Report - Hayes _ Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999

Document Sample
Report - Hayes _ Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999 Powered By Docstoc
					PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE - 1 JUNE 1999                      REPORT OF THE HEAD
HAYES & HARLINGTON                                       OF PLANNING SERVICES

                                     CONTACT OFFICER: ANDY PARKER
                                          EXTENSION: 2653

      Application No.     Location                  Proposal

1.    17183E/99/122       THE FIREFLY PUBLIC        CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS
                          HOUSE                     A3 (PUBLIC HOUSE) TO CLASS
                          WELBECK AVENUE            C1 (26-BEDROOM HOTEL)
                          HAYES                     INCLUDING ERECTION OF
                                                    NEW ENTRANCE LOBBY PLUS
                                                    EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS
      (Date of receipt: 25.1.99)                    Drawing Nos. 1088.3, 1088.2a,
      (Last amended plans received: 23.3.99)        1088.1 Market & Feasibility
                                                    Study received 25.1.99 and
                                                    23.3.99 and letters dated 5.3.99,
                                                    12.3.99, 18.3.99 and 13.5.99

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Developed Area

(1)    SUMMARY

Planning permission is sought to change the use of the Firefly Public House
(Class A3) to a 26-bedroom hotel (Class C1). The application site is considered to
be an inappropriate location for this use, giving rise to both noise and disturbance at
unsociable hours and the generation of additional traffic. This would detract from both
the amenities of nearby residents and the free flow of traffic on the adjacent highway.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL, for the following reasons:-

1.     The proposal would represent an inappropriate use within a
       predominantly residential area and would be likely to give rise to noise
       and disturbance at unsociable hours, thereby detracting from the
       amenities of nearby residents being contrary to Policies T4 and OE1 of
       the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2.     The proposal is likely to generate additional car-borne traffic which
       cannot be accommodated within the application site. This would give
       rise to parking on the adjacent highway to the detriment of the free flow
       of traffic and conditions of highway and pedestrian safety. The proposal
       is therefore contrary to Policies T4 and AM6 of the UDP.

3.     The proposal would result in additional car movements and would not
       represent sustainable development and would thereby be contrary to
       Part 1 Policy 1.29 of the UDP.



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 1
(3)   INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                 0.10 Hectare

CAR PARKING:          Lost: 0   Provided: 13 maximum        Required: 16 maximum
                                                                        4 minimum

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 540m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:         No. consulted: 36    No. of replies: 11 letters of objection
                                                          1 petition with
                                                          324 signatures

Comments:

1.    the proposal will result in a loss of privacy;
2.    concern over strangers passing through a residential area;
3.    a 24 hour licence for a hotel would be unacceptable;
4.    proposal will result in additional traffic being prejudicial to highway and
      pedestrian safety;
5.    proposal provides insufficient parking and will exacerbate existing parking
      problems;
6.    site should be used for something of community benefit;
7.    the proposal would be out of keeping with the residential area;
8.    the proposal may be used for temporary accommodation in view of current
      shortage;
9.    the proposal will result in noise and disturbance at unsociable hours;
10.   cooking for large numbers of people will cause unacceptable smell;
11.   the proposal will result in additional rubbish.

OTHER CONSULTATIONS                  COMMENTS:

Neighbourhood Watch                  The proposal will not be used as a hotel but will
                                     offer instead cheap accommodation for
                                     homeless people/asylum seekers/DHSS. This
                                     would have serious consequences which would
                                     be aggravated should a drinks licence be
                                     granted.

Brook Green Residents Association (i)      A hotel in the area would be
                                           inappropriate.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 2
                                      (ii)    A bar inside the hotel will result in similar
                                              problems to those experienced when the
                                              pub was operating.

                                      (iii)   The existing parking would be
                                              inadequate.

                                      (iv)    The proposal would result in noise and
                                              disturbance.

John McDonnell MP                     Objects to proposed development:

                                      (i)     parking would cause problems in a
                                              residential area;

                                      (ii)    the additional traffic generated would be
                                              dangerous in an area being used as ‘rat
                                              runs’;

                                      (iii)   the proposal includes an application for a
                                              24 hour drinks licence which, given the
                                              problems experienced by the Public
                                              House, would be unacceptable.

(4)    REPORT

The Site

This application relates to a corner plot of land approximately 0.10 hectare in area
which is located to the south of Welbeck Avenue at its junction with Stratford Road.
Immediately to the west of the site is Barnhill Methodist Church.

The site is occupied by the Firefly Public House which has been vacant for several
months.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought to change the use of the public house (Class A3) to a
26-bedroom hotel (Class C1) including the erection of a new entrance lobby and
alterations to external elevations. A breakfast/bar is to be provided within the
basement.

The applicants have stated that the hotel will provide budget accommodation
predominantly for travellers arriving at Heathrow Airport who require transit and
overnight accommodation.

Relevant Planning History




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                           Page 3
None.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999   Page 4
Planning Policies and Standards

Policies T4, OE1 and AM6 of the adopted UDP are relevant.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue in this case is considered to be whether this site is an appropriate
location for a hotel development in terms of:-

(i)     its impact on the amenities of adjoining residents;
(ii)    its impact on highway and pedestrian safety;
(iii)   whether it is sustainable.

Policy T4 of the UDP states:-

HOTELS, GUEST HOUSES AND OTHER TOURIST ACCOMMODATION WILL BE
ACCEPTABLE IN PRINCIPLE PROVIDED:

(i)     THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN A MIXED USE AREA; AND

(ii)    THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED NEAR OR ON A PRIMARY OR
        SECONDARY ROAD OR BRITISH RAIL OR UNDERGROUND STATION;
        AND

(iii)   THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AMENITY TO
        NEIGHBOURS THROUGH NOISE AND OTHER DISTURBANCES; AND

(iv)    PARKING TO STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING
        AUTHORITY CAN BE MET WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE SITE;

(v)     ANY ON-STREET PARKING THAT MAY BE GENERATED CAN BE
        ACCOMMODATED WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO THE FREE FLOW OF
        TRAFFIC OR CONDITIONS OF GENERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY.

(i)     Impact on the amenities of adjoining residents

        Although there is a parade of shops on Welbeck Court to the north of
        Welbeck Avenue, the site is located in a predominantly quiet residential area.
        It is considered therefore that a 26-bedroom hotel in this location and the
        general level of activity associated with it, would be out of keeping with the
        character of the surrounding area, and would give rise to noise and disturbance
        at unsociable hours to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining residents.

        Whilst it is accepted that the Firefly Public House may also have generated
        noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour late at night, this is not considered
        to be a justifiable reason to grant approval for this non-conforming use, which
        is also likely to have related activity in the early morning.



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 5
(ii)    Impact on highway and pedestrian safety

        The site is located some distance from the nearest primary road, the
        Uxbridge Road and from the nearest main route into Heathrow, the Hayes By-
        Pass. Furthermore, the site is not directly accessible from the airport via
        public transport.

        Plans indicate that a total of 13 spaces can be provided within the application
        site. According to this Council’s standards, a maximum of 16 spaces are
        required to be provided.

        Although the applicants have stated that they aim to provide a courtesy bus
        service to take people to and from Heathrow Airport, it is considered that the
        proposal in this location is likely to generate additional car-borne traffic which
        cannot be accommodated within the application site. The proposal is therefore
        likely to give rise to additional on-street parking to the detriment of highway
        and pedestrian safety.

(iii)   Sustainable development

        Central Government guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note
        No. 13 seeks to reduce the number and length of motorised journeys. The
        additional car movements likely to be generated by this proposal are therefore
        also considered contrary to this guidance. The former use was essentially a
        local use.

Public Consultation

11 letters of objection, a petition with 324 signatures from residents have been
received and are summarised above. With regard to the comments made:-

Points 4, 5, 7 and 9 are supported in the main body of the report.

Points 2 and 11 are not material planning considerations.

Point 1 - No additional windows are proposed in the flank elevation facing
No. 37 Stratford Road. Any overlooking of this property would not be materially
different to that which currently exists.

Point 3 - Plans indicate that a small bar/breakfast area is proposed in the basement.
The applicants have stated that the bar will be open between 12.00 pm and 3.00 pm
and 5.00 pm to 11.00 pm. 24 hour opening is not therefore proposed.

Point 6 - The Firefly Public House, by definition does not constitute a community
facility. There is therefore no provision within the UDP to secure a use which is of a
community benefit.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 6
Point 8 - A hotel use falls within Class C1 of the Use Classes Order 1987, social
housing for the homeless does not fall within this use class. Any use of this building
for this purpose would be unauthorised.

Point 10 - It is considered that any cooking smells could be controlled through the
installation of a suitable extraction system.

Further comments have been received from Neighbourhood Watch, Brook Green
Residents Association and John McDonnell MP. The comments raised by
Neighbourhood Watch, and points (i), (iii) and (iv) of Brook Green Residents’
Association and (i) and (iii) of the MP’s letter have already been addressed above in
the officer’s responses to the residents’ comments. With regard to point (ii) of the
letter from the Residents’ Association, it is not considered that the proposed bar
which is ancillary to the hotel will give rise to the problems of noise, disturbance and
anti-social behaviour which were experienced when the pub was operating. With
regard to point (ii) of the MP’s letter, there is no evidence of significant “rat running”
along Welbeck Avenue.

Conclusion

The proposal fails to satisfy any of the locational criteria specified in Policy T4 of the
UDP and is considered unacceptable for the reasons outlined in the main body of the
report. I recommend accordingly.

Background Documents

The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered
below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-

          47 and Adopted UDP

In addition the following documents were also used:-

11 letters of objection
1 petition with 324 signatures




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                           Page 7
                                          CONTACT OFFICER: RICHARD BUXTON
                                               EXTENSION: 3838

      Application No.        Location                       Proposal

(2)   53744/99/320           452 UXBRIDGE ROAD              CHANGE OF USE FROM
                             HAYES                          CLASS A1 (RETAIL) TO
                                                            CLASS A2 (FINANCIAL AND
                                                            PROFESSIONAL
                                                            SERVICES)
      (Date of receipt: 19.2.99)                            Unnumbered site plan
                                                            received on 19.2.99

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Developed Area/Secondary Shopping Area

(1)      SUMMARY

The re-use of this vacant unit is unlikely to harm the vitality, viability and attractiveness
of this part of the secondary shopping area, notwithstanding the fact that it will lead to
a 21m interruption in the shopping frontage. It is a busy part of the shopping area
lying between Waitrose and Sainsbury’s and other shops at the Lombardy Retail
Park.

(2)      RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1. (B1) Time Limit (Full)                      1. (B1) Standard
2. (B34) Shop Window Display                   2. (B34)Standard
3. (B8) Parking                                3. (B8) Standard

INFORMATIVE

1. (3)     Property Rights/Rights of Light

(3)      INFORMATION

SITE AREA:              0.005 Hectare        0.00123 Acre

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 50m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:             No. consulted:   5           No. of replies:   0




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                            Page 8
(4)   REPORT

The Site

No. 452 Uxbridge Road is a small vacant shop unit located within the eastern part of
the Uxbridge Road Minor Town Centre secondary shopping area. Situated between
an estate agents and Smiths printers and stationers, this part of Uxbridge Road is
close to the Yeading Lane and Coldharbour Lane junction.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought to change the use of the premises from an A1 (Retail)
use to an A2 (Financial and Professional) use with a firm of solicitors, Hodders,
specifically in mind.

Relevant Planning History

None applicable.

Planning Standards and Policies

The most relevant policy within the UDP is S14 which refers:-

      S14 IN SECONDARY SHOPPING AREAS, THE LOCAL PLANNING
      AUTHORITY WILL ONLY GRANT PERMISSION FOR THE SERVICE USES
      SET OUT BELOW WHERE IT IS SATISFIED THAT

      (a)      THE REMAINING RETAIL FACILITIES ARE ADEQUATE TO ACCORD
               WITH THE CHARACTER AND FUNCTION OF THE SHOPPING
               CENTRE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF MODERN
               RETAILING INCLUDING CONSUMER INTERESTS.

      (b)      THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT RESULT IN A SEPARATION OF
               CLASS A1 USES OR A CONCENTRATION OF NON-RETAIL USES
               WHICH MIGHT HARM THE VIABILITY OR VITALITY OF THE
               CENTRE.

      IT WILL REGARD THE FOLLOWING USES AS ACCEPTABLE AT GROUND
      FLOOR LEVEL WITHIN THE SHOPPING FRONTAGES OF SECONDARY
      SHOPPING AREAS, SUBJECT TO THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT IN
      POLICY S8:-

               (i)     USES SET OUT IN POLICY S13;
               (ii)    OTHER CLASS A2 FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL
                       SERVICES;
               (iii)   LAUNDERETTES AND COIN-OPERATED DRY CLEANERS;



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 9
              (iv)    COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICES, INCLUDING DOCTORS
                      SURGERIES; AND
              (v)     AMUSEMENT CENTRES.

       THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL NEED TO BE SATISFIED
       THAT:

       (a)    THE PROPOSED USE PROVIDES A SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENT OF
              ITS SERVICES TO VISITING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC; AND

       (b)    THE USE IS APPROPRIATE TO THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF
              THE SHOPPING CENTRE AND IS LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE TO ITS
              ATTRACTIVENESS FOR SHOPPERS.

Main Planning Issues

The prime consideration involves the impact of this proposal on the character and
function of the Uxbridge Road Minor Town Centre shopping area and whether
sufficient retail facilities will remain.

This unit is more than 65 metres from the eastern edge of the primary shopping area
and is separated by the Mecca Bingo Hall, an accessway, and 3 existing A2
(Financial and Professional) uses such that its relationship to the main shopping area
is somewhat peripheral.

Guidelines indicate that at least 50% of the secondary shopping frontage should
remain in A1 (Retail) use to complement the functioning of the Town Centre. Of the
150m of secondary frontage, 80m are still in A1 use and this exceeds the 50%
guideline, even taking into account the proposed change of use of the application site
(at 4.5m it equates to 3% of the shopping frontage).

The proposal will not, therefore, harm the 50% guideline or the functioning of the
secondary shopping parade or the attractiveness of the shopping area in general.

It is accepted that there will be a sizeable interruption in the shopping frontage (of
21m) which exceeds the nominal guideline of 12 metres but this is not considered to
be so harmful to the vitality and viability of the secondary shopping area because:-

a)     it would result in the use of a vacant unit which currently detracts from the
       attractiveness of the area;

b)     the unit has been unsuccessfully marketed for A1 purposes for the last
       9 months;

c)     there is a lot of pedestrian traffic along this stretch of the road as it lies
       between Sainsbury’s and Waitrose;




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                           Page 10
d)     the vacancy rate in the secondary area is already approaching 20%.

In support of their application Hodders Solicitors have provided the following
information:-

       “Hodders as a practice, although of a medium size, concentrates on developing
       small satellite offices to serve a particular area whilst still being able to provide
       our clients with the backup of a larger organisation. It would be our intention to
       generate more of a “shopfront” style as opposed to a traditional office in order
       to encourage the general public into the premises.

       In conjunction with the premises already in existence on the parade, we feel
       that a solicitor’s office would complement the services available and therefore
       encourage persons to utilise those services more fully.”

Public Consultation

No comments have been received.

Conclusion

Given the characteristics of this part of the Uxbridge Road Minor Town Centre
secondary shopping area described above, it is not considered that the vitality,
viability and attractiveness of the area will be harmed by this proposal.

Background Documents

The background document used in the preparation of this report is:-

       Adopted UDP




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 11
                                         CONTACT OFFICER:           ANDREW PARKER
                                              EXTENSION:            2653

      Application No.        Location                    Proposal

(3)   53386/99/270           36 WESTLANDS CLOSE          ERECTION OF DETACHED
                             HAYES                       OUTBUILDING/SHED
                                                         (RETROSPECTIVE
                                                         APPLICATION)
                                                         Un-numbered floor plans,
                                                         elevations, location plan
                                                         received 21.4.99

      (Date of receipt:) 15.2.99
       (Last amended plans received: 21.4.99)

Adopted Unitary Development Plan : Developed Area

(1)    SUMMARY

This retrospective application seeks permission to retain an outbuilding/shed. It is
considered that subject to safeguarding conditions, the building would neither result in
the ovedevelopment of the site nor detract from the amenities of adjoining residents.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following condition:-

1. That the building hereby approved         1. To ensure that the
   shall be completed in accordance             development presents a
   with the approved plans within two           satisfactory appearance.
   months of the date of this
   permission.

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property Rights.
2. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control.

(3)    INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                           0.0175 Hectares

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 13m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:             No. consulted:   9        No. of replies:    2




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 12
Comments:

(i)    The elevations on the submitted drawings are incorrect; the height of the
       structure is higher than the 3.222m indicated on the plans.

(ii)   The outbuilding is too high.

(4)    REPORT

The Site

This application concerns a semi-detached house located to the rear of
22 Wyre Grove with access from Westlands Close, Hayes.

Relevant Planning History

Planning permission ref: 44554A/90/94 was granted on 7 August 1990 for the
erection of two 2-bedroom semi-detached houses with garages on land to the rear of
18, 20 and 22 Wyre Grove which are now 34 and 36 Westlands Close.

The Proposal

A site visit on 22 October 1998, established that a detached outbuilding/shed had
been erected without the benefit of planning permission.

As the structure is within 5 metres of the dwellinghouse it is dealt with under Class A
of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planing (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995. i.e. as the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of
a dwellinghouse. Any permitted development allowance under this Class was
however removed by Condition 6 of planning permission 44554A/90/941 for this
property.

Furthermore, as the height of the outbuilding/shed also exceeds 3 metres (the roof on
the shed is not ridged when the limit is 4 metres). The shed would not be
automatically granted planning permission under Class E of Part 1 of the Town and
Country Planning (GPO) Order 1995 in any case.

Planning permission is therefore required. A retrospective application to retain the
outbuilding/shed was subsequently received on 15 February 1999.

Main Planning Issues

The outbuilding is located in the south eastern corner of the rear garden area of
No. 36. The building is not visible from the public highway, and the main issues in this
case are considered to be whether this structure:-

(i)    would result in the overdevelopment of the site and an inadequate garden area.



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 13
(ii)   detract from the amenities of adjoining residents.

The structure has an overall floor area of 13.05m² and it is not considered that a
structure of this size will give rise to a loss of rear garden area sufficiently detrimental
to the amenities of the occupiers of this property so as to justify refusal.

The outbuilding is brick built, the roof has not yet been completed but plans indicated
that the roof is to be tiled to match the existing house. The building is a maximum of
3.2 m high and is visible from the rear gardens of 6 and 8 Granville Road and 20, 22
Wyre Grove.

It is considered that a building of this height and overall size would not give rise to an
overdominant or intrusive form of development when viewed from adjoining properties.

However, whilst the brick materials are considered to match the existing house the
mortar work on the external elevations facing Granville Road and Wyre Grove is
considered to be of poor standard. Revised drawings have therefore been submitted
which indicate that these walls are to be rendered and painted white above existing
fence height. Should Members be minded to approve this application it is suggested
that a condition is attached requiring that all works in accordance with the approved
drawings be completed within two months of development commencing to ensure that
the development presents a satisfactory appearance.

Public Consultation

Two letters of objection have been received and these are summarised above. With
regard to Point 1 measurements taken on site have confirmed that the dimensions
indicated on the submitted plans are accurate. Point 2 has been answered in the
main body of the report.

Conclusion

The retention of this detached building subject to safeguarding condition would neither
result in the overdevelopment of the site, nor detract from the amenities of adjoining
residents.

Background Documents

       20, 21 UDP




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                          Page 14
                                          CONTACT OFFICER:        RICHARD BUXTON
                                               EXTENSION:         3838

      Application No.          Location                   Proposal

4. (A) 2373BH/99/137           LAND AT NORTH OF           RENEWAL OF PLANNING
                               CRANFORD LANE              PERMISSION REF:
                               HARLINGTON                 2373BC/97/33 DATED
                                                          19.2.97; CONTINUED
                                                          STANDING OF TWO
                                                          CARAVANS FOR USE IN
                                                          CONNECTION WITH THE
                                                          EXTRACTION AND
                                                          PROCESSING OF SAND
                                                          AND GRAVEL
                                                          Drawing No. CPG4 received
                                                          28.1.99 and letters dated
                                                          26.1.99
      (Date of receipt: 28.1.99)

Unitary Development Plan - Green Belt

(1)    SUMMARY (A & B)

These applications relate to an area of land to the east of Harlington High Street and
150m south of the M4 that are part of a former minerals approval allowed on appeal
on 27 May 1968. Under the Environment Act 1995 the area of land, the subject of
these two applications is to be extracted by 31 October 2002 and restored to
agriculture by 31 October 2003. Temporary approval for these structures is,
therefore, considered appropriate.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION (A) - APPROVAL, subject to the following condition:-

1. This permission is for a temporary        1. The site is situated in the
   period expiring when the caravans            Metropolitan Green Belt.
   are no longer needed on 31                   The retention of the
   October 2002 whichever is the                caravans for a longer period
   sooner when the caravans shall be            than hereby permitted would
   removed and the land reinstated in           be prejudicial to the function
   a manner agreed in writing by the            of the Green Belt and
   Local Planning Authority.                    contrary to Policies OL1 and
                                                OL2 of the Unitary
                                                Development Plan.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 15
                                         CONTACT OFFICER:         RICHARD BUXTON
                                              EXTENSION:          3838

      Application No.        Location                    Proposal

(B) 2373BG/99/134            LAND AT NORTH OF            RENEWAL OF PLANNING
                             CRANFORD LANE               PERMISSION REF:
                             HARLINGTON                  2373AS/92/1945 DATED
                                                         17.2.93; RETENTION OF
                                                         THE ELECTRICITY SWITCH
                                                         HOUSE, OFFICE BUILDING
                                                         AND MESS ROOM/WC
                                                         BUILDING IN CONNECTION
                                                         WITH THE OPERATION OF
                                                         THE SAND AND GRAVEL
                                                         PLANT
                                                         Drawing No. CPG3 received
                                                         28.1.99 and letters dated
                                                         26.1.99
      (Date of receipt: 28.1.99)

Unitary Development Plan - Green Belt

(2)    RECOMMENDATION (B) - APPROVAL, subject to the following
       condition:-

1. This permission is for a temporary         1. The site is situated in the
   period expiring when the buildings            Metropolitan Green Belt.
   and plant are no longer needed on             The retention of the
   31 October 2002 whichever is the              buildings and plant for a
   sooner when the caravans shall be             longer period than hereby
   removed and the land reinstated in            permitted would be
   a manner agreed in writing by the             prejudicial to the function of
   Local Planning Authority.                     the Green Belt and contrary
                                                 to Policies OL1 and OL2 of
                                                 the Unitary Development
                                                 Plan.

(3)    INFORMATION (A & B)

SITE AREA:                      65 Hectares

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:             No. consulted:   0         No. of replies: 0
                                                   (Site Notice Put Up)



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 16
OTHER CONSULTATIONS                     COMMENTS:

Harlington Village Association          No response received.


(4)    REPORTS (A & B)

The Site

Applications A and B relates to small parts of a 65 hectare site north of
Cranford Lane and south of the M4. Permission is sought to retain 2 caravans and
some other ancillary structures (including an electricity switch house, office building,
mess room and toilet building). Approval is recommended on the basis that the
structures are removed once the gravel has been extracted. This date being
31 October 2002.

Relevant Planning History

These applications relate to an area of land to the east of Harlington High Street and
150m south of the M4 that are part of a minerals approval (ref. APP/4418A/9996)
allowed on appeal on 27 May 1968. Under the Environment Act 1995 the area of
land, the subject of these two applications, is to be extracted by 31 October 2002
and restored to agriculture by 31 October 2003.

Planning Policies

The principle of working sand and gravel at this location has been accepted and these
ancillary structures are incidental to and necessary for the working of minerals and
comply with mineral planning policy.

Main Planning Issues

The building whose retention (until 31.10.2002) is sought by applications A and B are
small, remote from roads and houses, and directly relate to the continuing operations
south of Cranford Lane such that it is reasonable to grant a further temporary
permission for them.

Public Consultation

No response.

Conclusion

These ancillary structures are necessary to the efficient running of the minerals
operation, with regard to extraction and aftercare, such that their approval for a
further three years is considered acceptable. they are, therefore, recommended
accordingly.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                        Page 17
Background Documents

The background documents used in the preparation of these reports include the UDP,
planning history of the site, Environment Act 1995.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                 Page 18
                                         CONTACT OFFICER:           RICHARD BUXTON
                                              EXTENSION:            3838

      Application No.        Location                    Proposal

5.    13618C/99/282          8 HARLINGTON CLOSE          ERECTION OF A SINGLE
                             HARLINGTON                  STOREY REAR EXTENSION
                                                         AND CONSERVATORY
                                                         (PART RETROSPECTIVE)
      (Date of receipt:) 15.2.99                         Drawing No. A1-8,
                                                         Un-numbered 1:250 & 1:1250
                                                         site plan and received on
                                                         15.2.99


Central Hillingdon Local Plan: Developed Area

(1)    SUMMARY

Works have been carried out to this property to extend the garage and convert it into
habitable accommodation but given the specific site characteristics the amenity of the
adjoining occupiers is not materially harmed by the development and approval is
recommended. The proposed rear conservatory is also considered acceptable.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1. (B15) External Surfaces to Match           1. (B15) Standard
2. (D1) Additional Fenestration               2. (D1) Standard
   (‘facing 7 Harlington Close’)
3. (D4) Prevention of balconies               3. (D4) Standard
4. (B14A) Screen fencing ‘7                   4. (B14A) Standard
   Harlington Close’

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property rights/Rights of Light
2. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control

(3)    INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                  0.0330 Hectares                0.082 Acres

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 34m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:             No. consulted:   7        No. of replies:   NIL



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 19
OTHER CONSULTATIONS                    COMMENTS:

Area Engineer                          No objection


(4)    REPORT

The Site

8 Harlington Close is a semi-detached property located in a cul-de-sac to the south of
West End Lane, Harlington. Built in the 1920’s the property has a 20m deep back
garden, a side passageway and a 7m long front garden. The house is pebbledashed
and immediately adjoins 7 Harlington Close. Two driveways separate number 8 from
9 Harlington Close which also has a detached rear garage.

The Proposal

There are two elements to this application:-

a)      retrospective approval for a single storey rear extension that has been
        attached to the detached garage.

b)      a proposed rear conservatory (2.6m deep) adjacent to the adjoining semi-
        detached property at 7 Harlington Close.

Planning History

None relevant.

Planning Standards and Policies

Those of relevance to this proposal include:-

BE13 - Requires that new development ensures sunlight and daylight can penetrate
       between buildings.

BE14 - Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a
       loss of residential amenity by reason of siting and bulk. Provision within
       Planning Policy Guidance Note 18 (Enforcing Planning Control) are also
       instructive.

Main Planning Issues

The detached garage in the garden of 8 Harlington Close has now been converted
and extended to form an integral part of the house incorporating a kitchen/diner, utility
and laundry room. The laundry room projects beyond the rear of the next door
neighbour’s (No. 9) garage by only 1.5 metres and the garage door has been



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 20
replaced by a bay window. View of this property from West End Lane to the rear are
obscured by evergreen trees. The main issue is whether the extension materially
affects the amenity of the adjoining occupiers in terms of overdominance, visual
intrusion loss of sunlight or daylight.

Whilst a considerable volume of development has been added to the house it is not
considered that the amenities of the adjoining occupiers are unduly harmed because:-

        a)   There is a detached garage to the rear of 9 Harlington Close, which
             shields the development from the occupier of 9 Harlington Close, such
             that one is only aware of the extension from the rear of the garden.

        b)    The extension is set-off the boundary with 7 Harlington Close (the
              adjoining semi-detached property) by more than 3 metres.

        c)    The proposed conservatory complies with design guidance and is less
              than 3.25m deep.

        d)   The orientation of the extension will not overshadow the rear patio areas
             of either of the adjoining sites.

        e)   A significant screen exists on the boundary with 7 Harlington Close. For
             the above reasons it is considered that the existing development and the
             proposed conservatory do not materially harm, the amenities of the
             adjoining occupiers, nor, despite their extent do they have an
             unacceptable relationship with the existing house.

Public Consultation

No responses have been received.

Conclusion

That part of the rear extension that has already been constructed is of an adequate
distance away from the adjoining occupiers to ensure that their amenity is not
materially harmed. The proposed conservatory is sufficiently small as to comply with
design guidance and will not impact adversely on the amenities of the adjoining
occupier at 7 Harlington Close. The proposal is, therefore, recommended
accordingly.

The background documents used in the preparation of this report include:-

             37 and 47




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 21
                                         CONTACT OFFICER: KEVIN McGILL
                                              EXTENSION: 3577

      Application No.      Location                      Proposal

6.    36141Y/98/2124       HILTON HOTEL AND              ERECTION OF A 7 STOREY
                           MATRIX SITE                   EXTENSION TO PROVIDE
                           SHEFFIELD ROAD                245 BEDROOMS, PLUS
                           HEATHROW AIRPORT              CONFERENCE FACILITIES,
                                                         VEHICULAR ACCESS,
                                                         PARKING AND
                                                         LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING
                                                         DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
                                                         WAREHOUSE)
                                                         Drawing Nos:-
                                                         828PA001 Revision A,
                                                         828PA002 Revision C,
                                                         828PA003 Revision B,
                                                         828PA004 Revision E,
                                                         828PA005 Revision B,
                                                         828PA006 Revision B,
                                                         828PA007 Revision B,
                                                         828PA008 Revision B,
                                                         828PA009 Revision B
                                                         828PA010 Revision B,
                                                         828PA011 Revision B
                                                         828PA012 Revision B,
                                                         828PA014 SHT 1 Revision C,
                                                         828 PA014 SHT 2
                                                         Revision C received on
                                                         10.5.99 and letters dated
                                                         28.4.99 and 7.5.99

      (Date of receipt: (2.11.98)
      (Last amended plans received: 10.5.99)

Unitary Development Plan - Airport

(1)    SUMMARY

This application follows the dismissal of an appeal against the Council’s resolution to
refuse an extension proposed at the other end of this prominent, award winning
building. The application followed pre-application discussions with Officers and is




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 22
considered below in the light of the relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies and
National Planning Guidance. It is considered acceptable subject to a legal
agreement, the completion of an archaeological evaluation and various conditions.

(2)   RECOMMENDATION - A

That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant and others with
a legal interest in the site under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 in order to secure:-

(i) A contribution of £50,000 to the Hotel Training Centre at the Middlesex
    Training Centre.

(ii) A contribution of £10,000 to the Council’s Tourism Development Strategy.

(iii) Off-site landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION - B

That the application be deferred for approval by the Head of Planning Services
on completion of the legal agreement and on completion of the recommended
archaeological evaluation to the satisfaction of English Heritage subject to the
following conditions:-

1.  (B1) Time Limit (Full)                  1.   (B1) Standard
2.  (A2) Existing Trees                     2.   (A2) Standard
3.  (A3) Trees retained etc.                3.   (A3) Standard
4.  (A4) Fencing to protect root areas      4.   (A4) Standard
5.  (B5) New Planting                       5.   (B5) Standard
6.  (B6) New Planting                       6.   (B6) Standard
7.  (B10) Parking/Turning/Loading           7.   (B10)Standard
    Arrangements
8. (B31) People with Disabilities           8. (B31)Standard
9. (E8) Internal Floorspace                 9. (E8) Standard
10. Before any part of the development      10.To ensure adequate facilities
    is occupied, a site plan showing           are provided in order to
    the spaces to be used for                  avoid the likelihood of on-
    employee parking shall be                  street parking occurring on
    submitted to the LPA. Such                 nearby residential roads.
    employees’ spaces identified on
    the site plan shall be clearly
    marked on site as employee
    marking only, and used for no
    other purpose.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 23
11. The car park shall be used by staff     11.To ensure adequate facilities
    and visitors only and shall not be         are provided in order to
    used for the operation of car hire         avoid the likelihood of on-
    firms nor for any other commercial         street parking occurring on
    purpose.                                   nearby residential roads.
12. Construction work shall not begin       12.(A31)Standard
    until a scheme for protecting the
    proposed development from
    aircraft noise has been submitted
    to and approved by the LPA. All
    works which form part of the
    scheme shall be completed before
    any part of the development is
    occupied. In determining this
    scheme the applicants shall have
    regard to the guidance contained
    within BS 8233 : 1987 with respect
    to internal noise design criteria in
    hotels, Section 13.5 and offices,
    Section 11.2.
13. Details of all materials and finishes   13.To ensure that the
    to be used for all external surfaces       development presents a
    of all the buildings shall be              satisfactory appearance.
    submitted to and approved in
    writing by the LPA before
    development commences.

INFORMATIVES

1.    (14) Compliance with legislation administered by EPU.
2.    (15) Compliance with Environmental Health Legislation
3.    (25) Legislation administered by Building Control.
4.    You are reminded that the premises are licensed for Public
      Entertainment. It is a condition of the licence that full details of any
      proposed alterations or additions to the approved arrangements be
      submitted for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of
      work.

      As the licences are issued (on behalf of the Council) by the
      Entertainment Licensing Section of the Local Services Group, you are
      advised to contact the Entertainment Licensing Officer at the Civic
      Centre (3W/03), High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW (Tel: 01895 277433) in
      regard to this matter.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                   Page 24
(3)    INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                    2.3 Hectares

CAR PARKING:                             463                     Required:   275 (min)
                                         (total)                             1055
                                                                             (max)

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 20,300m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:           No. consulted:   Site        No. of replies:   0
                                       Notice

*THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:

*(a)   a major development.

Comments:

OTHER CONSULTATIONS                    COMMENTS:

Civil Aviation Authority               No objection

Highways Agency                        No comments

English Heritage (Archaeology)         Advise that evaluation works recommended by
                                       applicant’s consultants should be undertaken
                                       prior to permission being granted.


(4)    REPORT

The Site

This application relates to the site of the Hilton Hotel south east of Terminal 4 (T4)
and to the ‘Matrix Site’ to the east of the hotel which contains a single storey
warehouse building. The site is bounded on all sides by roads, namely the Southern
Perimeter Road, Snowdon Road, Sheffield Way and Sheffield Road, the latter being
the slip road from the T4 roundabout onto the A.30 Great South West Road. Further
to the south and east of the site beyond the A.30 is residential development in the
borough of Hounslow.

The main vehicular access to the site is via an elevated ramp off Sheffield Road which
runs parallel to the eastern end of the building and then descends in a semi-circle to
the main car park, there is a separate exit onto Sheffield Road, another access off
Snowden Road, the slip road up from the west bound Southern Perimeter Road to the
T4 roundabout, provides for service vehicles and staff car parking.


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 25
The hotel opened in 1990 and currently offers 6 floors of accommodation comprising
some 395 bedrooms, conference facilities, leisure facility, restaurants and 298 car
parking spaces.

The shape of the existing building is a parallelogram with the two longer sides of the
building containing 5 storeys of double banked bedrooms on either side of an atrium
30m wide with glass curtain walls along each end. The atrium floor contains the main
entrance to the building with reception, restaurants, bars, shops etc. Below this are
the leisure facility, conference and meeting rooms, storage areas and plant rooms.
The leisure pool is situated at the south western end of the building and extends
visually into a pond located in a grassed area separated from the T4 roundabout by a
steep embankment. This embankment extends around to the south east of the
building.

The existing building is approximately 96m long by 55m wide with the angled end
elevations having a breadth of some 70m. It is approximately 20.6m high.

The building is linked to T4 by an elevated walkway from its northern point. As
mentioned the end elevations of the building are largely formed of glass allowing a
view through the building. The long sides of the building are simple, flat, smooth
elevations with mirrored glazing and white, shiny cladding panels. The roof is flat with
the dramatic space of the atrium spanned by trusses; on the end elevation these are
picket up by a delicate edge truss on thin white columns.

The building was designed by Manser Associated and won a Civic Trust Award for its
architecture. The proposed extension has been designed by the same practice.

The Proposal

This is a full planning application to erect a 7 storey extension to the hotel to provide
245 new bedrooms, 3 new conference rooms, a restaurant and a convention centre
capable of seating 800 people, together with 187 additional parking spaces. The
extension would provide new accommodation at levels 0-6 with level 0 being below
the existing atrium level. It would be situated to the north east of the existing building
and span the whole width of the hotel linked via a glazed walkway to the east
elevation of the existing hotel. The design of the extension follows the logic and
principles of the existing building. The length of the new side elevations is
approximately 70m and the overall length of the extended building including the glazed
link will be some 175m. Externally viewed from east or west the finished building will
appear unchanged as the resulting building is an enlarged parallelogram of identical
design.

The proposal also involves amendments to the existing bridge link to Terminal 4. the
final leg of this would be straightened so that it connects directly with the glazed link
via a new cantilevered glass lobby. The rebuilt section of the bridge link will also be
predominantly glazed.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                        Page 26
Additional car parking is provided on 3 levels in front of the extension, partially
concealed by a raised landscape bank at the perimeter of the site. Vehicular access
and egress for the public remain unchanged whilst the existing service access from
the perimeter road is moved northwards.

Relevant Planning History

Planning permission for the existing hotel was granted in December 1988. Details of
landscaping, hard surfacing, materials and fencing were subsequently approved in
November 1990. The landscaping scheme approved does not appear to have been
fully implemented and some of the trees have died and not been replaced.
Applications for small ground floor extensions to provide additional function rooms
were granted in 1993 and 1994.

In 1997 planning permission was sought to extend the hotel at its other end, on one
side of the atrium only, to provide 76 new bedrooms and improved Conference
facilities. Your Committee resolved to refuse the application and following a hearing
the appeal was dismissed.

The reasons for refusal were:-

  1. The proposal represents a cramped overdevelopment of this prominent site by
     reason of the siting, scale and mass of built development proposed, it’s
     proximity to the site boundary and excessive site coverage by buildings and
     hard surfacing. It would therefore not contribute to and improve the
     appearance of the airport contrary to Policy 10B of the Unitary Development
     Plan - Proposed Modifications Version (UDP) and indeed would be detrimental
     to the appearance of the area.

  2. The proposed extension would adversely affect the architectural composition,
     layout and character of the existing building contrary to the aims of Policies
     BE10 and BE10B of the UDP for the following reasons:-

      (i)    It harms the simple geometric form and the clarity of the existing
             building.

      (ii)   It would have a detrimental impact on the views out of the atrium
             through the glass wall looking southwards.

Planning Policies and Guidelines

The following policies from the Adopted Unitary Development Plan - (UDP) are
relevant to this application.

Policies BE10, BE10B, BE30, OE1, OE5, A3A, T1, T2, T4, AM1, AM6, AM15, Part
Policy 1.25.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 27
National Planning Advice as expressed in elements of PPG1 - General Policy and
Principles PPG13 - Transport and PPG21 - Tourism are also relevant.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                 Page 28
Main Planning Issues

(i)   The acceptability of the proposal in principle.

      The principle of hotel use at the Hilton Hotel’s existing site is, of course,
      established and if the application site only comprised that land there would be
      no issue. However, the application site also includes the Matrix site whose
      authorised and current use is for storage and distribution and which is currently
      occupied by a firm of cargo handlers. The current use, therefore, comes within
      the definition of development directly related to Heathrow Airport contained in
      UDP Policy A3A. Hotel development falls outside this definition however
      paragraph 11.17 of the UDP does state that hotels and conference facilities
      may be appropriate (on airport) if suitable land is available inside the airport
      boundary.

      Certainly the Local Planning Authority would need to look carefully at any
      proposal which involves the displacement of directly related development by a
      use falling outside that definition; in this case, however, a number of factors
      combine to render the application acceptable in principle.

      Firstly, it is the case that the Matrix site forms a small pocket of warehouse
      use isolated from the main cargo area. It’s unattractive location to potential
      occupiers has resulted in it being empty between 1990 and August 1992 and
      from Summer 1997 to Spring 1998 when let on a short term lease to the
      current occupiers. With respect to the current occupiers, who occupy a
      number of sites within and outside the airport, they are currently in discussion
      with Heathrow Airport Limited with a view to consolidating their activities on
      fewer sites.

      It should also be noted that B.A.A. Heathrow are currently proposing a
      significant level of floorspace including warehousing on land at Hatton Cross.

      Another important factor is the strong demand for further hotel accommodation
      and facilities in the area. The Hilton has the highest occupancy rates of any
      airport hotel and a report commissioned by the Council from the Tourism
      Company makes it clear that there is a strong demand for terminal based
      accommodation.

      Furthermore the proposal is estimated to lead to the provision of approximately
      140 new full time and 100 part time jobs.

      Given the above and the relatively small area of the Matrix site a change of use
      of the land to hotel use is considered acceptable in this instance.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 29
(ii) Acceptability of Site Layout and Design

        It has always been your officers view that any extension to this building would
        only be acceptable, in principle, to the north-east end. Following discussions
        the bulk of the building has been reduced from that originally proposed and it is
        now considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy BE10B. The
        resultant building will, of course, be massive in scale, however, it has to be
        remembered that the airport, by its nature contains many large buildings.
        Given the siting and design of the hotel any new extension needs to replicate
        what is already there. The current proposal does that whilst now not extending
        so close to the site boundaries as to become unduly overdominant. The area
        of the site covered by buildings and hard surfaces has been reduced to some
        55% and the more generous peripheral landscaping areas now achieved will
        provide a better setting for the building than now exists. It should also be
        noted that the removal of the Matrix building will greatly improve views of the
        building from the perimeter road. The alterations to the bridge link described
        above will also improve it’s relationship with the building and thereby the visual
        amenities of the area.

(iii)   Other Matters

        The roads surrounding the development are all private airport roads and the
        traffic impact assessment submitted with the application indicates the nearby
        junctions can cope with the expected increase in use. The overall parking
        provision would be less than half the maximum standard and give the existence
        of the link to the T4 tube station this is welcomed.

Whilst detailed landscaping is to be dealt with later by condition. The submitted site
plans now shows adequate areas and the indicative landscape plans are considered
generally acceptable. Considerable off site planting is also proposed.

Planning Benefits

In accordance with the provisions of Policy LE10 Officers have entered into
negotiations with the applicants who have offered a package of benefits comprising:-

    (a) a contribution of £50,000 towards the Hotel Training Centre to be established
        at the Middlesex Training Centre.

    (b) a contribution of £10,000 towards the Council’s Tourism Development.

    (c) off-site landscaping in the vicinity of the Hilton to a value of some £110,000.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 30
Considering the above offer in the context of this application it is considered that it
fairly and reasonably relates to the development proposed and that it would be
appropriate to enter into a legal agreement to secure these benefits.

Public Consultation

No response.

Conclusion

The proposal is generally in accordance with the relevant national and local planning
policies. In terms of the ostensible conflict with Policy A3A, in relation to the change
of use of land on the airport from a use directly related to the airport to one which is
not, it has been explained above why in this case the balance of planning advantage
lies with allowing the change. The proposal is now considered acceptable in terms of
siting, layout and design and I recommend accordingly.

Background Documents

20, 21 Hillingdon UDP, Planning history of the site, interim policy for seeking funding
for training initiatives.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 31
                                       CONTACT OFFICER: KEVIN McGILL
                                            EXTENSION: 3577

      Application No.     Location                     Proposal

7.    10850S/97/2005      FORMER MAGNATEX              REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE
                          SITE BATH ROAD               FOR HOTEL USE (OUTLINE
                          HARLINGTON                   APPLICATION)


Unitary Development Plan : Developed Area

(1)    SUMMARY

At the 15.3.99 Committee meeting it was resolved to endorse this application subject
to a legal agreement to secure a number of benefits. Negotiations on the heads of
terms for these were continuing right up to Committee and whilst officers had agreed
with the applicant that one of these heads of terms could be removed, unfortunately
this was not dealt with on the amendment sheet nor at the Committee. Consequently,
this item is now reported back to your Committee in order to delete it.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - that the heads of terms for the S106 Agreement in
       relation to this application be amended to delete (vii) - “ the applicant to
       use reasonable endeavours to promote a cycle route for the length of
       Cranford Lane” and to renumber the succeeding head of terms as
       appropriate.

(3)    REPORT

The Site

This application was considered by your Committee at its March meeting when it was
resolved to enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under S106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 and to defer the application for determination by the
Head of Planning Services subject to completion of the legal agreement and to a
number of conditions.

Discussions on the content of the legal agreement were continuing right up to the day
of the Committee as there was an urgent need to deal with the application in an
attempt to secure funding required by the hotel training centre to be set up at the
Middlesex Training Centre.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                    Page 32
Item (vii) in the list of heads of terms for the agreement endorsed by your Committee
required the applicant to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to promote a cycle route for the
length of Cranford Lane. After the agenda was produced but prior to the Committee
meeting, Officers had accepted the applicant’s contention that it was not practical to
promote a cycle route along that part of Cranford Lane close to the site given the
different landowners between the Bath Road and the Northern Perimeter Road.
Given this and the fact that the proposal would only have involved signage in any
event it was agreed at officer level this requirement could be removed.

Unfortunately, this change was not made in the amendment sheet or at Committee
hence the need now to modify the earlier resolution. The earlier report to Committee
is attached to this report as Appendix 1.

Background Documents

The background documents used in the preparation of this report include:-

      21 Adopted UDP. Report to Committee on 15.3.99.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 33
                                          CONTACT OFFICER: ANDREW PARKER
                                               EXTENSION: 2653

      Application No.    Location                   Proposal

8.    46223C/99/698      LAND ADJACENT TO           VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 (TO
                         SIPSON ROAD AND            EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR
                         HOLLOWAY LANE              COMPLIANCE) OF PLANNING
                                                    PERMISSION REF:
                                                    46223B/98/2200 DATED 12/2/99;
                                                    CONSTRUCTION OF A 0.9 m HIGH
                                                    BUND FOR SECURITY PURPOSES
      (Date of receipt: 12/4/99)
      (Last amended letter received: 17/5/99)

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Green Belt

(1)    SUMMARY

This application seeks to extend the time period for compliance with condition 1 of
planning permission ref. 46223B/98/2200. It is considered that sufficient reasons
have been given by the applicants for non-compliance and the Local Planning
Authority do not consider that there are any valid grounds to resist such an
application.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1. The modifications to the existing         1. To accord with the applicants
   bund approved under planning                 wishes and to ensure that the
   permission 46223B/98/2200 dated              objectives of the Green Belt and the
   12/2/99 shall be carried out to the          visual amenities of the surrounding
   satisfaction of the Local Planning           area are not prejudiced.
   Authority by 31 July 1999.

(3)    INFORMATION

SITE AREA:              12 Hectares

NEIGHBOURS:             No. consulted:   0          No. of replies:   1

Comments:

No work has been undertaken on this site for several weeks even though the weather
has been good. There is therefore considered to be no justification for allowing a
further extension of the time period for compliance.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 34
OTHER CONSULTATIONS                COMMENTS:

Harmondsworth and Sipson           The land has dried out considerably. The work
Residents Association              should be completed as soon as possible and any
                                   extension given should be as short as possible.


(4)    REPORT

The Site

This application concerns a plot of land which measures approximately 12 hectares
(30 acres) and the M4 motorway forms its northern boundary. Holloway Lane lies to
the south of the site and Harmondsworth and Sipson Lane form its western and
eastern boundaries respectively.

To the east of the site is a large motor coach depot and beyond this is the Forté
Crescent (formerly Post House) Hotel. To the south there is a garden centre and to
the north of the M4 residential properties. There is a garage to the west at the
junction of Holloway Road and Harmondsworth Road.

The site forms part of the Colne Valley Gravel Beds and was excavated in the 1960’s
and 70’s to an approximate depth of 9 metres. Subsequently the site was backfilled
with domestic refuse in the 1970’s which raised the ground to its present level. At the
western end of the site is a large “landscaped” mound of fill created during excavation
of part of the site when the M4 was widened.

There are no existing buildings on the site and the existing vegetation is sparse and of
poor quality.

Relevant Planning History and Proposal

On 11 November 1998 a planning application ref. 46223B/98/2260 was received
which originally sought permission for a 1.8m high bund which the applicants contend
is for security purposes. A site visit on 1 December 1998 established that this bund
had been substantially completed without the benefit of planning permission. Approval
was granted on 12 February 1999 for an amended proposal which involved the
reduction of the height of the bund to 0.9m. Permission was subject to conditions.

CONDITION 1 of the Decision Notice states:-

The modifications to the existing bund hereby approved shall be carried out to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within a period of 2 months from the date
of this permission.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 35
REASON

To ensure that the objectives of the Green Belt and the visual amenities of the
surrounding area are not prejudiced.

CONDITION 2 states:-

Within 2 months of the date of this permission, details of the arrangements to ensure
the continued maintenance of all landscaped areas within the development shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON

To ensure that the landscaping carried out is properly maintained and that the Local
Planning Authority are aware of all or any piece of land within the development.

CONDITION 3 states:-

Within 2 months of the date of this permission, a landscaping scheme shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON

To ensure that the proposed development makes a satisfactory contribution to the
preservation and enhancement of the visual amenity of the locality.

On 12 April 1999 (the date of expiry for compliance with the above conditions), a
planning application was received which sought to vary conditions 1, 2 and 3 of
planning permission 46223B/98/2200 to extend the time period for compliance.

Main Planning Issues

The main issue in this case is considered to be whether an extended time period to
comply with condition 1 is considered acceptable.

The applicants have submitted a letter dated 21 April 1999 which states:-

“We confirm that the earth works necessary to construct the bund on the site have yet
to be completed. We are informed by our client that around 80% of the work has
now been completed but there is difficulty in completing a section in the middle of
section of bund adjacent to Holloway Lane due to localised flooding. The water is
around some 5 feet in depth in places and it will be necessary to await “drying out” of
this area before works can be completed. In addition to this, there are other parts of
the bund to be completed, particularly around the site entrance together with removal
of the remaining rubbish left by trespassers in the summer of 1998.”

A further letter dated 17 May 1999 indicates that the drainage difficulties will be
resolved sufficiently to enable the bund to be completed by 31 July 1999.


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 36
It is considered that the reason given is sufficient to justify the extended period in
order to fully comply with condition 1.

Public Consultation

One letter of objection has been received and this is summarised above.

With regard to the comment raised, it would appear from the applicant’s letter dated
21 April 1999, that even when it is not raining, work cannot be satisfactorily
undertaken until the land has sufficiently “dried out”. This work should be possible in
the summer months.

Conclusion

Details of a landscaping scheme and its maintenance in accordance with conditions 2
and 3 have since been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
This application therefore now only seeks to vary condition 1.

It is considered that the applicants have given sufficient justification to further extend
the time period to comply with condition 1 and I recommend accordingly.

Background Documents

The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered
below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-

       47

In addition the following document was also used:-

       One letter making representations (the contents of which are summarised in
       the report).




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                          Page 37
                                               CONTACT OFFICER: KEVIN McGILL
                                                    EXTENSION: 3577

      Application No.      Location                      Proposal

9.    13572AT/98/2435      THE TOWNFIELD      ERECTION OF 32 TWO-
                           CENTRE COLDHARBOUR STOREY HOUSES, 3
                           LANE HAYES         BLOCKS OF FOUR-
                                              STOREY FLATS
                                              (COMPRISING 33 UNITS),
                                              NEW ACCESS ROAD,
                                              PARKING AND
                                              LANDSCAPING
      (Date of receipt: 21/12/98)             Drawing Nos. K98/013/02A,
      (Last amended plans received: 30/3/99)  05A, 06, 07, 08, 010, 011,
                                              100; K98/013/09C and
                                              K98/013/04N received on
                                              21/12/98, 30/3/99 & 14/5/99

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Developed Area

(1)    SUMMARY

This full application follows on from the granting of an outline permission for the
comprehensive redevelopment of a larger site for educational, community, leisure,
health and residential uses. The development proposed does not differ in any
significant way from the residential element of the earlier outline permission. As the
works currently underway at the site to provide the additional college facilities, day
centre and youth club are being carried out pursuant to further full planning
permissions, not in pursuance of the outline permission it is necessary for a legal
agreement to be entered into to ensure the provision of public open space (POS) on
land currently occupied by the College’ playing field and to resolve other minor
matters on land outside the applicant’s control. This is because the site is in an area
of housing deficient in POS and further housing would aggravate that deficiency.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION:-

A.     That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant and
       others with a legal interest in the land under Section 106 of the Town
       and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or other appropriate
       legislation in order to secure:-

       (i)    arrangements for the laying out and future maintenance of the
              0.645 hectare of land shown as Public Open Space on drawing
              no. K98/013/04K;

       (ii)   the conversion of the existing vehicular egress to Central Avenue
              into an access/egress for pedestrians and cyclists only;


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 38
      (iii)   the provision of measures to ensure the satisfactory enclosure of
              the existing access between nos. 221 and 223 Coldharbour Lane.

B.    That the application be deferred for approval by the Head of Planning
      Services following completion of the necessary agreement(s) and
      subject to the following conditions:-

1. (B1) Time Limit (Full)                     1. (B1) Standard
2. (A2) Existing trees                        2. To enable the Local Planning
   (iii) & (iv)                                  Authority (LPA) to assess the
                                                 impact of the proposed works
                                                 on existing trees at the site.
3.  (A3) Trees Retained                       3. (A3) Standard
4.  (A4) Fencing to Protect Root Areas        4. (A4) Standard
5.  (B5) New Planting                         5. (B5) Standard
6.  (A6) Maintenance of Landscaped            6. (A6) Standard
    Areas
7. Prior to development commencing, a         7. (A4)   Standard
    statement detailing the method of
    construction of the main access road
    within the crown spreads of Trees 4
    and 5 as shown on Tree Preservation
    Order No. 601 shall be submitted to
    and approved by the LPA. This
    statement shall include full details of
    exposed root protection, root pruning
    and hand digging where relevant and
    the works shall be carried out strictly
    in accordance with the approved
    method of construction unless
    otherwise agreed in writing by the
    LPA.
8. (B9) Parking/site lines                    8. (B9) Standard
9. (B14) Fencing                              9. (B14) Standard
10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the     10. To prevent overdevelopment
    Town and Country Planning (General            of the site.
    Permitted Development) Order 1995,
    no shed, garage or extension shall be
    erected within the curtilage of any
    dwellinghouse hereby approved.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                 Page 39
11. Surface water drainage works shall             12. To prevent the increased risk
    be carried out in accordance with                  of flooding.
    details which shall be submitted to
    and approved in writing by the Local
    Planning Authority before
    development commences.
12. (B11) Visibility for private access            12. (B11) Standard
13. (B16) Details/samples to be                    13. (B16) Standard
    submitted
14. (D6) Fences/gates/walls                        14. (D6)   Standard

(3)   INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                 1.465 Hectares

DENSITY:      Proposed          147           h.r.p.ha.       59           h.r.p.a.
              Existing          -             h.r.p.ha.       -            h.r.p.ha.
              Policy            99-198        h.r.p.ha.       40-80        h.r.p.ha.

CAR PARKING:       Lost:    0    Provided:       58 (for the houses)   Required:       51-64
                                                 45 (for the flats)                    53

TREES:            EXISTING:        12                 TO BE RETAINED:         10

                  T.P.O. No.       10                 TO BE RETAINED:         9

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:         No. consulted:       55          No. of replies:   1

THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:

(a)   a major development

Comments:

Object to four-storey blocks overlooking any property where previously there were
playing fields and low level workshops. Two-storey housing with adequate screening
OK. High rise blocks have caused problems in other boroughs and any further
development should be shelved.

OTHER CONSULTATIONS                                 COMMENTS:

Director of Education, Youth & Leisure              No comments
Services




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                            Page 40
English Heritage (Archaeology)                  Archaeological evaluation already
                                                carried out, nothing further required.

English Sports Council                          Opposes loss of playing fields in all
                                                but exceptional cases.

Area Engineer                                   No objection subject to conditions

Hayes Town Centre Residents Association         No response


(4)   REPORT

The Site

This application relates to 1.465 ha site which Airways Housing Association have
assembled by buying land from both Uxbridge College and the Council. It borders the
rear gardens of houses in Orchard Road and Coldharbour Lane to the south west and
south east, the main college site to the north and north west, the rear gardens of
properties in Hesa Road to the north east and the existing college playing field to the
east. The application site also includes the existing access onto Coldharbour Lane
and the site upon which stood 213 Coldharbour Lane, an end of terrace house which
has been demolished to provide an adequate access for 2-way traffic.

Part of the site is currently occupied by a day centre for which a replacement is
nearing completion to the west of the main college buildings. Part of the northern
area of the site is occupied by an unattractive college building which is to be
demolished and much of the remainder is covered by hard surfaces.

The site is generally flat and contains some fine trees, mostly around the south
eastern boundary and on the northern side of the access road. The majority of these
are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of residential development
comprising 32 houses and 33 flats together with a widened access road and car
parking. Means of access, siting of buildings and design are to be determined at this
time with external appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval.

The housing layout does not differ significantly from that endorsed by your Committee
last year.

Planning History

In July 1997 your Committee considered a proposal to erect a part single, part 2 and
part 3-storey teaching centre on land to the west of the current application site and
resolved to defer the application for approval by the Head of Planning Services



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 41
subject to a legal agreement in relation to minor traffic works. This agreement was
concluded, permission issued and the works are nearing completion.

In February 1998 your Committee considered and endorsed the comprehensive
proposal for redevelopment referred to in the Summary subject to a legal agreement
to secure:-

1.      Provision of at least 25% of the housing units in the form of affordable housing.

2.      Provision of the necessary road works in Coldharbour Lane involving:-

        (i)     a Pelican crossing;
        (ii)    road islands;
        (iii)   kerb realignments;
        (iv)    road markings; and
        (v)     road signage.

3.      A minimum contribution of £100,000 towards the provision of primary school
        places in the area.

4.      Arrangements for the laying out and future maintenance of the Public Open
        Space prior to occupation of any part of the development.

5.      Provision of the replacement day centre prior to demolition/removal of the
        existing day centre.

This comprehensive proposed involved:

(i)     new teaching and ancillary facilities for the college together with a sports hall,
        students union/youth club, sports club/gymnasium and replacement day centre
        on the area north west of the existing Longmead building.

(ii)    Residential development is a very similar layout and siting to that now
        proposed.

(iii)   Change of use of the football pitch to public open space.

(iv)    A new doctors surgery/health centre towards the centre of the north east
        boundary of the site backing on to the gardens of houses in Hesa Road.

(v)     Demolition of 211 Coldharbour Lane to provide an adequate 2-way vehicular
        access.

The legal agreement has been completed and permission issued.

Subsequent to this in December 1998, full planning permission was granted for the
replacement day centre and the youth centre, and they are nearing completion.



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 42
Planning Policies and Standards

The following are relevant:-

(i)    DOE Planning Policy Guidance Notes 1 - General Policy and Principles and 3 -
       Housing.

(ii)   Unitary Development Plan Policies:

       H3, H3A, H4, H6A, H9 - Housing;
       AM1, AM6, AM13A 0 Accessability and Movement;
       BE9, BE12, BE30 - Built Environment;
       R1, R15 - Recreational Open Space.

Main Planning Issues

Planning permission has already been granted in outline for the use of this site for
residential development subject to the provisions of the legal agreement.
Consequently the main issues in this case are:

(i)   will this proposal secure the provisions contained in the legal agreement
necessitated by the housing element of the earlier proposal.

(ii)   is the proposal acceptable in terms of access and parking, siting, layout,
       design and effect on the amenities of neighbours and the area in general.

With respect to (i):-

The contribution towards the funding of school places obviously relates to the
residential element and has already been made; the highway works have already
been completed. The site is now to be 100% social housing with 13 of the houses
being shared ownership and the remainder of the units being for rent. A nominations
agreement has already been agreed between the Council and Airways Housing
Association. The replacement day centre is nearing completion. Consequently the
only requirement of the legal agreement still outstanding is to secure the layout out
and future maintenance of the public open space. It is therefore recommended that
the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant and Uxbridge College (who
own the football pitch) to ensure that the requirement is that it is laid out as public
open space and the weather maintained is also brought into force by the occupation
of dwellings constructed in pursuance of this permission. This is essential as the site
is our area shown to be deficient in public open space in the adopted Unitary
Development Plan (UDP) and this is the only site which can remedy that deficiency.
In addition the legal agreement will ned to cover a couple of minor details which affect
land in the college’s control and described in the recommendation.

With respect to (ii) there is very little difference between the housing layout now
proposed and that approved earlier. The siting of the blocks of flats is identical apart
from the addition of 2 small ground floor wings to one of them to allow for disabled


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 43
units. There is little change to the layout of the houses either: one less house is
proposed than earlier although the footprints of most of the houses have increased
somewhat. The layout generally conforms with the relevant adopted standards and
guidelines and is no worse in respect to any of these than the earlier approved layout.
Access arrangements are the same and the parking layouts very similar. Once again
nearly all the important trees are to be retained and detailed conditions are attached
to ensure this. The approved layout drawing will be displayed at the Committee
meeting as well as the layout now proposed in order that members may compare the
two.

Public Consultation

With respect to the letter of objection from an occupier in Hesa Road: the issue of
the size of the blocks of flats was examined during consideration of the earlier
application and was reported as follows:-

“These are shown to be in the centre/north of the site and separate the POS from the
non-residential elements of development. Three blocks are proposed and illustrative
drawings indicate an eaves height of 9m and a ridge height of 15m. This compares to
existing and approved building heights on the site as follows:-

       a)     Longmead building 6.5-8m eaves, 11-12m ridge;
       b)     Coldharbour building 7-10m approximately, flat roofed;
       c)     approved extension to college 7-10m eaves, 12.5m ridge; and
       d)     proposed extension to college and dual use facilities -
              variable but mainly 6-10m eaves, 7-12m ridge.

       Given that the blocks of flats have less bulk than the other buildings,
       the slight increase in height over that prevailing is not considered
       significant. In terms of their relationship with the more domestic
       scale of the terraces in Hesa Road, the nearest block would be a
       minimum of 40m from any of those properties and their relationship
       is considered acceptable.”

Compared to the 9m (eaves), 15m (ridge) height shown on the earlier illustrative
drawings, the current scheme shows a ridge height of 13m and an eaves height of
9.8m. It is therefore considered that the overall bulk of the building would be less
than that already considered acceptable.

With respect to the comments of the English Sports Council these have already been
taken into account earlier and indeed the planning application does not actually
propose (but does require) the change of use of the football field to public open
spaces. They state that they will advise the relevant Government Regional Office of
applications which they consider of such concern that the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions should consider calling them in for
determination. However they did not so this in relation to the earlier proposal and
there is no reason to believe they would do so now.



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                          Page 44
Conclusion

This proposal is acceptable in terms of the relevant planning policies and guidelines
subject to the requirement of the legal agreement described above and the
subsequent conditions, I recommend accordingly.

Background Documents

21, 22, Unitary Development Plan, 3 previous planning applications at the site.




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 45
                                     CONTACT OFFICER: PAUL BRADBURY
                                          EXTENSION: 3547

      Application No.     Location                       Proposal

10. 2621BF/97/1525        MFI/CARPETRIGHT                CONTINUED USE OF
                          UXBRIDGE ROAD                  PREMISES AS A NON-
                          HAYES                          FOOD RETAIL
                                                         WAREHOUSE, WITHOUT
                                                         COMPLYING WITH
                                                         CONDITION 1 OF
                                                         PLANNING PERMISSION
                                                         REF: 2621BC/94/480 DATED
                                                         3.8.94. RESTRICTION ON
                                                         TYPE OF GOODS TO BE
                                                         SOLD
      (Date of receipt: 23.9.97                          Location plan received
      (Last amended plans received: 26.2.99)             23.9.97 and supporting
                                                         statements received 17.2.98,
                                                         25.9.98 and 26.2.99

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Industrial Business Area

(1)    SUMMARY

This proposal to widen the range of goods which can be sold is examined against the
relevant policies below. The conclusions of the submitted retail impact assessment
are generally accepted and, on balance, permission is recommended.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following condition:-

1. The retail floorspace hereby                1. To comply with Policy S1B of
   approved shall only be used for the            the Unitary Development Plan
   sale of the following non-food                 in the interests of the vitality
   goods: building and decorating                 and viability of local shopping
   materials and equipment; DIY and               centres.
   garden products; furniture; floor
   coverings and related ancillary
   goods; domestic electrical goods
   and gas appliances; computers and
   office supplies and equipment and
   other products ancillary to these
   main ranges, The premises shall be
   used for no other purpose (including
   any other in Class A1 of the Town
   and Country Planning (Use Classes)
   Order 1987 (or any previous



Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 46
      equivalent to that class in any
      statutory instrument revoking or re-
      enacting that order), unless prior
      written consent is obtained from the
      Local Planning Authority.

(3)      INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                    0.36 Hectare

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 3,600m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:            No. consulted:    1         No. of replies:   0

(4)      REPORT

The Site

The application relates to two of the three retail warehouse units situated in the small
retail park at the junction of Uxbridge Road and Springfield Road. The total floor area
of the units is 3,600m².

Planning History

The store was built as a result of planning permission granted in 1983. In order to
control the range of goods which could be sold a restrictive condition was attached.
Planning permission was granted in August 1994 to alter the wording of this condition
so that it currently reads as follows:

         “The retail floorspace hereby approved shall only be used for the sale of the
         following non-food goods: building and decorating materials and
         equipment; DIY and garden products; furniture; floor coverings and
         related ancillary goods. The premises shall be used for no other purpose
         (including any other in Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use
         Classes) Order 1987 (or any previous equivalent to that class in any statutory
         instrument revoking or re-enacting that order), unless prior written consent is
         obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

         REASON
         To accord with the shopping policies in the Council’s deposit draft of the
         Unitary Development Plan. The site is not considered to be appropriate for
         general shopping centres and is not totally accessible on foot or by public
         transport for the majority of potential customers. It is therefore suitable for
         restricted shopping purposes where the bulky nature of individual goods to be
         sold and the method of retail operation requiring substantial on-site servicing,


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                       Page 47
        car parking and storage requires a site which is not appropriate in an existing
        town or local centre.”

(A separate permission to alter the original condition has also been granted for the
other retail warehouse unit - Wickes Building Supplies.)

Current Proposal

It is proposed to substitute the existing condition with the wording in the
recommendation, in order to allow domestic electrical goods, gas appliances,
computers and office supplies and equipment to be sold.

Relevant Planning Policies and Guidance

Policies AM1A, S1A and S1B of the adopted Unitary Development Plan;
Planning Policy Guidance 6 - Town Centres and Retail Development.

Main Planning Issues

The planning permission establishes the site as a retail warehouse location.

The applicants have prepared a retail impact study to demonstrate the likely impact of
sale of the expanded range of goods on the vitality and viability of Uxbridge Road and
Hayes town centres and Willow Tree Lane local centre. The report assesses the
indications of the health of these town centres as required by PPG6.

The main issues in relation to this study are:

(i)     whether the reason for the condition is still applicable today given the relevant
        planning policies and guidance which currently apply;

(ii)    whether the proposal would harm the vitality and viability of town centres;

(iii)   whether the applicants have demonstrated that the “sequential test” in PPG6
        (requiring such development to demonstrate that the use could not be
        accommodated in town centre or edge of centre sites) has been satisfied.

(i)     Concerning (i) whereas previously it was recognised that out of town locations
        could be appropriate for retail warehouses selling “bulky goods”, current advice
        directs retail development towards town centre locations irrespective of the
        goods sold. The reason for imposing the current condition therefore still
        broadly applies, thus requiring the tests in criteria (ii) and (iii).

(ii)    Clearly the existing store already has an impact on the trade in the local
        centres likely to be affected, that is, Hayes town centre and Uxbridge Road
        minor town centre. The report assesses the likely turnover generated from
        alternative ranges of goods which are proposed in order to assess the
        increase in trade draw from existing centres.


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 48
        The report draws the main conclusions that the turnover on the extended range
        of goods would represent only a small percentage (2.7%) of the overall
        predicted expenditure growth in the study area. Within the 5 minute drive area
        this percentage would be lower. The report also concludes that the trade
        draws from retail units in other local centres selling the range of goods
        proposed, namely Uxbridge Road, Lombardy/Hayes Bridge retail parks and
        The Willows local centre, Yeading would suffer minimal competition overall.
        Thus it is concluded that the proposal would not harm the vitality and viability of
        other town centres. However if the trade draw from existing shops in
        surrounding town centres was such that these stores closed, the attractiveness
        of these centres in terms of range of goods sold would be diminished. This
        remains a concern, but in the absence of any firm evidence to confirm that this
        will be the case it is not concluded that this can be substantiated as a reason
        for refusal.

(iii)   The applicants have identified only one alternative location namely Hayes
        station site. However this site is not currently available. No other sites which
        could accommodate the size of premises and nature and volume of goods
        which are to be sold exist. It is concluded that the sequential test is satisfied.

The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the criteria set out in
Policy S1B/AM1A. The report confirms that there is no site in Hayes town centre
which satisfied the functional requirements of the proposal. Expansion of the range of
goods is unlikely to result in a significant increase in traffic and consequently
environmental impact would be minimal. The site is served by bus services along
Uxbridge Road and is also within walking distance of north-south bus routes along
Yeading Lane/Coldharbour Lane.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the proposed conditions is justified in terms of the tests which are
required to satisfy the relevant planning policies and guidance.

Background Documents

The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered
below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-

          20, 21, 37 and Adopted UDP




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 49
                                       CONTACT OFFICER: DANIEL MURKIN
                                            EXTENSION: 3606

      Application No.       Location                Proposal

11. 5487D/99/239            12 EAST AVENUE          ERECTION OF SINGLE
                            HAYES                   STOREY REAR EXTENSION
                                                    TO PROVIDE A SHOP
                                                    STORE AND A FIRST FLOOR
                                                    EXTENSION TO PROVIDE
                                                    ONE SELF-CONTAINED ONE-
                                                    BEDROOM FLAT
      (Date of receipt: 8/2/99)                     Drawing No. MB/907/1A.
                                                    received on 23/3/99

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Developed Area

(1)    SUMMARY

A first floor extension to the existing single storey shop premises on East Avenue is
proposed to provide a one-bedroom flat with its own entrance door. A rear store to
the shop is also incorporated.

The lack of amenity or parking space on this fully built site is not considered to be a
disadvantage to future occupants however because of its proximity to the town centre
where access to public transport is high. On-street parking is available though at a
premium during the day. The flat would also overlook a small park opposite.

The concerns of one adjoining occupier have been addressed by amendments to the
plans whilst a second objection relating to loss of direct daylight/sunlight to a kitchen
window is not a sufficient reason to withhold permission.

(2)    RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1. (B1) Time Limit (Full)                               1. (B1)    Standard
2. The three rooflights shown on the approved           2. (D2)    Standard
   drawings shall be glazed with obscured
   glass and non-opening below a cill height
   1700mm above internal floor level for so
   long as the development remains in
   existence.
3. (D1) No Additional Windows or Doors                  3. (D1)    Standard
   (‘facing Nos. 8 and 10 East Avenue’)
4. (B16) Details/Samples of Materials                   4. (B16) Standard

(3)    INFORMATION

SITE AREA:                  0.0083      Hectares


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                        Page 50
CAR PARKING:           Lost:   Nil         Provided:   Nil      Required:    Two

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT:

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:          No. consulted:    6          No. of replies:   2

Comments:

1.     Encroachment at eaves/guttering level;
2.     Loss of privacy (roof lights);
3.     Loss of daylight/sunlight.

OTHER CONSULTATIONS                                    COMMENTS:

Hayes Town Centre Residents Association                None received.

Public Protection Services                             No comments received


(4)    REPORT

The Site

The site comprises a single storey shop fronting East Avenue which is outside of the
designated shopping area and landlocked by a builders yard and open parking area to
the rear of the commercial premises on Coldharbour Lane.

The Proposal

Approval is sought to extend the shop rearwards on the ground floor to provide a
2.5m x 7m store and to extend at first floor level providing rented accommodation in a
one-bedroom flat accessed from a new separate door at the street frontage. This
will also comprise a kitchen/lounge and bathroom. Three rooflights are to be installed
at the rear.

Relevant History/Planning Policies

There is no previous relevant planning history for this site. The policies contained
within the Unitary Development Plan which are of general applicability to this proposal
include BE10, BE11 (Design of New Development), BE13 to BE16 (Residential
Amenity) and AM15 (Car Parking).




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                      Page 51
Main Planning Issues

The residential amenities of the occupiers of existing adjoining properties and those of
the future occupants of the proposed residential accommodation are the principal
determinants of whether the proposal is acceptable.

Given its position adjacent to the town centre shopping area, the design and any
implications for parking, traffic or pedestrian safety and movement are other factors
though less critical.

A flat-roofed rear addition to provide additional storage for the shop will replace an
existing structure which occupies the rear yard and there is no objection raised to this
element of the proposal.

The original submitted plans showed the provision of a one metre high railing around
the forecourt of the shop. However, this shop unit stands alone and the incursion onto
the footpath and gated access were unnecessary and not conducive to pedestrian
safety or movement (especially wheelchairs/pushchairs). These have been deleted
accordingly.

The main part of the proposal is the provision of a first floor flat above the shop which
will require the building to be extended 2 metres to the side to provide a separate
staircase entrance onto the street.

The overall height of the building will be raised 3 metres and a pitched roof added
with the end of the extension finishing on the existing rear building line of the shop
5 metres from the back of the adjoining property No. 10 East Avenue.

The provision of town centre accommodation is welcomed and the likely nature of its
occupation means that the lack of on-site amenity space is not an overriding
disadvantage here given that it would overlook a park and does not provide for a
family as such.

Similarly although there is no possible parking provision on the site, which is taken up
wholly by the building, this is not likely to represent a problem either for the occupant
of the flat or other road users. There is limited on-street parking in East Avenue
during the day whilst more spaces will tend to be free in the evenings for residents’
cars. The option of public transport is also greater in the town centre, one minute’s
walk away.

The occupiers/owner of two of the residential properties which have an outlook
towards East Avenue have raised concerns about encroachment, privacy and
daylight. On the first point the applicant has satisfactorily shown on plan that the
building will not cross the shared boundary with No. 13 Coldharbour Lane at the
eaves/guttering level.

The privacy of occupiers to the rear is not likely to be comprised as the only windows
towards the back of the building are three rooflights to the kitchen and bathroom.


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                        Page 52
These will be obscure glazed and non-openable below a cill height of 1.7 metres
above floor level thus preventing any overlooking even with windows open for
ventilation.

The objection to loss of daylight/sunlight to the kitchen window of No. 10 East Avenue
is of more concern as the occupants rely on light received to this window between
and over Nos. 8 and 12 which extend either side of it towards East Avenue. The
kitchen, which effectively serves as their main habitable room, has a west/north-west
aspect and therefore also takes afternoon and early evening sunlight from across the
BT building and park opposite. The effect of the proposal would be to shorten the
later summer sunsets whilst at 5 metres away the height and pitch of the proposed
roof to No. 12 would have minimal impact on daylight. It is not likely therefore to
result in a sufficiently adverse effect on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the
flat at No. 10 which is sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal.

Public Consultation

The contents of two letters received from adjoining occupiers are discussed in detail
above.

Conclusion

The impact of the proposal on the existing residential amenities of adjoining occupiers
and on parking and traffic generally are acceptable. The standard and design of
accommodation to be provided is also suitable for this town centre location.

Background Documents

The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered
below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-

       47, Adopted UDP

In addition the following documents were also used:-

Two letters from residents (the contents of which are summarised in the report).




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                        Page 53
                                          CONTACT OFFICER: RICHARD BUXTON
                                               EXTENSION: 3838

       Application No.      Location                    Proposal

12. 8484D/99/395            3 WILLOW TREE LANE          CHANGE OF USE FROM
                            HAYES                       CLASS A1 (RETAIL) TO
                                                        CLASS A3 (FOOD AND DRINK)
       (Date of receipt: 26.2.99)                       Drawing Nos. SHB3571/10/A,
                                                        SHB3571/01/B, SHB3571/04/E
                                                        received 26.2.99

Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Local Parade

(1)      SUMMARY

There are 29 units in this local parade of which 18 are in retail use, such that the loss
of an additional unit to an A3 (Food and Drink) use will not harm the functioning of the
parade or undermine the parade’s attractiveness to shoppers. Conditions are
recommended with regard to the installation of sound insulation and ducting to ensure
that the amenities of adjoining occupiers are not harmed.

(2)      RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1.    (B1) Time Limit (Full)                      1.   (B1) Standard
2.    (B23) Noise - Wine Bars/Restaurants         2.   (B23)Standard
3.    (B24) Noise - Wine Bars/Restaurants         3.   (B24)Standard
4.    (B25) External Openings/Machinery           4.   (B25)Standard
5.    (B26) Restaurants/Cafes/Snack Bars          5.   (B26)Standard

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light
2. (15) Compliance with Environmental Health Legislation

(3)      INFORMATION

SITE AREA:               0.0075 Hectare    0.018 Acre

CAR PARKING:             As existing

TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 75m²

CONSULTATIONS:

NEIGHBOURS:              No. consulted:   20       No. of replies:   0




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                        Page 54
OTHER CONSULTATIONS:                     COMMENTS:

Area Engineer                            No objection

(4)   REPORT

The Site

This application relates to a shop unit immediately to the east of
No. 1 Willow Tree Lane and forms part of the Willow Tree Lane/Yeading Lane local
shopping parade. The unit is on the northern side of Willow Tree Lane and is within a
parade that comprises 29 units that stretches to the north up Yeading Lane. There is
a service road to the front of the premises whilst communal parking exists to the rear
of the parade of shops. No. 3 Willow Tree Lane interconnects with 5 and 7 which are
currently being refitted for a furniture and appliance store/workshop.

The Proposal

Planning permission is sought to change the use of No. 3 Willow Tree Lane from A1
(Retail) to an A3 (Food and Drink) use.

Relevant Planning History

None applicable.

Planning Standards and Policies

Those of relevance to this proposal include shopping policies S8 and S9 of the Unitary
Development Plan which cover issues of amenity and retail availability.

Main Planning Issues

The issues associated with this proposal for an A3 (Food and Drink) use include:-

a)    any possible harm to the amenity of adjoining occupiers caused by the use;

b)    whether the parade retains sufficient essential shop uses to provide a range
      and choice of shops appropriate to the size of the parade and to its function in
      the Borough shopping hierarchy.

a)    As part of this development (refurbishment works are already underway) to
      create a furniture/appliance showroom with an ancillary repair workshop to the
      rear, works are being carried out to the residential units above No. 3-
      7 Willow Tree Lane. Given that the applicant to carry out these works is
      Yeldhall Homeless Project, there will be a degree of control between the use
      of the ground floor A3 unit and the residential accommodation above. It
      therefore follows that reasonable steps by the applicant would be taken to
      ensure that noise, nuisance or pollution would be kept to a minimum.


Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                     Page 55
       Furthermore in this respect, conditions are recommended to ensure adequate
       means of sound insulation and ventilation are provided and installed.

b)     Policy S9 allows for the change of use of shops in parades where:-

       i)     the parade retains sufficient essential shop uses to provide a range and
              choice of shops appropriate to the size of the parade;

       ii)    the surrounding residential area is not deficient in essential shop uses.

This Willow Tree Lane/Yeading Lane shopping parade comprises 29 units of which 18
are within the A1 (Retail) category and include a chemist, off licence, post office,
hardware, bakery and a general foodstore. Officers, therefore, consider that an
adequate range of essential shop uses will remain to serve the surrounding residential
area such that the proposal complies with policy S9.

Public Consultation

No comments have been received.

Conclusion

Conditions would be attached to ensure that an A3 use in this locality will not be
harmful to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers. Furthermore, the loss of an A1
(Retail) unit will not harm the functioning of the parade or significantly prejudice the
number of essential shops for the surrounding residential area. It is, therefore,
recommended accordingly.


Background Documents

The background document used in the preparation of this report is:-

       Adopted UDP




Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee - 1 June 1999                         Page 56

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:24
posted:4/5/2011
language:English
pages:56