSED ARTICLE 4 DIRECTIONS
RUISLIP: MANOR WAY AND EASTCOTE: MORFORD WAY CONSERVATION
AREAS
SUMMARY
On the 25 April 2003 the Ruislip/Northwood Planning Committee considered a report
regarding the use of Article 4 Directions to control minor developments, in two
Conservation Areas - (Manor Way, Ruislip and Morford Way, Eastcote). These
minor developments would normally be classed as permitted development, but there
was concern that the character and amenity of the Conservation Area was being
irretrievably damaged. The proposed Article 4 Direction for each of the two
Conservation Areas was considered an appropriate way of resolving the existing
problem and potential threat resulting from these minor developments. Members
therefore authorised officers to undertake a consultation with local residents on the
proposal. The outcome of the consultation is contained in this report. Given the
great variety of views submitted in responses, officers are recommending that a
public meeting should be arranged to allow full discussion of the issues concerning
the proposed Article 4 Direction for the two Conservation Areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
That Members note the consultation responses as detailed in the
Appendix to the report.
2.
That officers are instructed to arrange a public meeting for all residents
in early July 2004.
3.
That the outcome of the public meeting an a progress report on the
proposed Article 4 directions is submitted to a meeting of this
Committee by the end of September 2004.
INFORMATION
1. What is an Article 4 Direction?
Members are reminded of the purpose of an Article 4 Direction as follows:North Planning Committee – 22 June 2004
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Page 6
Small-scale extensions and alterations often fall within “permitted development”
rights, allowing householders to carry out works without planning permission. In
Conservation Areas, permitted development rights are slightly more restricted but
obviously within such areas, the overall character and appearance is that much
more important. It has therefore been possible for the Secretary of State to
remove permitted development rights by an Article 4 Direction. Since 1995, the
Local Planning Authority can make a Direction without reference to the Secretary
of State for the Environment [Article 4(2) as set out in Appendix D of Circular
9/95].
Local concerns over the recent change of timber windows to UVPC within the
Ruislip: Manor Way Conservation Area and the importance of such details in the
Eastcote: Morford Way Conservation Area indicate that there is a need for such a
Direction.
It should be emphasised that an Article 4 Direction brings minor works under
control; it does not prevent them. Alterations that preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area will of course be considered
favourably.
Minor works would include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
The demolition of chimneys and front garden walls – and their erection or alteration.
The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse;
The alteration of a dwellinghouse roof;
The erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse;
The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any
purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such; and
The painting of a dwellinghouse or a building or enclosure within the curtilage of a
dwellinghouse.
A: RUISLIP: MANOR WAY CONSERVATION AREA
Manor Way is the only completed fragment of a grand scheme for a Garden
Suburb between Eastcote and Ruislip. The proposal by Kings College,
Cambridge (who owned the land), was an echo of the scheme for Hampstead
Garden Suburb. There was a competition and the winner was Soutar who had
taken over from Unwin as Architect at Hampstead. The proposed layout was
based on a north-south axis marked by the present Victoria Road. Only one
part of the development was completed before the outbreak of the 1st World
War halted progress. That part is Manor Way, and it has houses by many of
the well-known architects of the day. Bunny and Makins, Herbert Welch,
Crickmer, Soutar and Hignett all designed set pieces along the road. Many of
the houses were built by the Ruislip Manor Village Cottage Society and have
been well maintained using traditional materials. An Article 4 Direction would
help to keep the uniform high quality particularly on the “set piece” groups of
buildings.
North Planning Committee – 22 June 2004
Page 7
B: EASTCOTE: MORFORD WAY CONSERVATION AREA
The designated area includes Morford Way and Morford Close, and the two
ranges of shops designed by Frank Osler and built by Tellings just after the 1st
World war.
The Article 4 Direction would apply only to the residential properties behind the
Field End Road blocks. Some of these houses were designed by Osler and
built by Tellings, while other plots were sold off subject to strict controls over
the sort of house that would be acceptable. The houses are of architectural
and historic interest and their quality depends largely upon details such as
windows, doors and porches. Alterations would therefore have a major impact
upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and an Article 4
Direction would bring these changes under control.
3.
Public Consultation
Over 250 leaflets were delivered to all properties within the Ruislip: Manor
Way Conservation Area and 75 within the Eastcote: Morford Way
Conservation Area including copies to interested organisations. Overall there
was a limited response to the consultation exercise, with approximately 11%
response in Ruislip and 10% in Eastcote. Members should note that English
Heritage and the Ruislip Manor Cottage Society are supportive of both the
proposed Article 4 Directions.
The responses received resulted in no overall support or objection for the
proposals. From the consultation responses detailed in the Appendix to the
report, the main concerns are over the actual area which the Article 4
Directions would cover, the amount of control, level of restrictions exercised
and the inclusion of all minor works.
4.
Officers’ Response
An Article 4 Direction is useful in controlling minor changes to buildings which
may in themselves be harmful to the appearance of the building and
cumulatively can damage the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area. Such minor works frequently do not need planning permission as they
are allowed as permitted development under the terms of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. There is
clearly a balance to be struck between the individual’s right to do what he will
with his own home, and the needs of the wider community whose collective
interests and amenities also need to be protected. Within Conservation
Areas, this matter is clearly one of major importance as the Local Planning
Authority is seeking to preserve or enhance the character of the area that it
has designated for that specific purpose.
5.
It is essential that local residents are supportive of any proposals, and given
the diversity of responses outlined above and detailed in the Appendix to the
report, it is suggested that further consultation take place. Officers are
Page 8
recommending a public meeting to debate the issues and to establish whether
local residents would be supportive of any form of Article 4 Direction; including
a less restrictive one.
Accordingly a meeting has been provisionally arranged for 8pm on Tuesday
6 July 2004 at St Lawrence Hall, Eastcote. Officers are seeking Member
endorsement of this date. Notification of the meeting is ready to be publicised
from Wednesday 23 June 2004. Following such a meeting, a further report
would be submitted to this Committee for consideration.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning
legislation, regulations, guidance, and circulars and also, the provisions of the
Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of
relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into
account.
Observations of the Director of Finance
The costs of holding the public meeting are contained within the existing Planning
and Transportation Service’s budget.
Conclusion
Given the diverse response, Members are recommended to consult further, by holding
a public meeting with the residents of the two Conservation Areas.
Background Documents
•
•
•
Ruislip: Manor Way consultation leaflet
Eastcote: Morford Way consultation leaflet
Responses to the public consultation exercise
Page 9
APPENDIX
Details of Article 4 Consultation Responses:
A.
RUISLIP: MANOR WAY CONSERVATION AREA
Support
Strong support for proposals. Highly desirable to safeguard the character of the
area particularly where windows or doors are concerned.
Proposal acceptable; hope that it will be implemented. Need for fair and nonpolitical decisions in assessing Applications. Control/restriction of the overall
character of the area is welcomed.
Query about extent of Direction but “in general the idea receives my support
although there are clearly some houses to which it applies more than others.”
Applaud intention of preserving the character of the Ruislip Manor area and the
control of any alterations or extensions that might adversely affect “its present
standards”. Some concern over the inclusion of all minor works.
Suggestions of enhancement – mainly to do with parking restrictions.
Public meeting would be useful. Questions over “consultations with Ruislip
Cottage Society” and over the “need for Article 4”.
Agreed in principle but implementation may be difficult and would have to be
flexible. Suggestion for enhancement of open spaces; and in relation to parking
restrictions.
Would like greater restrictions. “Local and central government can and should
promote and control the maintenance of our local heritage”. Change must though
be controlled rather than prevented.
Pleased with CA designation but concerned over lack of improvements. Cottage
Society praised for house repairs but should also deal with garden walls and
fences. Badly repaired pavements and litter are also problems.
In principle, support the measures. However consider use of new materials (e.g.
UPVC) is not in itself a bad thing as long as the overall appearance of traditionally
styled houses is preserved. Emphasises the problem of parking.
Permission should be sought from the Authority to avoid alterations that do not
blend. Front walls etc. should be controlled. Enhancement should be focussed on
road sweeping and street furniture.
Page 10
Supports Article 4 Direction as a means of restraining “pretentious” alterations.
Has lived in Manor Way since 1932 and wishes to see character retained. Cottage
Society commended for their efforts over the years.
Objections
Proposal to make Manor Way a CA inappropriate and an Article 4 Direction would
make minor updates difficult. Need to know more. Public meeting should be held.
Cottage Society already has strict rules; other houses should be excluded. Using
one case of a change to UPVC windows is not an excuse to go ahead.
2 types of houses – Garden Suburb and others – should be separated but basically
owners should be allowed to do what they want with their houses provided their
proposals do not interfere with their neighbours.
Concern that residents within the controlled area will be at a disadvantage and the
Direction could discourage owners from keeping their houses properly repaired.
Modern materials should be acceptable if they match.
CA already provides good guidelines and Article 4 Direction is not therefore
considered necessary or fair. Change to UVPC windows is a beneficial and
straightforward alteration. The houses are not Listed Buildings.
Not in favour because of the greater control that would be exercised by the
Council.
Article 4 Direction regarded as an absolute waste of time and taxpayers’ money.
Disagree with Article 4 Direction because such a change should not be made
without support of all residents, because of the different building types within the
area.
Concerns as follows: Direction would place unnecessary restrictions on
householders.
Opposed to the suggestion because of the need to update houses designed for
people in 1934 not 2002.
Concern over extent of control. More information is required. Maintaining general
character is appreciated but there is a danger of over-regulation.
Broadly in favour of keeping some control over changes but concern that not all
houses within the area are of the same quality. Also priority should be roads,
pavements and parking. Presently against an Article 4 Direction.
Article 4 may discourage any attempt to modernise the privately owned properties
in the CA. Council will want to control the installation of central heating systems
etc. Accepts that control rather than prohibition is the aim.
Page 11
Did not know they were in a CA and properties in Eastcote Road not in character.
Article 4 would be unduly bureaucratic in their case.
B
EASTCOTE: MORFORD WAY CONSERVATION AREA
Support
In principle would support proposals although concerned that there should not be
unreasonable delays resulting from unnecessary bureaucracy. UVPC windows
should be permitted if they properly match.
No objection to the proposed Article 4 Direction. As far as enhancement is
concerned the grass verges are somewhat neglected and there has been damage
to street trees.
Objections
Generally in favour of CA but not in favour of Article 4 Direction for Morford Close.
Small changes have been made without harm and Article 4 is not therefore
necessary.
In favour of CA but opposed to Morford Way properties being covered by an Article
4 Direction. Alterations have taken place, including the installation of UVPC
windows, without detriment and extra control is unnecessary.
In general Eastcote is not an area that warrants conservation. Morford Way has
always maintained its character and the extended restrictions of an Article 4
Direction are not considered necessary.
Page 12
A
2.0
Item No. 2
Address:
18 PINN WAY, RUISLIP
Development:
ERECTION OF A FOUR-BEDROOM, TWO-STOREY
DETACHED HOUSE
LBH Ref Nos:
53540/APP/2003/2255
Drawing Nos:
Unnumbered location plan, BM/02 A, BM/01, BM/O1 A and
unnumbered photographs received on 20/09/03, 27/11/03 and
11/05/04
Date of receipt:
20/09/03
Dates of Amendments: 27/11/03
and 11/05/04
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought to demolish an existing bungalow and erect a
detached house. The siting, scale and design of the proposal is considered to
be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not detract from the
amenities of adjoining residents. The proposal also provides satisfactory
accommodation for future residents. Planning permission is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(T1) Time Limit – full planning
application
(M1) Details/Samples to be
Submitted
(M3) Boundary Treatment –
details
(MRD4) Single Dwellings
Occupation
(RPD1) No Additional Windows
or Doors
(facing 16 and 20 Pinn Way
Ruislip)
(H7) Parking Arrangements
(Residential)
Provisions 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
1.
(T1) Standard
2.
(M1) Standard
3.
(M3) Standard
4.
(MRD4) Standard
5.
(RPD1) Standard
6.
(H7) Standard
7.
To safeguard the residential
amenity of the occupiers of
adjoining and nearby properties
during the construction phase.
Page 13
8.
9.
the adjoining highway.
(RPD5) Restrictions on Erection
of Extensions, Garages, Sheds
and Outbuildings
(MRD7) Dustbin Siting
8.
(RPD5) Standard
9.
(MRD7) Dustbin Siting
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3.0
(1)
(3)
(6)
(5)
(2)
(21)
Building to Approved Drawing
Neighbourly Consideration
Property Rights/Rights of Light
Party Walls
Encroachment
Street Naming/numbering
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The application concerns a detached bungalow situated on the southern side
of Pinn Way, 100m from its junction with St. Martins Approach. Two-storey
detached houses are situated on either side of the property. The surrounding
area is characterised by semi-detached and detached houses. The proposal
is situated in the Midcroft Gardens Area of Special Character.
Scheme
3.2
Planning permission is sought to demolish a detached bungalow and erect a
four bedroom, two storey detached house with an integral garage. The
proposed house is 12.7m wide and 9.5m deep. A single storey kitchen
extension projects by a further 4m to the rear. The house is 8.8m high.
Planning History
3.3
None
Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Area of Special Character
The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies are: Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the
amenity and the character of the area
Page 14
Part 2 Policies:
BE5
New development within areas of special local character
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
BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys
BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space
BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to
neighbours
H6
Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential
development
AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments
AM14 New development and car parking standards
SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’
Consultations
External Consultees
4 adjoining owners/occupiers have been consulted and 4 letters of objection
have been received, (3 from the same objector) raising the following
concerns:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The ground levels indicated are inaccurate. The raising of ground
levels required would result in a development, which would be
overdominant in relation to adjoining properties.
Insufficient information on the height is provided.
Drainage/flooding problems.
Loss of light.
Visually intrusive.
Out of keeping with the character of the area.
Page 15
Internal Consultees
Highway Engineer
No objection
Urban Design/ Conservation Officer
No reply
Main Planning Issues
3.4
The main planning issues are:
(i) Impact on the character and visual amenities of the area
(ii) Impact on the amenities of nearby residents
(iii) Provides a satisfactory accommodation for future residents
(iv) Impact on highway and pedestrian safety
(i) Impact on the character and visual amenities of the area
3.5
Pinn Way is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached
houses. The road has a variety of house styles and the plot widths vary. The
properties are set back from the road frontage to give the area an open
character and appearance.
3.6
It considered that the overall size, bulk and design of the proposal are not
out of keeping with other properties in Pinn Way. The adjoining pair of semidetached properties (Nos.20 and 22 Pinn Way) are set back from the road
frontage by 5.5m and the proposed house, which is set back by 7m from the
road frontage would not therefore unacceptably intrude into the existing street
scene.
3.7
The flank walls of the proposed house are inset by 1.2m from the side
boundaries with 16 and 20 Pinn Way. This distance is considered to be
sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not appear cramped in the street
scene, or give rise to an unacceptable loss of an open gap between
properties.
3.8
The proposal would not therefore detract from the visual amenities of this
Area of Special Character and complies with Policies BE5, BE13, BE19, and
BE22 of the UDP.
(ii)
3.9
Impact on the amenities of adjoining residents
16 and 20 Pinn Way are situated to the west and east of the application
site, respectively and have no habitable room windows facing the proposed
house. The two-storey element does not project beyond the rear of 16 and 20
Pinn Way. Although the proposed single storey rear extension would project
approximately 3.5m beyond 16 Pinn Way, it would be situated some 8m from
the flank wall of this property and, as such, the proposal is not considered to
have an overdominant impact on this property.
Page 16
3.10
The rear extension would project 2.8m beyond the rear of 20 Pinn Way
and its flank wall would be 1.2m from this property. It is considered that this
gap between the properties is sufficient to prevent an overdominant effect on
20 Pinn Way. Furthermore, given the orientation of the properties, any
increase in shadowing created would be over the new house or the adjoining
houses and not within the rear gardens.
3.11
The ground level of the application site is approximately 0.31m lower than
20 Pinn Way. It is proposed to raise the existing ground levels so that it
matches 20 Pinn Way. The ground level of the application site would be 0.4m
higher than 16 Pinn Way, which is 8.75m high. As such, the proposed house,
which is 8.8m high, would only be 0.5m higher than 16 Pinn Way. Taking into
consideration the siting of the proposed house, this difference in ground levels
is not considered to be so significant to result in an overdominant form of
development in relation to adjoining properties, when viewed from the street
scene. The proposal therefore complies with Policies BE20 and BE21 of the
UDP.
3.12
No habitable room windows are proposed in the flank walls facing the
adjoining properties. The privacy of adjoining residents will therefore be
safeguarded. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy BE24 of the
UDP.
(iii)
3.13
16 and 20 Pinn Way have no habitable windows, which face towards the
application site. The proposed amenity space would not be overlooked and as
such it provides adequate privacy for future occupiers. This Council’s Design
Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ requires a minimum of 100m2
to be provided for four-bedroom houses. 122m2 of amenity space is provided
in which is in excess of this Council’s minimum requirements. The proposal is
therefore considered to provide satisfactory accommodation for future
residents and complies with Policy BE23.
(iv)
3.14
Adequacy of accommodation for future residents
Impact on highway and pedestrian safety
The 2 parking spaces provided and the vehicular crossovers accords with this
Councils car parking standards. The proposal will not therefore give rise to on
street parking, prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. The Council’s
Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposed development in line
with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.
Comments on Public Consultations
3.15
Points (i), (iv), (v) and (vi) have been addressed in the main body of this
report. With regard to point (ii) the plans are to scale. Point (iii) is a matter for
Building Regulations.
Page 17
4.0
Observations of Borough Solicitor
4.1
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant
planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the
provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their
decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take
any irrelevant considerations into account.
5.0
5.1
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
Environmental Services Group and the wider Council.
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The proposal is considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area. It
would not detract from the amenities of adjoining residents and it would
provide satisfactory accommodation for future residents. Planning permission
is recommended.
Reference Documents:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Unitary Development Plan
Letters of objection
Contact Officer:
ANDY PARKER
Telephone No: 01895 556774
Page 18
Page 19
A
Item No. 3
Address:
LAND FORMING PART OF 63, 65 AND 67 LOWLANDS ROAD
EASTCOTE
Development:
ERECTION OF A FIVE-BEDROOM DETACHED HOUSE
LBH Ref Nos:
56032/APP/2004/976
Drawing Nos:
Unnumbered OS plan, CHM/2389/A1 Sheet 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
received on 08/04/04
Date of receipt:
08/04/04
Date(s) of Amendments: None
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
It is considered that the erection of a detached house would not result in the
overdevelopment of the site and that its siting, bulk and height would not give
rise to an obtrusive or overdominant form of development which would detract
from the character of the area. It is considered that the scale and
architectural composition of the proposal would not be out of keeping with
other houses in the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the street
scene.
1.2
Adequate amenity space is provided for existing and future occupies in
accordance with design guidance. The proposal would not be overdominant
or result in a loss of privacy to nearby occupiers. The proposed means of
access affords adequate visibility and parking is provided in accordance with
the Council’s standards. As such planning permission is recommended.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions : -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(TL1) Time Limit
(PRD5) Removal of Permitted
Development Rights
(PRD6) Fences, Gates and Walls
The Velux window facing Nos.
63,65 and 67 Lowlands Road
shall be obscured glazed and
non-opening for so long as the
development remains in
existence.
(PRD3) (First floor window(s)
facing Nos. 63,65 and 67
Lowlands Road)
(H11) Visibility at Junction
1.
2.
(TL1) Standard
(PRD5) Standard
3.
4.
(PRD6) Standard
(PRD3) Standard
5.
(H7) Standard
6.
7.
(H7) Standard
(H11) Standard
Page 20
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
(TL8) Minimum height of 3m
(M4) Means of Enclosure
(M1) Details/Samples
(PRD1) (….of the approved
development)
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 provided prior to the
occupation of the development
and thereafter permanently
retained.
(OM5) Bin Storage
8.
9.
10.
11.
(TL8) Standard
(M4) Standard
(M1) Standard
(PRD1) Standard
12.
To ensure that the development
does not cause danger and
inconvenience to users of the
adjoining pavement and
highway.
13.
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.
14.
(OM5) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work
(36) Property Rights/ Rights to Light
(1)
(4)
(23) Works affecting the Public Highway - Vehicle Cross-over
You are advised that any street furniture or lighting column affected by
the proposed works would be relocated under a rechargeable works
agreement by the Council's term contractor for Highway Works.
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:
BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings
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 buildings
BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy.
H6
development.
Page 21
H12. Tandem development of backland in residential.
AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation,
impact on congestion and public transport availability and
capacity.
AM14 New development and car parking standards.
3.0
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The application site comprises approximately half of the back gardens to the
rear of three semi-detached houses located on the northern side of Lowlands
Road, which runs in an east/west direction. Immediately to the east of No.63
the road turns to the north at 90 degrees. The proposed house would be
orientated at 90 degrees to the existing houses Nos. 63-65 (odd) so that the
front of the houses face east.
3.2
Lowlands Road and other roads within close proximity of the application site
predominantly comprise two storey semi-detached houses with long gardens,
a small number of which have extensions and loft conversions with rear
dormer additions, creating rooms within the roof.
Scheme
3.3
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an L-shaped five-bedroom
detached house. The house would be12m wide,13.5m deep and 8.6m high. It
would be finished in multi-stock red brickwork with ‘Redlands’ interlocking red
tiles. Two off street parking spaces are provided accessed from Lowlands
Road.
Planning History
3.4
Planning permission was refused in March 2002 for the erection of two, 5bedroom three-storey detached houses (ref.: 56032/APP/2001/400) for the
following reasons:
1.
The proposal would result in an over-development of the site with
an excessive site coverage and bulk of buildings that would be out
of keeping with the general scale of other semi-detached and
detached buildings in the area. The proposal would be detrimental
to the character and visual amenities of the area, contrary to policy
BE19 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan, and A1
and A2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential
Extensions.
2.
The size of the detached houses and their proposed location in the
rear gardens of three existing properties by reason of their overall
size, siting, bulk and height would represent an obtrusive form of
development to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining
Page 22
properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE20 and
BE21 of Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential
Extensions.
3.5
Planning permission was refused in July 2003 for the erection of two, 5bedroom detached houses with integral garages (ref: 56032/APP/2002/1134)
for the following reasons:
1.
The proposal does not provide a 1m gap between off the boundary
of the site and between the new dwellings, giving rise to a cramped
form of development, which would be detrimental to the visual
amenities of the street scene and character and appearance of the
area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PT1.10, BE13,
BE19, BE22 and H4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary
Development Plan. It is also contrary to the Council’s Design
Guide ‘Residential Extensions’.
2.
The proposal having regard to the size of surrounding gardens in
Lowlands Road, fails to maintain an adequate amount of amenity
space in order to relate satisfactorily with the character of the area,
and as such would be detrimental to the amenity of the
neighbouring occupiers and character of the area. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policies BE23 and BE24 from the Borough’s
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.
The proposal by reason of its siting, bulk and height would
represent an obtrusive and overdominant form of development that
would be out of keeping with the general scale of other houses in
the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. The
proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE21 from the Borough’s
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4.
The proposed access near the bend in the road would harm
highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policy AM7(ii) from the
Borough’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
UDP Designation: Developed Area.
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect
the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Pt1.13 To seek to ensure the provision of 8,000 additional dwellings in the
Borough
Page 23
Part 2 Policies:
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 buildings
BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy.
H6
development.
H12. Tandem development of backland in residential.
AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation, impact
on congestion and public transport availability and capacity.
AM14 New development and car parking standards.
Design Guide: Residential Layouts, Landscaping and House Design
Consultations
External Consultees
88 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted. 1 petition with 37 signatures
and 19 letters of objection has been received making the following points: (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
Inadequate room for construction and maintenance is provided.
Overdevelopment.
Inadequate drainage/sewerage.
Scale form and architectural composition of development is out
of keeping with the area.
Insufficient distance is provided to the boundary.
Siting of access is dangerous.
Loss of wildlife.
Inadequate parking.
Loss of light.
Restrictive covenants prevent development.
Gardens are too small.
Loss of privacy.
Page 24
(xiii)
A proposal for an additional house is likely to be submitted at a
later date.
Car fumes and pollution.
(xiv)
Eastcote Residents’ Association
Cllr. C. Dann
No response received
Access is on a dangerous bend with on
street parking.
Application should be recommended for
refusal.
Internal Consultees
Trees and Landscape Officer
No objection.
Traffic Engineer
No objection.
3.6
3.7
The main planning issues are considered to be:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The principle of backland (tandem) development
Impact on the character and visual amenity of the area
Impact on the amenity of adjoining residential properties
Provision for access and parking
(i)
The principle of backland (tandem) development
Policy H12 states “Proposals for tandem development of backland in
residential areas will only be permitted if no undue disturbance or loss of
privacy is likely to be caused to adjoining occupiers”. This policy
recognises that some houses with long back gardens may provide more
garden area than is actually required and can be developed for housing
purposes, provided that proposals conform with other policies in the UDP.
It is also specified that a proper means of access is required. There is
therefore no objection to this to this development subject to the proposal
satisfying Policy H12 and other policies in the UDP.
(ii)
3.8
Impact on the character and visual amenity of the area
The Deane Estate is characteristic 1930's development comprising semidetached and detached properties with a variety of house styles. Although
properties within the immediate vicinity of the application site are semidetached there are also detached properties on this Estate. The properties
are situated on large plots of land and generally have long gardens. The
houses are set back from the road frontage by 8 metres to establish building
lines. The area therefore has an open character and appearance.
Page 25
3.9
Reason for refusal No.3 of the previous application for two detached houses
was based upon the siting, bulk and height of the proposed development
representing an obtrusive and overdominant form of development that would
be out of keeping with the general scale of other houses in the area.
3.10
The removal of one house has reduced the site coverage of built
development. Whilst the siting, bulk and height of the proposed house is
identical to that previously refused, the nearest property on this side of
Lowlands Road is situated some 27metres away. The proposed development
when viewed from the street scene would therefore be situated some distance
from the nearest residential property. The gardens to the rear of Nos. 63, 65
and 67 are visible from Lowlands Road. The proposed house would shorten
three of the gardens. However, a substantial distance of some 27m would
remain between existing/proposed houses and it is considered that it would
not reduce the degree of spaciousness to sustain reason 2 of the application
refused in 2003.
3.11
The house would be set back by 4.8m from the road frontage. Although this
distance is less than other properties within the immediate vicinity the
proposed house would not project beyond the two storey flank wall of the
corner property 63 Lowlands Avenue. The proposed house would not
therefore intrude into the street scene in this respect.
3.12
The siting, scale and architectural composition of the proposed house would
not appear out of keeping with adjoining development and the visual
amenities of the street scene would not therefore be adversely affected. It is
considered that the proposal would not detract from the character of the area
and reason for refusal No. 3 of the previous application is adequately
addressed.
3.13
Policy H6 of the Council’s UDP requires proposals for residential development
above 150 habitable room per hectare to include sufficient details to
demonstrate that the layout and design are of a quality that produces good
environmental conditions within the development and that it harmonises with
its surroundings. The proposed development has a density of 136 habitable
rooms per hectare and therefore complies with Policy H6.
3.14
Reason for refusal 1 of the previous application for two houses was on the
grounds that insufficient space was provided between houses giving rise to a
cramped form of development. As one of these houses has now been
removed reason for refusal No.1 no longer applies. Accordingly, the proposal
is considered to comply with policies BE13, BE19, BE21 and BE23.
(iii)
3.15
Impact on the amenity of adjoining residential properties
The Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ requires
a minimum distance of 15m to be provided to avoid overdominance. In this
case the flank wall of the proposed house would be situated 27.5m from the
rear 63, 65 and 67 Lowlands Road and 33m from properties in Abbotsbury
Page 26
Gardens. Taking into consideration these distances the proposal is not
considered to be overdominant, or result in overshadowing of adjoining
properties.
3.16
The bend in Lowlands Road enables the proposed house to be accessed
from a separate entrance to those serving existing properties in Lowlands
Road. This access is situated some 23m from the rear of No.61 and the
proposed additional house is unlikely to give rise to give rise to an increase in
pollution, noise and disturbance to adjoining properties to justify refusal.
3.17
The design guide also requires that a minimum distance of 21m between
habitable room windows and private garden areas is provided in order to
protect privacy. No habitable room windows are proposed in the first floor
flank elevations facing Lowland Road and Abbotsbury Gardens. In any event
the distance of the proposed house from the private garden areas of
properties on Lowlands Road and Abbotsbury Gardens is in excess of 21m.
3.18
The design guide requires that a minimum of 60m2 of amenity space is
provided for houses with less than four bedrooms. The proposal will result in
the reduction of the remaining amenity space for Nos.63, 65 and 67.
However, plans indicate that the amenity space for all of these properties will
be in excess of 100m2. The design guide requires that a minimum of 100m2 is
required for four-bedroom houses. Amenity space with an area of 410m2 is
provided for this five bedroom house and the proposal therefore complies with
policy BE23.
3.19
The proposal will not result in a loss of amenity to the occupiers of adjoining
houses sufficient to justify refusal and provides satisfactory accommodation
for future occupiers. The proposal therefore complies with policies BE20,
BE21, BE23, BE24, H6 and H12 of the UDP
(iv)
Provision for access and parking
3.20
It is considered that the provision of an additional dwelling house will not give
rise to additional congestion sufficient to justify the refusal of this application.
The scheme provides 2 off street spaces in accordance with the Council's
adopted parking standards. Plans originally indicated two separate means of
access to the proposed house. Amended plans have been received which
have removed one of the proposed means of access.
3.21
The means of access is situated on the outside of the bend in the road and
this location would afford good visibility in both directions along Lowlands
Road. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not give rise to
conditions which are prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety and the
Highways Engineer raises no objection to the revised scheme. Reason for
refusal 4 of the previous application is not therefore considered to be sufficient
to justify refusal. The proposal is considered to comply with Policies AM7 and
AM14 of the UDP.
Page 27
3.22
Points (i), (iii) and (x) are not planning considerations. Points (ii), (iv), (v), (vi),
(viii), (ix), (xi), (xii) and (xiv) are addressed in the main body of the report.
Point (vii) is not sufficient to justify refusal. With regard to point (xiii) each
case is assessed on its own merits.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The proposal would 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 prejudice highway and
pedestrian safety. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies
of the UDP. As such planning permission is recommended.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Supplementary Planning Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design
Letters of objection and petition
Contact Officer:
ANDY PARKER
Page 28
Page 29
B
Item No. 4
Address:
80 THE DRIVE, ICKENHAM
Development:
RE-THATCHING OF ROOF (APPLICATION FOR LISTED
BUILDING CONSENT) (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)
LBH Ref Nos:
43215/APP/2004/425
Drawing Nos:
4 photographs received 26/01/04
Date of receipt:
26/01/04
Date(s) of Amendment(s): None
CONSULTATIONS:
External Consultees
2 neighbouring properties were consulted and a site notice posted. No responses
have been received.
English Heritage
Do not wish to comment as the application does
not fall within any of the categories set out in
paragraphs 15(2)(b) of Circular 01/2001
‘Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications’.
The Ickenham Conservation
Panel
Notes that this application regularises the
position in that the thatching was undertaken some
months ago. The Panel considers the works to be
an improvement. No objections.
Internal Consultees
Urban Design/Conservation
Officer
•
•
•
•
The roof has been top coated (spar coat) and
re-ridged using combed wheat from a farm in
Basingstoke.
The important factor is the visual appearance
and, as the building works have been
finished, it is easy to say that the work has
been done appropriately.
The architectural and historic character of the
building has been retained in line with
policies BE8 and BE9.
No objections.
Page 30
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
1.
North Lodge, 80 The Drive, Ickenham is an early nineteenth century detached
cottage located at the intersection with Harvil Road. The property is a Grade II
Listed Building located in the Developed Area and adjacent to the Green Belt
as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.
2.
Listed Building consent is sought for the retention of the re-thatching to the
roof of the listed cottage. A Master Thatcher has carried out the works, which
involved the roof being top-coated (spar coat) and re-ridged using combed
wheat from a farm in Basingstoke.
3.
No alterations have been made to the height or bulk of the roof. The rethatched roof is in keeping with the character and appearance of the original
building and does not harm its special architectural or historic character. The
Conservation Officer has no objection as the re-thatching as it has been done
with due regard to the appearance and character of the building.
4.
The application is in accordance with policies BE8, BE9, BE10, BE15 and
BE19 of the UDP. As such, Listed Building Consent is recommended.
legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human
Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant
planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into
account.
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 Environmental Services Group and the wider Council.
RECOMMENDATION: CONSENT
INFORMATIVE
1.
The decision to grant Listed Building Consent 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:
BE8: Planning applications for alteration or extension of Listed
Buildings.
Page 31
BE9: Listed building consent applications for alterations or
extensions.
BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building.
BE15: Alterations and extensions to existing buildings.
BE19: New development within residential areas complementing and improving amenity and character of
the area.
Contact Officer: LUNGILE MNGADI
Telephone Number: 01895 277948
Page 32
Page 33
A
Item No. 5
Address:
1 HARVIL ROAD, ICKENHAM
Development:
ERECTION OF A DETACHED 8-BEDROOM HOUSE WITH A
REAR CONSERVATORY (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING HOUSE) AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW
VEHICULAR CROSSOVER (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO
PLANNING PERMISSION REF: 2539/APP/2001/1943 DATED
19/12/01) (PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)
LBH Ref Nos:
2539/APP/2004/4
Drawing Nos:
HRB/1/A, HRB/2/A, HRB/3/A, HRB/4A received 22/04/04
Date of receipt:
20/02/04
Date(s) of Amendment(s): 22/04/04
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought to demolish an existing detached house and
erect an 8-bedroom detached house and installation of a new vehicular
crossover. Previous planning permission for a 5-bedroom detached house
was granted in 2001.
1.2
Works have commenced on site and the new house is not positioned on the
site as per the approved scheme. Accordingly, planning permission is sought
to vary the approved scheme. The revised scheme would also involve part
demolition of the partly constructed house.
1.3
It is considered the revised scheme would not detract from the character of
the area and the amenities of surrounding residents. The scheme is
considered acceptable subject to conditions.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(M1) Details / Samples to be
Submitted
(M5) Means of Enclosure details
(MRD4) Single Dwellings
Occupation
or Doors
(“… in the walls or roof slopes of
the development hereby
approved.”)
(RPD2) Obscured Glazing and
Non-Opening Windows
1.
(M1) Standard
2.
(M5) Standard
3.
(MRD4) Standard
4.
(RPD1) Standard
5.
(RPD2) Standard
Page 34
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
(“… Nos. 9, 10 & 11 Lodore
Green and No. 2 Harvil Road …”)
(RPD5) Restrictions on Erection
and Outbuildings
(TL5) Landscaping Scheme
(TL6) Landscaping Scheme –
implementation
(TL8) Screen Planting
“… minimum height of 2m …”
(H6) Car parking provision –
submission of details
(H13) Installation of gate onto a
highway
(H5) Sight Lines
6.
(RPD5) Standard
7.
8.
(TL5) Standard
(TL6) Standard
9.
(TL8) Standard
10.
(H6) Standard
11.
(H13) Standard
12.
13.
(H5) Standard
during the construction phase
INFORMATIVES
1.
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: Layout and appearance of new development;
BE15: Alterations and extensions to existing buildings
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
BE24: Design of new buildings - protection of privacy
SPG: Residential Extensions –
A1 and A2: Building lines
A3: Impact of mass bulk and overlooking.
A4: visual impact of a development.
A5: Design of extensions / materials.
B1: Front extension and porches
B2: Side Extensions and Distances from side boundary
B3: Single storey and two storey rear extensions
B4: Dormer Windows and Roof extensions
SPG: Residential Layouts & House Design –
4 Outlook and Overdomination
5 Privacy
Page 35
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
3.0
(1)
(2)
Encroachment
(3)
Building Regulations
(4)
(5)
Party Walls
(6)
(13) – Asbestos Removal
(23) – Works affecting the Public Highway – Vehicle Crossover
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site lies within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the UDP. It is
located on the western side of Harvil Road, at the roundabout junction with
Swakeleys Road. The site currently consists of a detached house, and is
located within an established residential area characterised by large
properties on substantial plots.
Scheme
3.2
Planning permission is sought for the part demolition of the partially
constructed house and the erection of a large two-storey detached 8-bedroom
house with a rear conservatory and the construction of a new vehicular
crossover. The proposed house would be set back some 23m from the road
to align with 2 Harvil Road. The house would be 17.8m wide, 14.1m deep
with a 3.65m deep rear conservatory, and would have a hipped roof, 10.3m
high.
3.3
The two-storey component of the house would be setback 4.5m from the
mutual boundary with 2 Harvil Road with a single-storey side component of
the house set 2m off the boundary.
3.4
The new house would be sited 2.8m off the southern side boundary at the
front reducing to 2m at the rear. A conservatory would be sited centrally at the
rear of the house, measuring 3.65m deep, 10.1m wide and 4.1m high.
3.5
The proposal amends a previously approved scheme. The main change
between this and the approved scheme is the siting of the house. The
approved house was sited 22m from the front boundary with the front building
line 1.7m forward of 2 Harvil Road. Due to incorrect survey measurements,
the house has been partly constructed approximately 1.5m back and now
aligns with 2 Harvil Road. The amended scheme also includes two front and
two rear dormer windows, changes in the location and design of the rear
conservatory, alterations to the side elevation to reduce the impact on 2 Harvil
Road, and minor alterations comprising the relocation of doors and windows.
Page 36
Planning History
3.6
Planning permission for the erection of a five-bedroom dwellinghouse with
single-storey side and rear conservatory (involving demolition of existing
house) was granted in December 2001 (Ref: 2539/APP/2001/1943).
3.7
An application for a loft conversion involving installation of two front dormers
and erection of a detached block of garages in the front garden was refused in
June 2003 (ref: 2539/APP/2003/1091). The grounds for refusal related to the
visual intrusion and impact of the garages on residential amenity and
character of the area.
3.8
Construction of the approved house commenced mid-2003, and shortly
thereafter a complaint was received informing the Council that the
development was not being carried out in accordance with the approved
scheme. The applicant was advised to rectify the breach in planning control
by the submission of a fresh planning application.
UDP Designation: Developed Area
The relevant UDP Policies are:
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10
To seek to ensure that new developments will not adversely
affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential
areas.
Part 2 Policies:
BE13
Layout and appearance of new development.
BE19
New development within residential areas - complementing and
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
AM7
Highway/Pedestrian Safety
AM14
New development and car parking standards
Page 37
Consultations
External Consultees
8 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. 4 letters of objection (2
from the same objector) have been received to the originally submitted
scheme. The application was the subject of re-consultation and 1 additional
letter from the same objector was received. The comments are:
i) The proposed location of the additional vehicular crossover would
create a traffic hazard
ii) Out of character with surrounding residential area and will adversely
affect the street scene
iii) Overlooking
iv) Overshadowing to neighbouring property
v) Trees and tall bushes removed from the site should be replaced to
reduce the visual impact and minimise loss of privacy
vi) Does the new addition not contravene the Building Regulations for
unprotected area requirements?
vii) Over-development of the site
Ickenham Residents’
Association
a) Confusion has been created relating
to the site’s history shown on two
separate Council property reference
numbers, which does not allow
enquirers to obtain a complete
understanding of the application and
related applications;
b) Confusion relating to the description
of “retrospective application”, as the
proposed garages and vehicle
crossover do not exist;
c) Number of bedrooms excessive,
which may be used as a house in
multiple occupancy or residential
home;
d) The proposed vehicle crossover is
not acceptable and would be
contrary to policy AM7 of the UDP;
e) Out of character with properties in
this section of Harvil Road and would
be contrary to policies BE16, BE19
and BE21 of the UDP;
f) It is the Association’s understanding
that there is a presumption against
garages built in front gardens, as
was the case with 2000/2293 and
2002/1206.
Page 38
g) Should the application be approved,
appropriate conditions relating to the
use of the property should be
imposed in order to protect the local
amenity.
Cllrs John Hensley and
David Simmonds
a)
b)
c)
d)
Proposed 9-bedroom house is
excessive for a normal family home
and will impact on the local
environment;
Over-development of site and not in
keeping with adjacent properties;
Proposal would require the provision
of sufficient off-street parking to
accommodate potential requirements
of the household;
Potential traffic problems.
Internal Consultees
Highways Engineer
No objection to the new crossover location,
subject to compliance with standard dimension
requirements and provision of pedestrian
visibility splays.
3.9
The main planning issues for consideration relate to:
(i) The impact of the amended scheme on the visual amenities of the
street scene
(ii) The impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents
(iii) Hghway and pedestrian safety
(i)
3.10
Impact of the amended scheme on the visual amenities of the street
scene
The front elevation of the proposed house would not substantially change
from the scheme approved in December 2001. The overall height of the
house would increase from 9.8m to 10.4m (0.6m). Two hipped-roof front
dormers are proposed 1.8m high, 1m wide and 2.5m deep, and each would
be sited 0.5m from the eaves and 1m from the side of the roof. While the
dormers do not comply with the Council’s design guidance for dormer
windows in that they are not positioned 600mm from the eaves, it is
considered the proposed dormers are acceptable as they would be
symmetrically positioned on the roof and would not detract from the
appearance of the street scene.
Page 39
3.11
The house, although large, would not be significantly out of keeping with other
properties that front this side of Harvil Road. The re-siting of the house some
13m from the existing house location would improve the open aspect of the
site when viewed from the street. Accordingly, the proposal is not likely to
adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene, and would
accord with policies BE13 and BE19.
(ii)
Impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents
3.12
The new house now aligns with the front of 2 Harvil Road. The rear projection
of the single-storey side component would be reduced to 3m in order to
reduce its impact on 2 Harvil Road. The two-storey component of the house
and the rear conservatory would project a further 4.8m, however, they would
be setback 4.5m from the boundary with 2 Harvil Road. The shadow
assessment demonstrates that the proposed amended scheme would cause
additional shadow onto the southern side of 2 Harvil Road between mid
morning and early afternoon. However, this increase is not considered to be
significant enough to justify the refusal of planning permission.
3.13
The amended scheme also includes two rear dormer windows. The dormers
have a hipped roof and measure 2.4m high, 1.8m wide and 3.5m deep. The
dormers would be sited 800mm from the eaves and 400mm from the sides of
the roof. As per the front dormers, the rear dormers do not comply with the
Council’s design guidance. However, it is considered that the proposed
dormers are acceptable as they are positioned centrally in the roof and would
not harm the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The additional rear
windows would not result in any direct overlooking of neighbouring properties.
The proposal meets the Council’s design guidance requirements on privacy
and therefore complies with BE24 of the UDP.
(iii)
3.14
Highway and pedestrian safety
The proposed new vehicular crossover is considered acceptable, as they
should not prejudice highway and pedestrian safety. Parts of the front garden
are hardsurfaced and can accommodate at least two cars. As such the
proposal is considered to comply with policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.
3.15
Points (i) – (iv) are addressed in this report. On point (v), a condition is
recommended to ensure that adequate screening is provided to limit the
impact of the development. Point (vi) is not a relevant planning consideration.
On point (vii), the development is sited on a very large plot and as such, it is
not considered to result in an overdevelopment of the site.
3.16
Comments on Ickenham Residents’ Association:
(a) There should be no confusion with regard to the application reference
nos. of the previous applications.
Page 40
(b) The description of the development has been amended and further
consultation carried out.
(c) There is no evidence to suggest that the house would be used for
multiple occupation. A change of use to an HMO will require planning
permission.
(f) It is not proposed as part of this application to construct a garage in the
front garden.
Points (d), (e) and (g) have been addressed in the report.
3.17
In response to comments from Cllrs Hensley and Simmonds:
(a) The description of the development has been amended and reconsultation carried out. The previously approved scheme was for a 5bedroom house, with a guest bedroom, resulting in a total number of 6
bedrooms. The additional 2 bedrooms proposed in the amended
scheme do not result in an increase in the footprint or bulk when
compared with the previously approved scheme.
Points (b) – (d) have been addressed in the report.
4.0
4.1
planning legislation, regulation, guidance and circulars and also, the
5.0
5.1
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 Environmental Services
Group and the wider Council.
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The amended scheme is not considered to detract from the visual amenities
of the street scene and the surrounding area. It is not considered to harm the
residential amenities of adjoining properties or highway and pedestrian safety.
As such, the development complies with policies BE13, BE15, BE19, BE20,
BE21, BE24, AM7 and AM14 of the Unitary Development Plan and the
Page 41
Council’s Design Guide: “Residential Layouts and House Design”.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design”
Contact Officer:
VANESSA SERIN
Page 42
Page 43
B
Item No.6
Address:
35 THE DRIVE, ICKENHAM
Development:
ERECTION OF TWO FIVE-BEDROOM TWO-STOREY
DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSES, PROVISION OF PARKING
AND FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS (INVOLVING
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE)
LBH Ref Nos:
32381/APP/2004/282
Drawing Nos:
MHL/TD/P1B received 7/6/04; MHL/TD/P2A, MHL/TD/P3A,
MHL/TD/P4A, MHL/TD/P5A, MHL/TD/P7A, MHL/TD/P8A,
MHL/TD/P9A received 22/4/04 and MHL/TD/P6 received
26/01/04
Date of receipt:
26/01/04
Date of amendment(s): 22/04/04
and 07/06/04
CONSULTATIONS:
9 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted. One letter has been received from the
Chairman of the ‘Residents of The Drive’ raising the following matters:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
There is a covenant on the estate restricting development to not less than 60ft
frontage to the road
A condition requiring the developer to pay a sum of £1000 per dwelling to the
Association as a contribution towards the up-keep of the private road should
be attached to the grant of planning permission.
Water pressure in the road is unsatisfactory. An assurance that the water
supply is sufficient to cater for the increased design is required.
Site cleanliness is required.
Traffic Engineer
No objections to this proposal subject to the
provision of pedestrian visibility splays at
the crossovers.
Policy and Environmental Planning
Policy H6 states that residential densities
should harmonise with the surrounding
densities of that area. New housing is
generally expected to be within the range of
100-200 hr/ha or 150hr/ha. The density of
this development is not likely to be within
that recommended by policy H6 however
the application should be assessed against
similar densities in that area. There are
other large detached houses in this area.
The proposal is therefore acceptable, in
principle.
Page 44
Director of Education
As the proposal involves a net gain of 6
bedrooms a contribution towards education
places is required.
1.
The UDP Designation is ‘Developed Area’.
2.
The application site is located on the western side of The Drive and is
currently occupied by a detached house. The road is characterised by
detached houses of individual design set on spacious plots. The adjoining
site to the south is occupied by a two-storey house with a single storey garage
extension, whilst the site to the north comprises a two-storey detached house.
3.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 2, five-bedroom houses.
The houses are of the same bulk and height but vary in terms of the design of
the front elevations. The houses measure 14.8m wide, 13m deep, 5.7m high
to the eaves and 10.2m to the ridge. Two parking spaces for each house and
an access onto The Drive are proposed. A 1.6m gap to the side boundaries
with 33 and 35a The Drive are proposed and a 3m gap is provided between
the houses.
4.
The houses would be sited in keeping with the established front building line
within The Drive. They would be of a similar height, bulk and scale to other
houses. Although they would be higher than the existing house on the site,
they are not considered to appear unduly prominent or visually intrusive in the
street scene.
5.
The design elements of the new houses, including door and window
arrangements, are considered to be in keeping with the appearance of the
surrounding area, in accordance with policies BE13 and BE19 of the UDP.
6.
The proposed houses have been designed to ensure adequate privacy for the
occupants and residents of adjoining properties. 3 windows are proposed on
the first floor flank elevations. 2 windows provide natural light to bathrooms
while the other is a secondary window to a bedroom. These windows are to
be glazed with obscure glass, which would be secured by way of a condition.
7.
The initial application proposed two detached garages, one for each house.
Due to their siting beyond the front building, these have been replaced with 2
off-street parking spaces. The proposed parking provision complies with the
parking standards and the access is satisfactory. The proposal should not
result in a significant increase in traffic/congestion on The Drive. The Traffic
Engineer raises no objections to the proposal and the proposal is considered
to comply with policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.
8.
The rear building line of the proposed houses would project 6m beyond the
existing rear building line of 33 The Drive. However, a 45 degree line of sight
Page 45
is maintained from the habitable room windows of this property and as such,
the proposal is not considered to be visually intrusive.
9.
35A The Drive to the north is sited some 30m to the rear of the proposed
houses. Given this separation distance, it is considered that the proposal
would not have an adverse impact on this house. The shadow assessment
demonstrates that the shadow created by the new houses would fall in the
rear gardens of the new houses in the morning and on the open front area of
35A The Drive. As such, the proposal is not considered to be over-dominant
or cause a material loss of residential amenity by reason of loss of sunlight,
outlook, visual intrusion or overlooking. As such the proposal is considered to
comply with policies BE13, BE19, BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP and the
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Layouts and House Design.
10.
A number of trees are located within the site. Although the proposal involves
the removal of several trees it is considered that the retained trees would be
adequate to maintain the visual amenities of the street scene, in line with
policy BE38. The retention and protection of these trees would be secured by
way of conditions. Over 1000m2 of private amenity space would be retained
for each house, in line with policy BE23 of the UDP.
11.
The development generates the need for additional school places in
Ickenham. The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to ensure
a contribution towards additional school places. This is to be secured by way
of a legal agreement. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with
policy R17 of the UDP.
12.
As regards to the issues raised by the Chairman of the ‘Residents of The
Drive’, points 1 to 3 are not planning matters. On point 4, a condition is
recommended to ensure that vehicles associated with the construction of the
development are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud
and dirt onto the highway.
Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant
planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
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.
Page 46
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
That the Borough Solicitor enter into an agreement with the applicants
under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure that:
(i)
A contribution of £14,093 towards additional school places in
Ickenham.
2.
That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree details of the
proposed agreement.
3.
That subject to the above the application be deferred for determination
by the Head of Planning and Transport under delegated powers subject
to the completion of the agreement under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the
applicant.
4.
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.
5.
That if the application is approved, the following conditions be
attached:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
(T1) Time Limit (Full)
(M2) External Surfaces to
Match
implementation
(RPD1) No Additional Doors or
Windows
(‘facing Nos. 33 and 35A The
Drive’)
(M5) Means of Enclosure –
details
(TL20) Amenity Areas
(OM1) Development in
accordance with Approved
Plans
Provisions 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
1.
2.
(T1) Standard
(M2) Standard
3.
4.
(TL5) Standard
(TL6) Standard
5.
6.
(H7) Standard
(RPD1) Standard
7.
(M5) Standard
8.
9.
(TL20) Standard
(OM1) Standard
10.
adjoining pavement and highway.
Page 47
11.
12.
13
14
15
16
17
passage of mud and dirt onto
(OM5) Provision of Bin Stores
Details of a designated area for
approved by the Local
Planning Authority. This
recycling area shall be
provided prior to the
retained.
(RPD3) Obscured Glazing
(‘facing Nos. 33 and 35A The
Drive’)
(RPD5) Restrictions on
Erection of Extensions,
Garages, Sheds and
Outbuildings
(RPD7) Exclusion of Garages,
Sheds and Outbuildings
(H5) Sight Lines - submission
of details
The garages hereby approved
shall be used soley for the
parking of a motor vehicle
incidental to the enjoyment of
the dwelling house and for no
other use or purpose.
11.
12.
(OM5) Standard
To provide a designated area in
addition to the bin store where
residents can store and handle
recycled waste before it is
13
(RPD3) Standard
14
(RPD5) Standard
15
(RPD7) Standard
16
(H5) Standard
17
To maintain sufficient off-street
parking in line with policy AM14
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(3)
Building Regulations- Demolition and Building Works
(4)
Neighbourly Consideration Informative
You have been granted planning permission to build two detached houses.
When undertaking building work, please be considerate to your
neighbours and do not undertake work in the early morning or late at night
or at any time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. You are advised that the
Council does have formal powers to control noise and nuisance under The
Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other relevant
legislation. For further information and advice, please contactEnvironmental Services, Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Tel. 01895 250111).'
(6)
Property Rights/Rights to Light
(21) Street Naming and Numbering
Page 48
6.
Planning Guidance:
BE13
Layout and appearance of new development
BE19
New development will no be permitted if the layout and
appearance do not harmonise with street scene or other features
of the area which it is desirable to retain or enhance.
BE20
BE21
Buildings should not by reason of siting, bulk and proximity
result in a significant loss of residential amenity
BE22
Buildings two-storeys should be setback a minimum of 1 metre
from the side boundary of the property for the full height of the
building
BE23
New residential amenity should provide sufficient usable amenity
space
BE24
Design of new buildings should protect the privacy of occupiers
and their neighbours
BE38
Retention of topographical and landscape features, and
provision of new planting and landscaping in development
proposals
AM14
New development will only be permitted if in accordance with the
Council’s parking standards
Supplementary Planning Design Guide “Residential Extensions”:
Design Principles:
(3)
Elevational Treatment
(4)
Outlook and Overdomination
(5)
Privacy
(7)
Amenity Space
Contact Officer:
CAMERON STANLEY
Page 49
Page 50
B
Item No.7
Address:
175 BEVERLEY ROAD, RUISLIP MANOR
Development:
ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND A
REAR CONSERVATORY
LBH Ref Nos:
59337/APP/2004/688
Drawing Nos:
Drawing 1932, received 08/04/04
Date of receipt:
08/04/04
CONSULTATIONS:
2 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. No responses have been
received.
1. The application site comprises a terraced house located on the eastern
side of Beverley Road. The site lies within the ‘Developed Area’ as
designated in the UDP.
2. Planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension and a
replacement rear conservatory
3. The proposed single storey rear extension would be 1.8m deep, 2.0m wide
and would be finished with a flat roof 2.9m high. It would be located within
the recess of the house, abutting the side boundary with 173 Beverley
Road.
4. The replacement conservatory would be 5.0m wide, 2.5m deep, with an
average height of 2.6m. It would be finished in glazing with a sloping roof
that matches the dimensions of the existing conservatory. Both side
boundaries have 2.0m high closed board fences.
5. The proposed rear extension would not result in any adverse dominance
effects on 173 Beverley Road given its location within the recess of the
house. Furthermore, its location and height ensures that it would not
result in additional overshadowing.
6. Although the depth of the conservatory does not comply with the design
guide, it would match the scale, depth and appearance of the existing
conservatory. As such, it would not result in additional privacy or over
shadowing effects on the adjoining properties.
Page 51
7. Glazing is proposed along the side of the conservatory. However, the
retention of the existing boundary fence will prevent overlooking. A
condition is recommended to retain the fencing. Sufficient amenity space
is retained.
8. The proposal is considered to be consistent with policies BE15, BE19,
BE20 and BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary
Planning Guide: ‘Residential Extensions’. Planning permission is
recommended.
legislation, regulation, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human
Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of
account.
financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer
agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful
possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:1.
2.
3.
4.
application
(M2) External Srfaces to Match
Existing Building
(M6) Boundary Fencing –
retention – “on the boundary
with 173 and 177 Beverley Road’
accordance with Approval Plans
1.
(T1) Standard
2.
(M2) Standard
3.
(M6) Standard
4.
(OM1) Standard
(“… policy BE15”)
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Encroachment
Party Walls
Page 52
7.
Planning Guidance:
• BE15 – extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural
composition and proportions of the original building.
• BE19 – new development to complement and improve the amenity and
character of the area.
• BE20 – ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and
between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are
safeguarded.
• BE21 – siting, bulk and proximity of extensions not to result in a
significant loss of residential amenity.
Supplementary Planning Design Guide “Residential Extensions”:
•
A1 and A2 – Building lines
•
A3 – Impact of mass bulk and overlooking.
•
A4 – Visual impact of a development.
•
A5 – Design of extensions / materials.
•
B3 – Single storey and two storey rear extensions.
Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No:
01895 250 840
Page 53
Page 54
A
Item No.8
Address:
47 ASHBURTON ROAD RUISLIP
Development:
ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION
AND CONVERSION OF HOUSE TO 2, ONE-BEDROOM
FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING
LBH Ref Nos:
5939/APP/2003/2304
Drawing Nos:
Unnumbered location plan, block plan, floor plans and
elevations received on 06/10/03, 24/02/04 and 05/05/04
Date of receipt:
0610/03 Dates of Amendments: 24/02/04 and 05/05/04
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought to erect a two-storey side and rear extension
and convert 47 Ashburton Road to 2, one-bedroom flats with associated
parking. It is considered that the proposed extensions are in keeping with the
existing house and the proposal would not result in the overdevelopment of
the site. The proposal provides a satisfactory form of accommodation for
future residents. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(T1) Time Limit - full planning
application
(M2) External Surfaces to Match
Existing Building
(M7) Means of Boundary
Enclosure - existing screen
planting/hedges
(MCD10) Refuse Facilities
(Residential)
Before the use commences the
building between the adjacent
unit and the floors of the
proposed two units hereby
approved shall be insulated in
accordance with a scheme
agreed with the Local planning
Authority.
1.
(T1) Standard
2.
(M2) Standard
3.
(M7) Standard
4.
5.
(MCD10) Standard
(Residential)
(N6) Standard
6.
Page 55
7.
8.
9.
7.
or Doors
(facing Nos. 45 and 47 Ashburton
Drive, Ruislip)
Prior to development works
8.
commencing, details of the
laying out / landscaping of the
front garden shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The
agreed works shall be
implemented within 8 months of
the crossover being constructed.
The rear outdoor amenity areas
9.
shown on the approved plans
shall be made available for
communal use by the residents
of the accommodation hereby
approved. The amenity areas
shall thereafter be so retained.
(RPD1) Standard
To ensure a satisfactory
appearance in the street scene
and having regard to the
requirements of policies BE19
and BE38 from the Council's
adopted Unitary Development.
To ensure the continued
availability of external amenity
space for residents of the
development, in the interests of
their amenity and the character
of the area in accordance with
policy BE23 of the Hillingdon
Unitary Development Plan.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.0
(1)
(3)
(6)
You are advised that care should be taken during the building works
hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials
onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure
to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away
could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts.
(5)
Party walls
(2)
Encroachment
(21) Street Naming/Numbering
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
This application concerns an end of terraced property situated on the eastern
side of Ashburton Road. The area is characterised by terraced properties. A
service road runs along the rear of the properties on Ashburton Road.
Page 56
Scheme
3.2
Planning permission is sought to demolish an existing flat roof side extension
and erect a two-storey side and rear extension with a pitched roof and convert
the property to 2, one-bedroom flats with parking to the rear, accessed via a
rear service road.
Planning History
3.3
Planning application ref: (5939/APP/2003/1399) to erect a two-storey side
and rear extension and conversion of house to 2 one-bedroom flats, with
3 parking spaces in rear garden was refused on 06/08/03 for the
following reasons: 1.
The proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the site with
an excessive site coverage of buildings and hard surfaces which
would be detrimental to the character and visual amenities of the
area, contrary to Policies BE13 and BE19 of the Borough’s
adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The proposal fails to provide adequate access to the car parking
area for the occupiers of the first floor flat which would be likely to
cause on street parking, resulting in increased pedestrian and
vehicular conflict, to the detriment of general highway safety.
This is contrary to Policy AM9ii) of the Borough’s adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
3.
The proposal, having regard to the use as two flats, the size of the
enlarged accommodation and extent of hardsurfaced areas, would
fail to maintain an adequate amount of amenity space for the
occupiers of the two properties and, as such, would result in the
over intensive use of the remainder of the garden, to the detriment
of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and character of the
area, furthermore, the proposal fails to provide direct access to
the rear amenity space from the first floor flat. As such, the
proposal fails to provide adequate useable amenity space
contrary to Policy BE23 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan
and design principles 6.1 and 6.2 of the Council’s Design Guide
“Residential Layouts and House Design”.
UDP Designation: The Developed Area
The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies are: Part 1 Policies:
Page 57
Part 2 Policies:
BE13 Layout and appearance of new development
BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the
area
BE23 External amenity space and new residential development
BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy
H7
Conversion of residential properties into a number of units
Consultations
External Consultees
6 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted and 2 letters of objection have
been received raising the following comments:
(vii)
(viii)
Inadequate parking has been provided.
No soundproofing is provided and the proposal will give rise to noise
and disturbance.
Internal Consultees
Traffic Engineer
No objection.
3.4
The main planning issues are:
(i)
(ii)
The principle of flat conversion
Impact on the character and visual amenities of the area
Page 58
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(i)
3.5
Impact on the amenities of nearby residents
The principle of flat conversion
Policy H7 of the UDP states that the conversion of residential properties to
flats is acceptable in principle, provided this can be achieved without
demonstrable harm to the residential amenities, the character of the area, or
the amenities of adjoining occupiers. As such there are no objections subject
tom the proposal satisfying the criteria set out in Policy H7 of the UDP.
(ii)
Impact on the character and visual amenities of the area
3.6
This property has an existing two storey, flat roof side extension, which
extends up to the boundary with the adjoining property 49 Ashburton Road. It
is proposed to demolish this extension and erect a two-storey side and rear
extension. It has a pitched roof matching the existing house and the flank wall
will be inset by 1m from the side boundary. The proposed side extension is
considered to be in keeping with the scale and architectural composition of
the existing house and would also maintain a gap from the boundary of the
adjoining property where no such gap currently exists. As such the proposed
extensions would improve the visual amenities of the street scene and
surrounding area.
3.7
The previous application was refused on the grounds of overdevelopment.
The proposal would result in approximately half of the site being covered by
building and hardsurfacing. However, the proposed hardsurfaced area is
located to the rear of the property and would not be visible from Ashburton
Road. Furthermore, the existing hardsurfaced area to the front of the house is
to be replaced by additional landscaping. This will soften the appearance of
built development. As such, it is considered that the proposal will not result in
a form of development, which would detract from the character and visual
amenities of the area. The proposal is considered to comply with Policies
BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP, and satisfies the first reason for refusal of
the previously refused scheme.
(iii)
3.8
Impact on the amenities of nearby residents
The proposed two-storey rear extension would project by 3m beyond the
existing property. The flank wall of the extension would be inset by 2.2m from
the boundary with the attached property, 45 Ashburton Road and 3m from the
flank wall of 49 Ashburton Road. 45 Ashburton Road has a part two storey,
part single storey rear extension and 49 Ashburton Road has a single storey
rear extension. No part of the proposed development would project beyond a
45 degree line of sight taken from the mid-point of windows on adjoining
properties and it is therefore considered that the proposed rear extension
would not be overdominant in relation to adjoining occupiers. 45 Ashburton
Road is situated to the north of the application site. However, taking into
Page 59
consideration the overshadowing from the existing house and the inset of the
proposed rear extension from the boundary with this property, the proposal
would not give rise to a significant loss of light, or overshadowing of adjoining
properties, sufficient to justify the reason for refusal of planning permission.
3.9
The proposed first floor living room would be adjacent to the bedroom with 45
Ashburton Road. A condition is recommended requiring details of sound
attenuation to be provided. As such the amenities of adjoining residents and
future occupiers will be safeguarded. The proposal therefore satisfies Policies
OE1 and H7 (i) of the UDP.
(iv)
3.10
The Councils interim car parking standards require 1.5 parking spaces for
each unit. The 3 spaces provided accords with this Council’s standards. The
proposed parking areas so that they are situated 6m from the back of the
service road. This provides sufficient space to enable vehicles to manoeuvre
into and out of the site in forward gear. Furthermore, the inset of the side
extension by 1m from the side boundary is sufficient to provide the occupiers
of the first floor flat with a direct means of access to the parking area to the
rear and the and thereby addressing the third reason for refusal of the
previous application. This Council’s Highway Engineer raises no objections to
the proposed development. The proposal therefore complies with Policies H7
(ii), AM7 and AM14 of the UDP and satisfies the second reason for refusal of
the previously refused scheme.
(v)
3.11
All units are self contained and have exclusive use of sanitary and kitchen
facilities.. A condition is recommended requiring details of sound insulation to
be provided. The proposal therefore satisfies Policy H7(i).
3.12
The garden area for the proposed 2, one bedroom flats is approximately
72m2. The Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’
requires garden areas to be of a suitable size and shape. It is considered that
the 36m2 of amenity provided per flat would not result in its over intensive use
of the amenity space and is adequate, taking into consideration that the
proposal is for one bedroom units and not family accommodation.
3.13
It is therefore considered that there is insufficient reason to refuse this
application on the grounds of inadequate amenity space provision. The
proposal does not conflict with the provisions of Policies BE23 and Policy H7
(iv) of the UDP and overcomes the third reason for refusal of the previous
application.
3.14
The points raised regarding parking provision and sound proofing have been
addressed in the main body of the report.
Page 60
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The proposed conversion is considered to be acceptable and provides
satisfactory accommodation for future residents. The proposed extensions are
considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not detract
from the amenities of adjoining residents. The proposal is considered to
overcome the previous reasons for refusal and as such is recommended for
approval.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Unitary development Plan
Contact Officer:
ANDY PARKER
Page 61
Page 62
A
Item No.9
Address:
BLOCK 96, MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL, RICKMANSWORTH
ROAD, NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF A TEMPORARY SINGLE-STOREY HEALTH
CENTRE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE A GP PRACTICE
DURING CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT BUILDING
ELSEWHERE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
TEMPORARY BUILDING)
LBH Ref Nos:
3807/APP/2003/2382
Drawing Nos:
2313.3/A/050/001 Rev. A and 2313.3/A/140/001 Rev. A.
received 09/10/03
Date of receipt:
09/10/03
Date(s) of Amendment(s):
None
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
The application site is located within the grounds of Mount Vernon Hospital.
The site is currently vacant with a redundant single storey portable building.
Planning permission is sought to erect a temporary single storey health centre
portable building for a period of three years to accommodate a GP Practice
during the construction of a permanent building to the north east of the
application site.
1.2
It is considered that the bulk and scale of the new building and total site
coverage of hard surfacing would increase the built-up appearance of the site
to the detriment of the visual amenities of the Green Belt and setting of nearby
listed buildings. However, it is considered, in this instance, given its location
within the defined curtilage of Mount Vernon Hospital and temporary nature
providing an important health facility for the benefit of the local community, the
proposal is justified and planning permission is recommended.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1.
(T4) Temporary Building –
Removal and Re-instatement
The building hereby permitted
shall be removed and the land
restored to an open landscaped
area on or before 3 years from
the date of this permission.
1.
(i)
The development is not
considered to be acceptable
as a permanent structure by
reason that it would
increase the built up
appearance of the site to
the detriment of the Green
Belt and be detrimental to
the setting of nearby listed
buildings contrary to
Page 63
(ii)
2.
3.
44.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
submitted
(M5) Means of Enclosure –
details
accordance with Approved Plans
(TL1) Existing Trees – Survey
(TL2) Trees to be Retained
(TL3) Protection of Trees and
Plants during Site Clearance and
Development
Implementation
(TL7) Maintenance of
Landscaped Areas
(DIS1) Facilities for People with
Disabilities
(DIS4) Signposting for People
with Disabilities
Policies OL4 and BE10 of
the UDP.
The building is of a
temporary nature likely to
deteriorate to the detriment
of the amenity of the site
which is located within the
Green Belt.
2.
(M1) Standard
3.
(M5) Standard
4.
(OM1) Standard
5.
6.
7.
(TL1) Standard
(TL2) Standard
(TL3) Standard
8
9.
(TL5) Standard
(TL6) Standard
10.
(TL7) Standard
11.
(DIS1) Standard
12.
(DIS4) Standard
13.
adjoining highway.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
(1)
(2)
Encroachment
(3)
Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works
hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building
materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised
that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear
it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts
Page 64
5.
6.
7.
3.0
(15) Control of Environmental nuisance from Construction Work
Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities
the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan, namely
Policies OL1, OL4, BE 13, BE19, BE21, BE38, OE1, AM7 and AM14 and to
all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning
Guidance.
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
3.2
The application site forms part of the
grounds of Mount Vernon Hospital. The
site is located to the south of the Gate
One access road from Rickmansworth
Road. Car Park Area A is located to the
south west of the site with the main
hospital reception further west along the
Gate One access road.
There is a temporary redundant building with a large area of hardstanding on
the site, the last known use of which was as a nursery. The existing single
storey building is set back some 10m from the access road frontage and there
is mature tree planting along the front, side and rear boundaries of the site.
The hospital and application site lies within the Green Belt.
Scheme
3.3
Planning permission is sought to erect a temporary single storey health centre
building for a period of three years to accommodate a GP Practice during the
construction of a permanent surgery to the north east of the application site.
This planning application (ref. 3807/APP/2004/674) for the erection of a part
two storey, part single storey Medical Centre with associated car parking and
landscaping, is also on this agenda. Although clearly each application stands
on its own right. The applicants have confirmed that the temporary and
permanent buildings would be occupied by the Shackman Practice.
3.4
The single storey building would consist of a number of individual prefabricated steel units joined together in an ‘L-shaped’ layout. The building
would extend 34m across the western boundary, 30m across the southern
boundary, 10m across the eastern boundary and 10m across the northern
boundary. The building would have a flat roof with maximum heights of
between 3.2-3.3.m. The external surfaces of the building would be in a ‘Dove
Grey’ colour. There would be ramped accesses to the main entrance and
staff/ fire exits. A detached bin store enclosed in a timber-boarded fence with
gates would be provided to the front of the site. Vehicular access would be
from the Gate One access road through an automatic traffic control barrier
Page 65
leading to a car park which would provide 18 car parking spaces including 4
for people with disabilities.
3.5
The building would have an external gross floorspace of 544m². Internally,
this would include 6 consulting rooms, 3 nurses rooms, minor operations
room, treatment room, a checks room, practice manager room, reception
room, waiting room, storage rooms, 2 meeting rooms, secretarial/ admin
rooms, staff room and toilet facilities.
3.6
The site would employ 11 full-time staff and 26 part-time staff, a total of 37
staff would be transferred from the existing Northwood Health Centre. It is
estimated by the applicant that 68 vehicles per day would visit the site.
Planning History
3.7
There is an extensive planning history on Mount Vernon Hospital. The most
relevant are:
3.8
Temporary planning permission (ref. 3807B/91/817) was granted in October
1991 for the erection of a temporary portable building to provide staff crèche
facility for four years. This permission has now lapsed, a condition was
placed requiring the restoration of the site to its former condition as tennis
courts.
3.9
A planning application (ref. 3807/APP/2003/2149) for the erection of a two
storey GP Medical Centre with adjacent parking was submitted in September
2003. The site lies to the north east of the application site. This application
was withdrawn in March 2004.
3.10
A revised application was submitted in March 2004 (ref. 3807/APP/2004/674)
for the erection of a part single, part two storey Medical Centre with
associated car parking and landscaping. The temporary building sought at
the application site, would provide accommodation during the construction of
this permanent building, which is also on this agenda.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belt)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport)
Council’s Revised Parking Standards (December 2001)
The London Plan
UDP Designation: Green Belt
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.1
To maintain the Green belt for uses which preserve or enhance the
open nature of the area.
Page 66
Pt1.31
To encourage the development and support the retention of a wide
range of local services, including shops and community facilities,
which are easily accessible to all, including people with disabilities
or other mobility handicaps.
Part 2 Policies:
Green Belt
OL1
Green Belt - acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new
development
OL2
Green Belt -landscaping improvements
OL4
Green Belt - replacement or extension of buildings
Design/ Impact on Amenity
BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building
BE13 Design of new development.
BE18 Designing out Crime
BE19 Character of the area.
BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new development
BE38 Trees and Landscaping.
Recreation, Leisure and Community Facilities
R10
R16
Proposals for new meeting halls and buildings for education, social,
community and health services.
Accessibility for elderly people, people with disabilities, women and
children
Accessibility and Highways
AM7
AM14
AM15
Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments
Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons
Consultations
This application was advertised as an application that may affect the setting of
two listed buildings, Mount Vernon Hospital and the Chapel.
External Consultees
English Heritage
The temporary and utilitarian nature of the
buildings would not normally be considered
appropriate to the setting of the nearby
listed buildings, which includes the Chapel,
listed at grade II. However, subject to the
appropriate control by condition or
agreement to ensure that the buildings are
removed once the permanent
Page 67
accommodation is built, no objections are
raised to the proposals.
Northwood Residents
Association
No response.
Ickenham Residents
Association
No response.
Disablement Association
of Hillingdon
No response.
The Community Voice
Fully support this application.
The Northwood/ Pinner
Hospital Development
Committee
Agree and fully support the proposals for
a new health centre and temporary
building.
Internal Consultees
Further information is required, a tree
survey, showing the trees for retention and
removal on and close to the site, tree
protection measures and the existing
boundary. Additional landscaping and site
restoration should be provided for this
development in the Green Belt.
Highway Engineer
The Council’s maximum car parking
standard for a use within Class D1
recommends 5 spaces per consulting room.
The proposal involves the creation of 6
consulting rooms, therefore a maximum of
30 spaces would be required. 40 spaces
have been considered acceptable for the
permanent building with 15 consulting
rooms to the north east of the application
site. The temporary building has 6
consulting rooms and the parking provision
of 18 spaces is therefore considered
acceptable.
Policy and Environmental
Planning
The main policy issue in relation to this
development is the principle of additional
development within the Green Belt and its
impact on the character and appearance of
the Green Belt.
Policy OL1 defines the types of
Page 68
development that are considered
acceptable within the Green Belt. Limited
infilling or redevelopment of major existing
developed sites such as St.Vincent’s
hospital is considered appropriate in
accordance with proposals and criterion
adopted within the UDP. The proposed
redevelopment of Mount Vernon Hospital
does not conform to the types of
development allowed by Policy OL1, as it is
not a ‘Major Developed Site’.
Policy OL4 will permit the extension of
buildings within the Green Belt if the
development would not result in a
disproportionate change to the bulk and
character of the original building and would
not be of detriment to character and
appearance of the Green Belt. It can be
considered that the scale of the proposal
would have an impact on the character and
appearance of the Green Belt, and would
consequently be incompatible with Policy
OL4.
However, given the temporary nature of the
building and the presence of an application
for a permanent building to the north east of
the site, the application is supported.
Officer
Although the proposal would harm the
setting of nearby listed buildings and the
visual amenities of the Green Belt, the
application is for temporary permission and,
if the building is removed on completion of
the permanent facility within the 3 year
period, there would be no long term harm.
3.11
The main issues for consideration relate to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
The appropriateness of the development within the Green Belt
Impact on trees
Amenity of adjoining residents
The impact of development on the setting of Listed Buildings
Traffic impacts and car parking
Page 69
(i)
3.12
Doctors Surgeries/ Health Centres are classified within a D1 use class, while
hospitals are classified as a C2 use. Policy OL1 of the Borough’s Unitary
Development Plan states that agriculture, horticulture, nature conservation,
open-air recreation and cemeteries are the only land uses which are
acceptable in the Green Belt. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy OL1
of the UDP.
3.13
The existing building on the site is 11m wide, 18m deep and approximately
3.3m high. The building is also pre-fabricated and is set back approximately
24m from the road frontage, trees to the front, side and rear boundaries
obscure some views of the building. The floor area of the building is 198m².
There is an existing hard surfaced area to the north of the building covering
an area of 595m².
3.14
The proposed building is more functional than of architectural merit given the
temporary nature of the proposal. The building would be similar in design,
materials and height as the existing pre-fabricated structure. However, the
proposed building would have a total floorspace of 544m², an increase in
floorspace of 274%, and a hardsurfaced area for parking of 522m², for a site
area of 1,669m², almost 64% of the total site area would be covered by hard
surface. The bulk of the building would extend across most of the southern
and western boundaries (viewed from Car Park A) of the site and would be
sited nearer to the road frontage, some 8-9m. It is considered that this
increase in the scale and bulk of the building would change the character of
the original building, increasing the built-up appearance of the site to the
detriment of the visual amenities of the Green Belt contrary to Policy OL4.
3.15
However, this application proposes to provide temporary accommodation for a
period of three years to serve an existing patient list during the construction of
a more permanent building to the north east of the application site. This
planning application (ref. 3807/APP/2004/674) for the erection of a part two
storey, part single storey Medical Centre with associated car parking and
landscaping, is also on this agenda, with a recommendation for approval.
Therefore, it is considered in this instance, given the location and temporary
nature of the building and the presence of an acceptable scheme for a
permanent building to the north east of the site, this application for an
important health care facility amounts to very special circumstances to permit
the proposal for a limited period in the Green Belt. The fact that the chosen
site is already an established hospital site adds further weight to these
conclusions.
(ii)
3.16
Impact on trees
There are a number of immature birch, willow and cherry trees on and close
to the site that would appear to be retained as part of the proposal but this is
not made clear on the submitted plans. The retention of these trees would to
some degree screen the temporary building preserving the visual amenities of
Page 70
the Green Belt. Therefore, conditions are recommended to require the
submission of a tree survey, tree retention and protection measures and
additional landscaping prior to the commencement of works. Subject to these
being considered acceptable, it is considered that the character and visual
amenities of the trees on and adjoining the site would not be significantly
harmed.
(iii)
3.17
Policies BE19 and BE21 seek to ensure that new development will
complement and improve the character and amenity of the area.
3.18
The proposed temporary building and associated car parking area are located
to the south of the block of residential flats known as Frederick Watson
House. The flats are occupied by research students and staff associated with
Mount Vernon Hospital. The buildings are in poor condition and not fully
utilised as demand has decreased with the closure of the hospital’s clinical
wards. No decision has been made about the future of these buildings.
3.19
The proposed temporary surgery building will result in additional building bulk
and car parking in close proximity to the flats. However the location and
nature of the flats within the defined curtilage of Mount Vernon Hospital
combined with the single storey height, temporary permission sought for the
proposal and retention of some landscaping along the northern boundary are
considered to minimise the impact on the amenity of these occupiers in
accordance with Policies BE19 and BE 21.
(iv)
3.20
Impact on the setting of the listed building
The proposed building would be located some 50m from the Grade II Listed
Chapel building to the south of the site and 97m from the Grade II Listed Main
Hospital Building to the south west. Given this application is for temporary
permission and in light of English Heritage’s comments, provided the building
is removed after 3 years no objection to the proposal in terms of its impact of
the setting of the listed buildings is raised.
(v)
Traffic Impacts and car parking
3.21
Policies AM7 and AM14 are concerned with on-site parking and traffic
generation. The Council’s current parking standards for “medical and other
health practices, including dental, veterinary and alternative medicine” is 5 car
spaces per consulting room, as a maximum. Parking standards are
expressed as a maximum to enable reduced levels of car parking to be
provided, particularly in town centres and other areas of good public transport
accessibility, as required in accordance with PPG13.
3.22
The application proposes 18 car parking spaces including 4 disabled spaces
and 7 cycle spaces. The car parking spaces for people with disabilities are
convenient and accessible to the main entrance of the surgery.
Page 71
3.23
The application proposes 6 consulting rooms requiring a maximum of 30 car
parking spaces and 12 cycle spaces. The Highways Engineer considers the
proposed level of parking provision to be acceptable.
3.24
In addition, the application site adjoins a hospital car park which is ‘Pay and
Display’. It is considered that given the temporary nature of the application,
this car park and others within the hospital complex could accommodate any
overflow of vehicles for a short period of time. Furthermore, the site is
relatively self-contained, so if any displacement of parking does occur, this is
not likely to occur on roads outside the site. As such, the proposed level of
parking provision is not considered to result in additional on-street parking
outside the site to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety in
accordance with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the borough’s UDP.
3.25
In relation to cycle parking, 7 spaces have been provided close to the
pedestrian entrance to the building. This provision is below the cycle space
requirement of the Unitary Development Plan. However the demand for cycle
spaces is likely to be reduced due to the nature of the activity where patients /
staff chose a more passive method of transportation. That said, if demand
does increase, there is ample room for additional cycle spaces to be provided
on site.
3.26
Two letters of support have been received.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
Page 72
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
A large single storey building for a GP practice in the Green Belt would not
normally be acceptable but it is considered in this instance given its location
and temporary nature, the proposal amounts to very special circumstances to
permit what is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Temporary
planning permission is therefore recommended.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 – Green Belt
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 - Transport
Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001)
Contact Officer:
SHAHIDA MANJLAI
Page 73
Page 74
A
Item No.10
Address:
TRUE LOVERS KNOT, RICKMANSWORTH ROAD
NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY BLOCK WITH
ACCOMMODATION IN THE ROOF SPACE TO PROVIDE 13
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED LOWER
GROUND FLOOR PARKING AND ACCESS AND AMENITY
SPACE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING
BUILDING)
LBH Ref Nos:
27717/APP/2004/978
Drawing Nos:
22006 PL_01(00),02(01),02(EX),02(PR),03(00),03(01),03(02),
03(03),03(04),04(01),05(00),05(01) 05(02) AND 22806 90-100,
AND TREE LOCATIONS BY SIMON JONES ASSOCIATES
RECEIVED 01/04/04
Date of receipt:
14/04/04
Date of Amendment: None
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought for the erection of thirteen residential units with
associated amenity space and parking. The building is on four levels with the
lower ground floor car park partially below ground and the third residential
floor contained within the roof space.
1.2
The density of the development would be 283 habitable rooms per hectare or
66 units per hectare which is greater than the density recommended by the
London Plan guidelines of 150-200 habitable rooms per hectare and 30-50
units per hectare. The proposed density manifests in a building which is out
of scale with its context which would have a detrimental effect on the
streetscene, the integrity of the adjacent listed buildings and the surrounding
greenbelt. Accordingly the application does not comply with the provisions of
the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and it is recommended for refusal.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: That the application be refused for the following
reasons:
1.
The application is considered to be an over development of the site
having regard to its density, height, siting, bulk and scale of the building
which will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street
scene. In this regard the development is contrary to Policies H6, BE13,
BE19, BE21, and OE1 of the Hillingdon adopted Unitary Development
Plan and the Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House
Design’.
Page 75
2.
Evidence has not been provided that there is little likelihood of a
demand to retain the existing use on site. In this regard the
development is contrary to Policy H8 of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan.
3.
The proposal fails to provide adequate new landscaping adjacent to the
site’s southern and western green-belt boundaries. In addition, the
proposal removes existing landscaping adjacent to the site’s northern
boundary which results in privacy conflicts and the opening of views to
the greenbelt. In this regard the development is contrary to Policies
BE23, BE24, BE38 and OL3 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
4.
The proposal would detrimentally affect the setting of the adjacent listed
buildings. In this regard the development is contrary to Policy BE10 of
the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
5.
The proposal fails to provide adequately designed car parking or
adequate cycle parking for future occupiers of the development.
Accordingly the proposed development is inconsistent with Policy AM14
of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
6.
No agreement has been reached with the applicant in respect of an
education contribution of £106,186 towards the provision of new school
places and improvement of existing educational facilities, arising from
the proposed development. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policy
R17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and SPG on setting
funding for School Places from Residential Development.
3.0
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site is an irregular rectangular plot with an eastern frontage to
Rickmansworth Road of 49 metres and a site area of 1959 square metres.
3.2
A one to two storey public house and ancillary outbuildings presently occupy
the site. The applicant has advised that no tourist accommodation is provided
on the premises, rather only 1 two-bed unit for the manager on the first floor of
the public house. The public house and outbuildings have a gross floor area
above ground of some 622m2. The ground floor building footprint covers 21%
of the site. There is mixed foliage adjacent to the site boundaries with a
substantial tree buffer on the adjacent properties with tree canopies
overhanging the subject site.
3.3
The site’s southern and western boundaries adjoin a golf course while the
northern boundary adjoins the Old Forge. The Old Forge is a single storey
cottage used as a car dealership in conjunction with two adjacent C18 listed
buildings, the Dykes Cottages. To the north of the car dealership are two
other small scale 2 storey cottages the Brackendene and the Copse Cottage.
Page 76
3.4
The site is located some 550 metres to the west of the Northwood Town
Centre. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2, which
is a low score within a possible range of 1 to 6.
Scheme
3.5
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing public house
and outbuildings and erection of a four storey building with the lower ground
floor car park partially below ground and the third residential floor contained
within the roof space. The building accommodates 13 large residential units,
comprising 2 two-bedroom units and 11 three-bedroom units.
3.6
The three residential floors have a total gross floor space of some 1740m2,
with a building footprint of 41% of the site. Additional built upon area from
driveways and parking is kept to a minimum since a basement is proposed in
a lower ground floor. The roof form is comprised of a series of pitched roofs
with a flat roof in the centre of the building footprint. The roof includes dormer
windows, skylights and 8 metre wide balconies.
3.7
The vehicular ramp to the lower ground floor basement is located 3.5metres
from the northern boundary. The car park is entirely below ground along the
eastern façade adjacent to Rickmansworth Road and 1.2metres above the
existing ground level facing the golf course. A total of 19 parking spaces are
provided, 2 of which are outside the basement at the bottom of the ramp.
Planning History
3.8
Previous planning applications relate to minor extensions of the public house.
Planning Policy Guidance 3 (Housing)
Planning Policy Guidance 13 (Transport)
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Residential Layouts and House Design
Guide
UDP Designation:
Developed Area
River Corridor
Adjacent to Green Belt
Adjacent to London Distributor Road
The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:Part 1 Policies:
Page 77
Pt1.10, Pt1.13, Pt1.16, Pt1.32, Pt1.39
Part 2 Policies:
OPEN LAND AND COUNTRYSIDE
OL3
OL5
Green Belt - retention and improvement of existing landscape
Development proposals adjacent to the Green Belt
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
BE10
BE13
BE18
BE20
BE21
BE22
BE23
BE24
BE38
Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building
Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety
Siting, bulk and proximity to new buildings/extensions
Design of new buildings – protection of privacy
Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of
new planting and landscaping in development proposals
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
OE1
OE8
OE12
OE13
Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties
and the local area
Development likely to result in increased flood risk due to additional
surface water run-off - requirement for attenuation measures
Energy conservation and new development
Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate
sites
HOUSING
H3
H4
H6
H8
H9
Loss and replacement of residential accommodation
Mix of housing units
development
Change of use from non-residential to residential
Provision for people with disabilities in new residential
developments
RECREATION, LEISURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
R17
Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of
recreation, leisure and community facilities
Page 78
ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT
AM2
AM7
AM8
AM14
AM15
Development proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact
on congestion and public transport availability
Consideration of traffic generated by proposed development
Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and
implementation of road construction and traffic management
schemes
Provision of reserved parking for disabled persons
SPG
Residential Layouts and House Design Guide
Consultations
The application was advertised in the local paper, a site notice was erected
and 41 neighbours were consulted by letter. 2 objections have been received.
The issues raised by the objections are listed below:•
•
•
Loss of True Lovers Knot building;
Building should be retained and adapted for community/leisure use;
A third party is interested in adapting the pub as a restaurant;
External Consultees
Metropolitan Police
(CPDA)
No objection provided appropriate conditions
apply to control access to the communal open
space from Rickmansworth Road.
Northwood Residents
Association
No comments received
Gatehill (Northwood)
Residents Association
Internal Consultees
Policy and Environmental The proposal involves a change of land use from
Planning (PEP)
public house to residential. Policy H8 provides for
the change of use from non-residential to
residential land use if a satisfactory residential
environment can be found and there is little
likelihood of an occupier being found.
A key policy issue associated with this proposal is
the residential density. Officers will need to be
satisfied that the site is physically capable of
Page 79
accommodating the proposed level of density given
that it significantly exceeds density guidelines.
The proposal will result in a significantly larger
structure being developed on the subject site and
despite the proposed landscaping programme, the
removal of existing vegetation will decrease the
vegetative screening of the site from the adjacent
Green Belt. The greater bulk of the proposed
structure and removal of landscaping vegetative
screening will increase the visibility of the building
from the Green Belt with adverse effects on the
amenity of the adjacent Green Belt.
There is no ‘in principle’ objection to the proposal
on the basis of land use, however the density of
development proposed appears to be in excess of
that supported by the policies of the UDP and the
London Plan. Further the bulk and location of the
proposed design combined with the removal of
screening vegetation from the subject site has
potential to adversely affect the adjacent Green
Belt.
Trees/Landscape Officer
The trees on the site are not covered by a Tree
Preservation Order and the site does not lie within
a Conservation Area. However, there are trees
around the site boundaries (both on and off-site)
which collectively constitute a significant
landscape feature when viewed from
Rickmansworth Road (to the East). Similarly, the
tree belts form an appropriate edge to the Green
Belt which surrounds the site to the North, South
and West.
The development will result in the loss of 5 trees in
the north-east corner of the site between the site
and the Old Forge, near Rickmansworth Road.
Under policy OL3, concern is raised that it is
difficult with this layout to provide much in the way
of structure (tree) planting, along the Green Belt
boundaries to the south-west and south-east.
These boundaries are totally reliant on existing
trees (of varying quality/life expectancy) which are
outside the development site and control of the
applicant. The lack of new tree planting
opportunities is indicative of the pressure on space
Page 80
required to accommodate the footprint, whilst
retaining access and light to the living areas.
Car spaces 18 and 19 do not sit comfortably within
the layout and appear to intrude on the landscape
layout.
If Council is minded to approve this scheme, the
approval should include conditions on tree
protection, landscaping details and require that the
footpath through the communal area protect the
trees and also provide disabled access.
Urban Design and
Conservation Officer
The existing property, True Lovers Knot, is a
building of strong character and with a long
tradition in the local history of Northwood. The
building is set back from the street, in spacious
grounds. From a conservation point of view, the
existing building is of local historic importance and
contributes positively to the streetscene, although
it is in need of repair. The large trees on the site
strongly contribute to the green character of the
street scene.
The proposed new building raises concerns with
regards to its scale, bulk and character. The
proposed dwelling is out of scale. The density of
this scheme would have a detrimental effect on the
appearance of the streetscene, characterised by
small scale cottages and generous gardens. The
scheme would also affect the integrity of the
adjacent listed buildings negatively, not only by its
scale and position, but also by the provision of a
new large entrance to the property including a new
bin store with a separate gated entrance adjacent
to the Old Forge. The positioning of the proposed
building close to the street contributes to the
overbearing impression.
The harmonious balance between built area and
landscape setting would be seriously affected by
the proposed development, which is substantially
larger than the existing building. The scheme
would decrease the existing screening of the site.
This would have implications for views, not only
from Rickmansworth Road, but also it would affect
views from the adjacent Green Belt. In effect, this
residential development would affect the amenity
Page 81
of the Green Belt by exposing the new
development.
The compounded effect of these negative impacts
is that the character of the site, the streetscene
and the adjacent Green Belt would be seriously
harmed by this proposal.
Highways Engineer
Manoeuvrability for spaces 1,8,9,17,18,19 is very
difficult due to basement walls and the width of the
driveway ramp. Concerns were also raised about
the design of the driveway ramp, particularly the
turn at the bottom.
Education Directorate
A contribution of £106,186 should be sought for
new primary and secondary school places by way
of a Section 106 agreement.
Waste Management
No objection. Any planning permission should
provide for conditions on access and design
details. Vehicle access to service areas should
not have overhanging vegetation.
3.9
3.10
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Appropriateness of development
Visual character and streetscape
Landscaping, Tree Retention and Green Belt Impacts
Residential Amenity
Impact on Listed Buildings
Density
Traffic, parking and access to public transport
Planning obligations
(i)
Appropriateness of Development
Policy H8 provides for the change of use from non-residential to residential
land use provided a satisfactory residential environment can be achieved, the
existing use is unlikely to meet a demand for such and the proposal is
consistent with the other objectives of the plan.
Page 82
3.11
In this case, the applicant has not provided evidence of a lack of demand for
the existing use. Accordingly there is no evidence that the proposal complies
with Policy H8(ii).
(ii)
Visual character and streetscape.
3.12
Policies BE13, BE19, BE21, and OE1 seek to ensure that new development
will complement and improve the character and amenity of the area and
harmonise with the existing street scene.
3.13
The area generally comprises a mixture of residential cottages of 1 to 2storeys, situated in a transitional area between Rickmansworth Road and the
greenbelt. The south-east of Rickmansworth Road, where the site is located,
is quite open and rural in character. The existing 2-storey public house and
ancillary buildings has a footprint of only 21%, located in a landscape setting.
The development proposes to almost triple the extent of floor space onsite,
double the ground floor footprint and add a third floor. The development will
be 3 storeys to Rickmansworth Road whereas the existing context is two
storeys. The new building is notably wider and bulkier that the adjoining
buildings in the greenbelt and is significantly closer to Rickmansworth Road.
The size and siting of the building footprint and access provides little
opportunity for meaningful landscaping on-site.
3.14
The development is inconsistent with the existing scale and form of the
surrounding built environment and streetscene of the locality by reason of the
building height, bulk, and the northern boundary treatment. As such it is
considered that it is inconsistent with Polices BE13, BE19, BE21 and OE1 of
the Unitary Development Plan.
(iii)
Landscaping, tree retention and Green Belt impacts
3.15
Policy BE38 seeks to retain and utilize landscape features of merit and
provide new planting where appropriate. Policy OL3 also requires
developments to retain and improve existing landscaping where development
proposals affect land adjacent to the green belt. OL5 notes the local authority
will not normally permit development adjacent to the Green Belt if it would
injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt by reason of siting, materials,
design, traffic etc.
3.16
A tree survey has been submitted with the application. The survey identifies
24 individual trees, or groups, and rates them according to the system of
assessment described in the British Standard. There are no trees of any note
within the main part of the site. As this report only relates to trees, it does not
discuss the 2metre high mixed foliage areas located along the greenbelt
boundaries, as illustrated on survey drawing SD 03197-01.
3.17
The application proposes to remove Trees 1-4, in the north corner of the site
to accommodate the proposed vehicular ramp and the bin store. The
Landscape Officer has advised that Tree 5 may also suffer damage as a
Page 83
result of its proximity to the vehicular ramp. To the rear of the site, an apple
tree (Ref.19) and a Cypress tree (not on survey) are to be removed. All of the
other trees are to be retained albeit that all of the trees to the South and West
of the site are in fact 'off-site' and therefore beyond the control of the
applicant.
3.18
A total of only 4 new trees are proposed, one to the rear and three along the
Rickmansworth Road frontage. The lack of new tree planting opportunities is
indicative of the pressure on space required to accommodate this footprint,
whilst retaining access and light to the living areas.
3.19
The removal of trees 1 to 5 is inconsistent with Policy OL3, as the northern
boundary of the site (with the Old Forge) is a greenbelt boundary. The
proposal is also inconsistent with BE38 and OL3, as sufficient space should
be made available on-site for tree planting to mitigate the impacts of the
development since the applicant has no control over the adjacent landscaping
on which the proposal depends. The development also injures the amenity of
the greenbelt by reason of its bulk and scale and is therefore inconsistent with
Policy OL5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
(iv)
Residential Amenity
3.20
Policies BE20 and BE24 seek to ensure that new development protects the
amenities of existing and proposed dwellings in terms of sunlight and privacy.
Policy BE23 requires new residential buildings to have adequate external
amenity space.
3.21
The subject site adjoins a car dealership and a golf course. The building is
setback at least 9.5m from the northern boundary, resulting in a separation to
the Old Forge of around 12metres and to Dyke Cottages of around 21metres,
both of which are used as a car dealership. The building’s north-east units
will overlook the Old Forge as Trees 1 to 5 are either to be removed or will be
damaged by the driveway ramp. The location and design of windows and
landscaping screening to the north of Units 1,6 and 11 needs to be amended
to protect the privacy of the Old Forge. In addition privacy screens are
needed to protect the privacy between some of the proposed unit’s balconies.
Both these points could be addressed by planning condition, if the scheme
were in all other respects acceptable.
3.22
Policy BE 20 requires adequate sunlight to be maintained to existing houses.
The applicant has advised that the three adjoining cottages to the north are all
used as part of a car dealership rather than as residential dwellings. The
building would result in no significant loss of daylight and sunlight to the
adjoining properties. As all of the proposed units have some windows facing
east or west, adequate sunlight will be available to these apartments.
3.23
The development provides a common area of amenity space at the rear and
sides of the building, supplemented by balconies and terraces for each of the
apartments. The total area of balconies totals 275m2, which is supplemented
Page 84
by a communal garden, much of which is provided to the rear of the building.
Accordingly, the extent of private open space on-site for the enjoyment of the
residents is adequate. However, Council’s design guide for residential layouts
and house design advises that the purpose of amenity space is also to ensure
that a development is consistent with the character of the local environment.
As previously discussed above, the amenity space proposed does not protect
all boundary planting nor provide opportunity for meaningful ancillary
landscaping which is necessary given the site’s location adjacent to the Green
Belt.
3.24
As such the development is considered to be consistent with Policy BE20 but
is not in compliance with Policies BE23 and BE24 of the Unitary Development
Plan.
(v)
Impact on Listed Buildings
3.25
Policy BE10 seeks to ensure that new development is not detrimental to the
setting of a listed building.
3.26
The site adjoins the southern boundary of the Dykes Cottages, which are C18
listed buildings. The Conservation and Urban Design Officer comments
conclude that the scheme would affect the integrity of the adjacent listed
buildings negatively, not only by its scale and position, but also the location of
the driveway ramp and refuse store. As such, the scheme does not comply
with Policy BE10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
(vi)
Density
3.27
Policy H6 of the UDP states that the density of development depends on a
balance between the full and effective use of available housing land and the
building’s compatibility with its context. As a guide, new housing is expected
to be in the range of 100-200 habitable rooms per hectare (h.r.p.h).
Applications with densities above 150 h.r.p.h need to demonstrate that the
layout and design of the schemes are of a quality that produce good
environmental conditions and that harmonise with the surroundings.
3.28
Since the adoption of the UDP, density guidelines have been provided within
the London Plan. These density controls take into account public transport
accessibility, the character of the area and the type of housing proposed. The
site has a low public transport accessibility score (a PTAL of 2 on a scale of 1
to 6) within a suburban context. Taking this into account, Planning and
Environmental Policy have advised that the London Plan density guideline is
150-200 habitable rooms per hectare and 30-50 units per hectare.
3.29
The density of the proposal would be 283 habitable rooms per hectare or 66
units per hectare. This exceeds Council’s UDP guidelines and the London
Plan. This density is not supported having regard to the following:-
Page 85
•
•
•
•
•
The development is inconsistent with the density and massing of adjoining
development on the south-east of Rickmansworth Road.
The development will have an overbearing impact on the adjoining
properties and the street scenes of Rickmansworth Road.
The height, bulk and scale of the development is not in keeping with the
existing street scene and character of the area.
The scale of the development impacts on the amenity of the adjacent
greenbelt.
The development provides inadequate space on-site for landscaping to
screen and soften the impact of the built form.
(vii)
3.30
Policies AM2, AM14 and AM15 are concerned with traffic generation, on-site
parking and access to public transport. The Council’s current parking
standards seek 1.5 spaces per dwelling as a maximum and the following as a
minimum:
10% of spaces to be for people with disabilities
1 bicycle space per 1-2 bed unit
2 bicycle space per 2-3 bed unit
3.31
Using these standards, the development should provide a maximum of 19
parking spaces, 2 spaces for people with disabilities and a minimum of 24
cycle spaces. The development proposes 19 parking spaces, 2 spaces for
people with disabilities and space for 8 cycles (with 1 metre minimum
between). However spaces 18 and 19 do not comply with the design
requirements in the parking controls, which will make manoeuvring difficult
and in effect result in the spaces being unusable and hence a shortfall in
parking.
3.32
The site has a low public transport accessibility score (a PTAL of 2 on a scale
of 1 to 6). As Hillingdon has a high rate of car ownership, it is considered that
19 parking spaces should be provided which do not have manoeuvring
difficulties. This will require redesign of the ramp and may possibly require
the widening of the basement car park which could impact on landscaping
and tree retention.
3.33
Policies AM2 and AM7 of the UDP are concerned with traffic generation,
traffic safety, road capacity and access to public transport. In terms of traffic
generation and road capacity, the Council’s Highways Engineer has not
raised any objection to the development on these grounds.
Page 86
(viii)
Planning Obligations
3.34
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.”
3.35
Funding for School Places from Residential Development, the proposed
development requires the payment of a contribution of £106,186 towards
school places.
3.36
The applicant advised in their application that they are willing to enter into a
Section 106 Legal Agreement for education funding. However, no such
agreement has been concluded with the Council and therefore, at this time,
objection to the absence of the education contribution being secured is raised.
3.37
Two submissions have been received which object to the change of use of the
public house to residential units. As discussed at (i) above, the applicants
need to provide evidence to Council there is little likelihood of another
occupant being found for the building.
4.0
4.1
planning legislation, regulations, guidance, and circulars and also, the
5.0
5.1
have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or Council. The
Council’s financial resources, and the associated financial risk of the
Environmental Services Group and the wider Council
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The development exceeds the density guidelines in the London Plan. The
density manifests in an over development of the site with unacceptable
impacts on the character of the area, the street scene, on adjacent listed
Page 87
buildings and on the adjacent greenbelt. Accordingly the application is not
consistent with the provisions of Unitary Development Plan.
6.2
Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Adopted September 1998).
Guide
Contact Officer:
DEBORAH KRZEMINSKI
Page 88
Page 89
A
Item No.11
Address:
LAND ADJACENT TO THE GRAY CANCER CENTRE, MOUNT
VERNON HOSPITAL, RICKMANSWORTH ROAD,
NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF A PART TWO-STOREY, PART-THREE
STOREY BUILDING AS AN EXTENSION TO EXISTING
RADIOTHERAPY FACILITIES (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDING AND CONTAINER
UNITS) (OUTLINE APPLICATION)
LBH Ref Nos:
3807/APP/2004/879
Drawing Nos:
30462 00 1250, 30462 EX 200 (Illustrative), 30462 00 200
(Illustrative), 30462 SK 01 (Illustrative), Statement in Support,
Existing Buildings Photographic Study, Traffic and
Transportation Assessment, Tree Assessment, GBA2104.01
received 31/03/04
Date of receipt:
31/03/04
1.0
None
SUMMARY
1.1 This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a part twostorey, part three-storey building having a floor area of 3000m2 as an extension to
the existing radiotherapy facilities on the site. The application seeks to establish
the principle of the development with matters relating to siting, design, external
appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. Illustrative
drawings have been submitted with the application indicating the intended siting
and design of the building and these enable an adequate assessment of the
proposal to be made against the relevant policies of the Unitary Development
Plan. The existing pedestrian and vehicular access points into the site from
Rickmansworth Road and White Hill would remain unaltered.
1.2 The hospital site falls within the Green Belt and whilst the proposal constitutes
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, very special circumstances are
considered to exist to allow the development to be approved. These comprise the
identified need for the proposed facility and the lack of impact upon the integrity
of the Green Belt given the established use of the site for healthcare facilities.
Whilst the proposal would involve a net loss of 55 car parking spaces on the site,
it is considered unlikely that this would result in overspill parking on neighbouring
roads outside the site given their distance away and in particular the dangers of
parking on Rickmansworth Road or White Hill. However in order to mitigate
against the possibility of this it is considered necessary to require the applicant to
submit for approval a Green Travel Plan for the site outlining the means and
methods of reducing private transport use by staff, patients and visitors and
Page 90
facilitating increased use of public transport and alternative modes of transport
apart from single person car journeys. This can be secured by condition.
1.3 The application is therefore recommended for approval.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to:
1.
No objections being received from the Government Office for London.
2.
That subject to the above, the application be referred for determination by
the Head of Planning and Transportation Service under delegated powers.
3.
That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
(OUT3) Approval of Details
Application for approval of the
reserved matters shall be made
to the local planning authority
before the expiry of three years
from the date of this permission.
(OUT4) Reserved Matters –
submission and approval
(OUT1) Time Limit – outline
planning application
Plants during Site Clearance
and Development
(outline application)
implementation
All works associated with the
demolition of the existing
buildings on site and
construction of the new building
shall occur between the hours
of 0800 and 1800, Monday to
Friday, and between the hours
of 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays.
No work shall occur on Sundays
or Bank Holidays.
1.
2.
(OUT3) Standard
(OUT2) Standard
3.
(OUT4) Standard
4.
(OUT1) Standard
5.
6.
7.
(TL1) Standard
(TL2) Standard
(TL3) Standard
8.
(TL4) Standard
9.
(TL6) Standard
10.
To safeguard the amenities of
the occupiers of surrounding
residential properties.
11.
adjoining highway.
Page 91
12.
13.
14.
the passage of mud and dirt
onto the adjoining highway.
Development shall not begin
12.
until a scheme which specifies
the provisions to be made for
the control of potential noise
and dust nuisance emanating
from the construction works has
been submitted to and approved
the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall include such
combination of dust and noise
control measures and other
measures as may be approved
by the Local Planning Authority
13.
A Green Travel Plan for the
proposed building shall be
submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority
before any development is
commenced. The Green Travel
Plan shall outline the means and
methods of reducing private
transport use by staff and other
users of the development and
facilitate increased use of public
transport. The Green Travel Plan
shall be implemented for a
minimum period of 5 years from
the completion and occupancy
of the building hereby permitted.
14.
The proposed building hereby
approved, shall not have a floor
area greater than 3000 sq
metres gross.
users of the hospital complex
and the occupiers of
surrounding residential
properties from potential dust
and noise nuisance.
To minimise the reliance on
private transport to and from
work by staff and facilitate and
increase use of public transport
by patients and visitors to
ensure compliance with Policy
AM1 of the Unitary Development
Plan.
To minimise the visual impact on
the Green belt and to minimise
the traffic and parking
implications of the building.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(8)
Reserved Matters
(9)
Community Safety – Designing out Crime
(10) Illustrative Drawings
(34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities
Policies OL1, OL3, OL4, BE13, BE38, OE1, AM7, AM9 and AM14, and to all
relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning
Guidance.
In reaching this decision, the London Borough of Hillingdon’s North
Page 92
8.
3.0
Planning Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this
application, namely the very special circumstances justifying development
within the Green Belt relating to the identified need for this health care
building on this established hospital site and the location of the building
surrounded by existing buildings.
For the avoidance of doubt, the details to be submitted in accordance with
condition 1 (approval of reserved matters details) shall include details of:
• materials to be utilised.
• accessibility details to the building for disabled persons.
• designated covered cycle storage with shower and locker facilities
within the building.
• designated areas for waste storage and recycling.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive and you are advised to
consult with the Planning and Transportation Directorate prior to the
submission of any reserved matters application.
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site forms part of Mount Vernon Hospital which is situated within the
Green Belt and comprises a 0.63ha portion of the site located towards the
western corner near the White Hill Gate entrance. The site presently
accommodates hospital car parking and a single storey brick building and
container units used for hospital purposes.
3.2
The hospital is located in a semi-rural location bordered by woodlands to the
west, farmland to the south and Northwood to the east. The site has a
pronounced mix of building types, age and design which creates a site of
mixed character with limited visual appeal.
3.3
The site is served by public transport, including a number of bus services that
travel along Rickmansworth Road. The site has a Public Transport
Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2.
Scheme
3.4
Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of an extension to
the radiotherapy unit which will link directly to the cancer centre and will
provide 3000m2 of new floorspace. The application seeks to establish the
principle of the development with matters relating to siting, design, external
appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. However
illustrative drawings have been submitted with the application indicating the
intended siting and design of the building. The existing pedestrian and
vehicular access points into the site from Rickmansworth Road and White Hill
would remain unaltered.
3.5
The unit will accommodate five radiotherapy treatment rooms, associated
clinical support and a patient treatment centre. The extension to the clinic is
Page 93
required to reduce waiting times in the medium to short term, as in the long
term, the NHS has an emerging proposal to establish a new integrated cancer
centre at a new hospital in Hertfordshire. It is envisaged that there will be
approximately 7 new members of staff as a result of the proposal.
3.6
The detailed design of the building would be established at reserved matters
stage. However it is proposed that it will be 2-3 storeys which will link to one
of the established hospital units by way of a single storey corridor link.
3.7
As part of the scheme it is proposed to re-align the existing internal access
road through the site and reconfigure the remaining car parking spaces (93)
on the site.
Planning History
3.8
The Gray Cancer Institute was established on the site in the late 1950s and
since this time the cancer treatment facilities have been gradually expanded
by the construction of new facilities. The case history of these previous
developments is not directly relevant to the current application.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts)
The London Plan
The following UDP policies are considered relevant to the application:
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.1 To maintain the Green Belt for uses which preserve or enhance the
open nature of the area.
Pt1.32 To encourage development for uses other than those providing
services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport
Part 2 Policies:
Green Belt
OL1
OL2
OL3
OL4
Green Belt – acceptable open land use and restrictions on new
development
Green Belt – landscaping improvements
Green Belt – retention and improvement of existing landscape
Green Belt – replacement or extension of buildings
Page 94
BE13 Design of new development
BE38 Trees and Landscaping
Environmental Impact
OE3
Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance – mitigation
measures
OE12 Energy conservation and design
OE13 Recycling
R10
R16
community and health services
children
AM1 Consideration of development which draws upon or serves more than a
walking distance based catchment area – public transport accessibility
and capacity considerations
AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of
highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities
Consultations
External Consultees
The application was advertised as major development under Article 8 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995
and 10 neighbours were consulted in the surrounding area including the
Northwood and Ickenham Residents’ Associations.
One reply has been received from a resident of the adjoining Borough of
Harrow raising no objection in principle to the development but expressing
concern that the landlord of the radiotherapy unit is the Hillingdon Hospital
NHS Trust who should be responsible for the application rather than West
Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust. The writer also expresses concern that the
application may not have been discussed with the North West London
Strategic Health Authority and that there has been no public consultation
regarding the projected move of the plastic surgery and burns service from
Mount Vernon to Watford Hospital.
Page 95
Greater London Authority
The Mayor has concluded that the proposal
represents an opportunity to improve the
radiotherapy facilities within an established
healthcare setting and to enable the
development of primary care services.
The proposal to build on Green Belt marks a
departure from the principles of the London
Plan, national policy and local policy.
However, the identified need and established
use of the site for healthcare facilities are
considered exceptional circumstances for
development.
The sensitive siting of the proposed building
within the existing developed hospital
grounds is considered appropriate. However,
it is recommended that further details on the
footprint of the building and any possible
replacement trees should be required by the
Council as part of any remaining reserved
matters applications.
Under article 4(2) of the above Town &
Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order
2000 the Mayor has decided that he does not
wish to exercise his rights under article 4(1) to
be consulted further on this application or to
direct refusal under article 5. Your Council
may therefore proceed to determine the
application without further reference to the
GLA.
Ickenham Residents
Association
Northwood Residents
Association
Hillingdon Primary Care
Trust
London Ambulance Service
English Heritage
Metropolitan Police
No objection.
No objection
Internal Consultees
Page 96
Conservation/ Urban Design No objection in principle. The building will be
Officer
well screened and not impact on the setting of
the listed hospital chapel.
Trees and Landscape
There are three groups of trees (two groups
of Pines in proximity to each other and a
group of Cypresses), and an individual Ash
tree on the site. The two groups of Pines are
conspicuous in the landscape of this part of
the hospital site, reading as a feature of merit
in views of the site, with the groups, being
visible from White Hill. The other group of
conifers is less conspicuous, but contributes
to the screen/buffer of vegetation on the
fringe of the hospital site. The Ash is an
isolated specimen close to the existing
building.
Any redevelopment should make provision
for the long-term retention of the
trees/features of merit, and for tree planting
and landscaping to integrate the building into
this part of the Green Belt, so it does not
injure visual amenity.
The applicant indicates in the Statement of
Support that a ‘tree report…will identify a
strategy for the retention and/or replacement
of the existing vegetation on the development
site’. The report suggests the removal of two
groups of Pines and part of the other group,
but not to replacement of this feature or the
need to reserve space within the site to do so.
The loss of the ‘inner group’ of pines, close to
the cancer centre, may be justified due to
their premature decline, but the other Pines
(in the ‘outer’ group) are quite vigorous. If any
of the Cypresses are removed they should be
replaced as part of a comprehensive
landscaping scheme (together with Pine
retention/replacement to create a new linear
feature/buffer on the western part of the site).
The illustrative drawing indicating the realignment of the access road would involve
the removal of the southern part of the group
of Cypresses.
It should be feasible to achieve these tree
retention and landscaping objectives as part
Page 97
of the redevelopment of the site, albeit the
layout of the building and/or the car park
would vary from the indicative plan.
Highways Engineer
No objection
Planning
the Green Belt.
Policy OL1 defines the types of development
that are considered acceptable within the
Green Belt. Limited infilling or redevelopment
of major existing developed sites such as
St.Vincent’s Hospital is considered
appropriate in accordance with proposals and
criterion adopted within the UDP. The
proposed redevelopment of Mount Vernon
Hospital does not conform to the types of
development allowed by Policy OL1, as it is
not a ‘Major Developed Site’.
However, Policy OL4 will permit the extension
of buildings within the Green Belt if the
not be of detriment to the character and
appearance of the Green Belt. The proposed
development constitutes a significant amount
of additional floorspace which is greater in
mass and scale to the existing single storey
brick building which is to be demolished as
part of the proposal. Although the Mount
Vernon Hospital site is well developed, the
scale of the proposal could have an impact on
the character and appearance of the Green
Belt and would consequently be incompatible
with Policy OL4.
However, additional information has been
submitted setting out the special
circumstances of the development. On the
basis that there is both an urgent need for
these facilities and there are no suitable sites
within the area, it is considered that there are
very special circumstances to justify the
Page 98
development. The development would
represent a departure from the UDP and
should be referred to GOL accordingly, were
it to be approved.
The application is supported having
considered the very special circumstances to
justify development in the Green Belt.
3.9
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Impact on trees
(i)
3.10
•
•
•
•
The Mount Vernon Hospital Site is located
within the Green Belt. PPG2 (Green Belts)
states that the most important attribute of
the Green Belt is its openness. Therefore,
the construction of new buildings in the
Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for
the following purposes:
Agriculture and Forestry
Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation; for cemeteries; and or
other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt
Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings
Limited infilling or redevelopment of major developed sites identified in
adopted development plans which mete the criteria specified in Annex C of
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts) 1995
3.11
PPG2 also makes clear that inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to
the Green Belt and should not be
approved except in very special
circumstances. The guidance adds that
such circumstances will not exist unless
the harm is clearly outweighed by other
considerations and that it is for the
applicant to show why permission should
be granted. Policies in the adopted Unitary
Development Plan endorse National
Guidance. Policies OL1 and OL4 are
Page 99
important in assessing new buildings in
the Green Belt, particularly Policy OL4
which permits the replacement or
extension of buildings within the Green
Belt. Policy OL2 addresses landscaping
requirements.
3.12
The hospital site is not identified in the Unitary Development Plan as a ‘Major
Developed Site’ and is not damaged, derelict or degraded land. The proposal
therefore constitutes inappropriate development for the purposes of PPG2.
However the site is a working hospital consisting of a number of sizable
medical buildings. Whilst the exact siting of the proposed building has not
been submitted as part of the outline application, an illustrative drawing has
been submitted with the application indicating the likely siting of the building. It
is unlikely that this would vary significantly at reserved matters stage given the
constraints imposed by the existing surrounding buildings and car parking
facilities on the site and the limited extent of the application site, within which
any building must be located
3.13
The intended location of the building currently contains an area of car parking,
several large trees, an existing single storey extension and several container
units. In this instance, the application site is entirely surrounded by the
existing hospital site and accordingly will not encroach any further into the
‘open’ Green Belt. Whilst the proposal would not accord with Policy OL4 of the
Unitary Development Plan as it would result in a disproportionate change in
the bulk and character of the existing single storey buildings on the site, very
special circumstances are considered to justify development in the Green Belt
this instance. These are firstly the identified need for the proposed facilities in
this green belt location, where they will sustain and complement existing
radiotherapy / cancer care units on site and the established use of the site for
healthcare purposes. Secondly the limited impact on the openness of the
Green Belt due to the proposed building being contained within the existing
hospital site surrounded by existing hospital buildings of varying heights.
3.14
In light of these considerations, very special circumstances to justify the
proposed new building within the Green Belt have been demonstrated.
(ii)
3.15
3.16
The Hospital Grounds include two Grade II Listed Buildings being the Hospital
Church and Main Ward Block. The proposed building would not unduly
impact on the setting of these buildings. Therefore the proposal is consistent
with Policy BE10.
(iii)
Impact on trees
Page 100
3.17
Policy BE38 seeks to require developments to retain and utilize landscape
features of merit and provide new planting where appropriate.
3.18
Some of the existing trees on site form part of an important feature of the
landscape of this part of the Green Belt. Whilst the scheme would be likely to
result in some tree loss, the Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer is
satisfied that the important trees could be safeguarded at reserved matters
stage given that all matters are reserved for subsequent approval. In addition
a detailed landscaping scheme would be required in order to compensate for
an any trees lost.
(iv)
Traffic Impacts and car parking
3.19
Policies AM1, AM2, AM14 and AM15 are concerned with traffic generation,
on-site parking and access to public transport. A traffic and transportation
assessment has been submitted with the application. This concludes that due
to the nature of the treatment and staff specialisation there will be very little
additional traffic attracted to the site as a result of the proposed extension to
the radiotherapy unit or additional staff for its operations. Based on the
capacity of the unit it concludes that there could be up to 8 patient vehicle
movements (4 in and 4 out) during the peak hours. In addition there would be
approximately 7 new members of staff which could add a further 6 additional
movements in the peak periods. The combined additional parking demand for
both patients and staff is estimated to be 13 spaces given the likely turnover
of patients throughout the day. The Council’s Highways Engineer accepts
these conclusions and does not consider that the additional traffic generated
would be significant in terms of the operation of the highway network.
3.20
However the proposal would involve the loss of potentially 55 car parking
spaces from the existing car park and makes no provision for their
replacement. The transport assessment concludes that there will be adequate
parking on the hospital grounds as a whole primarily because the hospital’s
plastics and burns treatment facilities, which generate a peak parking demand
of 53 vehicles, are intended to be relocated to Watford General Hospital in 18
months time. The plastics and burns centre incorporates 10 units extending
over a site area of 1 hectare. However there is no application with the Council
to demolish or redevelop these buildings and the NHS would be able to re-use
this hospital floor space for another hospital use without planning permission
provided that there was no material change (i.e. intensification) of use. In
planning terms it is not considered that it would be reasonable to impose a
condition requiring these buildings to be demolished before implementation of
the extension to the radiotherapy unit. Notwithstanding this, in practice it is
considered unlikely that the proposal would result in overspill parking on
neighbouring roads outside the site given their distance away and in particular
the dangers of parking on Rickmansworth Road or White Hill. The proposal is
therefore considered acceptable on car parking grounds subject to the
imposition of conditions / informatives requiring the applicant to implement a
Green Travel Plan for the proposed building and requiring adequate cycle
Page 101
parking and shower and changing facilities to be provided to encourage forms
of transport to the site other than the single person car journeys.
3.21
With respect to the concerns raised by the resident of the adjoining Borough
of Harrow, the applicant, West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, has served
notice on the owner of the site, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, that it has
made the planning application and therefore the application is valid and must
be considered. The issue of consultation with the North West London
Strategic Health Authority and the relocation of the plastic surgery and burns
service is not a planning matter and must be considered by the relevant
Health Authorities.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
There are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The site falls within the Green Belt and whilst the proposal constitutes
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, very special circumstances
are considered to exist to allow the development to be approved. These
comprise the identified need for the proposed facility in this location and the
lack of impact upon the integrity of the Green Belt given the established use of
the site for healthcare facilities.
6.2
It is considered that the proposal is acceptable and is recommended for
approval subject to appropriate conditions which include the submission and
approval of a Green Travel Plan for the site.
Page 102
(a)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts)
Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001)
Contact Officer:
MARK SMITH
Page 103
Page 104
A
Item No.12
Address:
23B GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD
Development:
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO PROVIDE A BLOCK OF
12 TWO-BEDROOM FLATS AND ASSOCIATED CAR
PARKING (INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING
BUNGALOWS)
LBH Ref Nos:
38244/APP/2004/900
Drawing Nos:
863-3/PLN/101 - 106 (received 05/04/03)
Date of receipt:
05/04/03
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
The application seeks to demolish two existing bungalows and erect a threestorey block of 12 flats with associated car parking and landscaping. The
proposed building is designed in the style of a Georgian terrace with the third
floor contained entirely within a mansard roof with dormer windows.
1.2
The site was recently the subject of two appeals for two schemes, each
seeking to erect a three-storey block of 15 flats (ref:38244/APP/2003/1816
and ref:38244/APP/2004/231). Both appeals were dismissed on 2 June 2004.
1.3
Whilst the applicants have altered the design from those dismissed at appeal,
the scale of the proposed development is still considered to be inappropriate
due to the character of the site and the bulk and height of the building with
respect to surrounding properties. It is considered that the development would
have a significant adverse effect on the character of the area and the
amenities of adjoining residential properties, by virtue of loss of outlook and
privacy, and traffic disturbance. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary
to Unitary Development Plan policies BE13, BE19, BE21, BE24 and BE38.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL, for the following reasons:
1.
The layout, size and height of the flats would be overly dominant and
have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the
area and the outlook of adjoining residential properties contrary to
policies BE13 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The first and second floor windows and first floor balconies would give
rise to overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties to
the north, contrary to policies BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Unitary
Development Plan.
Page 105
3.
The widening of the driveway would result in the loss of screening
vegetation for residents of Elder Court contrary to Policy BE38, and the
increased use of the driveway, in the absence of a comparison between
existing and anticipated noise levels, would result in unreasonable noise
and disturbance to the occupiers of adjoining residential properties
contrary to Policy BE19 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development
Plan.
4.
The proposal fails to provide refuse and recycling facilities in close
proximity to a public road or to make adequate provision for turning
facilities for refuse collection vehicles servicing the development. This
would prevent collection of refuse and recycling and be detrimental to
the health and amenity of residents, contrary to policies BE19 and OE13
of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and standards
contained within the Council’s adopted Design Guide “Roads in
Residential Layouts”.
5.
The development is estimated to give rise to a significant number of
children of school age such that additional educational provision would
need to be made in the locality due to the shortfall of places in schools
serving the area. No legal agreement has been reached with the
applicant in respect of an education contribution and the proposal is
considered to be contrary to Policy R17 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development.
3.0
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The application site has an area of approximately 0.24 hectares and is located
on the north side of Green Lane between Rickmansworth Road and Dene
Road. Presently containing two detached bungalows and a detached garage,
the site is to the rear of 23a Green Lane and screened from the road by a
recently completed three-storey block of 12 flats (23a Green Lane/Elder
Court).
3.2
The site is accessed via an approximately 6 metre wide by 60 metre long
access strip from Green Lane, with the majority of the site comprising an
approximate width of 40 metres and a depth of approximately 45 metres. The
site slopes from the rear down to the boundary of 23a Green Lane by
approximately 2 metres from north to south, with little change in gradient from
east to west.
3.3
There are a number of trees and shrubs on the site, none of which are
protected by a Tree Preservation Order, but several are mature and provide
screening to neighbouring properties. A dense row of trees lines the eastern
boundary of the driveway and provides screening to the neighbouring Melville
Court.
Page 106
3.4
The northern boundary of the site marks the edge of an Area of Special Local
Character as designated in the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary
Development Plan, and to the north-east are two Grade II Listed Buildings at
7 Dene Road and the Greenhill Farmhouse (17 Dene Road), which are on
large open plots of land.
3.5
To the north-west of the site is a row of detached two-storey houses in
Foxdell, which are screened by a line of mature trees and vegetation. To the
west are the rear gardens of Churchill Court and to the east are two semidetached two-storey properties located off Dene Road. Churchill Court (a
two-storey block of flats), 23a Green Lane (third-storey partially within the roof
space), and Melville Court (also two stories) provide a dominant and
consistent building alignment fronting Green Lane.
Scheme
3.6
It is proposed to demolish the existing pair of bungalows and erect a threestorey building containing 12 two-bedroom flats. The proposed building is a
straight terrace designed in a Georgian theme and split by parapet walls and
quoins to resemble four townhouses. The third storey is contained entirely
within a mansard roof with dormer windows.
3.7
The proposed building comprises a rectangular footprint of 34.3m x 14.7m,
and a total gross floor area of 1307m2. The height of the mansard roof is 8.9
metres.
3.8
All vehicles would use the existing access from Green Lane, with 12 new car
parking spaces sited along a portion of the southern and eastern boundaries.
The proposal also seeks to provide for a widening of the initial 15-20 metres
of the driveway to 5.5 metres for safer egress and access to the site.
Planning History
3.9
In 2001 an application was lodged for the erection of a three-storey block of
twelve 2-bedroom flats on a 0.19ha site (now 23a Green Lane/Elder Court),
which fronts 23b Green Lane (ref. 56617/APP/2001/334). The proposal
included 12 car-parking spaces and the demolition of 23 and 23a Green Lane.
The application was the subject of an appeal against non-determination. The
Ruislip/Northwood Planning Committee resolved that the application would
have been granted planning permission had it not been the subject of an
appeal. The appeal was subsequently allowed by the Inspector.
3.10
In July 2003 an application was lodged for the erection of a three-storey block
of 15 two-bedroom flats on the subject site of 23b Green Lane
(38244/APP/2003/1816). The application included the provision of 15 car
parking spaces and the demolition of the two existing bungalows. The
application was refused on the grounds that the proposed building resulted in
an unacceptably overbearing impact on the outlook from the adjoining
Page 107
residential properties, and the close proximity of the proposed windows in the
southern elevation would give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy for the
occupiers of the adjoining residential properties. An appeal against the
refusal of planning permission was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
3.11
In October 2003 a further application was lodged for the erection of a threestorey block of 15 two-bedroom flats (38244/APP/2004/231). This proposal
was an amendment to the previous application and presented only a slight
change to the position of the building, a reduction in the overall height and
changes to some window positions. Following an appeal against nondetermination, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal on the basis
that:
•
The layout, size and height of the flats would conflict with policies BE13
and BE19 to secure development that compliments or improves the
character and amenity of the area.
•
The occupiers to the north would suffer a material loss of privacy, contrary
to policies BE21 and BE24, which seek to ensure that new buildings
should not cause significant loss of residential amenity and protect the
privacy of occupiers and their neighbours.
•
The increased traffic movements associated with the access, in the
absence of a comparison between existing and anticipated noise levels,
could be bothersome, and the removal of the existing high hedge at the
front of Elder Court to widen the access would cause visual harm,
particularly to those residents close by in Elder Court.
UDP Designation: Developed Area. Adjoins Area of Special Local Character.
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:Part 1 Policy:
Pt 1.10
To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the
amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Part 2 Policies:
Page 108
BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of
BE39 Protection of trees and woodland - tree preservation orders
H3
Loss and replacement of residential accommodation
H4
H6
development
H12
Tandem development of backland in residential areas
R17
Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation,
leisure and community facilities.
London Plan:
PTAL density guidelines, table 4.1B.
Planning Policy Guidance Notes
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design
Revised Car Parking Standards (December 2001)
External Consultees
3.12
The application was advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country
Planning General Development Procedure Order 1995 as major development.
46 adjoining owners/occupiers were consulted in the surrounding area. 16
Page 109
letters of objection have been received and a petition containing 14
signatories. A summary of the objections is listed below:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposal represents an overly-dense over-development of this
backland site, which is not in-keeping with the character of the area;
Close proximity of three-storey flats to the northern boundary and the
inclusion of first-floor rear balconies will overlook properties to the north
and restrict sunlight;
The ground levels of the site are higher than surrounding properties
increasing the impact of the building on the privacy and outlook of
neighbouring properties;
Entering and exiting traffic will have a serious adverse effect on traffic flow
and congestion, exacerbated due to the entranceway to the public car park
opposite the site;
Development involves the taking of land from the grounds of Elder Court to
widened the access, which none of the residents would be prepared to
release;
The distance of the flats from the road will result in the dumping of refuse
sacks at the corner of Green Lane for collection, leading to rat infestation
and a health hazard.
Impact of 12 new units on the existing surface and foul water drains;
The plans do not show all the existing trees or propose any new planting;
Removal of trees along border with Melville Court and at the back of Elder
Court will interfere with nature conservation and have visual impacts on
adjoining properties;
Increase in noise and air pollution impacting on residents amenity;
Accessibility for emergency vehicles
Internal Consultees
Conservation/Urban Design Officer
The proposal would have less impact than
the two previous schemes dismissed at
appeal. However, there is still concern
about this form of backland development, in
particular the overlooking of the adjacent
properties in the Area of Special Local
Character and the listed building of 17 Dene
Road, and the loss of trees on site.
The plans show existing trees on the site,
but do not provide information about the
mature trees lining the northern boundary of
the site.
The trees lining the drive have some
collective merit as they provide a
screen/buffer between the site and adjacent
properties and contribute to the arboreal
character of the locality. The hedge and
Page 110
retaining wall lining the western side of the
drive (at the front of Elder Court) are not
shown on the plans and no indication of the
proposed levels or landscaping is provided.
Other than the 1200mm-wide service strip
alongside the drive on the survey plan, no
details of tree protection measures or
construction methodology is provided. The
information can be conditioned.
There is scope for planting of small-medium
sized trees and shrubs close to some of the
boundaries. However, the parking area
south of the building precludes planting,
which could provide screening along the
southern boundary. It would be preferable
to have the gardens to the south and car
parking to the north.
Policy and Environmental Planning
Continued residential use of the site is
acceptable in principle.
The density proposed for this site is
approximately 150 habitable rooms per
hectare (hr/ha) or 50 units per hectare
(u/ha), which is in accordance with Policy
H6 of the UDP, and the London Plan for a
suburban site with a PTAL (public transport
accessibility level) score of 2.
The proposed site is more than 400m from
the nearest recreational open space. In
accordance with Policy R1, an assessment
of the need to provide open space or a
contribution towards provision of open
space is necessary.
The provision of 12 car parking spaces is
within the Council’s maximum standards.
However an assessment should be made as
to whether the development has enough car
parking spaces.
An appropriate education contribution in
accordance with Council’s Supplementary
Planning Guidance should be sought.
Page 111
The applicants should provide a financial
contribution of £17,458 towards secondary
school places in Uxbridge and Hillingdon.
This figure takes into account the loss of the
two dwellings on the site.
Highways Officer
The Planning Inspectorate approved 1:1
parking at 23a Green Lane. It is not
appropriate to seek an increase on this site.
With the intensification of the use of the site,
from 2 bungalows to a block of 12 flats with
12 parking spaces, and the proximity of the
adjoining crossover for Melville Court
(approximately 4m apart) the proposal may
give rise to conflict between vehicle
movements particularly during peak hour
traffic. Green Lane is a busy Local
Distributor Road and a situation where
vehicles may queue up on the highway
because their entry is restricted by outgoing
vehicles is unacceptable. The proposal
provides a 5.5m carriageway width for the
initial 15-20m of the driveway, which will
enable two vehicles to enter and exit the site
at the same time, and is considered
acceptable (The Council’s design guide for
estate developments serving up to 10
dwellings where no separate footway is
provided requires a minimum width of
5.5m).
Waste Management Development
Officer
Insufficient information to adequately assess
the provisions for waste and recycling.
However, on the basis of 12 flats, in order to
operate safely 2 x 1100 litre bin for refuse
and 2 x 1100 litre bin for recycling should be
provided. Ideally the bin stores should be
located in the same place with easy access
for residents and collection operatives. Any
planning approval should ensure that:
• Good vehicle access and egress to
ensure facilities can be serviced and are
located no more than 10 metres from the
closest point of access for refuse
collection vehicles
• On site signage is provided to promote
correct use of facilities
Page 112
• Specific details of the design of the bin
chamber are submitted for approval to
ensure they can be safely accessed.
Metropolitan Police Crime
Prevention Officer
The site and proposal provides good
definition of amenity space to the rear.
However, railings should be used to each
side of the building to give privacy and
security to the rear.
3.13
The main planning issues are considered to be:(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
The principal of residential development
Scale of development
Impact on the outlook, privacy and amenity of adjoining residential
properties
Amenity space
Acceptability of access, parking
Refuse storage arrangements
Impact on the adjoining Listed Buildings and the Area of Special
Character
Impact on existing trees on the site
Density
Provision of school places
(i)
The principal of residential development
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
3.14
The site is located within the Developed Area, as identified in the Council’s
Unitary Development Plan, close to the Northwood Town Centre. As with the
adjoining site, now called Elder Court, no objection is raised to the principal of
residential development of this site.
(ii)
Scale of development
3.15
The Planning Inspector approved the 12-unit, three-storey block of flats at 23a
Green Lane. The building was deemed to be of an appropriate scale for its
street front location. Any effects of its proximity to the properties at the rear
(23b Green Lane) were considered negligible given that they were situated
over 40m away. This proposal presents a different situation due to the
backland site exhibiting greater openness and a reduced scale of surrounding
development than that of the properties fronting Green Lane.
3.16
The two previous applications 38244/APP/2003/1816 and
38244/APP/2004/231 included the scale of the building as a reason for
Page 113
refusal. The subject proposal seeks to address these reasons for refusal
through the following:
•
•
•
A reduction in the building footprint from 1562m2 and 1503m2 respectively
to 1307m2.
A reduction in the ridge height by from 11.2m and 9.2m respectively to
8.9m.
Adoption of a classical Georgian terrace design to minimise the scale.
3.17
These changes from the previous applications result in a reduction in the
scale of the building and a concentration of development in the centre of the
site providing increased setback from the southern boundary and a partial
increase from the northern boundary of the site. However, the proposal results
in a decreased setback from the property to the east from 13.5m to 5 metres,
and despite the use of a mansard roof, the three-storey height and bulk of the
design is considered inappropriate and not in-keeping with the character of
surrounding properties in the area. Council’s Conservation and Urban Design
Officer highlights a general concern with the form of this backland
development.
3.18
Planting of small trees and shrubs close to the boundaries could, in time,
provide a degree of low level screening and ‘softening’ of the three-storey
scale. However, the proposal is considered to represent an over development
of the site and would not complement or improve the amenity of the area. As
such it would be contrary to Policies BE 13, BE 19 and BE 21 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
(iii)
The impact on the outlook, privacy and amenity of potential residents and the
adjoining residential properties.
3.19
Either side of the proposed development are the gardens of a block of flats to
the west (Churchill Court) and a two-storey flat roofed semi-detached property
(5f Dene Road) to the east.
3.20
The building would be set in 3.5 metres from the western boundary and
approximately 8 metres from habitable rooms in Dene Road directly to the
east. Two small windows for bathrooms are provided at ground and first floor
level in the east and west elevations. A condition of consent requiring that
these windows be treated with obscure glazing would ensure that there was
no significant adverse effect on the privacy of the dwellings in Dene Road or
users of the gardens in Churchill Court.
3.21
The proposed building would be set back approximately 18 metres from the
southern boundary with 23a Green Lane and 30 metres from habitable room
windows in the rear of the existing building. To the south-west, the proposed
building is approximately 25 metres from habitable room windows in the rear
of Churchill Court. Due to the higher ground level of the proposed site, there
will be some overlooking of the rear of these properties and their communal
garden areas. However, the setback of the building is not untypical of modern
Page 114
urban developments and the distances are appropriate to mitigate any loss of
privacy. However, for the properties to the north, the Inspector’s report on
38244/APP/2003/1816 and 38244/APP/2004/231 highlighted a concern with
potential overlooking of their gardens through the inclusion of lounge
windows, bedrooms and balconies in the northern elevation. This proposal,
although removing balconies from the second floor, still results in first floor
and second floor windows, and first floor balconies located approximately
9.5m – 13.5m from the northern boundary. The rear boundary is lined with
mature trees that provide screening. However, it is noted that many of these
trees are deciduous and screening in the winter months is very much
reduced. Despite the screening provided, opportunities would exist for the
overlooking of the private rear gardens to the north, which is considered
contrary to policy BE24, and consistent with the conclusion of the recent
Inspector’s appeal decisions. This is reiterated in concerns raised by
Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer on this scheme with respect
to overlooking of the adjacent properties in the Area of Special Local
Character and the listed building of 17 Dene Road.
(iv)
Amenity space
3.22
The site provides approximately 850m2 of useable communal amenity space,
which equates to approximately 71m2 per flat. The majority of the useable
area is provided on the northern side of the building, which does not make the
best use of sunlight to the site, but despite this the area provide is considered
acceptable for the size of the development.
3.23
The Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Officer notes that the site and
proposal provides good definition of amenity space to the rear, but that
railings should be used to each side of the building to give privacy and
security to the rear. The introduction of railings could be addressed through
the imposition of conditions on any planning permission, were the scheme in
other respects considered acceptable.
(v)
3.24
Acceptability of access and parking
The existing access point from Green Lane, which currently serves the two
bungalows at 23b Green Lane is not ideal, being opposite the exit from the
Green Lane Public Car Park, near to a bend in the road, and approximately
4m from the access to Melville Court. However, the existing access is to be
retained and altered to accommodate an increase in the number of vehicles
using it. The driveway would be up to 65m in length and widened to 5.5m by
the entranceway narrowing to 4.1m thereafter, which is sufficient width for
two-way traffic to pass, and Council’s Highways Engineer considers
acceptable. This would require alterations to the boundary fence at No.23a
(Elder Court) and changes in the levels to achieve the required standards.
The Inspector’s report on 38244/APP/2003/1816 and 38244/APP/2004/231
notes that this widening requires the removal of an existing high hedge at the
eastern side of 3 car parking spaces for Elder Court and brings greater traffic
closer to the flats on the eastern side of Elder Court, with little opportunity for
Page 115
replacement screening. This increased traffic and visual disturbance would
adversely affect the amenity of those living close by in Elder Court and is
considered contrary to policies BE19 and BE38.
3.25
The proposal would increase the number of parking spaces from 3 to 12 and
result in an increase in dwellings giving rise to a significant increase in vehicle
movements and associated noise and dust. It is not considered that the
number of vehicles using the site would increase traffic onto Green Lane to
the extent that it is detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety. However
the effects of noise and disturbance on the properties of 23a Green Lane and
Melville Court, which adjoin the driveway would be significant and detrimental
to their amenity, in the absence of a comparison between existing and
anticipated noise levels. The retention of the existing trees along the eastern
boundary would provide some protection to Melville Court, and likewise the
close board fence on the western boundary to 23a Green Lane. However the
effects would still be significant given the minimum setbacks of 4 metres to
the east and 0.5 metres to the west from the access way to the neighbouring
buildings. It is considered that the increased use of the vehicular access as a
result of the proposed development would result in unreasonable noise and
disturbance to the occupiers of these buildings.
3.26
The level of parking provided is considered sufficient for the site. The
proposed flats are within a five-minute walking distance of Northwood
Underground Station, buses and shops, including a large Waitrose store. In
addition, the Inspector approved 1:1 parking on 23a Green Lane, and no
issues were raised by the recent appeal decisions on applications
38244/APP/2003/1816 and 38244/APP/2004/231.
(vi)
3.27
In the absence of the provision of an adequate turning area for Heavy Goods
Vehicles, Council refuse collectors will collect refuse up to 23m from a public
highway. The proposal provides one bin store on the eastern edge of the
access approximately 60m from Green Lane. This position is considered
unacceptable. However, the previous scheme (ref:38244/APP/2004/231)
provided a bin store position approximately 10m from Green Lane, which
would be acceptable. Comments from Council’s Waste Management
Development Officer conclude that any planning permission should ensure
that details of bin store positions, their capacity, and their management and
use are submitted for approval prior to any occupation. The proposed plans
are unacceptable and the lack of adequate provision for refuse and recycling
facilities is included as a reason for refusal.
(vii)
3.28
Refuse storage arrangements
Impact on the adjoining Listed Buildings and the Area of Special
Character
With well established trees, hedges and shrubs along the rear boundary and
given that the listed buildings are over 50m from the rear boundary, there
Page 116
would be little impact upon the Listed Buildings to the south or east, or the
Area of Special Character.
(viii)
Impact on existing trees and landscaping on the site
3.29
While not protected by Tree Protection Orders the trees lining the drive have
some collective merit as they provide a screen/buffer between the site and
adjacent properties, and contribute to the arboreal character of the locality.
The Trees/ Landscape Officer advises that any works, changes in levels or
the introduction of services within the area of the drive, in close proximity to
the trees could affect them. In the absence of details about tree protection
measures or the construction methodology the applicants have failed to
demonstrate that they have made adequate provision for the protection and
long-term retention of these trees, which is contrary to Policy BE38 of the
Unitary Development Plan. However, these details could be covered by
conditioned in the event of planning permission being granted.
3.30
The positioning of the car parking spaces and associated manoeuvring area
adjacent the southern boundary of the site will result in the loss of a dense
area of shrubs and small trees, which provide screening from the rear of Elder
Court, and prohibit the introduction of planting along the boundary. Although
not considered a reason for refusal, it would be desirable to retain the ability
for some landscaping to be achieved along the southern boundary of the site.
(ix)
3.31
The site has a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) score of 2. The
London Plan suggests a density range for the site of 50-80 dwellings per
hectare (dph) or 200-250 habitable rooms per hectare (hrph) for terraced
houses and flats with car parking provision of 1-1.5 spaces per unit. The
density proposed of 50 dph or 200 hrph is considered acceptable under the
London Plan guidance on density.
(x)
3.32
Policy R17 seeks to supplement the provision of recreational open space and
other community, social and educational facilities through planning
obligations. Under the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Guidance
for Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development
(allowing for a concession for the existing two dwellings), the following
contribution has been agreed with the applicant.
•
3.33
Whether the density of development is appropriate
A financial contribution of £17,458 towards the provision of new school
places and the improvement of existing educational facilities at all primary
schools within 2 miles of the site and all secondary schools within 3 miles
of the site.
The applicant has provided written confirmation of the willingness to enter into
a legal agreement to provide a contribution towards educational facilities.
Page 117
However, this contribution has not been secured at this time and presents a
reason for refusal.
3.34
16 letters of objection have been received, largely reiterating issues raised in
submission on the previous applications 38244/APP/2003/1816 and
38244/APP/2004/231. The main issues of concern have been addressed
within the main body of the report. The following comments are made on
additional points raised:
•
3.35
The additional demand on existing services and utilities will be addressed
through building controls and regulations.
•
3.36
Construction Impacts (Noise/Dust etc.)
Noise and dust pollution are controlled under the Control of Pollution Act 1974
and related legislation. These Acts require the elimination of dust or odours
that could create a public nuisance.
•
3.38
Air Pollution
The level of traffic generation is not considered to result in unreasonable air
pollution that would warrant refusal of the application.
•
3.37
Impact on the existing surface and foul water drains
Acquisition of land for widening the access
The process of acquiring land required to implement any planning permission
is not a material planning consideration that can be taken into account.
•
Emergency access
3.39
Council’s Highways Officer has reviewed the proposal and considers the
access is satisfactory for emergency vehicle access.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
Page 118
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
It is considered that the scale of the proposed development is inappropriate
due to the backland location of the site. The layout, size and height of the
flats, and the associated access widening and use would have a significant
adverse effect on the character of the area and the outlook and amenity of
adjoining residential properties. The proposal is considered contrary to
Unitary Development Plan policies BE13, BE19, BE21, BE24 and BE38. The
proposal is unacceptable and it is recommended that the application be
refused.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The London Plan
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG 3) ‘Housing’, March 2002
Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG15) ‘Planning and the Historic
Environment’, September 1994
16 Letters of Objection, 1 Petition
Design Guide: Residential Layouts & House Design
Contact Officer:
ALISTAIR SMITH
Telephone No:
01895 277079
Page 119
Page 120
A
Item No.13
Address:
DELL COURT, GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF A THREE-STOREY BLOCK OF 12
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, BLOCK OF 8 GARAGES AND 10 CAR
PARKING SPACES (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
BUILDING)
LBH Ref Nos:
59117/APP/2004/1039 (APPLICATION A) & 1040
(APPLICATION B) (DUPLICATE APPLICATIONS)
Drawing Nos:
528 P 01, 03 Rev B, 04 Rev D, 05 Rev B, 06 Rev C, 3048/2,
530.2 received 21/04/04, 528 P 02 Rev D, 07 received 28/05/04
Date of receipt:
21/04/04
28/05/04
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a three-storey block of
12 flats, a block of eight garages, associated car parking and landscaping.
The proposal will involve the demolition of the existing residential building on
the site. Duplicate applications have been submitted for this proposal.
1.2
A total of sixteen letters of objection have been received and a petition
containing 46 signatories. They object to the development on the grounds
briefly of scale, privacy, outlook and traffic impacts.
1.3
There is no objection to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
in principle. The current duplicate schemes follow a previous scheme which
proposed the erection of a block of 14 flats on the site and was refused
planning permission due to the adverse impact on the character and
appearance of the area, the lack of usable amenity space and the adverse
impact on the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining site.
1.4
Whilst the block has been reduced in size, it is still considered that it would
result in an unduly obtrusive and incongruous form of development,
detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and
result in the provision of inadequate amenity space. Furthermore it is
considered the scheme makes inadequate provision for the retention, longterm survival and utilisation of existing trees of merit and fails to provide
adequate on-site cycle parking facilities.
1.5
It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for these
reasons.
Page 121
2.0
RECOMMENDATION (APPLICATIONS A & B): REFUSAL, for the following
reasons:
1.
The proposed block of flats, by reason of its overall size, bulk,
inadequate provision for the retention and long-term survival of trees of
merit and scale represents an unduly obtrusive and incongruous form of
development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the
surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE19,
BE21, BE38 and H6 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The development fails to provide an adequate amount of usable amenity
space. In this regard the development is contrary to Policy BE23 of the
Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Design
Guide ‘Residential layouts and House Design’.
3.
The development fails to provide a covered, secure bicycle store on-site
of sufficient size to meet the Council’s standards and would therefore be
unlikely to encourage residents to use means of transport other than the
private car. The proposal would therefore be contrary to sustainability
principles and Policy AM9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4.
children of school age and additional provision would need to be made
in the locality due to the shortfall of places in schools serving the area.
This is a material consideration of such significance as to warrant
refusal of this application. Given that a legal agreement to address this
issue has not at this stage been offered, the proposal is considered to
be contrary to Policy R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
3.0
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site contains a two-storey block of 4 terraced houses and two single
storey garages. A large area of impervious surfacing covers the front of the
site which is used for car parking. A mixture of mature trees, shrubs and
pockets of open space cover the rear of the site.
3.2
The site is located at the junction of Green Lane and Myrtleside Close,
Northwood within a predominately residential area characterised by a mix of
detached & semi-detached houses and flatted developments. The exception
is the London Bible College which is situated adjacent to the site across
Green Lane.
3.3
The scale of development within the surrounding area is predominantly two
and three storeys, although there are examples of part single, part two-storey
development within the locality.
Page 122
3.4
Two existing vehicular crossings provide access to Green Lane which is
classified as a Local Distributor Road.
Scheme
3.5
The application is for planning permission to erect a three-storey block of 12 x
2 bedroom flats and associated car parking and landscaping.
3.6
A total of 242m2 of amenity space is provided for the development.
Approximately 160m2 has been provided at the rear of the site of which just
over half is located above the proposed garaging. The front of the site
provides approximately 60m2 whilst additional amenity space (19m2) is
provided in the form of balconies to the units on the first and second floors.
3.7
A total of 18 car parking spaces are provided at a car-parking ratio of 1.5
spaces per unit. 17 are located at the rear of the site, of which 8 will be
located within single bay garages. 1 space will be provided at the side of the
building alongside the access road for car parking for people with disabilities.
3.8
Vehicular access to the site will be from a new single access point from Green
Lane incorporating a footway on one side.
Planning History
3.9
Planning permission was refused on 19 March 2004 for the erection of a three
storey block of 14 residential units, block of 8 garages and 13 car parking
spaces on the site (involving demolition of the existing building) for the
following reasons (Ref. 59117/APP/2004/197):
1.
The proposed block of flats, by reason of its overall size, bulk and scale
represents an unduly obtrusive and incongruous form of development,
detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE19, BE21 and H6 of the
Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The development fails to provide an adequate amount of usable amenity
space. In this regard the development is contrary to Policy BE23 of the
Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Design
Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design’.
3.
The proposal fails to protect the adjoining site from being overlooked
resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy. The development is
therefore contrary to Policy BE24 of the Council’s adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Council’s Design Guide: ‘Residential Layouts
and House Design’.
4.
children of school age and additional provision would need to be made in
the locality due to the shortfall of places in schools serving the area. This
Page 123
is a material consideration of such significance as to warrant refusal of
this application. Given that a legal agreement to address this issue has
not at this stage been offered, the proposal is considered to be contrary
to Policy R17 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3.10
An appeal has been lodged against this decision and a hearing is scheduled
to take place on 13 January 2005.
Planning policy guidance notes:
PPG 3 – Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 3 - Housing
London Plan:
PTAL density guidelines, table 4B.1.
Part 1 Policies:
1.10, 1.16, and 1.39.
Part 2 Policies:
Built Environment
BE13 Design of new development.
BE14 Development potential of adjoining sites
BE19 Character of the area.
BE20 Daylight and Sunlight considerations
BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new development
BE24 Design of new buildings – protection of Privacy
BE38 Trees and Landscaping.
OE1 Character and amenities of surrounding properties.
OE13 Recycling
Page 124
Housing
H6 Density of Development
H9 Provision for housing and people with disabilities.
AM7 Considers the impact of proposals in terms of traffic generation on local
roads and includes the requirement that developments should not
prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety.
AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with
the Council’s parking standards.
SPG Residential Design Guidelines
External Consultees
The application was advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country
Planning General Development Procedure Order 1995 as major development
and 96 adjoining owners/occupiers were consulted in the surrounding area,
including the Northwood Residents Association. Sixteen responses have been
received, including a petition containing 46 signatories. A summary of the
objections is listed below:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Siting, bulk and proximity to The Glen resulting in a significant loss of
residential amenity;
Proposed block of flats would overcrowd and dominate the site;
Out of keeping with surrounding area;
Building three times the area of the existing;
Close proximity of building to The Glen would create overlooking and loss
of privacy through windows and balconies;
Increase traffic generation creating further congestion at Green Lane /
Myrtleside Close junction and further at the Green Lane / Rickmansworth
Road junction;
Increased traffic generation will cause congestion causing great
inconvenience to the residents at The Glen;
Increased traffic along boundary of The Glen would create health hazards
from vehicle noise and fumes;
Create unsafe vehicle entry/egress;
Result in additional car parking in Myrtleside Close;
Access to the site should be from Myrtleside Close only;
Pressure on existing services such as water drainage / electricity;
Proposal would affect site’s natural drainage;
Inadequate communal amenity space provided;
Loss of trees
Page 125
Northwood Resident’s
Association
Object on the grounds that the
access/egress for vehicles onto Green
Lane is at an awkward point being a blind
corner. The building proposed will be
considerably larger in the area that it
replaces (at least twice the size) and fails
to meet UDP policies BE13, BE15 and
BE21.
The Glen Resident’s
Association
Object on the grounds that the proposal
would be an over-development of the site
resulting in a significant loss of amenity to
residents in The Glen.
Elevated amenity area at rear of building
would result in a loss of privacy to
residents of The Glen.
Increased number of cars using proposed
access/ exit onto Green Lane and along
the boundary of The Glen.
Bin store should be relocated off boundary
with The Glen.
Concerned about building operations
disturbing natural drainage pattern.
Petition containing 46
signatories
Object on the grounds that:
a) the proposed development would be a
major over-development of the site
resulting in a significant loss of amenity
to residents in The Glen;
b) the elevated terrace over-sailing the
garages and the balconies of the east
wing would result in unwarranted
intrusion in the privacy of residents of
The Glen;
c) the increased number of cars would
accentuate traffic problems in Green
Lane at a difficult bend and also lead to
considerable inconvenience to residents
of The Glen living near the boundary.
Internal Consultees
Highways Engineer
No objection, proposal will not result in a
noticeable increase in traffic generation on
adjoining highway. A ‘Grampian’ condition
will be required in the event of planning
permission being granted to ensure that
Page 126
the proposed highway works involving the
realignment of the kerb line in Green Lane
are completed before the development is
occupied.
The trees on and close to the site are
important features in the local landscape
and contribute to the visual amenity and
arboreal character of the area. The three
mature and vigorous Sycamore trees (trees
2, 3 and 4) on the Green Lane frontage are
prominent in views along the road. The
Sycamore trees standing in the verge on
Myrtleside Close, together with the clump
of Sycamores (trees 32-36), line the
entrance to the Close and provide a
screen/buffer between the Close and the
site. These features, which are features of
merit in terms of Policy BE38, constrain the
redevelopment of the site which should
make provision for the protection and longterm retention of these trees.
The level of tree removal proposed as part
of this scheme would not have a significant
impact on the visual amenity and quality of
the local landscape, so long as the scheme
makes adequate provision for the longterm retention of the other, more valuable,
trees.
The block is located about 3m forward of
the line of the existing building, so that the
gap between the crowns of the existing
Sycamore trees and the north-facing flats
is reduced to about 2m. The existing
juxtaposition is reasonably good, but the
proposed relationship is not sustainable,
because the trees cast a heavy shade and
would be too close to the windows of the
flats such that future occupiers would press
to carry out major works to the trees. The
western flank wall of the proposed block
would be 1-2 metres from the Sycamore
trees lining the entrance to Myrtleside
Close. Habitable room windows in this
flank wall would be shaded by these trees,
so that there would be pressure to prune
these important trees. The south-west
Page 127
(rear) corner of the block would be less
than a metre from the canopy of the
Purple-leafed Maple (tree 36), which
spreads 3-4 metres across the rear (southfacing) elevation, living rooms and
balconies, which would be close to
branches of the tree, and there would be
pressure to carry out major works to the
tree. Furthermore, there are significant
changes in levels and a proposed pathway
within the minimum protection area around
this tree.
There are significant changes in levels
across the site, and there is a change in
levels and retaining wall along the western
boundary of the site, close to the
Sycamores located off-site, which is not
shown on the drawings (note that the north
elevation shows a slope away from the
boundary). If a new retaining structure is
necessary, then its design and construction
should take account of the trees. The plans
show the existing levels would be
maintained, but do not show or address the
issue of the retaining wall. The plans show
part of the proposed parking area and
associated changes in levels within the
minimum tree protection area around trees
23-25.
Planning
No in principle objection.
It works out that the density would be
approximately 188hrh (habitable rooms per
hectare) or 63 units per hectare. The PTAL
(Public Transport Accessibility Level) score
(which is 2) indicates for this type of
development density should be in the
region of 200-250hrh and 50-80 units per
hectare. Therefore, the scheme does meet
the density requirements of the PTAL table
in the London Plan. Policy H6 of the
Hillingdon UDP seeks to limit development
to between 100-200 hrh. Development over
150hrh is expected to demonstrate that
environmental conditions within the site
would be of a good standard. Development
should therefore conform with relevant built
Page 128
environment and other environmental
considerations policies.
Environmental Protection Unit
No objection subject to a number of
conditions relating to
loading/unloading/deliveries during
construction and construction air quality.
Waste Management
No objection subject to 2 refuse bins and 2
recycling bins being provided on site which
are no further than 10m from the closet
point of access for a refuse collection
vehicle.
Metropolitan Police
No objection, however highlights concern
with regards to the location of the adjoining
block of garages in respect of securing the
site.
A contribution of £29,087 towards primary
and secondary school places in the area
should be sought via a planning obligation.
Urban Design and
From a design and conservation point of
view the proposed development raises
concern since the scheme is out of scale
for this particular site. Furthermore it does
not comply with the local distinctiveness of
Green Lane and would have a detrimental
effect on the character and appearance of
the neighbourhood.
3.11
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Principle of the use of the site for residential purposes
Whether the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance
of the area
Amenity of future and adjoining occupiers
Traffic impacts
Trees and landscaping
Page 129
(i)
3.12
The site is located within the Developed Area, as identified in the Council’s
Unitary Development Plan. As such the principle of residential development is
considered acceptable given the nature of the locality.
(ii)
3.13
Principle of the use of the site for residential purposes
Section 7.13 of the UDP indicates that the Borough contains housing built at a
variety of densities, from approximately 50 hrh in Northwood to over 250 hrh
in Town Centres. As a guide to developers, new housing is generally
expected to be in the range of 100 -200 hrh. However Policy H6 states:
“... the appropriate density of development depends on a balance between
the full and effective use of available housing land and the following
important 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. However, applicants for residential
development at a density above 150 habitable rooms per hectare will be
expected to submit sufficient details to demonstrate that the layout and
design of the scheme are of a quality which produces good environmental
conditions within the development and harmonise with the surroundings.”
3.14
The application proposes a development with a density of 188 habitable
rooms per hectare (hrh) or 63 dwellings per hectare (dph). Although such a
density is in excess of UDP requirements the London Plan anticipates a
density between 50-80 dph.
3.15
Paragraphs 57 and 58 of PPG 3 state that Local Planning Authorities should
avoid the inefficient use of land and that they should encourage housing
development that makes efficient use of land and seeks greater intensity of
development in places with good public transport accessibility. Paragraph 56
of PPG 3 also states that new housing development should not be viewed in
isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider
context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but
also the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. The local pattern of
streets and spaces, building traditions, material and ecology should all help to
determine the character and identity of a development.
3.16
In this case the development fails to provide good environmental conditions
within the development and to harmonise with the surroundings. The bulk
and proximity of the building to adjoining properties and the provision of
usable amenity space is unsatisfactory. In addition the proposal makes
inadequate provision for the retention, long-term survival and utilisation of
existing trees of merit
Page 130
3.17
It is considered that the development fails to produce good environmental
conditions as required by Policy H6 and PPG3.
(iii)
Whether the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance
of the area
3.18
The surrounding area is largely characterised by two and three storey
developments, although there are examples of part one, part two-storey
development within the locality.
3.19
The application proposes the demolition of a row 4 two-storey terraced
houses which have ground and first floor areas of approximately 240m2 and
two garages with an approximate floor area of 62m2. These buildings will be
replaced with a three-storey block of 12 flats with an approximate ground floor
area of 453m2 and first and second floor areas of 453m2. In addition, 8
garages comprising approximately 110m2 of floor area will be erected at the
rear of the site and beneath the raised amenity space area for the flats.
3.20
The proposal would result in a 89% increase in floor area at ground floor level,
a 89% increase at first floor level and the addition of a second floor (third
storey). The proposed block of flats will be situated slightly forward of the
existing building line along Green Lane and extend beyond the building line to
the rear of the site. The building will also be set back further from the
Myrtleside Close road boundary.
3.21
Policies BE19 and BE21 seek to protect the effects of development on the
character and amenity of established residential areas. The scale and bulk of
buildings are key determinants in ensuring that the amenity and character of
established residential areas are not comprised by new development.
3.22
The site is located on the corner of Myrtleside Close and Green Lane. As a
result it is visually more prominent by virtue of the openness created by the
two intersecting roads and the absence of any substantial landscape planting
within the site along the western (Myrtleside Close) and northern (Green
Lane) boundaries. Although there are a number of street trees along the
respective western and eastern boundaries, the ability to mitigate the
building’s bulk is limited due to the proposed building setback from the
western (Myrtleside Close) boundary and limited opportunity within the
remainder of the site for substantial planting. As a result the site is afforded a
greater degree of openness and, consequently, the bulk and scale of the
building will be excessively dominant when viewed from the road and adjacent
residential properties.
3.23
The previous scheme for the erection of a three storey block of 14 flats on the
site envisaged the erection of a building extending to approximately 1.5m from
the adjoining residential property boundary with The Glen. This was
considered to result in a significant visual impact, in terms of its bulk and
scale, on the outlook from The Glen. Additionally it was considered the
building, by virtue of its bulk, scale and proximity to the boundary, would
Page 131
detract from the setting of the amenity space located at the front of The Glen
resulting in a loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of this site. However
the current scheme now envisages the erection of a building sited some 8.8
metres away from the boundary with The Glen at its closest point. It is
considered that this would be sufficient to avoid any undue loss of outlook to
the occupiers of this site.
3.24
The character of the residential environment is largely dominated by
established detached and semi detached houses and flatted development that
are of modest scale with large areas of open space and planting. This
proposal, in particular the scale and bulk of the building as viewed from the
northern and western road boundaries would not be in keeping with the scale
and character of the surrounding residential area. Furthermore the large
areas of impervious surfacing to the east and rear of the site reduce the
amount of space for garden planting and landscaping, which would otherwise
be in keeping with the surrounding residential environment.
3.25
It is considered that the proposed development is contrary to Policies BE 19
and BE 21 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and planning
permission should be refused.
(vi)
Amenity of future and adjoining occupiers
3.26
Policy BE23 of the Unitary Development Plan requires the provision of
external amenity space which is 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.
3.27
The amenity spaces proposed consist of a communal grassed area, which is
raised partly above the garages at the rear of the site, and a communal area
at the front of the site. Private balconies are also provided for units
5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12.
3.28
The location and size of the amenity space provided at the rear of the site is
not considered to acceptable. The amenity area is affected by the pedestrian
walkway from the car parking area. This walkway runs through the middle of
the amenity area and is considered to reduce its usefulness.
3.29
The amenity area provided at the front of the site is limited in terms of usable
space. It would not receive sufficient amounts of sunlight and due to its
proximity to Green Lane, users would be exposed to traffic noise.
3.30
The lack of alternative facilities available for recreational use within walking
distance of the site is such that the lack of amenity space for the flats is
unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of future residents.
Page 132
3.31
In this regard it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the
intent of Policy BE 23 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan
and planning permission should be refused on these grounds.
3.32
The previous scheme for the erection of a three-storey block of 14 flats on the
site was considered to result in an undue loss of privacy to the occupiers of
The Glen from the first and second floor balconies on the rear elevation due to
the close proximity of the building to the boundary with this property. The
removal of the wing of the building adjacent to The Glen is considered to have
overcome this problem. It was not considered that the raised amenity area at
the rear of the building would result in an undue loss of amenity to residents of
The Glen due to the distance away and the existence of planting on the
boundary and this remains the case.
(v)
Traffic impacts
3.33
The Council’s Parking standards allow a maximum of 18 car parking spaces
and a minimum of 12 cycle spaces. Of the car parking spaces, 10% must be
provided for people with disabilities. The plans show the maximum car parking
and car parking for disabled people provisions. Similarly the plans show an
area for cycle parking, but the nominated area is not covered or secure or of
sufficient size to provide cycle storage for 12 cycles. This is unlikely to
encourage residents of the development to use means of transport other than
the private car contrary to sustainability principles and it is considered
planning permission should be refused for this reason.
3.34
The Councils Highways Engineer notes that the applicant proposes to carry
out a series of highway works to improve vehicular access onto Green Lane.
The sight lines for vehicular access would be improved by extending the kerb
line of the road to allow vehicles to manoeuvre safely when exiting the site. It
is considered that the proposed works would create a safer traffic
environment for the proposed development, whilst still providing an
acceptable carriageway width along Green Lane.
3.35
The proposal is considered to be consistent with Policy AM7 and AM14 of the
Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
(vi)
3.36
Trees and landscaping
Whilst the Trees and Landscape Officer is satisfied that the level of tree
removal as part of this scheme would not have a significant impact on the
amenity and quality of the local landscape, he is concerned that the size of
the building and associated development would present a threat to the longterm retention of the other, more valuable, trees on and adjacent to the site.
He considers that this would be detrimental to the visual amenity and arboreal
character of the area. It is considered that the adverse impact on the longterm retention of trees will detract from the character and appearance of the
locality.
Page 133
(vii)
3.37
The site is within an area experiencing pressure for nursery, primary and
secondary school places. Accordingly, under the provisions of the Council’s
Supplementary Planning Guidance; Seeking Funding for School Places from
Residential Development, the development would require the payment of a
financial contribution, for primary and secondary schools by way of a legal
agreement, in accordance with Policy R17. The proposed development
produces a potential child yield requiring the payment of £29,087. The
applicant has not provided any undertaking by way of a legal agreement to
pay this sum and hence meet the need arising from the development.
3.38
At the time of writing this report, sixteen letters of objection and a petition
comprising 46 signatures also objecting to the proposal have been received.
3.39
The concerns raised in relation to the scale of the building and character of
the area and privacy and overlooking have been addressed in the main body
of this report.
3.40
Similarly, the concerns raised in relation to traffic safety and car parking have
been addressed in the main body of this report. Issues have also been raised
in relation to traffic generation. The Council’s Highways Engineer notes that
this proposal would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic generation on
Green Lane or Myrtleside Close, which would otherwise prejudice the free
flow of traffic or conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety.
3.41
The concerns raised in respect of services such as water and drainage have
been raised with the Council’s Building Control Team. These matters are
covered under the Building Regulations and would be addressed at the time
any application for Building Regulation approval was made.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
Page 134
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
There is no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site for
residential purposes. However, the proposed block of flats would result in an
unduly obtrusive and incongruous form of development, detrimental to the
character and appearance of the surrounding area and fails to provide
adequate amenity space. Furthermore it is considered the scheme makes
inadequate provision for the retention, long-term survival and utilisation of
existing trees of merit and fails to provide adequate on-site cycle parking
facilities. On this basis it is recommended that planning permission be
refused.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Planning Policy Guidance No. 3 – Housing (March 2000)
London Plan
Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001)
Twenty-one objection letters and a petition comprising 31 signatories
objecting to the proposal
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Design Guide to Residential
Development and Layouts
Planning Policy Guidance No. 13 (Transport)
Contact Officer:
MARK SMITH
Page 135
Page 136
A
Item No.14
Address:
ADJOINING SOUTH GATE, MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL,
RICKMANSWORTH ROAD, NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF A PART ONE PART, TWO STOREY MEDICAL
CENTRE WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING
LBH Ref Nos:
3807/APP/2004/674
Drawing Nos:
5647 - 01, 16A, 17A, 18A, Tree Schedule MV(AG)04, Tree
removal 5647- 19 and Tree Protection Report received 10/03/04
Date of receipt:
10/03/04
None
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 1054m2 part
one, part two-storey Health Centre with associated car parking and
landscaping. The proposal will involve the demolition of an existing single
storey 550m2 dilapidated building.
1.2
The application increases the building bulk within the designated Green Belt
and is therefore inappropriate development. However there exists very
special circumstances which allow the development to be approved. Briefly,
the proposal will regenerate a derelict part of the site, there are no suitable
and affordable alternative sites available, the facility will bring much needed
medical benefits to the local community, the site has a long established
medical use, and the proposal supports the NHS objective of integrating
primary and secondary care services for the benefit of patients.
1.3
In terms of the visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt, detailed
negotiations have taken place to ensure that a large percentage of the
existing trees are retained on site and the design of the development
integrates with the built form context.
1.4
A significant issue raised is traffic generation and parking supply. The
provision of parking will not satisfy UDP parking requirements for the centre’s
capacity. There is a deficit of around 20 spaces for the health centre plus a
loss of 20 hospital spaces. The applicant has advised that any overflow of
parking from the health centre will be accommodated in the hospital grounds,
however the existing car parks are frequently full between 10am and 12pm.
Notwithstanding this, the car parking constraints are not considered to
constitute a reason for refusal as:
Page 137
•
•
•
The Hospital has made their land available to the health centre and the
Hillingdon Primary Care Trust has written in support of the application;
The impacts from any inadequate parking is likely to be restricted to the
hospital premises rather than overflow onto public highway. Any
deficiency of parking on the hospital grounds will be a management
issue that the hospital must resolve, and;
A green travel plan is proposed to be required as a condition of consent
for the health centre to facilitate the achievement of the mode split
proposed in the applicant’s submission.
1.5
The application is therefore recommended for approval.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to:
1.
That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning and Transportation
to grant planning permission subject to the following:-
2.
The application being referred to the Mayor of London and no direction of
refusal being received.
3.
The application being referred to the Government Office for London and
no objection being received.
4.
That subject to the above, the application be referred for determination by
the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers.
5.
That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
application
Submitted
(M5) Means of Enclosure – details
accordance with Approved Plans
(OM7) Refuse and Open-Air
Storage
(OM11) Floodlighting
Development
implementation
(TL7) Maintenance of Landscaped
Areas
1.
(T1) Standard
2.
(M1) Standard
3.
4.
(M5) Standard
(OM1) Standard
5.
(OM7) Standard
6.
7.
8.
9.
(OM11) Standard
(TL1) Standard
(TL2) Standard
(TL3) Standard
10.
11.
(TL5) Standard
(TL6) Standard
12.
(TL7) Standard
Page 138
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
No development shall take place
until details of a Demolition and
Construction management plan
has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This plan is
include a tree protection method
statement. This shall be
implemented as approved.
A tree management plan, including
long term design objectives
management responsibilities and
maintenance schedules for all
retained and proposed trees, shall
be submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority prior
to the occupation of the
development. This shall be
implemented as approved
(DIS1) Facilities for People with
Disabilities
(DIS2) Access to Buildings for
People with Disabilities
(DIS3) Parking for Wheelchair
Disabled People
(DIS4) Sign posting for People
with Disabilities
Details of a designated area for the
provision of cycle parking shall be
submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority prior to
the commencement of
development taking place on site.
This shall be implemented prior to
the occupation of the building and
thereafter be permanently
retained.
All works associated with the
construction of new buildings on
site shall occur between the hours
of 0800 and 1800, Monday to
Friday, and between the hours of
0800 and 1300 on Saturdays. No
work shall occur on Sundays or
Bank Holidays.
the site to ensure that all vehicles
associated with the construction
13.
To ensure that trees and other
vegetation to be retained are
not damaged during
demolition/construction
works and to ensure that the
development conforms with
Policy BE 38 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
14.
To provide for the long-term
management of trees
proposed to be retained on
site to ensure that the
development conforms with
Policy BE 38 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
15.
(DIS1) Standard
16.
(DIS2) Standard
17.
(DIS3) Standard
18.
(DIS4) Standard
19.
To ensure that the
development provides the
transport needs for occupants
in accordance with the UDP
policies.
20.
surrounding residential
properties.
21.
To ensure that the
development does not cause
danger and inconvenience to
Page 139
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
of the development hereby
approved are properly washed and
cleaned to prevent the passage of
mud and dirt onto the adjoining
highway.
Details of a designated area for the
storage of waste recycling
Authority. This recycling area shall
be provided prior to the
retained.
A Green Travel Plan shall be
Local Planning Authority before
any development is commenced.
The Green Travel Plan shall
outline the means and methods of
reducing private transport use by
employees and other users of the
medical centre and facilitate
increased use of public transport.
The Green Travel Plan shall be
implemented for a minimum
period of 5 years from the
completion and occupancy of the
buildings hereby permitted.
(DRC1) Surface Water/ Sewage
Disposal
until details of measures to ensure
that access to the development’s
driveways from the hospital’s
southern gate driveway is not
obstructed by queuing cars, is
Local Planning Authority. This
shall be implemented as approved.
until details of a Closed Circuit
Television system that monitors
the grounds of the health centre is
Local Planning Authority, in
consultation with the Metropolitan
Police. This shall be implemented
users of the adjoining
highway.
22.
To provide a designated area
in addition to the bin store
where occupants can store
and handle waste before it is
23.
To minimise the reliance on
private transport to and from
work by employees and
facilitate and increase use of
public transport by patients of
the health centre and to
ensure compliance with
Policy AM1 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
24.
(DRC1) Standard
25.
To ensure that vehicular
safety is not prejudiced.
26.
To facilitate crime prevention
through environmental
design.
Page 140
27.
28.
29.
as approved.
No generators, compressors,
electrical cutting devices or other
similarly noisy machinery shall be
used on the premises until a
scheme which specifies the
provisions to be made for the
control of noise emanating from
the site or to other parts of the
building, has been submitted to,
and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include such combination of
measures as may be approved by
the LPA. The said scheme shall
include such secure provision as
will ensure that the said scheme
and all of it endures for use and
that any and all constituent parts
are repaired and maintained and
replaced in whole or in part so
often as occasion may require.
No air extraction system shall be
used on the premises until a
scheme which specifies the
provisions to be made for the
control of noise emanating from
the site or to other parts of the
building, has been submitted to,
and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include such combination of
measures as may be approved by
the LPA. The said scheme shall
include such secure provision as
will ensure that the said scheme
and all of it endures for use and
that any and all constituent parts
are repaired and maintained and
replaced in whole or in part so
often as occasion may require.
The site shall not be used for the
delivery and the loading or
unloading of goods outside the
hours of 08.00 and 18.00, Monday
to Friday, and between the hours
of 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays.
The site shall not be used on
Sundays or Bank Holidays.
27.
(N11) Standard
28.
(N12) Standard
29.
To safeguard the amenity of
surrounding areas.
Page 141
30.
Development shall not begin until
a scheme for protecting
surrounding dwellings sensitive
from dust emitted from the
construction works, has been
submitted to, and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall include such
combination of dust control
measures and other measures as
may be approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
30.
31.
The applicant is to prepare a
selective programme (or
demolition protocol) to
demonstrate that the most
valuable or potentially
contaminating materials and
fittings can be removed from the
site safely and intact for later reuse or processing, which is to be
submitted to the Local Planning
Authority prior to the
commencement of demolition
work.
31.
It is known that dust from
construction works can cause
nuisance by soiling surfaces
and other articles in and
about buildings. Dust can
also cause irritation such as
irritation to the eyes, noise,
and throat. There is growing
evidence and concern that
dust, especially the very small
and fine dust particles, can
cause or exacerbate,
respiratory ill-health.
To establish an 'audit trail' for
demolition materials based on
an established Demolition
Protocol which will encourage
more effective resource
management in demolition
and new builds.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
(1)
(3)
Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works
(11) The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
(12) Notification to Building Contractors
Policies OL1, OL2, OL4, BE13, BE20, BE21, BE24, BE 38, OE1, R10, AM1,
and AM14, and to all relevant material considerations, including
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
To promote the development of sustainable building design, you are
encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do
not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, such as solar,
geothermal and fuel cell systems.
In reaching this decision the London Borough of Hillingdon Planning
Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application,
namely the special circumstances justifying development within the Green
Belt, the buildings bulk and appearance when viewed from the Green Belt,
the retention of trees and traffic impacts.
Page 142
3.0
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site is located at Mount Vernon Hospital which is situated within the
Green Belt. The health centre land is an irregular plot of 2678m2 which is
intended to be separated from the hospital grounds to facilitate this private
development by the Shackman Practice. The Shackman Practice is a
General Medical Service Practice currently based at Northwood with a small
ancillary morning clinic at Mount Vernon Hospital, and includes training for
medical students. The site has a 37metre north-eastern frontage to
Rickmansworth Road, a 90metre southern frontage to the Hospital’s south
gate driveway, and a 100metre north-western boundary with hospital worker
apartment buildings.
3.2
The site is occupied by a single storey t-shaped building of 550m2,
surrounding tarmac pavement of 480m2 and a 20-space car park of 570m2.
Therefore some 60% of the site is built-upon. The building is vacant and is in
a dilapidated state overgrown with vegetation. The site also incorporates an
existing 20-space car park, located to the south-east of Frederick Watson
House, which is signposted as reserved for residents. A number of mature
trees are located along the northeastern boundary adjoining Rickmansworth
Road and along the southern boundary.
3.3
The site adjoins the Hospital’s Frederick Watson House and Block 4 and 5
apartments. The applicant has advised that these 3 storey residential
apartments provide accommodation for health staff and cancer institute
research students. To the south of the site, on the opposite side of the
hospital driveway, lies the proposed temporary health centre (which is the
subject of a separate planning application) and vegetated open space which
is owned by the Cricket Club located further to the south.
3.4
travel along Rickmansworth Road. The public transport accessibility level
(PTAL) of the site is low (being Level 2 as compared to a maximum ‘high’
level of 6).
Scheme
3.5
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part one, part two-storey
building for a health centre. The building will have an internal floor area of
1054m2 comprising:
•
•
•
•
•
15 consulting rooms
1 group therapy room
2 treatment rooms
2 exam rooms
1 health promotion room
Page 143
•
meeting/staff/office/training rooms etc
3.6
The ground floor building footprint is 600m2, located in a similar position to the
existing t-shaped building. It is proposed to provide 40 parking spaces onsite, with 7 spaces to the south of the building and 33 spaces to the west
adjacent to Frederick Watson House. The development’s pavements and car
parking cover 1200m2 of the site. Therefore some 67% of the site is to be
built upon.
3.7
10 full-time and 19 part-time staff are proposed to work from the premises.
The applicant has advised that during the busy late morning period, 22 staff
members will be working, including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 GPs
2 Trainee GPs
2 Medical Students
3 Practice Nurses
1 Dietician/Chiropodist
9 Managers/Admin/Reception
3.8
Vehicular access to the site is off the existing Mount Vernon Hospital (south
gate) driveway from Rickmansworth Road. Pedestrian and disabled access is
provided from the disabled parking area at the entrance to the building and
from the connecting footpath from Rickmansworth Road.
3.9
It is noted that a large portion of the existing landscaping along the southern
and northeast boundaries will be retained. New landscape plantings are
proposed along the southeast and northwest boundaries.
Planning History
3.10
An application that proposed a similar sized health centre was withdrawn in
March 2004 (3807/APP/2003/2149). This previous application proposed to
erect the building further to the east of the existing t-shaped footprint, with 50
car parking spaces adjacent to the western façade. This building footprint
required the removal of a number of trees of landscape significance and
officers accordingly raised concerns about the development’s impact on the
greenbelt. Any overflow parking was proposed to be accommodated in the
hospital’s pay and display car parks. Council officers advised that details of
the surplus capacity in the hospital car parks needs to be provided.
3.11
Application 3807/APP/2003/2149 was withdrawn to allow an amended
application to be submitted that responded to the concerns raised by officers.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belt)
Page 144
The London Plan
Planning Policies
Part 1 Policies:
1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.14, 1.32 and 1.39.
Part 2 Policies:
Green Belt
OL1
OL2
OL4
Green Belt – acceptable open land use and restrictions on new
development
Green Belt – landscaping improvements
BE10
BE13
BE18
BE19
BE21
BE24
BE38
Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building
Design of new development
Designing out Crime
Character of the area
Siting, bulk and proximity of new development
Privacy of occupiers and neighbours
Trees and Landscaping
OE1
OE3
Character and amenities of surrounding properties
Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance – mitigation
measures
OE13 Recycling
R10
R16
children
AM1 Consideration of development which draws upon or serves more than a
walking distance based catchment area
AM7 Considers the impact of proposals in terms of traffic generation on local
roads and includes the requirement that developments should not
prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety
Page 145
AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with
the Council’s parking standards.
Consultations
The application has been advertised as a departure from the Unitary
Development Plan and advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country
Planning Act (1990) as major development. Two submissions to the public
notification were received in support of the application from the Northwood
and Pinner Hospital Development Committee and the Community Voice (an
NHS resident group) that includes a petition of 40 signatures. In addition,
letters supporting the application were included with the applicant’s
submission including correspondence from: John Wilkinson MP, 2
submissions from the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, The Brent Harrow and
Hillingdon Local Improvement Finance Trust (NHS), The Community Voice,
and the Patient Participation Group of the Steven Shackman Practice.
External Consultees
Greater London Authority
The Mayor has concluded that the proposals
represent an opportunity to provide modern
healthcare facilities within an established
health care setting and that the development
will allow for the healthcare practice to
increase its role as a teaching practice and to
enable the development of primary care
services.
The proposal to build on Green Belt marks a
departure from the principles of the London
Plan, national policy and local policy.
However, the identified need, lack of
alternative sites and the established use of
the site for healthcare facilities are considered
as exceptional circumstances for
development.
The sensitive siting of the built development
on the footprint of the current building, and
the retention of existing trees, has been
illustrated as largely screening the new
development from the surrounding area.
However further details on the footprint of the
building and the impact of the car parking
should be submitted by the applicant in order
to assess whether the development will have
an adverse effect on the openness or visual
Page 146
amenity of the Green Belt.
If Hillingdon Council decides in due course
that it is minded to approve the application, it
should allow the Mayor 14 days to decide
whether or not to direct the Council to refuse
planning permission.
Ickenham Residents'
Association
No comments received.
Northwood Residents
Association
Hillingdon Primary Care Trust
Very supportive of the Shackman Practice
proposal.
London Ambulance Service
Metropolitan Police (CPDA)
No objection subject to appropriate conditions
on fencing and CCTV.
Internal Consultees
Urban Design and
No objection. The building will be well
screened and not impact on the setting of the
listed buildings.
Trees and Landscape
No objection: The scheme complies with
Policy BE38 and, given that there is an
existing building on the site, would not conflict
with the open land policies relating to the
visual amenity and landscaping of the Green
Belt (Policies OL1 and OL4).
On balance, given that all of the valuable
trees are retained and the two large-scale
landscape features are safeguarded, the level
of tree loss proposed as part of this
development is acceptable. Furthermore, the
plans outline landscaping proposals (tree and
shrub/ground cover planting) for the site,
which would reinforce the existing features.
Overall, the tree retention and landscaping
will integrate the building into the landscape
and mitigate its visual impact.
Page 147
Highways Engineer
Parking - Around 20 existing hospital spaces
would be lost from an overall parking
provision at Mount Vernon of over 1000. 40
parking spaces are proposed for the new
Health Centre. The maximum permitted
parking provision for this development is 75.
There are waiting restrictions (single yellow
lines) along the northbound carriageway of
Rickmansworth Road extending a fair
distance north and south of the main hospital
entrance. With a reduction in parking
demand achievable through a Travel Plan,
availability of parking within the existing car
parks in the Hospital complex except on
some days during the hours of 10.00 to 12.00
and the proposed transfer of the burns unit to
Watford Hospital it is unlikely to result in an
increase in parking on the public Highway.
Traffic Generation - The peak times of
vehicular activity at the main gate is between
08.15 and 09.15 and 16.30 to 17.30. The
resulting morning peak traffic flow on
Rickmansworth Road to the north of the main
access is likely to increase by 1.8% and to
the south by 5%. In the evening peak, the
increase would be 1.2% north and 3% south
of the main access. The maximum predicted
at 5% is acceptable as being within the daily
traffic flow variation.
Accident Records - There have been 5
recorded personal injury accidents in the last
3 years in the vicinity of the hospital’s main
access. However, none of the vehicles
involved were turning in or out of the hospital.
Planning (PEP)
the Green Belt.
Policy OL1 defines the types of development
that are considered acceptable within the
Green Belt. Limited infilling or redevelopment
of major existing developed sites such as St.
Vincent’s hospital is considered appropriate in
Page 148
accordance with proposals and criterion
adopted within the UDP. The proposed
redevelopment of Mount Vernon Hospital
does not conform to the types of development
allowed by Policy OL1, as it is not a ‘Major
Developed Site’.
Policy OL4 will permit the extension of
buildings within the Green Belt if the
not be of detriment to character and
appearance of the Green Belt. It can be
considered that the scale of the proposal
would have an impact on the character and
appearance of the Green Belt, and would
consequently be incompatible with Policy
OL4.
However, additional information has been
submitted setting out the special
circumstances of the development. On the
basis that there is both an urgent need for
these facilities and there are no suitable sites
within the area, PEP consider that there are
very special circumstances to justify the
development. The development would
represent a departure from the UDP and
should be referred to Government Office for
London accordingly, were it to be approved.
PEP support the application having
considered the very special circumstances to
justify development in the Green Belt.
Environmental Protection Unit
Should the application be approved, the
following EPU standard conditions should be
placed on the consent: N11, N12, H2, A1.
3.12
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Impact on trees
Page 149
(i)
3.13
The proposed health centre will replace the existing dilapidated hospital
buildings with a floor space of 550m2 with a building comprising two-storey’s
and a floor space of 1054m2, an increase of 92%. It is proposed to marginally
increase the ground floor building footprint by 9% and the total built-upon area
by 12%.
3.14
PPG2 (Green Belts) states that the most important attribute of the Green Belt
is its openness. Therefore, the construction of new buildings in the Green
Belt is inappropriate unless it is for a limited range of uses including
agriculture, forestry, recreation, limited alteration/re-building of dwellings, and
infilling major developed sites as identified in adopted plans. The Mount
Vernon Hospital is not identified in the Unitary Development Plan as a ‘Major
Developed Site’ and is not damaged, derelict or degraded land.
3.15
Policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan endorse National
Guidance. Policies OL1 and OL4 are important in assessing new buildings in
the Green Belt. The proposed development does not comply with either
policy as a ‘health centre’ is not a landuse permitted by Policy OL1 and the
development will result in a change to the bulk of the original building that is
being replaced which is contrary to Policy OL4. Taking into account PPG3
and UDP policies, the development of the health centre is inappropriate
development
3.16
PPG2 also makes clear that inappropriate development is, by definition,
harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special
circumstances. The guidance adds that such circumstances will not exist
unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations and that it is for
the applicant to show why permission should be granted.
3.17
The applicant has written a detailed planning statement in support of the
application. The statement sets out the very special circumstances which are
considered to relate to the proposed development. Set out below is a
summary of the statement with respect to very special circumstances.
The very special circumstances in this case is the clear need for a health
centre to provide for the health care of the local community:
-
There is a clearly identified need for the Partnership to relocate to
larger premises within its catchment area as the existing surgery at
Northwood is inadequate. The Northwood facilities are seriously
overcrowded with a shortage of consulting and nurse treatment
rooms, an overcrowded reception area, no facilities for minor
surgery, no meeting or seminar rooms and no staff rest room. The
building fails to comply with NHS Estates requirements, the
Page 150
Disability Discrimination Act, and the Health and Safety at Work
Act. Addressing the need for improved health facilities will be of
significant benefit to the local community;
-
A site search has been undertaken, and the proposed site at Mount
Vernon Hospital is available, suitable and affordable for the Steven
Shackman Practice. No other suitable and affordable sites have
been identified.
-
The proposed move of the practice to this hospital site supports the
NHS objective of integrating primary and secondary care services
for the benefit of the users of the services.
-
The proposal will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of
existing health facilities at Northwood to the benefit of the local
community;
-
The new building would be sited on the footprint of an existing
building in a location within the built up area of the site and would
not result in sprawl or encroachment, or contribute to the merging of
London with neighbouring towns. Instead it will regenerate this part
of the site and bring much needed medical benefits to the local
community on a site that already has a long established medical
use.
3.18
In a cumulative manner the above series of points are considered to
constitute very special circumstances. They are of such weight that
collectively overcome the presumption against inappropriate development in
the Green Belt.
3.19
In terms of the visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt, detailed
negotiations have taken place since application 3807/APP/2003/2149 to
ensure that a large percentage of the existing trees are retained on site and
the design of the development integrates with the built form context. Further
the location of the development site, tucked away in the southeastern corner
of the site, is such that its visual prominence as viewed from the wider open
spaces of the Green Belt is reduced. The applicants have provided
photomontages to demonstrate that the building will be extensively screened.
The development is considered to have an acceptable visual impact in the
Green Belt.
3.20
In light of these points, it is considered that very special circumstances to
justify the development in the Green Belt have been demonstrated.
(ii)
3.21
Page 151
3.22
The Hospital Grounds include two Grade II Listed Buildings situated
approximately 250m-300m from the proposed building, being the Hospital
Church and Main Ward Block. Council’s Conservation and Urban Design
Officer comments that the proposed building will be well screened by the
vegetation proposed to be retained and not impact on the setting of the listed
buildings. Therefore the proposal is consistent with Policy BE10.
(iii)
3.23
Policies BE19 and BE21 seek to ensure that new development will
3.24
The proposed doctors surgery and associated car parking area are located
along the boundary of the adjacent block of residential flats known as
Frederick Watson House and Block 4 and 5. The flats are occupied by
research students and staff associated with Mount Vernon Hospital. The
buildings are in poor condition and not fully utilised as demand has decreased
with the closure of the hospital’s clinical wards. No decision has been made
about the future of these buildings.
3.25
That said, the proposed new surgery building will result in additional building
bulk and car parking in close proximity to the flats. However the location and
nature of the flats within the defined curtilage of Mount Vernon Hospital
combined with the siting of the building below the level of the adjoining block
of flats and retention of landscaping along the north-west boundary are
significant mitigating factors in concluding that the building will have only very
limited impact on the amenities of the adjoining apartments.
3.26
A significant impact of the health centre is the displacement of Frederick
Watson House’s 20 space car park to facilitate the development of the health
centre car park. This impact is discussed under Section (v) below.
3.27
The massing and siting of the building has an acceptable relationship to
adjacent and surrounding development and in this regard is consistent with
Policies BE19 and BE 21.
(iv)
Impact on trees
3.28
Policy BE38 seeks to require developments to retain and utilize landscape
features of merit and provide new planting where appropriate.
3.29
The existing trees on site form part of an important feature in maintaining the
landscape character in this part of Northwood. The site comprises a wellestablished tree belt along the Rickmansworth Road boundary and individual
clumps of trees within the site and along the access road to the hospital.
3.30
A tree survey has been submitted with the application. There are 117 trees on
or immediately adjacent the site. A number of trees, 31 in total, will be
removed from the site to allow the demolition and construction works to take
Page 152
place. The scheme has been redesigned to retain all of the mature trees and
other trees of merit on the site. The tree retention and landscaping will
integrate the building into the landscape and will mitigate the visual impact as
viewed from Rickmansworth Road and the Green Belt.
3.31
The Council’s Trees and Landscape Officer support this view and notes that
should be planning permission be granted, conditions should be included as
part of this planning permission requiring demolition / building tree protection
method statement, landscaping schemes, maintenance schedules, long term
management statement for the retention / protection and replacement of
existing trees. The development therefore complies with Policy BE38 of the
UDP.
(v)
3.32
on-site parking and access to public transport. The Council’s current parking
standards for “medical and other health practices, including dental, veterinary
and alternative medicine” is 5 spaces per consulting room as a maximum.
3.33
The car-parking requirement for the site is a maximum of 75 car-parking
spaces and a minimum of 30 cycle spaces based on the 15 consulting rooms
proposed on site. A total of 40 car parking spaces have been provided on site
of which 33 spaces are provided to the west of the site, while 7 spaces,
including provisions for disabled car parking, have been included at the front
of the site. It should be noted that 20 existing car parking spaces on site will
be displaced.
3.34
The car parking area located at the front of the site provides convenient
access to the main entrance of the surgery for disabled patients and a safe
drop off point for patients. The car parking area to the west of the site will be
controlled to provide secure car parking for both staff and patients and
eliminate any non-surgery related users.
3.35
As Council’s car parking controls are a ‘maximum’, there is a need to consider
the actual demand of the development. The applicant has provided evidence
that the health centre will generate a maximum parking demand of 40 cars at
9.30am to 11.15am daily. This is based on a maximum of 22 staff being on
site during the peak period, including 11 health professionals, 2 medical
students and 9 admin/ management staff. Accordingly the assessment relies
on a number of the patient/clinical rooms being vacant in the peak period
including: 2 consulting rooms, 4 exam or treatment rooms and a group
therapy room.
3.36
It is reasonable for Council to take into account the capacity of the proposed
building, it being the size of the building that the Council is to consider,
particularly taking into account the medium to long term life of the project. It
would be difficult for Council to monitor and enforce a condition that only
some of the consulting rooms can be used at any one time. The Borough
Page 153
Solicitor has advised against applying such a condition. Taking into account
the number of clinical rooms, the peak hour parking demand could increase to
around 60 spaces if more of the consulting and treatment rooms were used
concurrently and a less favourable mode split than proposed was achieved.
3.37
As mentioned in para 3.34, the proposed health centre displaces a 20 space
car park in front of Frederick Watson House which is part of the hospital
grounds. During two separate site inspections this car park was found to be
heavily used.
3.38
Taking into account the above, the development has the potential to result in
some over-flow car parking as:
3.39
•
The Hospital will loose 20 parking spaces. The transportation assessment
undertaken by the applicant indicates that surplus parking is not readily
available elsewhere as the hospital car parks are often full between 10am
to 12am. For example, the main ‘pay and display’ car park near the health
centre site is on average ‘full’ 3 out of 5 weekdays for between 1 to 2
hours during the late morning peak.
•
While the applicant does not intend to use all the consulting/treatment
rooms concurrently, the Council is required to consider the capacity of the
building. Using the building more intensively could result in a peak hour
parking demand of around 50 to 60 spaces.
•
The health centre may not achieve its proposed modal transport split. The
car parking assessment relied on the assumption that a maximum of 60%
of patients would travel to the health centre via car based on the modal
share survey at Northwood Health Centre. The survey data demonstrates
that in order to limit car use, Northwood has relied significantly on ‘walk-in’
patients. The Mount Vernon site is not surrounded by dense residential
development like the Northwood site accordingly its proportion of walk-in
patients is unlikely to be as high. Northwood and Mount Vernon enjoy a
similar service of public transport (both having a PTAL of 2).
Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposed provision of 40
parking spaces for the health centre is acceptable as:
•
•
•
•
Any overflow parking is likely to be restricted to the hospital premises
rather than overflow onto public highway given the self contained nature
of the site.
Given the above, a number of informal parking areas/ lay-bys do exist at
the hospital, where short term parking occurs.
The Hospital has made their land available to the health centre and the
Hillingdon Primary Care Trust has written in support of the application.
Any deficiency of parking on the hospital grounds will be a management
issue that the hospital will need to address.
The NHS has advised that Mount Vernon Hospital’s plastics and burns
treatment facilities is intended to be relocated to Watford General
Page 154
•
•
Hospital in 18 months time which will free up 53 parking spaces in the
hospital grounds. This assumes that the plastic and burns unit is not reoccupied by the hospital for an alternative use.
A green travel plan could be required as a part of any planning decision
to assist the Shackman Practice in achieving a modal split as proposed
in the application documentation.
The LPA is able to require a green travel plan as appropriate for other
developments at the Mount Vernon site, which cumulatively should
reduce single person car journeys to the site over time.
3.40
With regards to traffic generation, the increase in traffic generation from the
proposed surgery has been identified as an area of concern, particularly
taking into account the volume of vehicles using the access (south gate) onto
Rickmansworth Road, a busy London Distributor Road. A traffic and
transportation assessment has also been submitted which focuses on the
potential impacts from traffic generated by the development on
Rickmansworth Road and details of existing parking demand in the hospital
grounds.
3.41
The applicants have carried out a traffic survey for all three-vehicle entrances
to Mount Vernon Hospital to assess the traffic generation levels. It was
calculated that the net increase in peak hour traffic generation would be
approximately 5%. The traffic statement concluded that this level of increase
is considered within the daily variation of peak hour traffic flows for this site.
3.42
The proximity of the proposed surgery from the intersection of the southern
vehicle entrance and Rickmansworth Road is such that vehicles wishing to
enter the two surgery car parking areas, could conflict with vehicles queuing
at peak (PM) periods while waiting to exit onto Rickmansworth Road causing
delays for both vehicles entering the car parking areas and those entering the
hospital site. Although the peak traffic periods are at different times, a
condition should be included as part of any planning decision to ensure that
entry / exit points on the roadway outside the car parking areas are not
obstructed by vehicles. This will ensure that vehicular safety is not prejudiced.
3.43
In relation to cycle parking, 8 spaces have been provided at the pedestrian
entrance to the building. This provision is below the cycle space requirement
of the Unitary Development Plan however the demand for cycle spaces is
likely to be reduced due to the nature of the activity where patients / staff
chose a more passive method of transportation. That said, if demand does
increase, there is ample room for additional cycle spaces to be provided on
site.
3.44
At the time of writing this report no objections had been received.
Page 155
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
There are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The scheme concentrates development within the defined curtilage of Mount
Vernon Hospital. The scale of development is such that the development
constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However there
are considered to be very special circumstances to justify the development
within the Green Belt.
6.2
It is considered that the proposal is acceptable and is recommended for
approval.
(a)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 – Green Belt
Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001)
Contact Officer:
DEBORAH KRZEMINSKI
Page 156
Page 157
B
Item No.15
Address:
1A RAVENSWOOD PARK, GATE HILL ESTATE,
NORTHWOOD
Development:
UNAUTHORISED ERECTION OF TIMBER BOUNDARY
FENCING
LBH Ref Nos:
40455A/ENF/2563
1. The site comprises a residential dwellinghouse located on an elevated corner
plot, when viewed from Elgood Avenue, on the south west side of Ravenswood
Park. The area is characterised by detached houses on reasonably sized plots.
The site lies within the ‘Gate Hill Estate Area of Special Local Character’ as
designated in the UDP.
2. In September 2003, two complaints were received from local residents about a
timber fence that had been erected around the site. There is no record of
planning permission being granted. When officers from the Planning
enforcement team visited the site in September the occupiers claimed that the
timber fence replaced a 2m high fence. No evidence has been provided to
support this assertion.
3. Due to the elevated position of the site, the fence is approximately 3.6m high
from ground level along Elgood Avenue. It is on top of an existing brick boundary
wall. As the site slopes down to Ravenswood Park the fencing steps down to
approximately 2 metres above ground level.
4. Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 states that a gate, fence wall or other means of
enclosure is not permitted if the height exceeds 1m above ground level. As such,
planning permission is required for the structure.
5. The timber fence creates a ‘fortress-like’ effect around 1A Ravenswood Park. It is
visually obtrusive and detracts from the appearance of the street scene. It is
considered to detract from the character and appearance of this Area of Special
Local Character, contrary policies BE6 and BE13 of the UDP.
6. The occupiers have been advised to remove the structure. However, when the
site was visited on 8 June 2004 the unauthorised fencing had not been removed.
Given the adverse impact of the fence on the appearance of the street scene, it is
considered expedient to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the
unauthorised structure.
Page 158
The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary and should only be used
where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach of
planning control. They must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice
having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material
considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular
circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to
take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or
taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based
on non planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to
regularise the situation.
The costs of issuing an enforcement notice are not significant, but costs of the order
of £5,000 are likely if an appeal is made against the notice and a public enquiry
results. The costs of an appeal to be heard by written representations or informal
hearing are negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the
enforcement budget with which to fund these likely costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
1
Members should consider the expediency of enforcement action under
section 172 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended
including the service of an enforcement notice.
2.
That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue an Enforcement Notice
to remedy the breach of planning control in respect of:
(i)
The unauthorised erection of a timber fence adjacent to the
highway at 1A Ravenswood Park, Northwood
and in the event of non compliance with the enforcement notice,
commence and pursue appropriate prosecution action under Section
179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
3.
That the Notice shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy
this breach of planning control:
(i)
(ii)
4.
demolish the timber fence;
remove from the land all debris, timber and all other materials
resulting from the demolition
That a period of 3 months be given for compliance with the terms of the
Enforcement Notice.
Page 159
5.
That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice to be as follows:
The unauthorised timber fencing by reason of its siting and height, is
visually obtrusive detracting from the visual amenities the street scene
and the Gate Hill Estate Area of Special Local Character, contrary to
policies BE6 and BE13 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
Contact Officer:
NIGEL F CRASKE
Page 160
Page 161
A
Item No.16
Address:
NORTHWOOD CRICKET CLUB DUCKS HILL ROAD
NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF NEW CLUBHOUSE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION
OF EXISTING CLUBHOUSE, SCOREBOARD/HUT AND TEA
HUT)
LBH Ref Nos:
45817/APP/2004/491
Drawing Nos:
2360/3, 2360/4 and letter received on 20/02/04 and letter
received 12/05/04
Date of receipt:
20/02/04 Date of Amendment: 12/05/04
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission was approved in 2003 for the erection of a new
clubhouse to provide replacement accommodation for the cricket club. This
current application proposes to erect a club house of a reduced size to that
previously approved. The building would not result in a disproportionate
addition to the existing built form on site and its proposed use is principally for
purposes associated with outdoor sport. The proposal would have no
detrimental impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt and is
consistent with Policy OL1 of the UDP. This application is therefore
recommended for approval.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
application
Submitted
(M3) Boundary Treatment –
details
(MCD10) Refuse
Facilities/Recyclable Waste
Prior to development
commencing specification/
construction details of the
proposed car parking areas are
required to be submitted and
Authority. The parking areas
shown on the approved plans
shall be constructed prior to
1.
(T1) Standard
2.
(M1) Standard
3.
(M3) Standard
4.
(MCD10) Standard
5.
To safeguard the visual
amenities of the area and
ensure that adequate facilities
are provided.
Page 162
occupation of the development,
thereafter retained and used for
no other purpose.
6. (TL1) Existing Trees - Survey
7. (TL2) Trees to be Retained
8. (TL3) Protection of Trees
9. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme
10. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme
(Implementation)
11. (TL7) Maintenance of
Landscaped Areas
12. Provisions shall be made within
approved are properly washed
and cleaned to prevent the
passage of mud and dirt onto the
adjoining highway.
13. (DIS2) Access to Buildings for
(to include shower room…)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
(TL1)
(TL2)
(TL3)
(TL5)
(TL6)
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
11. (TL7) Standard
12. To ensure that the
pavement and highway.
13. (DIS2) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.0
(20)
(36)
(1)
(4)
Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work
Property Rights/ Rights to Light
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site is within the Green Belt and adjoins a Countryside Conservation
Area. Access to the site is at the very northern end of Ducks Hill Road and is
from the left hand slipway into Rickmansworth Road. The clubhouse is located
at the far western end of the site and an informal driveway weaves around the
southern edge of the site’s boundary to access the clubhouse. The existing
single storey, flat-roofed clubhouse is of dark-stained timber and was erected
in the 1960’s. On the sides of the clubhouse are a adjoining tea hut and a
detached scoreboard hut. The site is generally well screened by trees and
shrubbery on the boundaries.
Scheme
3.2
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a new clubhouse involving
the demolition of the existing clubhouse, tearoom and scoreboard/hut. The
new building would have a gable ended pitched roof ranging between 6.5m to
Page 163
7.5m high from existing ground levels. On top of the roof is a clock tower. The
proposed materials are red/brown bricks and brown tiles.
3.3
The existing footprint and floor area of the clubhouse and associated buildings
is around 225m2. The proposed scheme will rationalise the use of these
structures by providing a single building for both facilities. The proposed floor
area amounts to 264m2. This includes the external veranda, which has a floor
area of 33m2.
The proposed facilities incorporate:
•
•
•
•
•
Separate changing rooms and showers for home and away teams and
umpires
Toilet facilities for men, women and people with disabilities
Kitchen, bar and stores
Lounge
Outside veranda
Planning History
3.4
Planning application (ref: 45817/APP/2002/361) for the erection of a
new clubhouse was approved on 07/05/03.
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.1 To maintain the Green Belt for uses which preserve or enhance the
open nature of the area
Part 2 Policies:
OL1
Green Belt - acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new
development
OL2
Green Belt -landscaping improvements
OL3
Green Belt - retention and improvement of existing landscape
OL4
OL15 Protection of Countryside Conservation Areas
Page 164
new planting and landscaping in developments proposals
PPG2 Green Belts
Consultations
External Consultees
67 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted and no replies have been
received.
Northwood Residents’ Association
Sport England
Although slightly larger than existing
buildings, the proposal, appears to be
appropriate for the clubs requirements
and should help to sustain the sporting
use of the cricket ground. We
recommend that in addition to a toilet for
disabled people, a shower is provided.
The proposal is ancillary to the principal
use of the site as a playing field. Sport
England therefore support this application
Sobell Bridge Club
No response received.
Friends of Michael Sobell House
No response received.
GLA
No reply.
Internal Consultees
Projects and Environmental
Planning
The application proposes an additional of
59 sqm of
floor space over the original size (28%
enlargement).
PEP does not consider this enlargement
to be a
disproportionate addition to the existing
built form
on the site.
The new building is a single storey
clubhouse sited
Page 165
approximately within the same footprint of
the existing
buildings. Therefore, there would be no
detrimental
impact on the openness and character of
the Green Belt.
Traffic Engineer
No objection subject to conditions.
No objection.
3.5
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Impact on trees and landscaping
Highway and parking issues
(i)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) states that there is a
general presumption against inappropriate development and the construction
of new buildings within Green Belts. However, facilities that are essential for
outdoor sport and recreation which preserve the openness of the Green Belt
can be appropriate and possible examples are given as “small changing
rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport”. Policies in
the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) endorse national guidance. In
particular policies OL1 and OL4 are important in assessing new buildings in
the Green Belt. Policies OL2 and OL3 address landscaping requirements.
3.7
Due to the age and condition of the existing building it is accepted, in
principle, that replacement accommodation for the cricket club is necessary.
Moreover, in accordance with Green Belt policy, facilities essential for outdoor
sport are acceptable in principle. In addition to changing facilities,
accommodation for spectators and a kitchen could be considered to be
facilities which are reasonably associated with the outdoor use.
3.8
The previous application proposed a general purpose hall to be used for
indoor training and coaching, youth cricket, table tennis, snooker etc and a
local bridge club. The hall does not form part of this current proposal and the
associated activities are no longer to be accommodated within the building. A
lounge/ bar area is now proposed. It is accepted that some area for
socialising/refreshments is acceptable in principle. The applicants require the
building to be used for specific events including AGM, cricket club annual
dinners, Christmas dinners and party events. The existing clubhouse has no
restrictions limiting the number of social events and as the proposed
lounge/bar is now the same size as that which currently exists it would be
unreasonable to attach a restrictive condition in this case. As the proposed
Page 166
use of the building would be principally for purposes associated with outdoor
sport, the development is consistent with Policy OL1 of the UDP.
3.9
Conditional planning consent was granted on 07/05/03, for a replacement
building on this site. The proposal included a (part two storey) pavilion
approximately 30m wide, 13m deep, with a maximum height of 9.5m. The
floor area of the building previously approved was 536m2. The current
proposal is 24m wide, 11m deep with a maximum height of 7.5m. No first floor
is proposed and the overall floor area has been reduced to 264m2.
3.10
The application scheme proposes an additional 59m2 of floor space over
existing (28% enlargement). This proposal is smaller and less prominent than
the previously approved building and the enlargement proposed is not
considered to be a disproportionate addition to the existing built form on site,
in line with Policy OL4.
(ii)
Impact on trees and landscaping
3.11
The site is well screened, particularly in the summer, although the clubhouse
is visible from the access way off Ducks Hill Road. The proposed clubhouse
would be sited close to existing mature trees. Whilst the footprint of the
building is no closer to existing trees it is considered that tree protection
measures are needed prior to demolition and construction works.
3.12
Similarly the proposed car parking areas could have an impact on trees. The
applicants have indicated that cars will park on an area on the left-hand side
of the approach drive adjacent to the southern boundary of the site,
underneath a row of trees. In order to safeguard existing trees it is considered
that construction details of the car parking areas should be submitted for
approval and this has been secured by condition.
(iii)
Highway and parking issues
3.13
No information on likely traffic generation has been supplied with the
application. The use of the site for outdoor cricket would generally be
restricted to summer evenings and weekends. The current scheme results in
a modest increase in the overall size of the building potentially and its use, but
this should not significantly increase traffic to the site. Furthermore, the Traffic
Engineer raises no objection.
3.14
The tarmac drive and means of access to the site already exist and the 30
spaces, finished with shingle, on the southern side of the approach drive were
approved under the previous application. Parking for people with disabilities
is provided close to the clubhouse. The previous application also provided
overflow parking in connection with the activities associated with the hall.
However, this parking is no longer required. The parking provision is
considered adequate and the Council’s Traffic Engineer raises no objection to
the proposal.
Page 167
3.15
No comments have been received.
4.0
Observations of Borough Solicitor
4.1
5.0
5.1
As there are no S.106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The proposed replacement accommodation for the cricket club would not
result in a disproportionate addition to the existing built form on site.
Therefore, there would be no detrimental impact on the openness and
character of the Green Belt. Having regard to the recent permission and the
fact that the development is of a smaller scale, permission is recommended.
(a)
(b)
PPG 2 Green Belts
Contact Officer:
ANDY PARKER
Telephone No:
01895 556774
Page 168
Page 169
A
Item No.17
Address:
THE WOODMAN PUBLIC HOUSE, JOEL STREET, PINNER
Development (A): ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND NEW
PITCHED ROOF TO STORAGE BUILDING
LBH Ref Nos:
19391/APP/2003/2947
Drawing Nos:
2340/4/A. 2340/5A received 04/02/04 and 2340/6A received
22/04/04
Date of receipt:
16/12/03
04/02/04
22/04/04
Development (B): ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND NEW
PITCHED ROOF TO STORAGE BUILDING (APPLICATION
FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
LBH Ref Nos:
19391/APP/2003/2946
Drawing Nos:
2340/4/A. 2340/5A received 04/04/04 and 2340/6A received
22/04/04
Date of receipt:
16/12/03
04/02/04
22/04/04
1.0
SUMMARY (A and B)
1.1
Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for a single
storey extension and new pitched roof to a storage building to the public
house to provide a new restaurant area and rear patio. It is considered that
the proposal would not adversely affect the building’s special architectural or
historical interest and would preserve and enhance the character and
appearance of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area. Approval is
recommended.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION (A): APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(T1) Time Limit
(N11) Control of Plant/Machinery
Noise
(DIS2) Access to Buildings for
(DIS3) Parking for Wheelchair
Disabled People
1.
2.
(T1) Standard
(N11) Standard
3.
(DIS2) Standard
4.
(DIS3) Standard
5.
(TL2) Standard
Page 170
6.
7.
8.
9.
Development
Submitted
No music shall be played within
the premises the subject of this
permission so as to be audible
outside the premises.
Before the use permitted
commences the single storey
rear extension shall be insulated
so as to prevent the
transmission of excessive
airborne and impact noise in
accordance with details to be
submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority.
Once agreed it shall be
implemented and so maintained.
6.
(TL3) Standard
7.
(M1) Standard
8.
To safeguard residential amenity.
9.
To safeguard residential amenity.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(6)
(3)
Building Regulations - Demolition and Building Works
(34) Access for People with Disabilities
could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts
Planning Guidance:
BE4
New development within or on the fringes of Conservation Areas
BE8
Planning applications for alteration or extension of Listed
Buildings
BE13 Requires new development to harmonise with the existing street
scene
BE24 Design of new buildings-protection of privacy
Page 171
RECOMMENDATION (B): CONSENT - subject to the following conditions:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(CAC1) Time Limit
(CAC4) Making Good any
Damage
(CAC5) Works to Building’s
Interior
(CAC10) Extent of Demolition
CAC12) Samples and Materials
Details of all new windows,
doors and other external joinery
shall be submitted to and
Authority before commencement
of any works.
1.
2.
(CAC1) Standard
(CAC4) Standard
3.
(CAC5) Standard
4.
5.
6.
(CAC10) Standard
(CAC12) Standard
To safeguard the special
architectural and historic interest
of the building.
INFORMATIVE
1.
3.0
(30) Listed Buildings
CONSIDERATIONS (A & B)
Site and Locality
3.1
The site comprises the Woodman Public House located on the west side of
Joel Street, north of its junction with Wentworth Drive. The Woodman Public
House is a two-storey building comprising a bar and small eating area on the
ground floor with single storey rear/side extension providing a cellar and
storage area. Ancillary residential accommodation is on the first floor. Car
parking is provided which is accessed from Joel Street. The property is a
Grade II Listed Building and lies within the Eastcote Village Conservation
Area.
Scheme
3.2
Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the erection
of a single storey extension which is 7.3m long (fronting Joel Street), 7.6m
deep with an average height of 5.3m. It would be attached to the side of the
existing attached storage building which would cease to be used for storage
purposes. A terrace area is proposed to the rear of the new building. It is also
proposed to replace the flat roof of the existing store building with a pitched
roof, with a maximum ridge height of 5.7m, 0.4m higher than the roof of the
new attached extension.
Planning History
3.3
There is no relevant planning history.
Page 172
UDP Designation: Eastcote Village Conservation Area
The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies are:
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.19 Preservation of Listed Buildings
Part 2 Policies:
BE4
New development within or on the fringes of Conservation Areas
BE8
Planning applications for alteration or extension of Listed Buildings
BE13 Requires new development to harmonise with the existing street scene
BE24 Design of new buildings-protection of privacy
Consultations
External Consultees
9 adjoining owners/occupiers have been consulted and a site notice has been
placed on site. The application has also been advertised as a development
that affects a listed building. 1 letter of objection has been received making
the following comments:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Increase in parking demand within Wentworth Drive;
Increase in noise levels from the PH;
The extension would affect the area and set a precedent for other
similar buildings.
English Heritage
Advises that the application can be
determined by the Council without
notification to English Heritage.
Eastcote Village Conservation
Panel
No objections.
Northwood Hills Residents’
No objections
Internal Consultees
Initial concerns relating to the proposed
Page 173
Officer
siting have now been resolved. No
objections.
Highways Engineer
No objection.
3.4
The main issues are considered to be:
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
(i)
Impact on the special interest of the Listed Building and the character
of the Conservation Area
Impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties
Access and parking arrangements
Impact on the special interest of the Listed Building and the character
of the Conservation Area
3.5
Due to their minimal size, the proposed extension and roof addition to the
existing single storey storage building are not considered to be overdominant
or visually intrusive when viewed from the street. The varying levels of the
roof help to break up the bulk of the development. It is considered to be
subordinate to the listed building and would complement the appearance of
the street scene.
3.6
It is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the building’s
special architectural interest and would not harm the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies BE4, BE8
and BE13 of the Unitary Development Plan.
(ii)
3.7
The nearest residential properties are 1 Wiltshire Lane and 2 Wentworth Drive
which are both sited approximately 35m from the public house, to the north
and south respectively. This distance is considered to be sufficient to
safeguard the residential amenities of these properties. Furthermore, as the
rear of the public house is already used as an outdoor drinking area, it is
considered that the new terrace area is unlikely to result in additional noise
nuisance over and above current levels. The proposal is considered to comply
with policies BE24 of the UDP.
(iii)
3.8
Impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties
Access and parking arrangements
The proposal includes a modified car park layout providing 18 spaces.
Although this number exceeds the Council’s maximum car parking standards,
it does not result in an increase on the existing situation. The Highways
Engineer raises no objection to the proposal.
Page 174
3.9
As regards point (i), the site would continue to provide a level of parking in
excess of the Council’s maximum car parking standards after the additional
floorspace has been added. As such, a refusal of permission based upon the
deficiency of the parking proposed could not be substantiated. In terms of
point (ii), it is considered that given the separation distances of nearby houses
involved, the existing use of the site and the mitigating noise conditions
recommended, any additional noise generation would be unlikely to adversely
affect the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers. The first part of
point (iii) has been dealt with in the main report whereas the issue of a
precedent being established does not arise as each application is treated on
its individual merits.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The proposed extension and new pitched roof is considered not to harm the
special character and interest of the Listed Building and have due regard to its
setting. The new development is well designed and would not be detrimental
to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The amenities of
surrounding properties would be safeguarded.
(a)
(b)
1 letter of objection
Contact Officer:
CAMERON STANLEY
Page 175
Page 176
B
Item No.18
Address:
7 HILLSIDE CRESCENT, NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR
EXTENSION WITH EXTENDED ROOF (GABLE END AT
REAR) FRONT DORMER, REAR AND SIDE ROOFLIGHTS
AND USE OF EXTENDED ROOFSPACE AS HABITABLE
ACCOMMODATION
LBH Ref Nos:
21862/APP/2004/362
Drawing Nos:
Location Plan, 2401/E01 Rev A, 2401/E02 Rev A, 2401/E03
Rev A, 2404/E04 Rev A, 2401/E05 Rev A, 2401/PO1 Rev B
recd 5/02/04. 2401/PO3 Rev C recd 1/03/04. 2401/PO2 Rev D,
2401/PO4 Rev D, 2401/PO5 Rev D, 2401/PO6 Rev D,
2401/PO7 Rev D received 29/03/04
Date of receipt:
05/02/04
Date(s) of Amendment(s): 01/03/04 &
29/03/04
CONSULTATIONS:
4 adjoining owner/occupiers and the Northwood Hills Residents’ Association were
consulted. 2 letters of objection have been received making the following comments:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Not enough room at the side and rear of the original house for the proposed
extension.
Loss of light/overshadowing.
Overlooking
Guttering would overhang the boundary.
Roof design has as unattractive appearance and is inconsistent with good
design.
Northwood Hills
Residents’ Association:
The bungalows and chalets in Hillside Crescent
are very close together and do not allow room for
extension, the proposal would be out of character.
Loss of light, guttering would extend over the
boundary and claustrophobic affect on
neighbouring properties.
1. 7 Hillside Crescent comprises a bungalow located on the south-western side of
Hillside Crescent. The site lies within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the
Page 177
UDP. The area is characterised by bungalows, several of which have loft
conversions with dormer windows.
2. The rear extension projects 4m from the original rear elevation of the bungalow
and is 8.7m wide. The side extension projects 2.1m from the side wall of the
bungalow so that it is level with the side wall of the garage and is 7.9m long.
Both the side and rear extensions have flat roofs and are 3m high. The roof
extension would have a gable end at the rear. The height of the roof extension is
no higher than the existing ridge height of the bungalow. The front dormer is
1.95m wide and 1.1m high. It is set in from the roof by 0.6m on all sides, except
for the roof dormer which is 0.5m below the ridge.
3. The rear extension projects approximately 4m beyond the rear elevations of the
adjoining properties. However there is an existing conservatory at the rear of 7
Hillside Crescent and the proposed extension would only project approximately
1.1m beyond this. The rear extension is 2.2m off the side boundary with 5
Hillside Crescent and 1m off the side boundary with 9 Hillside Crescent. These
gaps are considered to be sufficient to protect the residential amenity of the
adjoining neighbours. The side and rear extensions are considered to be in
keeping with the scale, form and architectural composition of the original
bungalow. The development would retain over 60m2 of amenity space for the
occupiers in line with the design guide.
4. The proposed roof conversion involves a minimal increase in the size of the
existing dormer window at the front of the bungalow. A number of similar roof
conversions have been constructed in the street, notably at 1 (no records), 4
(approved 2003), 5 (approved 2002) 13 (approved 1991) and 16 (approved 2000)
Hillside Crescent. Accordingly, loft conversions are a common feature in the
street scene and, as such, a front dormer and a gable end roof at the rear is not
considered to be out of keeping with the appearance of the streetscene and
surrounding area.
5. The shadow assessment demonstrates that there will be some additional
shadowing to the rear of 9 Hillside Crescent in the morning. However, this
increased shadowing is not considered to be so significant enough to warrant the
refusal of planning permission. The proposed side extension with roof addition
would result in a reduction in daylight to the existing side windows at 5 Hillside
Crescent. However, no habitable room windows would be affected as these
windows provide daylight to a WC and bathroom. Accordingly, the proposed
extension is considered to be in accordance with policy BE20 of the UDP.
6. The rooflights are sited approximately 3.2m high above ground level and provide
light to ground floor rooms. They would not permit direct overlooking and are
considered acceptable. Similarly, the first floor window is considered acceptable
as it does not face neighbouring properties and hence does not permit direct
overlooking.
Page 178
7. Points (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and the issues raised by the Northwood Hills Residents
Association have been addressed in the report. Point (iv) is not a relevant
planning consideration.
8. The proposed development is not considered to detract from the character and
appearance of the area or harm residential amenity. The proposal is considered
to comply with BE13, BE15, BE19, BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP.
account.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following condition:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(T1) Time Limit
Submitted
(M6) Boundary Fencing –
Retention with ‘No. 9 Hillside
Crescent’.
or Doors
(‘facing Nos. 5 and 9 ‘Hillside
Crescent’)
(RDP4) Prevention of
Balconies/Roof Gardens
Accordance with Approved Plans
1.
2.
(T1) Standard
(M1) Standard
3.
(M6) Standard
4.
(RPD1) Standard
5.
(RDP4) Standard
6.
(OM1) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
(3)
(4)
(6)
Neighbourly Considerations
Page 179
4.
5.
6.
Planning Guidance:
BE19 New development within residential areas – complementing and
BE24 Requires new developments to ensure adequate levels of privacy to
neighbours
SPG: Residential Extensions
A2
Developments visible in the public domain
A3
Impact of mass bulk and overlooking
A4
Visual impact of a development
A5
Design of extensions/materials
B4
Dormer windows and roof extensions
could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts
(2) Encroachment
Contact Officer: ANDREW WILLIAMS
Page 180
Page 181
A
Item No.19
Address:
NORTHWOOD HEALTH CENTRE, NEAL CLOSE,
NORTHWOOD
Development:
REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING HEALTH CENTRE TO
PROVIDE PART SINGLE, PART TWO, PART THREE STOREY
BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF A HEALTH CENTRE
AND EIGHT RESIDENTIAL FLATS AT THIRD FLOOR, 53 CAR
PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING
(INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HEALTH CENTRE)
LBH Ref Nos:
44988/APP/2004/836
Drawing Nos:
BHHN- 20G, 21F, 22D, 23A, 35A, 60D, 70B, 80
received 23/03/04 and amended plan 30D received 27/05/04
Date of receipt:
23/03/04
Date of Amendment: None
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the Northwood Health
Centre and the introduction of 8 flats for key workers in the health sector (four
1-bed and four 2-bed flats). This involves the replacement of the site’s
existing single storey 950m2 medical centre building with a one to three storey
mixed-use building of 2083m2 and the expansion of the car park from 42 to 53
spaces.
1.2
The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the health centre and the
provision of key worker housing on-site is supported in principle. The
proposal has been amended by the applicant in response to officer concerns
to ensure the bulk and scale of the building is compatible with the built
environment. Furthermore appropriate conditions can be required to ensure
an appropriate landscape setting and privacy of resident’s amenity space.
The main outstanding issue is the adequacy of on-site parking as discussed
below.
1.3
This redevelopment is proposed to address current overcrowding problems
for the Practice activities, assisted by the relocation of 6500 patients to a new
premise at Mount Vernon Hospital (This is subject to another planning
application at Mount Vernon also on the agenda). However, overall, the
proposal increases the capacity of the heath centre by increasing NHS and
community facilities from 3 to 10 interview/ treatment/ group rooms and
making provision for the remaining 3 Practices to increase the number of
Doctors from 5 to 7.5.
1.4
Six submissions raising concerns have been received, plus one submission
from the Northwood Hills Residents’ Association attached to a cover letter
Page 182
from John Wilkinson MP. The majority of these submissions were concerned
about the adequacy of car parking given the increased size of the health
centre. A letter in support of the application was received from The
Community Voice with an accompanying petition of 40 signatures.
1.5
The application does not provide sufficient car parking to satisfy the expected
demand or capacity of the facility which will result in health centre cars
parking through adjoining residential streets. Council’s parking standards
require that restrictive parking is complemented by (a) additional public
transport services, and (b) by controls to prevent excessive on-street parking.
While the applicant has offered to commit to a green travel plan, the public
transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is low (being Level 2 as
compared to a maximum ‘high’ level of 6), and the existing public transport
mode share for patients (12.5%) is low. It is not considered that a green
travel plan would be likely to adequately resolve the car parking short-fall.
Accordingly the application is not consistent with the provisions of the
Council’s Unitary Development Plan and is recommended for refusal.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: That the application be refused for the following
reasons:
1.
The proposed health care centre, by reason of the number of consulting
and treatment rooms, will result in inadequate parking provision for
staff, patients and residents on-site. The proposal fails to provide for
public transport facilities or other measures to remedy the potential
impacts of inadequate on-site parking. This would be detrimental to the
amenity of surrounding residential properties and to highway and
pedestrian safety. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy
BE19, AM1 and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The proposal fails to provide adequate car parking for people with
disabilities for the development. Accordingly the proposed
development is inconsistent with Policy AM15 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
3.
The 2 bedroom units are likely to give rise to additional children of
school age and additional educational provisions would need to be
made in the locality to meet this need. Given that a legal agreement
to address this issue has not, at this stage, been offered, the
proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy R17 of the adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
3.0
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The site is an irregular plot with a 18-metre frontage to Neal Close and a 1.5
metre frontage to Waverley Gardens with a total site area of 3747m2.
Vehicular and pedestrian access is available to Neal Close with pedestrian
Page 183
access only to Waverley Gardens. Ancillary pedestrian access is available to
Pinner Road via a walkway through the Northwood Hospital grounds.
3.2
A single storey 950m2 health care centre with 42 at grade car parking spaces
presently occupies the site. The existing health centre incorporates 22
consulting, treatment, interview and group rooms. The centre currently
accommodates 4 General Medical Service Practices with 9 Doctors and NHS
facilities such as a dentist and district nurses. Existing landscaping includes
18 trees and some shrubbery within a soft landscaped lawn area and side
setbacks.
3.3
The site is surrounded by a mixture of residential housing including single
storey detached dwellings, town houses and 3 storey apartment buildings.
The site also adjoins the eastern boundary of the Northwood, Pinner and
District Hospital.
3.4
travel along Pinner Road and the site is located some 650 metres to the east
of the Northwood Hills Underground Station. The site has a public transport
accessibility level (PTAL) of 2 (which is poor as compared to a maximum
‘high’ level of 6)
Scheme
3.5
Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the existing single
storey 950m2 Northwood Health Centre on the site for the purposes of an
enlarged health centre of 1633m2 and 8 key worker flats within a one to threestorey building. The building would be an interesting design with three wings
of 1 to 3 storeys connected to a 3 storey central nave.
3.6
The proposed health centre facilities located on the lower two floors includes:
Practice (General Medical
Services) Facilities
• 14 consulting rooms;
• 3 treatment rooms;
• 1 minor surgery room;
• waiting room (60 seats),
offices, seminar room,
library, etc.
3.7
NHS/ Community Facilities
•
•
•
•
2 dental surgeries;
7 treatment/ interview rooms;
1 large group room;
c.130m2 PCT offices for
community staff, district
nurses etc.
The Practices (GMS) currently serve 20,000 patients, 18,500 of which are
served at Northwood. The number of Practice patients will decline with the
relocation of some patients to Mount Vernon (This is subject to another
planning application being considered by committee). The likely reduction in
patient numbers is an issue with the application and is discussed under the
planning assessment. Officers have calculated a net decrease of 2000 listed
patients on-site for the Practices, a decrease of 11%. These patient numbers
do not relate to the proposed NHS facilities.
Page 184
3.8
Total staff at the Northwood Health Centre (GMS plus NHS) is proposed to
reduce from 88 to 64, both full-time and part-time workers. 38 health
professionals are proposed to work from the health centre including GPs,
Nurses, Dentists, Health Visitors (e.g. Dieticians, Counsellors) and District
Nurses. Some of these professionals will work part-time. The proposed timetable for the Northwood Health Centre shows that during the busy late
morning period, 45 staff members will be working, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8 GPs and nurse practitioners
4 practice nurses
4 health visitors
2 dentists
2 dental nurses
12 district nurses (mostly work off the premises)
13 administration and reception
3.9
The 8 key worker flats are located on the third floor, with a mix of 1-bed and 2bed apartments of 45m2 to 63m2 in area.
3.10
The existing access to the site via Neal Close is maintained. The proposed
53-space car park and associated manoeuvring area is located along the
north-west and south-east boundaries. The 8 key worker flats are proposed
to share car parking with the medical centre.
3.11
A resident and staff garden of c.460m2 is located in the north-east corner.
The extension of hardstand areas requires the removal of a number of trees.
The site plan indicates the introduction of a number of new trees, particularly
in the resident and staff garden along the eastern boundary.
Planning History
3.12
In 1990 the Northwood Health Centre sought the views of the Planning
Authority under Circular 18/84 on an outline proposal to extend the Health
Centre with two storey and single storey side extensions, comprising 10
additional GP and exam rooms plus ancillary rooms and facilities. No new
parking was proposed. The Health Authority advised that it was not intended
to increase patient visitation. The LPA objected to the proposal based on its
scale and concerns about the potential intensification of use and absence of
additional parking. This extension was not constructed. A comparison of the
building plans as at 1990 compared to present day indicates that the internal
layout has been amended slightly resulting in a few additional rooms.
3.13
An application that proposed a scheme similar to the subject application was
withdrawn in December 2003 (44988/APP/2003/917). The applicant withdrew
the application to allow discussions to take place with a view to formulating a
scheme that fulfils Council policies and standards. It was agreed that a new
application would be submitted that included a traffic statement that
addresses the Local Planning Authority’s concerns regarding car parking and
Page 185
traffic generation. Other issues that were to be addressed in the application
included the impact of the third floor on the outlook from adjoining properties.
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Educational Facilities
The London Plan
The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10, Pt1.13, Pt1.16, Pt1.23, Pt1.31, Pt1.32, Pt1.39
Part 2 Policies:
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
BE13
BE19
New development with residential areas - complementing and
improving character and amenity of the area
BE20
BE21
Siting, bulk and proximity to new buildings/extensions
BE22
BE23
BE24
Design of new buildings – protection of privacy
BE36
Proposals for high buildings/structures in identified sensitive areas
BE38
Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
OE1
OE12
OE13
Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties
and the local area
Energy conservation and new development
Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate
sites
HOUSING
H4
H6
development
Page 186
H9
Provision for people with disabilities in new residential
developments
RECREATION, LEISURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
R10
R17
Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of
recreation, leisure and community facilities
ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT
AM1
AM14
AM15
Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking
distance based catchment area - public transport accessibility and
capacity considerations
Development proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact
on congestion and public transport availability
Consideration of traffic generated by proposed development
Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and
implementation of road construction and traffic management
schemes
Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design
of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking
facilities
Provision of reserved parking for disabled persons
SPG
Residential Layouts and House Design Guide
AM2
AM7
AM8
AM9
Consultations
The application was advertised in the local paper, a site notice was erected
and 110 neighbours and two resident associations were consulted by letter. A
submission in support of the application was received from Community Voice
(an NHS resident group) with an accompanying petition with 40 signatures.
Concerns were raised by 6 resident submissions. The issues raised are listed
below:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inadequate parking
Traffic generation
Security - fencing and footpath through the site
Construction – duration, hours and traffic conflicts
Tree loss
Privacy
Loss of sunlight
Noise
Page 187
External Consultees
Metropolitan Police
(CPDA)
Considerable concern was raised about a new
footpath linking Waverley Gardens with the
adjoining Hospital’s footpath to Pinner Road –
which was recently removed per amended Plan
30D. Serious concerns were raised about the
location of a covered cycle store to the east of the
building - which was recently relocated in
amended Plan 30D. Concern was raised about
the location of the resident bin collection store.
The Police have requested that they be consulted
on landscape details, CCTV and boundary
treatments as a condition of consent.
London Fire and
Emergency Planning
Authority
The plans are to comply with the Building
Regulations, including Part B5. A guidance note
attached advises that private water hydrants
should be underground, installed in footways
immediately adjoining the access road.
Northwood Hills
Resident Association
This submission was accompanied by a cover
letter from John Wilkinson MP who has requested
that Council take the Association’s comments into
account. The association support the health
centre development but have reservations about
the adequacy of on-site car parking. They
considered it important to avoid the need for
parking in nearby residential streets.
Northwood Resident’s
Association
Internal Consultees
Policy and
Environmental Planning
The application proposal is consistent with the
London Plan objectives of supporting and
promoting community facilities. According to
Transport for London, the site’s location has a poor
level of accessibility scoring a PTAL of just 2. The
parking for the residential units should be marked
to avoid conflict. Although Policy welcomes the
provision of key worker housing and the efficient
use of the site proposed by this scheme, PEP
objects in principle to the proposals’ insufficient
parking provision.
Highways Engineer
The proposal provides insufficient on site parking
provision and is likely to lead to a further increase
Page 188
in the number of vehicles being parked in the
surrounding streets. Currently the maximum
observed shortfall in parking for the existing
health centre is 32 spaces. i.e: a potential for 32
vehicles to be parked in the public highways
adjoining the site. Residents were consulted on
the Northwood Hills Town Centre Controlled
Parking Scheme which included the streets
surrounding the health centre. With the exception
of Waverley Gardens, the remaining surrounding
streets opposed the scheme.
With the increased level of activity arising from the
proposal, there will be an increase in traffic
generation which is likely to cause further
problems in surrounding streets if an adequate
level of parking is not provided on-site.
The proposal as is currently presented cannot be
supported.
The trees on the site are not covered by a Tree
Preservation Order and the site does not lie within
a Conservation Area. The scheme should be
amended so that: (a) the linear group of trees
adjacent to the western boundary are not affected
by the car park extension; (b) the existing soft
landscaping around tree T1 (next to driveway
entry) is maintained; and (c) tree planting along the
southern boundary to provide a buffer to Sovereign
Court. Subject to the above revisions, the
proposed tree retention and removal is acceptable
in terms of Policy BE38. Amended Plan 30D
(received 27/05/04) responds to issues (a) and (c).
Urban Design and
The design of this scheme is very interesting and
rather unusual. For the scheme to harmonise with
its surroundings, it is vital to achieve a proper
balance between the new building and its setting.
The quality of the landscaping, including surface
treatment of the large car parking areas, will be
crucial for a positive result. It is strongly
recommend that more trees be planted, especially
on the south side of the car park. Detailed
drawings of hard and soft landscaping as well as
details of the water storage, the bin store and the
covered cycle parking should be required.
Conditions should apply to building materials
(stock facing bricks, metal sheeting roof material,
Page 189
landscape paving as well as surface treatment).
Amended Plan 30D (received 27/05/04) provides
additional soft landscaping along the southern
boundary.
A contribution of £14,543 should be sought for
primary and secondary school place (for the 2 bed
units) by way of a Section 106 agreement.
3.14
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Appropriateness of Development
Built form and landscape setting
Impact on neighbours’ privacy and sunlight
Amenity of future residents
Planning Benefits
(i)
The Appropriateness of Development
3.15
Policy R10 of the UDP notes that proposals for new buildings for community
and health services will be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with
other plan policies.
3.16
The principle of redeveloping the health centre is acceptable given the
importance of the facility to the local community. The inclusion of key worker
housing within the building is also supported given the need for such
accommodation and the potential for these residents to improve security onsite via casual surveillance and territorial reinforcement. The development’s
compliance with other plan policies, as also required by Policy R10, is
discussed below.
(ii)
3.17
on-site parking and access to public transport. The Council’s current parking
standards for medical and other health practices, is 5 spaces per consulting
room, and 1.5 spaces per dwelling as a maximum.
3.18
For the purposes of the Council’s parking standards, it is considered that a
‘consulting room’ is where a health professional provides a private service
directly to a patient, but does not include a secondary room such as a minor
surgery treatment room. This is because the parking standard includes an
allowance for the use of the secondary rooms. For example, if an ‘interview
room’ is the primary room used by NHS health professionals (e.g. Dieticians)
to provide private health advice to a patient, then this is a consulting room.
Page 190
Applying this definition, at least 23 rooms in the health centre should be
considered ‘consulting rooms’, being: 14 Practice (GMS) consulting rooms;
2 Dental Surgeries and; 7 NHS interview/ treatment rooms. (Note: This figure
excludes 5 treatment/group/surgery rooms and the 60 person waiting room)
3.19
In accordance with Council’s standards, the car-parking requirement for the
health centre is therefore a maximum of 115 car-parking spaces, with an
additional 12 car parking spaces for the residential units. The application
proposes a total of 53 parking spaces.
3.20
As Council’s car parking controls are a ‘maximum’, there is a need to consider
the actual demand of the development. The applicant has provided evidence
based on other sites that a health centre with 25 consulting rooms will
generate a maximum parking demand of 36 cars. This is inconsistent with
what is known to be the case at Northwood. The applicant has advised that at
Northwood there are currently a total of 22 consulting/ treatment/ group rooms
that generate a maximum parking demand of 74 spaces. This application
increases such rooms by 6 in addition to significantly increasing the provision
of office floor space and other facilities.
3.21
Officers estimation of the volume of car parking generated by the health
centre, excluding the residential units, is provided in the table below for two
scenarios - scenario (a) using the proposed staff roster (at 10:30am), and
scenario (b) assessing the capacity of the centre.
Consulting
Health Professionals
Patients1
Admin/ Support Staff
District Nurses
Total health centre cars
Scenario A
Parking Demand
Per Staff Roster
18
Scenario B
Parking Demand
per Centre Capacity
28
32
15
51
23
12
114
(assume all 12 off-site)
65
Note: Both Scenarios assume all staff drive as previous APP/2003/917 advises that 100% of
staff travel via car.
Note1: Patient cars are calculated as follows- If we assume for every consulting health
professional, there would be 1 patient leaving the premises, 1 patient waiting and another
being treated then patient cars generated would equal No. health professionals, multiplied by
3 patients, multiplied by 60%(as 60% of patients drive to the centre). This is the methodology
used by the Shackman Practice for their application at Mount Vernon.
3.22
The existing and proposed parking provision, for the health centre only, is
summarised below:
(a) Existing Situation
• Parking Provision
• Parking Demand
= 42 spaces
= 74 spaces
(b) Proposed Situation
Page 191
•
Parking Provision
= 45 spaces (excluding 8 res spaces)
• Council Standards (max) = 115 spaces (excluding 12 res spaces)
• Demand (Staff Roster)
= 65 spaces (excluding any res spaces)
• Demand (Centre Capacity) = 114 spaces (excluding any res spaces)
3.23
The above data demonstrates that the volume of on-street parking would
decrease with the new centre if the staff roster proposed by the applicant is
implemented. However, the Borough Solicitor has advised that the Council
cannot effectively monitor and enforce a condition that only some of the
patient rooms are able to be occupied at any one time. Accordingly the
Council must assess the capacity of the centre. Using the centre’s capacity,
the parking demand for the health activities would be 114 spaces,
representing a shortfall of 69 spaces.
3.24
In support of their proposal the applicant has submitted lengthy
correspondence as to why 53 car parking spaces is appropriate, which is
summarised and addressed in Appendix A. In summary, the applicant’s
arguments are not supported as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The volume of patients to the centre as a whole will not significantly
decrease. This is because the centre has been designed to add 3 GPs
to the remaining GP Practices and the number of NHS rooms will
significantly increase;
Council can not condition an approval that only some of the
consulting/treatment/group rooms are used at one time;
The NHS regulations do not prohibit additional health professionals or
GPs from operating in the proposed centre in the future;
Relying on the resident’s parking spaces to minimise the health
centre’s parking demands is unacceptable;
The site has a poor public transport accessibility level;
While it is accepted that there is an existing parking problem with the
centre (shortfall of 32 parking spaces), sustaining or exacerbating this
problem is not acceptable. Permitting extensive health centre parking
in quiet residential streets is contrary to UDP Policies BE19 and AM14.
3.25
The Council’s Highways Engineer has confirmed that the proposal provides
insufficient on site parking provision and is likely to lead to a further increase
in the number of vehicles being parked in the surrounding streets.
3.26
The Council’s parking standards requires 10% of spaces to be designed for
people with disabilities. The plans indicate a total of 7 spaces however only 4
will have adequate width. Since the Council’s parking standards require a
maximum of 115 spaces, the provision of only 4 spaces for people with
disabilities is inadequate.
3.27
In summary, the provision of 53 parking spaces will not be likely to satisfy the
development’s parking demand. While the applicant does not intend to use all
the consulting/treatment rooms concurrently, the Council is required to
consider the capacity of the building. As discussed under Policy AM14 in the
Page 192
UDP, the Council’s parking controls require that restrictive parking is
complemented by (a) additional public transport services, and (b) by controls
to prevent excessive on-street parking, achieved through developer
contributions where necessary. The applicant has suggested that a green
travel plan be provided as a condition of planning approval. There is no
evidence to demonstrate that a green travel plan can prevent excessive onstreet parking on adjoining residential roads.
3.28
In relation to cycle parking, 28 spaces have been provided for the health
centre and 8 covered spaces for the residents. The provision for the health
centre is below the cycle space requirement of the Unitary Development Plan.
However the demand for cycle spaces is likely to be reduced due to the
nature of the activity where patients / staff chose a more passive method of
transportation. This is supported by the patient travel mode survey
undertaken by the NHS at Northwood which found that only 0.1% (2 patients
in 1 week) travelled via bike.
(iii)
Built form and landscape setting
3.29 Policies BE19, BE21 and BE38 seek to ensure that new development will
3.30 The area comprises a mixture of residential development. The site’s eastern
boundary adjoins a single storey cottage, the northern boundary adjoins 2
storey townhouses and the western and southern boundaries adjoin 3 storey
flat buildings.
3.31 The building’s height is comparable to the two adjoining flat developments.
The building is well modulated with the floors being stepped away from the
site’s boundaries which minimizes potential overshadowing and privacy
impacts. The massing and siting of the building has an acceptable
relationship to adjacent and surrounding development and in this regard is
consistent with Policies BE19 and 21.
3.32
The quality of the landscaping, including surface treatment of the large car
parking areas, with be crucial for a successful scheme. In response to
concerns raised by Council officers, the applicant has submitted amended
plans to improve the extent of soft landscaping along the western and
southern boundaries. The landscape officer has advised that the only tree on
the site which merits retention is T1 (next to driveway entry). The existing soft
landscaping around tree T1 has not been maintained which will affect its
vitality. This issue alone is not considered to constitute a reason for refusal.
The development is able to be consistent with Policy BE38 of the UDP with
appropriate conditions on landscape quality.
(iv)
3.33
Impact on neighbours’ privacy and sunlight
Policies BE20 and BE24 seek to ensure that new development protects the
amenities of existing dwellings in terms of sunlight and privacy.
Page 193
3.34
The orientation of the site when coupled with the size and siting of the
proposed building would result in no significant loss of daylight and sunlight to
adjoining properties. The shadow from the building will fall primarily within the
site between 9am and 3pm from March to September.
3.35
Potential privacy impacts have been minimized by building separation, the
provision of boundary landscape planting and window treatment to minimize
overlooking of 10 Waverley Gardens. The Design Guide for Residential
Layouts and House Design advises that the distance between habitable room
windows should not be less than 21 metres for privacy. This standard is
mostly achieved with the exception of a 20metre separation to some kitchen
windows at Sovereign Court. The amended site plan BHHN-30D allows a
landscaping screen to be provided between the new development and
Sovereign Court windows, which will offer an acceptable level of visual
privacy. The application is considered to be consistent with Policies BE20
and BE24 in terms of impacts on neighbours.
(v)
Amenity of Future Residents
3.36 Policies BE20, BE23 and BE24 seek to protect the amenity of new residents
by requiring adequate daylight access, external amenity space and the
protection of resident’s privacy.
3.37
Given the orientation of the dwellings, most of the habitable rooms will receive
some direct sunlight which is consistent with Policy BE20.
3.38
In terms of privacy, the units are adequately separated from neighbouring
dwellings as discussed above. However, the sharing of the 460m2 amenity
area between the residents and staff is inconsistent with Policy BE23 and
BE24 which requires the provision of private amenity space for residents.
This is reinforced in the Design Guide for Residential Layouts and House
Design which advises that such space should be used solely by the residents
of the dwellings they serve. This is an issue that could be addressed by
planning condition in the event that the scheme was acceptable in all other
respects.
(vi)
Planning Obligations
3.39
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.’
3.40
Under the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for
Educational Facilities the proposed development requires the payment of a
contribution of £14, 543 towards school places.
Page 194
3.41
To date, the applicant has not agreed to provide this funding via a Section 106
agreement.
3.42
26 resident submissions raising concerns have been received, plus one
submission from the Northwood Hills Residents’ Association attached to a
cover letter from John Wilkinson MP. The majority of these submissions were
concerned about the adequacy of car parking given the increased size of the
health centre. A letter in support of the application was received from The
Community Voice with an accompanying petition of 40 signatures. While
most of the concerns are addressed in detail in the body of the report, a
summarised response is provided below.
1. Inadequate parking - It is agreed that the development has the potential to
create excessive on-street parking.
2. Traffic generation – There will be an increase in traffic generation which is
likely to cause further problems in surrounding streets if an adequate level
of parking is not provided on-site.
3. Security - The Police have been consulted and the applicants have
subsequently amended the plans. The amended proposal includes the
closure of the existing pedestrian gate to Waverley Gardens. The Police
have requested that they be consulted on landscape details, CCTV and
boundary treatments as a condition of consent.
4. Construction Activity Impacts - As the application does not apply to the
hospital land, it is not possible to require construction vehicles to access
the site through the hospital land, as requested by one submission. This
issue is not considered to constitute a reason for refusal.
5. Tree loss - The applicant has submitted amended plans to improve the
extent of soft landscaping. While a number of trees are proposed to be
removed, this issue alone is not considered to constitute a reason for
refusal.
6. Privacy – Potential privacy impacts have been minimized by building
separation, boundary landscape planting and window treatment. This
issue is not considered to constitute a reason for refusal.
7. Loss of sunlight – No significant external impacts are considered to arise.
8. Noise - The enlarged building and increased car park activity is likely to
generate more noise that the current development, however the principle
of using the site as a health centre is acceptable.
Page 195
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
Environmental Services Group and the wider Council
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The application proposes a significant redevelopment of an existing health
centre involving an increase in the number of consulting rooms and the
addition of 8 key worker apartments. The massing and siting of the building
has an acceptable relationship to adjacent and surrounding developments,
although the quality of landscape treatment will be important to the success of
the built form. While the site is capable of accommodating a new health
centre in terms of the built form of development, this scheme fails to provide
an adequate level of car parking which will result in excessive on-street
parking. Accordingly the application is not consistent with the provisions of
the Unitary Development Plan.
6.2
Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Adopted September 1998).
Guide
Appendix A – Response to Applicant’s argument on adequacy of parking
Contact Officer:
DEBORAH KRZEMINSKI
Page 196
APPENDIX A
Response to Applicant’s Argument on Adequacy of Parking
a) The building will serve a smaller patient list than the existing facility due to
the relocation of the Shackman Practice. The patient list will reduce by
40% (8000 patients).
Comment: There is disagreement on the likely patient list for the Practice.
The two factors being (a) the number of Shackman Practice patients to be
relocated and (b) the increase in GP activity in the remaining 3 Practices.
The application reported a net reduction of 8000 patients due to the relocation
of the Shackman Practice. However clarification of the Practice’s existing
activity at Mount Vernon by the applicant has found a net reduction of 6500
patients, as below:
Shackman Practice
Existing
Proposed
Net Change
Practice
Patient List
9500
9500
0
Northwood
Patients
8000
1500
- 6500
Mount Vernon
Patients
1500
8000
+ 6500
The second issue is the potential to increase GPs in the remaining 3
Practices. The applicant reported that the District Valuer advised that the
Practice area/ floor space proposed is necessary to house the 3 remaining GP
practices in accordance with the NHS Statement of Fees and Allowances.
Officer confirmation with the District Valuer has found that the Practice area
proposed allows an increase in full-time GPs in the 3 remaining practices from
5 to 7.5 Full-time Doctors. The applicant advised that there will be 6 full-time
and 2 part-time GPs for the 3 remaining practices. The discussion at R15 of
the UDP advises that on average a GP provides coverage for 2000 people.
Using the average patient data in the UDP, the additional 2.5 GPs would be
expected to attract around 4500 additional patients.
Taking on board the above, the GP patient list at the Northwood Health Centre
could decrease from 18,500 to 16,500 patients, being a decrease of 2000
patients or 11%.
As discussed above, it is accepted that the patient list for the Practices will
decline however this will not necessarily result in a lesser volume of patients
on any one day. For example, the health centre also provides direct
NHS/PCT funded health facilities and the number of consulting/treatment
rooms for the NHS is proposed to increase from 2 to 9. Furthermore, a
Practice can now receive extra funding if it provides specialist clinics for the
community, such as an asthma clinic. Patients that do not belong to the
Practice are able to attend these specialist clinics.
Page 197
b) The site is within easy walking distance of the majority of its catchment
and is well served by public transport.
Comment: As discussed earlier, the site’s location has a poor level of
transport accessibility (PTAL of 2). A survey in June 2003 of Northwood
patients found that 60% drove to the Northwood centre and it was advised
that most staff will drive to work. There is nothing to demonstrate that this
modal split will or can significantly change with the expanded health centre.
As detailed in the table at 3.21 above, applying this modal split to centre’s
facilities indicates that 53 car parking spaces (for the health centre and 8
residential units) will be inadequate.
c) The existing health centre is operating in a building that is 39% of the area
recommended by NHS’ Statement of Fees and Allowances (SFA)
guidelines. The proposed centre has the capacity to be used more
intensively however if this occurs, the building would become substandard in relation to the General Medical Services (GMS) guidelines.
Extra rooms are required for sanitary reasons, such the Minor Surgery
Suite on the first floor.
Comment: The guidelines referred to are the NHS “Statement of Fees and
Allowances” (SFA) which provides a floor space cost maximum for the
construction of premises for General Medical Services. The GMS area
excludes the proposed PCT/NHS and community activities such as the
dentists, district nurses and health visitors. There are no regulations
prohibiting GMS below the SFA’s floor space maximums.
d) Parking for the key worker flats can be used by the health centre.
Comment: This approach could conflict with resident’s working hours,
holidays and the potential for key worker residents to catch public transport to
their place of employment. This would also require no health centre activity
on the weekends which is unrealistic.
e) The enlarged health centre will address the existing need of existing
health professionals to ‘hot-desk’. Not all of the rooms will be used
simultaneously. For example, GPs, district nurses and health visitors will
all be off the premises doing home visits for significant parts of the day.
Comment: It is reasonable for Council to take into account the capacity of
the proposed building it being the size of the building that the Council is to
consider. It would be difficult for Council to monitor and enforce a condition
that only half of the health centre’s 28 consulting/ treatment/ interview rooms
can be used at any one time. The Borough Solicitor has advised against
applying such a condition.
f) If all of the consulting rooms were used simultaneously there would be an
overspill of 25 cars onto the neighbouring highway. This level of on street
parking would be little different to that currently experienced at peak times
Page 198
at the existing centre. Acre Way and Neal Close have significant parking
capacity. Parking would take place during the working day and therefore
not impact on residential amenity. Antisocial parking can be controlled via
signage and managed by the health centre.
Comment: As described in the table at 3.23, the health centre has the
potential to generate significant on-street parking. The existing situation at the
health centre demonstrates that amenity and safety conflicts can occur when
inadequate parking is provided, such as cars parking in front of neighbouring
resident’s garages. Permitting extensive health centre parking in quiet
residential streets would be contrary to the Policy BE19 and AM14. Policy BE
19 requires that new development within residential areas complements or
improves the amenity and character of the area.
NOTE: In order to improve the provision of on-site parking, Council officers
asked the applicant if it was feasible to provide a basement car park to
accommodate health centre staff and residents, with patients parking at
grade. The applicant advised that the additional cost of a basement for 25 to
30 cars would be between £750, 000 and £1 million and would render the
scheme unaffordable.
Page 199
Page 200
A
Item No.20
Address:
LAND R/O 29-55 TOLCARNE DRIVE AND RYEFIELD
CRESCENT ADJACENT TO HAWTHORNE COURT,
NORTHWOOD HILLS
Development:
ERECTION OF A PART TWO AND SINGLE STOREY
WAREHOUSE WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE AND ASSOCIATED
CAR PARKING
LBH Ref Nos:
49070/APP/2002/2943
Drawing Nos:
990/2 as amended by 990/1A received 19/12/02 and 07/08/03
Date of receipt:
19/12/02
Members will recall that this application was deferred at the then
Ruislip/Northwood Planning Committee 16th February 2004 to enable officers
to give further consideration to a condition in relation to the parking of
vehicles associated with the use of the warehouse and office within the
application site. Officers do not consider that a condition could be attached
that would restrict the size and type of vehicle that would visit the warehouse.
Nor would it be possible to attach a condition that would guarantee the use of
the application site for all vehicles delivering or accessing the warehouse. A
condition relating to these matters is considered to be unreasonable and
would not be enforceable.
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
The application relates to a triangular shaped vacant parcel of land that is
located to the north of properties in Tolcarne Drive and to the south of the
Metropolitan Railway line at Northwood Hills. It is accessed via a 5m wide
private road that runs from Ryefield Crescent to the south of Hawthorne
Court, a 3 storey block containing engineering units and residential
accommodation above.
1.2
The proposal is considered to be of an acceptable scale and bulk and
distance from the occupiers in Tolcarne Drive to ensure that the amenities of
the residents will not be harmed. As the unit is to be restricted to B1
(Business) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses, the amenity of adjoining
occupiers should not be harmed by the operation of the building.
1.3
The Traffic Engineer raises no objections to the proposal given the previous
approvals for 12 lock-up garages and the storage of mini-skips on the site and
London Underground have no objection to the proposal provided there is a
clearance of 1.5m between the building and the railway boundary. The
scheme has been amended to incorporate the 1.5m gap.
Page 201
1.4
The proposal is recommended for approval.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(T1) Time Limit
Submitted
A 3 metre high close-boarded
fence shall be erected adjacent
to the rear of the properties in
Tolcarne Drive prior to the
commencement of works on site
retained.
The premises shall not be used
except between 07.30 hours and
18.30 hours Mondays to
Saturdays and at no time on
Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Notwithstanding the provisions
of Part 3, Schedule 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order
1995 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or
without modification), the
building shall be used only for
purposes within Use Class B1 or
B8 of the Schedule to the Town
and Country Planning (Use
Classes) Order 1987 (as
amended)
1.
2.
(T1) Standard
(M1) Standard
3.
To safeguard the amenity of
adjoining occupiers.
4.
5.
To ensure that the amenities of
the adjoining occupiers are not
harmed.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.0
(3)
(4)
(6)
Property Rights/Rights to Light
Compliance with the “Special Conditions for Outside Parties Working on or
Near the Railway” issued by London Underground Ltd
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
The application relates to a triangular plot of land bounded to the north by the
Metropolitan railway line, to the south by the rear gardens of maisonettes
fronting Tolcarne Drive, and to the west by an area of hardsurfacing to the
side of Hawthorne Court. This is a three-storey block comprising residential
Page 202
units above with commercial/engineering units on the ground floor adjacent to
the private access road. The site is currently vacant and unoccupied. The
ground levels are such that the site is higher than the properties in Tolcarne
Drive.
3.2
Ryefield Crescent, which provides access to the site from Joel Street, is a
narrow “Z-shaped” cul-de-sac with the application site accessed via a private
road which runs adjacent to Hawthorne Court.
Scheme
3.3
Planning permission is sought for a 207m2 part two-storey warehouse building
with ancillary first floor offices of 74 m2 with ground floor garages for 4 cars
below. The building has a forecourt to the front adjacent to the Hawthorne
Court car parking area and the southern part of the site would be screened
from the properties in Tolcarne Drive by a 3m high fence. The siting of the
building has been amended so that it would be 1.5m from the boundary with
the railway line to accord with the requirements of London Underground.
Planning History
3.4
Planning permission was granted for the erection of 12 lock-up garages in
1994 (ref. 49070/94/683) but was not implemented.
3.5
Temporary planning permission was granted for 2 years for the use of the site
for the storage of mini-skips engaged in domestic waste clearance and
retention of portable structures in April 1997 (ref. 49070/B/95/1360). An
application to renew this permission was refused and enforcement action
authorised in July 2000 due to the unneighbourly impact of the operations on
the adjoining residential occupiers at Hawthorne Court and Ryefield Crescent.
Activities on the site ceased in 2001. The site was subsequently cleared and
currently remains vacant.
3.6
A planning application to develop the site with 4, two-bedroom flats is awaiting
determination pending the submission of additional information (ref.
49070/APP/2003/1604).
The relevant UDP Policies are:
Part 1 Policy:
Pt1.26 To encourage economic and urban regeneration in the Hayes/West
Drayton Corridor, designated Industrial Business Areas (IBAs) and
other appropriate locations.
Page 203
Part 2 Policies:
BE19 New development within residential areas – complementing and
OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and
the local area
LE5
Small scale business activities within the developed area
AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed development
External Consultees
NEIGHBOURS: Consulted: 58
No. of replies: 0
Northwood Hills Residents’
Association
No objection subject to conditions. The
approval should ensure protection
against any nuisance, such as noise,
particularly early morning and late at
night, and also ensure a high degree of
cleanliness. There is parking provision
for 4 cars and it is important that this
will be adequate as there is no room for
off-site parking
London Underground Ltd
No objection to a clearance of 1.5m
between the new building and the
railway boundary.
Internal Consultees
Traffic Engineer
No objection on highway grounds.
3.7
(ii)
Impact on the character and amenity of the area
Highway matters
Page 204
(i)
Impact on the character and amenity of the area
3.8
The site is located within the developed area and backs onto the rear gardens
of residential properties along Tolcarne Drive. The application needs to be
assessed in the light of Policy OE1 and the impact of the commercial activity
on the character and amenity of surrounding properties. In accordance with
Policy OE1 permission will not normally be granted for uses and associated
structures which are, or are likely to become, detrimental to the character of
the area unless “sufficient measures are taken to mitigate the environmental
impact of the development and ensure that it remains acceptable to the Local
Planning Authority…”
3.9
The proposal is for a building with an overall length of 38m and a height that
varies between 5m for the warehouse element to 8m for the office element
and at its closest point is 20m from the nearest property in Tolcarne Drive.
The highest part of the building would be sited on the northern part of the site,
adjacent to the railway line and the Hawthorne Court car parking area, and is
more than 27m from the closest property in Tolcarne Drive. These distances
are considered to be sufficient to ensure that there would not be any
significant loss of amenity to the Tolcarne Drive occupiers through bulk, mass
or overdominance, although some loss of outlook would be inevitable. A tree
screen is also evident on the northern boundary of the gardens which would
further mitigate the visual impact of the proposal. A 3m high fence is also
proposed for the southern boundary of the site to protect the residential
occupiers from possible noise generated from within the site. As the proposed
built form is to the north of the maisonettes in Tolcarne Drive, there would not
be a loss of sunlight or daylight to these properties.
3.10
The proposed structure would not be injurious to the amenities of the
adjoining first floor occupiers in Hawthorne Court because of the 10m gap
between the buildings which is used as a car parking area. There are no
windows in the flank elevation of the building facing Hawthorne Court.
3.11
The operation of the building has been restricted by condition to allow for B1
(Business) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses and to prevent the use of
the building for general industrial processes.
(ii)
3.12
Highway matters
Given the previous history on the site that allowed for use as 12 lock-up
garages and a temporary permission for the storage of mini-skips, it is not
considered that a traffic generation objection to the proposal could be
substantiated. The proposal incorporates 4 car parking spaces adjacent to a
paved forecourt area measuring 8m by 15m and will allow for the loading and
manoeuvring of vans. The public highway ends at the southern point of
Ryefield Crescent which is to the west of Hawthorne Court. However, access
to the site is via an 80m long by 5m wide private road which services the
ground floor industrial/engineering units at Hawthorne Court and links through
to the small car parking area to the west of the application site and to the east
Page 205
of Hawthorne Court. It is therefore inevitable that the accessway will become
blocked on some occasions given the existing van deliveries to the
engineering units but this will not be on the public highway and was not
considered to be a problem when the storage of mini-skips was operating. As
such, it would not be so significant as to justify a reason to refuse this
application.
3.13
The points raised by the Northwood Hills Residents’ Association are noted
with hours of operation being addressed by condition.
4.0
4.1
provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.Further, Members must make their
5.0
5.1
therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of
council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
Given the planning history of the site and the scale of the current proposal, it
is not considered that the scheme would lead to a significant loss of amenity
to the adjoining occupiers in Tolcarne Drive or Hawthorne Court though some
congestion of the private service road to the south of Hawthorne Court is
inevitable at certain times. However, this is not considered to be so significant
as to justify refusal of the scheme.
(c)
(d)
(e)
UDP
Previous planning approvals 49070/94/683 for 12 lock up garages and
planning applications 95/1360 and 2000/78 for the storage of mini-skips.
1 letter from Northwood Hills Residents’ Association (the contents of which
are summarised in the report)
Contact Officer:
RICHARD BUXTON
Page 206
Page 207
B
Item No.21
Address:
MADALANE HOUSE, HILLSIDE ROAD, PINNER
Development:
REPLACEMENT OF DOUBLE GARAGE WITH NEW
DRIVEWAY AND PROVISION OF WALL WITH DOUBLE
GATES ON HILLSIDE ROAD FRONTAGE WITHIN THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARROW
LBH Ref Nos:
39703/APP/2004/1069
Drawing Nos:
1:1250 Location Plan, Drawings po1.010g1, 011g1, 013g1,
016g1, 020G1, 006, 005, 004, 003, 002, 006g1 received
20/05/04
Date of receipt:
21/04/04
CONSULTATIONS:
No consultations have been carried out, as the application site is located
approximately 70m from residential properties located within the London Borough of
Hillingdon.
1.
The London Borough of Harrow seeks the comments from this Council on a
proposal at Madalane House, Hillside Road, Pinner.
2.
The application site is located on the north eastern corner of Hillside Road
and Potter Street. The borough boundary runs north-south along Potters Hill
Street. The nearest residential properties within Hillingdon are 97 and 92
Potters Road, and are sited approximately 50m to the west and south,
respectively.
3.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a replacement double
garage, the construction of a new driveway and a boundary wall with double
gates on the Hillside Road frontage of Madalane House. The proposed
garage would be attached to the house, and would be 11.5m long, and 6.0m
wide. The garage would be finished with a gable end pitched roof, with an
average height of 3.05m. The drive will provide access from Hillside Road
and the new fence will have a height of 2.2m for the majority of its length,
increasing to a maximum of 3.5m above the pedestrian gate.
4.
The design of the proposed garage is sympathetic to the existing building, and
would not appear obtrusive or dominant from residential properties in
Hillingdon. The proposal is not considered to harm the residential amenities
of the properties within Hillingdon since these are located some distance from
the application site.
Page 208
5.
The Council’s Highways Engineer raises no objections to the application.
When making their observations, Members must have regard to all relevant planning
Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their observations on the basis of
account.
As this is a consultation on an application from an adjoining authority, there are no
financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
That London Borough of Harrow be informed that this Council raises no
objections to the application.
Contact Officer:
REBECCA STOCKLEY
Page 209
Page 210
A
Item No.22
Address:
LAND AT REAR OF 154 AND 156 JOEL STREET, FRONTING
NORWICH ROAD, NORTHWOOD
Development:
ERECTION OF A PAIR OF FOUR BEDROOM SEMIDETACHED HOUSES
LBH Ref Nos:
58977/APP/2003/2736
Drawing Nos:
0903-541/P01/C, 0903-541/P02 C, 0903-541/PO3 C received
on 24/05/04
Date of receipt:
20/11/03
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
Planning permission is sought to erect a pair of semi-detached houses. It is
considered that the siting and scale of the proposed development would not
appear cramped or out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
The set back from the road frontage respects that of the adjoining
development. The proposal would not detract from the amenities of adjoining
residents and provides satisfactory accommodation for future residents. The
application is therefore recommended for approval subject a Section 106
Agreement for a financial contribution towards the funding of additional school
places.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
That the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all
appropriate legislation in order to ensure the following:
(i)
A financial contribution of £14,093.63 towards funding of
additional school places in Northwood.
2.
That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree detailed terms of the
proposed agreement.
3.
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.
4.
That subject to the above the application be deferred for determination
by the Head of Planning & Transportation under delegated powers
subject to the completion of the agreement under Section 106 of the
Page 211
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with
the applicant.
5.
That if the application is approved, the following conditions be
attached:-
1.
application
2. (M1) Details/Samples to be
Submitted
3. (M3) Boundary Treatment –
details
4. (MRD4) Single Dwellings
Occupation
5. (MRD7) Dustbin Siting
6. (OM1) Development in
Accordance with Approved Plans
7. (RPD1) No Additional Windows
or Doors
(facing 154 Joel Street and 1
Norwich Road)
8. (RPD3) Obscured Glazing
(first floor windows facing 154
Joel Street and 1 Norwich Road)
9. (H7) Parking Arrangements
(Residential)
10. (TL2) Trees to be Retained
11. (TL3) Protection of Trees and
Development
12. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme - (full
applications where details are
reserved for future approval)
• 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
13. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme –
implementation
14. (TL7) Maintenance of
Landscaped Areas
15. (RPD5) Restrictions on Erection
1.
(T1) Standard
2.
(M1) Standard
3.
(M3) Standard
4.
(MRD4) Standard
5.
6.
(MRD7) Standard
(OM1) Standard
7.
(RPD1) Standard
8.
(RPD3) Standard
9.
(H7) Standard
10. (TL2) Standard
11. (TL3) Standard
12. (TL5) Standard
13. (TL6) Standard
14. (TL7) Standard
15. So that the Local Planning
Authority can ensure that any
Page 212
and Outbuildings
16. Provisions shall be made within
approved are properly washed
and cleaned to prevent the
passage of mud and dirt onto the
adjoining highway.
17. Details of a designated area for
Authority. This recycling area
shall be permanently retained for
so long as the development
remains in existence.
such development would not
result in a significant loss of
residential amenity in
accordance with policies
BE21 and BE23 of the
Hillingdon Unitary
Development Plan.
16. To ensure that the
pavement and highway.
17. 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.
INFORMATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.0
(20)
(36)
(1)
(4)
(23)
Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work
Property Rights/ Rights to Light
Works affecting the Public Highway - Vehicle Cross-over
CONSIDERATIONS
Site and Locality
3.1
This application concerns a plot of land 0.038 hectares in area situated on the
southern side of Norwich Road, approximately 30m from its junction with Joel
Street. The land is located immediately to the rear of 154 and 156 Joel Street
and to the east of 1 Norwich Road. The area is characterised by a mixture of
semi-detached and detached houses set back from the road frontage to give
an open character and appearance. Adjoining the site area pair of gable end,
semi-detached properties with rooms in the roof space.
Scheme
3.2
Planning permission is sought to erect a pair of four bedroom semidetached houses. The houses are 5.7m wide and 9.5m high. The new
Page 213
house closest to 154 Joel Street (house 1) is 12.5m deep and house 2,
adjacent to 1 Norwich Road, is 10.2m deep
Planning History
3.3
Planning permission was approved (ref: 52445/97/1862) for the
erection of a detached house on 24/02/99.
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect
the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas
Pt1.13 To seek to ensure the provision of 8,000 additional dwellings in
the Borough
Part 2 Policies:
new planting and landscaping in development proposals.
R17
Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation,
leisure and community facilities
OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance - mitigation
measures
Page 214
Design Principles 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 9.1 of the Design Guide: ‘Residential
Layouts and House Design’.
Consultations
External Consultees
7 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted and 1 letter of objection has been
received making the following comments:(i)
(ii)
The parking spaces are in an unacceptable location.
The proposal could result in multiple occupation.
Northwood Residents’ Association
Internal Consultees
Director of Education
No objection subject to the applicant
entering into a legal agreement to
provide a contribution towards additional
school places in the Northwood area.
No objection
Traffic Engineer
No objection
3.4
3.5
The planning issues in this case relate to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Impact upon the visual amenity of the area
Impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining properties
Adequacy of amenities for future occupiers
Parking provision
(i)
Impact upon the visual amenity of the area
The houses on the southern side of Norwich Road comprise two storey semidetached properties, which are set back from the road frontage. 1 and 3
Norwich Road have gable end roofs with roof lights to provide rooms in the
roof space. The proposed two storey semi detached houses are of a similar
height and design and are not considered to be out of keeping with adjoining
development. The houses are set back from the road frontage by 5.7m,
respecting the established building line and would not therefore unacceptably
intrude into the street scene. The flank wall of house 2 is inset by 1m from the
boundary with 1 Norwich Road in line with the design guide: ‘Residential
Page 215
Layouts and House Design’ and, as such, would not therefore appear
cramped in the street scene, or give rise to a terracing effect.
3.6
The proposal is considered to be consistent with Policies BE13 and BE19 of
the UDP and the design guide.
(ii)
Impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining properties
3.7
The design guide advises that for two storey buildings adequate distance
should be maintained to avoid overdominance. A minimum distance of 15m is
required, although this distance will be dependent on the extent and bulk of
the buildings. The proposed two-storey houses are 9.5m high and 12.5m
wide. The flank wall of house 1 is set at the slight angle to 154 Joel Street
and the rear windows of this property are situated 15m from the proposed
house in accordance with the design guide.
3.8
A detached house with a hipped roof was approved on this site in 1999. This
was also situated 15m from 15 Joel Street. Although the proposed houses
have gable end roofs, it is considered that the scale of development proposed
would not be overdominant in relation to 154 Joel Street.
3.9
The design guide advises that a minimum distance of 21m is required to
private garden areas of adjoining residential properties in order to ensure that
no loss of privacy will occur. The proposed bedroom windows are situated
21m from the private garden area of 156 Joel Street and therefore comply
with design guidance. Secondary living room windows are proposed on the
ground floors of the new houses facing the properties on either side. Subject
to appropriate boundary treatment, which would be secured by condition, no
overlooking of the adjoining properties will occur. The proposal will not
therefore result in a loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers and is consistent
with policies BE21, BE22 and BE24 of the UDP.
(iii)
3.10
Adequacy of amenities amenity for future occupiers
The design guide advises that for 4 bedroom houses a minimum of 100m2 of
private amenity space should be provided. 108m2 is proposed for house 2,
which includes a useable area of 30m2 to the side of the house. 92m2 is
proposed for house 1, however although this falls short of the design guide,
the deficiency of 8m2 is not considered to be sufficient enough to justify
refusal in this case. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy policy
BE23 of the UDP.
Page 216
(iv)
3.11
The proposal provides 2 spaces per unit in accordance with this Council’s
interim car parking standards. It is considered that the level of traffic
generated by the proposal would not give rise to additional congestion
sufficient to justify refusal of permission. Pedestrian and highway safety
should not therefore be prejudiced and the Traffic Engineer raises no
objections to the development. The application is therefore considered to be
consistent with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.
(v)
3.12
Parking provision
The Director of Education has advised that the proposed development will
lead to additional pressure for school places in the Northwood area. The
applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £14.093 towards funding of
additional school places. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with
Policy R17 of the UDP
3.13
Point (i) has been addressed in the main body of the report. On Point (ii),
planning permission will be required for any conversion of either property to
an HMO.
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.1
The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met
by the developer, and the developer will make a S.106 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.
6.0
CONCLUSION
6.1
The proposal would 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 should not harm highway and
Page 217
pedestrian safety. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies
of the UDP. As such planning permission is recommended.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Supplementary Planning Guide: ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’
1 letter of objection
Contact Officer:
ANDY PARKER
Page 218
Page 219
B
Item No.23
Address:
RUISLIP UNDERGROUND STATION, STATION APPROACH,
RUISLIP
Development:
INSTALLATION OF FRONT SECURITY GATES, A GRILLE
ABOVE AND THE REPOSITIONING OF INFORMATION
BOARDS (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
LBH Ref Nos:
47775/APP/2004/1395
Drawing Nos:
0315/P/001, 0351/GA/001, 0351/GA/203 received 21/05/04
Date of receipt:
21/05/04
Consultation
No consultation was carried out, as there are no properties adjacent to the
application site. The application was advertised as a development that would affect a
listed building. To date no letters have been received.
English Heritage
The addition of a further iron grill on the front entry of the
building will compromise the simple elegance of the architecture
and, through the awkward repositioning of the information
boards (the boards straddle the corner pilasters), it will
negatively affect the composition of this principal elevation.
Not convinced that the case for additional security outweighs the
need to safeguard the special interest of the listed building.
Willing to discuss alternative proposals, such as a traditional
Bostwick Gate, that are more sympathetic to the exterior of this
principal elevation.
Key Planning Issues
1.
Ruislip Station is on the Metropolitan Line at the southern end of Ruislip High
Street. The Station lies behind the former Times House, an 8-storey office
block now re-clad and converted to residential accommodation. The Station is
one of the few remaining “main line” type stations on the Metropolitan Line
and is Listed Grade ll. The List description is as follows:
“Railway station with associated footbridge and signal box. 1904 for the
Harrow and Uxbridge Railway, modified 1928 by Metropolitan railway. Buff
brick with orange bands and a replacement tile roof (c1900). Range of single
storey depth buildings on the downside of the line with a later building on the
up platform. The yard elevation has a central gable projecting forward with
doorway flanked by windows. All have segmental heads, the windows are 2
over 2 sashes with a pane toplight, rendered imposts with gauged brick
Page 220
arches, and keystones. Orange brick decoration in the gable above. Plain
entrance canopy on brackets. Wings on either side of this, to the left with five
windows of similar type but without keystones, the two windows closest to the
entrance are paired. Additional small wing to the left of this with one more
window. The wing to the right has two pairs of windows as before and then
two small lavatory windows, the additional wing has more small windows.
Orange cornice band around the building. Two ridge stacks to left and one on
right (one demolished on right). The platform elevation has similar features,
and a seven bay canopy on cast iron columns carrying brackets with
quatrefoils in the spandrels and steel beam s supporting a replacement
corrugated sheeting roof. The interior of the booking hall is full height with the
roof supported on wide queen post trusses. Standard wrought iron lattice
girder footbridge with added roof, the base is infilled on either side. The bridge
dates from 1904 but was moved to its present site in 1928. Up platform
building is later as is demonstrated by early photographs of the station. It has
plain brick walls with a canopy on steel supports. It dates from 1928
(photographs in Ruislip library show it under construction in that year along
with the bridge alterations). Signal box at the north end of the up platform.
1904 restored c 1990. Apparently disused but little changed. Yellow brick
locking room with timber frame above and a hipped slate roof. Entrance door
up a timber staircase flanked by 6-pane windows. The track elevation is of
three bays but the windows are now blocked by diagonal boarding as below.
Eaves supported by curved brackets; external stack to the rear. Interior not
inspected but the lever frame is said to remain. This building has group value
with the rest of Ruislip station. History: Ruislip Station was built by the Harrow
and Uxbridge Railway in 1904. The line was worked from the beginning by the
Metropolitan Railway who took over the company in 1905 and converted the
line to electric traction. It was vested in the London passenger Board in 1933.
It is an extremely unaltered Metropolitan station for the period and is the best
preserved of its country stations”
2.
Listed Building Consent is sought to fix metal gates that can be shut in front of
the existing timber doors at the front entrance to the station ticket hall, a grille
above the station door in front of the fanlight and the repositioning of the
information boards.
3.
The proposed gates would provide security to the ticket office at night. The
gates and grille are designed in a simple manner with vertical rods to match
the existing security grilles to the windows. The gates would also help to
protect the fabric of the building, particularly with regard to the existing timber
doors. During the day the gates would fold back against the brickwork in a
simple and unobtrusive manner. The grille would match the design of the
existing grilles on the windows.
4.
Given the need for security, and the careful design of the gates and grille, no
objections are raised to this proposal, as it is considered to have little or no
detrimental impact upon the special interest of the listed building, in line with
policies BE8 and BE9 of the UDP.
Page 221
5.
Although no objections are raised to the re-siting of the information boards, their
proposed location is not considered be sympathetic to the special interest of the
listed building. As such, it is recommended that a condition is attached requiring
the siting of the information boards to be agreed by the local planning authority.
6.
English Heritage has expressed concerns that are not shared by Council
officers. It is therefore recommended that the design of the gates are reserved
for future consideration. Consent is therefore recommended subject to
conditions.
account.
financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer
agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful
possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the council's financial resources, and the
RECOMMENDATION: CONSENT - subject to Direction by English Heritage, no
material objections being received and to the following conditions:1.
2.
3.
(CAC1) Time Limit- Listed
Building Consent
Prior to commencement of works,
details of the design of the gate
shall be submitted to and
approved by the local planning
authority, and, once implemented
so maintained.
Details of the hinge fixing to
existing brickwork shall be
Local Planning Authority before
the commencement of the works,
an, once implemented and so
maintained.
1.
(CAC1) Standard
2.
architectural and/or historic
interest of the building in
accordance with Policies BE8
and BE9 of the UDP.
3.
and BE9 of the UDP.
Page 222
4.
The gates and grilles shall be
painted to match the existing bars
to the windows.
4.
5.
The gates shall be fixed back
securely, flat to the walls, during
normal train operating hours.
5.
6.
Prior to commencement of works 6.
details of the position/siting of the
information boards shall be
agreed by the local planning
authority, and, once implemented
so maintained.
Contact Officer: JON M FINNEY
and BE9 of the UDP.
interest of the building and to
safeguard pedestrian safety in
accordance with Policies BE8,
BE9 and BE18 of the UDP.
and BE9 of the UDP.
Page 223
Page 224
Item No. 24
NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS
01 May 2004 to 31 May 2004
(A) NEW APPEALS
1. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Application Ref. No:
Appeal Ref. No:
Start Date:
Basis for Appeal:
Procedure:
Information:
2. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Start Date:
Basis for Appeal:
Procedure:
Information:
3. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Start Date:
Basis for Appeal:
Procedure:
Information:
92 Victoria Road, Ruislip
Manor
Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3
(Food & Drink)
59126/APP/2004/52
4999
7 May 2004
Against Refusal
Written Representations
Delegated Refusal 24/02/04
Land forming part of 124 and 124 Woodlands
Avenue, Ruislip
Cavendish
Erection of a two storey detached unit comprising
2 one-bedroom flats with four parking spaces
58744/APP/2004/409
5001
17 May 2004
Against Refusal
Land forming part of 118 Dartmouth Rd, Ruislip
Manor
Erection of an attached two-bedroom
dwellinghouse (involving part demolition of
existing dwelling and garage)
59174/APP/2004/223
5002
17 May 2004
Against Refusal
Page 225
4. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Start Date:
Basis for Appeal:
Procedure:
Information:
2 Crescent Gardens, Eastcote
Eastcote & East Ruislip
Erection of a two storey side and rear, single
storey front and part rear extensions with
installation of a rear dormer window
35586/APP/2003/2659
5005
26 May 2004
Against Refusal
Committee Overturn 05/05/2004
Page 226
(B) APPEAL DECISIONS
1. Site Property:
102 Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Appeal Decision Date:
Decision:
Information:
2. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Decision:
Information:
3. Site Property:
Ickenham
Erection of a single storey wooden panel and
corrugated plastic side structure (Appeal against
Enforcement Notice)
9956/APP/2004/183
4933
6 May 2004
Dismissed
Against Enforcement Notice
31 Burwood Avenue, Eastcote
Eastcote & East Ruislip
Erection of a part two-storey side with integral
garage, part single storey side and single storey
rear extensions (involving demolition of existing
garage)
22333/APP/2003/1521
4933
5 May 2004
Allowed
306 – 310 West End Road, Ruislip
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Decision:
Information:
South Ruislip
Erection of 2 three-storey blocks (second storey
in roofspace) comprising 19 two-bedroom flats
and 2 one-bedroom flats with access, parking
and landscaping
52544/APP/2002/2441
4894
10 May 2004
Dismissed
Page 227
4. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Decision:
Information:
5. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Decision:
Information:
6. Site Property:
Ward:
Development:
Appeal Ref. No:
Decision:
Information:
16 Melthorne Drive, Ruislip
Cavendish
Conversion of loft space involving conversion of
roof from hip to gable end, incorporating a rear
dormer window (Application for a certificate of
lawful use for a proposed use or development)
6219/APP/2003/1165
4918
19 May 2004
Dismissed
13 Bushey Road, Ickenham
Ickenham
Erection of a single-storey side extension with
pitched roof, part two-storey, part single-storey
rear extension and installation of a rear dormer
window
10335/APP/2003/2596
4934
25 May 2004
Dismissed
Land at Woodland Heights, 95 Ducks Hill Road,
Northwood
Northwood
Erection of entrance gates (Appeal Against
Enforcement Notice)
9241/APP/2004/320
4948
26 May 2004
Dismissed
Compliance period extended to 6 months
Page 228
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
CONTACT OFFICER: GEOFF ELLIOTT
EXTENSION:
3556
Item No. 25 OFFICER DELEGATED CASES – NORTH AREA
SUMMARY
Members expressed an interest in receiving a monthly update on the number and
type of officer delegated decisions made each month.
A list of planning decisions determined by the Head of Planning and Transportation
Services under delegated powers is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members note the content of this report.
INFORMATION
Between 01/03/04 and 31/03/04 there were 85 cases determined under delegated
authority.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Nil.
Page 229

3.1The application concerns a detached bungalow situated on the

Transcription

Similar documents

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

BRP Flyer - III_13-ENG.indd

mix connect public transport densify cycle walk transit

2001 4118 Dawson Street, Burnaby

Flämingstrasse

AA Map - Mother`s Day 5K