PLANNING COMMITTEE 1st September2016

Stephen.hissett@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2016/1859 00505/366/P26

Site: Master Robert Hotel, 366 Great West Road, Hounslow TW5 0BD

Description: Demolition of the existing hotel buildings and the construction of a new 4 storey, 118-bedroom hotel with associated facilities, access and parking and 34 new dwellings comprising 18 no. 3 bed houses, 4 no. 2 bed accessible houses and 12 no. 2 bed flats, with associated amenity space, access and parking.

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee from the Heston & Cranford Area Forum.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal seeks to address the three reasons for refusal given for the previous scheme (‘P23’); size, scale and design of the hotel; amenity impact on residents resulting from access created from Palmer Close and absence of an appropriate mechanism to secure a viability re-appraisal.

1.2 The proposed hotel has been reduced in height, scale and massing, with a reduction in the number of hotel rooms from 142 to 118 and a reduction of the facilities provided, in order to provide a more appropriate response to the townscape and sympathetic design that would not appear unduly prominent or bulky in the street scene.

1.3 The residential element of the scheme remains unaltered from that previously refused permission however it is considered that the additional information submitted in respect of vehicle movements and amenity effects demonstrates that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents’ amenity.

1.4 The schemes viability has been rigorously assessment and it has been found that the proposal would not be able to deliver affordable housing on-site, however it is recommended that an out-turn viability review mechanism is secured in the Section 106 in order to capture any uplift in values that would then be put towards delivery of off-site affordable housing in the Borough.

1.5 The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The Master Robert Hotel is on the north-side of the A4 Great West Road, adjacent to and west of its junction with Upper Sutton Lane. The first, and most prominent, building was constructed in the 1920’s, since which time it has been significantly extended to the side and rear (now occupied by the administration block and an associated restaurant). Single-storey, chalet-style bedroom blocks have subsequently been built in the centre of the site; a further standalone, two-storey

staff accommodation block has been provided to the rear and two three-storey guest blocks have been built on the western and northern boundaries respectively. The sprawling nature of the buildings leads to the sense of a ‘motel complex’ type development. The site also includes two residential properties, nos. 362 and 364 Great West Road. These are owned by the hotel and whilst currently unused, have previously provided staff accommodation.

2.2 The site is approximately 1.28 hectares, extending northwards from the Great West Road. It is generally level. The site is accessed from the eastbound A4 and from Upper Sutton Lane; this vehicular access is close to the intersection with the A4. The existing hotel has the following facilities:

96 bedrooms (all en-suite), in the form of:

29 motel style chalet rooms

33 rooms in the two-storey block on the western boundary

34 rooms in the three-storey block on the northern boundary

Foyer/reception area

Lounge Bar and Aintree Restaurant (bar area seating for 30 persons and the restaurant has 90 covers)

Conference/function rooms (up to 265 persons across three separate rooms)

Public Bar (capacity for around 150 persons)

190 parking spaces

2.3 The hotel currently employs 25 full time equivalent staff members, with a maximum of 16 on duty at any one time.

2.4 The surrounding area is generally residential in character, in particular on this side of the A4/Upper Sutton Lane. On the north east corner of this junction is Noble

Corner, a purpose built development of retail/commercial at ground floor with flats above that wraps around the junction in a curved form, providing an active frontage at ground level. This building is four-storeys. The surrounding area is generally one or two-storeys, apart from the purpose-built flats in Harris Close to the south east, which are upwards of five-storeys.

2.5 None of the buildings on site have any particular architectural merit that would make their retention necessary, and a previous Inspector’s decision (reference 00505/366/P18) noted that redevelopment of the site would present an opportunity to enhance the site’s disjointed appearance, particularly as seen from Upper Sutton Lane. Any new buildings would have to respect the suburban character of adjoining properties, where neighbouring buildings are mostly two-storey semi-detached houses that have good-sized gardens.

2.6 The site is allocated in the emerging Local Plan for hotel and residential use. The site is not in a conservation area and the nearest listed building is approximately 100m to the north-east on Upper Sutton Lane (Orchard Cottage).

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1 00505/366/P17 Demolition of existing public house & outbuilding and the erection of five storey hotel with associated parking & landscaping

Withdrawn 24/09/2001

3.2 00505/366/P18 Demolition of existing public house and the erection of part four, five & six storey 324 bedroomed hotel and associated parking & landscaping

Refused 05/02/2002

3.3 00505/366/P19 Demolition of existing public house and outbuilding and the erection of 134 bedroomed hotel with associated parking and landscaping

Refused 05/02/2004

3.4 00505/366/P20 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 147 bedroomed hotel and 139 residential units (Outline application for siting and access)

Refused 23/06/2005

3.5 00505/366/P21 Demolition of the existing hotel and the erection of a five-storey 121-bedroom hotel with associated parking and landscaping and the redevelopment of the remainder of the site to accommodate 31 houses (nine two-bedroom, nine three-bedroom and 13 four-bedroom) and ten two-bedroom flats.

Withdrawn 02/06/2009

3.6 00505/366/P22 Demolition of the existing hotel and the erection of a five-storey 117 bedroom hotel with associated parking and landscaping and the redevelopment of the remainder of the site to accommodate 37 two- and three-storey houses (11 two-bedroom, 14 three-bedroom and 12 four-bedroom)

Withdrawn 24/06/2011

3.7 00505/366/P23 Demolition of the existing hotel buildings and construction of a new, six-storey, 142 bedroom hotel development, with associated facilities, access and parking in addition to a new 34 dwelling residential development comprising 18 three-bedroom houses 4 two-bedroom accessible houses and 12 two-bedroom flats with associated amenity space, access and parking.

Refused 05/10/2015

Reasons

1. The proposed hotel, due to the size, scale, design, appearance and mass of the proposed built form, would result in an unduly bulky and obtrusive appearance that would be inappropriate to, and out of keeping with, the surrounding area, be overbearing in the street scene and fail to take account the scale and character of the surrounding area.

2. It is considered the proposed development, with the creation of a new means of access from Palmer Close and as a result of additional trip generation and vehicle movements associated with the intensified use of the site through this new access, would result in an unacceptable level of traffic, harmful to the amenity of existing residents.

3. The applicant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate, through the viability of the development as whole, that the proposal would maximise the delivery of affordable housing on site. In the absence of an acceptable viability review mechanism and without an appropriate mechanism in place to secure the implementation for the comprehensive development of the site, the proposal would fail to deliver or provide sufficient justification for the lack of affordable housing provision.

Appeal received and subject to a Public Inquiry in January 2017

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The proposal is for a four-storey building situated at the front of the site adjacent to the Great West Road and Upper Sutton Lane frontages, comprising:

118 en-suite guest rooms (net increase of 22 rooms)

Reception, bar and restaurant (seating for up to 83 persons)

A single meeting room

Back of house facilities (i.e. administration, laundry, kitchens and plant)

4.2 Hotel ingress would be from Great West Road and Upper Sutton Lane with egress only from Upper Sutton Lane. Parking for 58 vehicles would be provided to the front and rear of the hotel, including seven disabled spaces at the front. Secure cycle

parking (8 spaces) and dedicated refuse/delivery vehicle and coach parking (1 space) would be provided to the rear of the hotel, with a taxi/guest drop-off facility to the front.

4.3 The applicants have anticipated that the hotel will create between 35 and 40 (full time equivalent) jobs with a maximum of 20 staff being on site at any-one time. This would represent a net increase of around 10-15 (full time equivalent) jobs.

4.4 The building would be finished with a red brick façade with vertical cladding elements to the ends of the upper guest room floor and a louvre screen to the roof top plant. The building has been set back from the Great West Road, behind the building line of the adjacent houses, allowing additional landscaping and tree planting to the front of the site.

4.5 The residential element of the scheme would be towards the central and rear part of the site. This would have separate access from Palmer Close, to the north, and would comprise 34 dwellings:

18 x three-bedroom, five-person, two-storey houses

4 x two-bedroom, four-person, two-storey wheelchair accessible houses;

and

12 x two-bedroom, four-person flats in a three-storey block.

4.6 Parking for the houses would be to the front of each dwelling with parking for the flats adjacent to the block. An additional four visitor parking spaces would be provided across the residential site. Each house would have a private, rear garden. The flats would have terraces (ground floor) or balconies, and a 290sqm communal amenity space. There would be a pedestrian access through the hotel site to the Great West Road, close to the western site boundary.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Neighbour notification – 342 neighbouring owners/occupiers and the Heston Residents’ Association were consulted on 27/04/2016. Two site notices were displayed on the 09/05/2016 and a press notice was published on the 13/05/2016.

5.2 Four objections have been received, including a submission from Brimble, Lea & Partners Planning Consultancy representing the residents of the 6 properties of Palmer Close and 6 properties on Upper Sutton Lane that are accessed from Palmer Close:

Comment Response

The site is located outside the Heathrow Airport Opportunity Area and the core business of this hotel would not be airport related. The site has a low PTAL and is outside of a town centre and is not an appropriate location for a hotel on this basis.

The site is allocated in the Local Plan for hotel and residential development (Site Reference 65 – Master Robert Hotel).

There are insufficient facilities proposed – the existing facilities are well used by the local community

The level of facilities is considered to be appropriate for the size and scale of hotel. There are other community facilities within the local area (e.g. Heston Village Hall, Heston Library, etc.)

There would be insufficient parking on the site for the hotel and the surrounding roads are already heavily congested with little space for additional parking.

The parking provision would be in accordance with adopted standards for the proposed uses and would be appropriate for this location. The application is supported by a Travel Plan which would be secured in the S106 and the hotel would be served by the existing “Heathrow Hoppa” minibus service. Parking spaces would be managed so that they could only be pre-booked by guests.

There would be insufficient car parking for the houses.

The parking provision would be in accordance with adopted standards

for the proposed uses and would be appropriate for this location.

There will be an increase in traffic and congestion which will result in more accidents.

The increase in vehicle movements associated with the development is not considered to be excessive and an assessment of the capacity of the main junctions around the site demonstrates that these will operate well within capacity.

Palmer Close is too narrow for the number of vehicles proposed to access the residential element of the development.

The carriageway of Palmer Close is 5.5m wide which allows two-way traffic and this is acceptable. The width of road would be adequate to serve a significantly larger development than either the existing or proposed. Even if cars are parked in the carriageway it is wide enough to allow refuse and delivery vehicles would still be able to access the site.

Refuse storage and collection is unclear.

Residential properties would benefit from the Council’s kerbside refuse and recycling service with a communal refuse store for the flats. Servicing for the hotel would take place to the rear of the hotel building with a dedicated refuse/recycling store. Swept paths have been provided demonstrating refuse lorries are able to access all parts of the site.

The four-storey hotel building would result in overlooking of surrounding residential properties.

An assessment of the impact of the development on neighbouring residents’ amenity is provided later in this report. Based on the separation distances, orientation and positioning of the development, it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of harm to neighbouring residents’ amenity.

The proposals are overbearing and oppressive and would have an undesirable visual impact on the area and for existing residents.

The residential element of the development is of a similar scale to surrounding properties. The hotel building has been substantially reduced in size from previous proposals, being four-storeys in height, and with the separation distances to neighbouring

properties, is not considered to have an overbearing impact on residents’ outlook or appear oppressive in the street scene.

A four-storey building is not in keeping with the rest of the buildings on this side of the Great West Road/Upper Sutton Lane.

The hotel building height and mass is considered appropriate to this site and its location on an open junction that responds to the scale and mass of other nearby developments. The proposed hotel would be no higher than Noble Corner on the opposite side of Upper Sutton Lane and it has also been set-back from the Great West Road frontage to allow more landscaping along this frontage.

The mix of residential and hotel use is not appropriate as the hotel use will lead to significant noise and disturbance to future residents.

The two uses are split across the site, with a landscaped buffer between and secure boundary treatment ensuring the hotel use would not affects residents’ amenity.

Family housing will put pressure on local schools and other infrastructure (water and utility services) will not be able to cope.

The proposal would be CIL liable which could be used to fund local infrastructure.

With the addition of 34 dwellings accessed from Palmer Close this will result in a 6 fold-increase in vehicle movements on this cul-de-sac. This level of vehicle traffic will result in increased congestion, harm highway safety and result in an unacceptable significant cumulative impact on noise and disturbance for existing residents on Palmer Close

The level of vehicle movements associated with the residential development at the rear of the site and accessed from Palmer Close is not considered to be so great that it would result in an unacceptable impact on the local road network or unduly affect residents’ amenity. Conditions to ensure pedestrian safety around this junction are recommended.

5.3 Two letters of support have been received, including the following comments from the Heston Residents’ Association:

The new proposal, because of the reduced height and capacity and smaller footprint is considered acceptable.

The reduced size and scale generates a far less bulky impression and with a greatly improved appearance is more compatible with the local street scene.

It is acknowledged that the most appropriate ingress/egress to the proposed residential development is via Palmers Close and whilst this

would result in a greater trip generation, the increase is considered to be acceptable. Not all vehicle owners will necessarily use their vehicles each day and use times will of course vary.

It is considered acceptable by agreement/condition to apply a “viability test” relating to the housing development when all properties have been built, costs and sale values known and before they are occupied.

5.4 The following external bodies were notified of the application and their responses are detailed where these have been received:

Transport for London:

1. The proposal is situated on A4 Great West Road, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

2. TfL understands that this proposal is similar to earlier application ref: 00505/366/P23; however the number of hotel room proposed have been reduced from 142 to 118 rooms.

3. It is proposed that 58 car parking spaces will be provided, with 32 spaces to the north of the hotel and a further 19 spaces as well as 7 disabled bays at the front of the hotel to the south of the building. All hotel guests parking would be allocated as part of the booking; TfL considers this is acceptable. However, it asks that electric vehicle charging points should also be provided to 20% of the spaces with a further 10% passive provision in line with current London Plan parking standards.

4. TfL asks the applicant to clarify the number of cycle parking spaces to be provided for both the hotel and residential parts of the proposal, this is ensuring the provision meet the current London Plan cycle parking standards. TfL further asks that shower and changing facilities be provided for the hotel staff to facilitate their commute by bikes.

5. This proposals retain the option for an entry only access from A4 Great West Road, as per previous discussion in the last consultation, the location for the existing bus stop and cycle lane which runs pass the site frontage would need to be altered to accommodate the proposed changes, therefore, TfL asks that condition being imposed requiring the applicant to enter into a S278 Agreement under Highways Act 1980 with TfL for the delivery of the access and associated cycle lane and bus stop works prior to first occupation of the site.

6. As per previous application, TfL requests a financial contribution for new bus shelters for stops on Upper Sutton Lane at the cost of £8,500 each to improve bus stop environment.

7. TfL welcomes the submission of a draft travel plan by the applicant. Hounslow Council should secure the finalised travel plan by S106 agreement.

8. A demolition logistics plan, construction management and logistics plan shall be produced in accordance with TfL’s CLP guidance, to be approved

both TfL and Hounslow Council. TfL further asks that the applicant shall commit to employ contractors/ suppliers who are members of TfL’s Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) to improve safety and reduce risk of conflicts between construction vehicles and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

Environment Agency – no comments

BAA Safeguarding – the proposed development could conflict with aerodrome safeguarding criteria unless the recommended conditions are included in any permission

5.5 In response to the comments from TfL, additional information was submitted on the 23rd June 2016. Subsequently, TfL have confirmed all points have been addressed and that they have no further objection subject to appropriate conditions and S106 agreement.

5.6 Since the proposal is for a major development, the application has been drawn to members' attention on the weekly pending decision list dated 13/05/2016 (Week 19). The application was presented to the Heston & Cranford Area Forum on the 14th July 2016. The following comments were recorded in the minutes:

Members and residents were concerned about access to Palmer Close and the impact on traffic congestion in the local area. The applicant’s planning consultant advised that traffic surveys and projections had been carried out that suggested the impact would be low. Members asked that the survey and projection results be provided to the Planning Committee as part of the application pack.

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.

Determining applications in respect of listed buildings

6.5 In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

7.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The principle of the proposed development

7.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that new applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It goes on to state (Paragraph 111) that planning policies and decisions should encourage effective use of land by re-using previously developed (brownfield) land, provided it is not of high environmental value.

7.2 The Local Plan which sets out the Borough’s approach to Sustainable Development and how it will be achieved (IMP1 – Sustainable Development), and includes:

IMP2 (Delivering Site Allocations): We will ensure that site allocations contribute to the delivery of sustainable growth and supporting infrastructure, which will be achieved by:

a. Supporting in principle the proposals that accord with the identified site allocation and the proposed use of the site and which have regard to the context constraints and other provisions of the respective site allocations;

b. Preparing non-statutory planning briefs, masterplans and promoting housing zone designations where appropriate to support the development of individual site allocations and the spatial integration of related development sites; and

c. Considering the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders to support wider regeneration objectives and the delivery of critical or necessary infrastructure.

IMP3 (Implementing and Monitoring the Local Plan): We will implement the Local Plan, working with strategic partners and the local community and committing to monitoring the progress made year by year. We will ensure that new development in the Borough contributes towards the provision of infrastructure needed to support growth.

7.3 The site is allocated in the Local Plan (Site Reference 65 – Master Robert Hotel) for a hotel and residential use. This identifies that the hotel should be retained where the site fronts onto the A4 and that housing capacity has been identified through the London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2013.

Hotel

7.4 Hotels are a ‘main town centre use’, which the NPPF seeks to direct to existing town centres or sites identified in an up-to-date local plan. Where other locations are brought forward, it provides that a sequential assessment may need to be

undertaken in order to demonstrate that the development will be accessible. When considering sites outside town centres, preference should be given to accessible sites well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. It is not sufficient to simply say that a hotel is too big to go elsewhere without any justification of why an extension of the scale proposed is required.

7.5 The London Plan, at policy 4.5, places significant emphasis upon the need to support London’s visitor economy, and stimulate its growth. It seeks to achieve the development of 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms in the capital by 2036. In line with the NPPF, Policy 4.7 of the London Plan seeks to focus new hotel development in the Central Activity Zone, in town centres, in Opportunity and Intensification Areas or where there is good public transport access into central London and national and international transport termini.

7.6 Local Plan policy TC1 provides that proposals concerning more than 500sqm of ‘main town centre uses’ should be located in a town centre. Policy TC3 indicates that proposed floorspace comprising more than 500sqm sited outside a town centre may be permitted if accompanied by a sequential assessment. Neither policy differentiates between new, and expanded, floorspace.

7.7 Policy ED4 of the Local Plan states that the Council’s will promote new visitor accommodation in appropriate locations to support local businesses and to enhance Hounslow’s tourism offer. It goes on to state that this will be achieved by directing developments to town centres or other accessible locations that do not adversely impact on the amenity of established residential areas and that support for developments outside of town centres will only be given where they enhance and contribute to the economic offer of surrounding businesses through the provision of facilities such as conference/meeting space and restaurants, provided such facilities do not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of nearby town centres. This policy also provides that development proposals will be expected to include measures to mitigate the impacts of any increased trip generation that may result.

7.8 The site is an established hotel with 96 en-suite guest rooms, substantial areas of conference and function rooms and a public restaurant and bar. As such the principle of a hotel use is well established on the site, which is reflected in the site’s allocation in the Local Plan. The proposal seeks to re-provide a hotel fronting the A4 and as such is in accordance with the site allocation in the Local Plan.

Residential

7.9 London Plan Policy 3.3 (Increasing London’s Housing Supply) recognises the need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford. Policy 3.4 (Optimising Housing Potential) states that taking into account local context and character, the design principles outlined in Chapter 7 of the Plan, and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location.

7.10 The proposed level of housing is supported throughout the Development Plan, with both the London Plan and Local Plan seeking to maximise housing growth in accordance with sustainable development principles. Furthermore, the site has been allocated by the Local Plan for housing use, as identified in the London SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment). It is therefore considered that the

provision of new residential development in this location is entirely appropriate and would be acceptable in principle.

7.11 It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with local and regional policies: it would re-use a brownfield site, providing an appropriate mix of uses for this site, as well offering high quality housing in an appropriate location. This would meet the objectives of the NPPF, the London Plan and the Local Plan, noting in particular the site allocation in the Local Plan and its aspirations for development of this site. The proposal would therefore be acceptable in principle, notwithstanding the other planning issues that will be discussed in turn.

7.12 The other main planning issues to consider are:

Housing: Density, Mix, Tenure, Standards & Amenity Space

Urban Design;

The impact on neighbouring land uses;

Highways, Transport and access;

Energy and Sustainability;

Environmental considerations; and

The potential of the proposed development to secure planning obligations

Housing: Density, Mix, Tenure, Standards & Amenity Space

Density

7.13 London Plan policy 3.4 (Optimising Housing Potential) sets out a density matrix at Table 3.2. Within this, the application site falls within the definition of a ‘Suburban’ area where for such schemes densities of 35-95 units per hectare, or 150-250 habitable rooms per hectare, are given for sites with a PTAL (public Transport Accessibility Level) of 2-3.

7.14 Adopted Local Plan policy SC4 (Scale and Design of New Housing Development) seeks new development to balance the need to make efficient use of land and achieve high quality design and accessibility, whilst respecting and responding to local context and character, and protecting existing residents’ amenity. It states that the density ranges contained within London Plan policy 3.4 will be used to help guide the design and scale of new housing developments, but that the Council would expect developments to adopt a more sophisticated approach that is responsive to the context and character of the site and its setting.

7.15 The proposed density is 47 units/hectare (or 188 habitable rooms/hectare), which is within the optimum range and therefore considered acceptable.

Mix, Standards & Amenity Space

7.16 The NPPF and the London Plan encourage new residential developments to provide a choice of housing with a mix of family and non-family housing needed to meet different community requirements. In addition to this need for housing mix, developments over 10 dwellings should include a proportion of affordable homes as required by London Plan Policy 3.13.

7.17 London Plan Policy 3.8, together with the Mayor’s Housing SPG, seeks to promote housing choice and a balanced mix of unit sizes in new development, with particular focus on affordable family homes. Table 3.3 sets minimum space standards for dwellings of different sizes. This is based on the minimum gross internal floor area (GIA) required for new homes relative to the number of occupants, whilst also taking account of commonly required furniture and spaces needed for different activities and moving around, in line with ‘Lifetime Home’ standards. These standards are reflected in the Local Plan policy SC5. All units have been designed to meet or exceed the minimum London Plan space standards, as follows:

Unit size London Plan (MALP) standard

Proposed size & no.

3-bedroom/5-person house 93sqm 99.6sqm (18)

2-bedroom/4-person house 79sqm 121.8sqm (4)

2-bedroom/4-person flat 70sqm 68.4sqm (12)

7.18 As the table shows, the proposed accommodation would generally comply with London Plan requirements for unit sizes. Where the accommodation is marginally below these standards (the 2B/4P flats) these would all have generous, dual-aspect orientation with private external amenity space. It is not considered that the proposed accommodation would result in cramped, unacceptable living conditions for residents as a result of this minor shortfall.

7.19 All of the proposed dwellings would have at least two bedrooms, which are considered to be family-sized units in the Local Plan. The housing mix is supported as it will help contribute towards an identified Borough shortage and result in a balanced, sustainable community, which would be in keeping with its context where large, family-sized housing predominates. The absence of smaller, one-bedroom accommodation is considered appropriate given the character of the area and the relatively low PTAL of the site.

Daylight and sunlight

7.20 There would be no single-aspect, north-facing dwellings. The flats would all be dual-aspect with an east-west orientation, whilst the houses would also be dual-aspect arranged around the internal street layout. It is considered that the accommodation has been arranged to ensure each dwelling has good access to daylight and sunlight.

Privacy and outlook

7.21 The London Plan Housing SPG (2015) recognises that older planning guidance for privacy sought to achieve visual separation between dwellings by setting minimum distances of between 18-21m between habitable rooms, with these distances being useful yardsticks for privacy. This requires each dwelling to be provided with an adequate level of privacy in relation to neighbouring property, the street and other public spaces.

7.22 The scheme has been designed to achieve the requirements of the Housing SPG (2015) in respect of separation distances ensuring residents would be afforded

appropriate levels of privacy.

7.23 The scheme has been designed to ensure residents benefit from an appropriate outlook, in particular through the siting and layout of the individual blocks and their interrelationship.

Amenity space

7.24 Provision of good quality, useable amenity space and children’s play areas is fundamental to good planning. Particular emphasis on the quality and quantity of the amenity space in developments of this size is needed to ensure adequate provision and accessibility for all residents. Such spaces should be private and secure with safe and convenient access. For flatted developments, communal areas are generally acceptable, although areas immediately adjoining flats should have private gardens/terraces for sole use of those flats.

7.25 The London Plan Housing SPG advises a minimum of 5s m of private amenity space should be provided for one-two person dwellings, with an extra 1sqm should be provided for each additional occupant. The minimum depth and width of balconies and other private external spaces should be 1.5 m. The London Plan Housing SPG also seeks 10sqm of dedicated play space per child, whilst also recognising that appropriate and accessible facilities within 400 metres for 5-11 year olds and within 800 metres for 12 plus age groups may be acceptable alternatives. Based on the Mayor’s ‘Assessing child occupancy and play space requirements’, the child yield expected in this case is 10 (6 x Under 5’s; 2 x 5 to 11; 1 x 12+).

7.26 Local Play Policy SC5 (Ensuring Suitable Internal and External Space) reflects the standards in the London Plan Housing SPG in respect of provision of private amenity space for flatted developments, but it factors in a requirement to provide communal external amenity space for such developments. It has the following benchmarks: 25sqm per flat with up to 3 habitable rooms; 30sqm per flat with 4 habitable rooms; and 40sqm per flat with over 5 habitable rooms (less a reduction for the area of private space provided for each flat). In addition to this, there is specific amenity space standards required for houses, being: 50sqm for a 3 habitable room house, 60sqm for a 4 habitable room house and 75sqm for houses with 5 or more habitable rooms.

7.27 The proposal includes a mix of amenity spaces for residents; each house would have a private rear garden whilst the flats would benefit from private terraces/ balconies. There would also be a communal garden (approx. 215sqm) within the cul-de-sac arrangement for shared use for all residents. No details of dedicated child’s play space are shown, but these would be secured by condition.

7.28 Of the proposed housing, six of the dwellings would exceed the amenity standards in SC5. Generally the proposed housing is within 5sqm of this standard and as such the shortfall is considered acceptable in this instance. Furthermore, these private gardens would benefit from a pleasant orientation and aspect, ensuring they would be attractive to future residents. The flats would have access to a balcony or terrace 6.7sqm in size (0.3sqm below the policy standard). Whilst this provision would be marginally below the recommendation, these spaces would have an open aspect, be of a useable depth and provide valuable outside amenity space. To help mitigate the shortfall of private amenity space across the site, a communal garden area would be provided to the south of the site. Furthermore,

the site is located a short walk from a number of larger, public areas of open space, including Sutton Playing Fields and Lampton Park.

Internal Noise Environment

7.29 The NPPF replaced the Planning Policy Guidance that previously covered planning and pollution control and new development in England. This removed the categorisation of sites within Noise Exposure Categories, with reference directed towards the Noise Policy Statement for England1 and for decisions to aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development and to mitigate and minimise other adverse impacts, including by use of conditions.

7.30 London Plan policy 7.15 (reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes), along with adopted Local Plan Policy EQ5 (Noise) seek to ensure that the location and design of new development has considered the impact of noise, and mitigation of these impacts, on new uses and surrounding uses according to their sensitivity.

7.31 Alongside this, BS:8233 (Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice) has a number of design criteria and limits for intrusive external noise. The most relevant of these for residential environments are reproduced below:

Activities Location Daytime (07:00-

23:00) Night-time (23:00-

07:00)

Resting Living rooms 35dB -

Dining Dining room/area

40dB -

Sleeping (daytime resting)

Bedroom 35dB 30dB

- Outdoor amenity spaces

55dB

7.32 BS:8233 acknowledges that these guidelines may not be achievable in higher noise areas such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network and that in such situations developments should aim to achieve the lowest practicable noise levels in outdoor amenity areas.

7.33 A Noise Assessment has been submitted with the application. It concludes that, by specifying appropriate glazing and providing attenuated forms of ventilation to the most sensitive rooms, it will be possible to ensure that the internal environment in the residential development would be within these design standards. However, noise levels within external amenity areas would be above the 55dB recommendation owing to aircraft noise. Given the site’s location, it is not considered that there would be an appropriate form of mitigation to achieve these standards.

7.34 Details of how these standards would be achieved can be secured by condition because the report did not indicate that the site is presently exposed to high levels of noise that would prevent residential accommodation being appropriate.

1 Developed by DEFRA and published in March 2010

Accessibility

7.35 The London Plan strongly supports the principles of Lifetime Homes and views them as fundamental to delivery of the Government’s objectives of social inclusion, sustainability, equality and valuing diversity and identifies that the increased independent living they can bring will reduce pressure on hospital beds and residential care homes. The Minor Alterations to the London Plan states that 90% of new housing should meet Building Regulations requirements M4(2) ‘accessible adaptable dwellings’ with 10% meeting M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ and should be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable. This replaces Lifetime Homes Standards.

7.36 Local Plan Policy CC2 states that developments should be designed to be fully accessible to people with disabilities or impaired mobility.

7.37 Detailed plans have been provided to indicate that four of the houses would be fully wheelchair accessible, whilst all the accommodation has been designed in accordance with ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. Provision of these standards within the initial design is welcomed, and can be secured by condition.

Waste and recycling

7.38 The London Plan outlines the Mayor’s commitment to making better use of waste and its management. It emphasises the importance of four policies in relation to waste management: 5.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction), 5.16 (Waste self-sufficiency), 5.17 (Waste capacity) and 5.18 (Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste).

7.39 Adopted Local Plan policy EQ7 (Sustainable Waste Management) states that the Council will be working with the West London Waste Authority boroughs to meet its waste apportionment, whilst promoting the prevention, re-use, recycling and recovery of waste, consistent with the waste hierarchy.

7.40 The residential waste generated by the development would be managed by the Council’s existing waste management contracts and use the standard containers. The proposals include space for dedicated storage for refuse/ recycling waste for each house with a separate dedicated store for the flats close to the main core. The details of this provision would be secured by condition but it is considered that the principle of the waste and recycling strategy for the development is acceptable and in accordance with the relevant Development Plan policies.

Affordable housing supply

7.41 Government policy in the NPPF, supported by the London Plan, requires all housing developments in the Borough capable of providing ten or more dwellings to provide on-site affordable housing. The current demand for affordable housing is spread over a variety of types. The London Plan Housing SPG (2015) defines affordable housing as including social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. This is also reflected in emerging Local Plan policy SC2.

7.42 In April 2011 the Government introduced a new affordable rent product, intended to meet the same housing need as social rent. It is intended to allow affordable homes to be made available to tenants at up to a maximum of 80% of the gross

market rent (taking account of the service charge for that property, where applicable) and allocated in the same way as social housing. The London Plan Housing SPG (2015) advises Boroughs that, rather than using the definitions from London Plan paragraph 3.11, in order to conform with the NPPF this definition of affordable rented housing should be used alongside more established definitions of social rented housing and intermediate housing, with all three products falling within a general affordable housing definition.

7.43 London Plan Policy 3.12 also states that, in negotiating affordable housing in private schemes, Boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing having regard to their affordable housing targets, the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development and the individual site circumstances. Local Plan Policy SC2 sets a target for 40% of on-site delivery of affordable housing at a tenure split of 60% affordable/social rent and 40% intermediate, as reflected in London Plan policy 3.11. This policy also states that when financial viability assessments demonstrate that current market conditions will support less than 40% affordable housing, a review mechanism upon partial or full completion of a development will be employed.

7.44 There would be no on-site affordable housing provision on the basis that it would not be financially viable to deliver affordable housing for this scheme. A detailed viability report was submitted with the application and has been independently reviewed by the Council’s viability consultants. Their conclusion accepts the position presented by the applicants and recommends a review mechanism be included in any consent that reappraises the scheme against outturn costs and values. The review mechanism would look to secure a contribution towards delivery of off-site affordable housing where it is found that the viability of the development has improved. Following discussions with the Council’s Affordable Housing Supply team, this position has been accepted and is considered to be in accordance with Policy SC2 that seeks to secure review mechanisms within legal agreements to guarantee that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being secured.

Urban design

Policy context

7.45 The NPPF states good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development and that decision takers should always seek high quality design. It states that achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well, and adapt for the needs of future generations, with good design responding in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of a place, putting land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use. The NPPF also says permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. It is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

7.46 However it makes clear that planning permission should not be refused for buildings and infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concern about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact

would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).

7.47 The degree to which new development reflects and responds to the character and history of its surrounds is a key element of good design as the NPPF says. This relationship should be considered throughout the design process, and inform the positioning, massing, height, and appearance of development proposals. Developing a design solution that works with its surrounding context should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation.

7.48 The London Plan requires all large scale proposals to be of the highest quality design especially in terms of impact on views, the wider and local townscape context and local environment. The achievement of high quality urban design is also highlighted as a key factor in achieving a more attractive and green city.

7.49 London Plan Policy 7.4 (Local Character) says that buildings should provide a high quality design response to the urban grain, street pattern, natural features, human scale and the historic environment and is supported by Policy 7.6 (Architecture) which seeks to promote high architectural and design quality appropriate to its context.

7.50 Local Plan policy CC1 (Context and Character) states that development proposals should have due regard to the Context and Character Study and policy CC2 (Urban Design and architecture) states that “We will retain, promote and support high quality urban design and architecture to create, attractive, distinctive, and liveable places”.

7.51 Local Plan Policy CC1 (Context and Character) states that development proposals should have due regard to the Context and Character Study and CC2 (Urban Design and architecture) states that “We will retain, promote and support high quality urban design and architecture to create, attractive, distinctive, and liveable places”.

7.52 The Context and Character Study identifies and analyses the urban character of the Borough. By assessing the character of those areas of the Borough likely to undergo significant growth over the Local Plan period, the Context and Character Study can help new development to add to local character in ways which enhance positive qualities and address negative issues. Within the Context and Character Study, the site is broadly described as being:

‘Medium’ Design Quality

‘Medium’ Sensitivity to Change

‘High’ Permanence

‘Unsuitable’ Suitability for tall buildings

7.53 The supporting text of policy CC3 (Tall Buildings) states that, “Way-marking can come from distinctiveness rather than size, so tall buildings should be placed in suitable locations where access to public transport is good and they provide a relevant marker and focal point”. It goes on to state that “Located in the right place and designed sensitively, tall buildings can add to an area’s townscape and image, assist in regeneration, mark a town centre/public transport node or assist in way-finding”.

7.54 The proposed housing design and layout is considered to lend itself well to the character of the area, which is suburban and shares many of the proposed features, including houses with front and rear gardens pitched and hipped roofs, as well as similar dimensions. Materials would be typical of those expected for suburban single-family houses and be in keeping with neighbouring residential properties. For these reasons the housing is considered to be of good design and would contribute positively to the environment all of which is in accordance with Policies CC1 and CC2 of the Local Plan and the London Plan.

7.55 The proposed hotel has been significantly reduced in height, scale and footprint in order to address the previous reason for refusal:

Height

7.56 The hotel building has been reduced from six-storeys to four-storeys, and provides a more direct comparison to the height of Noble Corner on the opposite side of Upper Sutton Lane (the parapet would sit below the ridgeline of Noble Corner). It would be 15.5m to the top of the parapet and 18m to the highest point (the top of the lift/stairwell shaft). As such it is not considered to be a tall building (20m plus) as defined in Local Plan Policy SC3. It is considered that a four-storey building fronting the Great West Road in this location is appropriate, responding both to the context of other large buildings in the vicinity and also reflecting the prominence of this junction.

Layout

7.57 The hotel building has been set-back further from the Great West Road than the previous design, reflecting comments that this building should not be overly prominent in the street scene, and also allow for the provision of additional landscaping and tree planting along the site frontage. This has meant the hotel building will now be behind the building line of the residential properties to the west and would help to reduce the visual prominence in the street scene.

Scale & Design

7.58 The proposed hotel building would take on a more orthodox rectangular form (as opposed to the curved design previously proposed), with a smaller footprint and height. To articulate the built form, set-backs and changes in materials are

proposed at the upper floor at either end of the building with brick screens and deep window reveals helping to break up the main façade. At roof level, plant would be screens behind horizontal louvres, set-back behind the main building frontage to give a subsidiary feel to this element. It is considered that the reduced footprint and the more orthodox design has resulted in a far less bulky building that would not dominate the street scene but sit comfortably in the background. This would be further emphasised by a simpler palette of materials, with a red brick forming the main element of the hotel building, reflecting other larger brick buildings in the locality and reflecting the prominence of this material in the local area. The provision of additional landscaping and tree planting would further reduce the overall effect of the hotel building on the street scene and this junction. It is considered that the hotel design presents a more ‘neutral’ form which would not detract from some of the distinctive styles found along this section of the Great West Road.

7.59 It is therefore considered the proposal has overcome the first reason for refusal of the previous scheme, resulting in a hotel building that is more sympathetic in height, scale and design to the existing street scene and local context. The reduction in height and set-back from the Great West Road would ensure this development would not appear unduly prominent in the street scene, whilst enhanced landscaping and tree planting would help soften its appearance and give the impression of a ‘background’ building. The proposals would therefore be in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2 and CC3 and the London Plan.

Impact on neighbouring land uses

Overlooking

7.60 The proposal has been designed with no habitable room windows within 21 metres of facing ones. The nearest directly facing dwellings are approximately 21 metres to the west on Sutton Square and to the east on Upper Sutton Lane. Where buildings are within this guideline there would be no windows in the elevations or there are no existing habitable room windows in the neighbouring property.

7.61 Overlooking may result due to use of balconies, but it is considered that since these would be at a higher level, with appropriate screening, they would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for residents and consequently would be acceptable in this instance. Many of those properties close to the block of flats where there are balconies have large, detached outbuildings at the end of the gardens which would likely limit any potential overlooking into garden areas.

Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing

7.62 A daylight and sunlight assessment has been undertaken in respect of both the residential and hotel development, this can be summarised as below:

- Sutton Square, Sutton Way and Palmer Close: due to the proximity of the existing two and three-storey hotel buildings to the western and northern boundaries of the site, any increased overshadowing within the gardens of the existing houses that abut these boundaries would be negligible.

- Upper Sutton Lane: the adjacent houses are unaffected by the proposed development until 4 pm with the reduced height of the hotel now not affecting no. 2.

- 358 & 360 Great West Road: any overshadowing from the hotel would cease at around 09.45am and consequently the amount of sunlight within the rear garden would be improved as a result of the relationship with the new hotel building.

7.63 It is therefore considered that as a result of the siting, orientation and size of the proposed development, there would not be an unacceptable increase in overshadowing of neighbouring rear gardens. The surrounding properties would continue to receive adequate levels of sunlight to their rear amenity spaces in accordance with the Local Plan.

Outlook

7.64 It is considered that the proposal has been positioned to minimise the impact on neighbouring residents, with a sympathetic external appearance that would not detract from the surroundings. Furthermore, re-landscaping and provision of attractive amenity space would help soften its appearance and provide a more pleasant outlook from the existing accommodation around this site where presently outlook is across a significant area of hard-standing or low architectural value buildings. A sympathetic palette of materials would also help the outlook from neighbouring properties.

7.65 It is therefore considered that as a result of its design, appearance and siting, the proposal would not harm neighbouring residents’ living conditions and would be in accordance with the Local Plan.

Access from Palmer Close

7.66 The second reason for refusal given for the previous scheme concerned the impact of the creation of a new access to the residential element of the development from Palmer Close on residents’ amenity owing to the increase in vehicle movements on Palmer Close.

7.67 The proposed access arrangements for the residential element of the scheme

remain as previously proposed. In reviewing the scheme, the applicants gave consideration to alternative options to access the residential element of the development, these being:

1. All access being via a single access, shred with the hotel, from Upper Sutton Lane;

2. Access being split between Palmer Close and a shared access with the hotel; and

3. Access via Palmer Close as previously proposed.

7.68 Through this assessment, the applicants identified that the ‘least-worst’ option (i.e. the option that would have the least significant impact) would be to retain the access from Palmer Close. The primary issue with the alternative options was identified as being the concentration of all vehicle movements in and out of the development at a single point of access on Upper Sutton Lane and the potential impact this would likely have on the junction with the Great West Road, as well as creating conflict between the two land uses within the site likely impacting on highway safety for both hotel visitors/staff and residents.

7.69 The section below deals in more detail with the transport impacts of the proposed development more generally, the Council’s Principal Transport Planner has reviewed the Transport Assessment and has confirmed that the likely level of vehicle movements on Palmer Close associated with this new development the junction with Upper Sutton Lane would continue to operate within capacity. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be an increase in vehicle movements on Palmer Close, the expected increase is not considered to be significant (an additional 8 vehicles would be generated in the morning peak and 18 in the evening peak) and no objection has been raised on highway safety or highway operation grounds by the Council’s Principal Transport Planner. It has been recommended that “Keep Clear” markings are introduced at this junction to assist in cars turning right out of Palmer Close when traffic is queued on Upper Sutton Lane. This should in turn mitigate the impact of cars queuing on Palmer Close and the effect of this on residents’ amenity.

7.70 In addition to this, an acoustic assessment of the impacts of traffic has been undertaken. This refers to published guidelines in 2002 that help clarify the impact of a change in noise level arising from variations in traffic2 and offers the following advice:

Impact category Noise Change dB(A)

No Impact 0

Slight Impact 0.1 to 2.9

Moderate Impact 3 to 4.9

Substantial Impact 5 to <10

Severe Impact 10 or more

2 ‘Draft Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’ Institute of Acoustics and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002

7.71 The expected increase in vehicle movements would be equivalent to a 2.0dB(A) increase in the noise level during the period of peak traffic movements in Palmer Close. Based on the above assessment, this would be considered a ‘Slight Impact’. It is also noted that the acoustic climate in the area is already dominated by overhead air traffic such that any change in local vehicle noise is likely to be imperceptible against these background conditions.

7.72 Whilst it is acknowledged that Palmer Close is a small cul-de-sac, its character is somewhat dominated by the existing three-storey hotel building that is prominent upon entering Palmer Close. The existing building does little for the residential nature of Palmer Close, being positioned close to the site boundary, with several windows directly overlooking residential properties. The proposed development would result in the replacement of this obtrusive building with more sympathetic two-storey housing that is more reflective of the character of Palmer Close. There would also be a greater separation to the boundary, with the rear gardens of these properties backing onto Palmer Close, creating a more pleasant and open aspect upon entering Palmer Close.

Existing character of Palmer Close

Sketch illustration of proposed development from Palmer Close

7.73 For these reasons, it is not considered that the proposed access from Palmer Close would have a significant detrimental impact on residents’ amenity or the general character of Palmer Close, and the proposal would be in accordance with Local Plan policies CC1, CC2, EQ5 and EC2.

Highways, Transport and Access

Highway status

7.74 The A4 Great West Road forms part of the TLRN whilst Upper Sutton Lane is a Borough principal road classified as the A3063. This links Hounslow and the A316 to the south with Heston and Southall to the north.

7.75 Along the A4 frontage there is a wide footway with a grass verge and an off-carriageway cycle lane that extends across the western half of the site frontage. There is an area of shared footway/cycleway at the junction with Upper Sutton Lane.

7.76 The A4 is a 3-lane (both directions) dual carriageway at this location. The junction of the A4 and Upper Sutton Lane is controlled by traffic signals. The eastbound approach to the junction has a slip road leading to a dedicated right turn lane which prevents the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities on the western arm of the junction. There are staggered Toucan crossings on the other 3 arms of the junction.

7.77 There is a bus lay-by at the western end of the site that serves route H91.

7.78 Upper Sutton Lane is generally 2 lanes (1 in each direction) although this widens out to 2 southbound lanes at the junction. There are red route parking restrictions on both sides of the carriageway. On the site side of the road these extend to the existing site access and on the opposite side of the road they extend to the rear access to the parade of shops. On street parking is allowed on both sides of the road beyond these restrictions.

7.79 Palmer Close is accessed from Upper Sutton Lane approximately 140m north of the junction with the A4. It is a cul-de-sac that serves 12 existing properties.

7.80 An assessment of collision data for the last 5 years has been submitted. This included one collision at the junction of Palmer Close and Upper Sutton Lane which involved a right turning vehicle. The cause is listed as the driver being unable to see a motorcyclist because the motorbike was travelling too close to the vehicle in front and does not relate to the layout or the level of use of the junction. Visibility splays in accordance with ‘Manual for Streets’ are provided and therefore it is not considered that the junction could be considered inadequate to accommodate an increased level of traffic generation resulting from the proposed development.

7.81 Three other collisions were recorded on Upper Sutton Lane in the 5 year period. One of these occurred at the existing site access to Upper Sutton Lane which is to be removed as part of the proposed development and will be replaced with a new access that will accord with required visibility splays. The other two remaining collisions occurred at other junctions and are not related to the proposed development.

Accessibility

7.82 The site is located within an area of low public transport accessibility and has a PTAL score of 1b which is the second lowest on a scale of 1-6. The site is served by the H91 bus route which runs along the A4 between Hammersmith and Hounslow West Station, and the H28 which runs along Upper Sutton Lane between Syon Lane Tesco and Bulls Bridge Tesco.

Hotel Development

Proposed vehicular access

7.83 There is currently a vehicular access to the site from the Great West Road at the eastern end of the bus lay-by. There are 2 further accesses from Upper Sutton Lane. All of these accesses serve parking areas.

7.84 It is proposed to close all of the existing accesses and replace them as follows:

1. A new entry-only access to the Great West Road at the western end of the site. This would be accessed from the western end of the bus lay-by and would replace the existing access. This access would be for deliveries and coaches only and has been agreed by TfL subject to a S278 Agreement for the highway works.

2. A new access on Upper Sutton Lane at the eastern end of the site, although away from the site boundary. This will provide access for all other vehicular movements. A one-way system will operate within the site with all vehicles directed to the front of the new hotel building where a set-down area will be provided. Vehicles will then be directed to the rear of the building either to the car park or back to the access to leave the site onto Upper Sutton Lane via the same access.

7.85 This arrangement is considered acceptable in principle. The closure of the existing

access close to the junction with the Great West Road will reduce the impact of turning vehicles close to the traffic signals. There are existing “Keep Clear” road markings on Upper Sutton Lane opposite the access to Noble Corner and it is recommended that these are extended across the proposed site access to ensure that vehicles are able to turn right out of the site in the event of queuing traffic. This can be secured as part of the s278 highway works.

7.86 Visibility splays are proposed at the new access and they accord with the standards set out in the ‘Manual for Streets’. Pedestrian visibility splays will also be required at the back edge of the footway and should be subject to a suitable condition.

7.87 Works to the public highway, including the closure of the existing accesses and reinstatement of kerbs, verge and footway; provision of the new vehicular access; and any other works including road markings and improvement to the cycle path will need to be secured by condition and will require the developer to enter into a s278 Agreement with the Council and/or TfL as appropriate. This should also include a requirement to resurface the existing footway on Upper Sutton Lane across the site frontage.

7.88 The pedestrian visibility splays should be subject to a condition to remain free of

obstruction.

Proposed pedestrian access

7.89 The main pedestrian entrance to the hotel fronts the Great West Road. The area in front of the hotel is designed as a shared surface giving priority to pedestrians and this is supported.

7.90 A formal pedestrian route through the site to the residential development at the rear is also proposed. This is on the western side of the new access so is not easily accessible from the hotel. However, this footpath is welcomed as it will provide access to the bus stops and cycle lane for future residents.

7.91 The footways around the site (including the verge and cycle lane) will need to be resurfaced to ensure that the safety and amenity of the pedestrian environment is improved. This will need to be included within the respective s278 agreements.

Trip generation and traffic impact

7.92 The TA includes a survey of the current morning peak and evening peak traffic flows on the surrounding highway network.

7.93 The applicant has interrogated the TRICS and TRAVL databases for similar sites that could be used as a basis for predicting trip generation. However, it is stated that no similar hotels (i.e. in London, near an airport, with a PTAL of 2) are on the database. The applicant has instead predicted trip generation based on the results of a survey carried out at the existing hotel in 2008. No comparison can therefore be provided between the operation of the existing hotel and the proposed hotel (e.g. services offered, rating, etc) but given that this is an existing use, this method is accepted.

7.94 Modal split for guests is also based on the 2008 survey and given the ratio of parking spaces to number of rooms this is considered acceptable.

7.95 Modal split for staff is based on 2011 Census travel to work data for the Heston Central Ward and this is considered an acceptable means to estimate baseline staff travel.

7.96 The TA includes an assessment of predicted trip generation. The method of calculating trip rates is considered to be acceptable but the assessment appears to have been undertaken based on a 142-bedroom hotel which was the size of the hotel previously proposed, rather than a 118-bedroom hotel. If the trip generation figures are amended accordingly, therefore, there would be a reduction over the previously refused proposal of 11 vehicles in the AM peak and 7 vehicles in the PM peak. This would equate to an increase over the existing hotel traffic of 11 vehicles in the AM peak and 7 in the PM peak. This number is not considered to be significant and therefore is considered acceptable.

7.97 A number of collisions have been recorded in the last 5 years, four of which were on Upper Sutton Lane. One is of particular relevance to the hotel and involved a vehicle exiting the hotel car park hitting a cyclist. The new car park egress will have visibility splays that meet ‘Manual for Streets’ guidance which is considered acceptable.

7.98 Closure of the existing southern access to Upper Sutton Lane is likely to have a positive impact on safety and is to be secured by condition.

Parking provision

7.99 The scheme proposes 58 parking spaces in total for the hotel, 7 of which will be designed to meet disabled parking requirements. The London Plan does not set parking standards for hotels but states that in areas of PTAL 1-3 an appropriate number of spaces to assist with aims to reduce congestion should be provided. The parking ratio would be 49% and this is considered to be acceptable in this case.

7.100 The applicant states that the parking spaces will need to be pre-booked at the same time as room bookings are made to ensure that the car park is managed in an acceptable way. The applicant will also need to ensure that guests are advised not to drive if they have not pre-booked a parking space in order to ensure that there is no overspill parking and this will need to be secured in a Car Park Management Plan as well as a Travel Plan.

7.101 Two coach/mini-bus drop-off spaces are proposed. One coach parking space is provided on site. The London Plan requires 1 space per 50 rooms. In order to address this deficiency it is recommended that the parking layout be amended to accommodate an additional coach parking space (Attachment 7 of the Transport Addendum indicates that these can be provided adjacent to the electricity sub-station).

Car park layout

7.102 The car park layout is considered to be acceptable in principle. The disabled parking spaces are located close to the front entrance and provide good access to the hotel.

7.103 The London Plan sets out a requirement for disabled parking provision of one bay per employee who is a disabled motorist and the standards generally require 10% of parking bays to either be designated as a disabled parking bay or to be designed to allow this provision in the future. A total of 7 disabled parking bays have been provided which equates to 12% and is therefore considered acceptable. These must be available to both staff and guests.

7.104 The London Plan also sets out a requirement for 20% electric vehicle charging points and the applicant proposes a total of 18 spaces as shown on the submitted plan. This will need to be secured by condition.

7.105 A coach drop-off bay and a mini-bus drop-off bay have been provided within the site. Swept paths indicate that a 15m coach will be able to enter and leave the site without any adverse impact on highway safety.

7.106 The Travel Plan proposes a dedicated car club parking bay to be located in the car park. This is supported and should be secured by condition or s106 agreement, free of charge to the operator for as long as the development operates.

Parking impact

7.107 It is stated that there will be approximately 35-40 staff employed at the site with 20

on-site at any one time. The Travel Plan states that 2 parking bays will be made available initially for staff who car share. Additional parking for disabled members of staff should also be guaranteed and this is to be included within a Car Park Management Plan.

7.108 Travel to work data from the 2011 census (Heston Central Ward) is included within the TA and is used to estimate the number of staff who would travel to the site by car. If 48% of the 20 staff travel to work by car as indicated by the census data then there could be a need to provide parking for up to 9 staff. However, in order to promote sustainable travel it is not expected that this level of staff parking will be required since the proposed Travel Plan will ensure that targets are set to reduce car trips by staff and that this is actively promoted to ensure that any impacts of overspill parking on surrounding streets are minimised.

7.109 It is assumed that no long term parking will be provided on the site (e.g. for guests who stay before and after travelling abroad) but this will need to be identified and appropriate restricted within a Car Park Management Plan. Guests should also be advised that if they do require long term parking they must make their own arrangements in dedicated car parks and do not leave their cars on surrounding streets.

7.110 The London Plan requires 1 coach parking space to be provided per 50 rooms. Therefore, a minimum of 2 coach parking spaces are required. The proposed development would provide 1 coach drop-off bay to the rear of the hotel and one space in front of the hotel for “Heathrow Hoppa” minibuses. However, all coaches must be able to be accommodated within the site to ensure that they do not park on the adjoining roads with the potential to obstruct traffic. There is space within the site for coaches to park and wait for guests to be dropped off or picked up and the Transport Addendum shows space where 2 coaches could be parked within the site adjacent to the electricity sub-station. It is recommended that this area is set out for coach parking and is secured by condition.

7.111 A Car Park Management Plan will be required, by condition, to ensure that the car park, including guest and staff parking, car club parking bay, and coach bays are managed in an acceptable manner and do not accommodate long term parking. This is to include a pre-booking system for guests and coaches and will need to be linked to the Travel Plan to ensure that targets to reduce car travel are met. It should also include an active commitment to preventing guests from parking on surrounding residential streets. The CPMP is to include details of how coach parking will be managed to ensure that no vehicles wait on the adjoining roads, guaranteed on-site parking for disabled members of staff, and provision of parking spaces within the site for other members of staff.

Servicing

7.112 A delivery bay is provided to the rear of the hotel. The location is acceptable and swept paths have been provided that show delivery vehicles are able to access it.

Cycle storage

7.113 A cycle store with 8 cycle stands has been provided in the car park at the rear of the site. This equates to provision for 40% of the staff who are proposed to be on-site at any one time. This is a relatively low number but is in excess of the

percentage of trips likely to be made as suggested by the 2011 Census. However, the applicant needs to make a commitment to promoting cycle trips by staff and therefore the Travel Plan needs to commit to providing additional cycle parking if demand increases.

7.114 A condition is recommended requiring the applicant to submit full details showing the cycle parking to be covered and secure and in accordance with guidance in the London Plan and Local Plan prior to first occupation.

Travel Plan

7.115 A draft travel plan for the hotel has been submitted. This should be prepared in accordance with TfL’s latest travel plan guidance published in 2013 and the Council’s 10 Point Guide to Development Travel Plans. It is recommended that this is secured in the s106 Agreement.

Residential Development

Proposed vehicular access

7.116 It is proposed that vehicular access to the residential part of the development is taken from Palmer Close. This road currently serves 12 houses, 6 on Palmer Close and 6 fronting Upper Sutton Lane, all of which have off-street parking. However, it is noted that some parking takes place on-street and in the turning head. The turning head would be retained as part of the proposed development but it would not be possible to park there if the development were to be permitted. The applicant has provided an additional 4 parking spaces on the access road which would be available for local residents and visitors to use. This would replace the current parking that obstructs the turning head and is considered to be an improvement on the existing situation. A condition could be applied that ensures this parking remains unallocated to any single resident.

7.117 In terms of additional traffic generation, the principle of using Palmer Close to access the residential element of the proposed development considered to be acceptable. This would separate the hotel and residential traffic and minimises the number of additional junctions required as part of the proposed development. The carriageway of Palmer Close is 5.5m wide which allows two-way traffic and this is acceptable. This width of road would be adequate to serve a significantly larger development than either the existing or proposed. Even if cars are parked in the carriageway it is wide enough to allow refuse and delivery vehicles to access the site. Swept paths have been submitted to demonstrate this.

7.118 The turning head on Palmer Close is currently adopted public highway and changes to the road will be required as part of the works. The current plans indicate that the footway at the junction with Palmer Close would not measure 2m in width and as such a slight amendment will be required which can be achieved in the existing highway boundary. To secure these works, a Section 278 should be secured by condition.

Site layout

7.119 It is proposed that the site is designed as a shared surface road. This is considered acceptable in principle and would promote pedestrian priority. The layout of the site has been designed to prevent ad-hoc parking in order to ensure

that this principle is retained. In this respect, the houses are designed with frontage parking that would discourage any parking in front. Similarly, the parking for the flats and the visitor parking would prevent ad-hoc parking in those parts of the site. For this reason, it is recommended that the visitor parking is retained.

7.120 There are two areas of the site where ad-hoc parking could occur, however, adjacent to the open space at the southern end and in the centre of the site where there is no frontage development. The detailed design of these parts of the site therefore needs careful thought. A condition is recommended that requires details of means to prevent on-street parking to be submitted and approved (included within the landscaping condition.

Proposed pedestrian access

7.121 As previously mentioned, pedestrian access is provided through the hotel site to the A4 Great West Road providing easy access to the bus stops and cycle lane as well as Palmer Close. Retention of the pedestrian route in perpetuity should be secured in the S106.

7.122 High quality pedestrian routes will be required to the north of the site where bus stops on Upper Sutton Lane are located, as well as local facilities at Crossways. In this respect, the public realm will need improvement.

7.123 A 2m footway should be provided on the eastern side of the site access road where it meets Palmer Close to ensure pedestrian safety as pedestrians leave the site. This will require realignment of the new junction radius. Footway resurfacing and dropped kerbs should also be provided on Palmer Close to improve the pedestrian route to the bus stops. This should be included as part of the s278 works.

Trip generation

7.124 The applicant has consulted the TRAVL database to determine trip generation rates for the residential use. However, with the refused application a comparison with existing traffic generation from Palmer Close was supplied and because this was higher than the TRAVL sites it was used to predict traffic generation. That was considered to be an acceptable approach and indicated that an additional 8 vehicles would be generated in the morning peak hour and 18 in the evening peak. It was clear that traffic generation in the morning would be spread between 7-10am with not all traffic movements in the peak hour itself.

7.125 Therefore, even though the applicant has used TRAVL sites to predict trip generation for the current application and that use of databases such as TRAVL and TRICS to predict trip generation is a standard way of predicting trip generation, it is considered that the use of existing information form Palmer Close is considered to be more acceptable.

7.126 However, even with the higher number of trips that would be generated based on the existing Palmer Close figures it is clear that the junction with Upper Sutton Lane would operate within capacity. Therefore, it is not considered that the additional traffic would have a significant detrimental affect on highway safety or the free-flow of traffic.

7.127 It is acknowledged that traffic queues back on Upper Sutton Lane from the

junction with the A4 particularly in the morning peak hour and therefore it is recommended that “Keep Clear” markings are introduced on Upper Sutton Lane to ensure that vehicles are able to turn right out of Palmer Close. This is to be secured by condition and form part of the s278 highway works.

7.128 An assessment of the capacity of the Palmer Close/Upper Sutton Lane junction has been made by the applicant and this indicates that the junction will operate well within capacity despite the increase in traffic movements. TfL is satisfied with the assessment of the impact on the junction of Upper Sutton Lane with the A4 Great West Road.

Parking provision and impact

7.129 It is proposed that 47 parking spaces will be provided for the residential development which accords with London Plan parking standards. There is a mix of on-street and off-street parking. A total of 12 parking bays are to be provided in front of the flats and a further 4 visitors parking spaces provided on-street. The remaining 31 parking spaces would be provided off-street within the curtilages of the houses. Each of the 3-bed houses would be provided with 2 parking spaces and the 2-bed houses with one each.

7.130 The applicant has undertaken an assessment of car ownership in the local area, based on 2011 Census data. This indicates that the likely level of car ownership of residents of the proposed development could be up to 48. However, it is considered that any minimal overspill parking would be accommodated within the site and would not impact on any surrounding streets.

Public transport impact

7.131 TfL has not objected to the impact on public transport capacity. However, they have requested a contribution towards upgrading bus shelters on the A4 Great West Road. In addition, the bus stops on Upper Sutton Lane do not currently have bus shelters and therefore a contribution towards providing bus shelters will be required. This would be secured in the s106 Agreement.

Servicing

7.132 A swept path has been provided that shows a refuse lorry is able to access all parts of the site and this is considered to be acceptable.

Cycle storage

7.133 Cycle stores are proposed within the curtilage of each of the houses. In accordance with the London Plan a minimum of 2 cycle parking spaces should be provided for each of the dwellings. These must be covered and secure and should not be “vertical” or “semi-vertical” in design and in accordance with advice in Local Plan Policy EC2. Full details of the cycle parking for the flats (2 spaces per flat) are also required. A condition should be secured that requires full details of the cycle parking provision to be submitted prior to commencement of the residential part of the development including manufacturers specifications that indicate the cycle parking can be accommodated in the space proposed.

Travel Plan

7.134 The scale of development is below the council’s threshold for requiring a travel plan. However, given the low PTAL of the site it is considered that sustainable travel packs should be provided to residents. This can be covered by condition.

Construction

7.135 All construction traffic for the hotel and residential elements of the development should take place either from the A4 or Upper Sutton Lane. No construction traffic should use Palmer Close. A Construction Logistics Plan is required by condition including how construction traffic will access the site and be managed and include specific requirements that Palmer Close is only to be used by construction vehicles in relation to construction of the new site access.

Conclusion

7.136 It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in principle subject to the safeguarding conditions listed at the end of this report and securing the contributions in the S106 set out below and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network, in accordance with Local Plan Policy EC2 and the London Plan.

Energy and sustainability

7.137 The broad aim of sustainable development is to ensure that the quality of social, economic and ecological environments are improved and maintained for future generations. The London Plan and Local Plan encourage sustainable development through many policies including promoting the use of energy efficient building design and materials, re-use of previously developed land and existing buildings, and location of development in or close to town centres and areas with good public transport. Sustainability is also a clear thread running through the NPPF.

7.138 Sustainability underpins many London Plan and local policies. These require developments to be sustainable in transport terms, to minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures and promote use of renewable energy, and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.139 As a comprehensive new development, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognises and adopts sustainable development principles.

7.140 The proposal constitutes the redevelopment of a previously developed site and in this instance is in accordance with sustainable development principles.

7.141 London Plan Policy 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions) requires developments to make the fullest practicable contribution to minimising CO2 emissions following this energy hierarchy:

Be Lean: use less energy

Be Clean: supply energy efficiently

Be Green: use renewable energy

7.142 It goes on to note that major development proposals should include a detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the targets for carbon dioxide emissions’ reduction outlined above are to be met within the framework of the energy hierarchy.

7.143 The Mayor aims to ensure that major developments reduce carbon dioxide emissions from buildings, by reaching higher than the Target Emission Rate (TER) outlined in the national Buildings Regulations, leading to zero carbon residential buildings from 2016. The Mayor has stipulated that between 2010 and October 2013 residential buildings should provide a 35% improvement on 2013 Building Regulations’.

7.144 Policy EQ1 of the Hounslow Local Plan seeks to minimise the demand for energy and promote renewable and low carbon technologies and Policy EQ2 aims to promote the highest standards of sustainable design and construction in development.

7.145 An Energy Statement and Sustainability Statement have been submitted in support of the application demonstrating how the proposals would accord with the energy hierarchy contained in the London Plan. This identifies that through energy efficiency measures an 11% reduction in CO2 emissions could be achieved and that with the integration of photovoltaic panels, further carbon savings are possible. Based on a 1kWp roof array for each dwelling, the residential area of the development can achieve a 37% improvement over the original baseline design.

7.146 In addition to this, a BREEAM preliminary assessment has been submitted which demonstrates the proposed hotel can achieve the required ‘Excellent’ rating with a score of 72.5%.

7.147 In terms of water use, the applicant has submitted information to demonstrate that the dwellings will have a maximum internal water consumption rate of 105 litres/per person/per day. These details would be secured by condition.

7.148 In terms of construction materials, the now redundant Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 had requirements that all building materials for roof, external walls, internal walls, upper and ground floor and windows have rating of D and higher in ‘The Green Guide’. These details will be secured by condition.

7.149 The Council’s Sustainability consultants (CEN) have reviewed the information submitted and conclude that the development would meet the policy requirements in respect of reducing CO2 emissions and sustainability. Therefore it is considered that the overall strategy proposed would ensure that the scheme would meet the sustainability targets set in the London Plan and the adopted Local Plan subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

Archaeological and other Environmental Considerations

Archaeology

7.150 The objective of Local Plan Policy CC4 (Heritage) is to conserve, protect and enhance the archaeological heritage.

7.151 The site is not within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined by the adopted Local Plan. Consequently it is not considered that any further mitigation would be required.

Drainage & Surface Water Flooding

7.152 The NPPF confirms that development should take full account of flood risk and

suggests that new development should seek to reduce the cause and impacts of flooding.

7.153 London Plan Policy 5.3 states that major developments should ensure efficient use of nature resources (including water). Policy 5.12 confirms that development proposals must comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements set out in the NPPF. Policy 5.13 states that developments should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and should aim to achieve greenfield runoff rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible as set out in the drainage hierarchy.

7.154 Local Plan Policy EQ3 confirms development proposals must include a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) consistent with the requirements of the Environment Agency and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and recommends that developments incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems and avoid non-permeable hard standings with the aim of achieving greenfield run off rates.

7.155 The Site is shown on the EA Flood Map for Planning to be located entirely in Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability) which represents land assessed as having less than a 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea. Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF, the proposed development would be considered appropriate in flood risk terms.

7.156 The hotel development would have below ground attenuation within permeable paving (2100m2) and geocelluar tanks (14.8m3), sufficient for the 1 in 1 and 1 in 30 year events, with additional above-ground flooding (controlled within parking areas) proving sufficient attenuation for the 1 in 100 year storm events. In addition to this, further attenuation would be provided by the green roof of the hotel building.

7.157 The residential development would have below ground attenuation within the permeable paving (2580m2) and geocelluar tank (9m3) sufficient for the 1 in 1 and 1 in 30 year storm events with discharge restricted to three times the greenfield runoff rate. Additional controlled flooding of flat road areas would provide sufficient attenuation for the 1 in 100 year storm events. In addition to this, further attenuation would be provided by tree pits and water butts, provided for each of the houses.

7.158 Responsibility for managing surface water flooding and other flood events has recently passed from the Environment Agency to Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). The Council’s Flood Risk Management Consultant has reviewed the submitted information and confirmed that the attenuation measures proposed are acceptable, demonstrating the 50% betterment stated in the London Plan’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG and the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS through the prevention of any flooding across the site in events up to and including a 1 in 30 year storm event can be achieved.

7.159 A detailed maintenance plan would be required alongside the detailed drainage designs as part of a pre-commencement condition for the application.

Contaminated land

7.160 Owing to the history of uses, there may be some contamination. The NPPF advises where there is suspicion, or where evidence suggests there may be some

contamination, planning permission may be granted subject to condition that development may not start before site investigation and assessment have been done and that the development itself will incorporate any remedial measures necessary. Policy 5.21 (Contaminated Land) of the London Plan and adopted Local Plan Policy EQ8 (Contamination) provide a policy context for this matter. A condition is proposed to ensure that, provided the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented, there would be no risk of contamination.

Air Quality

7.161 The NPPF states that (para 109) “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…. preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.”

7.162 London Plan Policy 7.14 (Improving Air Quality) states that development proposals should:

Promote sustainable design and construction to reduce emissions from the demolition and construction of buildings following the best practice guidance in the GLA and London Councils’ ‘The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition’;

Where biomass boilers are included, set out a detailed air quality assessment that should forecast pollutant concentrations. Permission should only be granted if no adverse impacts from biomass are identified; and

Aim to be ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality (such as areas designated as AQMAs).

7.163 The Borough has undertaken a review and assessment of air quality as required by the Environment Act 1995. This has concluded that the level of pollution (the air quality objective for 2005 for nitrogen dioxide) will not be met and led to the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA’s).

7.164 The application site is within the AQMA that covers the whole borough and by definition suffers from poor air quality. Thus, careful consideration needs to be given to granting planning permission for residential accommodation, particularly to the type of accommodation where people may have very little choice in the location. However, AQMA’s do not differentiate levels of pollution between different areas and, in reality, there may well be differences on the ground. Whilst the designation of an AQMA is indicative of a certain level of air quality, this in itself does not prevent development in such areas.

7.165 Local Plan Policy EQ4 (Air Quality) states that the Council’s objective is to seek to reduce the potential air quality impact of development, in line with the Air Quality Action Plan, and that development proposals are expected to carry out air quality assessments for major developments and consider the potential impacts of air pollution from the development on the site and neighbouring areas and incorporate mitigation measures where air quality assessments show that developments could cause or exacerbate air pollution, or where end users could be exposed to air pollution.

7.166 The Sustainability Statement identifies the main risk to air quality as the traffic to and from the completed development. However, as the site is located adjacent to a busy main road, the proportional increase in traffic would be minor. It is not considered that any further mitigation would be required.

Planning Obligations

7.167 Local Plan Policy IMP3 seeks to ensure that development proposals fully mitigate the impacts of the development on the area through a Section 106 agreement, where necessary or appropriate, having regard to supplementary planning document and provide the CIL payments required by any charging scheduled, including the Mayor of London’s CIL. A payment or other benefit offered in 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.

7.168 The Section 106 agreement will not address all the impacts since some of these will be addressed by CIL, in order to satisfy the Regulation 122 tests above.

7.169 The NPPG provides guidance on use of planning obligations, which may impose a restriction or requirement, or provide for payment to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise not be acceptable in planning terms. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations (adopted March 2008) contains guidance on imposition of planning obligations in compliance with such guidance. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate a development’s impacts.

7.170 The following draft Heads of Terms are likely to form the basis of the Section 106 agreement, all of which are considered to satisfy one or more of the three Regulation 122 tests referred to above:

i) An out-turn review mechanism for a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing delivery

ii) Construction training – in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations & CIL SPG (£2,750 for every £1m construction costs)

iii) Restriction on residents’ eligibility for parking permits

iv) New bus shelters for the bus stops on Upper Sutton Lane (BP1173 & BP1174. 2bay Landmark London shelters) - £8,500 each

v) Travel Plan for the hotel development

vi) Car Club parking bay (provided free of charge and in perpetuity)

vii) Pedestrian route along the western edge of the site linking the Great West Road to the residential development to remain open in perpetuity.

viii) Considerate Contractors Scheme

8.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

8.1 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.

9.0 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

9.1 Some new developments granted planning permission will be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the Mayor of London and Hounslow.

9.2 CIL is payable on m2 of new floor space or where a new dwelling is created or the net floor area increase exceeds 100 m2.

Mayor’s £35 per m2

Hounslow: Housing:

East £200m2

Central £110m2

West £70m2

Supermarkets, superstores and retail warehousing:

£155 m2

Health care, education and emergency services facilities: £0

All other uses:

£20m2

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

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered that the scheme has overcome the previous reasons for refusal, with a significant reduction in the height, size and scale of the hotel building which would have a far more sympathetic relationship with the street scene ensuring it would not result in an unduly prominent and physically dominant building at this junction. It has been demonstrated that as a result of the predicted vehicle movements arising from the residential development, there would not be a significant detrimental impact on residents’ amenity as a result of the use of Palmer Close to access the residential element of the development.

10.2 The scheme presents a development of high design quality that would provide a good standard of living accommodation and amenity benefits without having an unduly detrimental impact on neighbouring and nearby residents’ living conditions and would not be contrary to policies on hotel provision. Furthermore, the proposal would not have a prejudicial impact on the safe or efficient use of the local road network and would include the relevant sustainability and energy reduction requirements. It has been demonstrated that the scheme would be unable to deliver affordable housing on site and as such an out-turn review mechanism would be employed to capture any uplift in values with a corresponding contribution to off-site affordable housing delivery being made.

10.3 The development is therefore considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the Local Plan and the London Plan.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and

securing the abovementioned planning obligations by prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other legislation (including any agreements under Section 278 or Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980), the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers in the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment on the Head of Governance’s advice.

The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 16th September 2016 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Head of Governance’s Office.

If the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above (or any agreed extended period), then the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management 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 described above.

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 Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management is hereby authorised (in consultation with the Chair and upon the advice of the Head of 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.

If planning permission is refused, the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission or listed building consent validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of either application, provided that it (a) duplicates the earlier 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:

General

Time limit for implementation (within 3 years of this permission)

In accordance with approved plans

Programmes

Construction and Phasing Development Programme

Submission of Demolition, Construction Management/Logistics Plan prior to commencement of each phase of development (to include: restriction on use of Palmer Close by construction vehicles except in relation to construction of new site access; details for the installation/use and dismantling of any crane & hoist)

Residential Design

Waste & recycling materials

Materials (to include details of; all external facing materials, any privacy measures, e.g. obscure glazing, balconies and privacy screens)

Housing Standards (all dwellings to M4(2) Building Regulations standard)

Min. 4 ‘Wheelchair User Dwellings’ to Building Regulations M4(3) standard

Acoustic design strategy

Drainage

Detailed Drainage design including maintenance strategy

Ground works

Phased contamination

Environmental

Environmental Sustainability

In accordance with Energy Strategy (hotel & residential)

BREEAM ‘Excellent’ Design Stage certificate & Post-Construction Review certificate rating (hotel)

Sustainable Construction/Materials

Water Consumption (so as not to exceed 105l/p/day)

Landscaping (to include; all soft and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, play spaces/equipment, external lighting details to restrict on-street parking, maintenance plan, landscape & ecology management plan)

Time Restrictions

Demolitions & Construction Hours

Transport

Car Park Management Plan (to include details of; accessible car parking, electric vehicle charging points & monitoring to ensure passive charging points are brought into use when required; measures to maximise use within undercroft car parks)

Cycle parking (to include details of storage for Blocks A and B in Phase 1 and details for Phase 2)

Full details of highways works (to include: construction of new accesses, closure of existing accesses, changes to the access with Palmer Close including provision of 2m wide footways and dropped kerbs to provide step free access to Upper Sutton Lane, a surfaced footpath to the northbound bus stop on Upper Sutton Lane,

provision of Keep Clear markings on Upper Sutton Lane at the junction with Palmer Close and the new hotel access) to be agreed prior to commencement and completed prior to first occupation of the relevant phase

Pedestrian visibility splays provided at the new vehicular access to Upper Sutton Lane prior to occupation of the hotel

Full details of cycle parking in accordance with minimum London Plan standards and advice contained within the Local Plan for the residential and hotel elements of the development and provided prior to occupation

Car parking to be provided and made available for use prior to occupation of each phase of the development

Two coach parking bays to be provided within the site as shown on Attachment 7 of the Transport Addendum

Car Park Management Plan provided prior to occupation of the hotel to include a strategy for managing coach parking, guaranteed provision of on-site parking for disabled members of staff, on-site parking for other members of staff, prevention of guests parking on surrounding streets, guests only to park on-site whilst they are physically staying at the hotel (i.e. not while they are away)

Electric vehicle charging points provided prior to occupation of the hotel and the residential developments

Servicing Management Plan provided prior to occupation of the hotel

Sustainable Travel Packs provided prior to occupation of the residential development

Other

BAA/Heathrow safeguarding condition: Bird hazard management plan prior to completion of hotel development

Odour mitigation (hotel development)

External Plant

Restriction on permitted development – additional windows/boundary treatment/extensions (residential development)

Restriction on hours of delivery – not outside of the hours 7:00am to 7:00pm (hotel development)

Restriction on external noise (hotel development)

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 scheme was submitted in accordance with guidance following pre application discussions.

2. We collect the Mayor of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at the rate of 35 pounds per sq.m of new floor space. Hounslow's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has been adopted. For details of the rates please refer to our web page:

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environment_and_planning/planning/planning_poli

cy/community_infrastructure_levy.htm

This development is liable for CIL. A Liability Notice will follow shortly. For further information please contact the CIL team on 020 8583 4898/4895 or view our web page:

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environment_and_planning/planning.htm

or the planning portal web page:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil

3. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, ‘Cranes and Other Construction Issues’ (available at http://www.aoa.org.uk/policysafeguarding.htm

4. If you are creating a new unit, please visit http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/transport_and_streets/roads_and_highways/street_naming_numbering.htm and complete the Street Naming and Numbering application form

Drawing numbers:

DRW1 (MRS-A-P-00-1001-A), DRW4 (MRS-A-P-00-1210-A), DRW5 (MRS-A-P-00-1310-A), DRW6 (MRS-A-P-00-1410-A), DRW7 (MRS-A-P-00-1510-A), DRW8 (MRS-A-P-00-X101-A), DRW9 (MRS-A-P-00-X102-A), DRW10 (MRS-A-P-00-X103-A), DRW11 (MRS-A-P-00-X105-A), DRW12 (MRS-A-P-00-X110-A), DRW13 (MRS-A-P-00-X150-A), DRW14 (MRS-A-P-00-X151-A), DRW15 (MRS-A-P-00-X152-A), DRW16 (MRS-A-P-00-X153-A), DRW17 (MRS-A-P-00-X155-A), DRW18 (MRS-A-P-00-X160-A), DRW23 (MRS-A-P-00-X112-A), DRW24 (MRS-A-P-00-X113-A)

Topographic Survey (03813A), Planning Statement (JTS Partnership LLP – April 2016), Viability Assessment (Savills – 15 April 2016), Design & Access Statement: Vol 1 – Masterplan (Palmer Lunn Architects), Design & Access Statement: Vol 2 – Hotel (Palmer Lunn Architects), Design & Access Statement: Vol 3 – Residential (Palmer Lunn Architects), Design & Access Statement: Vol 4 – Landscape Strategy (HED – March 2016), Design & Access Statement: M&E Services – Hotel (QODA – 20011.R03), Design & Access Statement: M&E Services – Residential (QODA – 20011.R04), Statement of Community Involvement (JTA Partnership LLP – April 2016), Transport Statement (Peter Evans Partnership – March 2016), Draft Travel Plan for Hotel (Peter Evans Partnership – March 2016), Sustainability Statement (QODA – 20011.R01 Rev B), Energy Statement (QODA – 20011.R05), Drainage Assessment Form, Logistic Plan (1477/01 – March 2016), Development Programme, Flood Risk Assessment (Wardell Armstrong – 001 Rev. A March 2016), Tree Survey & Arboricultural Implications Assessment (Sylvan Resources Ltd – April 2016), Noise/Acoustic Assessment (Ian Sharland Limited – M3166 v.3 March 2016)

Received 23/05/2016:

Master Robert Hotel – CHP Calculations table (QODA – 11/05/2016), Solar PV Feasibility Table (Master Robert Hotel – Residential), 20011_MEP_100_04 Rev P (Roof – Plant Spatial Requirements)

Received 13/06/2016:

Demolition and Construction Management Plan (iGP Management Ltd – Rev 3 June 2016)

Received 23/06/2016:

Transport Addendum (Peter Evans Partnership – June 2016), Transport Note – Transport for London (Peter Evans Partnership – June 2016), Energy Statement – Master Robert Residential Development (QODA – 20011.R06 Rev A), MRS-A-P-00-1010-B, MRS-A-P-00-1005-B, HED-1133-LA-1003 Rev 03, HED-1133-LA-1002 Rev 03, HED-1133-LA-1001 Rev 02, HED-1133-LA-1004 Rev 03

Received 06/07/2016:

BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report (Twin & Earth – July 2016)

Received 22/07/2016:

Concept Cost Plan (Greenway Associates – Rev A July 2016)

Received 27/06/2016:

Greenfield Runoff Rates Calculations (Wardell Armstrong – 26/07/2016), ST14267-003 (Indicative SuDs Strategy)

Received 09/08/2016:

Traffic Noise Assessment (Ian Sharland Limited – 08/08/2016)