Agenda Item

PLANNING COMMITTEE September 2017

nikolas.smith@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2017/1635 00505/Z/P37

Address: Site C, Former Alfa Laval site, Great West Road, Brentford

Proposal: Construction of a 6,563 sq. m office building (Use Class B1) of 13 storeys (a 6 storey tower on top of a 7 storey podium) with ancillary retail use at ground floor, car parking and cycle storage at basement level, visitor cycle parking at ground floor and landscaping

Ward: Brentford

Reason for determination by Planning Committee This a major planning application where, if approved, the Council would enter into a legal agreement with the developer.

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Planning permission was granted in 2010 for the mixed-use redevelopment of the former Alfa Laval site. That consent included a part 7-storey, part 8-storey office block on this site (known as Block C). The consent for the wider site was varied in 2012 and 2013 (the variations did not affect Block C) and over time, the remainder of the site has been built out. Block C remains undeveloped and has been hoarded off. The consented office building at the site could be developed because the previous consent has been implemented and is extant. The site has a prominent position given its location on the corner of the A4 and Ealing Road. The wider site continues to be allocated for mixed-use development (Site 12) in the Local Plan.

2.0 SUMMARY

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part 7-storey, part 13-storey office building at the site.

Consent exists for a part seven-storey, part eight-storey office building and that scheme could be built out.

The application satisfactorily demonstrates that there would be no significant additional adverse impacts associated with the now proposed taller building at the site.

The proposed design would represent an improvement when assessed against the former scheme and a more efficient use of the site responds to the Council’s direction of travel for this part of the Borough, as set out in the emerging Great West Corridor Local Plan Review and the potential for the area’s designation as a London Plan Opportunity Area.

There would be a net gain of around 180 jobs created at the site, when compared with the consented scheme (540 rather than 360).

The development would seek to resolve a long-standing problem for residents at Vale Court, who currently experience difficulties in having their refuse collected.

The approval of planning permission, subject to Stage II referral to the GLA, planning conditions and a s106 agreement is recommended.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 The site has an area of 0.1ha and it is bounded to the north by the A4 (Great West Road) and an elevated section of the M4 and to the east by Ealing Road. It is around 700m northwest of Brentford town centre.

3.2 It forms part of the former Alfa Laval site, which has been comprehensively redeveloped. Immediately to the west is the Premier Inn hotel. To the south are Vale Court and Rose Court, which are flats. To the east, on the opposite side of Ealing Road are Westgate House and the Kew Eye, both of which contain flats.

3.3 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3. There are local bus services that pass the site in north / south and east / west directions and the nearest overground train station is Brentford, around 500m away.

3.4 There are no heritage assets at the site but there are within the vicinity of it. It is not in an area at risk of flooding.

3.5 An extract from the applicant’s site location plan is shown below:

4.0 HISTORY

4.1 Planning history at the site relevant to this application is set out below:

00505/Z/P36 Change of use to car showroom (sui generis) and extension of existing buildings to include ancillary facilities, car parking, MOT testing, repair and servicing

Approved: 17th August 2016

00505/Z/P35 Variation of Condition 2 (Detailed Drawings (Specific)) involving reconfiguration of Building B from a 151 bed hotel to a 124 bed hotel, the relocation of the ramp from under Building A to under Building B and the reorganisation of the car park under Buildings A and B of approved planning permission 00505/Z/P33 dated 30/06/2011 for the retention and refurbishment of the Alfa Building for use as a 180 bed hotel (class C1) and redevelopment of the site to erect buildings to provide a 151 bed hotel (class C1), 4,677sqm Class B1 offices, 228sqm retail/community use (class A1/D1), 206 flats, maisonettes and houses (class

C3), together with associated public and private open space; access; service areas; plant; landscaping and 361 surface and underground car parking spaces. The buildings range from 2 to 12 storeys in height. (Including Environmental Impact Assessment)

Approved: 12th August 2013

00505/Z/P34 Retention and refurbishment of the Alfa Laval building for use as a 159-bed hotel (class C1), a 6,498sqm car showroom (sui generis) and service centre incorporating MOT testing (class B2), along with redevelopment of the remainder of the site to provide a 151-bed hotel (class C1), 4,677sqm offices (class B1), 228sqm retail/community use (class A1/D1), 206 flats, maisonettes and houses (class C3), together with associated public and private open spaces, access, service areas, plant, landscaping and 417 car parking spaces (Including Environmental Impact Assessment).

Approved: 06th December 2012

00505/Z/P33 Retention and refurbishment of the Alfa Building for use as a 180 bed hotel (class C1) and redevelopment of the site to erect buildings to provide a 151 bed hotel (class C1), 4,677sqm Class B1 offices, 228sqm retail/community use (class A1/D1), 206 flats, maisonettes and houses (class

C3), together with associated public and private open space; access; service areas; plant; landscaping and 361 surface and underground car parking spaces. The buildings range from 2 to 12 storeys in height. (Including Environmental Impact Assessment)

Approved: 01st July 2010

5.0 DETAILS

5.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a part 7-storey, part 13-storey building comprising of 6,563m2 of office space (use class B1) (inclusive of ancillary retail/café space on the ground floor). An additional 1,886m2 of office space would be provided at the site, when compared with the consented scheme.

5.2 The applicant has estimated, using the HCA Employment Density Matrix that up to 540 jobs could be provided by the development. That would represent an increase of around 180 when compared with the consented scheme at the site. The office space would be of a modern design and fit-out, suitable for flexible occupation.

5.3 The building would be 46m tall at its highest point. To put that into context, Westgate House and the Kew Eye on the other side of Ealing Road are 35m and 83m tall respectively. The existing buildings on the Alfa Laval site are 30m, 35m and 48m tall. The consented office development at this part of the site is 28m tall.

5.4 The applicant has set out that the office floorspace provided would be flexible so that it could be used by one occupier or by a number of small and medium sized businesses.

5.5 The taller section of the building, on the eastern side of the site would be made up of a 7-storey podium level with a 6-storey ‘lantern’ style element above. The applicant sets out that the higher levels are inspired by the Art-Deco influences in the surrounding area.

5.6 There would be 16 car parking spaces (including five with electric charging points) at basement level accessed by a car lift and a total of 56 cycle spaces (including 11 for visitors).

5.7 There would be landscaping around the building, a green wall on the western elevation and planting at the lower roof level.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Residents were consulted when the application was received. Press and site notices were displayed.

6.2 12 objections were received. Comments received are summarised in the table below:

Comment Response

We were led to believe that the building would be eight-storeys tall.

The increase in height now proposed has been assessed and found to be acceptable.

There would be a loss of light for existing residents.

The application demonstrates that there would no further loss of light than would have been the case were the consented scheme built out.

There would be a loss of privacy for existing residents.

There would be no greater loss of privacy than would have been the case were the consented scheme built out. For some residents, there would be an improvement.

The building would cause glare. The building has been designed so as to limit glare. A condition would control that.

Construction would cause noise and dust. Air ventilation filters would need to be changed more often as a result of the construction.

The developer would need to comply with a Construction Management Plan which would seek to reduce the impacts of construction on residents.

Service charges would increase as a result of the extra cleaning that would need to be done during construction.

See above comment. Service charges are not a material planning consideration.

There would be a loss of existing views through the site.

That would be the case, but the benefits in terms of protecting existing residents from noise and pollution emanating from the busy road would outweigh that. Views would not be limited further than they would be were the consented scheme built out.

The building would be an eyesore, would not be in keeping with the local area and would not be of an Art-Deco design.

The design of the building has been assessed and has been found to be of a high quality, suitable for this location.

There would be noise pollution and traffic resulting from the development.

Noise during construction would be controlled through a Construction Management Plan. The proposed

use would not likely result in high levels of noise or traffic.

There is no need for more office buildings in the area.

This would be a modern, high quality office building that would help meet the Council’s aspirations for new jobs in the Borough.

Construction traffic would be disruptive to the highways network.

A Construction Management Plan would help control disruption to the highways network.

The building would be too near the hotel and existing flats.

The relationship between the building and existing neighbours has been assessed and found to be acceptable. It would be further from the hotel than the consented building.

Not enough parking would be provided.

Car parking would be provided in line with London Plan maximum standards.

Gas pipes have recently leaked in the area.

This is not a planning issue.

There is an existing problem with refuse from Vale Court not being collected because collection vehicles cannot stop on Ealing Road

That would be addressed by this development.

Cars accessing the carpark would cause noise and disturbance.

Only a small number of car parking spaces would be provided at the site and so levels of noise and disturbance caused would be modest.

There would be pressure on public transport.

Existing transport provision could accommodate the development. A contribution would be secured to improve local bus stops.

6.3 Responses received from statutory consultees, amenity groups and resident societies are set out below:

6.4 Greater London Authority (GLA) (Summary)

London Plan policies on offices, urban and inclusive design, sustainable development and transport are relevant to this application. Whilst the principle of the application is strongly supported in strategic planning terms, it does not

fully comply with the London Plan. The following changes might, however, lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

Principle of development: The principle of an office development is strongly supported in strategic planning terms.

Urban and inclusive design: Broadly supported; however, the applicant should review the facade detailing to respond to the more solid nature of the surrounding context, and also review the layout to ensure the southern facade is well activated to provide natural surveillance to the street. The applicant should also demonstrate how the shared surface will be safe and fully inclusive.

Sustainable development: The carbon dioxide savings exceed the target set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan; however, the size and location of the centralised plant room and on the plant room is required as well as information on the space and hot water heating schematics.

Transport: Further information is required to assess the scheme’s impact; and various conditions and obligations are required, including safeguarding for a signal controlled crossing and other cycling and walking improvements, a new bus shelter and potentially enhanced bus services.

6.5 Members should note that the applicant is preparing minor revisions to the scheme to respond to these comments. Indicative drawings have been provided to give the Council comfort that they can be resolved. Full replacement drawings will be addressed in an Addendum to the report.

6.6 Historic England

No objection.

6.7 Historic England (Archaeology)

No objection

6.8 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Concerned about the impact of tall buildings proposed for this part of Great West Road. The site is immediately behind and to the left of Kew Palace seen from the lawn to the south.

6.9 Transport for London (TfL)

Parking

It is pleased that the applicant is to provide electric vehicle charging points (EVCP) for five of the car parking spaces at the car park, which represents a 33% provision, this is welcomed. Hounslow Council shall condition the on-going provision of these facilities.

It is welcomed that a car parking managed plan will be secured by planning condition which will include contingency plan to manage traffic in the event of

that the car lift becomes unavailable; the proposed car lift maintenance plan, also be secured by condition is also supported.

Trip generation and mode share

It is now considered that the revised trip generation, which estimated a total of 236 two way persons trip during the AM peak is acceptable. Subsequently, the latest estimated mode share figure is also accepted by TfL.

Public Transport

Based on the latest revised mode share figure; TfL accepts that the proposed development would not cause an significant capacity stress to both London Buses and London Underground services in the vicinity, therefore no financial contribution is sought.

However, TfL maintains that the financial contribution of £7,000 toward bus stop improvement for the eastbound bus stop adjacent to York Parade on Great West Road (Stop UB) should be secured to improve passenger environment, as the current condition is not ideal; it is also noted that this is also identified the applicant’s PERS report. The contribution should be secured by s106 agreement.

Walking

TfL is pleased that a PERS audit has now been undertaken. It is noted that while walking conditions on route in the vicinity are in good condition in general, a number of Ambers have been flagged up, which identified scope for improvement. Hounslow Council shall look to secure appropriate contribution toward such improvement where appropriate; including bus stop UB on Great West Road as already discussed in previous paragraph.

Cycling

In response to earlier TfL’s comments regarding cyclist safety concern from traffic accessing to and from the site on the southern side of Great West Road; the applicant considers that risk will be limited due to low level of trip in the peak hour; however improved signage has been suggested; such improvement should be secured by condition and be included in the detailed design of the access.

TfL also welcomes the confirmation from the applicant that part of the land toward the northern eastern corner of the site adjacent to the Ealing Road/ Great West Road junction, for the planned provision of crossing improvement; as per the 2013 s106 agreement; this should be carried forward to the new consent.

Cycle Parking

TfL welcomes the applicant’s clarification on site cycle movements access arrangement and cycle parking design. The provision of larger cycle spaces is

particularly supported. TfL also asks that the mechanism for the double stacking systems should be light and easy to use by users of all calibre.

Delivery & Servicing, and Construction logistics

The finalised DSP and CLP should be secured with appropriate condition/ s106 by Hounslow Council; and TfL should be consulted upon prior to their approval.

Travel Plan

It is welcomed that the travel plan has been improved in light of previous TfL comments; and the finalised travel plan be secured by s106 agreement.

Conclusions

As such, TfL is now generally content with the proposed development subject to appropriate planning conditions and obligations being secured to address highway and transport matters ensuring impacts are adequately mitigated.

6.10 Highways England

No objection subject to conditions relating to:

Glint and glare

Wind effect

Construction

6.11 Hounslow Highways

In relation to the slither of highway presented by the Applicant for adoption; a Section 38 Agreement will be required to allow adoption by the relevant Highway Authority

A Delivery and Service Management Plan will need to be secured via a Condition;

A Car Park Management Plan will need to be secured via a Condition;

A Car Lift Maintenance plan will need to be secured via a Condition;

A Construction Management plan will need to be secured via a Condition;

Details / specifications of the cycle parking will be secured via Condition; and

Specifications of the electric car parking bays should be secured via Condition

6.12 Brentford Community Council (BCC)

We are opposed to the proposal owing to the considerable height of the tower part of the proposed building in the north-east section of the site which we

consider to be too tall by three storeys and we therefore request refusal of the application on that ground. We also have other concerns that we set out below for action as appropriate.

Background

This relatively shallow corner site has a full planning consent which has been ‘implemented’ (although the land appears to remain a completely vacant site) but which the applicant considers to be commercially unviable. The applicant has applied for a new permission and made a presentation to the Brentford Community Council on April 10th 2017, and made an oral statement of commercial non-viability of the consented scheme at the meeting, but did not substantiate this statement to us.

The proposal would increase the size of the currently permitted scheme from 47,000 sq. ft GIA to 70,000 sq. ft GIA. The proposed scheme includes certain benefits in the form of a planted area to the perimeter of the site along the A4 frontage, a 1.2m setback from the neighbouring building to the west and the installation of a ‘green’ wall.

The tower element of the proposed building

We are concerned that the height of the tower is intrusive with respect to, and completely out of keeping with, the neighbouring residential development to the south of the site resulting in a significant loss of visual amenity. Although there is no effect on daylighting and sunlight, as the scheme lies to the north of that residential building, whose habitable rooms mainly face east and west, the visual detriment of the scheme as proposed would be considerable.

Questions of overlooking and loss of privacy for the residential occupants of the building to the south are to be dealt with, we understand, by the use of obscured glazing in the proposed scheme where necessary, and we assume that this will be covered in appropriate conditions if permission is granted.

The applicant has presented the scheme as being appropriate in height with regard to the other developments on the overall former Alfa Laval site, of which this forms the easternmost part, but the proposed scheme is significantly taller than those other developments. It has also been proposed as appropriate in ‘marking the corner’ of the roads but a building of a lower height would achieve this equally well.

The concept for the tower has been designed as a ‘lantern’ in a faux ‘Art Deco’ style, but we did not find this argument convincing: the ‘lantern’ idea has nothing to do with the site or the locale (there are no other ‘lanterns’ in the area) and is not compelling in terms of townscape. In any case, the attempt at a mock ‘Art Deco’ appearance merely by providing the tower with a ‘pleated’ façade, is not successfully achieved. If anything, this approach to the tower element makes the proposal visually very incongruous with regard to the actual townscape; in this location, a consistent approach across all the façades of the building would be more appropriate visually and would show an appropriate integration of the

taller part of the scheme with the remainder – there is no functional reason why the tower should be distinguished from the remainder of the building.

The height of the proposed building is out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings to the west and is significantly visually intrusive with regard to the residential building to the south, in our view being three storeys too tall. We therefore recommend refusal on this ground. We consider that if an application were made with the tower element reduced in height by three storeys and integrated with the overall façade of the whole building, this would represent an acceptable level of loss of visual amenity for the residential building to the south and would bring the proposal in line with the other schemes to the west that have been developed on the larger site.

Concerns about the additional strain that the implementation of this permission will place on the local bus service

We are concerned about the access of occupants to the proposed scheme. The working occupancy of the building will be around 500 people. This is clearly a far greater number than allowed for in the proposed car and bike spaces on site (61 in total), so the main burden of travel to the proposed scheme will be borne by the local bus service. The current bus services in that section of the road are already over capacity at peak times.

If consent is granted to the scheme, an appropriate s. 106 contribution should be required as a condition of the consent, such contribution to be assessed by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with London Transport, to allow funding for an enhanced public bus service to serve the area of which the site forms part. This should be at a level to facilitate the travel requirements of the significant number of additional users at peak hours from the proposed scheme so that it does not exacerbate the existing capacity problems on public bus services in this locale.

Concerns about the rear car park entrance

The basement car park is to be served by a single car lift accessed from a short private road running along the south side of the site. There are 16 spaces and as only one car can enter or exit the basement at any one time, there are concerns that this will create significant congestion at peak hours, leading to a problem with cars backing up onto the public highway. We recommend, if consent is granted, that the applicant should be required to provide two separate car lifts or a ramp to service the basement to avoid backing up at peak hours.

7.0 POLICY

7.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local finance considerations must also be assessed.

The National Planning Policy Framework

7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012, and from April 2014 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in the form of an online guidance resource to support the NPPF came into effect. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where pertinent, the NPPF and NPPG are material considerations and as such, will be taken into account in decision-making as appropriate.

The Development Plan

7.3 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Local Plan (adopted by the Council on 15 September 2015), the West London Waste Plan and the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2011.

7.4 The London Plan and Local Plan are supported by a suite of supplementary documents that are referred to as appropriate in this report.

7.5 The Great West Corridor (GWC) Local Plan Review will likely include this site. It is at an early stage and only limited weight can be attached to it.

7.6 The Local Plan documents can be viewed on the Planning Policy pages of the Hounslow website.

8.0 ASSESSMENT

8.1 The material planning considerations in the assessment of these applications are:

The principle of the proposed development

Urban design

The impacts of the development on heritage assets

The impacts on neighbouring land uses

Highways, transport and access

Energy and sustainability

Other material considerations

The principle of the proposed development

The principle of the development of this site in general

8.2 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking.

8.3 The NPPF emphasises meeting local needs through providing high quality community services and good design, while protecting the local environment.

8.4 Policy IMP1 (Sustainable development) of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council will take a plan-led approach to all growth and development within the Borough that is considered to be in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, with a balance of social, environmental and economic dimensions. This policy re-iterates the presumption in favour of sustainable development established in the NPPF.

8.5 London Plan Policy 2.16 (Strategic outer London development centres) lists the Great West Corridor as having greater than sub-regional importance in the media sector.

8.6 Policy SV1 (Great West Corridor Plan) of the Local Plan sets out that the Council will progress a partial Local Plan review to explore and identify the potential capacity for additional employment-led mixed use development along the Great West Corridor. The Partial Local Plan Review will, amongst other things, identify sites with suitability for tall buildings. This site will likely form part of the Great West Corridor plan area and the plan review may or may not, in time, provide additional policy support for a form of development at the site.

8.7 Consultation on the Issues version of the Great West Corridor (GWC) Local Plan Review took place between December 2015 and February 2016. The Local Plan Review is at a very early stage in its development and that restricts the amount of weight that can be attributed to it in the assessment of this planning application.

The principle of an office use at the site

8.8 London Plan Policy 2.16 (Strategic outer London development centres) lists the Great West Corridor as having greater than sub-regional importance in the media sector.

8.9 Policy 4.2 (Offices) states that boroughs should support the management and mixed use development and redevelopment of office provision to improve London’s competitiveness and to address the wider objectives of the Plan, including enhancing its varied attractions for businesses of different types and sizes including small and medium sized enterprises.

8.10 Policy 4.3 (Mixed use developments and offices) states that mixed use development and redevelopment should support consolidation and enhancements to the quality of the remaining office stock.

8.11 Local Plan Policy ED1 (Promoting employment growth and development) states that the Council will secure the business opportunities stimulated by the London Borough of Hounslow’s location close to Heathrow Airport and central London by ensuring that sufficient capacity is provided for anticipated sectors of employment growth. This will be accomplished by promoting new office-based employment in the borough’s four town centres, as well as employment based growth within the Great West Corridor Strategic Outer London Development Centre in co-ordination with improvements to the public transport infrastructure, and other strategically and locally significant locations for employment.

8.12 Policy ED2 (Maintaining the boroughs employment land supply) states that the Council will consolidate the London Borough of Hounslow’s major industrial and office sites to secure the continued major representation of international companies, business headquarters and SMEs within the borough, and to ensure that the supply chain opportunities created by Heathrow Airport are retained within the borough.

8.13 In addition to this general policy support for office provision in this location, there is an extant planning permission for an office building at this site.

8.14 The applicant states that the development could be attractive to small and medium sized business, which could include those in the media sector.

8.15 This development would result in up to 540 jobs being provided for at the site, in a modern, fit for purpose building. That would represent an uplift of around 180 jobs when compared with the consented scheme.

8.16 An office use at this site would be acceptable in principle.

The principle of a tall building at this site

8.17 Planning permission was granted in 2010 (and subsequently varied) for a part 7 and part 8-storey office building at the site. That permission was implemented and that scheme could be built out now. The approved scheme is 24m tall and so constitutes a tall building. This establishes the principle of a tall building as being acceptable at this site.

8.18 London Plan policy 7.7 and Local Plan policy CC3 provide detailed criteria against which proposed tall buildings should be assessed and that assessment is carried out later in this report.

The principle of a retail and restaurant uses at the site

8.19 Local Plan Policy TC3 (Managing the growth of retail and other main town centre uses) states that an impact assessment will be required where more than 500m2 of retail floorspace would be provided outside of the boroughs town centres. That would not be the case here. The ground floor space would provide an ancillary function to the office uses at the site and would facilitate an active frontage at ground floor level of the building. The retail/restaurant use at the site would be acceptable in principle.

Summary

8.20 For the reasons set out above, the development would be acceptable in principle. It is now necessary to determine whether or not the proposals would comply with specific policies of the Development Plan and other material guidance.

Urban design

8.21 The NPPF states that good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development and that decision takers should always seek high quality design.

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

8.22 Planning permission should not be refused for buildings and infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concern about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).

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

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

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

8.26 Policy 7.6 (Architecture) states that buildings and structures should:

a) be of the highest architectural quality

b) be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines the public realm

c) comprise details and materials that complement, not necessarily replicate, the local architectural character

d) not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings

e) incorporate best practice in resource management and climate change mitigation and adaptation

f) provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with the surrounding streets and open spaces

g) be adaptable to different activities and land uses, particularly at ground level

h) meet the principles of inclusive design

i) optimise the potential of sites

8.27 Policy 7.7 (Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings) does not explicitly define such buildings in the policy, nor is there specific definition in the CABE Guidance on Tall Buildings on which the policy draws.

8.28 The policy does not seek to resist tall and large buildings in appropriate locations and notes that their location should be part of a plan-led approach with boroughs working with the Mayor to consider which areas are appropriate for such buildings and identify them through local policy. The following criteria are listed within the policy:

generally be limited to sites in the Central Activity Zone, opportunity areas, areas of intensification or town centres that have good access to public transport;

only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass and bulk of a tall or large building;

relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm (including landscape features), particularly at street level;

individually or as a group, improve the legibility of an area, by emphasising a point of civic or visual significance where appropriate, and enhance the skyline and image of London;

incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials, including sustainable design and construction practices;

have ground floor activities that provide a positive relationship to the surrounding streets;

contribute to improving the permeability of the site and wider areas, where possible;

incorporate publicly accessible areas on the upper floors, where appropriate;

make a significant contribution to local regeneration.

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

8.30 The Urban Context and Character Study identifies and analyses the urban character of the Borough. By assessing the character of those areas of the Borough likely to undergo significant growth over the Local Plan period, the Context and Character Study can help new development to add to local character in ways which enhance positive qualities and address negative issues.

8.31 The Urban Context and Character Study defines a tall building in the borough as any building or structure which is over 20m in height and/or which is significantly taller than the surrounding townscape and/ or which recognisably changes the skyline. As the height of the tallest part of the development is over 20m it would constitute a tall building in terms of the Study and Local Plan.

8.32 Local Plan policy CC3 (Tall Buildings) outlines the Council’s approach to tall buildings:

8.33 To contribute to regeneration and growth, the Council will support high quality tall buildings in identified locations which accord with the principles of sustainable development.

8.34 It goes on to list 12 criteria against which the Council should assess tall buildings and would expect proposals to comply. These criteria, together with an assessment of how this proposed development would comply with them are set out below:

Be sensitively located and be of a height and scale that is in proportion to its location and setting, and carefully relate and respond to the character of the surrounding area; This location would be appropriate for a building of the height and scale proposed, with taller buildings on either side of the Ealing Road junction. The taller element of the building would sit comfortably within its context and would mark the junction. The drawing below shows the Great West Road street scene, as proposed (the proposal is the central building).

Be of the highest architectural design and standards; be attractive, robust and sustainable; The design quality of the building would be very high, with detailing reflecting the art deco history of this part of the Borough. The lantern element, in particular, would be attractive and would represent a meaningful and considered design feature. Details and samples of materials would be secured by condition. The submitted Design and Access Statement demonstrates that the evolution of the scheme has been very well considered. The GLA are satisfied that the design approach would be appropriate. Some minor design amendments requested by the GLA will be reflected in an addendum to this report. A CGI view, looking southwards, which highlights the design quality of the lantern feature is shown below:

Be of a scale that reflects their relevance and hierarchical importance when located within a grouping/cluster of tall buildings; The scale would be appropriate in the context of the tall buildings around it given the corner location of the site, at the junction of Great West Road and Ealing Road.

Be designed to give full consideration to its form, massing and silhouette including any cumulative impacts and the potential impact of this on the immediate and wider context; The relationship between the development and existing neighbours is described elsewhere in this report and is found to be acceptable. This development would not create a harmful cluster of tall buildings in the area.

Relate heights to widths of spaces to achieve comfortable proportions, and provide a positive edge to the public realm and a human scale through the careful treatment of ground floors and lower levels; The proportions of the development in the context of the site would be good, with differing heights proposed across it. The treatment of the building at ground floor level, with an active frontage and defined access point would be of a high quality. The proposed landscaping scheme and the relationship with the public realm would be of a high

quality and would represent an improvement against the consented scheme at the site, as shown below, with greater space provided around the base of the building:

Provide for a comfortable and pleasant microclimate which minimises wind vortices and over-shadowing; The impacts of the development on wind and shading or described elsewhere in this report and are found to be acceptable.

Provide for biodiversity within the building form and be sensitive to surrounding open spaces including waterways to ensure minimal impact; The biodiversity and land quality impacts of the development would be controlled by condition.

Take opportunities to enhance the setting of surrounding heritage assets, the overall skyline and views; The impact of the development on heritage assets is described elsewhere in this report and is found to be acceptable. The high quality of the development would ensure that it would contribute towards the skyline in key views.

Carefully consider the façade and overall detailing to ensure visual interest, vertical and horizontal rhythms, an indication of how the building is inhabited, internal thermal comfort and the visual break-up of the building visually at varying scales; The application demonstrates that the design detailing of the façade has

been carefully considered and that it would be of a high quality. The scheme would be interesting to look at in long and short views. This is demonstrated by the elevational extract below:

Use materials and finishes that are robust, durable and of the highest quality, with facades providing innate interest, variety and function; Final details of materials would be controlled by conditions.

Incorporate innovative approaches to providing high quality, usable,

private and communal amenity space where residential uses are proposed; and No residential use is proposed.

Comply with the requirements of the Public Safety Zone for London

Heathrow Airport, where appropriate.” This is not relevant to this application.

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

8.36 This would be the case here, because of the appropriate scale of the building, its location and the high quality of the design of the building.

Summary

8.37 This proposal would be of a higher design quality than the consented scheme and would provide a better response to its context. Whilst taller, the 13-storey section of the building would not detract from its overall quality and would contribute toward local views and the character of the area positively.

The impacts of the development on heritage assets

The legal framework

8.38 S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

8.39 S72(1) states that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

Material planning considerations

8.40 The NPPF sets out that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

8.41 When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

8.42 Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

8.43 Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

8.44 Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

8.45 Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

8.46 The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

8.47 Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.

8.48 London Plan Policy 7.8 (Heritage assets and archaeology) states that development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate.

8.49 Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.

8.50 Policy 7.10 (World Heritage Sites) states that development in World Heritage Sites and their settings, including any buffer zones, should conserve, promote, make sustainable use of and enhance their authenticity, integrity and significance and Outstanding Universal Value. The Mayor has published Supplementary Planning Guidance on London’s World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings, to help relevant stakeholders define the setting of World Heritage Sites.

8.51 Development should not cause adverse impacts on World Heritage Sites or their settings (including any buffer zone). In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity or significance. In considering planning applications, appropriate weight should be given to implementing the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans.

8.52 London Plan Policy 7.7 (Location and design of tall and large buildings) states that the impact of tall buildings proposed in sensitive locations should be given particular consideration. Such areas might include conservation areas, listed buildings and their settings, registered historic parks and gardens, scheduled monuments, battlefields, the edge of the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, World Heritage Sites or other areas designated by boroughs as being sensitive or inappropriate for tall buildings.

8.53 Policy 7.4 (Local character) sets out that Buildings, streets and open spaces should provide a high quality design response that has regard to the pattern and grain of the existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass and is informed by the surrounding historic environment.

8.54 Local Plan Policy CC4 (Heritage) states that the Council will identify, conserve and take opportunities to enhance the significance of the borough’s heritage assets as a positive means of supporting an area’s distinctive character and sense of history.

8.55 It will achieve this by:

Collating a borough-wide Heritage Strategy to guide a long-term, ambitious strategy for the continued conservation, enhancement and enjoyment of the significance of the borough’s heritage assets, in consultation with the borough’s local history societies and residents;

Conserving and taking opportunities to enhance the significance of the borough’s network of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings, identifying new assets where appropriate and recognizing the cumulative positive impact of heritage assets in a given area in consultation with the borough’s local history societies and residents. The Council will use Article 4 directions where appropriate to enhance conservation of character or fabric;

Promoting heritage-led regeneration, particularly where this brings long term value and sense of place to development, such as in our town centres and along the Golden Mile. The Council will aim to secure the regeneration of heritage assets at risk, including those within Gunnersbury Park, Hanworth Park, Boston Manor House and the former Hounslow Powder Mills sites;

Working with Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, London Borough of Richmond and Historic England to conserve and enhance the outstanding universal values of The Royal Botanical Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and its setting, including views to and from this asset. This includes assisting in the implementation of the World Heritage Site Management Plan;

Promoting the appropriate re-use of historic buildings and supporting schemes that conserve the significance of, and provide the heritage asset with a sustainable, long-term use;

Working with our network of partners to ensure the borough’s heritage is accessible, appreciated, valued and enjoyed by residents, workers and visitors;

Conserving and enhancing the strategic and local views identified in the Urban Context and Character Study that give the borough its character, visual richness and coherence; and by maintaining and updating a schedule of views; and

Conserving and enhancing the borough’s beneficial and historic landmarks identified in the Urban Context and Character Study, which provide a strong visual and physical presence in the townscape.

8.56 The Council will expect development proposals to

Conserve and take opportunities to enhance any heritage asset and its setting in a manner appropriate to its significance;

Retain, conserve and reuse a heritage asset in a manner appropriate to its value and significance;

Demonstrate that substantial harm to or loss of a heritage asset is avoided, unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, consistent with the NPPF;

Demonstrate that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (see Glossary), this harm will be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use; or

Have regard to any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, including from both direct and indirect effects. Non-designated heritage assets include locally listed buildings, Archaeological Priority Areas and areas of special local character.

8.57 Any development within or affecting a Conservation Area must conserve and take opportunities to enhance the character of the area, and respect the grain, scale, form, proportions and materials of the surrounding area and existing architecture.

8.58 Development must conserve and enhance the internationally recognised Outstanding Universal Value of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site, its buffer zone and its setting, including views to and from the site.

8.59 The Council will expect the development proposal to submit an Archaeological Evaluation Report if the proposal falls within or adjacent to an Archaeological Priority Area.

8.60 Development must conserve and enhance a scheduled ancient monument and its setting if affected. Proposals must assess and submit an evaluation report if the proposal affects a scheduled ancient monument.

8.61 Development must conserve and enhance any strategic or local views identified in the Urban Context and Character Study and undertake a visual impact assessment to demonstrate no adverse impacts on the designated view or on views from Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site.

8.62 Local Plan Policy CC3 (Tall buildings) states that the Council will expect development proposals to take opportunities to enhance the setting of surrounding heritage assets, the overall skyline and views.

8.63 Local Plan Policy GB1 states that development proposals will be expected to maintain the openness, setting and visual amenity where located near Metropolitan Open Land, with particular attention given to the location, setting, design, materials, height and landscaping.

8.64 Historic England has published a range of guidance to inform planning decisions relating to heritage, including Advice Note 3 - The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015) and Advice Note 4 – Tall Buildings (2015). The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has published a range of guidance to inform planning decisions relating to heritage, including the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew World Heritage Site Management Plan (2011) and the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value. The Council has published a suite of Conservation Area Appraisals and these are relevant to the assessment of this proposed development where it would be in the setting of a conservation area.

The impacts of the proposed development on the historic environment

8.65 In this case, the proposal would constitute a tall building, with potential to impact on heritage assets outside of the site. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, has raised a concern that there could be an impact on the World Heritage Site, through development in its setting.

8.66 The applicant has submitted a comprehensive suite of Verified Views to demonstrate that impact the development would have on its wider setting. The View taken from Kew Palace is shown below.

8.67 It shows that trees, especially in the summer months, would shield a view of the development.

8.68 Having reviewed the submitted Verified Views in detail, the Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England are satisfied that the development would cause no harm to the setting of heritage assets around the site. There are no assets at the site.

Archaeology

8.69 Historic England are satisfied that the development would not result in harm to archaeological heritage assets and those findings are accepted.

The impacts on neighbouring land uses

8.70 London Plan policy 7.6 states that buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate.

8.71 Local Plan policy SC4 states that development proposals should demonstrate compliance with prevailing day-lighting standards (BRE Guidance 2011). Policy CC2 seeks to protect existing residents’ amenity.

Sunlight and daylight

8.72 The applicant provided a comprehensive Sunlight and Daylight Assessment with the application. It demonstrates that nine windows (3%) of the total 269 windows tested fall short of the BRE recommendations. Of these windows a number serve non-habitable rooms. In undertaking a comparison of the previously consented scheme to the proposed scheme it has been confirmed that the same windows again do not meet the recommendations of the Vertical Sky Component test. The difference between the impact of the two schemes on these nine windows is negligible.

8.73 Given that the impacts of the proposed development on sunlight and daylight would be the same as those associated with the consented scheme, which could be built out, this impact would be acceptable.

Privacy

8.74 A number of residents have raised concerns over a perceived loss of privacy associated with the development. Vale Court and Rose court have balconies facing east and west (along with their primary habitable windows), with narrow windows facing northwards. There is an area of shared amenity space between the two buildings.

8.75 The proposed building at the site would be used for offices and so any overlooking impacts would likely be limited to day time hours on weekdays.

8.76 The approved scheme at the site, that could be implemented, also had south facing windows but there would be many more of them than are now proposed and they would cover a larger area in the southern elevation. A comparison of the southern elevation of the two buildings is shown below:

Consented vs proposed:

8.77 Large areas of opaque paneling in the now proposed southern elevation would direct views southwards towards the shared amenity area, which is not now private because of the amount of residential surveillance that it currently enjoys. This is shown on the plan below:

8.78 Whilst the eastern section of the building would be taller than proposed, given its position on the site relative to the existing residential buildings and its design, that additional height would not result in a material increase in overlooking when compared with the consented scheme.

8.79 Overall, the relationship between the development and existing neighbours would be improved when assessed against the previously consented scheme.

8.80 The distance between the buildings and their orientation would ensure that there were no harmful privacy impacts on residents at Westgate House.

Outlook

8.81 Clearly, a building like that proposed in this location would have an impact on outlook for occupiers at residential buildings to the south. That said, those buildings have balconies facing east and west, rather than north. It has long been envisaged that there would be a development on this site and planning permission exists for a tall building here. If that building were constructed, it would limit views from Rose and Vale Courts to the north and northeast – as the currently proposed building would.

Glare

8.82 Some neighbours of the site have raised concern about potential glare impacts associated with the development. The applicant has demonstrated that this was considered at design stage, and that the use of solid wall panels and fritted treatment to the glazing would minimise such impacts. Glare could be further

reduced through the use of Pilkington Solar Control glass, which could be controlled by condition.

Wind

8.83 The applicant’s submitted a Wind Tunnel Study with the planning application. It demonstrates that the majority of the outdoor trafficable areas around the development would satisfy the applicable wind limit and safety limit criterion and would be acceptable.

8.84 At one point, at around the midpoint of the eastern elevation of the building, fronting Ealing Road, the wind comfort criteria (for short exposure, like entering the building, rather than for pedestrians passing the site) would be exceeded (the safety limit criteria would be met). The applicant proposes that localized screening and/or densely foliating vegetation such as shrubs or hedge planting around the primary entrance to the site would be effective in addressing this shortfall. Such measures would be controlled by condition.

Existing refuse difficulties

8.85 Residents at Vale Court experience difficulties in having their refuse collected because collection vehicles cannot stop on Ealing Road, near their refuse collection point. Some residents are paying to have their refuse moved to a point further westwards on the site so that it can be collected. Clearly, this is a highly unsatisfactory situation for those residents.

8.86 The development of this site would provide an opportunity to open up the space along the northern edge of Vale Court, to the south of the proposed building so that refuse could be transferred to near the road serving the Premier Inn. It could then be collected there.

8.87 Given that the application site is private land, such an arrangement would require consent from the land owner. Recognising the existing problems faced by residents, the applicant has committed to allowing right of access over their land for this purpose. This would be secured in the s106 agreement.

8.88 This solution would represent a benefit for existing residents associated with the development that should be reflected in the planning balance.

Hotel

8.89 Visitors to the Premier Inn with east facing rooms would look on to a green wall and the building would be positioned further from the hotel than the consented scheme.

Summary

8.90 Whilst a building of this scale and in this location would inevitably have an impact on existing neighbours of the site, particularly when compared with the consented scheme for the site, which could be implemented, those impacts would not be sufficiently harmful to justify the refusal of the planning application.

Highways, transport and access

8.91 The NPPF requires all developments that generate significant amounts of movement to be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment (TA). Decisions should take account of whether:

The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be presented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

8.92 The London Plan recognises that transport plays a fundamental role in addressing the whole range of his spatial planning, environmental, economic and social policy priorities. It is critical to the efficient functioning and quality of life of London and its inhabitants. It also has major effects - positive and negative - on places, especially around interchanges and in town centres and on the environment, both within the city itself and more widely.

8.93 Policy 6.1 emphasises the importance of closer integration of transport and development and seeks to achieve this by:

Encouraging patterns of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car;

Seeking to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport, walking and cycling, particularly in areas of greatest demand;

Supporting development that generates high levels of trips only at locations with high levels of public transport accessibility, either currently or via committed, funded improvements;

Improving interchange between different forms of transport, particularly around major rail and Underground stations, especially where this will enhance connectivity in outer London;

Facilitating the efficient distribution of freight whilst minimising its effects on the transport network;

Supporting measures that encourage shifts to more sustainable modes and appropriate demand management;

Promoting greater use of low carbon technology so that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other contributors to global warming are reduced;

Promoting walking by ensuring an improved urban realm; and

Seeking to ensure that all parts of the public transport network can be used safely, easily and with dignity by all Londoners, including by securing step- free access where this is appropriate and practicable.

8.94 Policy 6.3, regarding the effects of development on transport capacity, highlights that new developments that will give rise to significant numbers of new trips should be located where there is already good public transport accessibility with capacity adequate to support the additional demand.

8.95 Policy 6.7 sets out a number of requirements for new developments in respect of cycling, as follows:

provide secure, integrated and accessible cycle parking facilities in line with the minimum standards,

provide on-site changing facilities and showers for cyclists,

facilitate the Cycle Super Highways,

facilitate the central London cycle hire scheme.

8.96 Policy 6.13 states that an appropriate balance must be struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use. New developments should not only adhere to the maximum car parking standards but also meet the minimum disabled and cycle parking standards specified. In addition, new developments should ensure that 1 in 5 parking spaces provide an electrical charging point to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, with a further 10% to be provided in the future.

8.97 Policy EC2 (Developing a Sustainable Local Transport Network) of the adopted Local Plan has regard to transportation and seeks to secure a more sustainable local travel network that maximises opportunities for walking, cycling and using public transport, reduces congestion, improves the public realm and improves health and well-being. It echoes the London Plan in terms of standards established for car parking, cycle parking, motorcycle parking, coach parking, and electric vehicle charging, along with any additional standards set out in supplementary guidance.

Parking

8.98 The development would provide car parking in line with London Plan maximum standards and five of those would include vehicle charging points.

8.99 A car parking management plan would be secured by planning condition which would include a contingency plan to manage traffic in the event of that the car lift becomes unavailable. A car lift maintenance plan would also be secured by condition.

Trip generation

8.100 The development would result in an estimated total of 236 two way persons trip during the AM peak.

Public Transport

8.101 TfL accepts that the proposed development would not cause significant capacity stress to London Buses or London Underground services in the vicinity

8.102 TfL has sought a financial contribution of £7,000 toward bus stop improvements for the eastbound bus stop adjacent to York Parade on Great West Road (Stop UB).

Walking

8.103 TfL is satisfied that walking conditions on route in the vicinity are in good condition in general.

Cycling

8.104 TfL had raised concerns that cyclist safety could be compromised by traffic accessing the site on the southern side of Great West Road. Improved signage is proposed that would be secured by condition.

8.105 Part of the site, toward the northern eastern corner, adjacent to the Ealing Road/ Great West Road junction would be set aside for the planned provision of crossing improvements. This would be secured in the s106 agreeent.

Cycle Parking

8.106 Staff and visitor cycle parking would be provided in accordance with London Plan standards.

Delivery & Servicing, and Construction logistics

8.107 Delivery and Servicing and Construction Logistics Plans would be secured by condition.

Travel Plan

8.108 A Travel Plan for the site has been updated following advice from TfL and the Council’s Travel Planning. It would not be satisfactory and its implementation would be controlled through the s106 agreement.

Conclusions

8.109 The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that subject to conditions and s106 obligations, the development would have no severe transport impacts and that construction could be properly managed so as to minimise its impacts on the highways network.

Energy and sustainability

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

8.111 Developments are required to be sustainable in transport terms, to minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures and promote use of renewable energy, and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

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

Be Lean: use less energy

Be Clean: supply energy efficiently

Be Green: use renewable energy

8.113 It goes on to state that major development proposals should include a detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction outlined above are to be met within the framework of the energy hierarchy and that where it is clearly demonstrated that the specific targets cannot be fully achieved on-site, any shortfall may be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution to the relevant borough to be ring fenced to secure the delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere.

8.114 The Mayor aims to ensure that major developments reduce carbon dioxide emissions from buildings by 40% against a Building Regulations Part L (2013) baseline.

8.115 Policy EQ1 of the Hounslow Local Plan seeks to minimise the demand for energy and promote renewable and low carbon technologies and Policy EQ2 aims to promote the highest standards of sustainable design and construction in development. It goes on to state that where appropriate developments should make a financial contribution to an agreed borough-wide programme for carbon reductions where required reductions cannot be achieved on-site.

Other material considerations

Flooding & drainage

8.116 The Site is shown on the EA Flood Map for Planning to be located entirely in Flood zone 1 (Low Probability) which represents land assessed as having less

than a 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea. Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF, the proposed development would be considered appropriate in flood risk terms. The Environment Agency has raised no concerns with the proposals.

8.117 The Lead Local Flood Authority is satisfied that the development could come forward, subject to conditions.

Air Quality

8.118 One of the twelve core planning principles contained within the NPPF is that planning should contribute to…reducing pollution. To prevent unacceptable risks from air pollution, planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location.

8.119 The NPPF states that the effects of pollution on health and the sensitivity of the area and the development should be taken into account. Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

8.120 The PPG states that whether or not air quality is relevant to a planning decision will depend on the proposed development and its location. Concerns could arise if the development is likely to generate air quality impacts in an area where air quality is known to be poor. They could also arise where the development is likely to adversely impact upon the implementation of air quality strategies and action plans and/or, in particular, lead to a breach of EU legislation (including that applicable to wildlife).

8.121 The PPG sets out that assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the level of concern about air quality. It also provides guidance on options for mitigating air quality impacts, as well as examples of the types of measures to be considered. It states that mitigation options where necessary, will be dependent on the proposed development and should be proportionate to the likely impact.

8.122 London Plan Policy 7.14 (Improving air quality) addresses the spatial implications of the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy and how development and land use can help achieve its objectives. It recognises that boroughs should have policies in place to reduce pollutant concentrations, having regard to the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy. Policy 7.14B(c), requires that development proposals should be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality (such as designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)).

8.123 The overarching aim of the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy (MAQS) is to reduce pollution concentrations in London to achieve compliance with the EU limit values as soon as possible.

8.124 The MAQS also addresses the issue of ‘air quality neutral’ and states that the GLA will work with boroughs to assist in the development of methodologies that will allow an accurate assessment of the impacts of the emissions of new developments.

8.125 The GLA’s SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction provides details on delivering some of the priorities in the London Plan. Section 4.3 covers Air Pollution. It defines when developers will be required to submit an air quality assessment, explains how location and transport measures can minimise emissions to air, and provides emission standards for gas-fired boilers, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and biomass plant. It also sets out, guidance on how Policy 7.14B(c) of the London Plan relating to ‘air quality neutral’ should be implemented.

8.126 The GLA’s SPG on The Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition outlines a risk assessment based approach to considering the potential for dust generation from a construction site, and sets out what mitigation measures should be implemented to minimize the risk of construction dust impacts, dependent on the outcomes of the risk assessment.

8.127 The Hounslow Local Implementation Plan for Transport 2011-2031 includes policy HLIP16 which refers specifically to air quality and states that the Council will work to improve air quality by reducing transport related air pollution generated in Hounslow, and to promote use of cleaner-fuel vehicles.

8.128 Policies HLIP12, 13, 14 and 17 of the Plan relate to measures that will help to achieve policy HLIP16 and include sustainable transport measures, travel awareness and planning and car-free housing.

8.129 Local Plan Policy EQ4 (Air Quality) states that the Council will seek to reduce the potential air quality impacts of development and promote improved air quality conditions across the borough, in line with the Air Quality Action Plan by:

a) Assessing the potential air quality impacts of development proposals;

b) Encouraging air quality sensitive development to be located in the most appropriate places, and requiring mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts on end users through planning conditions; and

c) Ensuring that development does not exacerbate existing air pollution and wherever possible improves air quality, by promoting development that reduces and limits exposure to emissions through on-site mitigation and is ‘air quality neutral’, and through promoting sustainable design and seeking developer contributions where appropriate, consistent with the London Plan, the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy and the National Air Quality Strategy.

8.130 The Council will expect development proposals to:

d) Carry out air quality assessments where major developments or change of use to air quality sensitive uses are proposed, considering the potential impacts of

air pollution from the development on the site and neighbouring areas, and the potential for end users to be exposed to air pollution, consistent with requirements established in the Air Quality SPD, the London Plan and in government and European policy are met;

e) Incorporate mitigation measures where air quality assessments show that developments could cause or exacerbate air pollution, or where end users could be exposed to air pollution.

8.131 Air quality issues in the borough are well known. The council’s Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) designates the whole borough as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and identifies road transport as the major source of air pollution, giving rise to nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter which can cause respiratory illnesses and other adverse health effects. Hounslow, like every local authority, has a statutory duty to work towards air quality targets established in the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy and in government and European policy.

8.132 Where development is proposed in areas of poor air quality, planning considerations are twofold. Firstly, the contribution that the development makes to air pollution requires careful consideration so as to avoid exacerbation of existing problems. This may mean, for example, that developments in certain areas that may attract a high number of vehicle movements, or contribute to emissions through the use of biomass, should be avoided. Secondly, the health and well-being of end users needs to be protected and maintained, and as such specific measures regarding internal ventilation and air filtering may be required. Both of these considerations are particularly important in locations that exceed European Union limit values, like Great West Road.

8.133 The Council’s Air Quality SPD states that the overall aim of an air quality assessment is to determine whether the development will have a significant impact on air quality or whether the existing air quality environment is unacceptable for the proposed development.

8.134 The Council declared an AQMA for nitrogen dioxide in 2002 within four areas; in 2006 the AQMA was extended to cover the entire borough. The Council has since developed an Air Quality Action Plan.

The impacts of the development on air quality

8.135 The applicant proposes a range of mitigation measures to ensure that the development would not worsen the existing air quality situation:

8.136 These mitigation measures would be controlled by planning condition.

8.137 The result of these measures would be that the residual effect of the proposed development would be negligible. Relevant future users of the building would be unlikely to be exposed to hourly mean NO2 concentrations that exceed the AQS objective.

8.138 The development would be air quality neutral.

8.139 Given the relationship of the site with the busy A4 and M4 roads, it is highly likely that a residential use at this part of the site would not be acceptable.

Contaminated land

8.140 Owing to the history of uses, there may be some contamination at the site. The NPPF advises where there is suspicion, or where evidence suggests there may be some contamination, planning permission may be granted subject to condition that development may not start before site investigation and assessment have been done and that the development itself will incorporate any remedial measures necessary.

8.141 Policy 5.21 (Contaminated Land) of the London Plan and adopted Local Plan Policy EQ8 (Contamination) provide the policy context.

8.142 A condition would ensure that the risk of land contamination would be minimised.

Ecology

8.143 NPPF sates that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a) Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

b) Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

c) Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;”

8.144 London Plan Policy 7.19 (Biodiversity and access to nature) states that “development proposals should wherever possible make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity”.

8.145 Adopted Local Plan Policy GB7 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect and enhance the Borough’s natural environment and seeks to increase the quantity and quality of the Borough’s biodiversity.

8.146 The nature and location of the site limits its ecological value. A planning condition would secure a scheme for biodiversity enhancements at the site.

Accessibility

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

8.148 Details of how this development would achieve that requirement would be secured by condition.

Waste and recycling

8.149 The London Plan outlines the Mayor’s commitment to making better use of waste and its management. through policies 5.3 (Sustainable Design and Construction), 5.16 (Waste self-sufficiency), 5.17 (Waste capacity) and 5.18 (Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste).

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

8.151 The applicant has submitted a waste strategy which demonstrates how waste and recycling would be managed at this site.

8.152 A significant benefit associated with this scheme is that it would address a long-standing concern for residents of Vale Court who have been unable in some cases to have their refuse collected. An obligation within a s106associated with this scheme would create a right of access for residents to pass along the southern part of the site to leave their bins at an existing collection point within the site.

9.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

9.1 Local Plan Policy IMP3 (Implementing and monitoring the local plan) seeks to ensure that development proposals fully mitigate the impacts of the development on the area through a Section 106 agreement, where necessary or appropriate, having regard to supplementary planning document and provide the CIL payments required by any charging scheduled, including the Mayor of London’s CIL. A payment or other benefit offered in a Section 106 agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission and cannot be required unless it complies with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulation 122), which provide that the planning obligation must be:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

b) directly related to the development; and

c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

9.2 A Section 106 agreement may not address all of the impacts of a development since some of these may be addressed by CIL, in order to satisfy the Regulation 122 tests above.

9.3 The NPPG provides guidance on use of planning obligations, which may impose a restriction or requirement, or provide for payment to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise not be acceptable in planning terms. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning

Obligations (adopted March 2008) contains guidance on imposition of planning obligations in compliance with such guidance. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate a development’s impacts.

9.4 The following s106 obligations would be secured:

A financial contribution of £7,000.00 towards bus stop improvements in the area.

Compliance with:

1. A Travel Plan

2. A Construction Management Plan

3. A Car Park Management Plan

Securing a right of access for Vale Court residents to pass across the site to enable them to leave their bins for collection in a convenient location

The safeguarding of an area of land at the Great West West/Ealing Road junction for potential future sustainable transport enhancements

9.5 It should be noted that a range of s106 contributions were secured when consent was granted for the wider redevelopment of the Alfa Laval site (which included an eight-storey building at this site). Those contributions have been already been made.

10.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties and in particular with respect to its duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, Section 149. It is considered that there will be no specific implications with regard to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that, if approving or refusing this proposal, the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.

11.0 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

11.1 Some new developments granted planning permission are liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the Mayor of London and to the Council.

11.2 CIL is payable where a new dwelling is created or w h e r e the net floor

area increase exceeds 100 m2 at the following rates:

Mayor of London CIL (m2): £35

LB Hounslow CIL (m2):

Housing

Supermarkets, superstores and retail warehousing:

Health care, education and emergency services facilities:

All other uses:

£200 £155 £0 £20

11.3 The Mayor’s CIL for this development would be £131,260. The LB Hounslow CIL would be £229,705. The total CIL liability would be £360,965.

12.0 Conclusions

12.1 This development would result in up to 540 jobs being delivered in a high quality, modern, office accommodation. Whilst taller than the approved scheme at this site, the design quality would be of a high quality and the additional height proposed would not result in adverse impacts beyond that could not be mitigated. The impact of the scheme on neighbours would not be worse, and in some cases would be better, than the consented development, which could be built out now. This would be a high quality, sustainable development.

13.0 RECOMMENDATION

13.1 That planning permission be granted subject to Stage II referral to the GLA, the following conditions and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers in the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment on the Head of Governance’s advice.

13.2 The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 05th October 2017 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Head of Governance’s Office.

13.3 If the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above (or any agreed extended period), then the Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Assistant Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD described above.

13.4 Following the grant of planning permission, where (a) requested to enter into a deed of variation or legal agreement in connection with the planning permission hereby approved and by the person(s) bound by the legal agreement authorised in paragraph 1 above, and (b) where the planning obligations are not materially affected, and (c) there is no monetary cost to the Council, the Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Assistant

Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management is hereby authorised (in consultation with the Chair and upon the advice of the Head of Governance) to enter into a legal agreement(s) (deed of variation) made under Sections 106 and/or 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation.

13.5 If planning permission is refused, the Director Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or Assistant Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission or listed building consent validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of either application, provided that it (a) duplicates the earlier application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and (c) that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the report is completed within any specified period of time.

Conditions:

1 A1a Time Limit

2 NSTD Prior to the commencement of development at the site, details and where appropriate samples to be used in the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include details of how existing residents to the south of the site would be protected from overlooking and glare. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development would be of a sufficiently high quality and that the impact on neighbours would be acceptable in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy CC1. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

3 B5 Implementation

4 NSTD No demolition of construction work shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays and public holidays without the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy CC1.

5 NSTD Prior to demolition or construction works, a Delivery & Servicing Plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a Plan shall include details of delivery and service vehicles tracking to minimise conflict with servicing at the Premier Inn and car showroom. Any delivery and servicing should be carried out

outside the AM and PM peak hours (Before 8am, Between 10am-4pm, after 8pm) and shall not be undertaken on Ealing Road.

Reason: To ensure the proposal would not prejudice the free flow of traffic and highway safety in accordance with adopted local plan policy EC2. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

6 NSTD Prior to commencement of development, a Construction Logistics Plan should be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the relevant Highway Authority. The Plan shall include the following:

a) a site plan

b) confirmation that a pre-start record of site conditions on the adjoining public highway will be undertaken with Hounslow Highways and a commitment to repair any damage caused

c) provision for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

d) provisions for loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials within the site

e) details of access to the site for the duration of construction including phasing arrangements

f) means to control and manage access and egress of vehicles to and from the site

g) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate

h) provision of wheel washing facilities at the site exit and a commitment to sweep adjacent roads when required and at the request of the council

i) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

j) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

k) appropriate vehicle routes to and from the site

l) measures to ensure the safety of all users of the public highway especially cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site and especially at the access

m) commitment to liaise with other contractors in the vicinity of the site to maximise the potential for consolidation and to minimise traffic impacts

n) avoidance of peak hours for deliveries and details of a booking system to avoid vehicles waiting on the public highway

Reason: In the interests of road safety and to protect existing neighbours from undue disruption in accordance with Local Plan Policies CC1 and EC2. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any development taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

7 NSTD No external ventilation or ducting shall be implemented without written approval from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual and amenity and to protect neighbouring amenity in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy CC1.

8 NSTD No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include (proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing material; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant). Soft landscape works shall include (planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme).

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the site and improve the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Local Plan policy CC1. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

9 NSTD Prior to commencement of development, the applicant shall demonstrate that the design and materials selected for external surfaces (windows and cladding) will not have an adverse effect on motorists using the M4 Elevated Motorway, and that mitigation measures have been provided to reduce the effect of solar and headlight glint and glare.

Reason: To ensure the safety for all road users on the M4 Elevated Motorway that they are not distracted by any glint or glare. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

10 NSTD Prior to commencement of development, the applicant shall provide wind tunnel modelling to demonstrate that the proposed building will not have an adverse effect on the M4 Elevated Motorway. The assessment shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority and Highways England before building works start on site.

Reason: To ensure the safety for all road users on the M4 Elevated Motorway, especially vulnerable users such as motorcyclist and high sided vehicles and also satisfy Policy 7.7 of the London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

11 NSTD Before the development commences full details of the access junction shown on the drawings (including a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit, associated vehicle visibility splays, pedestrian visibility splays and details relating to the removal of on-street parking bays) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the access serving it from the entrance to the site has been completed, including the associated junction and approved visibility splays at the entrance. These visibility splays shall be permanently retained as approved thereafter and shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction to visibility above 600 mm on land within the approved development site.

Reason: To ensure proper access to the site in accordance with adopted local Plan policy EC2. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

12 NSTD No development shall take place until details of a Sustainable Drainage Scheme, including measures for harvesting or rainwater, the minimisation of water run-off from the site, aiming for greenfield levels, and the conservation and reuse as appropriate of other water supplies in the building have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: in the interests of sustainability and to ensure for the satisfactory management of surface water run-off from the development hereby permitted, and in accordance with policy 5.13 of the London Plan. It is necessary for this information to be provided

prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

13 NSTD Prior to commencement of works (excluding demolition of existing buildings and any on-site testing), the applicant should submit for review details of the site-specific infiltration tests at each of the proposed soakaway locations on the sites.

Reason: To confirm that infiltration is a viable method for the safe discharge of surface water runoff from the site so as to prevent any groundwater and/or surface water flooding to or from the site. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

14 NSTD Prior to occupation the applicant should submit for review the detailed as-built drainage designs for the development and evidence (installation contracts and/or photographs) that the features have been constructed as per the agreed proposals to limit surface water runoff from the site. The drainage system must also be maintained for the lifetime of the development and documentation must be submitted to demonstrate the frequency of the routine maintenance regime for the storage tank and soakaways.

Reason: To demonstrate that surface water runoff will be managed for the lifetime of the development in line with, amongst others, the relevant London Plan policies and NonTechnical Standards for Sustainable Drainage requirements.

15 NSTD No development shall take place until a BREEAM preliminary-assessment estimator (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating how an ‘Excellent’ (minimum score 70%) rating will be achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability in accordance with the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ2. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

16 NSTD Within three months of work starting on site, a BREEAM Design Stage certificate and summary score sheet (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that an ‘Excellent’ (minimum score 70%) rating will be achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability in accordance with the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ2.

17 NSTD Prior to first occupation of the building(s), a BREEAM Post Construction Review certificate and summary score sheet (or such equivalent standard that replaces this) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that an ‘Excellent’ (minimum score 70%) rating has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable level of sustainability in accordance with the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ2.

18 NSTD The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a finalised Energy Strategy (demonstrating how the targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction are to be met in line with the Mayor’s energy hierarchy) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ1. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

19 NSTD The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy and shall not commence above ground until full Design Stage calculations under the National Calculation Method have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority to show that the development will be constructed in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy, and any subsequent approved revisions

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ1.

20 NSTD Prior to first occupation of the building evidence (e.g. photographs, installation contracts and As-Built certificates under the National Calculation Method should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing to show that the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved Energy Strategy, and any subsequent approved revisions.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 and the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan Policy EQ1.

21 NSTD Prior to commencement of development, details of cycle parking showing the location and type of cycle parking proposed shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be implemented and maintained as approved.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory cycle parking is provided on site in accordance with London Plan policy. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

22 NSTD The proposed use shall not commence until the car parking spaces shown on the approved plans at basement level have been completed at the site.

Reason: To ensure the basement car parking area would be laid out in a satisfactory manner in accordance with Local Plan Policy EC2.

23 NSTD Prior to the commencement of development at the site, a Car Park Management Plan and a Car Lift Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plans shall demonstrate how the car park would be managed and what procedures would be in place to accommodate a fault with the proposed car lift at the site.

Reason: To ensure the basement car parking area would be managed in a satisfactory manner in accordance with Local Plan Policy EC2. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any developed taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

24 J12 Phased contamination

25 NSTD The proposed mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Acoustic Design Report (6th April 2017) and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately mitigated against noise and in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy EQ5

26 NSTD The proposed mitigation measures during construction work development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Air Quality Report (April 2017).

Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately mitigated against air quality issues in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy EQ4.

27 NSTD Prior to the commence of development at the site, an scheme of biodiversity enhancements for the site shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity accordance with London Plan Policy 7.19 and Local Plan Policy GB7. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any development taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

28 NSTD The level of noise emitted from any new plant or machinery associated with the commercial use shall be lower than the existing background level by at least 10 dB(A). Noise levels shall be determined at one metre external from the window of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance to BS4142:2014.

Reason: In the interest of neighbouring amenity in accordance with Local Plan policy EQ5.

29 NSTD Prior to the commencement of development at the site, a scheme to demonstrate that the development would be designed to be fully accessible to people with disabilities or impaired mobility shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the building would be fully accessible in accordance with Local Plan Policy CC2. It is necessary for this information to be provided prior to any development taking place, as to do so at a later time would materially impact the acceptability of the scheme.

30 NSTD The use hereby permitted shall be for office or research and development within use Class B1 and for no other purpose, and there shall be no permitted change to residential.

Reason: The location of the site close to a generator of noise and air pollution is not suitable for residential use

Informatives

Granted, in accordance with pre-app advice:

To assist applicants, the London Borough of Hounslow has produced planning policies and written guidance, which are available on the Council’s website. The Council also offers a pre-application advice service. In this case, the scheme was submitted in accordance with guidance following pre application discussions.