Docstoc

Ref

Document Sample
Ref Powered By Docstoc
					Planning Committee 07/01/2009
Ref: Address: Ward: PROPOSAL: Drawing numbers: P/2008/2175

Schedule Item: 06

St Mary’s Church, Church Road, Hanwell Hobbayne Temporary detached classroom building (5 years) -Location Plan -L2137 St Mary’s Church – Ground Floor Plan -1081/PO2 - Proposed Classroom Elevations, Floor plan and Construction Details -1081/PO1 - Site Plan Location of Classroom in graveyard to the north of the Church -St Mary’s Church, Design and Access Statement &Statement of Need -St Mary’s Church, Response to points made by planners and others -MP1006R/bk Development Site Tree Report and Method Statement, Bartlett Consulting 20/08/2008 - Cellweb Tree Root Protection System, Geo-synthetics Limited -St Mary’s Church, Amplified Statement of Need - St Mary’s Church , Diocesan Advisory Committee Certificate

Type of Application: Officer: Application Received:

Full Application (8-Week) Robert Lester 14/05/2008 Revised:24/07/2008, 26/09/2008, 25/11/2008, 12/12/2008

Site Description: The site subject to this planning application is St Mary’s Church, a Grade II* Listed Building and its grounds located off Church Road, Hanwell. Church Road runs from Greenford Avenue, Hanwell to Brent Lodge Park a public open space and part of a larger area of Metropolitan Open Land between Hanwell and Southall. Because the Church is positioned at the end of Church Road the site is surrounded on three sides by green open space and trees, which help frame the site in the surroundings. The site is also split into two sections; the first part of the site is positioned to the north of Church Road and contains the Church and the surrounding graveyard together with pedestrian paths around the Church. The second part of the site is the extension of the graveyard, which is located to the north of the main Church down a steep slope. The first and second parts are connected by a narrow pedestrian link, which is itself bounded by trees. The Church itself is a grade II* Listed Building and as a religious facility the majority of works are also subject to the requirement to obtain an additional ecclesiastical consent from the Church of England Authority as a replacement for Listed Building Consent. The site is also located within the Churchfields Conservation Area.

Form Letters49

Item No: 06 Churchfields Conservation Area is an open and green space area with very few buildings. taking the name from the open fields called 'Churchfields' on the north side of the listed Wharnecliffe viaduct built by Brunel. St Mary's was built in 1841 to a design by Sir Gilbert Scott. it is built of flint with stone and brick dressings and has a slate roof. The tower has a spire and there is a large, possibly Georgian clock on the face of the tower. The site area is 2334.45m2 whereas the footprint of the Church is 518.04m2. In terms of surroundings, two x two storey flatted developments lie to the east of the site. These are known as Brent Court and Glebe Court. To the south of the site is the Brent Lodge Park ‘Bunny Park’. Church Road recreation ground lies to the south west of the site and Brent Lodge park lies to the north and west of the site. All of these are green open spaces and are designated as public open space and Metropolitan Open Land. The Proposal: The proposal is for a temporary timber classroom clad with treated boarding and covered with a pitched roof, on a portion of the graveyard to the north of the Church not visible from Church Road. The timber classroom would be a rectangular building. It would measure 8.5 metres (length) by 5.5 metres (width) and would have a height to eaves of 2.5 metes and height to pitch of 3.8 m. It would have two windows and a door on its western elevation, two windows on its eastern elevation, and two windows and a door on the southern elevation. The building would be used for an ancillary teaching function in association with the Church. The applicant has confirmed that the building would be needed for a temporary period of 5 years whilst the church considered a more longer term solution such a physical extension or alternative facilities off site. Relevant Planning History: Ref. 04959/1 Date Erection Of Single Storey Extension To Rear Of Church To Provide Parish Room. Correspondence Re: Building Room Over Two Vestries. Construction Of New Ramp And Stepped Entrance To Church. Proposal Granted Conditionally Decision 28-04-1989

26770

Not Applicable

11-03-1984

26770/195/147 9

Granted Conditionally

12-09-1995

-2-

Item No: 06

Relevant Planning Policy: Adopted UDP (adopted 12/10/04) 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.10 8.5 9.1 Major Open Areas (MOAs) – Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt Public and Community Open Space Burial Land Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Design of Development Inclusive Design – Access for all Community Safety Statutory Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Interest Areas Noise and Vibration Meeting Places and Places of Worship Development, Access and Parking

Supplementary Guidance/Documents (SPD/SPG) SPG7 SPG8 SPG9 SPG10 PPS 1 PPG15 PPG13 Accessible Ealing Safer Ealing Trees and development guidelines Noise & Vibration Delivering Sustainable Development Planning and the Historic Environment Transport

National Policy

Consultation: Public: 62 letters of consultation were sent to neighbouring properties. Consultation Period 20/06/2008 - 11/07/2008 No Responses were Received Internal Transport Services No objection If the development would increase visitor numbers a Green Travel Plan would be required designed to promote the use of sustainable transport by visitors. Environmental Health (Pollution Group) No objection. Subject to condition being attached requesting details and remediation of land contamination, mitigation to prevent noise breakout together with the standard construction phase informatives.

-3-

Item No: 06 Access Officer No objection. The provision for access is acceptable. Conservation Officer An Archaeological survey would be required since the site is known to have had a place of worship there since the 15th C, in the event of archaeological relics being found in the site of the proposed building footprint and also in regard to headstones which form part of the interest of the churchyard. The medieval core of the area centered around the church so it is highly likely to find something of archaeological significance. The proposed building would detract from the setting of the Statutory Listed Building and the character of the Conservation Area by infilling a pleasant green area at the rear of the church which is also beneficial for the residents for quiet contemplation and tranquility. A small building would disrupt the site architecturally in terms of the clash between the new and unattractive proposed building and the permanent and aesthetic edifice of the Victorian church. The proposal would also be extremely detrimental in terms of the relationship between the church and churchyard by disrupting the interspace of the functionally 'empty' green space of the churchyard at the rear of the church and the boundary at the rear of the site. The proposal is for a permanent looking structure, which would be required for 5 years. This semi-permanence would be of great disservice to the site and to the Conservation Area for the above reasons. Any structure should be made to look temporary if intended thus and should be there for a very short space of time. Also the proposed construction of the building may cause disruption of the graves and/or possible archaeological finds. Any such proposal would need full justification before considering its viability. There is also a doubt as to the necessity of the proposal when there is already an extension on the church, which may well be suitable for classroom use. This aspect of the proposal would need to be fully justified. External Hanwell and Canals Conservation Area Panel First Response The panel do not support this application within the graveyard of a Grade II* listed building Church and consider it harmful to the building. The temporary building would be located on burials. The headstones were removed some years ago. Currently this area is a quite secluded lawn, which enhances the building. The Church has already been extended at the rear to provide a room for activities with facilities directly related to Church services. The available space for activities associated with the Church appears to be quite generous. The panel does not accept the need for this facility. The Church has a well equipped, purpose built and spacious Parish Hall for Church related and community activities at the end of Church Road by Greenford Avenue. The suggested need regarding family attendance at the Sunday morning service appears to have been exaggerated. In general the panel consider the application to be inappropriate and harmful to the listed building and recommend refusal.

-4-

Item No: 06

Second Response (Following Receipt of the amplified statement of need). The panel considers that it is inappropriate to build on the graveyard. The proposed site is well screened and provides an area for quiet contemplation of the deceased. The organizers of the Sunday school need to be more realistic and flexible in their approach to this provision and the division of the Sunday school children into age groups is un evidenced. The Hanwell Steering Group (HSG) The HSG does not object in principle to the development. However the classroom would be visible from the Brent River Park and is adjacent to a grade II* listed church in a conservation area. So that it is essential that any design uses materials, which are sympathetic to the local setting. The HSG objects to the permanent loss of open space arising from the use of concrete foundations. This loss could however be prevented by using a different design and a temporary base for the building. As the site drains to the River Brent new areas of hardstanding should be avoided where possible and natural soils and surfaces should be retained. The HSG strongly request that the application is refused with guidance given to the applicant that the impermeable concrete base be modified to a design that does not involve removing or disturbing graves or memorials and retains the permeability of the existing soils to rainwater. English Heritage The application should be determined locally Planning Considerations:

All planning decisions are based upon planning policies contained within the Council’s Adopted
Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ 2004 and related guidance, and any other material considerations. The main issues in deciding whether to grant consent would in this case be an assessment of the principle of this form of development in this location, including an assessment of the need for the building on the site. Design considerations including the impact of the development on the character of the conservation area and on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Building would be relevant. It is necessary to consider the archaeological impact of the development and the impact on trees on or near the site. It is also important that amenity considerations are assessed including; noise and disturbance. It is necessary to assess the accessibility of the development for disabled persons. It is also essential that due consideration is given to the transport issues the development may raise. Reasoned Justification/Remarks: The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies within the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and is considered to be unsatisfactory. A detailed assessment is outlined as follows Principle of Development The proposal is for a small timber building, which would be used for education and leisure activities mainly associated with the Church’s Sunday School. Temporary permission is sought for a period of 5 years.

-5-

Item No: 06 As the building would be ancillary to the main use on the site, in general planning terms the principle of development could be accepted. Nevertheless the building would be sited within the grounds of the Church, which is a Grade II* Statutory Listed Building and the site is also located within a Conservation Area where there is a requirement to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore the building would be sited on the graveyard. Also the site is surrounded on three sides by land designated and protected as public open space and metropolitan open land. Considering the multifaceted protective planning framework on this site it is necessary to establish the principle of the development with reference to the need for the timber classroom on this site. Although temporary permission is sought for a period of 5 years, the submitted information suggests that it would be 10 years before alternative facilities become available. This could mean that the proposed temporary building would need to be on site for 10 years, a substantial amount of time. Government Circular 11/95 states the material considerations to which regard must be had in granting any permission are not limited or made different by a decision to make the permission a temporary one. Thus, the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that a time limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenities of the area. Where such objections to a development arise they should, if necessary, be met instead by conditions whose requirements will safeguard the amenities. If it is not possible to devise such conditions, and if the damage to amenity cannot be accepted, then the only course open is to refuse permission. The procedure for temporary development is therefore clear, permission should not be granted where there would be harm to the amenity of an area. The only recourse in such circumstances is to refuse permission. Evidence of Need The applicant has submitted three reports, which discuss the need for the development in some detail. The main reasons why the applicant considers a additional temporary classroom building is needed are set out below: The congregation has a growing number of families with young children. There would be 71 children made up of 21 children under the age of 3, 11 aged 3-5, 16 aged 6-9, and 23 aged 10-14. The Church only has two rooms on site for the four groups (see site plan: Parish Room, Choir Vestry). These rooms’ total 42msq with furniture. A school would be required to have 3.5sqm per child, a total of nearly 240sqm. The Church also needs to provide a room dedicated to the crècheaged children. The applicant has confirmed that unity of the family is the primary emphasis of the Christian Faith, and the congregation needs to be together as families for 50 minutes of the service and separated into adults and children for 40 minutes. The Church has stated that the society and community are in crucial need of this emphasis and witness in an age of broken families and transient adult relationships. The applicant also states that there are no opportunities to provide additional accommodation within the shell of the building. The ground floor is fully used and the first floor balconies are inaccessible and have tiered seating, which would require adaptation to make them level. Using the balcony would also affect the acoustics and reduce seating capacity for the larger services. Regrettably, it is not practical to use the Church Hall on Greenford Avenue. The applicant has stated that the journey time (including putting coats on and travel) to the Church Hall is at least ten minutes. The applicant states that it would be counterproductive to travel between the two centres, as there is the environmental irresponsibility of repeated journeys between two centres. The applicant has also confirmed that the need to supervise children would either remove whole families from the congregation or remove a significant number of supportive adults from the congregation. The applicant also states that the use of two centres would contradict absolutely the primary ethos of the church. The Hall is also not available to the Church on Sundays: it is used from 7am by two other Christian communities for worship: the Assyrian church and African Zion church. A meeting of the Hanwell Steering Group suggested using accommodation possibly available in Brent Lodge Park, however physical unsuitability linked to the same considerations (as to spontaneity, supervision, Health and Safety/supervision) apply.

-6-

Item No: 06 In due course the intention is to build a permanent extension to the north of the church. The applicant has stated that it is not possible to immediately plan a permanent extension because in the medium term (3 years) the Church faces fabric costs of £110,000 on releading all windows, redecorating and strengthening the chancel roof. The applicant has confirmed that in the long term (10 years) a permanent extension is desirable. One similar to the north extension constructed in the late 1980s would cost over £200,000 and will need several years for both permissions and fund raising. The applicant has confirmed that any proposal for a permanent solution to the problem of insufficient space (for use by the Church and the wider community) will require extensive dialogue with the various bodies and organisations which have the right to make contributions to the process. This will include the London Diocese, LB Ealing, English Heritage, the Victorian Society, the Churches Building Council, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the local amenity societies, as well as all the user groups. Such a process will require an assessment of all options including further extensions, internal alterations, etc. While the Church are committed to undertaking such a process, the urgency of the situation means that a solution must be found which addresses the current significant shortage of space. In the short term (now) the need for accommodation is extremely pressing. Some families are finding their children are becoming discouraged by the cramped and busy rooms. The applicant requests that the church community of St Mary’s stands alone in all the fabric responsibilities mentioned above it is entirely reasonable to expect community and council support of a short term resolution to our accommodation problems. The use would be entirely ancillary to the use of the Church and there are no plans for it to be used separately. The applicant states that as the use of the timber building will only be in conjunction with activities already taking place at the Church, the development would have no impact on traffic generation or car parking. The applicant points out that the classroom will not create any additional increase in visitors, rather it will allow the current level of visitors to be provided for. Response After considering the evidence of need submitted by the applicant it is likely that there is need for the development but that there are several possible solutions, which have not yet been adequately explored. The submitted plan reference L2137 shows that the parish room is a reasonably sized room measuring 22 m x 10 m and it not clear why this room with a floor area of 220m2 cannot be used more intensively. Also as no plans of the Church Hall on Greenford Avenue have been submitted it is not clear at this stage whether there is sufficient internal space at that facility to accommodate the entire Sunday School. It is noted that the Church Hall is used by other groups on Sundays, what is not clear is what space those groups use within the Church Hall, and what remaining available space there is at that facility. It is also not clear whether an extension to the Church Hall would be more acceptable. The applicant’s point about not wanting to break up the Sunday School and separate groups and family members is accepted. Additionally, the local Conservation Panel has suggested that the Church should use facilities within Brent Lodge Park opposite the site. The Church has stated that physical unsuitability linked to the same considerations as to spontaneity, supervision and Health and Safety/supervision apply in relation to these facilities. However there is no information about the type and size of available facilities within Brent Lodge Park. Considering the proximity of this facility (directly opposite the Church) it is considered that this solution to the needs of the Church has not been adequately explored. The applicant has indicated that a permanent solution would be found in the long term (10 years) consisting of an extension to the Church. The applicant has also correctly acknowledged that a proposal for a permanent extension would require extensive consultation and negotiations with all interested parties. However at the very least it is reasonable to expect that the broad design concept or design options for this extension have been considered. An extension to the Church may not be acceptable because of the impact on the character of the Statutory Listed Church and Conservation Area. Although the Council’s Conservation Officer would be willing to comment on proposals for an extension to the Church.

-7-

Item No: 06 It is noted that the cross section plan of the proposed building shows 150mm deep concrete foundation. Building Control have confirmed that these foundations are not typical for a temporary building where it is normal to use shallow and non intrusive Pad foundations. However the applicant’s submission advises that the concrete base would be the only realistic option because the structure of the wooden building requires that it sits on a solid base. The applicant states that the building has no inherent ability to support itself on individual foundations, either pads or beams. The design loading for a floor being used as a classroom would be 5 KN/m2 and a wooden base would not bear such weight, and in any event would be susceptible to rot. The applicant has confirmed that alternative forms of base, for instance a ‘no-dig’ construction such as used for roads or paths to avoid digging under trees will only provide support for 3KN/m2 and so is unsuitable. On balance it is accepted that there is likely to be a need for the temporary classroom in this location. However at present alternative solutions such as use of facilities with Brent Lodge Park; use of available space within the Church Hall on Greenford Avenue; an extension to the Church Hall on Greenford Avenue or more intensive use of the Church itself including the 220m2 parish room in combination with the main church room have not been adequately explored. However this need even if fully identified would not outweigh the impacts of the development on the character of the conservation area and listed building. This issue is considered in more detail in the following section of this report. Design Considerations The main design policy considerations are as follows The development proposes a temporary classroom building on the site. UDP policy 4.1 (Design of the Development) contains guiding principles that should be considered in all design which include good layout; appropriate height and scale; high quality architecture and character; appropriate materials; inclusive design; and appropriate hard and soft landscaping. This policy stipulates that proposals for development should not only be well designed, but should also make a positive contribution to enhancing the area as a whole. The site is located within the Churchfields Conservation Area. UDP policy 4.8 – (Conservation Areas) states that the Council will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and their settings. ‘New development, built or otherwise within or adjacent to the Conservation Area, will be permitted provided that it is well related to the existing character of the area in terms of its historic and architectural quality, and green setting. The Council also requires that any development proposal adheres to the Council’s specific Conservation Area guidelines, which in this case are set out in the Churchfields Conservation Area Appraisal. This document states that the area around St Mary’s still retains its village character with Church Road having a very rural character, with brick walls, wide grass verges, mature trees and the extensive view south over Churchfields. The site of the former Rectory, next to the St Mary’s Church, was developed into two blocks of flats in the 1930s. St Mary’s Church itself is built in flint with brick dressings and a broach spire, which is visible from many parts of the surrounding area. St Mary’s Church is a Grade II* Statutory Listed Building. UDP policy 4.6 (Statutory Listed Buildings) states that the Council will seek to preserve and enhance the setting of Listed Buildings by assessing the design of development in their vicinity and by preservation of trees within the setting of the listed building. Brent Lodge Park to the north, west and south west of the site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. UDP policy 3.1 (Major Open Areas - Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt) states that development adjacent to metropolitan open land must respect the style and character of the surrounding area. Any buildings should be small scale, with sensitive boundary treatment. Development of adjoining land should be complimentary to the amenity of the metropolitan open land including community buildings. Assessment

-8-

Item No: 06 The proposed building would detract from the setting of the Statutory Listed Building and the character of the Conservation Area by infilling a pleasant green area at the rear of the church which is also beneficial for visitors for quiet contemplation and tranquility. The small building would disrupt the site architecturally in terms of the clash between the new and unattractive proposed building and the permanent and aesthetic edifice of the Victorian church. The proposal would also be extremely detrimental in terms of the relationship between the church and churchyard by disrupting the interspace of the functionally 'empty' green space of the churchyard at the rear of the church and the boundary at the rear of the site. The proposal is for a permanent looking structure, which would be required for 5 years, although information in the need statements suggest that it would be required for 10 years. This semipermanence would be of great disservice to the site and to the Conservation Area for the above reasons. Any structure should be made to look temporary if intended thus and should be there for a very short space of time. Also the proposed construction may lead to disruption of the graves and/or possible archaeological finds. Any such proposal would need full justification before considering its viability. The building would be sited on part of the graveyard area, which provides an important setting for the Statutory Listed Building. The graveyard is also a vital and integral part of the character of the Conservation Area and its green setting. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to UDP policies 4.6 and 4.8. The development would not be well related to the existing character of the conservation area in terms of its historic and architectural quality and green setting. It is considered that the timber building would be architecturally inharmonious and discordant set against the Church, which is a distinctive building of high architectural quality. UDP policy 4.6 states that ‘The Council will protect and enhance the character of Statutory Listed Buildings by not permitting external alterations unless there would be no adverse effect on the architectural or historic character. It is clear that the temporary timber building would be unremarkable with no historic or architectural merit in design terms. There can be no justification for permitting the development, which would harm the character and setting of the Listed Building and Conservation Area. UDP policy 4.6 requires that development enhances the character of Listed Buildings. There is no doubt that the proposed building would fail to enhance the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building and there is therefore no justification for granting planning permission in this case. It should be noted that although this development proposes works on the site of a Listed Building, no application for Listed Building consent has been submitted to the Council. This is because as the site is in ecclesiastical use, faculty consent from the Church of England Diocesan Advisory Committee is required instead. The applicant has submitted evidence that the Diocesan Advisory Committee has recommended approval of the building for a period of 5 years. The development would involve the relocation of one headstone. This is not an individually listed building although it is within the setting of the Listed Church. The headstone is a part of the character of the graveyard and it is not clear where the headstone would be relocated to within the site. Provided the headstone remained on site it is considered that removing the headstone would not harm the character of the Conservation Area or Listed Building. Archeological Considerations The site is located within an archeological interest area. UDP policy 4.9 states that it is the Council’s intention to protect archeological sites. Any proposal must provide adequate opportunities for archeological investigation prior to development. An Archaeological survey would be required since the site is known to have had a place of worship since the 15th Century and is located within an area of archeological interest. In the event of archaeological relics being found in the site of the proposed building footprint and also in regard to headstones, which form part of the interest of the churchyard then suitable mitigation measures would need to be implemented in consultation with interested parties including London Diocese, LB Ealing and English Heritage.

-9-

Item No: 06 Impact on Trees Adopted UDP Policy 3.8 (Biodiversity and Nature Conservation) states that the Council will protect landscape features, both in the built-up area and on open land, which are affected by development and will promote conservation and enhancement of important features of the natural environment. As stated above St Mary’s Church is a Grade II* Statutory Listed Building. UDP policy 4.6 (Statutory Listed Buildings) states that the Council will seek to preserve and enhance the setting of Listed Buildings by assessing the design of development in their vicinity and by preservation of trees within the setting of the listed building. The site is located within Churchfields Conservation Area. Trees located within conservation areas are subject to broad-brush control, which provides for a six-week notification period for felling or any other works. In making a decision about whether such trees should be felled or lopped the Council is legally bound to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a particular conservation area (sec 72. of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). Obviously the felling of a tree is extremely unlikely to lead to character enhancement unless there are exceptionally compelling visual gains to be had from associated developments, but the duty to preserve character is obviously a paramount consideration. The area to the rear of the Church contains 6 trees. A Copper Beach tree (T1) of moderate quality is located 4 metres to the west of the site of the temporary building. A Yew tree (T2) of moderate quality is located further to the west, approximately 8 metres from the site of the temporary building. A Mountain Ash (T3), Holly (T4) and Laurel (T5) all of low/adequate qualities are located to the north of the temporary building 2 metres from the site of the temporary building. An Ash (T6) tree of moderate quality is located to the east 10 metres from the site of the temporary building. The development would result in the loss of no trees but construction activity could adversely affect retained trees if appropriate protective measures are not taken. The applicant notes that if adequate precautions to protect the retained trees are specified and implemented as described in the arboricultural method statement submitted with the application, the development proposal would have no significant adverse impact on the contribution of the site’s trees to the local amenity and its character. Several tree protection methods are proposed in the submitted method statement. The Council’s Parks and Countryside arboriculturalist has confirmed that they have no objection to the development subject to the implementation of the method statement. Nonetheless there is an inconsistency shown between the tree survey/method statement and the other submitted information in support of the application. The planning information states that piling would not be allowable by the Diocese within the graveyard due to the possibility of coming across human remains. However the tree survey method statement requires that pile foundations should be used to minimise root loss and maintain the status quo in terms of gaseous and aqueous exchange, which is essential for trees longevity. It is clear that pile foundations are not permitted on this site because of the potential for damage to buried remains. However the tree protection method statement requires that pile foundations would be used. It is considered that additional information in the form of an updated tree survey and method statement would be required correcting this inconsistency. If any trees would need to be removed because pile foundations can not be used and assessment of the loss of those trees would need to be completed. This could be dealt with as an update to the planning committee. Impact on Residential Amenity (Noise and Disturbance) The temporary classroom building would be located 13 metres away from the flank elevation of Brent Court, a block of residential flats to the east with habitable windows at ground and first floor level facing the site. Although the classroom building would have windows facing Brent Court it isconsidered that the low intensity of use of the classroom together with the fact it is a community use would mean there are no concerns in relation to overlooking and loss of outlook.

- 10 -

Item No: 06 Of more concern would be the potential for noise breakout from the classroom affecting the residential amenities of nearby residents, particularly the occupiers of the flats that have windows facing onto the site. The Council’s Environmental Health department have recognised this problem and as such have requested mitigation measures including insulation of the building envelope to prevent disturbance to adjoining occupiers and orientation of the play area away from dwellings. Had the development been acceptable in other respects further details of noise insulation and management arrangements would have been requested. Accessibility Issues UDP policy 4.3 states that development should be accessible to all, and proposals will be expected to provide:     Appropriate design of spaces between and around buildings, including parking provision, access points for public and community transport, surface treatment of pavements and pedestrian areas, kerbs and crossing, ramped changes in level, street furniture and sign-posting; Accessible entrances to/exits from buildings, including level or ramped access points, handrails for use by adults and children, entrances which are wide enough for wheelchair users and doors that everyone can use safely; Internal space and layout which allows for accessible reception areas, corridors, toilets, lifts, stairways and the main areas of buildings; Requirements relating to different aspects of disability, including wheelchair use, guide dog use, ambulant disability and sensory impairment (sight or hearing);

This development would not alter the existing pedestrian or vehicular access arrangement. Full details of compliance with the Council’s accessibility standards contained within SPG 7 have not been received. However had the development been acceptable in other respects it would have been reasonable to request this using a planning condition requesting such information. Transport Issues The development would not alter the existing highway and transport arrangements for the site. The applicant has also confirmed that the development would provide more space for existing visitors to the Sunday service and Sunday school, rather than attract additional visitors. The Highways Authority has no objection to the development. However they note that if the development would increase visitor numbers a Green Travel Plan would be required designed to promote the use of sustainable transport by new visitors. Conclusion: Although it is likely that there is need for the classroom building on this site. The application proposal seeks to site it on the church graveyard, which is an important part of the character and green setting of the Conservation Area. The graveyard is also intrinsic to the setting of the Grade II* Statutory Listed Building. The building would fail to enhance the character, architectural and historic character of the Statutory Listed Building. It is considered that there is insufficient justification for permitting the development, which would harm the character and setting of the Statutory Listed Building and Conservation Area. Additional information is also required including an archeological survey, amended tree protection methods and noise mitigation for the prevention of noise breakout from the classroom. It is therefore considered that the development is contrary to the provisions of policies 3.8, 4.1, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9 and 4.11 of the Unitary Development Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents 9 and 10, and the Churchfields Conservation Area
- 11 -

Item No: 06 Appraisal and this planning application is recommended for REFUSAL accordingly.

Recommendation (Planning Permission): That planning permission is REFUSED for the development for the following reasons: Reasons: 1. The proposed temporary building by reason of its location in the Church graveyard and its design, scale and architectural appearance would fail to harmonise with or enhance the architectural appearance and setting of the Statutory Listed Building and would be detrimental to the character and green setting of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 4.6 and 4.8 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004). 2. Inadequate information (details of foundation type for the temporary building) has been submitted regarding trees on the site. These trees make a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Statutory Listed Building. The proposed development may result in direct and indirect damage to the trees as a result of the positioning of the building and the operation of the equipment required during the construction process. The loss of these trees would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Statutory Listed Building. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 3.8, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8, of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 9 (Trees and Development Guidelines). Informatives: -In relation to reason for refusal 2 above, it is noted that there is a contradiction in the information submitted with this application. The Development Site Tree Report and Method Statement prepared by Bartlett Consulting 20/08/2008 reference MP1006R/bk states that a Pile foundation type is to be used. The submitted response to points made by planners and others dated 12/12/2008 states that a pile foundation type would not be allowable by the Diocese within the graveyard due to the possibility of coming across human remains. It is therefore considered that additional information in the form of an updated tree survey and method statement would be required on any future planning application correcting this inconsistency. If trees would then need to be removed because of the fact that pile foundations would not be used, the applicant should be aware that the Council would need to conduct an assessment of the loss of those trees on the character and amenity of the area. -The applicant and his agents should note the following additional information requirements: -Noise Survey. Insulation for the building to prevent noise breakout. For further information please contact Cyril Pennington in the Environmental Health section on 02088259971 or penngtnc@ealing.gov.uk -Archeological Report. The site is within an area identified for its archeological importance. There has also been a Church on this site since the 15th century. At the minimum at the planning application stage a desk top assessment would be required identifying the potential impact of the development on the archeological remains on the site.

Human Rights Act:

- 12 -

Item No: 06

You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for refusal of permission in this case interferes with applicant’s right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of neighbours). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for refusal is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.

- 13 -


				
DOCUMENT INFO