Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PLANNING COMMITTEE 14th June 2018
References: P/2018/0440 00503/B/P34
Address: Dukes Meadows Tennis Centre, Dan Mason Drive, W4 2SH
Proposal: Erection of Tennis Hall
Drawing Numbers: Location Plan, Design and Access Statement, 5099-020, 021, 022, 023, 024A, 025A, 026A, 027A, 028, 029A, 031, Photomontages/CGIs, Energy Statement and Very Special Circumstances Statement received 12/03/2018
The planning application has been referred to Planning Committee as a Major Development (requiring a S.106 legal agreement) and as a departure from the Development Plan
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 The proposal is for a permanent structure in place of the existing temporary dome, which benefits from planning permission for 6 months in the winter.
1.2 No letters of objection have been received from local residents, and two letters of support have been received.
1.3 It has been demonstrated, on balance, that the harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land caused by the presence of the structure would be outweighed by the community benefits of the scheme.
1.4. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a
S.106 legal agreement
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The site is situated to the north of the River Thames and is within the wider estate of Dukes Meadows Sports Centre. The entire site is allocated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).
2.2 The site lies to the south of the Great Chertsey Road and is reached by Dan Mason Drive. There is a vehicular access from Dan Mason Drive to a car park and single storey pavilion (former clubhouse), the latter containing club facilities providing changing areas, refreshments, shop, function room, health treatments and training facilities. The tennis club is separated into two main areas to the east and west of the existing sports pavilion and car park.
2.3 Five synthetic surfaced tennis courts have been provided in a rectangular area immediately to the west of the existing pavilion, covered by a temporary inflatable dome, which currently benefits from planning consent (ref. 00503/B/P28) for half of the year (15 October – 15 April) and should be removed in the summer months. In recent years the dome has not been removed in the summer months and an enforcement case is ongoing. Planning permission was previously granted for a temporary two year period in order for the applicant to develop a more permanent solution for the building which preserved the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). This consent expired in April 2015 when the lawful planning position reverted back to the previous consent for the seasonal erection of the dome (15 October – 15 April), planning reference 00503/B/P28. This was not done and the dome has remained up. Subsequently, a planning application was made in 2017 (ref. 00503/B/P33) for a permanent tennis centre on site. This was refused at planning committee due to the very special circumstances failing to outweigh the harm to the MOL, and the proposals failed to secure necessary planning obligations in relation to public access and community benefits of the scheme. This application seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal.
2.4 The application site specifically comprises four outdoor surfaced tennis courts to the east side of the existing car park. A row of evergreen trees bounds the southern side of these courts with allotments beyond these. The land to the north, east and west of the pavilion and tennis courts is predominantly open and is used as a golf course and driving range with a small lake lying to the north of the pavilion. The existing driving range is floodlit and a number of other playing fields and courts in Dukes Meadows have floodlights.
2.5 The surrounding land of Dukes Meadows is used for outdoor recreation, with the area between Dan Masons Drive/The Promenade and the river being designated as a nature conservation area. Further northwest of the site, railway lines cross the land. There are also a number of other multi-sports facilities such as the Esporta Riverside Club which has a seasonal demountable dome that covers three tennis courts.
2.6 The nearest residential areas in the Borough to the site are to the north in Staveley Gardens and northwest off Hartington Road. Nearer residential areas are found 200m away on the opposite riverbank.
3.0 HISTORY
3.1 00503/B/P10 Use of part of playing fields as golf driving range and retention of playing fields on the remainder
Granted – 15 September 1993
3.2 00503/B/P11 Construction of 9 hole par 3 golf course
Granted – 26 September 1994
3.3 00503/B/P26 Reinstatement of 9 tennis courts, with associated fencing, surfacing and floodlights. Erection of demountable, air cushioned dome over five tennis courts
Withdrawn – 16 October 2008
3.4 00503/B/P27 Retrospective consent for reinstatement of nine tennis courts, associated fencing, surfacing and floodlighting. Erection of a demountable, air cushioned dome over five tennis courts
Refused and authorisation to enforce– 21 June 2010
3.5 00503/B/P28 Retrospective planning permission for the reinstatement of nine tennis courts with associated fencing, surfacing and floodlighting and the seasonal erection of a demountable, air cushioned, dome over five tennis courts
Granted (subject to a Legal Agreement) – 30 March 2012
3.6 00503/B/P29 Erection of a temporary dome structure over existing tennis courts (2 years)
Granted (subject to a Legal Agreement) – 19 April 2013
3.7 00503/B/P30 Erection of external floodlights around existing clay tennis courts
Granted – 28 July 2014
3.8 00503/B/P31 Variation of condition 1 to change the wording from "The temporary dome hereby permitted shall be removed on or before 15 April 2015" to "The temporary dome hereby permitted shall be removed on or before 15 April 2025" following approved planning permission 00503/B/P29 dated 19/04/2013 for the erection of a temporary dome structure over existing tennis courts
Refused: 6 November 2014
Appeal ongoing (hearing in July)
3.9 00503/B/P32 Variation of condition 1 to change the wording from "The temporary dome hereby permitted shall be removed on or before 15 April 2015" to "The temporary dome hereby permitted shall be removed on or before 15 October 2015" since the previously refused application 00503/B/P31 dated 06/11/2014 for 10 year extension is
under appeal following approved planning permission 00503/B/P29 dated 19/04/2013 for the erection of a temporary dome structure over existing tennis courts
Withdrawn
3.10 00503/B/P33 Erection of tennis hall to replace the existing air dome.
Refused: 12/03/2018
Reasons:
The proposal is an inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land and the harm has not been satisfactorily outweighed by very special circumstances. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy GB1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
The proposal would, in the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure necessary planning obligations, fails to provide sufficient measures to secure public access to the facility and management of the site, contrary to Local Plan Policy CL4 and GB1 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.0 DETAILS
4.1 The five tennis courts, to the west of the pavilion occupy 3,102sqm of the site and planning permission has previously been granted for the annual erection of the demountable air cushioned dome for six months of the year (15 October – 15 April) during the winter period. This application seeks permission to remove the dome and erect a permanent building to provide covered tennis courts.
4.2 The proposed building measures 88.5m in length, 11m in height and 37m in width. The existing demountable dome is 82m in length, 12.6m high and 36m wide. The permanent building would be linked to the existing pavilion. It would be constructed of laminated timber beams and a tensile membrane roof coloured dark green. The fabric membrane allows no emission of light, and a condition would be attached for samples of materials to be submitted prior to commencement.
4.3 The hours of use would be, 07:00am to 10:00pm, seven days a week. All lighting would be internal.
4.4 There would be no changes to the access or parking arrangements.
5.0 CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Consultation letters were sent to 410 neighbours on 12/03/2018, site notices were placed at the site and a press notice published on 16th March 2018 in accordance with the requirements for applications that depart from the development plan. There were 2 responses in support of the application and no objections.
5.2 The application was placed on the weekly list dated 1st – 11th June 2018 (Week 23) as a Major development. It was not referred to the Area Forum or Planning Committee.
5.3 The Greater London Authority (GLA) have been consulted at ‘Stage’ 1. The comments were as follows:
The proposed tennis hall represents inappropriate development on MOL. However, the significant community benefits, combined with the reduction in the impact on the MOL, and a sustainable, long-term solution for the sports facilities constitute very special circumstances that outweigh harm caused to the MOL. CGI visuals also demonstrate that impact on openness is limited. The proposal accords with London Plan Policy 7.17, draft London Plan Policy G3, and the NPPF, and is acceptable.
A detailed community use agreement for affordable and accessible usage of the sports facilities must be secured by the Council
Design and landscaping measures that minimise the tennis hall’s impact on the openness of the MOL are welcomed, and must be secured by planning condition. The approach to inclusive design is supported and must also be secured by planning condition
The carbon savings exceed the target set out in the London Plan and draft London Plan. A drainage strategy that accords with policies of the London Plan and draft London Plan must be secured by planning condition
The proposal is broadly acceptable in strategic transport terms. However, matters related to cycle parking and accessible car parking must be secured by planning conditions
5.4 Several conditions were requested, as outlined above, and subject to these,
the GLA found the scheme to be acceptable.
5.5 Sport England: Having assessed the application, Sport England was not convinced that the distances between the courts and side walls were sufficient for the effective use of the site. Further information was provided by the applicant and Sport England has not raised an objection.
5.6 Transport for London: No objection raised subject to conditions relating to cycle parking and disabled car parking provision.
5.7 Environment Agency: No comment on this application.
6.0 POLICY
Determining applications for full or outline planning permission
6.1 The determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local finance considerations must also be assessed.
The National Planning Policy Framework
6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012, and from April 2014 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in the form of an online guidance resource to support the NPPF came into effect. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where pertinent, the NPPF and NPPG are material considerations and as such, will be taken into account in decision-making as appropriate.
The Development Plan
6.3 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Local Plan (adopted by the Council on 15 September 2015), the West London Waste Plan and the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2011.
6.4 The Local Plan documents can be viewed on the Planning Policy pages of the Hounslow website.
7.0 PLANNING ISSUES
7.1 The main planning issues concerning the case are:
Principle of development in Metropolitan Open Land
Visual impact
The impact on the amenity of adjoining properties
Highway safety and parking
Environmental considerations
Principle of development in Metropolitan Open Land
7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that once Green Belts or MOL have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt and MOL, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.
7.3 The NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the
construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt and MOL. Exceptions to this are:
buildings for agriculture and forestry;
provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;
the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;
limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or
limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
7.4 The London Plan states that the strongest protection should be given to the
Green Belt and MOL, and inappropriate development should be refused except in very special circumstances and development should help to secure the objectives of improving the Green Belt as set out in national guidance.
7.5 Policy GB1 of the Hounslow Local Plan states that the Council will protect
and enhance Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land to maintain its openness, quality and permanence. It goes onto say that inappropriate development in the Green Belt and on Metropolitan Open Land will not be permitted unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.
7.6 Policy CI4 of the Local Plan supports the improvement and upgrade of existing leisure facilities, including sports, recreation and arts to encourage healthy and inclusive communities, subject to compliance with other planning policies.
7.7 The dome over the courts would not fall within the defined acceptable uses
for the MOL as it is not a building or structure ancillary to an open air recreational facility. Instead it would transform an outdoor recreational facility into an indoor one and is not an essential facility related to the playing of outdoor courts, and as such is regarded as “inappropriate development”. It is therefore necessary to establish whether there are’ very special circumstances’ to justify a departure from the development plan. The NPPF states that the harm to Metropolitan Open Land must be clearly outweighed by other considerations. Very Special Circumstances
7.8 The previous applications regarding the seasonal erection of the dome and the two year temporary consent assessed the principle of the development and considered that the impact of the dome on the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) was unacceptable. However, very special circumstances in the form of community benefit including the opportunities for and access to coaching facilities, outweighed the harm to the MOL in this instance for the half year period. The previous application sought to erect the dome permanently, however, permission was granted for a temporary two year consent to allow a more sustainable solution to come forward. The most recent application was for the retention of the dome for a period of ten years. This was considered unacceptable and was refused, and the planning appeal is pending. The most recent application was refused on 12/03/2018, due to the proposed community benefits failing to outweigh the harm to the MOL and thereby failing to demonstrate very special circumstances. It was also highlighted that the original S106 provisions which was secured was out of date and circumstances both at the council,
and at the site had considerably changed, meaning many of the benefits were not secured adequately.
7.9 The very special circumstances which previously outweighed the harm to the MOL for the erection of the dome for half the year and for the two year temporary permission included the provision of inexpensive access to elite facilities and coaching for all in the community, especially local children. The current proposal is accompanied by a new set of community benefits that reflect the permanent status of the building and the current local need (further detailed below).
7.10 The applicant as agreed to the following community benefits package, to be secured through a S106 agreement, which would be considered very special circumstances:
Provision of a budget of £105,750 per annum to fund the Schools Programme, which will provide financial, coaching and educational support for children who attend schools within the Borough to be coached tennis
Provision of a financial contribution towards the delivery budget for Sports Impact to facilitate the coaching sessions for the schools (Sports Impact are an organisation that liaise directly with the Council’s Leisure team, schools and providers across the Borough to facilitate sports provision to schools and other groups)
Provision of a timetable of coaching across the year (approx. 900 hours) for schools within the Borough. Contact has been made with each school to offer this on site (at Dukes Meadow) or at the school, dependant on school requirements
Provision of 240 hours per annum of indoor court time and coaching on site at Dukes Meadows to accommodate vulnerable or disadvantaged groups from around the Borough.
Providing a minimum of two inter-school tournaments per year to be held at Dukes Meadows, subject to timetabling with the schools
Securing the ongoing pay to play arrangements at the club
Securing a bi-annual review of performance against the terms of the legal agreement to ensure that the terms are complied with. A monitoring fee would be included as part of this.
Securing a community use agreement to ensure that the above provisions are adequately organised and well run
7.11 The provision of a permanent structure would facilitate a significant amount of community use both on and off site all year round. There would be over 1,000 hours of community coaching and court provision. It would provide significantly improved playing conditions for regular users, schools and other community groups. A permanent structure would provide a significant
long-term boost to the community, providing stability and assurance that the offer will remain in the future. A temporary structure has a limited lifespan by definition, and a permanent structure would provide significantly improved quality and longevity.
Openness
7.12 The two most recent applications considered the permanent retention of the dome (00503/B/P31) and the erection of a new tennis centre (00503/B/P33) to be unacceptable.
7.13 In the case of application ref. 00503/B/P31 for the retention of the existing dome, the very large size of the dome was not in keeping with the character of the MOL, which is noted for its expansive areas of open space and sports grounds. Historically, this site has had only a single storey pavilion. Views of open land from the north and west of the dome are adversely affected by the dome as there is limited screening by vegetation and the large scale of the structure is incongruous with the less developed surrounds, the dome also dwarfing the existing pavilion. At night the excessive size of the structure is accentuated by its illumination, the internally lit structure glowing so that is very obvious from all directions, including the riverside and the Grade II listed Chiswick Bridge. Therefore it was concluded that the dome is unduly harmful to the character and openness of the MOL. Furthermore, the existing dome is only a temporary structure and is not made to be used permanently. It has to be permanently kept inflated which is facilitated by the use of generators on the site. The structure does not lend itself to fit in with the surrounding environment and the proposal to have this temporary structure permanently would be considered unacceptable.
7.14 The most recent proposal, ref. 00503/B/P33, was refused due to the failure to demonstrate very special circumstances through the provision of community access. The scale of the tennis centre, its position and the lack of light spill was considered to significantly reduce the impact on the MOL, and was considered acceptable, and was not a reason for refusal. The proposal was not considered to improve the openness of the MOL from the current situation.
7.15 The proposed permanent structure would be the same as that in application reference 00503/B/P33, and is considered an improvement, when compared to the existing dome, in terms of the impact on the openness of the MOL. The structure would be lower than the existing dome and would be dark green which would result in a significant reduction in light spill. The reduction in height and change in colour would significantly reduce the visibility of the building from longer views around the site and would provide a more visually subservient building which assists in preserving the openness of the MOL. Furthermore, due to the nature of the finishing roof material in this proposal, there would be a significant reduction in light spill at night, which would ensure that the building would not be as easily visible as the existing dome.
7.16 The proposed structure would be significantly less intrusive when viewed
from the north, see above images, where the dome would blend in with the existing planting and landscaping, from the south the lower height would prevent wider views across the river and in relation to the listed bridge, the impact would be much reduced.
7.17 While the structure would have a reduced impact on the openness of the MOL, a building of this size and scale would still have a significant impact on the openness of the MOL, and very special circumstances must be demonstrated if it is to be acceptable.
Sustainability Benefits
7.18 Furthermore, the removal of the dome and provision of a permanent building would result in a positive impact on the energy efficiency and environmental impact of the site. The information provided by the applicant demonstrates a 39% improvement in carbon emissions from the current
situation which is a significant saving. This saving would come from the removal of the need to inflate the dome and new efficient lighting. Further information on the energy matters are discussed below.
Conclusion
7.19 Accepting that the development represents inappropriate development
which, by definition, is harmful, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist justify permitting this application. The significant community benefits of a permanent building, combined with the reduction in the impact on the MOL from the design when compared to the existing dome, and the provision of a more sustainable, long term solution for the provision of the highly valued sports facilities at this site would weigh in favour of the proposal.
7.20 It is considered that, on balance, these benefits constitute very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the MOL.
Visual Impact
7.21 The existing temporary dome is highly visible from a number of locations, and is particularly noticeable at night due to the light spill. CGIs have been provided that compare the original site (with no dome), the existing situation and the proposed. The proposed structure is 1.6m shorter and 6m longer than the existing dome. This, combined with the colour change, would make it less prominent due to the lower height. The change in scale and appearance would also reduce the impact of the dome on the Listed bridge, improving the setting of the Grade II Listed structure. A landscaping condition would be attached to any approval to provide further screening to reduce the visibility of the structure.
7.22 It is evident that the proposed structure would be a significant improvement on the existing situation, both during daylight hours and at night, as previously discussed. However, despite this, it still would impact on the openness of the MOL, and therefore must be considered inappropriate.
7.23 Although there is some visual harm and attendant impact on the openness
of the MOL, this would be mitigated by the community benefits and sustainable improvements of the proposal as outlined above. The impact on the amenity of adjoining properties
7.24 The nearest neighbouring residents are on the other side of the river, over 230m away. There are some residential properties to the north west and north east, but these are over 400m away. The proposed opening hours, 07:00 – 22:00, are considered appropriate and would be secured by condition. A further condition would be attached to provide full details of light spill to ensure neighbour’s amenity is not harmed. It is not considered that the proposal would have any impact on the living conditions at these properties.
Highway safety and parking
7.25 The site has a PTAL of 0, which indicates that it is very poorly served by public transport. 160 car parking spaces are provided on site, seven of which are disabled spaces. Given the existing use of the site, and the fact that the proposal would not be providing any additional courts or space, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any significant increase in traffic or parking need, and therefore there would be no harm. A condition would be attached to any approval to ensure appropriate numbers of disabled parking spaces are provided.
7.26 Bicycle parking is proposed, which will be secured by condition. A Construction Logistics Plan and a Travel Plan would also both be secured via condition.
Environmental considerations
7.27 The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal would provide a reduction in regulated emissions of 35% on Part L 2013 as required by the London Plan, and the building would not meet BREEAM excellent.
7.28 An energy statement was submitted by the applicant. The development would reduce emissions by 39% when compared to the existing proposal, and improved lighting would be installed. Furthermore, the permanent structure would remove the need for constant inflation of the dome and would also significantly reduce light spill.
7.29 It is considered that on balance, the proposal would represent a significant improvement on the existing situation at the site, and would provide a building that would be more sustainable than the existing temporary dome and is therefore considered acceptable.
Conclusion
7.30 Given the scale and position of the building, there is some harm to the openness of the MOL in this location, although this is reduced compared to the existing dome.
7.31 In mitigation, a series of community benefits have been proposed and would be secured by a S106 agreement. In addition, the proposal would provide a more sustainable solution at the site.
7.32 On balance, therefore, given the benefits to community and the sustainability benefits, it is considered that the harm to the MOL would be clearly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and that this would amount to very special circumstances, subject to a S.106 legal agreement to ensure that the community benefits continue.
8.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
8.1 The Council will seek to ensure that a developer enters into a planning obligation to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development.
A payment or other benefit offered pursuant to a Section 106 agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission for a development, or any part of a development, that is capable of being charged the community infrastructure levy (whether there is a local levy in operation or not) and shall not 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.
8.2 Accordingly, it is mandatory that each criterion be satisfactorily addressed prior to granting planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking.
8.3 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations contains guidance on the imposition of planning obligations. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate the impacts of the development.
8.4 Accordingly, it will be necessary for a S106 Agreement to be entered into in order to ensure that a Community Benefits Management Plan is agreed.
8.5 The Heads of Terms for the agreement area as follows:
Provision of a budget of £105,750 per annum to fund the Schools Programme, which will provide financial, coaching and educational support for children who attend schools within the Borough to be coached tennis
Provision of a total financial contribution of £18,000 towards the delivery budget for Sports Impact to facilitate the coaching sessions for the schools
Provision of a timetable of coaching across the year (approx. 900 hours) for schools within the Borough.
Provision of 240 hours per annum of indoor court time and coaching on site at Dukes Meadows to accommodate vulnerable or disadvantaged groups from around the Borough.
Providing a minimum of two inter-school tournaments per year to be held at Dukes Meadows
Securing the ongoing pay to play arrangements at the club
Securing a bi-annual review of performance against the terms of the legal agreement to ensure that the terms are complied with. A monitoring fee will be included
Securing a community use agreement to ensure that the above provisions are adequately organised and well run
9.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1 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.
10.0 LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
10.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must have regard to a local finance consideration as far as it is material. A local finance consideration means:
a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or
b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
10.2 The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter
for the decision maker. The Mayor of London's CIL and Hounslow CIL are therefore material considerations.
10.3 Most new development which creates net additional floor space of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new dwelling, is potentially liable to pay the CIL to Hounslow and the Mayor of London.
Floor space (sqm)
Existing lawful floor space
Demolished floor space
CIL liable floor space
0 0 3175
10.4 This proposal would be liable to pay the CIL which is index linked.
10.5 The estimated Hounslow CIL payable is £63,500 and Mayoral CIL payable
is £111,125.
11.0 RECOMMENDATION
11.1 That subject to any direction the Mayor of London may make on the application, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate
officers within the Department of Housing, Planning and Communities on the advice of Corporate Governance.
11.1. The satisfactory legal agreement outlined above shall be completed and
planning permission issued within 6 months of the date of a resolution to grant planning permission by Committee, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Housing, Planning and Communities or within Legal Services.
11.2. If the legal agreement is not completed by the date specified above (or any
agreed extended period), then the Chief Planning Officer is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in 8.5 of this Report.
11.3. Following the grant of planning permission, where (a) requested to enter
into a deed of variation or legal agreement in connection with the planning permission hereby approved and by the person(s) bound by the legal agreement authorised in paragraph 1 above, and (b) where the planning obligations are not materially affected, and (c) there is no monetary cost to the Council, the Chief Planning Officer is hereby authorised (in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee and upon the advice of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance) to enter into a legal agreement(s) (deed of variation) made under Sections 106 and/or 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation.
11.4. If planning permission is refused, the Chief Planning Officer (in consultation
with the Chair of the Planning Committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it (a) duplicates the planning application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and (c) that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time. Conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the
expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 92 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 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 development in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to satisfy the requirements of policies CC1 Context and character and CC2 Urban Design and Architecture of the adopted Local Plan.
The information is required prior to commencement of the development to ensure adherence to the Local Plan.
3 The proposed development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and the plans submitted (Location Plan, Design and Access Statement, 5099-020, 021, 022, 023, 024A, 025A, 026A, 027A, 028, 029A, 031, Photomontages/CGIs, Energy Statement and Very Special Circumstances Statement received 12/03/2018) therewith and approved by the Local Planning Authority, or as shall have been otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the building is used.
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission.
4 The use hereby permitted for the tennis centre shall not be carried on outside the following times Monday - Sunday 07:00 - 22:00
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality in accordance with policies CC1 Context and character, CC2 Urban design and architecture and EQ5 Noise of the adopted Local Plan.
5 No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8:00am to 6:00pm on Mondays to Friday and 9 :00am to 1:00pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays and Public Holidays without the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality in accordance with policIies CC1 Context and character, CC2 Urban design and architecture and EQ5 Noise of the adopted Local Plan.
6 No development shall take place until a Construction Logistics Plan covering both the demolition and construction stages has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall cover: 1. Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
2. Pedestrian and cyclist protection;
3. Proposed temporary traffic restrictions;
4. Arrangements for turning vehicles;
5. The routeing of vehicles to the site, access and egress arrangements and waiting areas;
6. Boundary treatment and measures to ensure they are maintained in a secure and tidy condition;
7. The contractor's compound;
8. Noise Mitigation measures in accordance with best practice as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2: 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites (to be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works).
9. Either an undertaking to operate during all phases of demolition and construction a considerate contractor scheme in accordance with the Considerate Constructors’ Scheme Code of Considerate Practice (see http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/index.php/company-registration/how-to-be-very-considerate/company-code-of-considerate-practice or such other methods for achieving these objectives the details of which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
10. Protection of the retained trees and specimen shrubs that are specified in the approved drawings (which shall include measures in accordance with the best practice defined in BS5837: 2005) to be put in place before any work starts on site and permanently retained thereafter.
All work on site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect neighbours' living conditions and road safety in accordance with adopted development plan polices CC1, CC2 (New development), EQ5 (Noise), EQ4 (Air quality), EQ6 (Lighting) and EC2 (Developing a Sustainable Local Transport Network) The information is required prior to commencement of the development to ensure adherence to the Local Plan.
7 Prior to the commencement of the use, details of covered and secure cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with the adopted Local Plan Policy EC2 and the London Plan
8 The seven disabled car parking spaces at the site shall be
retained and made available to the users and staff at the site.
Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the provision and allocation of parking spaces for disabled people, in accordance with adopted Local Plan Policy EC2 and the London Plan
9 Prior to occupation of the buildings, a Travel Plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as soon as the development is brought into use. Reason. To ensure that the proposals are in compliance with Local Plan Policy EC2
10 "Before the development hereby permitted commences: a. A contaminated land Phase 1 desk study report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should the Phase 1 report recommend that a Phase 2 site investigation is required, then this shall be carried out and 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 Local Planning Authority (LPA) therefore wishes to ensure that the development can be implemented and occupied with adequate regard for public and environmental safety in accordance with policy EQ8 Contamination of the adopted Local Plan. Supporting notes:
a. An initial phase 1 desk study must be submitted with the original application and will include the aims and objectives, data collection, site reconnaissance (walk over survey), and development of the initial Conceptual Model (CM), which identifies all potential pollutant linkages on the site. The report should also make recommendations for the further gathering of information and or intrusive investigation. The full site investigation must include intrusive testing for soil and groundwater contamination, soil gasses, and leachate. The investigation shall be carried out at such points and at such depths as the LPA may stipulate. 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 [email protected] or by post on a cd or dvd wherever possible The information is required prior to commencement of the development to ensure adherence to the Local Plan.
11 A landscape strategy and management plan, including landscaping detailing, long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development for its permitted use.
Any trees or shrubs planted which die within five years of completion of the development shall be replaced with the same species, and of comparable maturity, or an approved alternative. The landscape strategy and management plan shall be carried out as approved and maintained as such thereafter.
Reason. In the interest of biodiversity, sustainability, and to ensure that a satisfactory standard of visual amenity is provided and maintained in accordance with policies CC1, CC2 (New Development) and GB7 (Biodiversity) of the adopted Local Plan
12 Prior to the commencement of development, a BREEAM pre-
assessment detailing how the proposed development can
achieve an “Excellent” rating (minimum score 70%) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with Local Plan Policy EQ2 (Sustainable Design and Construction). The information is required prior to commencement of the development to ensure adherence to the Local Plan.
13 Prior to occupation of the building, details of the internal lighting of the structure, including details of light spill, hours of operation and detailed specifications, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with Local Plan Policy EQ6 (Lighting).
14 Prior to the commencement of development, a drainage strategy that accords with the policies of the London Plan and draft London Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with the London Plan and Policy EQ3 (Flood risk and surface water management) of the Local Plan The information is required prior to commencement of the development to ensure adherence to the Local Plan.
Informatives:
1. To assist applicants, the London Borough of Hounslow has produced planning policies and written guidance, which are available on the Council's website. The Council also offers a pre-application advice service. In this case, the Council's suggested improvements were adopted by the applicant.
2. The applicant is advised that this permission does not apply to the temporary covering of the existing outdoor tennis courts during the construction of the permanent building and a separate planning permission would be required for these works, should they be required.
