Planning Committee 12TH September 2013

sean.doran@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2013/1706 00176/A/P62

Address: Hogarth Business Park, Burlington Lane, Chiswick, London. W4 2TH.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing industrial buildings and the redevelopment of the site to provide 174 new residential units, commercial floorspace (Use Class B1), together with basement and surface level car parking spaces, cycle parking, access, landscaping, boundary treatment and associated works

1.2 The principle of the development would be acceptable in this location. The development would not harm neighbour’s living conditions, would preserve the character of the conservation areas and would not harm the local road network or traffic safety.

1.3 The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and the

satisfactory negotiation of a S106 Deed.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

General Description, Layout and Neighbours.

2.1 The Hogarth Estate site is located within the between the Great Western Road (A4) and Burlington Lane and close to Chiswick House, within Chiswick House Conservation Area and opposite Old Chiswick Conservation Area. The site is approximately 1.85ha in area, measures 103m x 158m in width/length, and is currently occupied by three 8m high part-occupied modern box form commercial/industrial units with ancillary offices and surface car parking, built in the early 1980s. The materials used include smoked glazing on outward facing facades and horizontal bands of cream and brown composite panels elsewhere.

2.2 Two of them front onto Burlington Lane and the other aligns with the rear boundary close to Hogarth’s House. The rest of the site is dominated by surface car parking and the site roads which fill up all the space between buildings. There are a total of 159 parking spaces.

2.3 In terms of current use, the existing buildings on the site are a mix of warehousing and office space providing 7,897 m2 of accommodation (3,495m2 (Unit 1); 2,220m2 (Unit 2); and 2,223m2 (Unit 3) and are 50% vacant. The office component of Unit 1 and the entirety of Unit 3 are vacant. The remainder of Unit 1, and the entirety of Unit 2, are presently

occupied by IMG in association with the use of the adjacent McCormack House building. The occupation of these units is the subject of a lease that is due to terminate in 2014. It is understood that IMG will relocate part of their activities at that time and will vacate the units on the Hogarth Business Park but will remain in occupation at McCormack House. About 100 FTE jobs are generated by the units.

2.4 Although remaining partially in employment use, the site is not identified as a Preferred Industrial Location, a Locally Significant Industrial Site, or a Key Existing Office Location in the Council’s Employment Development Plan Document (2008).

2.5 The site is currently joined with the neighbouring commercial site to the east, which includes McCormack House situated on the corner of the Hogarth roundabout. The sites currently operate together, but the McCormack house site does not form part of this application. McCormack House was constructed in 1985 and is 21m tall, equivalent to 7 residential storeys and has a commercial appearance. It is separated from the main area of the site by an access road (that falls within the site area).

2.6 Despite being open and not gated, the site is a private site, with no public right of way through it. The on site roads on the east and southern sides provide access to McCormack House and legally have to be retained.

2.7 In this part of Chiswick, the land use is generally residential but with some commercial uses, such as the Hogarth Estate and McCormack House, which are isolated commercial sites. There is also the Fullers Brewery site to the south east.

2.8 The prevailing character of the area is the pattern of tight Victorian terraced streets incorporating Paxton Road, Short Road and Sutherland Road Paxton Road (and Short Road) to the west are terraced residential streets. These have two and three storey houses arranged in continuous terraces. Most houses are two storeys high but with roof extensions as mansards or box dormers facing into the site. The Chiswick House Conservation Area appraisal recognises the character of Paxton Road as exceptionally well preserved, principally mid-19th century, development that represents an enclave of high quality design of this era. Rear gardens to the houses are typically around 9 metres in length measured from the rear extensions to the existing boundary wall with the application site or around 14 metres from the rear of the houses. Paxton Road is approximately 14 metres wide, measured between the façade of the houses on either side of the road, and the road is characterised by street trees and kerbside parking.

2.9 The site also has a boundary to Burlington Lane to the south which has residential buildings generally set back from the road.

2.10 To the north is the six lane A4 and Hogarth’s House (a Grade I listed building) backing onto the site’s north western edge. Ten of the car parking spaces on site are reserved for its visitors. There is an existing wall running along the edge of the site separating it from the A4. Beyond is the Hogarth

Centre, a large 3 storey structure which was formerly a Laundry, to the north west of Hogarth’s House.

2.11 Chiswick House and its grounds also form a key character of the area and is a Grade I Listed Park and Garden and Scheduled Monument which is situated beyond this residential area to the west. Chiswick House gardens are also identified as Metropolitan Open Land and the site gives its name to the conservation area of which the subject site is part.

2.12 To the south-west of the site, across the A316, the area is of mixed character. Residential properties address the A316 looking toward the walled Chiswick House grounds. The character of walled gardens continues along the south-eastern side of the A316 moving toward the junction with the A4. This area includes the St Mary’s convent and nursing home. Beyond the A316, and moving toward the river frontage, this area also includes the Corney Road Cemetery and the St Nicholas Church and more recent residential developments. This area is located within the Old Chiswick Conservation Area. The Council’s Conservation Area Statement identifies that Old Chiswick’s special interest lies in its early 17th and 18th century village street character of Church Street, leading from the north to the church of St Nicholas and its churchyard.

2.13 The following diagram, taken from the applicant’s design and access statement shows the relationship of all of these buildings and their relative heights.

Transport

2.14 Hogarth and Burlington Lanes provide routes east toward Hammersmith and west towards Heathrow and the M4. The site is currently accessed by vehicles from both of these roads with the entrances 50m apart. The noise from these roads affects the development site and act as a barrier to north-south movement through the area.

2.15 Nearby rail services include Chiswick Rail station to the South (1.4km to the west) and Turnham Green tube station (1.2km to the north) on the District Line, which is a 15 minute walk from the site.

2.16 The site also benefits from two bus services (numbers 190 and E3) which provide convenient access to the transport hubs at Hammersmith and also at Chiswick.

2.17 Nearby open space and recreational opportunities include Chiswick House and Grounds, the Homefield Recreation Ground, and the Thames footpath.

Trees

2.18 The principal arboricultural features within the site are the linear group of trees adjacent to Burlington Road and the tree belt located the western boundary. The principal tree within the site is the Holm Oak located next to the southern access point.

2.19 The tree-stock within the centre of the site is contemporary to the landscaping of the existing buildings on site. These trees are, at present, of domestic scale and located within narrow soft landscaped areas between car parking spaces.

2.20 The site is also surrounded by a number of mature trees including those lining the A4 to the north of the site and those within the garden of Hogarth’s House. Paxton Road features mature trees all the way down its length.

Flood Risk

2.21 The site is located partly within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 according to the current Environment Agency mapping.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

00176/A/P47 Retention of approved office building under construction, provision of estate roads and erection of three industrial/research units with ancillary offices and parking facilities. Granted 14/07/83

4.0 DETAILS

General Summary

4.1 The proposals would provide 174 residential dwellings (including a mix of 3 - 5 bedroom houses and 1 - 3 bedroom apartments). The apartment buildings will be set within a landscaped, orchard garden, and a new residential street created to serve the proposed houses. New commercial floorspace would be provided in a building in the north eastern part of the site fronting the A4, comprising 987m2 (GIA).

4.2 The site layout, showing storey heights is included below.

4.3 Within the new residential street, 30 car parking spaces would be provided to serve the terrace houses, within the frontage of the western terrace houses and in dedicated courtyard parking areas adjoining the public square at the northern end of the street. Additionally, 17 spaces are provided within basement garages for the eastern terraces. Four residential visitor parking spaces are located in front of proposed Block C alongside the site access road.

4.4 A further 132 parking spaces would be provided within the basement, accessed via a ramp entering the site from the existing service road at the south-eastern corner of the site. The basement parking spaces include five spaces dedicated to the occupiers of the commercial units, with direct access to the units at ground floor via two stair / lift cores.

4.5 Surface level parking is provided at the northern side of the commercial units and accessed from the existing private road serving the site and the adjacent McCormack House. There are 10 spaces provided in this location and it is proposed that these spaces are to be used primarily as parking for Hogarth’s House visitors, but also as a visitor/drop off for the commercial units.

Layout and Design

4.6 The site layout takes significant reference from the local context, not least the Conservation Area within which the application site sits. The applicant’s intention has been to take careful account has been taken of the character of the site’s surroundings, including the Chiswick House Conservation Area, the adjoining Old Chiswick Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade I listed Hogarth’s House adjoining the site’s northern boundary.

4.7 The design approach seeks to create a transition between McCormack House at the corner of the A316 and the A4, through to the proposed apartment buildings set in an orchard garden and the more domestic scale terrace houses in the west of the site, which tie into the character of the existing houses beyond the western and northern boundaries of the site.

4.8 The residential component of the scheme incorporates two distinct sections. The western part of the site comprises a new street with a terrace of residential houses terminating in a central landscaped square. This layout is designed to draw upon on the quality and form of Paxton Road and Short Road, reinforcing the existing local street patterns and creating a built environment that more closely reflects the urban grain of the site’s surroundings.

4.9 The height of buildings steps down gradually across the site, with 5 pavilion style apartment buildings set within the orchard garden incorporating building heights of part 4 and part 5 storeys, with the taller 5 storey sections in the eastern edge of the buildings closer to the much larger McCormack House, adjacent to the site.

4.10 The scale of the proposed buildings steps down from east to west, with the eastern terraces being four storeys in height above ground, but

incorporating five storeys overall, with each also having a lower ground floor living area and patio. In the western and northern terraces, the houses will be three storeys in height and will reflect the height of the existing houses adjoining the site along Paxton Road and Short Road.

4.11 In addition, two apartment buildings are located at the southern end of the new street. These apartment buildings are positioned at the street entrance, acting as ‘gateway’ buildings to the street, and they are 3 storeys in height.

4.12 The walled orchard garden in the eastern part of the site provides landscaped communal amenity space. This design concept is inspired by, and seeks to complement, the character of the walled garden spaces within the surrounding area that historically have been a key feature of this part of Chiswick and West London, including the adjacent Hogarth’s House.

4.13 The layout of the development has been designed with the aim of preserving and enhancing the setting of the heritage assets within the surrounding area. In particular, the architectural design will improve the relationship of the site with the adjacent properties, ensuring that the setting of Hogarth’s House immediately to the north is protected. The proposed apartment buildings have been stepped further away from Hogarth’s House than the existing industrial buildings and will comprise a considerably smaller footprint. The building is designed to protect the character of Hogarth’s House, through the use of materials and orientation of windows and balconies.

Residential Element

4.14 The residential component of the scheme will accommodate 174 units. The development seeks to achieve a mix of residential sizes and types, offering a range from studio and 1 bedroom flats to 5 bedroom family dwellings.

Number of bedrooms Total Units

Studio 3

1 bed flat 51

2 bed flat 65

3 bed flat 12

3 bed house 4

4 bed house 24

5 bed house 15

Total Residential Units 174

4.15 Final negotiations regarding affordable housing are ongoing and may affect these figures slightly.

4.16 The proposal has a net density of 364 habitable rooms per hectare, and 94 dwellings per hectare.

4.17 All dwellings have been designed to meet Lifetime Homes standards and at least 10% of units will be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable. All of the dwellings are designed to meet the unit and room size standards as set out in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing SPG.

4.18 All apartments will incorporate private amenity space in the form of balconies or terraces while all of the houses will have private garden space. The eastern terrace houses will also incorporate roof terraces. Residents of the houses will also have access to the communal orchard gardens.

Affordable Housing

4.19 Currently a total of 52 units (effectively 30% of the total number of units) will be provided as affordable, in a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom flats.

4.20 No deferred payment mechanism is offered, as the applicant considers this to be contrary to planning policy.

Amenity Space

4.21 The proposals incorporate 3,213m² of communal amenity space. This would be provided within the communal orchard garden. The space will also include 193m2 of children’s play space for the 0-5 years age group.

4.22 Additionally, the apartments incorporate balconies and terraces providing private amenity space. Proposed private terraces incorporate areas ranging generally between 4m2 and 38m2. In total, the combined communal gardens and the private balconies and terraces provide 4,127m2 of amenity space.

4.23 Private gardens are provided to each of the proposed houses. In the western terrace private gardens are incorporated with a minimum area of 75m2. Private gardens provided for the northern terrace range from 62m2 to more than 100m2. The eastern terrace houses also include roof terrace space of 15m2 and the rear gardens a minimum of 58m2. In total, the private amenity spaces provided for the houses combine to provide an area of 3,188m2.

4.24 Overall, the proposals incorporate approximately 7,315m2 of private and communal amenity space in total.

Commercial and Employment Floorspace

4.25 As part of the mixed-use redevelopment, the proposals include new employment floorspace on-site.This will comprise 987m² (GIA) of commercial floorspace (Use Classes B1) provided at ground floor level in

the north-eastern part of the site, with residential units in proposed apartment Blocks F and G situated above.

4.26 The type of employment use proposed is based on a considered view of the floorspace that will be attractive to prospective occupiers and, therefore, provides a more viable long-term opportunity. On commercial agent’s advice, the type of floorspace will cater for small local enterprise owner-managed business use where the units would be attractive for rent or outright purchase. The floorspace to be provided will, therefore, take the form of flexible small office space and workshop units which is better suited to use as owner or operator occupied and/or incubator / ‘start up’ business units.

4.27 The commercial floorspace is focused to the north of the site, adjacent to the frontage to the A4, within the ground floor level.

4.28 By providing 987m² (GIA) of new employment floorspace (912m2 NIA), the development would provide around 76-91 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. This is based on the Employment Densities Guide (2010), which sets out that serviced office / general office floorspace provides an employment density of 1 job per every 10-12m² (NIA).

4.29 Additionally, estate management activities including building and landscape maintenance and management will provide around a further 5-6 jobs on the site. Overall, the job creation is similar to the existing situation, with approximately 100 FTE jobs existing at the site.

Access

4.30 The three existing access and egress points to the site will be retained, two are on the A316 and one on the A4.

4.31 The primary vehicle access point from Burlington Lane will provide access to the basement car park, and to the proposed new street in the western part of the site.

4.32 Service access for the residential houses and apartments will be provided from the new residential street. The square within the northern end of this road provides sufficient turning space to accommodate service vehicles. Service access for the commercial units will also be provided at grade from the proposed northern parking area and via the existing access road alongside the adjacent McCormack House.

4.33 Pedestrian access is provided to the site in a number of locations. A new pedestrian link is provided between the southern end of the proposed new residential street, to the existing footpath along Burlington Lane. The whole of the proposed new residential street will be designed as a shared surface zone providing access for residents’ vehicles and service vehicles, but encouraging low vehicle speeds to create a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. This will be a publicly accessible zone.

4.34 Pedestrian access to the communal gardens and apartments will be secured to ensure the creation of a safe private amenity zone for residents

of the site within the communal gardens. Pedestrian access will be managed by the intercom facilities and by fob access through the gates at the northern, southern and western edges of the communal gardens.

4.35 A pedestrian zone will also be created within the existing access road adjacent to McCormack House, to provide access from the existing footpath along Hogarth Lane to an entrance gate to the communal gardens in the northern part of the site. A gated entrance will also be provided between proposed apartment Blocks B and C from the access road adjoining Burlington Lane. Finally, a pedestrian access for residents will also be provided at the eastern edge of the new street, via a route located between the northern and southern terrace houses along this street.

Parking

4.36 The proposals provide a total of 193 parking spaces. The majority of the parking will be located within an underground car park with direct access to the apartments and eastern terrace of houses. Five of the basement parking spaces will serve the occupiers of the commercial units and will be located to be directly accessible to the units by two stair / lift cores.

4.37 Parking will also be provided at street level within the new street. The western and northern terrace houses will have at least one parking space associated with the house which will be on-plot or within small parking courtyards. There will be a total of 30 spaces provided for residents in these locations. Additionally, 17 spaces are provided within basement garages for the eastern terraces. The overall parking for the residential units will provide one space per unit.

4.38 Four residential visitor parking spaces are also provided off the site access road, directly in front of proposed Block C.

4.39 It is also proposed that residents of the Hogarth Estate will be restricted from obtaining residents parking permits, and this will be ensured through legal agreement under the Section 106 obligations proposed with the application.

4.40 A Travel Plan is proposed and would be secured by obligation.

4.41 The initiatives and measures that form part of the draft Travel Plans are a mixture of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures.

• The ‘hard’ measures include the provision of facilities such as safe and secure cycle parking.

• The ‘soft’ measures include initiatives such as providing information on public transport services.

4.42 Proposed parking measures to ensure the avoidance of impact on parking in the adjoining residential streets are further discussed within the Transport Assessment

4.43 These include:

• The introduction of a Travel Plan specific to the different land uses on the site.

• Introduction of a Car Club on site.

• Introduction of a Delivery Service Management Plan (DSMP).

• Implementation of and adherence to a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).

• Provision of a traffic / transport contribution towards improved facilities for pedestrians / cyclists and / or enhancements to public transport services or infrastructure.

4.44 A surface level car parking area, providing 10 parking spaces, is located adjacent to the commercial units at the northern edge of the site. Discussions with representatives of the Hogarth’s House Trust have identified a need to re-provide some car parking spaces on the site for use by visitors to Hogarth’s House. It is proposed that this is provided through these spaces as a shared parking arrangement with these spaces also providing for visitor and drop-off spaces associated with the proposed commercial units. It is expected that the detail of this be clarified through Section 106 obligations.

4.45 At least 20% of all parking spaces will be provided with active electric vehicle charging points and 20% with passive electric vehicle parking capability. Blue badge parking spaces will be located throughout the site, providing a total of 33 spaces overall, representing 17% of the overall provision of parking spaces.

4.46 Secure cycle parking will also be provided, with 5 spaces for the commercial units and a further 229 for the residential units. All of the cycle parking spaces are provided in secure locations within the basement car parking area.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 318 consultation letters were sent.

5.2 Site notices were posted on 07/06/13. A press notice was published on 14/06/13.

5.3 23 objections were received, commenting as follows:

5.4 Existing screening should be retained and enhanced. The application proposes unnecessary alterations to the wooden corridor.

5.5 Buildings should be restricted to three storeys and no higher than existing roof line in Paxton and Short roads.

5.6 Objections to balconies and roof terraces as they cause overlooking.

5.7 The building provides inadequate separation distance between the rear of the properties on the eastern side of Paxton Road and the development.

5.8 Design should evaluate the noise impact from the A4 and improve on the existing situation in Paxton and Short Roads.

5.9 The development should remain within the conservation area, but parking provision excluded from the CPZ. Residents should be prevented from applying for CPZ permits. The CPZ should be extended.

5.10 Housing density should be appropriate to the Conservation area status.

5.11 I believe the proposals are crowding far too many properties in this area.

5.12 I object to the proposal as currently presented due to concerns about additional pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities.

5.13 This huge number in new residents (plus guests, office workers etc.) will result in a lot of additional traffic.

5.14 The Hogarth roundabout and surrounding streets are already congested at peak times.

5.15 This will have an impact on the air quality in the area.

5.16 A lot of the houses are suitable for families and whilst this is welcomed there are already not enough state school places in the area. Has the Council considered how this will be solved? Apart from school places our local doctor's surgeries are often already overstretched. Can a new surgery be provided within the development? Can a nursery be provided within the new development? Can a small local supermarket be provided within the scheme?

5.17 Developers need to understand they cannot just focus on their maximum profit but they have a social responsibility. Hounslow Council has a social responsibility!

5.18 I would prefer to see the buildings in all brick to be in keeping with the area rather then the fibre cement cladding.

5.19 You may need to consult with TFL regarding the frequency of the 190 bus which is often overcrowded in the rush hour.

5.20 There has been no announcement made about building hours and their restriction, nor to whom one may object if these hours are not kept to. My partner and I happen to work in industries that work in the evening and so some sleep is sometimes required in the mornings . We both work in our house and in the bit of the house that directly faces the new housing development. It would be useful at the very least to know when such work and sleep will not be possible.

5.21 Impact from street lighting in new development.

5.22 Loss of light.

5.23 Loss of benefit of park security.

5.24 Poor turning area in new street.

5.25 Flooding in underground car park.

Hogarth’s House

5.26 I am writing on behalf of the William Hogarth Trust to submit our comments on the application relating to the Hogarth Estate. These are written entirely in relation to Hogarth's House, to which we offer financial and practical support under the terms of our charitable objectives. We helped raise a substantial Heritage Lottery Fund grant as well as other funds for the refurbishment completed in 2011 and provided considerable professional help in kind through the project steering group. We do not wish to see this investment in the long-term future of the House negated by inappropriate development next door or damage during demolition and construction.

5.27 In broad terms, however, we are pleased to see residential rather than industrial buildings proposed for the site and welcome honestly modern design using traditional and modern materials.

5.28 I would like to place on record the fact that we argued strongly for the retention of the 10 parking spaces allocated to Hogarth's House as planning gain some years ago. As no-one on the present development polices parking onsite, there is a constant battle to keep these spaces available for visitors rather than occupied all day by workers at or visitors to the Business Park. For this reason I was surprised to read in planning document 00364023 (Community Involvement) that we "would appreciate an arrangement that maintained these as either dedicated or shared spaces with the commercial units". This would only be acceptable if the basement parking for the commercial units could be used by Hogarth's House visitors .

5.29 We are pleased, however, that Berkeley Homes have agreed to consider providing access from the parking area through the boundary wall facing the A4 at a point nearer to the House as this will arriving there a more pleasant experience for visitors.

5.30 We made the case very strongly for a better setting for the House and garden. Planning document 00364029 suggests that though unsuitable the present development has only neutral impact upon them, when in fact visitors in the garden see a visually heavy wall of dark glass. We welcome the use of traditional materials like brick in the block which will be nearest the House and the fact that it is going to 3.5m further east that the present building. But this will still be a dark mass beyond the garden wall in a paved area where it is difficult to plant screening trees. In addition, the block nearest to the road will also be taller than we had hoped and visible from the garden.

5.31 We have been told that this has been discussed with Hounslow's Conservation Officer who finds the proposals acceptable as a setting for the Grade 1 House, which we find very disappointing.

5.32 The plot in which the House stands was carved out of Chiswick Common Field as an orchard in about 1680 and the wall which surrounds it was constructed then from locally-made brick. The House was built between 1713 and 1717 in the corner of the garden; the back wall of the ground floor rooms of the original house is in fact the garden wall and it is in places only one brick thick. It is vulnerable to unthinking damage and access is needed to monitor and maintain it.

5.33 The new design places a narrow bed of planting in front of the wall of the House with parking spaces in front of it; this provides the protection and access we hoped for. But one stretch of the wall running further south and west, admittedly rebuilt in inappropriate brick in places though nevertheless still listed, now appears to lie within the gardens of the proposed housing and would not be accessible for maintenance except across private land. We discussed this on site at an earlier stage of the design. The wall should not be vulnerable to residents attaching trellis or other features to it and we would like to see this design reviewed so that it faces open ground.

5.34 The Trust is also very concerned about the impact of redevelopment so very close to a fragile building. The concrete rafts upon which the present buildings sit will have to be broken up and a substantial underground car park will be excavated. As a result the 18th century House could be put physically at risk, objects inside will be at risk from vibration within the showcases and a major collection of works of art on paper will be vulnerable to contamination by the dirt from both demolition and construction processes. We have already taken steps to mitigate traffic vibration in installing the displays but this may not be enough.

5.35 As Planning document 00364028 (Noise and Vibration) does not deal with these issues in relation to Hogarth's House, we would like to request that Hounslow Council, as both the owner of the property through the Hogarth's House Trust and the planning authority, places a condition upon the permission it grant. This should require appropriate monitoring of the fabric of Hogarth's House and of the level of dirt pollution during the works at the expense of Berkeley Homes.

Greater London Authority

5.36 The GLA stage 1 response accepts the principle of the development, but has some concerns regarding affordable housing, design of the finger blocks and transport.

Transport for London (TfL)

5.37 Following negotiation TfL has provided the following response:

• With reference to disabled parking there will need to be disabled parking bay for each accessible housing unit and that the SPG states that 10% of all residential units should be accessible. Therefore 18 spaces is acceptable.

• The clarification on the parking required for Hogarth House is welcomed and acceptable by TfL.

• The level of Electric Vehicle Charging points and car club space will need to be subject to planning conditions.

• TfL welcomes that the car parking management plan will be secured by planning condition.

• TfL welcomes the provision of 5 residential visitor cycle parking spaces.

• As the improvements identified in the PERS audit are borough roads, TfL is content for the Borough to determine the level of contribution for these improvements.

• Improvements for pedestrians at the access points will need to be delivered through a s278 agreement with TfL.

• TfL welcomes the possibility that there could be a contribution for Legible London, if a contribution is agreed this will need to be included in the s106.

• No further comments on the travel plan.

• TfL welcomes that the DSP will be secured by condition.

• A framework construction plan will need to be provided prior to submission to committee.

Chiswick Area Forum

5.38 The application has been drawn to members' attention by its inclusion on the agenda of the Chiswick Area Forum on 21/05/13.

5.39 1. The following points were raised in the discussion:

There were some concerns about the differences in design of the housing stock with very modern apartment blocks on part of the site and more traditional on another and the distribution of different tenures. There was also concern over the proposed height of the 4 and 5 storey buildings.

Members preferred to see an integrated approach to tenure to avoid social division. This was within the blocks, as well as on both sides of the road. Concern was particularly raised over the social division of private housing on one side of the road and affordable housing on the other.

It was suggested by members that a written presentation at a later date to give members the opportunity to consider the details more fully would be welcome. (This was done).

There were concerns about the impact of traffic, given the position of the site in a very congested area.

There were concerns about the suitability of the site for residential development by the junction of two busy roads.

There was a suggestion from a resident that having a local supermarket on site would reduce local traffic movements for residents of the area who currently have to drive to get to shops.

The planning consultants agreed to come back to members with specific information on the likely income required for an individual to purchase the intermediate affordable homes, following further discussion with the Affordable Housing Officer.

The applicants confirmed that there would be a payment of £900,000 CIL to the Mayor of London, plus s106 contributions to the London Borough of Hounslow. 6.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

6.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to (a) the development plan, so far as is material, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as is material, and (c) to any other material considerations. Local finance considerations means the Community Infrastructure Levy, or a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority (such as the Council, the Mayor of London, the Homes and Communities Agency, etc.) by a Minister of the Crown.

6.2 In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

6.3 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Employment Development Plan Document, Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

The emerging Core Strategy

6.4 On 12 July 2011, the Council's Cabinet approved that the Core Strategy "Preferred Strategy" should go out to consultation. As emerging policy, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that the emerging Core Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. Given that the emerging Core Strategy is still in the consultation stages, the LPA considers that in general limited weight can be given to it at this stage and that where a specific core strategy policy is engaged by an application greater weight may be attached.

The National Planning Policy Framework

6.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012 and has replaced national policies and guidance formerly contained in Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes and some other documents. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where pertinent, the NPPF is a material consideration and as such, it will be taken into account in decision-making as appropriate.

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal

• The impact of the proposal on the surrounding area, in terms of appearance, trees, wildlife, residential amenity and traffic.

• Standard of accommodation for future residents

• Parking

• Safety and Security

• Sustainability, Air and Noise Quality

• Affordable Housing

The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal.

Principle of developing the land

7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the priority for development should be previously developed land, in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings, provided that it is not of high environmental value. This is previously developed and not of the environmental value that would necessarily stop it being redeveloped. Nonetheless, there is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development, nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.

7.3 The proposal does accord with Policy EP4 of the Employment Development Plan Document, which states, in Paragraph 12.7 that the “re-development of out-of-centre offices for residential or other uses will continue to be one of the key options for the renewal of vacant buildings and sites. That is provided it is satisfactorily demonstrated in each individual case that demand no longer exists for its continued use as offices.” This is considered to be the case and is detailed in the following paragraphs.

Principle of loss of commercial floorspace

7.4 London Plan Policy 4.4 encourages Councils to plan, monitor and manage the release of surplus industrial land to contribute to strategic and local objectives, especially those to provide more housing.

7.5 As the proposed scheme would result in a substantive change of use from office and industrial uses to housing, this proposal first falls to be considered against policies EP4 and EP8 of the Employment DPD (Change of Use from Offices (Outside Town Centres and Key Existing Office Locations/ Other Industrial Land (Outside Strategic and Locally Significant Industrial Sites).

Both policies consider such a change of use acceptable where evidence is provided of active marketing of the site for offices (in the case of EP4) and industrial uses (in the case of EP8) for a period of one year. The justification of both policies (paragraph 12.6 in the case of EP4 and paragraph 16.11 in the case of EP8) establishes criteria for demonstrating active marketing.

7.6 The justifications state that evidence of active marketing should include:

-information on the history of marketing; -agent(s) and media used (press articles and advertisements); -interest in the site/premises (including reasons for prospective tenants not taking up space and how these problems have been addressed); -evidence that the rental levels offered have been competitive; and -flexibility in space offered. 7.7 The Core Strategy Preferred Strategy (2011 consultation), highlights a

desire to focus future employment growth within town centres, Chiswick Park and Great West Road. The application site is not situated in any of these locations. It also encourages a flexible strategy to ensure that there is a balance between demand and supply for office accommodation based on the findings of an on-going Employment Land Review.

7.8 Emerging local policy set out in the LBH Preferred Core Strategy (2011 consultation) Paragraph H.2.2 states that one of the three key areas of new housing supply in the borough will be maximising the potential of opportunity sites which typically arise on former employment sites along main arterial roads, where it has not been possible to let premises for commercial purposes.

7.9 The applicant has submitted an Employment Land Report which is structured in line with the requirements of policies EP4 and EP8. They consider that the isolation of the site, its immediate proximity to residential areas, its poor public transport links and onsite facilities and obsolete for warehouse use buildings do not make the site an attractive proposition.

7.10 In brief:

Existing Proposed

Floorspace Unit 1 is divided into two parts, referred to as Units 1a and 1b. The office accommodation within unit 1b, comprising 2,097m², has been marketed for more than 2 years and remains vacant.

The light industrial component of Unit 1 is contained within Unit 1a (comprising 1,398m²) and is currently let to IMG and used for a combination of storage purposes, and as occasional studio space for filming and photography. The level of employment associated with the use of this space involves approximately 15 jobs.

987m2 B1 floorspace.

Unit 2 is also currently let to IMG. This comprises 1,326m² of light industrial floorspace, with 868m² ancillary office space. Unit 2 is also used as ‘overflow’ space in association with the main occupation of McCormack House. The space is primarily used for storage of props with office use occurring in the ancillary office space. 5.20. Applying an employment density of 1 job per 10m² to 12m² (Employment Densities Guide – service office / general office) to the occupied office floorspace, this building is estimated to currently be providing around 72 to 86 jobs. It is understood that IMG will be vacating the Hogarth Business Park site in 2014, when the current lease expires, and will relocate this element of their operations to Stockley Park, but they will remain in occupation of McCormack House.

Unit 3 has been vacant in its entirety (comprising 2,223m²) for the past 18 months and remains vacant despite active marketing. The unit was last occupied by Marken Ltd, a pharmaceutical supply chain company, whose core business is storage and distribution. Marken Ltd relocated their office activities to 107 Power Road, Chiswick, a short distance from Gunnersbury station giving improved access to underground and overground train services, and serving as the base for Marken’s UK headquarters. The storage and distribution element of the business was relocated to the North Feltham Trading Industrial Estate, which provides a more modern facility that is better suited to their bespoke requirements, and located in closer proximity to Heathrow Airport.

Jobs As occupation at 50% capacity, with 40% of that used for storage- c100 FTE jobs

Circa 97 FTE jobs

7.11 Additionally, there is little demand locally for offices outside of town centres and Chiswick is already oversupplied with offices, with that which is even in more preferable locations struggling to be filled.

7.12 The Council’s Planning Policy team consider that the requirements of the Employment DPD regarding the release of the site for housing / mixed use have been addressed robustly. There is also information and a breakdown of employment densities for the proposed B-class aspect of the scheme.

7.13 An employment element will be retained on site and, if occupied , roughly the same number of jobs would be created. Consequently, and in principle the loss of employment floorspace is acceptable if a suitable standard of residential accommodation can be achieved, that respects both local context and neighbours living conditions.

Principle of Residential

7.14 In terms of replacing the existing building with a mixed use residential/commercial scheme, Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy ENV-B.1.1 on New Development aims to promote high quality design, urban design and a sense of place and identity and promote improvements which prioritise a safe, sustainable, accessible, friendly and pedestrian friendly environment for all.

7.15 According to Policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas) the Council will preserve and enhance the character or appearance of existing conservation areas by ensuring that any development within or affecting a conservation area preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area, any development should respect the character of the existing architecture in scale, design and materials.

7.16 There is also a presumption in favour of retaining any building which makes a contribution to the character and appearance of such areas. Even if a building makes little contribution, consent will not be granted for its demolition unless there are approved plans for the redevelopment of the land. Such redevelopment is required to take account of the specific guidelines for each conservation area.

7.17 The Chiswick House Conservation Area Appraisal states that the primary architectural interest rests with Chiswick House and grounds, but secondary are the surrounding streets of the 19th and 20th century. The streets were included in the designated area not only to protect views into and from Chiswick House but also because of the high quality of the design of the houses that grew up in the area. The streets did not form part of any strategic plan as at Bedford Park, but were introduced as land became available. There is a wide variety of housing mostly of large scale detached and semi-detached housing of two-storeys. What distinguishes Chiswick from nearby Ealing or Acton is that much more survives of its existence independent of London. What does survive is of a high quality, aesthetically, historically and picturesquely.

7.18 The London Plan in Policy 3.5 states that:

7.19 Housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to their context and to the wider environment, taking account of strategic policies in this Plan to protect and enhance London’s residential environment and attractiveness as a place to live.

Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11 (December 2011)

7.20 There has been a net increase of 668 units in the Borough during 2010/11. The increase exceeds the London Plan monitoring target for the borough which is 470 additional units per annum (Target reiterated in Mayoral Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance November 2012.)

7.21 The housing supply requirement from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017 is 2,350 dwellings. The housing trajectory highlights that the supply of ready to develop housing sites is 151% above the current requirements. This is based on the current supply of deliverable sites during this period being equivalent to 3,549 dwellings.

7.22 Update: April 2013: The Council can still meet their five year housing supply. The target is 2468 (including a 5% buffer). The supply shows Hounslow can deliver 4025 units.

7.23 Given that the Council is meeting its annual housing targets required by the NPPF and London Plan, there is no local or citywide need for housing that

would justify accepting anything other than a development that provided a high quality of accommodation, including a suitable affordable housing provision, that contributes positively to the area.

7.24 Consequently, the principle of development is acceptable, only if a design that satisfactorily respects the character of the area and provides a good standard of accommodation without harming local residents can be achieved.

The impact of the proposal on the surrounding area, in terms of appearance, trees, residential amenity and traffic.

Appearance- Layout

7.25 The National Planning Policy Framework (which has an emphasis on good design), UDP Policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas) and English Heritage’s guidance on the management of conservation areas all require proposals, including gap or infill development to complement, but not necessarily pastiche, existing areas and realise the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of their local context.

7.26 The Council’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal is largely silent on this site, preferring to praise the high quality of surrounding residential streets.

7.27 The site has been identified in an appeal decision notice for the adjacent Hogarth Centre site in 2008 as follows:

There is a modern business park within the conservation area, on Hogarth Lane to the east of the appeal site. It differs from the surrounding character of the conservation area in that the buildings are of commercial appearance, with modern, extensive glazing and of a significantly larger scale than the surrounding residential development. It is more akin to the character of the commercial parts of the Great West Road. Although not unsightly, the business park does not make a positive contribution to the conservation area.

7.28 Comments have been received that the development does not respect the character and appearance of the conservation area, but the design is considered to be in context.

7.29 Context is the character and setting of the area within which as projected scheme will sit. It is natural as well as human history, the forms of the settlements, its location and the routes that run through it. A key to reusing brownfield land is to integrate elements from the sites past life.

7.30 The layout and design of the estate aims to account for the history of the site, which has 3 clear phases to recent historical development, a 19th Century orchard, which began to be surrounded by housing to the west in the late 19th Century, with some housing on its southern boundary, followed by the development of the rest of the site for a variety of industrial purposes from the 1930s onwards. This provides 3 clear elements which this site

is/has been composed of, the latter iteration of which is deemed to be unsuccessful.

7.31 Consequently, the applicant has taken these first two elements- the terraces street and the parkland setting, regreening the area and interspersing the parkland area with further residential and limited commercial use. This is considered to be an appropriate design response to local context, balancing historic development against current development aspirations and using different but appropriate materials. It is therefore considered that the character of the conservation area would be preserved and enhanced by the general site layout.

7.32 Appearance- Design and Massing.

7.33 In style terms, the development is a mix of styles. The western part of the site creates a new street with terraced housing, echoing local street patterns in the neighbouring Paxton Road and Short Road. The new street terminates in a central landscaped square.

7.34 The distance between the front elevations of the properties on the new terraced street will be a minimum of 18m, in line with the Urban Design Compendiums 12-18m separation distance for residential streets. Whilst designed to respect the character of the neighbouring residential streets, this also provides increased separation between buildings addressing the street compared to houses on Paxton Road, which are separated by a distance of 14m. This design is considered to respect local context.

7.35 In the eastern part of the site the proposed apartments are provided within five pavilion style buildings set within a walled orchard garden.

7.36 Two apartment buildings are also proposed in the south-western part of the site adjacent to Burlington Lane.

7.37 In line with the move westwards from the 8 storey McCormack House the buildings step down from 4-5 storeys to 4 storeys in the eastern terraced housing and 3 storeys in the apartment blocks nearest to Hogarth’s House and 3 storeys (with rooftop extensions) in the terraced housing to the north and west and Apartment Block are to the south. This is considered to be acceptable representing a graduation in streetscape down from the landmark (in terms of height) McCormack House and up away from Hogarth’s House.

7.38 It is disputed that the houses in Paxton Road are 3 storey, rather two-storey with a habitable roof, but the graduation down towards then is still acceptable.

Appearance- Elevations/Materials

7.39 Houses- The elevations take the form of a handed pairs. The northern terraces have square frontages in keeping with the built form they replace and echoing the original boot polish factory. The eastern and western terraces have pitched roofs and front gables. A pale brick would be detailed with flush pointed light coloured mortar, with a colour palette varying from grey to white.

7.40 In some locations a subtly contrasting brick will be used, from a similar colour palette, or by simply changing the mortar colour.

7.41 Flats- Vertical cladding- A long thin format cladding board has been selected to contrast with the horizontal brickwork bases to these buildings, and reinforce the design concept of a lightweight upper half of the building sitting on the garden walls. It is proposed to use a light grey fibre cement cladding panel which has a surface texture, and a variation between panels, which can make it appear natural. It is a through-colour product that will not discolour, or weather badly, and so will retain its high quality appearance through its lifespan.

7.42 Brick would be used for the houses, the garden walls, the ground floor of the apartment buildings, as well as the five storey elements of these structures.

7.43 Materials will be key to the ultimate success of this scheme and will be conditioned. Chiswick House Conservation Area is a mix of materials, primarily due to its piecemeal development. Materials within the vernacular architecture include various bricks, timber cladding and render, clay and slate tiles, decorative woodwork, stained glass, stone and stucco dressings.

7.44 The colour and palette of the materials is different from the predominant London stock stereotype brick approved in many contemporary housing schemes, and from the nearest comparable sites in Short, Sutherland and Paxton Roads. It is accepted that the current design of the Hogarth Business Park and its use of materials does little to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Chiswick House Conservation Area. It is also the remit of the NPPF to seek good design. Good conservation area practice is to not encourage pastiche in new developments.

7.45 The use of a “paler” palette of brickwork and cladding is considered to respect the traditional brick and stonework of the rest of the conservation area, whilst helping to signal a subtle but clear indication that this is a contemporary post-modern development, which is a part of the conservation area, but also has its own identity as a sub-area of the conservation area. This is indicative of the way that the conservation area has developed, with each subsequent parcel of development adding to the overall character and appearance of the conservation area.

7.46 This subtle change in palette of the same materials means that both Hogarth’s House and the Victorian/Edwardian enclave of Short/Paxton/Sutherland Roads retain their individuality and identity, not being subsumed into a larger agglomeration.

7.47 Part of this identity is also provided by the use of solar panels, which are low lying and not angled panels to ensure, that they are not visible above roof parapets from outside the site.

7.48 Of some concern is the boundary wall with Mc Cormack House, which has the potential to appear as stark, so this will be conditioned, to ensure its materials are satisfactory and has an acceptable appearance.

Trees, Wildlife and Landscaping and Estate Management

7.49 The landscape strategy is to retain existing good quality trees wherever possible and particularly where trees contribute effectively to a high quality

residential landscape and the character and appearance of the conservation area in the long term. Whilst some tree loss will occur to facilitate development, trees identified for removal are located within the site and accrue only restricted amenity within the surrounding road network. Generally of municipal species, these trees are located within constrained rooting environments formed by existing hard surfacing and kerbing and therefore have a limited useful life expectancy.

7.50 The proposal will result in the loss of 64 individual trees including; 6 trees assessed as category ‘U’, 6 trees assessed as ‘B’ category and 52 assessed as ‘C’ category. Category ‘U’ trees are trees in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years.

7.51 Similarly, category ‘C’ trees are those trees identified as low quality with an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. This category accounts for 80% of trees identified for removal with the majority of trees located within narrow landscape strips between car parking blocks. These trees are early mature and located within a constrained root environment they now display a moribund and girdled root form. As such, they are outgrowing their planting stations and have a limited future life expectancy in context of the characteristics of the species due to their inhibited root formation.

7.52 6 category ‘B’ trees are identified for removal. With the exception of Holm Oak (T79), these trees are located centrally within the site and whilst of fair health, their removal would enable efficient use of the site. The remaining ‘B’ category tree (T79) is identified for removal to facilitate parking within the north west corner of the site. Contemporary with the development of the business park, these trees are early mature and set within the site, they accrue only limited visual amenity at a local level.

7.53 It is critical that this is maintained and that this maintenance is secured in order to maintain the appearance of this site, its contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and that landscaping and screening landscaping is maintained in order to protect neighbours living conditions. This requires for such maintenance of green infrastructure to be inherent in the design of the proposal and the setting up of a legacy maintenance development trust or maintenance company.

7.54 Landscaped spaces within the site will be maintained through estate management activities, which will provide employment at the site in building and site management.

7.55 Concerns have been particularly raised about the potential to lose the tree line separating the site from Paxton Road, despite that fact these trees are and would continue to be protected by virtue of their being in a conservation area. In fact, these trees and their continued presence and protection have been the primary source of concern amongst local residents. The applicant considers it unfeasible to include their maintenance and protection in their overall estate management, as they would be on private land. The trees have been assessed by officers and undoubtedly do add to the character and appearance of the conservation area, being of some amenity value, and

highly visible, and do receive protection because of that, with any potential house owner being required to give the Council 6 weeks notice of any works.

7.56 It is considered that these trees because of their amenity value could be subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The applicant is reluctant to accept this, preferring to include a reminder of the law regarding trees in sales contracts, but Members may wish to see one implemented prior to completion of a Section 106 Deed and issuing of any decision, should they wish to resolve to grant permission. The main guidance in this matter “Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice” does allow for this in paragraph 3.5:

3.5 It may be expedient to make a TPO if the LPA believe there is a risk of the tree being cut down or pruned in ways which would have a significant impact on the amenity of the area. It is not necessary for the risk to be immediate. In some cases the LPA may believe that certain trees are at risk generally from development pressures. The LPA may have some other reason to believe that trees are at risk; changes in property ownership and intentions to fell trees are not always known in advance, and so the protection of selected trees by a precautionary TPO might sometimes be considered expedient.

7.57 As the majority of the mature trees around the periphery of site will be retained, hence there are no ecological constraints to the re-development to the site. If any of the trees do need to be removed, or are subject to remedial works, then a detailed inspection of any potential bat roosting sites, or those of other protected species, should be undertaken prior to their removal. This will be conditioned.

7.58 The following provisions are proposed:

• The development will benefit from an Estate Management Service. The Estate Managers will be responsible for the development by providing on-call site security, co-ordination of cleaning and maintenance, and the co-ordination of refuse, deliveries, removals and access for trades-people.

• The Estate Managers will be responsible for keeping the public and communal areas of the site free from litter, and well maintained. This will include replanting of vegetation which has died, regular watering and general landscape maintenance. The client is committed to maintaining a healthy and vibrant landscape for the duration of the development life span.

• The Estate Managers will control parking within the site to ensure that unauthorised parking does not occur. They will also issue visitors permits, and coordinate deliveries to houses and flats.

• Other sundry various provisions.

• These could be secured by S106, including specific provisions for the retention, protection and maintenance of the Paxton Road tree barrier via a notation in sales contracts on the western terrace houses to advise purchasers of the local planning authority controls on the retained tree corridor.

Impact on Hogarth House

7.59 The principle impact on significance to be considered in this application is on the setting of this Grade I listed building. Accordingly, the mass, height and layout of the nearest buildings (apartment buildings – Block F and G) have been considered to try to ensure that the setting of Hogarth’s House is not harmed. This is achieved by:

• creating greater separation of buildings away from Hogarth’s House compared to the existing commercial building; • maintaining building heights no higher than the existing commercial building in the new building nearest to Hogarth’s House; • providing buildings which have a significantly reduced footprint and scale compared the existing large footprint commercial buildings, thereby reducing the scale and mass of built form adjacent to Hogarth’s House; • designing apartments and elevational treatments to obscure views to the north from the apartments and preserve the feeling of ‘secrecy’ within Hogarth’s House garden; • preserve views of Hogarth’s House and its recognisable features within the streetscape along the A4; 7.60 The proposed building (block G) directly behind Hogarth’s House is on

average 3.4m further away from Hogarth’s House than the existing industrial/commercial buildings. This additional separation creates a 10.1m gap which improves the setting of the listed building.

7.61 The overall impact of the development varies according to the angle of view, but the use of different materials ensures that Hogarth’s House retains its individuality in the streetscene.

7.62 A notation in sales contracts on the houses to advise purchasers of the local planning authority controls on the Hogarth wall is proposed.

7.63 Any construction management plan will also need to include provisions to prevent harmful vibrations.

Neighbours Residential Amenity

Between new site and existing neighbours

7.64 It is considered that the site layout would enable the inhabitants of the proposed development to enjoy a suitable standard of living without impinging on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

7.65 Appendix 1 of the Council’s UDP recommends a separation distance of 21m between facing habitable room windows. Where this distance can’t be achieved, privacy should be protected by careful layout and screening, including the use of fixed and obscure glazing. This figure stems back to an old byelaw, but need not be applied rigidly.

7.66 The nearest neighbouring residential properties are those to the west and north of the site, along Paxton and Short Road, respectively. The design of the proposed development has ensured that, generally, a separation distance of more than 21m (between 23.2-28.5m) is achieved between the rear walls and windows of residential properties on Paxton Road and Short Road and the rear walls and windows of the proposed western and northern terrace houses on the new terraced street. Further, the design of the western terraces and their private gardens incorporates the protection of the existing tree belt along the western boundary of the site and which will be

safeguarded by condition. This ensures the privacy, outlook and amenity of neighbouring residents and future residents of the proposed homes is protected.

7.67 The exception to this is the 10.9m distance between the new houses and the rear elevation of Nicholas Mews on Short Road. This elevation is largely blank, with the exception of a third floor roof terrace, which conditions can protect.

7.68 The application is accompanied by a Daylight/Sunlight Assessment. The assessment findings include that a limited number of rooms with the proposed apartment buildings achieve average daylight factors that are below the levels suggested by the BRE guidance. In most cases, the assessment identifies that the shortfall compared to the suggested target is marginal or negligible. The distance from the new buildings to the houses in Paxton Road is not considered to impact on light. With respect to Short Road the proposed development is located on a similar building line as the existing warehouses and the proposed building height is comparable to the existing warehouse. Therefore given the limited differences between the existing and proposed massing and that the noon and afternoon sun will not be affected, the occupants of the Short Road properties will not experience any noticeable reduction in sunlight to their gardens. The existing fences/walls separating the gardens will have more of an effect on the sunlight availability to their gardens than the proposed development.

7.69 In overall terms, the report concludes that the layout of the proposed development follows the principles set out in the BRE guidelines, and that the overall development provides good daylight conditions for future occupants and a good level of compliance is achieved.

7.70 Consideration has also been given to daylight and sunlight received by neighbouring properties. The daylight and sunlight report finds that the occupants of the neighbouring homes will continue to enjoy high levels of daylight and sunlight, with the proposed development in place, and there will be no noticeable reductions. Moreover, the daylight and sunlight levels achieved full comply with the BRE guideline recommendations, and satisfies relevant policy considerations.

Between neighbours in new housing

7.71 A separation distance of at least 19.6 metres is provided between the rear walls and windows of the eastern terrace houses and the proposed apartment buildings.

7.72 With regard to the relationship between the apartment buildings, the majority of living rooms and private terraces or balconies, will face south in an arrangement that will optimise natural daylight within the apartments, and will promote passive surveillance of the communal gardens, enhancing the safe and secure environment within the site. This design approach also helps to avoid overlooking between apartments, and the use of oriel windows on northern elevations, mainly serving bedrooms, serves to protect privacy within the apartments.

7.73 The 15m distance between the flats and McCormack House is acceptable as these walls have windows.

Standard of accommodation for future residents.

7.74 Internal Space : The Council’s UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance recommends internal space sizes based on the dwelling type and number of occupants.

7.75 The more recent London Plan and its Supplementary Planning Guidance for Housing has minimum space guidelines, which are designed to be minimum areas that will allow accommodation of commonly required furniture and the space needed for different activities and moving around, and are in line with Lifetime Homes standards. These are minimum standards which developers are encouraged to exceed.

7.76 The units meet the requirements for overall unit size, and are adaptable for use by all user groups (or capable of adaptation).

7.77 The wheelchair adaptable flats and houses comply with the Wheelchair Housing Standards (as extracted from The London Plan SPG guidance)

7.78 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan requires all new developments to meet Lifetime Homes standards. All units would be Lifetime Homes compliant. The proposal is therefore consistent with the relevant policies of the London Plan and the Council’s UDP.

7.79 Amenity Space:

7.80 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance demands that new housing with 5 or more habitable rooms (as all of the proposed does) each provide 75m2 of usable (in shape, space and layout) amenity space.

7.81 The western terraced houses have 13-14m long rear gardens, providing more than 75sqm of private amenity rear garden space in each instance. The northern terrace varies from between 62m2 - 100m2. The eastern terrace has gardens varying from between 58m2- 72m2. The eastern terrace homes include a lower ground floor, and outdoor patio extending from the indoor living area, whilst at ground floor an additional living room is provided with access to a rear garden at ground level, accessed directly from the indoor living space via a bridge link over the patio below.

7.82 There is therefore a shortfall in amenity space for some of the housing. Therefore and given the applicant’s reliance on Chiswick House providing extra amenity space for their development (see page 40 of their Design and Access Statement) it is considered appropriate to seek a contribution towards the ongoing restoration works there.

7.83 Given the requirements of the SPG on amenity space for housing, the flats would be required to provide 3405m2 of amenity space. The area of communal landscape within the walled garden is 3213sqm in area and provides the majority of this amenity space requirement. The communal space will also be accessible to wheelchair uses and other disabled people.

7.84 Private balcony space adds 904m2, making the provision acceptable. However, these vary in size between 4m2 and 38m2. The balconies are designed to have direct access from the indoor living space so that they act as an extension of these internal spaces. The balconies are designed to achieve level access from the internal living areas, and accommodate a wheelchair turning circle and space for a table and chairs so that all the occupants of the flat can sit out on the balcony.

7.85 The GLA has expressed concern about the space around the finger blocks, stating that they lack a clear sense of ownership or role. Officers consider this not to be the case. The orchard area will have clearly defined communal areas and play areas and will only be accessible by the users of the flats and the houses through the use of an access code. To subdivide the area further into block sections is to dilute the effect of restoring the historic orchard.

7.86 The ground floor apartments of Blocks C, D and E would have patios allowing direct access and ownership of areas outside their site.

7.87 Play Space

7.88 The Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG (2012) is the most recent guidance in relation to provision of children’s play space. It seeks a benchmark of a minimum of 10m2 per child respective to child population likely to arise from a development.

7.89 Paragraph 4.32 of the SPG states that provision of playspace for under-fives may be discounted from houses with private gardens. This is relevant to the proposed terrace houses, where the under-five age group will have safe ‘door-step’ play space within private gardens. The SPG also states the use of roof terraces and indoor space can also be an alternative to ground floor open space.

7.90 The applicant considers that the play space required for the child population of the apartments, in the under-five age group, is 70m2. They would provide an area of 193m2 dedicated children’s play space for the under-five age group, thereby ensuring a particularly good provision and quality of dedicated play space for this age group.

7.91 Paragraph 4.40 of the SPG explains that whilst larger development proposals of 500 dwellings or more should incorporate suitable on-site provision of play space, if there is existing provision within an acceptable distance of a proposed development, the SPG encourages the consideration of financial contributions toward off-site play space as an alternative to new provision. Table 4.5 clarifies that off-site contribution may be considered in respect of the 5 to 11 years, and 12+ years age groups.

7.92 Paragraph 4.34 explains the need to ensure play provision is within reasonable and safe walking distance of new residential developments. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 clarify that the maximum walking distance for the 5 to 11 year age group is 400m, and for the 12+ age group the maximum distance is 800m.

7.93 In the context of the proposed development, the applicant considers that there is existing provision catering for the 5 to 11 year age group is located within the Chiswick House Grounds, close to the Chiswick House Café. They consider the space to be within safe and reasonable walking distance (less than 400m) from the proposed development.

7.94 The applicant considers Chiswick House Grounds provide a recreational space suited to cater for recreation for all age groups, however, Table 4.6 of the SPG sets out a ‘playable space typology’ for the different age groups, identifying requirements for facilities such as a kick about area for the 12+ age group. They consider Homefield Recreation Ground, to the north-east of the site, located on Chiswick Lane, provides additional space and facilities suited to this age group, and is located within 800m of the Hogarth Estate site.

7.95 This methodology is considered flawed and not a completely accurate forecast of how play is likely to stem from this site. It is considered that Chiswick House and grounds is likely to bear the brunt of any displaced play and that this will stem from all age groups.

7.96 Additionally, the Council differs in its interpretation of how to calculate playspace provision using its own SPG.

7.97 Using the child yield from the 77 2+ bedroom flats this gives a child yield (regardless) of age) of 32.3 children. The mayoral baseline standard is 10m2 meaning that 322m2 of playspace would be ideally required. Therefore there is a shortfall of 129m2. Using our Obligations SPG formula, this results in a potential contribution of £98,000.

7.98 As with amenity space, it is considered that it would be more appropriate to seek a contribution towards the continuing restoration of Chiswick House and Grounds rather than secure a playspace contribution. This is due to the applicant’s reliance on this site to account for any shortfall in these provisions.

7.99 The priority in these upgrades is a new toilet block adjacent to the House, which is expected to cost between £233-250,000. English Heritage have indicated that a full or partial contribution towards this, but exceeding a baseline of £50,000 (due to funding stream considerations) would be acceptable. The applicant has yet to confirm their acceptance.

Affordable Housing

7.100 The proposals deliver 52 (roughly 30%) homes in intermediate tenures expected to incorporate a mix of 54% shared ownership and 46% discount market sale units. The proposed affordable homes incorporate a mix of unit sizes, including 3 bedroom family units. This may be subject to a slight change following the outcome of affordable housing negotiations.

7.101 The applicant considers intermediate housing to be appropriate, citing the Mayor’s Housing Covenant (September 2012). It states that while there is significant demand for intermediate housing, and at present the market is just not supplying enough homes, with intermediate housing accounting for only 1.2% of the existing housing stock in London. Further, it is a sector that is growing very slowly, and badly needs a boost.

7.102 London Plan Policy 3.11 provides the context for this covenant, stating that:

7.103 In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse intermediate housing sector, 60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale.

7.104 The Council’s Independent Financial Advisor has indicated that the existing use value proposed in the applicant’s viability appraisal is realistic and has been able to establish that the overall build cost estimate is reasonable.

7.105 In essence, the applicant’s current viability position statement is accepted in full- as a true representation of the current financial position. However, it is quite clear that prices are rising rapidly and this situation may change over the period of the development.

7.106 On this basis the Council is seeking a review mechanism , which it believes is justified and in accordance with the requirements of London Plan policy 3.12, which advises that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating on private residential and mixed use schemes. Paragraph 3.75 elaborates on part B of the policy, advising that boroughs should consider whether it is appropriate to put in place provisions for reappraising viability of schemes in order to take account of economic uncertainties.

7.107 The inclusion of a review mechanism is considered necessary to secure the maximum reasonable quantum and tenure mix of affordable housing should the scheme viability improve. The inclusion of a review mechanism would allow a proportion of any uplift in private sales values to be captured as an additional contribution, to be held in the Affordable Housing Fund, and used to fund the future development of affordable housing tenures to meet identified housing need in the borough. This is considered to be in accordance with the REMA London Plan, which proposes to amend Policy 3.11 to include:

7.18 …having regard to (including): resources available to fund affordable housing, to maximise affordable housing output and the investment criteria set by the Mayor

7.108 The applicant does not accept this at the time of writing.

7.109 The GLA does consider that the scheme broadly complies with the London Plan, but there are issues that need to be resolved. One of these issues is that the viability assessment should be independently assessed. They have asked to see this as part of their decision-making process and following a draft decision from Members. The GLA also considers that tenure is an issue.

Parking

7.110 The Head of Traffic and Parking has provided the following comment:

7.111 Provision of: -174 car parking spaces, 4 visitor spaces and 1 car club space.5 spaces for the commercial units. 10 spaces for Hogarth House.

7.112 The PTAL for the site is very poor and therefore provision of one car parking space for each of the residential units is considered acceptable. Disabled car parking spaces and vehicle electric changing points in line with TfL guidelines will be provided. It is noted that the disable parking spaces are located in close proximity to the lifts.

7.113 The car-parking layout is satisfactory in terms of manoeuvring into and out of the parking spaces. Swept path of a car gaining access to some of the car parking spaces has been provided.

7.114 Cycle parking is to be made in line with TfL guidelines. Access to some of the cycle parking in the basement appears to be very narrow.

7.115 The existing two accesses from Burlington Lane are to be retained and will provide a separate entry into and exit out of the site.

7.116 The existing access road will provide access / egress from Hogarth Lane.

7.117 It is noted that pedestrian footway is to be provided on one side of the shared surface road.

7.118 A swept path of a refuse vehicle and 10m rigid vehicle turning from Burlington Lane, gaining access to the Public Square and existing the site in forward gear has been provided.

7.119 The site lies within the boundary of the Chiswick Mall Controlled Parking Zone, but is currently run as a private business site within that area, with no parking bays policed by the Council. Surrounding streets suffer from parking pressure despite the presence of the CPZ. Consequently, it is recommended that new occupants of the houses be prohibited from receiving resident parking permits, given that the net gain in households on the site could add to pressure on the CPZ and they need not do so, given the adequate provision of parking on site. Secondly, that a contribution towards expanding the CPZ is secured.

Safety and Security

7.120 Policy ENV-B.1.9 of the Council’s UDP requires new developments to be designed to create safe and secure environments which reduce the opportunities for crime.

7.121 Many of the balconies overlook the communal gardens, allowing natural surveillance.

7.122 All lighting would be low energy, suitably shaded (and conditioned as such) and controlled through the use of dusk/dawn sensors.

7.123 Street lighting is proposed to reduce shadowing to increase positive perceptions of personal security. A shared surface design is proposed for the access to the houses. Tonal/colour contrasting materials, guidance tactile paving, street furniture and landscaping will be used to delineate between ‘safe’ pedestrian spaces and other areas open to vehicles. The footways at the access points will have dropped kerbs and tactile paving. This will be conditioned.

7.124 The scheme is Secure By Design compliant.

7.125 The proposal would therefore provide a safe and secure environment in accordance with Policy ENV-B.1.9 of the Council’s UDP.

Sustainability

7.126 The London Plan (Policy A.4.7) requires developments to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on-site renewable energy generation wherever feasible.

7.127 The applicant intends on using the following sustainable provisions:

• Improved U-values beyond the current Building Regulations;

• A low rate of air permeability and low thermal bridging;

• All internal light fittings will be low energy;

• Heating and cooling systems proposed will be energy efficient; and

• High efficiency heat recovery and low specific fan power.

• The development will be served by high efficiency gas boilers, located within the basement under block D, providing space heating and hot water to all of the flats. This will also allow for the potential to connect to a district energy network in the future. The boiler will be located within a separate energy centre, and will draw fresh air from the car park, and discharge via a flue, which will rise internally through block D and emerge 1m above roof level.

• Houses will have individual high efficiency gas boiler with a gross efficiency of 90%, with their flues on the facades at ground floor.

• It is proposed to meet the remainder of the targeted CO2 reductions by incorporating Photovoltaic panels. These will be located on the roofs of the apartment buildings (at a rate of just under 3 per flat) and on the roofs of the houses (with between 5-9 required per house).

• These PV’s have been specified to be low lying panels, not angled panels to ensure, that they are not visible above roof parapets from outside the site.

7.128 The Council’s Sustainability Officer considers the sustainable credentials of this scheme to be acceptable.

7.129 The Principal Recycling Officer has advised that these bins should be located in a suitable central area that is accessible to all flats to ensure optimum recycling by residents. This has been achieved and will be conditioned.

Noise

7.130 The applicant has submitted a noise survey, which identifies the noise climate in and around the site to be dominated by the A4/A316 road traffic.

7.131 It also identifies a particularly sensitive noise environment around Blocks F and G, as they are those most closest to the A4.

7.132 The adopted criteria for this proposed development is summarised below, based on guidance from BS 8233, the WHO guidelines and the requirements of LBH.

7.133 Excepting Blocks F and G, for whom special provision must be made, double glazing is proposed and is considered to be both an acceptable and commonplace solution. The scheme design also includes ‘whole-apartment’ mechanical ventilation extract with heat recovery (MVHR) in all of the proposed residential flats, and a decentralised continuous ‘whole-house’ mechanical extract (DME) for the houses.

7.134 Due to the higher noise levels impinging on the façades of Blocks A, B and C facing the A316 Burlington Lane, and the facades of Blocks F and G facing the A4, duplicate MVHR systems are proposed in addition to the ‘whole apartment’ MVHR system detailed above, to provide a ‘boost’ setting. This is proposed to control overheating during the summertime periods of high temperature. In addition, the air inlets and outlets are positioned where possible on the quieter facades away from the A316 and A4 to minimise the potential for noise break-in. Blocks F and G would also have a higher specification of double glazing. These provisions are considered acceptable.

7.135 Windows are typically opened to provide purge ventilation to remove bad odours, or to provide cooling during the hottest periods of the year. An open window will significantly reduce the sound insulation provided by the façade. Typically, a partially opened window can be expected to provide a weighted sound reduction index of between 10 – 15 dB Rw. In locations which are

affected by high noise levels, an open window would be expected to cause the internal noise criteria recommended by BS 8233 to be exceeded for the period of time that the window is opened. To minimise the occasions that windows are required to be opened, the design is to include whole house mechanical ventilation in the all proposed flats to achieve greater air changes than would typically be achieved with a passive system. In addition, for the habitable rooms most vulnerable to noise break in (i.e. those facing the A4 and A316), secondary MVHR units are proposed to provide a ‘boost’ setting to increase the rate of air change during high summer temperatures and so to control overheating. This is considered acceptable.

7.136 The glazing and ventilation strategy is shown in diagrammatic form below:

Air Quality

7.137 The Council’s Air Quality SPD indicates that the site, was, in 2005, likely to be in exceedance of the EU limit value for NO2 of 40ugm3. The applicants Air Quality report shows that annual mean background concentrations for NO2 and PM10 within the study area are all well below the annual mean Objective for the pollutants NO2 and PM10 (40µg/m3). Given that the provisions of the Air Quality SPD seem to be working, no further provision is considered necessary.

Flooding

7.138 The Environment Agency have noted that the submitted Flood Risk assessment (FRA) correctly states that the proposed site is located within

flood zones 1, 2 and 3, and that the tidal Thames defences protect the site for events up to the 1 in 1000 year storm surge.

7.139 Using the water levels in the Thames, the FRA has assessed the residual risk to the site should the defences fail or breach. The assessment shows that the site would flood to a depth of up to 1.6m, and has assumed a velocity of 0.07m/s. Using the guidance in FD2320/TR2 this would represent a ‘danger for most’.

7.140 An initial emergency evacuation plan is contained within the FRA. The Environment Agency recommend that the LPA considers whether this a suitable method of controlling the risks and ensuring the safety of site users. The PPS25 Practice Guide details what should be included within flood warning and evacuation plans in figure 7.2 and supporting paragraphs 7.25 - 7.33.

7.141 The basements are not to be used for sleeping accommodation and this site is not identified as being within a rapid inundation zone, such that subject to the applicant providing residents with a policy compliant evacuation plan, the scheme would be acceptable in this regard,

7.142 Surface Water- The proposal will restrict surface water run-off rates in line with the London Plan, and that green/brown roofs are to be utilised. It will, however, need to be demonstrated that the proposed basement parking will be constructed in a manner that will take the loads of the proposed attenuation of surface water in the landscaped area above.

7.143 For this reason, the proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is imposed requiring the following drainage details. This and other relevant conditions will be imposed.

8.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties and in particular with respect to its duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, section 149. It is considered that there will be no specific implications with regard to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.

9.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

9.1 Policy IMP-6.1 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a developer enters into a planning obligation to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development. The Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations 2008 outlines the Council’s policies and procedures for determining planning obligations.

9.2 A payment or other benefit offered pursuant to a section 106 agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission and cannot be required unless it complies with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulation 122), which provide that the planning obligation must be:

• (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • (b) directly related to the development; and • (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. It is mandatory that each criterion be satisfactorily addressed prior to

granting planning permission subject to a Section 106.

9.3 Accordingly the suggested and accepted Heads of Terms are:

o Education: £626,257,66 o Chiswick House: TBA, but provisional figures show the maximum

would likely be £233-250,000 o Consultation on extension of CPZ( and possible implementation):

£3,500 (£20,000) o Transport: TFL have asked for a contribution to introduce Legible

London wayfinding signage. Transport officers consider that a cycle path improvement contribution would also be relevant, in line with the cycling ethos that the site espouses. It is considered that £150,000 would be an appropriate combined contribution towards these features and TFL have confirmed their support for this approach.

o S278 agreement re upgrading the pedestrian accesses and (if needed) areas of improvement and maintenance on links, crossings and access to bus waiting areas

o Agreement with Hogarth’s House re retaining their visitor parking. o Provision of clauses in a notation in sales contracts on the western

terrace houses to advise purchasers of the local planning authority controls on the retained tree corridor and the wall of Hogarth’s House

o Car Club. o Travel Plan.

o Considerate Contractor. o Site management

9.4 The applicant does not yet accept the requirement for a review mechanism in addition to the proposed 30% affordable housing.

10.0 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

10.1 Some new developments granted planning permission on or after 1st April 2012 will be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the Mayor of London with respect to the funding of Crossrail. This is at the rate of £35 per m2 of new floor space where the net floor area increase exceeds 100 m2

10.2 This proposal would be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy.

10.3 8,255m2 of currently occupied office space would be demolished and 19,922m2 of residential floorspace created, leaving 11,737m2 of chargeable new floorspace.

10.4 This creates a CIL charge of £410,795.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 The development is considered to be an acceptable infill development and would provide a suitable level of accommodation for future residents. The development would, subject to safeguarding conditions and the satisfactory negotiation of a S106 Deed, preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area and would not harm neighbours’ living conditions, or pedestrian and highway safety.

11.2 Subject to the applicant’s agreement to the Heads of Terms, it is recommended that a draft resolution to recommend approval be sent to the Mayor.

12.0 RECOMMENDATION A:

11.1 GRANT- Planning Permission- Refer to Mayor

11.2 Proposed Conditions: These are not an exhaustive list and are subject to the comments of members and further discussion.

Commencement

In accordance with plans

Construction Management Plan and Framework Construction Logistics Plan

To include dust etc, vehicle parking, vehicle access

Hours of construction

Site Hoardings The detailed design, colour and location of any site hoardings used during the construction process shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and only those hoardings so approved shall be used.

Reason: Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the area during the construction process in accordance with UDP policies ENV-B.1.1 and ENV-B.2.2

Land Contamination

Before the development hereby permitted commences: a. Details of an intrusive site investigation are required in addition to the phase 1 desk study previously submitted. These details shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be investigated by a competent person to identify the extent and nature of contamination. The report should include a tiered risk assessment of the contamination based on the proposed end use of the site. Additional investigation may be required where it is deemed necessary. b. If required, a scheme for decontamination of the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, for written approval. The scheme shall account for any comments made by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. During the course of the development: c. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified

immediately if additional contamination is discovered during the course of the development. A competent person shall assess the additional contamination, and shall submit appropriate amendments to the scheme for decontamination in writing to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any work on that aspect of development continues. Before the development is first brought into use: d. The agreed scheme for decontamination referred to in clauses b) and c) above, including amendments, shall be fully implemented and a written validation (closure) report submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Reason: Contamination is known or suspected on the site due to a former land use. The LPA therefore wishes to ensure that the development can be implemented and occupied with adequate regard for public and environmental safety. Supporting notes: a. An initial phase 1 desk study has been submitted with the original application and is considered satisfactory. A phase 2 intrusive investigation will need to be submitted and will include investigation into outstanding potential contamination issues to be communicated by the local planning authority and allow the development of a site Conceptual Model (CM), which identifies all potential pollutant linkages on the site. Risk assessments must adhere to current UK guidance and best practice. b. The scheme for decontamination shall provide details of how each potential pollutant linkage, as identified in the conceptual model, will be made safe. c. In some instances the LPA may require work on site to be ceased whilst the nature of additional contamination is investigated fully. d. The validation report shall revisit the site conceptual model, and provide evidence that each aspect of the decontamination scheme was carried out correctly and successfully. This report shall prove that the development is suitable for its new use. e. We request that site investigation reports or site plans be sent electronically to landquality@hounslow.gov.uk or by post on a cd or dvd wherever possible.

Grampian condition in lieu of 278 ?

Details of any construction lighting and security lighting of the access road shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason. In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the lighting in the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy ENV.B.1.1 New development.

Materials Samples of the (SPECIFY) shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant parts of the work are commenced. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved samples before the building is occupied.

Brick Panel A one metre square freestanding panel of brickwork showing the type of stone and stonework to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development the commencement of the development hereby permitted. All new brickwork shall match that of the approved panel in terms of the brick used and the coursing, bonding, pointing, jointing and mortar colour, mix and finish, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The brick panel so constructed shall be retained on the site until the development hereby approved has been completed. Reason:

Play Areas The details and specific location of the play equipment to be sited in the playgrounds are not to erected until details, including a maintenance regime, have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate play provision is made for the occupiers of the development hereby permitted and that the facility is adequately managed and maintained.

Withdrawal of all permitted development rights

Sustainability

Lifetime Homes

10% Wheelchair Accessible Housing

Pedestrian Environment

A detailed scheme for the pedestrian environment around the site including surfacing materials, footways, street furniture and road crossing points, including the phasing of these works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The scheme so approved shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing details so approved. Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains control over these details of the development in the interests of the appearance of the development, and the character and visual amenity of this part of the Conservation Area in which it is set. in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Recycling The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling storage facilities indicated on the approved plans have been fully implemented and made available for use. These facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times. Reason:

S278 Occupation of the development shall not commence until the off site highway works require by Transport for London, have been laid out and constructed in accordance with details to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason:

The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason:

No part of the development shall be brought into use until space and facilities for cycle parking have been provided in accordance with the approved plan and these facilities shall be retained thereafter for that specific use.

Delivery Service Plan

Car Parking Management Plan

Electric Vehicle Charging points and car club space (split ?)

Before the development hereby permitted begins [or is occupied] arrangements shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and be put in place to ensure that, with the exception of disabled persons, no resident of the development shall obtain a resident’s parking permit within any controlled parking zone which may be in force in the area (define) at any time.

Archaeology A) No development shall take place until the applicant (or their heirs and successors in title) has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological evaluation in accordance with a written scheme which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority in writing and a report on that evaluation has been submitted to the local planning authority. B) If heritage assets of archaeological interest are identified by the evaluation under Part A, then before development commences the applicant (or their heirs and successors in title) shall secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority in writing.

C) No development or demolition shall take place other that in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Part (B). D) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Part (B), and the provision for analysis, publication and dissemination of the results and archive deposition has been secured. Reason: Heritage assets of archaeological interest may survive on the site. The planning authority wishes to secure the provision of appropriate archaeological investigation including the publication of results, in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF.

Monitoring of Hogarth’s House during construction

Boundary Treatment

Before occupation of the development, a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Retention and replacement of

None of the existing trees on the site shall be cut down, up-rooted, destroyed, topped, lopped or

trees, including those in western stand

pruned without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Should any of the trees indicated to be retained on site be removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, they shall be replaced with a species and maturity of tree to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of the amenity value afforded by trees in respect of the proposed development in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Tree Planting Details of tree planting, indicating positions or density, species, and planting size shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, and planting shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the development for its permitted use. This planting shall maintained to encourage its establishment for a minimum of five years following contractual practical completion of the development. Any trees or significant areas of planting which are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective within this period shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable. Reason: To ensure the provision of the amenity value afforded by trees in respect of the proposed development in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Hedge/Hedgerow Protection in western tree stand

All existing hedges/hedgerows or vegetative species other than trees shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. All hedges and hedgerows on an immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the duration of works on the site. This shall be to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any parts of hedges or hedgerows removed without the Local Planning Authority's consent or which die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years following contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with plants of such size and species and in such positions as may be agreed with the Authority.

Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Landscaping No works or development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include, as appropriate: __ Proposed finished levels or contours __ Means of enclosure __ Car parking layouts __ Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas __ Hard surfacing materials __ Minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting) __ Proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communication cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines,manholes, supports etc) __ Retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft landscape details shall include: __ Planting plans __ Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) __ Schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers / densities where appropriate __ Implementation timetables. Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Landscape Management Plan (Also secure by 106?)

A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. Reason: To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal, public, nature conservation or historical significance, in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Arboricultural Method Statement

All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement.

Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Western Tree Stand and other remedial tree works

Prior to commencement of development on the site, full details of any remedial tree surgery or minor pruning required to facilitate access for demolition, facilitate development and on grounds of health and safety shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant recommendations of BS 3998: 1989 (Recommendations for Tree Work). Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with UDP policy ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas).

Bird Nesting Protection

During the construction of the development no tree or shrub felling, lopping or clearance shall take place between mid-February to the end of July, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained. Reason: To ensure that birds and their nests are protected during the nesting season.

Piling No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the

potential for damage to subsurface water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement. Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground water utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground water utility infrastructure. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 850 2777 to discuss the details of the piling method statement.

Flood Risk Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include a restriction in run-off and surface water storage on site as outlined in the FRA.

Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and improve habitat and amenity.

Drainage Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed. Reason - The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community.

Works for the demolition of the building(s) or part of the building forming part of the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced before a valid contract for the carrying out and completion of works of redevelopment of the site for which planning permission has been granted has been entered into, and evidence of that contract submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the demolition is followed by immediate rebuilding and to maintain the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Informatives INF 3: Granted in accordance with pre-application advice.

Written schemes of investigation will need to be prepared and implemented by a suitably qualified archaeological practice in accordance with English Heritage Greater London Archaeology guidelines. They must be approved by the planning authority before any on-site development related activity occurs.

No documentation containing details of the proposed drainage plan could be located on the local authority website. In order for Thames Water to determine whether the existing sewer network has sufficient spare capacity to receive the increased flows from the development, a drainage strategy must be submitted detailing the proposed foul and surface water strategies. Details of any proposed alterations to the connection points to the public system, and calculated increase in discharge rate must be included in the drainage strategy. If initial investigations conclude that the existing sewer network is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development, it will be necessary for developers to fund studies to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing waste water infrastructure.

Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

A tree may provide a habitat for plants and wildlife protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (amended 1984) and other legislation principally the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000. For example,

trees with hollow crevices, including dead trees, provide important natural roost sites for many bat species covered by the 1981 Act. All native bats are European Protected Species under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and it is an offence to kill or destroy such a species or to damage or destroy their breeding site or resting places. With regards to birds this means that the felling or pruning of trees should be carefully carried out to avoid disturbing nesting birds particularly between the months of March to August inclusive. Anyone proposing to carry out work on a tree which may be used as a roosting/nesting site should first contact Natural England on 02380 286410.

The applicant is advised that the off site works will need to be constructed under a Section 278 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

Grant- Conservation Area Consent.

Conditions to be discussed.

Background Papers:

The contents of planning file referenced on the front page of this report, save for exempt or confidential information as defined in the Local Government Act 1972, Sch. 12A Parts 1 and 2