Planning Committee

Document Sample
Planning Committee Powered By Docstoc
					London Borough of Hillingdon

North
Planning Committee
Meeting date:       TUESDAY 8TH AUGUST 2006
Time:               7.30PM
Venue:              COMMITTEE ROOM 5, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE


To Members on the Planning Committee
 Councillors                                  Conservation Area Advisory Panel Members
 Bruce Baker (Chairman)                       Michael Platts (Eastcote)
 Michael White (Vice-Chairman)                Clive Pigram (Ruislip)
 Shirley Harper O’Neill   David Allam         John Ross (Harefield)
 Michael Markham          Norman Nunn-        Michael Hirst (Canal Locks)
 Ian Oakley               Price               Pamela Jeffreys (Ickenham)

Substitute Councillors
 Ann Banks                      Allan Kauffman             Sid Garg
 Josephine Barrett              Elizabeth Kemp             Janet Gardner
 David Bishop                   David Payne                Paul Harmsworth
 George Cooper                  David Allam                Mo Khursheed
 Brian Crowe                    Peter Curling              Robin Sansarpuri


Further information
For information about the planning applications please telephone 01895 250401.

This agenda was published on Thursday 3rd August 2006. If you would like further
information about the meeting please call Nadia Williams in Hillingdon’s Cabinet Office on
01895 277655 nadiawilliams@hillingdon.gov.uk or visit our website
www.hillingdon.gov.uk


Involving the Public in the way we do business…
The Public have a right to petition and speak at this committee,
but must notify the Cabinet Office beforehand on 01895 665617.
Members of the Public and Press are very welcome to attend
this meeting. Free parking is available via the entrance to the
Civic Centre in the High Street. Bus routes 472, U1, U3, U4 and
U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station,
with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away.
Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will
                                                                       This agenda
be directed to the Council Chamber. Please switch off your             is available in
mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council          large print
operates a no-smoking policy in its offices.
Reports - Continued



Major Applications With Petitions

 Item    Address                 Ward           Description & Recommendation              Page
 15.     34 –38 Chester Road     Northwood      Erection of a new 32 bedroom care         1
         Northwood                              home with associated parking
                                                (Involving demolition of 34, 36 and
                                                38 Chester Road).

                                                Recommendation: Refusal
 16.     Land at 54 - 60         West Ruislip   Redevelopment of site including the       23
         Ickenham Road                          erection of a replacement
         Ruislip                                Conservative Club and a residential
                                                block of 20 two bedroom flats with
                                                associated access, parking, amenity
                                                space and landscaping (Involving
                                                demolition of 54, 56 – 58 and 60
                                                Ickenham Road).

                                                Recommendation: Approval


Reason for Urgency

Although these reports have not been available 5 working days prior to the meeting, the
Chairman has agreed to consider the reports as urgent items in order to progress the
applications to determination in a timely manner.
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 AUGUST 2006                     REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
(NORTH)                                                OF PLANNING AND
                                                       TRANSPORTATION

URGENT ITEM

                                                                                     A
Item No. 15         Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation

Address:            34-38 CHESTER ROAD, NORTHWOOD

Development:        ERECTION OF A NEW 32 BEDROOM CARE HOME WITH
                    ASSOCIATED PARKING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF 34,
                    36 AND 38 CHESTER ROAD)

LBH Ref Nos:        50613/APP/2006/1382

Drawing Nos:        01/05/2006 ‘Location Plan’, 06/05/06 ‘Street Elevation’,
                    05/05/2006 ‘Elevations’, 03/05/06 ‘Block Plan’ (Rev May 06),
                    04/05/06 ‘Street Elevation’ and des/02/05/2006 ‘Land Survey’
                    received 10 May 2006.

Date of receipt:    10/05/2006              Date(s) of Amendment(s):        None

REASON FOR URGENCY:

Although this report has not been available 5 working days prior to the
meeting, the Chairman has agreed to consider the report as an urgent item in
order to progress the application to determination in a timely manner.

1.0   SUMMARY

1.1   The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the
      existing houses at 34, 36 and 38 Chester Road and the redevelopment of
      the site to erect a new 32-bed care home with associated parking. A total of
      five parking spaces are to be provided on site, with access off Chester
      Road.

1.2   The site is located within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local
      Character. The area is defined by the distinctive character and appearance
      of the properties as well as a distinctive planned layout based on a
      geometric spiraling triangle pattern. The proposal would result in the loss of
      3 existing dwelling houses, which are considered amongst the most
      architecturally interesting properties in the Old Northwood Area of Special
      Local Character. The proposed building, in particular the substantial
      mansard roof and unarticulated façade would not be in keeping with the
      adjoining properties and the general character and appearance of the area.
      It is considered that it would be detrimental to the character of the
      surrounding area and the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character.

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 1
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
1.3   The scheme is also deficient in terms of an appropriate level of car parking
      and cycle spaces.

1.4   Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

2.0   RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL, for the following reasons:

1.    The design of the proposed building, by reason of the inclusion of mirror
      image buildings with bulky mansard roofs and poor detailing is
      unacceptable and would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of
      the surrounding area and the Old Northwood Area of Special Character
      contrary to Policies BE5, BE13, BE19, BE21 and BE38 of the adopted
      Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary
      Planning Guidance ‘Design Guide – Residential Layouts and House
      Design’.

2.    The proposed development fails to provide sufficient parking on site in
      order to appropriately service the care home and, in particular, the
      development fails to provide 10% of parking spaces for people with
      disabilities. The development is contrary to Policies H10, AM14 and
      AM15 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Section
      5.0 of the Council’s Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement.

3.    The proposal would result in inadequate provision of secure cycle
      storage contrary to Policies AM9 and AM14 of the adopted Unitary
      Development Plan and adopted Parking Standards (December 2001).

4.    No agreement has been reached with the applicant in respect of
      contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities
      required, as a result of the demands created by the proposed
      development. This relates to health facilities. The scheme therefore
      conflicts with Policy R17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1.    The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having
      regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance,
      circulars and Council’s Policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998
      (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly
      with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing);
      Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of
      discrimination).

2.    The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having
      regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan
      set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
      Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE5, BE13, BE18, BE19, BE20,


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                   Page 2
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE38, BE39, H9, H10, OE1, OE5, OE12, OE13,
      R17, AM1, AM2, AM7, AM9, AM13, AM14 and AM15, Revised Parking
      Standards (December 2001), Supplementary Planning Guidance –
      Residential Layouts and House Design Guide, Hillingdon Design and
      Accessibility Statement, Supplementary Planning Guidance –
      Community Safety by Design and Supplementary Planning Guidance
      for Planning Obligations.

3.0   CONSIDERATIONS

      Site and Locality

3.1   The site incorporates 34, 36 and 38 Chester Road. It has a southern
      frontage to Chester Road of 28.8 metres and a site area of 0.18 hectares. A
      detached two-storey house occupies 34 Chester Road. A pair of semi
      detached, two-storey houses occupy 36-38 Chester Road.

3.2   Chester Road, including the subject property and the immediately
      surrounding area, is characterised by residential land uses. The buildings
      were used as an elderly persons home and are now vacant. The area is
      characterised by two-storey, detached and semi-detached housing, with
      pitched roofs. The site adjoins two-storey, semi-detached houses on the
      north-west and south-east site boundaries with small front gardens, not
      dissimilar to the layout and design of the subject property. To the south
      (rear), the site adjoins the rear property boundaries of two-storey semi-
      detached properties fronting Roy and Reginald Roads.

      Scheme

3.3   Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing houses at
      34, 36 and 38 Chester Road and the erection of 2, two-storey buildings, with
      accommodation within the roof space, linked by a ground floor service room
      and at lower ground floor level, to provide a 32-bed care home with
      associated parking and amenity space.

3.4   The development is designed as follows:
      Lower Ground Floor:
         • 3 store rooms, 2 staff rooms, plant room, 2 lift shafts

      Ground Floor:
         • 2 garages, office, kitchen, dining room, 3 lounge rooms, 2 bedrooms,
           facilities, main entrance and visitors room with access to the rear,
           raised deck.

      First Floor:
          • 16 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 sluice cupboards and 2 linen
              cupboards.




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                  Page 3
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       Second Floor (within roof space):
          • 14 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms 2 sluice cupboards and 2 linen
            cupboards.

3.5    Internal lift and stair access is provided in each of the buildings from the
       lower ground floor to the second floor.

3.6    Five car parking spaces are centrally located at the front of the site. Two of
       these spaces are contained within the building in single garages and the
       remaining 3 spaces are at ground level with a setback of approximately
       900mm to the Chester Road boundary.

3.7    Refuse and recycling bins are located between the two buildings between
       the 2 garages.

3.8    The rear of the site will be landscaped with replacement trees provided for
       those nominated to be removed. No significant trees are to be removed.

       Planning History

3.9    34-38 Chester Road was last occupied and used as an elderly persons
       residential care home. A planning application approved in 1996 to extend
       the home. The use has ceased and the buildings are currently vacant.

3.10   Planning permission (Ref: 50613/APP/2005/758) was refused in 2005 for
       the erection of a 24-bedroom care home with refurbishment and alterations
       to No. 34 Chester Road and associated parking (involving the demolition of
       No. 36 and 38 Chester Road) for the following reason:

          •   The design of the proposed building, by reason of a bulky mansard
              roof, overly large dormer windows and poor detailing is considered to
              be unacceptable and would have a detrimental impact on the
              appearance of the surrounding area and the Old Northwood Area of
              Special Local Character contrary to policies BE5, BE19, BE21 and
              BE38 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan 1998 and the
              Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Design Guide –
              ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’.

3.11   An appeal was lodged in relation to this refusal and a decision to allow the
             appeal was made on the 27 July 2006.

3.12   Planning permission (Ref: 50613/APP/2004/246) was refused in September
       2004 for the erection of a 43-bedroom residential care home (involving the
       demolition of the existing buildings) for the following reasons:

          •   The proposal is considered to be out of keeping with the character
              and appearance of the area, having regard to frontage width, height,



North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 4
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                parking layout and design, contrary to policies BE13 and BE19 of the
                Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan;

          •     The proposed rear element of the building, by virtue of its siting,
                depth and overall height will appear visually dominant as viewed by
                neighbouring residential properties. Furthermore, the introduction of a
                parking area, within the rear garden, adjoining No. 32 Chester Road
                is inconsistent with the pattern of residential development in the area
                and will result in additional activity and general disturbance to the
                neighbouring properties. The proposal is considered to be contrary to
                Policies BE19, BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Unitary
                Development Plan;

          •     The proposal has the potential to generate vehicular/pedestrian
                conflicts along its entire frontage width by way of vehicles reversing
                into Chester Road and is contrary to Policy AM7 of the Hillingdon
                Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s revised parking
                standards (Dec 2001); and

          •     The proposed development fails to provide any covered cycle
                parking, refuse storage, disabled persons parking spaces of the
                appropriate dimensions or motorcycle parking, on a very restricted
                site. The absence of these facilities, which should be designed as
                part of the scheme from the outset, is in conflict with Policies AM14
                and AM15 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

3.13   Several other minor applications have been considered by the Council in
       relation to alterations and additions to the residential properties. These are
       not considered relevant to the proposed development.

       Planning Policies and Standards

       Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development)
       Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing)
       Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport)
       Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise)
       The London Plan

       UDP Designation: Developed Area

       Part 1 Policies:

       Pt1.10          To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely
                       affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential
                       areas.
       Pt1.16          To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are
                       designed to wheelchair and mobility standards.




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                       Page 5
                           PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      Pt1.30        To promote and improve opportunities for everyone in
                    Hillingdon, including in particular women, elderly people,
                    people with disabilities and ethnic minorities.
      Pt1.31        To encourage the development and support the retention of a
                    wide range of local services, including shops and community
                    facilities, which are easily accessible to all, including people
                    with disabilities or other mobility handicaps.

      Part 2 Policies:

      BUILT ENVIRONMENT
      BE5 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas
      BE13 Layout and appearance of new development
      BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety
      BE19 New development within residential areas – complementing and
           improving amenity and character of the area
      BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations
      BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions
      BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys
      BE23 External amenity space and new residential development
      BE24 Design of new buildings – protection of privacy
      BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of
           new planting and landscaping in development proposals
      BE39 Protection of trees and woodland – tree preservation orders

      OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
      OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties
           and the local area
      OE5 Siting of noise-sensitive developments
      OE12 Energy conservation and new development
      OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites

      HOUSING
      H9  Provision for people with disabilities in new residential developments
      H10 Proposals for hostels or other accommodation for people in need of
          care

      RECREATION, LESIURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
      R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation,
          leisure and community facilities

      ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT
      AM1 Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking
          distance based catchment area – public transport accessibility and
          capacity considerations
      AM2 Development Proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact
          on congestion and public transport availability and capacity
      AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments



North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 6
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of
           highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities
      AM13 Increasing the ease of movement for frail and elderly people and
           people with disabilities in development schemes
      AM14 New development and car parking standards
      AM15 Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons

      Also considered relevant are:

      Council’s Revised Parking Standards (December 2001),
      Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance - Residential Layouts and
      House Design Guide
      Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design
              Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Policies and Standards
              (December 2001)
      Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations
      Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement

      Consultations

      The application has been advertised in the local paper and 40 surrounding
      property owner/occupiers were consulted. 26 letters of objection, a petition
      with 24 signatures and an objection from the Ruislip-Northwood MP have
      been received. A summary of these comments are listed below:

      Objections:
      Resident

          •   Impact of development on Area of Special Local Character;
          •   Increase in traffic volume;
          •   Demolition of architecturally significant houses is unnecessary
          •   Density is out of character with Chester Road
          •   Lack of parking provision on site;
          •   Excavation will impact on structural stability of adjoining houses;
          •   Existing services unable to cope;
          •   Insufficient parking area for loading and service vehicles for the
              development;
          •   Increase in noise from long working hours;
          •   Impact of dust and noise pollution during construction;
          •   External materials and finishes are not in keeping with the existing
              street scene;
          •   Overlooking to adjoining properties from the top floor; and
          •   Insufficient details in relation to specific ‘care home’ use;

      Petition
         • Demolition of existing Victorian houses




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 7
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      MP objection
        • Inadequate parking facilities on site;
        • Development would be contrary to Policies BE5, BE19, BE21 and
           BE38 of Hillingdon’s Unitary Development Plan; and
        • Bulk and scale of development is out of character with the area with
           particular regard to the mansard roof design.

3.14 External Consultees

      Metropolitan Police                  Concern is raised in relation to the
                                           location of the bin store at the front of
                                           the site, which may provide a recessed
                                           hiding place to allow access into the
                                           building.

                                           If the development is to be approved
                                           the site should achieve Secured by
                                           Design standards. Doors and windows
                                           should also comply with the
                                           specifications set out in the ‘SBD New
                                           Homes’ documentation in the Design
                                           Guides & Publications section of the
                                           www.securebydesign.com website.
                                           Consultation with the local Police Crime
                                           Prevention Design Adviser (CPDA) will
                                           be required to achieve this award.

      Hillingdon Primary Care Trust        The PCT has advised that a health
                                           contribution of £4,208 in line with the
                                           SPG for Health Facilities is required.

                                           The SPG requires developers to take
                                           into account the generation of new
                                           demand for specialist or more intensive
                                           levels of service. It should also be
                                           noted that medical cover is notoriously
                                           hard to find for care homes for the
                                           elderly and the onus should not fall on
                                           the PCT to find GMS services for these
                                           patients.

      Thames Water                         With regard to surface water drainage it
                                           is the responsibility of a developer to
                                           make proper provision for drainage to
                                           ground, watercourses or surface water
                                           sewers. It must not be allowed to drain
                                           to the foul sewer as this is the major
                                           contributor to sewer flooding.

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                   Page 8
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      London Ambulance Service             No response received.

      Northwood Residents’ Association     Object to the proposal on the grounds
                                           that the development does not fit well
                                           with the existing housing in this ‘Area of
                                           Special Local Character’ and the
                                           development therefore fails to meet the
                                           requirements of Policies BE6, BE13,
                                           BE15, BE19, BE21 and BE24 of the
                                           Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

      Internal Consultees

      Policy and Environmental Planning    Policy 3A.18 of the London Plan
                                           requires UDP policies to support the
                                           provision of additional health care
                                           within the borough as identified by the
                                           strategic health authorities and primary
                                           care trusts. New nursing homes located
                                           outside central locations should set a
                                           benchmark maximum standard
                                           (catering for both resident, staff and
                                           visitors) in the order of 1 space per 4
                                           bed spaces.

                                           UDP Policy H10 supports the
                                           redevelopment of accommodation for
                                           people in need of care as long as sites
                                           are conveniently located near shops
                                           and comply with the parking standards
                                           and amenity guidelines. Assuming that
                                           residents would reside here on a full
                                           time basis, then the current residential
                                           use would not be altered. The proposed
                                           application is, therefore acceptable in
                                           principle, as there would be no loss of
                                           residential accommodation in
                                           accordance with Policy H2.

                                           The site is located within the Old
                                           Northwood Area of Special Local
                                           Character. Regard should be taken to
                                           Policy BE5, BE13 and BE19. The scale
                                           and massing of the buildings should be
                                           kept to a minimum and reflect the
                                           materials, design features, architectural
                                           style and building heights predominant
                                           in the area.


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                   Page 9
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                           The Council’s Parking Standards allows
                                           for a maximum of 1 space per 4
                                           resident bed spaces, whilst the London
                                           Plan would allow for up to 1 space / 2
                                           bed spaces. The current parking
                                           standards allow for a maximum of 8 car
                                           parking spaces.

                                           Concern is raised in relation to the
                                           under provision of car parking. The
                                           Borough parking standards advocate a
                                           maximum of 8 car parking spaces while
                                           under the London Plan guidance the
                                           scheme should provide a range of 8 to
                                           16 car parking spaces. The 5 car
                                           parking spaces proposed may not be
                                           sufficient to serve the development
                                           proposal.

                                           PEP have no objections in principle to
                                           this proposal, however raise concern in
                                           relation to the limited parking provision.

      Trees/Landscape Officer              No objections to the scheme which
                                           complies with policy BE38, subject to
                                           the inclusion of a condition requiring
                                           the submission of a Method Statement
                                           for tree protection and a landscaping
                                           scheme and standard conditions TL1,
                                           TL2, TL3, TL5, TL6 and TL7.

      Urban Design/Conservation Officer    The existing houses comprise a pair of
                                           2 1/2 storey, semi-detached houses
                                           with hipped roofs, two storey square
                                           bays and recessed panelled doorways
                                           recessed in stone arched porches, and
                                           a detached house with gable, porch,
                                           ‘oriel’ and canted ground floor bay. The
                                           houses are of plum brick with red brick
                                           and stone dressings, and offer a variety
                                           of architectural interest, complementing
                                           and contributing to the street scene.
                                           The area in general was laid out in the
                                           late Victorian period, and comprises a
                                           mixture of vernacular style, Victorian
                                           houses, with a high level of good
                                           detailing and visual interest. There are
                                           some modern developments in the


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 10
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                           area, but these were built before the
                                           Area of Special Character was
                                           declared, and they are not yet so
                                           numerous that the original Victorian
                                           character has been lost.

                                           The area in which the application site is
                                           situated, was designated as the Old
                                           Northwood Area of Special Local
                                           Character on the 31st of March 2005,
                                           because of its local distinctiveness and
                                           architectural interest.

                                           This application relates to an amended
                                           scheme, which differs from the recent
                                           appeal decision on the following points:

                                           The previous scheme involved the
                                           retention of the front façade of Nos. 34,
                                           and the re-development of Nos. 36-38,
                                           pair of semi-detached dwelling houses,
                                           in the form of one building of the same
                                           footprint, for 24 units. The scheme now
                                           concerns care home facilities for 32
                                           units.

                                           This proposal relates to the demolition
                                           of all three buildings, the detached
                                           dwelling house, No. 34 and the pair of
                                           semi-detached dwellings, Nos. 36-38,
                                           and the replacement by two substantial
                                           three storey buildings, connected by a
                                           three metre high flat roofed link, fully
                                           visible from the street scene.

                                           Contrary to the previous scheme, the
                                           proposed building has lost its
                                           similarities with the existing buildings at
                                           Nos. 36-38 Chester Rd in terms of
                                           massing, character, length of front
                                           elevation, proportions and key features.
                                           The amalgamation of the three
                                           properties has resulted in the loss of
                                           the existing rhythm in the street scene
                                           and the creation of an overbearing,
                                           continuous front facade with a total
                                           length of 26.75 meters. From an urban
                                           design and conservation point of view,
                                           the proposed development scheme is


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 11
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                           considered out of scale, and will
                                           drastically affect the prevalent character
                                           and appearance of the designated
                                           area, causing permanent harm to the
                                           conservation values of the area. The
                                           proposed design lacks character and
                                           detailing, and gives an anonymous and
                                           flat impression, whilst the roofline of the
                                           rear elevation gives a bulky impression.
                                           In summary, the scale, the length, the
                                           anonymous design, and the failure to
                                           harmonise with the local distinctiveness
                                           of the area will have a permanent
                                           detrimental impact on the appearance
                                           of the Area of Special Local Character.

                                           The flat roofed link that connects the
                                           two buildings is out of character and
                                           gives an odd impression. Furthermore,
                                           in combination with the two integral
                                           garages on either side of the link, it
                                           gives a utilitarian impression, and
                                           given the scale, the proposed design
                                           does not comply with the residential
                                           character of the area.

                                           In summary, the scale, the length, the
                                           anonymous and insensitive design, the
                                           roofscape and the domineering impact
                                           of the garages will have a permanent
                                           detrimental impact on the appearance
                                           of the Area of Special Local Character.

                                           The scheme involves the demolition of
                                           Nos. 36-38 Chester Rd, a semi-
                                           detached dwelling house of high
                                           architectural quality, traditional quality
                                           materials and excellent craftsmanship.
                                           This dwelling house is one of the most
                                           architecturally interesting properties in
                                           the Old Northwood Area of Special
                                           Character. With its fine proportions,
                                           interesting detailing such as brickwork,
                                           stained glass windows and mosaic
                                           floors at the main entrances, the
                                           historic building strongly contribute to
                                           the character and appearance of the
                                           area, despite rear extensions and the
                                           introduction of modest dormer


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 12
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                           windows. Nos. 36-38 is very similar to
                                           the adjacent dwelling No. 40 Chester
                                           Road. Together they form a distinctive
                                           and coherent pair of historic buildings,
                                           on the corner of Chester Road and
                                           Reginald Road.

                                           Because of its significant character, its
                                           historic and architectural merits, and
                                           this high quality building should be
                                           retained and restored, as it contributes
                                           significantly to the Area of Local
                                           Character. The demolition of Nos. 36-
                                           38 is a lost opportunity to find a creative
                                           and sustainable solution to re-use a
                                           valuable resource in a protected area.
                                           No assessment of the conservation
                                           merits of the existing buildings has
                                           been submitted as part of any of the
                                           proposals to the site, despite being in a
                                           protected area.

                                           The above scheme also proposes the
                                           demolition of the characteristic brick
                                           boundary wall and the loss of the front
                                           gardens of Nos. 34-38 Chester Rd,
                                           and the transformation of the frontage
                                           into a car park. The loss of the
                                           characteristic boundary treatment and
                                           the erection of modern timber palisade
                                           fences between the car parking spaces
                                           would further harm the character of the
                                           street scene.

                                           The proposed new use of the building,
                                           as a 32 bed care home, would intensify
                                           activities such as car movements, noise
                                           etc. in this currently quiet residential
                                           area, characterised by detached or
                                           semi-detached family dwellings. The
                                           scale and intensification would be
                                           detrimental to the character and special
                                           interest of the area.

                                           In conclusion, this scheme would erode
                                           the scale, general character and local
                                           distinctiveness of the neighbourhood of
                                           the recently designated Old Northwood
                                           Area of Special Local Character, it is


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 13
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                           considered important to protect and
                                           retain. It would destroy a fine example
                                           of good craftsmanship and delete an
                                           attractive part of the street scene. Since
                                           the scheme is in breach with
                                           established UDP policies and national
                                           guidance, from a conservation and
                                           urban design point of view we are
                                           unable to support the scheme and
                                           recommends refusal.

      Highways Engineer                    Highways object to the proposal for the
                                           following reasons:

                                           The development proposes 4 car
                                           parking bays + 1 space for people with
                                           disabilities. A total of 5 car parking
                                           spaces are proposed for the site, with 1
                                           motorcycle space.

                                           Council’s Parking Standards
                                           (December 2001) allow a maximum
                                           parking standard of 1 car space per 4
                                           residential bed spaces for a C2 Use
                                           Class. The application for a 32-bed
                                           care home therefore requires a
                                           maximum of 8 parking bays, with 10%
                                           being allocated for people with
                                           disabilities.

                                           1 cycle space is required per 2 staff in a
                                           secure, covered storage area. No
                                           details in relation to cycle parking have
                                           been provided on the plans.

                                           Chester Road is part of the Northwood
                                           Controlled Parking Zone. This means
                                           that visitors of residents to the proposal
                                           have no option but to park on site. Due
                                           to the relatively low parking provision
                                           on site it is likely that most of the
                                           parking will be taken up by staff and or
                                           service vehicles.

      Waste Development Manager            As the development is a commercial
                                           development, the care home has
                                           discretion over the waste management
                                           methods they intend to use. However,
                                           as a minimum, planning approval


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                   Page 14
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                            should require room to locate recycling
                                            facilities for all grades of paper and
                                            cardboard, cans, plastic bottles and
                                            also glass bottles as an absolute
                                            minimum.

       Environmental Protection Unit        EPU have no objections to the proposal
                                            but would recommend specific
                                            conditions in relation to deliveries and
                                            collections from the site, dust and noise
                                            control during construction and the
                                            location of any external plant material.

       Main Planning Issues

3.15   The main planning issues are considered to be:

       (i)     The principle of the proposed development
       (ii)    Impact on the character and appearance of an Area of Special Local
               Character
       (iii)   Siting, scale and design
       (iv)    Impact on neighbouring properties
       (v)     Highway matters
       (vi)    Planning obligations


       (i)     The principle of the proposed development

3.16   The site is located within the ‘Developed Area’ as shown on the proposals
       map of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and is also located within
       the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character. Whilst the site is within
       an Area of Special Local Character, this does not have the same restrictions
       on demolition as a conservation area. The UDP does not include any
       policies preventing demolition of such buildings. Accordingly, although the
       existing buildings are considered to make a positive contribution to the local
       area, there is no objection in principle in policy terms to the proposed
       demolition of the residential buildings of 34, 36 and 38 Chester Road.

3.17   Policy H10 of the UDP specifies criteria for the development of care homes.
       The policy requires care homes to:
           • Be conveniently located for local shops services and public transport
              facilities;
           • Comply with the Council’s car parking standards; and
           • Have regard to the Council’s amenity guidelines.

3.18   The site is located within 550m of Northwood Town Centre and Northwood
       Underground Station. Although the use has ceased, the site was previously
       in use as a care home. The continuation of this use is considered
       acceptable.

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 15
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       (ii)   Impact on the character and appearance of an Area of Special Local
              Character

3.19   Policy BE5 seeks to ensure new development within an Area of Special
       Local Character is of a similar scale and reflects the materials, design
       features, architectural style and building heights predominant in the area.

3.20   Policies BE13, BE19 and BE21 of the UDP seek to ensure that new
       development will harmonise with the existing street scene and other
       features of the area, and complement and improve character and amenity of
       the area by way of its siting, bulk and proximity to adjoining residential
       properties.

3.21   The built form of Chester Road and the immediately surrounding area is
       characterised by detached and semi-detached houses of predominately 2-
       storey scale. These houses are on relatively long and narrow plots. They
       are of fairly uniform appearance, sited to the front of each plot, with regular
       front and side boundary setbacks and large, landscaped rear gardens.

3.22   The Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character was designated in
       March 2005, by reason of the distinctive character and appearance of the
       properties within the area and its geometric layout that sets it apart from its
       surroundings. The houses have been identified by the Council’s Urban
       Design and Conservation Officer as amongst the most architecturally
       interesting properties in the area which contribute to the distinctiveness of
       the Area of Special Local Character and the street scene. The existing
       houses are of high architectural quality, with original, quality materials,
       although later additions of large dormer windows are noted to be of a poor
       design.

3.23   The proposed development attempts to replicate specific architectural
       features of the existing house and surrounding area while proposing a
       mansard style roof and dormers, in place of the existing hipped roof. The
       Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer has advised that the roof
       design results in a top heavy development which has a poor relationship to
       the street scene and will be extremely bulky and out of scale when viewed
       from the side and rear of the building.

3.24   The block plan indicates that fencing along the Chester Road boundary is to
       be a new 900mm face brick fence. Previous advice to the applicant (Ref:
       50613/APP/2005/758) suggested that the retention of the existing fencing
       on the site would be preferable where possible as it is characteristic of the
       Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character.

3.25   Furthermore, the building fails to provide appropriate articulation in terms of
       its proportions between the roof and first floor with long, unbroken facades
       and inappropriate levels of brickwork detailing. In particular, the detailing of
       the buildings and the proportions lack the required detailing which results in


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                       Page 16
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       a scheme which does not achieve a similar level of refinement of the
       existing houses and is out of keeping with the existing street scene and the
       Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character contrary to Policies BE5,
       BE13, BE19 and BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan.

       (iii)   Siting and scale

3.26   The proposed 2-storey buildings (with rooms in the roof space) each
       measure 12.5m in width, 28m deep along the north-eastern and south-
       western boundaries and step in approximately 7m from the side boundaries
       for the remaining 12m depth of the buildings. The setbacks for the buildings
       are generally in keeping with the set back along the street and are in
       keeping with the set backs of the existing houses.

3.27   The proposed layout of the site provides communal external amenity spaces
       to the rear of the buildings. A hard paved area is also proposed at the front
       of the site incorporating 3 parking bays, including 1 space for people with
       disabilities.

3.28   Any car parking areas for the development should be screened by low
       hedges from the street scene. The dominance of the proposed 0.9mm high
       brick fence is also considered out of scale with the existing fencing along
       Chester Road. It would be preferable to retain the existing fencing on the
       site where feasible.

3.29   The proposed 2-storey building (with roof space) is inconsistent with the
       surrounding context in terms of scale and massing. In particular with regard
       to its mansard roof style, and general lack of articulation and minimal
       brickwork detailing. The Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer
       has raised more specific issues in relation to the design merits of the
       application and this has been discussed in detail in paragraphs 3.11 – 3.17
       of this report. The proposed development would be in contrast to the
       immediately surrounding buildings and the local context, in terms of scale,
       height and massing and would not meet the objectives of Policy BE13 of the
       UDP.

       (v)     Impact on neighbouring properties

3.30   The lack of parking facilities on the site may result in an adverse overflow
       into the surrounding streets causing traffic. This issue is discussed in detail
       in the section on Highways matters in this report.

3.31   The buildings are generally in line with the existing houses in the street. The
       setback of the rear, elevated deck is sufficient to ensure any impact on the
       amenity of the adjoining properties can be maintained through the provision
       of suitable landscaping and fencing.

3.32   Concerns have also been raised by neighbours in relation to potential
       overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining residential properties. The


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 17
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       development has only 3 small windows facing each of the side boundaries
       of the development, with only windows with obscured glass proposed from
       each end of the hallways (the south east side consists of small storage
       cupboards). These plans indicate that, although in close proximity to
       neighbouring residential properties, the buildings would have no habitable
       windows facing habitable windows of neighbouring development.

3.33   However, the general bulk and scale of the development in terms of its
       adverse impact on the street scene, with the demolition of architecturally
       attractive houses and parking provision on site is likely to erode the amenity
       presently enjoyed by the residents of the area.

3.34   The proposed development would adversely impact on the general living
       conditions of neighbouring residential properties and therefore fails to meet
       the provisions of Policy BE21 of the UDP.

       (vi)    Highways matters

3.35   The application proposes a total of 5 parking spaces, including 1 space for
       people with disabilities, at the front of the site. The Council’s Parking
       Standards (December 2001) allow for 1 space per 4 resident bed spaces
       (0.25 spaces per resident bed space) allowing for 1 employee per 3
       residents, a total of 8 spaces in this case. The application therefore
       proposes a reduced parking provision of 0.16 spaces/resident bed space.
       The development also provides a single motorcycle space.

3.36   The site is within close proximity to the Northwood Town Centre and the
       Northwood Underground Station, however given the scale of the
       development for 32 beds the Council’s Highways Engineer has raised
       issues in relation to the lack of parking available on the street due to
       Chester Road being located within the Northwood Controlled Parking Zone
       and the provision of appropriate staff parking and service vehicles to the
       site. The provision of 5 car spaces, including 1 space for people with
       disabilities is therefore not considered to comply with UDP Policies H10,
       AM14 and AM15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.37   The proposed 0.9m high brick fence along the Chester Road frontage
       should be reduced in height to 0.6m (or preferably the retention of the
       existing fencing) to ensure pedestrian visibility. Limited information
       regarding motorcycle parking has been provided and no details for cycle
       storage have been provided on the block plan. As noted in the previous
       application (Ref: 50613/APP/2005/758) whilst these aspects of the
       application are considered unacceptable, they could be resolved by
       condition in the event of a favourable recommendation.

       (vii)   Planning Obligations

3.38   Policy R17 of the Hillingdon UDP is concerned with the Council securing
       planning obligations in respect of the provision of affordable housing,


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 18
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       recreational open space, community, social and educational facilities where
       applicable to the development. These UDP policies are supported by more
       specific Supplementary Planning Guidance. As the application is being
       recommended for refusal, no agreement has been reached with the
       developer in respect to all of these contributions.

3.39   However, if the application were to be considered for approval, the following
       broad Section 106 Heads of Terms would be pursued by officers:

          •   Health – £4,208; and
          •   Project management - 5% of the total the value of contributions for
              compliance, administration and monitoring and for specified
              requirements to project manage and oversee implementation of
              elements of the completed planning.

       Comments on Public Consultations

3.40   The issues raised in the submissions have been address in the main body
       of this report under the relevant headings.

4.0    Observations of the Borough Solicitor

4.1    When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant
       planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies.
       This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an
       application.

4.2    In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA
       1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention
       rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998.
       Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes
       the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly
       applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The
       specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6
       (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life);
       Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14
       (prohibition of discrimination).

4.3    Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are
       followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

       Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and
       infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain
       defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any
       infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair
       balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and
       must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

4.4    Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured
       without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion,

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                          Page 19
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
      minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0   Observations of the Director of Finance

5.1   As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations
      have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council.
      The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only
      and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the
      risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting
      the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon
      the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the
      Planning and Transportation Group and the wider Council.

6.0   CONCLUSION

6.1   The development is considered acceptable in principle for a care home.
      However, it fails to provide sufficient car parking spaces and cycle space, it will
      result in an overly bulky building which is out of scale with the existing
      character of the area and the loss of the existing buildings on site will have an
      adverse impact on the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character. These
      matters result in a development which is inappropriate for the site and locality.
      Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

Reference Documents:

(a)   London Plan
(b)   Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing
(c)   Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport
(d)   Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 – Planning and Noise
(e)   Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan
(f)   Council’s 2nd Deposit Draft Parking Standards (December 2001)
(g)   Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Design Guide – Residential
      Layouts and House Design
(h)   Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Community Safety by Design
(i)   Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Obligations Strategy
(j)   Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement


Contact Officer:    CATHERINE OTTO                   Telephone No: 01895 277722




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                       Page 20
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
BLOCK PLAN




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                     Page 21
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                     Page 22
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
                                                                                   A
Item No. 16         Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation

Address:            LAND AT 54-60 ICKENHAM ROAD, RUISLIP

Development:        REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE INCLUDING THE ERECTION
                    OF A REPLACMENT CONSERVATIVE CLUB AND A
                    RESIDENTIAL BLOCK OF 20 TWO BEDROOM FLATS WITH
                    ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING, AMENITY SPACE AND
                    LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF 54, 56-58
                    AND 60 ICKENHAM ROAD).

LBH Ref Nos:        9205/APP/2006/1495

Drawing Nos:        Site location plan, PL-06, PL-07, reports titled ‘Planning
                    Statement’, ‘Design Statement’ prepared by r3architects
                    dated May 2006, ‘Transportation Assessment’ prepared by
                    ADL Traffic Engineering ref ADL/AJM/1700/22a dated May
                    2006, all received 22/05/06

                    PL-05 rev D, PL-08 rev B, PL-09 rev B, PL-10 all received
                    12/07/06

                    Report titled ‘Arboricultural Survey’ and associated drawing tr-
                    427-06 prepared by Ben Larkham Associates dated July 2006
                    received 18/07/06

                    PL-04 rev J received 01/08/06

Date of receipt:    22/05/06               Date(s) of Amendment(s): 12/07/06

REASON FOR URGENCY:

Although this report has not been available 5 working days prior to the
meeting, the Chairman has agreed to consider the report as an urgent item in
order to progress the application to determination in a timely manner.

1.0   SUMMARY

1.1   Planning permission is sought for the comprehensive redevelopment of land
      located at 54-60 Ickenham Road for mixed use purposes.

1.2   The site comprises three separate land parcels and is currently occupied by
      the Ickenham Conservative Club and two residential bungalows. It is
      proposed to demolish the existing buildings, and erect a new Conservative
      Club at the front of the site with a residential block, comprising 20 two
      bedroom flats, to the rear.



North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 23
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
1.3    A total of 6 objections have been received from local residents, raising
       concerns that the proposal would result in the over development of the site,
       impact on the local traffic environment and result in over spill parking.
       Residents are also concerned about the bulk, scale and appearance of the
       proposed buildings, and consequential impacts of the development on
       residential amenity.

1.4    No objection is raised to the proposed redevelopment of the site for mixed
       use purposes. The residential density proposed is considered appropriate
       for this site, and a satisfactory level of amenity can be provided for future
       occupants. On site parking accords with both the Council’s standards and
       the recommendations of the London Plan, and the development would not
       impact unacceptably on the local traffic environment. The development
       would allow for the more efficient use of this existing brown field site in
       accordance with Government and London Plan policy.

1.5    Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

2.0    RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1.    (T8) Time Limit - full planning        1.   (T8) Standard
      application
2.    (OM1) Development in                   2.   (OM1) Standard
      accordance with Approved Plans
3.    Notwithstanding condition 2,           3.   To ensure that the front elevation
      prior to development                        is treated in a manner which
      commencing the applicant shall              contributes to the local street
      submit fully detailed plans                 scene, in accordance with Policy
      addressing the treatment of the             BE13 and BE19.
      front elevation of the proposed
      Conservative Club building for
      the approval of the Local
      Planning Authority. The
      development shall thereafter be
      completed in accordance with
      the approved plans.
4.    (M1) Details/Samples to be             4.   (M1) Standard
      submitted
5.    (M3) Boundary treatment –              5.   (M3) Standard
      details (…Treatment along the
      side boundaries shall
      incorporate some degree of
      acoustic screening. The front
      boundary shall be fenced to a
      minimum height of 1.4m)
6.    (MCD9) No External Storage             6.   (MCD9) Standard
7.    Prior to first occupation of the       7.   To ensure that appropriate bin
      development hereby approved,                stores and recycling facilities are
      bin chambers shall be provided              permanently available, to assist


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                     Page 24
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
     in accordance with drawing PL-             the achievement of waste
     04 rev J received 01/08/06 and             management (including
     PL10 received 12/07/06. In                 recycling) objectives, and to
     addition:                                  ensure the amenities of adjoining
                                                residents in accordance with
     (i)   Bin chamber doors should             Policies OE1.
           be self closing, but capable
           of being latched open during
           collection;
     (ii) Bin chamber walls shall be
          constructed of or lined with
          hard impervious materials
          with a smooth finish suitable
          for washing down.
     (iii) The floor of the bin chamber
           shall have a suitable fall
           towards a drainage point,
           which shall consist of a
           trapped gully connected to
           the foul sewer.
     (iv) Lighting should be provided
          by means of sealed
          bulkheads.
     (v) Within the residential bin
         chambers, no less than 3 x
         1100 litre bins shall be made
         permanently available and
         signposted for recycling.
     (vi) Within the Conservative
          Club bin chamber, provision
          shall be made for recycling
          of paper and cardboard,
          cans, plastic bottles, and
          glass bottles and jars.
     (vii) Refuse collections shall not
           take place between the
           hours of 2200hours and
           0700hours.
8.   Prior to development                  8.   To maintain the amenities of
     commencing, the applicant shall            adjoining residents in
     submit to the Local Planning               accordance with Policy OE1.
     Authority a scheme for the
     control of noise emanating from
     the Conservative Club building
     for approval. The scheme shall


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                               Page 25
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      include details of noise
      insulation to be incorporated into
      the building fabric to control of
      noise transmission to
      neighbouring dwellings. The
      scheme shall also specify that:
      (i)   No external activities
            (including use of external
            seating) shall occur between
            2200 hours and 0700 hours;
      (ii) No music or other amplified
           sound shall be audible
           inside surrounding or
           adjacent premises between
           2300 hours and 0800 hours.
      (iii) Windows in the flank
            elevations shall be fixed
            shut at all times.
      (iv) Deliveries and the loading or
           unloading of goods shall not
           occur between 1900 and
           0800 hours Monday to
           Friday, 1300 and 0800 hours
           on Saturdays, or at any time
           on Sundays and Bank
           Holidays.
      (v) Notwithstanding points (i) to
          (iv) above, the hours of
          operation shall be limited to
          1000 to 2300 hours Monday
          to Saturday, 1200 to 2230
          hours on Sundays, plus an
          additional 15 days per year
          where operations may
          extend from 2300 to 0000
          hours.
      The scheme, as approved, shall
      be implemented and maintained
      thereafter.
9.    (OM11) Floodlighting                 9.    (OM11) Standard
10.   (OM13) Demolition protocols          10.   (OM13) Standard
11.   (RPD2) Obscured Glazing and          11.   (RPD2) Standard
      Non-Opening Windows
      (Windows in the flank elevation
      of the residential building facing

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                           Page 26
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      Fairfield Court shall be glazed
      with obscure glass and non-
      opening except at top vent level
      for so long as the development
      remains in existence.)
12.   Prior to development                 12.   To ensure the amenities of
      commencing, the applicant shall            adjoining residential properties
      submit details of a balcony                in accordance with Policy BE24.
      screen designed to screen views
      between Flat no. 7 of the
      residential building and no. 6
      Fairfield Court. The screen shall
      be erected as approved prior to
      occupation of the said unit, and
      shall thereafter be permanently
      retained
13.   (H3) Vehicular access -              13.   (H3) Standard
      construction
14.   (H4) Pedestrian access -             14.   (H4) Standard
      construction
15.   (H10) Parking/Turning/Loading        15.   (H10) Standard
      Arrangements
16.   (H12) Closure of Existing Access     16.   (H12) Standard
17.   (H13) Installation of gates onto a   17.   (H13) Standard
      highway
18.   Prior to development                 18.   To ensure that sufficient
      commencing, an Odoni bicycle               provision is made for cyclists, in
      enclosure (or alternative agreed           accordance with Policy AM9.
      in writing with the Local Planning
      Authority) shall be erected in
      accordance with drawing PL-04
      rev J received 01/08/06 and
      thereafter permanently retained.
      The enclosure shall be capable
      of accommodating at least 20
      bicycles, and shall be lockable.
19.   Prior to development                 19.   To ensure that sufficient
      commencing, details of a bicycle           provision is made for cyclists, in
      shelter serving the Conservative           accordance with Policy AM9.
      Club shall be submitted for
      approval by the Local Planning
      Authority. The shelter shall be
      located in accordance with
      drawing PL-04 rev J received
      01/08/06, and shall be capable of
      accommodating at least 39
      bicycles. Sheffield stands
      spaced at 1.0m centers shall be
      utilised. The shelter and bicycle


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                 Page 27
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      stands shall be provided prior to
      first occupation of the
      Conservative Club building
      hereby approved.

20.   (TL2) Trees to be retained           20.   (TL2) Standard
21.   (TL3) Protection of trees and        21.   (TL3) Standard
      plants during site clearance and
      development
22.   (TL5) Landscaping Scheme             22.   (TL5) Standard
23.   (TL6) Landscaping Scheme -           23.   (TL6) Standard
      implementation
24.   (TL7) Maintenance of                 24.   (TL7) Standard
      Landscaped Areas
25.   (TL20) Amenity Areas                 25.   (TL20) Standard
      (Residential Developments)
26.   (DIS1) Facilities for people with    26.   (DIS1) Standard
      disabilities (…Specifically, no
      less than 2 car parking spaces
      associated with the residential
      component and 2 car parking
      spaces associated with the
      Conservative Club shall be
      marked out to the dimensions
      specified in the Council’s
      Parking Standards for drivers
      with disabilities.)
27.   Not less than 10% of the             27.   To ensure that sufficient housing
      residential units hereby                   stock is provided to meet the
      approved shall be designed to              needs of people with disabilities
      (or be capable of easy adaptation          in accordance with Policy H9 of
      to) full wheelchair standard.              the Hillingdon Unitary
                                                 Development Plan and Policy
                                                 3A.4 of the London Plan.
28.   Prior to development                 28.   To assist in meeting the
      commencing, the applicant shall            sustainability objectives of
      submit an expanded schedule of             Polices A4.9 of the London Plan
      sustainability measures to be              and OE12 of the Unitary
      incorporated into the fabric of            Development Plan.
      the building, which may include
      measures to provide for a
      proportion of the site’s electricity
      and heat needs by renewable
      sources on site. The schedule
      shall draw on the details
      included in the report titled
      ‘Design Statement’ prepared by
      R3 Architects Ltd dated May
      2006, all received 22 May 2006.


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                Page 28
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      The approved measures shall
      thereafter be incorporated into
      the building fabric prior to the
      commencement of use and
      permanently retained.
29.   Before the development hereby       29.   To ensure the development
      permitted is commenced, a                 provides an appropriate
      scheme shall be submitted to,             contribution to educational
      and approved in writing by, the           facilities within the surrounding
      Local Planning Authority                  area, arising from the proposed
      detailing how additional or               development, in accordance with
      improved educational facilities           policy R17 of the Hillingdon
      will be provided within a 3 miles         Unitary Development Plan and
      radius of the site to                     the Council’s Supplementary
      accommodate the primary and               Planning Guidance on
      secondary school child yield              Educational Facilities.
      arising from the proposed
      development. This shall include
      a timescale for the provision of
      the additional/improved facilities.
      The approved means and
      timescale of accommodating the
      child yield arising from the
      development shall then be
      implemented in accordance with
      the agreed scheme.
30.   Before the development hereby       30.   To ensure the development
      permitted is commenced, a                 provides an appropriate
      scheme shall be submitted to,             contribution to environmental
      and approved in writing by, the           improvements and community
      Local Planning Authority                  facilities at Hill Lane Recreation
      detailing how environmental               Ground of other green space
      improvements and community                within the surrounding area,
      facilities at Hill Lane Recreation        arising from the proposed
      Ground, or other green space in           development, in accordance with
      the locality will be provided. This       policy R17 of the Hillingdon
      shall include a timescale for the         Unitary Development Plan and
      provision of the                          the Council’s Supplementary
      additional/improved facilities.           Planning Guidance on
      The approved means and                    Educational Facilities.
      timescale of shall then be
      implemented in accordance with
      the agreed scheme.
31.   Before the development hereby       31.   To ensure that works to the
      permitted is commenced, a                 public highway are managed in
      scheme shall be submitted to,             an appropriate manner and to
      and approved in writing by, the           ensure that the costs are borne
      Local Planning Authority                  by the applicant in accordance
      detailing how all highway works           with Policy R17.


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                Page 29
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      associated with the development
      will be managed. This shall
      include a timescale for the
      undertaking of such works. The
      approved means and timescale
      shall then be implemented in
      accordance with the agreed
      scheme.
32.   Prior to development                 32.   To ensure the appropriate
      commencing, the applicant shall            management of monies sought
      make a financial contribution              in accordance with Policy R17.
      equal to 5% of the value of the
      cash contributions required by
      conditions 29 and 30 above to
      the London Borough of
      Hillingdon for project
      management/ administration
      costs relating to this proposal.

INFORMATIVES

1.    The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard
      to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and
      Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which
      makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention
      rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to
      respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol
      (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
2.    The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard
      to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out
      below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
      Supplementary Planning Guidance:
          • OL5, BE13, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE38, OE1,
              OE3, OE12, OE13, H3, H4, H6, H7, H8, H9, H11, H12, R10, R11, R17,
              AM1, AM2, AM7, AM8, AM9, AM14, AM15
3.    Written notification of the intended start of works shall be sent to the
      Hillingdon London Borough Council, Planning & Transportation Group,
      Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW, at least seven days before
      the works hereby approved are commenced.
4.    (1) Building to approved drawing
5.    (2) Encroachment
6.    (3) Building regulations – demolition and building works
7.    (5) Party walls
8.    (6) Property rights/rights of light
9.    (11) The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
10.   (12) Notification to building contractors
11.   (15) Control of environmental nuisance from construction work
12.   (16) Directional signage
13.   (17) Communal amenity space


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                Page 30
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
14. (19) Sewerage connection, water pollution etc
15. (23) Works affecting the public highway – vehicle cross overs
16. (24) Works affecting the public highway – general
17. (34) Access to buildings and facilities for persons with disabilities
18. (43) Keeping highways and pavements free from mud etc
19. (45) Discharge of conditions (…conditions 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 22,
    24, and 28)
20. (46) Renewable resources
21. (47) Damage to the road verge

3.0   CONSIDERATIONS

      Site and Locality

3.1   The application site is located on the northern side of Ickenham Road,
      approximately 800 metres from the boundary of the Ruislip Town Centre,
      and 400 metres west of the West Ruislip London Underground Station. It
      has an area of 0.4ha and is regular in shape, being approximately 80m in
      length and 48m in width.

3.2   The site comprises three separate land parcels. The Ickenham
      Conservative Club currently occupies 56-58 Ickenham Road, while
      residential bungalows occupy 54 and 60 Ickenham Road, respectively.

3.3   The existing Conservative Club comprises a 1950’s single storey building, of
      limited architectural merit and poor condition, which is set back 24m from
      the road boundary and 8m from the established building line along
      Ickenham Road. The building has an internal floor area of 585m2.
      Currently vehicles enter the site from a crossing located at the western end
      of the site frontage, before travelling through the site and exiting from a
      crossing to the east. 24 car parking spaces are located in front of the Club.
      Land to the rear of the Club was previously occupied by a scout hut, but is
      currently overgrown.

3.4   The two adjoining residential bungalows (54 and 60 Ickenham Road) are
      unremarkable in their appearance. Both bungalows maintain long rear
      gardens and individual vehicle crossings.

3.5   The surrounding area, while predominantly residential, is characterised by
      larger scale buildings. To the west of the site lies a two storey detached
      house (62 Ickenham Road), a large residential care home (The Fairways)
      which incorporates an annex at the rear of the site, and a church with a high
      pitched roof approximately three storeys in height. The site abuts flatted
      residential development (Fairfield Court) along its eastern boundary, and
      Ickenham Golf Course lies to the north. While the Unitary Development
      Plan designates the Golf Course as Green Belt, it is enclosed on three sides
      by domestic buildings. A tree belt, located on the golf course, screens the
      application site from within the Golf Course.



North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                  Page 31
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.6    The site has a Public Transportation Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of 3,
       on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6 represents the highest level of public
       accessibility. Ickenham Road is a classified road with high traffic volumes.

       Scheme

3.7    Planning permission is sought for the comprehensive redevelopment of the
       site. The existing buildings would be demolished, and replaced with a new
       Conservative Club and a residential block accommodating 22 two bedroom
       units.

3.8    The new Conservative Club would be at the front of the site, although set
       5m behind the established building line along Ickenham Road. The building
       would be two storeys in height with a pitched roof, and would be finished in
       brick and tile with glazing and rendered panels on the front elevation. The
       main entrance, located in the front elevation, would include double doors
       and the building would be fully accessibility to people with disabilities.

3.9    The part two, part three storey residential building would be located to the
       rear of the site. The building, which would be stepped away from the side
       boundaries, would incorporate a mansard style roof with gable features in
       the front and rear elevations. Residential units would have a minimum
       internal floor area of 72m2. Those at ground floor would be provided with
       patios, while first floor units would be provided with projecting balconies
       3m2 in area. Units within the roof space would be provided with juliette
       balconies. Approximately 735m2 of communal amenity space would be
       provided at ground level around the periphery of the site.

3.10   It is proposed to consolidate the existing access arrangements by replacing
       the four existing vehicle crossings with a single crossing adjacent to the
       boundary with Fairfield Court. A 5m wide internal access road would
       provide separate access to both the Conservative Club and the residential
       building. Automatic gates would control access to the residential
       component.

3.11   A total of 41 car parking spaces are proposed. Of these, 21 would be
       allocated to the Conservative Club, and 20 allocated to the residential units.
       Cycle parking and separate refuse stores would be provided for each
       respective use.

3.12   The applicant has also submitted several technical reports in support of the
       proposal. These are detailed below:-

       •   Planning Statement

3.13   This report describes the site, the development proposal, and the planning
       policy context in which the application should be considered. It considers
       the density and housing mix proposed and assesses the impact of the
       development on the street scene, adjoining Green Belt, and residential
       amenity. It concludes that the proposed development represents ‘an


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                     Page 32
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       efficient use of brown field land which will sit comfortably within the
       streetscape with a positive design that will enable an improvement to the
       character and appearance of the area’.

       •   Transport Assessment

3.14   This report describes the site and surrounding highway environment, and
       considers the accessibility of the site to public transport. It considers the
       site layout and access arrangements, and predicts traffic generation arising
       from the development and its impact on the surrounding road network. It
       concludes that the development would result in an increase in traffic flows of
       0.2% and 0.3% and that the impact of these additional flows on Ickenham
       Road and the roundabout would be imperceivable. It considers car and
       cycle parking and refuse and servicing provisions to be satisfactory.

       •   Design Statement

3.15   This report sets out the design process adopted when developing the
       proposal, stating that the intention was to design a replacement
       Conservative Club which would be of ‘ a domestic scale to fit in with the
       surrounding street scene, whilst at the same time having a discrete civic
       presence to reflect its function as a club’. It discusses the design of the
       proposed residential building, the material palette proposed, and external
       landscaping. It also addresses how accessibility and sustainability
       measures have been incorporated into the design, and concludes that the
       proposed development is ‘a scheme of high design quality using traditional
       materials in a modern sustainable way’.

       Planning History:

       There is no relevant planning history for this site.

       UDP Designation:

       Developed Area
       The site abuts the Green Belt to the rear

       Planning Policies and Standards

       The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:-

       Part 1 Policies:

       Pt1.1  To maintain the Green Belt for uses which preserve or enhance the
              open nature of the area.
       Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect
              the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
       Pt1.15 To enable the conversion of residential properties to create more
              units, provided the additional units are suitable to live in and the


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 33
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
               character of the area and amenities of the adjoining occupiers are
               not harmed.
      Pt1.16   To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to
               wheelchair and mobility standards.
      Pt1.17   To seek to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings
               are provided in the form of affordable housing.
      Pt1.31   To encourage the development and support the retention of a wide
               range of local services, including shops and community facilities,
               which are easily accessible to all, including people with disabilities
               or other mobility handicaps.
      Pt1.35   To accord priority to pedestrians in the design and implementation
               of road construction and traffic management schemes, and to seek
               to provide a network or cycle routes through the Borough to
               promote safer cycling and better conditions for cyclists.
      Pt1.39   To seek where appropriate planning obligations to achieve benefits
               to the community related to the scale and type of development
               proposed.

      Part 2 Policies:

      OPEN LAND AND COUNTRYSIDE
      OL5 Development proposals adjacent to the Green Belt

      BUILT ENVIRONMENT
      BE13 Layout and appearance of new development
      BE18 Design considerations - pedestrian security and safety
      BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and
            improving amenity and character of the area
      BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations
      BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions
      BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys
      BE23 External amenity space and new residential development
      BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy
      BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of
            new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

      OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
      OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties
           and the local area
      OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance - mitigation
           measures
      OE12 Energy conservation and new development
      OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate
           sites

      HOUSING
      H3   Loss and replacement of residential accommodation


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                     Page 34
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      H4     Mix of housing units
      H6     Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential
             development
      H7     Conversion of residential properties into a number of units
      H8     Change of use from non-residential to residential
      H9     Provision for people with disabilities in new residential developments
      H11    Provision of affordable housing
      H12    Tandem development of backland in residential areas

      RECREATION, LEISURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
      R10 Proposals for new meeting halls and buildings for education, social,
           community and health services
      R11 Proposals that involve the loss of land or buildings used for
           education, social, community and health services
      R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of
           recreation, leisure and community facilities

      ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT
      AM1 Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking
           distance based catchment area - public transport accessibility and
           capacity considerations
      AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation, impact
           on congestion and public transport availability and capacity
      AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments
      AM8 Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and
           implementation of road construction and traffic management
           schemes
      AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design
           of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking
           facilities
      AM14 New development and car parking standards
      AM15 Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons

      Other relevant documents include:
      (a)    The London Plan
      (b)    Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
      (c)    Planning Policy Guidance 3 – Housing
      (d)    Planning Policy Statement 22 – Renewable Energy
      (e)    Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001)
      (f)    Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Accessibility
             Statement
      (g)    Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design
      (h)    Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Obligations

      Consultations

      The application was advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country
      Planning Act (1990) as a major development. A notice was erected on the

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                   Page 35
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      site and a public notice was placed in a local newspaper on 14 June 2006.
      19 resident households were directly notified via letter. A total of 8 letters of
      objection have been received from residents. The issues raised are
      summarised below:-

      (i)     The site is incorrectly described by the applicant as a ‘brownfield’
              site.
      (ii)    The proposal would result in the over development of the site.
      (iii)   The design and materials proposed for the new buildings are
              unimaginative. The proposed residential building is unacceptably
              large.
      (iv)    The location of the new crossing would present traffic safety issues
              while the proposal would create additional traffic volumes impacting
              on existing local congestion. Parking provision on site is inadequate
              and would result in overspill parking.
      (v)     The proposal would impact on residential amenity by reason of the
              loss of light, views, privacy, the position of the refuse store, noise and
              disturbance arsing from the position of the internal access road, and
              construction effects. The proposed boundary treatment would be
              inadequate.
      (vi)    The proposal would impact on the nature and ecological values of the
              site. The application is not supported by a wildlife or tree report.
      (vii)   The sustainability measures proposed are inadequate.

      Two petitions with a total of 47 signatures objecting to the proposal has
      been received.

      External Consultees

      Hillingdon Primary Care          No response received.
      Trust

      Metropolitan Police              No objections subject to appropriate fencing,
                                       controlled access, and CCTV coverage.

      Ruislip Residents’               The proposed residential building is out of
      Association                      scale, will be over dominant and would
                                       impact upon adjoining residential amenity.

                                       Insufficient car parking is provided on site.
                                       The traffic impacts, including cumulative
                                       impacts, should be considered.

      Ickenham Residents’              No response received.
      Association

      Internal Consultees

      Planning & Environmental         No objections raised.
      Policy

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                       Page 36
                           PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      Highways Engineer             No objections are raised to the proposal.
                                    The on-site parking provision complies with
                                    Council Standards. However, covered
                                    secure cycle storage should be secured by
                                    condition.

                                    In the event of an approval, the applicant
                                    should be required to enter into appropriate
                                    Section agreements for any works on the
                                    public highway

      Urban Design/Conservation No objections are raised to the demolition of
      Officer                   the existing Conservative Club and adjoining
                                bungalows, which are of no special
                                architectural or historic interest. However,
                                the proposed Conservative Club building
                                does not meet design quality standards, and
                                is considered visually unacceptable.

      Environmental Protection      The proposal may result in noise and
      Unit                          disturbance from activities and traffic
                                    movements. Conditions should be imposed
                                    in the event of an approval to control such
                                    effects.

      Trees/Landscape Officer       No objections raised.

      Waste Strategy                No objections raised.

      Projects & Implementation     Planning obligations should be secured in
      Team                          respect of education facilities, open spaces,
                                    project management and monitoring.

      Housing Directorate           The proposal was received prior to the
                                    adoption of the new SPD: Affordable
                                    Housing. As such, no affordable housing
                                    should be sought from this proposal.

      Education Directorate         A contribution of £61,931 should be sought
                                    towards primary and secondary education
                                    facilities.

      Green Spaces Team             A construction of £28,260 should be sought
                                    towards the provision of children’s play
                                    facilities at Hill Lane Recreational Ground.




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                   Page 37
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       Main Planning Issues

3.16   The main issues are considered to be:

       (i)      Principle of the use
       (ii)     Residential density and proposed mix of units
       (iii)    Backland development and impacts on the adjoining Green Belt
       (iv)     Impacts on the streetscene
       (v)      Residential Amenity
       (vi)     Traffic, access, car parking and cycle storage
       (vii)    Energy Efficiency and Waste Disposal
       (viii)   Access for people with disabilities
       (ix)     Planning Obligations


       (i)      Principle of the use and back land development

3.17   The site is currently occupied by the existing Conservative Club and two
       bungalows. Policy R11 does not provide for the loss of land or buildings
       used for social and community purposes unless adequate alternative
       provision is available.

3.18   The existing Conservative Club building is of modest architectural quality
       and is currently in a state of disrepair. Accordingly, it does not contribute to
       the character or amenities of the area. It is proposed to replace the existing
       building with a larger, purpose-built building to better cater for current
       demands. The building would be accessible for people with disabilities
       throughout. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the loss of the existing
       Conservative Club building as it would be replaced within the site.

3.19   The proposal would result in the loss of a significant proportion of the site to
       residential development. Much of the surrounding land is currently unused
       and overgrown with vegetation and, therefore, demonstrably surplus to
       current requirements. It is unlikely that the loss of this land would affect the
       foreseeable needs of existing and potential users. Furthermore, the
       proposal would maximise the use of a currently under utilised brown field
       site. This approach is consistent with advice in PPS1 and PPS3 and, as
       such, no objection is raised in terms of Policy R11.

3.20   The site is located within a Developed Area as designated in the UDP.
       Residential activities are considered appropriate within Developed Areas
       and, as such, no objection is raised to the residential redevelopment of this
       site. No objection is raised to the loss of the two existing bungalows as
       these residential units will be replaced within the boundaries of the site.

       (ii)     Residential density and proposed mix of units

3.21   Policy H6 of the Hillingdon UDP states that the density of development
       depends on a balance between the full and effective use of available
       housing land and the building’s compatibility with surrounding development.

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 38
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       As a guide, new housing is expected to be in the range of 100-200 habitable
       rooms per hectare (h.r.p.h). Applications with densities above 150 h.r.p.h
       need to demonstrate that the layout and design of the schemes are of a
       quality that produce good environmental conditions and that harmonise with
       the surroundings.

3.22   The London Plan is the most up to date development plan and therefore
       policies contained within this plan carry greater weight than UDP policies
       where they are not in general conformity. Policy 4B.3 of the London Plan
       advises that Boroughs should ensure that development proposals achieve
       the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context and the
       site’s public transport accessibility. The London Plan provides a density
       matrix to establish a strategic framework for appropriate densities at
       different locations.

3.23   The application site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score
       of 3. The London Plan density guidelines make no provision for 100%
       flatted developments within a suburban area with a PTAL score of 3. The
       Council’s Policy and Environmental Planning Team have therefore
       recommended a density range of between 50-80uph and 200-250hrhp.

3.24   The development (based on a residential site area of 0.24ha) has a density
       of 250hrph, which conforms with the recommendations of the London Plan.
       However, it exceeds the unit density parameters as it proposes a density of
       83u/ha. This level of density is the result of the type of units proposed (two
       bedroom units), and could potentially be remedied through the provision of
       larger units. However, the degree to which the proposal exceeds London
       Plan density recommendations is considered de minimus. The density
       proposed would not compromise the provision of a satisfactory level of on-
       site residential amenity. It would be difficult to sustain an objection on this
       ground at appeal. As such, no objection is raised.

3.25   Policy H4 encourages the provision of a mix of housing units of different
       sizes with a focus on units with one or two bedrooms. In this instance, a
       total of 22 two bedroom units are proposed. No objections are raised to
       this proposed mix, which is considered appropriate to a mixed use scheme.

       (iii)   Backland Development and impact on the Green Belt

3.26   Policy BE19 states that Local Planning Authorities will seek to ensure that
       new development complements or improves the amenities and character of
       an area.

3.27   The proposal incorporates tandem, or backland, development whereby a
       new building is proposed at the rear of a site. This arrangement reflects the
       development patterns present in the locality, specifically the layout of
       buildings along Fairfield Court and at The Fairways, which incorporates an
       annex to the rear. A scout hall previously occupied land to the rear of the
       existing Conservative Club, although this was demolished some time ago.



North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 39
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.28   Accordingly, no in principle objection is raised to the redevelopment of land
       at the rear of the site, which is consistent with the character of the
       surrounding area in accordance with Policy BE19.

3.29   Policy OL3 of the UDP states that the Local Planning Authority will seek to
       retain and improve existing landscaping where development proposals
       affect land adjacent to the Green Belt. Clause 3.15 of PPG2 also advises
       that the visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by
       development proposals, which are visible from the Green Belt.

3.30   The proposed development is located adjacent to the Green Belt, which
       runs along the northern boundary of the site. The Green Belt incorporates
       the adjacent Ruislip Golf Club.

3.31   The proposed residential building will be setback 7.4m from the boundary
       with the Green Belt. It would be two storeys in height with accommodation
       in a mansard style roof, with a maximum height of 10m. The intervening
       distance is capable of being landscaped, although no details have been
       provided in this regard.

3.32   While not necessarily desirable, the proximity of the building to the Green
       Belt boundary is considered acceptable having regard to the position of
       surrounding development relative to the Green Belt. The annex of The
       Fairways is set back 3m from the boundary, while development in Fairfield
       Court is setback between 9.5m and 15m from this boundary. The rear
       parking area of the nearby church is setback 5m from the Green Belt
       boundary. Accordingly, there is an established, albeit localised, pattern of
       development within close proximity to the Green Belt.

3.33   Notwithstanding this, the Green Belt, in this location, is enclosed on three
       sides by residential development. Views across the Green Belt are
       therefore limited, and include domestic scale buildings. Furthermore, an
       existing screen of trees is located on the gold course site. This, in
       conjunction with on site landscaping, would assist in softening the visual
       transition between the Green Belt and the developed area, while breaking
       up the impact of the site from the adjoining Green Belt. Accordingly, no
       objections are raised in respect of policy OL3.

       (iv)   Impacts on the streetscene

3.34   In addition to Policy BE19, Policy BE13 of the UDP highlights the
       importance of designing new development to harmonise with the existing
       streetscene.

3.35   The local street scene comprises of a range of residential and community
       use buildings, some of which are large in scale. In particular, The Fairways
       has a front elevation 16m in length, while the nearby church maintains a
       pitched roof three storeys in height. The established building line is
       generally consistent along this stretch of Ickenham Road, with the majority
       of buildings being setback between 7 and 12m from the road frontage. The

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 40
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       land rises to the east, so that the application site is located approximately
       1m below ground level at Fairfield Court.

3.36   The proposed Conservative Club building, being two storeys in height with a
       pitched roof and a front elevation 22m in length, is considered to be
       generally appropriate within the existing street scene in terms of massing,
       bulk and scale. It would be set back 17m from the road boundary and 5m
       behind the established building line. The intervening distance would be
       occupied by a car park.

3.37   The Council’s Urban Designer has advised that the proposed building is of
       modest quality design, and that the front elevation requires reconsideration
       to ensure a greater degree of harmony and balance between the various
       elements to reflect a civic ambience commensurate with its anticipated use.
       Accordingly, a condition is recommended requiring the applicant to submit
       plans detailing alternative elevational treatments for approval by the Local
       Planning Authority.

3.38   A landscape strip would be provided between the front car park and the
       road boundary, ranging between 0.5 and 3.0m in width. Existing trees are
       proposed for retention and would be complemented by additional planting.
       Proposed landscaping would ensure an appropriate relationship to the
       existing streetscene, and would improve the visual appearance of the site.
       A metal railing is proposed along the length of the boundary. This would
       provide both security (subject to a condition requiring a minimum height of
       1.4m) and allow vegetation to grown through. The proposal would therefore
       result in a net improvement to the existing street scene.

3.39   The residential building, located to the rear of the site, is sufficiently
       separated from the road frontage and screened by the Conservative Club
       building so as not to have a direct impact on the streetscape.

3.40   Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of policy BE13,
       BE19 or BE38 subject to conditions.

       (v)    Residential Amenity

3.41   Policies BE20, BE21, BE24 and OE1 of the UDP seek to control the effects
       of new built development. While these policies recognise that any
       development will result in some effects on surrounding properties by virtue
       of the status quo being altered, the scale of a development proposal is not
       directly indicative of significant adverse effects.

3.42   Policies BE20 and BE21 relate to potential over-shadowing and over-
       dominance effects arising from new development.

3.43   The proposed Conservative Club would be located behind the 45 degree
       splay from rear facing habitable room windows at 62 Ickenham Road, and
       its side elevation would be setback in excess of 21m from the side elevation
       of 1 and 2 Fairfield Court. The residential building would be setback 15m

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 41
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       from both the side elevation of the rear annex of The Fairways and 5/6/7/8
       Fairfield Court. However, the second storey element would be set back
       further from the boundaries. These setbacks accord with the Council’s
       Design and Accessibility Statement requirements.

3.44   Shadowing cast by the new buildings would fall primarily within the site and
       onto the Golf Course to the north. While some shadowing would fall to the
       east and west during early morning and late afternoon hours, the duration
       and extent of such shadowing is not considered to be significant. Those
       properties located on Fairfield Court are elevated above the application site
       and as, such, any impacts would be further reduced. As such, no objection
       is raised in respect of Policies BE20 or BE21.

3.45   Policy BE24 states that the development should be designed to protect the
       privacy of future occupiers and their neighbours. The Council’s
       Supplementary Planning Guidance – ‘Residential Layout and House Design’
       also provides further guidance in respect of privacy, stating in particular that
       the distance between habitable room windows should not be less than 21m.

3.46   No primary habitable room windows are proposed in the flank elevations of
       the residential building. A condition is recommended requiring non-
       habitable room windows in the flank elevations be finished with obscure
       glazing. While roof lights are proposed for those units located in the second
       storey, these are located above floor level and any potential overlooking
       could be controlled by a condition requiring the installation of obscure
       glazing. Balconies located in the front elevation of the residential building
       would be setback more than 21m from the rear garden of 62 Ickenham
       Road.

3.47   While views may be obtained from the external balcony of the flat closest to
       Fairway Court, a visibility screen would limit such effects. A condition is
       recommended in this regard.

3.48   Windows are proposed in the flank elevations of the proposed Conservative
       Club. These do not serve habitable rooms. Those located at ground floor
       level can be screened by appropriate boundary treatment. Those at first
       floor level in the eastern elevation facing Fairfield Court are positioned in
       excess of 21m from the flank elevation of the adjoining residential units.
       Accordingly, no objection is raised in terms of policy BE24.

3.49   Policy BE23 requires the provision of external amenity space which is
       sufficient to protect the amenity of occupants of the proposed and
       surrounding buildings and which is usable in terms of its siting and shape.

3.50   Residential units located at ground or first floor level will be provided with
       private amenity space in the form of patios or projecting balconies (with an
       area of 3m2). Ground level patios will be defined by way of defensive
       planting and landscaping. Approximately 700m2 of amenity space will be
       provided around the perimeter of the site. This equates to 35m2 of amenity
       space per unit, which is in excess of the 25m2 recommended for two bed


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 42
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       units by the Hillingdon ‘’Design and Accessibility Statement’’. No objections
       are raised to this level of provision.

3.51   Policy H12 states that proposals for tandem development of backland in
       residential areas will only be permitted if no undue disturbance or loss of
       privacy is likely to be caused to adjoining residential occupiers. Issues of
       privacy have been addressed above. Policy OE1 expands on Policy H12,
       advising that planning permission will not be granted for uses and buildings
       which are detrimental to the character or amenities of surrounding
       properties by way of traffic generation, noise, vibration or the emission of
       dust, smell or other pollutants.

3.52   The proposed layout mirrors surrounding development patterns. However,
       a new internal access road will run along the side boundary shared with
       residential units in Fairfield Court. Traffic associated with the Conservative
       Club will travel along approximately one third of this road before turning into
       the allocated parking area. This traffic will therefore not pass adjoining
       residential units. Traffic associated with the residential component will
       travel along two thirds of the internal road before turning into the residential
       parking area and, as such, will pass Units 1 and 2 Fairfield Court. Only
       refuse vehicles will utilise the entire length of this road.

3.53   As discussed below, the residential component could generate 60 two way
       vehicle movements per day during weekdays. This equates to 5 vehicle
       movements per hour. While not necessarily welcome, this level of traffic
       movement is not considered to be of such significance as to warrant a
       reason for refusal, having regard to the difference in level between the two
       sites (1m), the separation distance between the flank elevations of adjoining
       properties and the internal service road (3m), and the provision of a 1.8m
       wide landscaping strip within the application site which could, subject to
       condition, accommodate both vegetation and appropriate boundary
       treatment, thereby providing an effective buffer.

3.54   The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit has advised that the proposal
       may result in noise and disturbance arising from activities within and
       associated with the proposed Conservative Club building.

3.55   While the proposal would bring development closer to adjoining residential
       boundaries, potential noise and disturbance effects of the Conservative
       Club would, subject to conditions, be maintained at existing levels.
       Proposed conditions would require appropriate sound insulation, restrict
       side opening windows, the use of external seating and hours of operation.
       The disturbance associated refuse collections is considered to be negligible
       subject to conditions restricting hours during which collections can be made.

3.56   The Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement recommends that two
       bed units have a gross internal floor area of 50m2. The proposed units will
       have floor area of 72m2. While some of the second bedrooms are on the
       small size (approximately 9m2 in area) no objection is raised as a sufficient
       internal living space (including a separate kitchen) would be provided.

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                      Page 43
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       (vi)    Traffic, access, car parking and cycle storage

3.57   Policies AM2, AM7, AM14 and AM15 are concerned with traffic generation,
       road capacity, on site parking and access to public transport.

3.58   The London Plan seeks to minimise on-site parking in order to encourage
       the use of more sustainable non-car modes. In this regard, public transport
       accessibility is suggested as the most appropriate means of determining the
       level of car parking provision. Table A4.2 of the London Plan (Maximum
       Residential car parking standards) suggests that flat development in areas
       of good public transport should aim for 1 parking space or less per unit.

3.59   A total of 20 car parking spaces, 1 motorcycle parking space and 20 secure
       bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the residential component. Each
       unit will be allocated 1 parking space. Three spaces would be capable of
       accommodating drivers with disabilities. This level of provision is considered
       appropriate for this PTAL 3 site having regard to the Council’s maximum
       parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, and is consistent with the
       recommendations of the London Plan. No objections are raised in terms of
       Policy AM14.

3.60   The Council’s standards recommend a maximum provision of 1 car parking
       space per 50m2 of floor area associated with D2 (Licensed clubs) uses.
       The proposed Conservative Club would have floor area of 590m2 and as
       such the Council’s standards recommend a maximum provision of 12 car
       parking spaces. 21 car parking spaces are proposed.

3.61   Currently 24 car parking spaces are available to the Conservative Club,
       equating to one space per 25m2. The proposed rate of provision would be
       one space per 28m2. This represents an improvement from the previous
       level of provision and one that could be supported having regard to
       anticipated demand.

3.62   The Council’s standards require 1 bicycle parking space for 15m2 of GFA
       for the Conservative Club. As such, a total of 39 spaces are required.
       These would be accommodated within a shelter adjoining the boundary of
       62 Ickenham Road. A condition requiring details of the shelter is
       recommended.

       (vii)   Energy Efficiency and Waste Disposal

3.63   Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan advises that boroughs should require major
       developments to show how they would generate a proportion of the site’s
       electricity or heat needs from renewable sources, wherever feasible.

3.64   The applicant has provided a sustainability statement as part of the design
       statement, which details how sustainability measures have been
       incorporated into the development. Specifically:




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 44
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
       (i)      The buildings have been orientated to make good use of daylight and
                winter solar gain;
       (ii)     Enhanced insulation will be provided to prevent thermal heat loss;
       (iii)    High performance glazing is proposed to reduce energy
                consumption;
       (iv)     Low energy lighting will be provided;
       (v)      Highly rated appliances will be used to reduce energy consumption;
       (vi)     Natural ventilation will be incorporated into the buildings;
       (vii)    Detailed design to ensure that the building is air tight to reduce
                energy consumption

3.65   In addition, the applicant has advised that sustainable initiatives will be
       incorporated into the construction process and construction methods.
       Materials will be chosen to avoid use of unsustainable or diminishing
       resources.

3.66   No objections are raised to the details provided. However, a condition is
       recommended requiring details to be submitted confirming the inclusion of
       the specified measures as part of the development, and the submission of a
       scheme demonstrating how part of the development’s energy needs will be
       met on site.

3.67   Policy OE13 relates to the provision of satisfactory recycling and waste
       disposal provisions as part of new developments. The applicant has
       proposed separate refuse stores for both the residential component and the
       Conservative Club. The stores would be enclosed, thereby preventing
       visual impacts on adjoining residential properties. They would also comply
       with the Council’s standards, and would accommodate a sufficient number
       of 1100 litre ‘euro’ bins. No objections are raised to the details provided.

       (viii)   Access for people with disabilities

3.68   Policy H9 of the UDP requires housing on appropriate sites to include units
       for people with disabilities.

3.69   The Design Statement provided by the applicant details how accessibility
       considerations have been incorporated into the scheme. Specifically, the
       parking has been located at the front of the main entrances and level
       access thresholds provided. Wheelchair refuges are provided on stair case
       landings, while all doors will have a minimum width of 800mm or wider. Lifts
       will provide access between the levels. Furthermore, access to the building
       for people with disabilities would be ensured by Part M of the Building
       Regulations, which requires all new buildings to accommodate wheelchair
       disabled persons.

3.70   In accordance with Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy
       3A.4 of the London Plan, 10% of the total number of units have been
       designed to full (or capable of easy adaptation to) wheelchair standard. This
       provision can be secured by way of a condition.


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                       Page 45
                           PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.71   The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy H9 and AM13 of
       the UDP.

       (ix)   Planning Obligations

3.72   Policy R17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan states that: ‘The
       Local Planning Authority will, where appropriate, seek to supplement the
       provision of recreation open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and
       entertainment activities, and other community, social and education facilities
       through planning obligations in conjunction with other development
       proposals’

3.73   The proposal incorporates the provision of 20 residential flats. The
       application was submitted prior to 24th May and the adoption of the
       Council’s ‘SPD: Affordable Housing’. Accordingly, the application has been
       assessed in terms of the Council’s old guidelines, which only required
       affordable housing on schemes of 25 units or more. As such, no affordable
       housing is sought.

3.74   However, the Council’s Education Directorate has confirmed that a planning
       obligation to the value of £61,931 should be sought towards primary and
       secondary education facilities. In addition, the Council’s Green Spaces
       Team are seeking a contribution to the value of £28,260 towards a
       children’s play area in Hill Lane Recreational Ground. A fee equivalent to
       5% of the total sum of contributions is also sought for project management
       and monitoring.

3.75   The applicant and Council’s Section 106 officer are currently negotiating on
       this matter. Any outcome will be reported via the addendum sheet.

       Comments on Public Consultations

3.76   The main issues raised by adjoining residents, namely matters relating to
       site layout and building design, traffic and parking, and impacts on
       residential amenity, have been dealt with in the main body of the report.

3.77   The following additional comments are made in respect of those matters not
       addressed in the main body of the report.

3.78   The proposal would impact on the nature/ecological values of the site. The
       application is not supported by a wildlife or tree report. Officer Comments:
       The site is located within the Developed Area. While it abuts the Green
       Belt, it is not located within or adjacent to a Nature Conservation Site, nor
       has it any special ecological value, nor is it subject to a Tree Protection
       Order. While the site is densely vegetated to the rear, this is the result of a
       lack of maintenance rather than any specific ecological values. The request
       that the applicant submit a wildlife and tree report for the purpose of this
       application is, within this context, considered excessive. Any protected or
       notable species on site will be adequately protected by the relevant
       legislation.


North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                     Page 46
                         PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3.79   Boundary treatment proposed is inadequate. Officer comments: The
       submitted plans advise that the boundaries will be fenced. However, no
       further details are provided. This matter can be dealt with by condition.

3.80   Construction impacts. Officer comments: Nuisance effects associated with
       construction are time limited, and can be controlled by way of condition and
       relevant nuisance legislation. As such, this matter is not considered
       significant enough to warrant refusal.

4.0    Observations of the Borough Solicitor

4.1    When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant
       planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies.
       This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an
       application.

4.2    In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA
       1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention
       rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998.
       Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes
       the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly
       applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The
       specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6
       (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life);
       Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14
       (prohibition of discrimination).

4.3    Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are
       followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

4.4    Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and
       infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain
       defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any
       infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair
       balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and
       must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

4.5    Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured
       without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion,
       political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
       minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0    Observations of the Director of Finance

5.1    As there are no enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no
       financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer
       recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and
       therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk
       of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the
       recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the

North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                          Page 47
                          PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
      Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the
      Council.

6.0   CONCLUSION

6.1   The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the
      residential density proposed, the site layout, the relationship of the proposed
      buildings to surrounding development, the adjoining Green Belt and the
      local street scene. Sufficient car parking will be provided on site. While the
      front elevation of the proposed Conservative Club is not yet considered
      acceptable, this can be addressed by condition.

6.2   Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to
      conditions.

Reference Documents:

(a)   The London Plan
(b)   Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
(c)   Planning Policy Guidance 3 – Housing
(d)   Planning Policy Statement 22 – Renewable Energy
(e)   Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001)
(f)   Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Accessibility Statement
(g)   Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design
(h)   Supplementary Planning Guidance – Planning Obligations


Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY                  Telephone No: 01895 250 525




North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                                    Page 48
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
North Planning Committee – 8 August 2006                     Page 49
                        PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS