heston and cranford area committee (planning)...

If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Wendy Merry on 020 8583 2061. HESTON AND CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) A meeting of the Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) will be held in the Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Thursday, 11 January 2007 at 7:30 pm MEMBERSHIP

Councillors Rajinder Bath, Chaudhary, Dhaliwal(Sukhbir), Gopal Dhillon, Poonam Dhillon, Mohinder Gill, Shivcharn Singh Gill, Hughes, Lal, Mann, Sangha and Vaught.

AGENDA

Communications and Formal Business

1. Apologies for absence, declarations of prejudicial interest or any other communications from Members

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2006 (Pages 1 - 5) Speakers

3. Protocol for Speakers

i) Members of the public or applicants must contact the Committee Administrator, Wendy Merry on 020 8583 2061 with details of the proposed submission no later than 5 PM, on Thursday 4 January 2007. Notification will be given of the decision with regard to the request to speak. The Chair will decide whether or not to grant the request to speak.

ii) For planning applications, the applicants will only be allowed to speak if there is an objector who wishes to address the Area Committee. In exceptional circumstances the Chair may agree that an applicant who would significantly add to the information already available will be allowed to speak at the Area Committee in the absence of an objector. If refusal is recommended then speakers would not normally be permitted.

iii) For all highways matters, if there are members of the public with opposing views regarding the proposal the chair will allow both sides to speak. Generally, speakers will only be allowed to speak on issues where funding is available.

iv) With regard to planning applications, where both parties address the Area Committee, the order of speaking will be the applicants followed by the objectors.

v) Each party will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak. vi) The Area Committee will consider submissions on up to 6 items per meeting: 3

planning applications and 3 highways matters. vii) Written submissions must be made to the Committee Administrator before 4 pm on

the day of the meeting. 4. Items on which there are speakers

Planning Applications for Decision

5. 4 Winchester Avenue, Hounslow (Pages 6 - 12) 6. 25 Orchard Avenue, Heston (Pages 13 - 19) 7. 29 Alderney Avenue, Heston (Pages 20 - 27) 8. 291B Bath Road, Hounslow (Pages 28 - 36) For Comment

9. 820-844 Bath Road, Cranford (Pages 37 - 49) 10. Airport Works, Green Lane, Hounslow (Pages 50 - 56) Planning Enforcement

11. 56 Clifford Road, Hounslow (Pages 57 - 62) 12. 58 Clifford Road, Hounslow (Pages 63 - 67) 13. 21 Eton Avenue, Heston (Pages 68 - 72) 14. 159 Brabazon Road, Heston (Pages 73 - 78) 15. 24 Sutton Hall Road, Heston (Pages 79 - 83) 16. 15 Browning Way, Heston (Pages 84 - 88) 17. 16 Marnell Way, Hounslow (Pages 89 - 92) 18. St Albans Farm, Staines Road, Hounslow (Pages 93 - 102) Traffic and Highways Matters

19. Safer Routes to School - Norwood Green School (Pages 103 -

108) Other Planning Matters

20. Results of Planning Appeals (Pages 109 -

110) 21. Delegated Decisions (Pages 111 -

118) DECLARING INTERESTS

Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter. If applicants or objectors on any application have contacted Members, they must also declare this fact. T.WELSH, Director of Legal Services London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN

4 January 2007

At a meeting of the Heston and Cranford Area Committee (Planning) held on Thursday, 7 December 2006 at 7:30 pm at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow.

Present:

Councillor Shivcharn Gill (Chair)

Councillors Chaudhary, Dhaliwal(Sukhbir), Gopal Dhillon, Poonam Dhillon, Hughes and Lal.

Apologies for Absence

Councillors Rajinder Bath, Mohinder Gill, Mann, Sangha and Vaught.

104. Apologies for absence, declarations of prejudicial interest or any other

communications from Members All members had received a written communication concerning 131 Heston Road, Heston

(agenda item 7).

105. Minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2006 The minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2006 (agenda item 2) were agreed with

the following amendment: Councillor Lal had raised objections, as well as Councillor Mann, to the back garden development at 36 Haslemere Avenue, Cranford and requested that this be noted (item 98, page 3 refers).

106. Matters Arising In response to a question from Councillor Lal, Robert Coomber, Area Planning Manager,

advised that a further report concerning 10 Haslemere Avenue, Cranford would be provided to the Committee in January or February 2007 (item 97, page 3 refers).

107. 131 Heston Road, Heston - Planning Application No.00600/131/P9 See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 7)

With the permission of the Chair, the applicant’s agent advised that it had taken 18 months of work between the applicant and the planning office to achieve an application, which satisfactorily covered all the necessary aspects of the proposals. The shop had changed from a bakery to a fast food takeaway in 1994, to meet the changing demand from customers and the application was for the continued use of the premises as a takeaway. The agent acknowledged that there was excessive noise and traffic congestion in the area around the takeaway, but felt that this was generated from the school rather than caused by the presence of the takeaway. The agent suggested that enforcement against parking on the double yellow lines should be carried out by the local authority. He noted from the report that officers had monitored the site over several months and found no evidence of congregation at the site.

Agenda Item 2

1

A ducting system would need to be reinstated at the site to extract odours and the agent advised that this would be done as soon as consent had been granted. In response to questions from Councillor Lal, the agent advised that the applicant had been unaware that the previous leaseholder had applied for a certificate of lawfulness in 2004 and had been refused. The agent explained that the previous leaseholder had retired and the premises had been auctioned. The agent noted that the report had stated that the certificate of lawfulness had been refused because of lack of evidence that the premises had been used as a bakery for 10 years. The agent advised that traffic congestion was heaviest at school start and finish times, but drew the Committees attentions to the fact that the premises were within a parade of shops and there was another parade opposite. With the permission of the Chair, Mr Dickenson objected on behalf of Bosworths Solicitors, who occupy offices above the shop. He was objecting to the proposals for the following reasons:

The bakery had been non-commercial and classed as A1 use. The takeaway had been in existence since last year and was classed as A5 use and Mr Dickenson did not feel that the uses were similar.

The ventilation ductwork could not be carried out legally because the applicant had no legal interest and control over the upper part of the premises where the duct would need to go.

There had been a suggestion that there would be 2 parking spaces at the rear of the premises, but both spaces had been built on so there would be no space for customers to park.

Previous planning permission had been refused in 1994 for reasons concerning highway safety; the premises were on a bend, close to a junction and near a bus stop. Mr Dickenson added that there had been a tragic accident 5 years ago, which was witnessed from the solicitor’s premises.

Robert Coomber advised that it would have been legal and permissible for the bakery to prepare food on site for sale on the premises in a similar way to the food prepared by the takeaway. Parking at the rear of the premises had been intended for staff rather than visitors. There was unrestricted parking available beyond the double yellow lines protecting the bus stop and the Head of Traffic and Parking had considered parking provision to be acceptable. Mr Coomber suggested that, prior to resolving to grant the planning permission, the applicant be required to demonstrate that he had the right to install the ducting. In the event the duct would not be installed, enforcement action would be taken. Mr Coomber believed that planning conditions could be used to manage the necessary work satisfactorily. Councillor Lal stated that he knew of a number of accidents in the locality, which he felt had been caused by the bend in the road. He was aware that the adjacent bus stop caused constriction to the traffic, which was hectic during the rush hour. He noted that the applicant had felt that parking on the double yellow lines was a highways matter, but Councillor Lal did not feel that resources were available to police the area, making it dangerous for pedestrians. Councillor Chaudhary noted, however, that the applicant had been willing to alleviate all problems, which had been cited in the report. Resolved:

2

a) That the continued use of the ground floor as an A5 take away, installation of

fume extraction ducting at the rear and retention of the shop front to 131 Heston Road, Heston be refused because the impact of visitors on-street parking around the premises was having a dangerous impact on highway and pedestrian safety.

b) That enforcement action be taken against the continued use of the ground floor

as an A5 take away to 131 Heston Road, Heston.

108. Land at rear of 1-6 Park Lane, Cranford - Planning Application No.00855/G/P2 See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 5)

Resolved:

That the erection of 4 x three-bedroom and 1 x two-bedroom houses with associated parking and landscaping to the site at the rear of 1-6 Park Lane, Cranford be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

109. 28 Sark Close, Heston - Planning Application No.01356/28/P3 See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 6)

Resolved:

That the installation of a pitched roof to the existing single storey rear extension at 28 Sark Close, Heston be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

110. 51 Berkeley Avenue, Cranford - Planning Application No.00111/51/P2 See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 8)

Councillor Chaudhary stated that the applicant had been in touch with one of the Members to advise that he would be willing to negotiate and proposed that the matter be deferred to allow the applicant the chance to speak with officers. Robert Coomber advised that the notice would not be served until contact had been made with the applicant, but asked Members to authorise the notice to show a position of strength and to ensure that a solution was reached from the negotiations. Steen Smedegaard, Legal Advisor, added that the Committee could agree to enforcement to allow planning officers to serve a notice if the applicant would not negotiate. Councillor Hughes noted that the homeowner had been written to on a number of occasions; she understood that some of the Members wanted to give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt, but felt that permission had already been flouted. Councillor Lal urged officers to be vigilant in referring the matter back to the Committee if negotiations had not been done after a month and Councillor G.Dhillon requested that the letter sent to the applicant be copied to ward Councillors. Resolved:

3

a) That retention of the front porch to 51 Berkeley Avenue, Cranford be deferred

to allow time for the home owner to negotiate modifications with the planning officer.

b) That enforcement action for the removal of the front porch and roof extension to

51 Berkeley Avenue, Cranford be deferred to allow time for the home owner to negotiate modifications with the planning officer.

111. 18 Fern Lane, Heston See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 9)

Resolved:

That enforcement action for the removal from site of the second storey single extension and all resultant debris to 18 Fern Lane, Heston be approved for the reasons set out in the report.

112. 71 Heston Road, Heston See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 10)

Resolved:

That enforcement action for the demolition of the front porch and removal of all resultant debris to 71 Heston Road, Heston be approved, for the reasons set out in the report.

113. 57 Byron Avenue, Cranford See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 11)

Resolved:

That enforcement action for the cease of use as a dwelling (added by Robert Coomber on the night) and the demolition of the outbuilding and removal of all resultant debris to 57 Byron Avenue, Cranford be approved for the reasons set out in the report.

114. 528 Bath Road, Hounslow See report by the Director of Planning (agenda item 12)

Resolved:

That enforcement action for the cessation of the use of the house as two self-contained residential units, removal of the kitchen facilities from the side extension and removal of all resultant debris to 528 Bath Road, Hounslow be approved for the reasons set out in the report.

4

115. Pedestrian Refuge - Cranford Lane, Heston See report by the Director of Street Management & Public Protection (agenda item 13)

Resolved:

That the proposal for the implementation of a pedestrian refuge in Cranford Lane, near the junction with the entrance to the Redwood Estate, Cranford be approved.

116. Results of Planning Appeals The report was noted.

117. Delegated Decisions The report was noted.

The meeting finished at 8:32 pm.

5

References: P/2006/3343 01213/4/P2

Address: 4 Winchester Avenue, Hounslow

Ward: Heston East

Proposal: Erection of a two-storey side extension, part two storey rear extension and a rear roof extension, incorporating two roof-lights in the front slope and one in the side roof slope to the existing house.

Drawing numbers: 03-01-01 & 03-01-02 Received 26 October 2006 & 03-01-10 Received 5 December 2006

Application received: 26 October 2006 Councillor S.C.S Gill has called in this application because he has been asked to do so by the applicant.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal is for a two-storey side, part two, storey part single-storey rear extension and a rear roof extension to an existing two-storey semi-detached house. The extension is inconsistent with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines and would be harmful to neighbours’ living conditions and result in adverse effects on the appearance of the dwelling and street scene. It is therefore also considered contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan polices, ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4. Refusal is recommended.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 This is a rectangular shaped site on the southern side of Winchester Avenue, approximately 60m from the intersection of Heston Road and Winchester Avenue. It contains of a two-storey semi detached house.

2.2 A small garden shed detached outbuilding is located at the side of the site, between the dwelling and the eastern boundary. The front garden of the site is a mix of hardstand and landscaping. No vehicle crossover serves the site, although the front wall allows sufficient entrance gap for vehicles.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 01213/4/P1 Erection of a two-storey side/rear extension, part single storey rear extension and rear roof extension to house.

Refused 1/8/2006

HESTON AND CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 11th of January 2006 Devon Rollo: Tel 020 8583 5186 e-mail: [email protected]

Agenda Item 5

6

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The proposal involves the erection of a two-storey side extension, part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension and a rear roof extension to existing house.

4.2 The proposal extends the flank of the dwelling to 0.3m from the eastern side boundary. The ground and first floor of the side extension would be set back 1.0m from the front wall of the original dwelling. The proposed pitched roof on the side extension would be set down 0.5m from the apex of the existing roof. Additional windows would be located in both the ground and first floor of the front wall of the side extension. A window would be located in the sidewall of the side extension at ground floor level, facing the neighbouring site at 2 Winchester Avenue.

4.3 The first floor of the proposed part two-storey rear extension would project 2.5m from the rear wall of the original dwelling. The ground floor of the rear extension would project 3.6m from the rear wall of the original dwelling, resulting in the first floor being set back 1.1m from the rear wall of the ground floor extension. The hip-ended roof above the two-storey rear extension would be set down 1.0m from the roof above the side extension. Two large windows would be located in the first floor of the rear wall of the rear extension. The ground floor would incorporate a set of double doors and another large window facing the rear of the site. The two-storey rear extension would be 5.1m wide across the back of the proposed 8.6m wide rear wall of the dwelling.

4.4 The part single-storey rear extension extends to a depth of 3.6m from the rear wall of the house. The rear extension measures 3.5m high where the pitched roof meets the rear wall of the original dwelling, reducing to 2.6m above the eaves.

4.5 A rear roof extension would protrude out of the rear of the existing pitched roof, with a flat roof. The proposed rear roof extension would measure 2.1m wide by 1.4m high and would be 2.8m deep. It would be set down from the apex of the existing roof by 0.4m, would sit up from the eaves line 0.6m and be set in 0.5m from the side of the original roof by 0.5m. A large window would be located in the end wall of the rear roof extension, facing the rear of the site.

4.6 The proposed development includes two roof lights in the front roof slope and one within the side roof slope above the side extension.

4.7 The extension would provide for an extended kitchen, a new shower room, study and dining room on the ground floor, two new bedrooms and an ensuite on the first floor and a playroom in the loft.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Three neighbouring residents were notified on 30 October 2006. No submissions were received.

7

6.0 POLICY

6.1 Unitary Development Plan

ENV-B 1.1 New Development

H.6.4 Alterations and Extensions

6.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Residential Extension Guidelines

Section 1 Single Storey Rear Extensions & Conservatories

Section 2 Two Storey Rear and First Floor Rear Extensions

Section 4 Two Storey Side and First Floor Side Extensions

Section 5 Roof Extensions, Roof lights & Solar Panels, Roof Terraces & Balconies

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 support the principle of household extensions provided that no harm to neighbours’ living conditions or the character and appearance of the locality would result. In conjunction with these policies, the Residential Extension Guidelines were introduced to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting neighbours’ interests, keeping a good quality and attractive street scene and meeting applicants’ reasonable expectations for increased accommodation.

7.2 The main planning issues to consider are the impact upon the character of the house and local area, and neighbours’ living conditions.

Impact upon the character of the house and local area

7.3 The proposed two-storey side extension would be visible from Cambridge Close. Both the ground and the first floor of the development are proposed to be set back 1m from the front wall of the ground floor of the side extension. The apex of the roof of the side extension would be set down 0.5m from the apex of the roof of the original dwelling. The ground and first floor set-back and the roof set down of the side extension are in accordance with the Residential Extension Guidelines, which requires a 1m set back on both the ground and first floors in a situation such as exists for the subject site. This helps to make the side extension look secondary to the original dwelling, helping to maintain the established streetscape. Therefore in terms of its scale, massing and character the side extension is considered in accordance with polices ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

8

7.4 The sidewall is set-in from the boundary by 0.3m. This meets the provisions of the Residential Extension Guidelines, which provide for a 0.3m set-in from the boundary. The roof above the side extension is pitched with a hip-end, which matches the existing roof, and also stepped down from the apex of the existing roof by approximately 0.5m. This also meets the provisions of the Guidelines for two-storey side extensions.

7.5 Three roof-lights are proposed on the plans provided, two within the front roof slope or the main roof and one in the side roof slope above the side extension. The Guidelines make provision for a single roof light flush with the roof slope, having regard to the position of the existing windows in the dwelling. As the applicant has proposed three roof-lights within the roof slopes visible from the road, it is considered that the proposal does not meet the Residential Extension Guidelines and would harm the street scene and appearance of the dwelling. It is therefore also considered contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan polices, ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4.

7.6 The application has provided no detail of the proposed materials to be used in the construction of the extensions. However a condition could be placed on the consent if granted to ensure that the materials used in the construction of the extensions would complement the existing materials used on the house.

7.7 The proposal includes two-storey extensions to the side and rear as well as a rear roof extension. The combined effect of the extensions is to add approximately an additional 100m2 of floor space to the dwelling. The external bulk that this gives rise to significantly increases the size of the dwelling and would not complement the neighbouring dwellings, giving rise to an imbalance between the semi-detached units and so would adversely affect the character of the area, contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan polices, ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4.

Neighbours’ living conditions

7.8 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines make provisions for two storey rear extensions where the extension is designed so that it would include significant set-ins from the boundaries. In general they require a minimum of 3m set-in from the boundary and that they should be less than half the width of the dwelling, keeping depth to the barest minimum. The proposed two-storey side/rear extension is set off the eastern boundary by only 0.3m and has a width of 5.1m across the rear of the dwelling, significantly exceeding half the width of the 8.6m wide dwelling, including the side extension, and being nearly as wide as the original house. The result is that the two-storey rear extension fails to meet the Guidelines. The bulk of the extension would result in significant physical dominance and overshadowing on the neighbouring site at 2 Winchester Avenue. It would also significantly alter the character of the dwelling and unbalance the semi-detached pair. Therefore in terms of its scale, mass and character the rear addition is considered contrary to polices ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

9

7.9 The proposed rear roof extension individually would comply with the Residential Extension Guidelines set-ins, set-downs and set-ups, as would the single storey rear extension in terms of depth and the two-storey side extension in terms of set-in and set back. However the combination of all the proposed extensions to the dwelling would add significant bulk to the dwelling, resulting in an unacceptable change in the character of the house and significant physical dominance on adjacent sites, harming neighbours’ living conditions and it is thus considered contrary to polices ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

7.10 Therefore, based on the size and design of the proposal and the layout of the neighbouring sites, it is considered the proposal would cause undue harm to the neighbours’ living conditions.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

The proposal does not significantly affect the opportunities for mobility-impaired persons to access the dwelling.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 As the proposal would not be in accordance with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines it is considered that the extensions would result in undue harm to the neighbours’ living conditions. The proposal is considered contrary to policies ENV-B.1.1 an H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and therefore would be detrimental to the to the character and appearance of the streetscape and living conditions of the neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Reasons:

1. The proposed extensions, due to their excessive size, bulk and the lack of set-in of the two-storey rear extension, are considered unacceptable, as they would harm the neighbours’ living conditions, due to the loss of outlook and physical dominance, and the character and appearance of the house and the surrounding area. The development is inconsistent with the London Borough of Hounslow adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) and the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

2. The proposed three roof-lights would be considered unacceptable, as this would harm the character and appearance of the streetscape and dwelling. The development is inconsistent with the London Borough of Hounslow adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) and the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

10

References: P/2006/3071 00835/25/P4

Address: 25 Orchard Avenue, Heston.

Ward: Heston Central

Proposal: Erection of first floor side extension.

Drawing numbers: Drawing Numbers: RP/25/06A received 27/09/06.

Application received: 27/09/06

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This amended scheme would, unlike the previous scheme, not harm the character of the neighbourhood, or the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Therefore, approval is recommended.


2.1 The site is a large, semi-detached, part rendered/part red-brick dwelling with a red tiled roof and front projecting gable element that has been extended in the past. It has a rear conservatory that was built under permitted development and a single storey side extension which has the benefit of planning permission.

2.2 The house sits on the corner of the end spur of Orchard Avenue in a large truncated triangle shaped plot which is bordered by a small green that sits on the bend of the road. This green is not part of the site. In the area of the site bordering this green there is a detached garage.

2.3 The surrounding plots are generally smaller and narrower in size, but the houses are all semi-detached of various designs of similar size.

2.4 The area is level and no one house dominates the street scene.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 00835/25/P1 Demolition of conservatory and erection of a two storey flank extension to dwelling house.

Refused 19/05/81.

Reasons: Impact on neighbour’s living conditions.

Sean Doran Tel 020 8583 4943 e-mail: [email protected]

Agenda Item 6

13

3.2 00835/25/P2 Erection of single storey flank extension to

dwellinghouse.

Granted 15/11/82.

3.3 00835/25/P3 Erection of first floor side extension and a single storey rear extension to house.

Refused 06/07/06.

Reasons: Overcrowding of the site, out of character, loss of neighbours’ living conditions.

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The previous proposal sought permission for a first floor side extension, which would have sat over the existing ground floor extension and a single storey rear extension that would have sat centimetres from the rear site boundary with Nos. 27 and 29 Orchard Avenue.

4.2 Under application P3, the first floor side extension would have been 3.17m wide by 5.99m deep and would have added 4.9m height to the side of the house, culminating in a hipped roof, set down 0.75m from the main ridge of the house. The extension would have been used as a fourth bedroom.

4.3 Under the present application the width remains the same, but the depth has been reduced to 5m, with a 1m front setback from the ground floor side extension. The extension would be 1.1m below the roof ridge and 0.35m greater in depth than the previous application. There would be a window in the front and rear elevation, with none in the side.

4.4 Application P3 proposed a single storey rear extension to replace the existing conservatory. It was 8.7m wide (15cm short of the extended ground floor width of the house at this point) and 4.5m deep. It was set in 0.15m from the boundary with No.23 and 20cm from the rear boundary with No. 25 and No.27. It would have been 3.2m high, with a lean-to roof, which would have had 3 sky light windows. It would have been used as a dining room. This element is absent from this application, with the existing conservatory remaining.

4.5 No details of materials or parking have been submitted.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Eight neighbouring residents were notified on 17/05/06. Two replies were received, commenting as follows:

14

Comment Response

The garden space is very limited and the extension will sit close to neighbouring properties, causing direct overlooking into neighbours ground and first floor rooms.

See Paragraphs 7.10-7.11.

The side extension will cause a loss of views, outlook, daylight and sunlight at neighbouring properties.

See Paragraph 7.11.

The plot sizes in the area are small and the extension will lead to a restriction in privacy through increased proximity of buildings.

See Paragraph 7.10-7.11.

The noise level will increase. See Paragraph 7.12.

6.0 POLICY


ENV-B.1.1 All New Development.

H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations


Section 4 Two Storey Side and First Floor Side Extensions

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal.

• The impact of the proposal on the appearance of the area.

• The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

15

The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal.

7.2 The Unitary Development Plan policies seek to ensure that any development is compatible with the character of the area and is consistent with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines. Policy H.6.4 emphasizes the importance of proportion, position, materials and details of extensions.

7.3 The purpose of the guidelines is to strike a balance between protecting the appearance of the built environment and neighbour’s living conditions, while meeting homeowner’s reasonable expectations of extending or improving their properties.

7.4 Section 4 of the Residential Extension Guidelines states that first floor side extensions should reflect the design of the main house and remain secondary in appearance. The extension should normally be set back at least 1 metre from the main front wall of the house, in order to prevent terracing. Where properties are not staggered and there are no existing extensions, the first floor section should be 1 metre back behind the building line. A parapet wall is only acceptable if they are already a feature of the house and should not be used as a device to build up to boundary lines. Extensions should be set in 30cm from the boundary. The roof of the extension should match that of the main house in style and angle of pitch. Fenestration should reflect that of the existing house and no windows should be inserted in side elevations.

7.5 The erection of a first floor side extension is not therefore objectionable, subject to compliance with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

The impact of the proposal on the streetscene of the area.

7.6 The first floor side extension does appear subservient to the main house in terms of its height and is more subservient than in the previous application. It does add bulk and width to the property, effectively contributing over half of the original house’s width again to the house. Such a width is contrary to the Residential Extension Guidelines. However, this case is considered to be an exception. The width of the extension is mitigated by the inclusion of a set –back from the ground floor front building line, as the Residential Extension Guidelines request. Additionally, a side set-in would lend the house a staggered appearance. The site is a large open corner/bend site, whose openness creates a valuable gap in the street scene, creating space around the stand of trees in the small green to the west of the property. The first floor side extension, unlike the previous wraparound extension at ground floor level, would not fill this gap, and the rhythm of the streetscene would remain undisrupted, due to the omission of the rear extension, which was in the previous application.

7.7 Unlike the previous proposal, which would effectively have doubled the footprint of the building, creating a building out of scale with the modest character of the other dwellings in the area, this proposal does not add any ground cover to the footprint, respecting the balance of built form and open space at this point.

16

7.8 Therefore, the plot on which No.25 sits would remain open, with the built form limited to the south-eastern section. The general open plan nature of the estate and the importance that the gap at this site plays in it would be maintained.

The impact of the proposal on living conditions at neighbouring properties.

7.9 The extension maintains the building line of no.25 and does not bring the property any closer to those around it. Therefore, the building would maintain the level of privacy between buildings which has been established in this corner area.

7.10 Appendix 1 of the Unitary Development Plan recommends that a distance of 21m should be left between the facing habitable room windows of each residence. The distance between habitable rooms at this property and those behind is already established (at 9.5m). The new extension would house a bedroom whose rear window would directly face into a first floor (presumably bedroom window) at No.27 and but not would afford a significant view of the ground floor of No.27, as that house has a small lean-to extension attached, which has frosted glass on its roof and whose side is blocked by the dividing fence. The view from the first floor would not be significantly greater than is presently possible from the existing first floor. However, if the recommendation for approval is accepted, it is recommended that a condition (No.6) requiring the first floor rear window to be obscure glazed and fixed shut, be inserted to maintain privacy in the first floor of No.27. No.29 is at an oblique angle to the extension and direct overlooking of No.29 by the occupants of the new room would not be possible. Much greater direct overlooking of No.29 is already afforded from the existing first floor bedroom windows of No.25.

7.11 No. 25’s plot is relatively large, with the building set to the front and south of the site. The extension would take up very little of the daylight and sunlight of the south-facing rear aspect of the houses to the rear. No.27 would still benefit from the vast proportion of the plot at No.25 that it is immediately adjacent to remaining open, therefore allowing the filtration of sunlight and daylight into their first floors. Light to the ground floors would also be unaffected and is arguably more restricted by No.27’s own rear extension and the solid boundary fence that divides the properties. No. 29 would be even less affected by the extension, as only a modest additional amount of light would be blocked to what is already blocked is already blocked by the main bulk of the house at No.25.

7.12 It is not considered that the construction of this extension would lead to any additional noise or disturbance at neighbouring properties.

17


None.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposal would not harm the character of the neighbourhood, or the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Approval is recommended.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT

1. The proposed extension, would, by reason of its size, scale, position and design not harm the appearance of the main house, the character and appearance of the wider area, or living conditions at neighbouring properties, in compliance with policies ENV-B.1.1, and H.6.4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions:

1 A1A Commencement.

2 B3 Matching materials.

3 D2

No Additional Windows.

4 B5 Detailed Applications.

5 C29 Hours of construction. 8.30-5.00 Monday-Friday.

9.00-1.00 Saturday.

6 Obscured, fixed glazing of first floor rear window.

18

References: P/2006/3223 00020/29/P2

Address: 29 Alderney Avenue, Heston, Hounslow

Ward: Heston East

Proposal: Erection of a two storey side, two storey rear extension, and single storey rear extension to the existing dwelling

Amended Drawing numbers:

BP/1713/29AA/01 - 03, BP/1713/29AA/04 Rev B, BP/1713/29AA/06 and BP/1713/29AA/07

Received: 11/10/2006

Application received: 11/10/2006 Councillor Lal has called in this application because he was asked to do so.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal involves the erection of a two-storey side extension, two-storey rear extension and single storey rear extension to the existing two-storey detached house at 29 Alderney Avenue.

1.2 The extension is inconsistent with the adopted Unitary Development Plan polices, ENV-B.1.1, H.6.4 and would be out of character with the existing dwelling and local area.

1.3 The proposal is not in accordance with the intent of the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines and, as discussed, would be detrimental to any neighbours’ living conditions. Therefore refusal is recommended.

2.0 SITE & AREA DESCRIPTION

2.1 The 399m2 application site contains a two-storey detached house with frontage onto Alderney Avenue. The cladding of the house is a combination of red brick and pebble rendering and the roof is clay roof tiles.

2.2 Metropolitan Open Land (playing fields) adjoins the rear of the site. A single storey bungalow adjoins the western boundary of the site, while a two-storey detached house adjoins the eastern boundary of the site.

2.3 It appears that the single storey rear extensions (a conservatory and utility room) are original features of the dwelling.

2.4 There are a variety of different housing types within the surrounding area but the majority on the northern side of Alderney Avenue are two-storey

CRANFORD AND HESTON AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 11th January 2006 Tim Joll: Tel 020 8583 6623 e-mail: [email protected]

Agenda Item 7

20

detached houses, while the southern side of the road is more generally characterised by two-storey semi-detached dwellings.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 00020/29/P1 Erection of a part single and part two storey side, two storey rear extension, and single storey rear extension to the existing dwelling

Granted: 26 September 2006

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The proposal involves the erection of a two-storey side extension, two-storey rear extension and single storey rear extension to the existing two-storey detached house at 29 Alderney Avenue.

4.2 The proposed rear extension extends to a maximum depth of 2.0m and 2.55m from the rear wall of the existing conservatory and utility room respectfully. It will have a width of 6.5m where it joins the side elevation. The single storey portion of the rear extension is a maximum of 3.3m in height where the lean-to roof joins the dwelling, reducing to 2.9m above the eaves.

4.3 This extension would provide a new open plan family/dining room, incorporating a double door, and several large windows on the rear elevation.

4.4 The first floor portion of the two-storey rear extension extends to a depth of 3.0m. It will have a width of 6.5m with a pitched roof 8.6m in height. The first floor rear extension would provide additional bedroom space for two bedrooms incorporating two large windows on the rear elevation.

4.5 The ground floor of the proposed two-storey side extension is flush with the main front wall of the dwelling. The first floor portion of the side extension would be set back 1m from the main front wall of the dwelling and 2.4m from the rear of the proposed rear extension (2m more than the originally approved application). The side extension would extend to a maximum depth of 14.2m at ground floor level where it would join with the rear extension while the first floor portion would have a depth of 10.8m. Both levels of the side extension would have a maximum width of 2.8m.

4.6 The side extension, would in conjunction with the existing dwelling provide a new dining room, kitchen, utility room and lounge at ground floor level incorporating a large window on the front elevation, a small window and door on the side elevation and a double door and windows on the rear elevation (in conjunction with the rear extension). The proposed first floor would provide additional bedroom space for two bedrooms and two ensuites (one with walk in cupboard).

4.7 The single storey portion of the side extension would be the same height as the proposed rear extension. The ridgeline of the two storey portion of the

21

side extension would be set 0.6m below the existing ridgeline (being 8.1m in height)

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Three neighbouring residents were notified on 16/10/2006. No comments were received.

6.0 POLICY


ENV-B 1.1 New Development

H.6.4 Alterations and Extensions



Section 2.0

Section 3.0

Section 4.0

Two Storey Rear & First Floor Rear Extensions

Single Storey Side Extensions

Two Storey Side & First Floor Side Extensions

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES


• The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal.

• The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

• The impact of the proposal on the street scene.

7.2 Council planning policies ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 support the principle of household extensions provided that they do not result in any adverse effects on the neighbours’ living conditions or the character and appearance of the locality. In conjunction with these policies, the Residential Extension Guidelines were introduced to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting neighbours’ interests, keeping a good quality and attractive street scene and meeting applicants’ reasonable expectations for increased accommodation.

7.3 Section 1 of the Residential Extension Guidelines states that the maximum depth for single storey rear extensions to stand alone dwellings is 4.25 metres. It is considered important that this type of extension is secondary to the original house and should not project too far from the rear wall of the original dwelling, as this could block light for neighbouring properties. It is recommended that the side walls are set in from internal boundaries by at

22

least 0.3 metres. A flat roof is normally acceptable for these types of extensions. The design, position and size of windows and doors should reflect that of the existing house, and, in order to avoid overlooking of neighbours, windows and doors should only be placed in the rear wall of the extension. The finished appearance of the extension should match the materials used in the original house.

7.4 Section 4 of the Residential Guidelines on Two Storey Side Extensions states that such extensions should appear subservient and proportionate to the main house. Such extensions should normally be set back at least 1 metre from the main front wall of the house in order to prevent terracing. The extension should be set in at least 30 cm from the side boundary. The design and style of the roof should match that of the original house, as should the finished appearance of the extension. Windows should reflect those on the existing front elevation.

The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal.

7.5 The erection of a part single storey and part two- storey side extension, two-storey rear extension and single storey rear extension is, in itself, not objectionable, subject to compliance with the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

7.6 The size of the single storey rear extension is consistent with the Residential Extension Guidelines being a maximum depth of 2.0m and 2.55m from the rear wall of the existing conservatory and utility room respectively. Even if these two features where not part of the original dwelling, the extensions would remain consistent with the Residential Extension Guidelines, having a depth of 4.25m from the rear wall of the existing dining room and kitchen. The height of the two storey rear extension is consistent with that of the existing dwelling. Given the large scale of the adjoining two-storey detached house at 27 Alderney Avenue and the positioning and orientation of windows on this adjoining dwelling, it is considered that this proposed extension would be in proportion to the existing dwelling and rear garden. This would mitigate any adverse effects which might result from this aspect of the proposal on the outlook from this adjoining property or its access to sunlight and daylight.

7.7 As noted earlier, the proposed two-storey side extension would be 8.1m in height and would extend 2.0m more in depth than the originally approved plans (Ref No 00020/29/P1). The previously approved plans were created after considerable consultation between Council staff and the applicant. The Council considered that the approved plans represented the maximum extent to which the subject dwelling could be extended without adversely affecting the living conditions of adjoining neighbours.

7.8 In its current form, it is considered that the proposal would increase the bulk of the amended dwelling approved by Council considerably when viewed from the adjoining property at 31 Alderney Avenue. It is considered that the

23

increased bulk would harm the outlook from adjoining properties. It is also considered that the increased size of the side extension would no longer be in proportion with or appear secondary to the original dwelling and would result in significant cumulative effects on the character of the original dwelling.

7.9 The finished appearance of all the extensions would match the materials used in the original dwelling. The visual compatibility of the materials would help to mitigate the adverse effects associated with the proposal on the outlook from adjoining properties to a degree. However, for the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposal is not in keeping with policies ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

7.10 When assessing a proposal such as this, the Council must be satisfied that the development will not adversely affect the ability of adjoining properties to receive adequate levels of sunlight and daylight. In this instance, it is noted that the proposed development, at the level of the centre of the lowest window of the adjoining dwelling at 31 Alderney Avenue would intrude significantly through the 25-degree recession plane. Which is identified by the Building Research Establishment guidelines as a key determinant of a satisfactory amount of daylight. However, given that the floor plans for the adjoining dwelling show all the windows along this facade to be associated with non-habitable rooms. While the lack of habitable room windows on this façade would reduce the impact of this non-compliance to a degree, given the scale of the intrusion, it is considered that the proposal would result in a loss of sunlight to the private amenity space at the rear of this adjoining property which may impact on the living conditions of the residents of this adjoining property.

7.11 In terms of privacy, it is noted that the proposed rear extension is in keeping with the Residential Extension Guidelines, which state that in order to avoid overlooking of neighbours, windows and doors should only be placed in the rear wall of extensions.

7.12 It is noted that the proposed side extension is not technically in keeping with the Residential Extension Guidelines in that it includes two ensuite windows at first floor level and a kitchen door and utility room window at ground floor level, which would overlook the adjoining property at 31 Alderney Avenue. However, the existing dwelling currently has more windows and doors facing this adjoining site. As such, it is considered that the proposal would improve the privacy of the occupants of 31 Alderney Avenue, particular given the types of rooms that the windows are associated with and their anticipated frequency of use.

The impact of the proposal on the street scene.

7.13 The proposed extensions and alterations to the front elevation would be visible from Alderney Avenue. In terms of the visual impact of the proposal on the street scene, the proposal is in keeping with the Residential Extension Guidelines in that, the single storey portion of the side extension is replacing an existing attached garage while the first floor portion is set back 1.0m from the main front wall of the dwelling. The setback from the

24

main front wall will help to ensure that when viewed from Alderney Avenue, the extensions remain secondary in their size and appearance to the original dwelling thereby reducing the impact of the proposal on the street scene.

7.14 For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the street scene of Alderney Avenue.

On-site car parking 7.15 Given that the proposal would result in the loss of one on-site parking

space, it is important to assess the ability of the site to continue to meet the parking demands of the residents of the property by ensuring sufficient off-street parking is provided. The scale of the dwelling requires 2 car parking spaces to be provided on the site. It is noted that the site would continue to provide a minimum of 2 complying parking spaces in the front yard. Therefore the proposal is considered to comply with Unitary Development Plan policy T.1.4 (Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments). As the proposal will not require any changes to the existing vehicle crossover, the proposal is considered to comply with Unitary Development Plan policy T.5.3 (Vehicle crossovers and Hardstandings).

Other matters

7.16 A relevant matter to consider is the extent to which the granting of this application would be likely to compromise public confidence in the Council’s consistent administration of the Unitary Plan. This also has implications for the Council whereby granting one application can lead to pressure on decision makers to treat ‘like with like’.

7.17 To prevent such effects from arising, and notwithstanding that each application is different and must be considered on its merits, the Council must be satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to warrant departure from the Residential Extension Guidelines and Supplementary Guidance.

7.18 It is considered that there is nothing unique about the application to sufficiently differentiate it from other applications likely to be received in the future. The approval of the subject application would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the Unitary Plan and will, therefore, impact on the consistent administration and integrity of the planning documents.

7.19 A similar application was granted by the Council for extensions and alterations to this dwelling (Ref No 00020/29/P1). However, it is considered that the current proposal differs from that because the proposed extension would no longer be in proportion with or appear secondary to the original dwelling and would result in significant cumulative effects on the character of the original dwelling, thereby affecting the living conditions of the adjoining neighbours at 31 Alderney Avenue.


8.1 None

25

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposed development fails to comply with Policies ENV-B.1.1 and H.6.4 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Residential Extension Guidelines. The proposal would cause undue harm to the appearance of the dwelling and would adversely affect the outlook from adjoining properties.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Reasons:

The proposal, by reason of its disproportionate size, design and appearance, results in an obtrusive un-neighbourly feature that would be an unsympathetic addition to and out of character with the existing dwelling and local area and would not be in keeping with the character of the locality. The proposal fails to comply with policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) of The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

26

References: P/2006/3388 00083/291B/P2

Address: 291B Bath Road, Hounslow

Ward: Heston Central

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and erection of a detached double garage to rear of existing building.

Drawing numbers: RB/706/PR1 and PR2 Received: 25/10/2006

Application received: 25 October 2006. 1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The development, by reason of the design and location of the proposed garage, would be in keeping with and would not harm the established character of the surrounding area and the St Paul’s Church Conservation Area or harm the living conditions of neighbours.

1.2 Approval is recommended.


2.1 The site comprises a two-storey semi detached Victorian house on the north side of Bath Road. It is within the St Paul’s Church Conservation Area.

2.2 The property is constructed with brick and has tiled pitched roof, and has an original two-storey rear projection that has been extended. The majority of the building has been externally painted white. It is in use as flats and one of the ground floor units has a single storey rear addition, and a small garden area. There is a further large rear garden with a dilapidated garage at rear with a service road behind.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 Erection of a garage at the rear of the garden approved in 1933 under building regulations and erected.

3.2 00083/291/P3 Conversion of premises into four self-contained flats, including increasing the height of two-storey back addition.

Granted 19/08/86

3.3 00083/291/P4 Conversion of premises into four self contained flats with parking at rear.

HESTON AND CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 11 January 2007 Alan Smith: Tel 020 8583 4990 e-mail: [email protected]

Agenda Item 8

28

Granted 07/09/87

3.4 00083/291/P7 Erection of a part two-storey, part single storey rear extension.

Refused 04/12/03 on the grounds that the size, scale, and design, of the extensions would be harmful to neighbours living conditions and the appearance of the area and the use of the single storey addition as a flat would result in inadequate accommodation and increase noise and disturbance to adjoining residents. Inadequate information was submitted to demonstrate that adequate parking could be provided.

3.5 00083/291/P8 Erection of part two-storey and part single storey rear extension.

Refused 16/11/04 on the grounds that the size, scale, and design, of the extensions would be harmful to neighbour’s living conditions and to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

3.6 00083/291/P9 Erection of a part two storey /part single storey rear extension comprising self-contained flat at ground level and extension to house in multiple occupancy at ground floor level.

Refused 27/05/2005 on the grounds that the size scale and design would be unduly dominant and obtrusive and harmful to neighbour’s living conditions and to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

3.7 00083/291/P10 Demolition of existing rear garage and erection of a detached single storey garage to rear of garden.

Refused on 15.02.06 on grounds that it would be out of keeping with and would harm the established character and the St Paul’s Conservation Area and harm the living conditions of neighbours through loss of outlook.

3.8 00083/291B/P1 Current application for the erection of a single storey rear extension to an existing flat not yet determined.

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The garage/storage building refused in the previous application (P10) In February 2006 would have measured 8.9 metres long, 7 metres wide and 4 metres high to top of ridged roof. It would have been situated on the rear

29

boundary with a service road behind. It would have been set in one metre from both side boundaries replacing the existing garage.

4.2 It would have had a door and two windows, to the store part, facing the rear of the application property and windows, to the garage part, facing both adjoining properties.

4.3 The current proposal seeks the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a replacement garage measuring 6.9 metres wide, 6.44 metres deep and 2.55 metres high to the top of the flat roof. No details have been given as to the materials to be used.

4.4 It would be situated one metre from both side boundaries and the rear boundary and have a door and two windows on the front elevation and a window on the eastern elevation facing No. 283 Bath Road. It would have double sliding doors on the rear elevation gaining access from the currently overgrown service road at rear.

4.5 Parking would be provided in the double garage and on the extensive frontage of the property.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 10 neighbouring residents were notified on 3 November 2006. The application was also advertised in the local press on 16 November 2006 and a site notice was put up outside the house on 15 November 2006. One letter has been received commenting as follows:

Comment Response

Objection to planning application.

No reason given.

Unauthorised building works at the rear of No.289 which is annexed to the application site without any planning permission. Further investigation by enforcement requested.

Noted. Planning enforcement will be informed accordingly.

6.0 POLICY


ENV-B.1.1 All New Development

ENV-B.2.2 Conservation Areas

H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations

30

T.1.4 Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities For Developments


Section 7 Conservation Areas

6.3 Residential Extension Guidelines

Section 7 Detached Out-buildings.

Section 8 Development in Conservation Areas

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The principal matters for consideration in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

The impact of the proposal on the appearance of the dwelling, the street scene, and the St. Paul’s Church Conservation Area and

The impact of the proposal on neighbours living conditions.

7.2 The Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance document states that the main purpose of conservation in this area is to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area, in particular the setting of St. Paul’s Church, the recreation ground and the housing and community. Any development should enhance the appearance both of the existing buildings and the Conservation Area itself. 7.3 The Residential Extension Guidelines state in Section 7 that outbuildings should:

• be positioned as far away from the house as possible to minimise any overshadowing and be set in from the boundaries by at least one metre

• be no higher than three metres with a non pitched roof

• be finished in materials similar to those used in the house

• have windows only on the elevation facing their house

• leave at least 60% of the rear garden open and undeveloped

• be used only for normal domestic purposes related to the residential use

of the main house

31

Appearance 7.4 The application property is in very close proximity to St. Paul’s Church. This

run comprises large two storey properties with large gardens.

7.5 No 289, adjoining to the east and annexed to the application property has a large part single /part two storey building at the rear of the garden which is used as part of the main building as bed and breakfast accommodation. This building has been the subject of ongoing enforcement action seeking its demolition.

7.6 No 293, adjoining to the west, has a long established two storey rear out building at the rear of the garden. There does not appear to be planning permission for this building.

7.7 The proposed garage/store would replace an existing garage which is 3.2 metres high at ridge level and covers only part of the width of the site. The proposed garage would be only 2.55 metres high to the top of the flat roof and, as such, would not be very visible in the rear garden area. It is considered that it would not significantly alter the appearance of the property and its current contribution to the area. 7.8 The application property has a rear garden 40 metres long and 9 metres

wide. The proposed garage would introduce a new element to the street scene but it would replace an existing garage which is higher. It would leave substantially more than 60% of the rear garden open and therefore complies with the Residential Guidelines in this respect.

7.9 Due to its location and by its limited scale the garage is not considered to detract from the appearance of the dwelling or harm the character of the St Paul’s Church Conservation Area.

7.10 No details are given as to the materials to be used but a condition (No. 2) would be imposed requiring samples of bricks and roof material to be submitted to minimise its influence on the appearance of the Conservation Area.

Neighbours Living Conditions 7.11 The Residential Extension Guidelines recommend that detached outbuildings be positioned to minimise any overshadowing. The proposed building is to be constructed at the rear of the site. 7.12 The Guidelines require outbuildings to be set in at least one metre from the boundaries. The building would be set in one metre from both side boundaries and the rear boundary. It is not considered that neighbours in St Paul’s Close immediately to the north, on the other side of the service road, would suffer any loss of outlook as a result of this structure. 7.13 The garage would have a window on the side elevation facing No. 289. A condition (No. 4) requiring this to be obscured glazed would be imposed to

32

ensure that the proposal does not result in any loss of privacy or overlooking of neighbouring properties. Parking 7.14 The proposed garage would provide two spaces and additional spaces are provided on the extensive frontage of the property. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would cause harm through on-street parking or pedestrian safety in accordance with policy T 1.4. 7.15 The rear service road is currently in poor condition and this will need to be improved in order for the garage to be used. This would improve the rear access for all the adjacent properties. 8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNTIES IMPLICATIONS:

8.1 This proposal has no equal opportunities implications. 9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 It is considered that the proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal. It would now not harm neighbours’ living conditions or the appearance of the St. Paul’s Church Conservation area. Sufficient parking is provided. Approval is therefore recommended.

10.00 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Reason: With appropriate safeguarding conditions the proposed double garage

would be acceptable due to its position, design and appearance. The development would not harm the appearance of the St. Paul’s Church Conservation Area, neighbours’ living conditions or highway safety and complies with policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations), ENV-B.2.2 (Conservation Areas) and 1.4 (Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments) of The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines.

Conditions:

1 A1a Time limit REASON: A1aR

2 B4 Materials to match/samples. REASON: B4R

33

3 B5 Detailed applications REASON: B5R

4 D1 Obscure Glazing insert “eastern” REASON: D1R

5 D2 No additional windows insert “ western or eastern”

REASON: D2R

6 The garage shall only be used for the parking of vehicles or a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of No. 291B Bath Road and for no other purpose. It shall not be used as a bedroom, living room, office or other business use or as a separate dwelling and shall not include toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities. REASON: To protect neighbours’ living conditions and the character of this residential area.

7 “Before the development hereby permitted commences the applicant must either:

a. Investigate the site for landfill gas to the satisfaction of the LPA, to ascertain whether gas protection measures are required. Where measures are required the details shall be submitted to, and approved by, the LPA.

Or; b. The applicant shall install gas protection

measures as a precautionary measure without first investigating the site. The details of these measures shall be submitted to, and approved by, the LPA.

c. For a. and b. all required measures shall be installed before the development is first occupied.

REASON: The site lies on, or in close proximity to, a former landfill site and the Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure that the development does not give rise to any potential risk from landfill gas migration.

34

References: 00083/820-844/P26 P/2006/3239

Address: 820-844, Bath Road, Cranford

Ward: Cranford

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of a 160 room hotel with associated parking and landscaping

Drawing numbers: 06.184/2 and 645/RDP/PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4 &PO5 together with supporting statement and Transport Assessment Report received 6th October 2006

Date received: 06/10/06

This application has been called in to Area Committee by Councillor Sangha at the applicant’s request

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This report considers a proposal to redevelop a site currently occupied by a storage building and parking area, with ancillary office and a separate car repair business and carwash. The site combines the former ‘Jet’ petrol filling station, which is currently occupied by a car repair business, and the adjacent off-airport parking facility with ancillary valeting and servicing. The proposal is to erect a seven-storey building, stepping down to two storeys with basement areas, to provide a budget hotel with car parking and servicing provision.


2.1 This application relates to a site of 0.38 ha located on the south side of Bath Road some 200m to the west of Waye Avenue. The ‘Jet’ site is currently occupied by a part single, part two-storey building, used for vehicle display and repairs, and a car wash. There is a disused petrol filling station forecourt and canopy at the front and a yard at the rear, which are used for parking vehicles. The off-airport car-parking site contains two ancillary buildings, which are used for valeting and servicing the stored cars; it is within an area defined as Metropolitan Green Belt in the UDP.

2.2 Approximately half of the potential development site is zoned Metropolitan Green Belt. The western and southern boundaries of the development site abut with Green Belt land alongside the River Crane, which is included within Comprehensive Project Area 4 in the UDP. The northern side of Bath Road facing the site is within Cranford Village Conservation Area.

HESTON & CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 11 January 2007 George Murphy: Tel 020 8583 4968 e-mail: [email protected]

Agenda Item 9

37

3.0 HISTORY Europa House:

3.1 00083/AB/P15 5-storey office building with associated parking and landscaping.

Approved in 2001, subject to a Section 106 agreement, which required financial contributions towards traffic control measures in Waye Avenue, improvements to public transport in the area, environmental improvements in the vicinity of the land (including public car parks) and CCTV in the subway under Bath Road.

3.2 00083/AB/P16 Demolition of existing building and erection of a 387-room hotel with associated landscaping and parking.

Refused 10th January 2005

3.3 00083/AB/P17 Demolition of existing buildings & erection of a 376-room hotel with associated landscaping & parking (Outline application for siting, appearance & access).

Refused 1st September 2005 - Appeal Pending

Jet petrol filling station 820-834 Bath Road: Various applications relating to petrol station and ancillary activities. The most recent applications are:

3.4 00083/C/P24 Single-storey extension to workshop and raise height of boundary walls

Approved 1993

3.5 00083/C/P25 Canopy to cover pumps on forecourt

Approved 2001

Combined site 804-834 Bath Road:

3.6 00083/804-834/P1

Demolition of existing buildings & erection of a 471 room hotel including a meeting hall with parking & landscaping

Withdrawn 10/05/05

3.7 00083/804-834/P2

Demolition of existing buildings & erection of a 425 room hotel including a meeting hall with parking & landscaping

Resolved to approve 01/09/05 subject to S106 and awaiting formal direction from GLA

38

844 Bath Road:

3.8 00083/844/P1 Continued use of land as transport yard with ancillary maintenance facilities and erection of warehouse building to replace existing burnt out building.

Granted temporary permission on 23/04/68. It was considered that the permanent retention of the development would prejudice the use of the land as public open space within the Green Belt.

3.9 00083/844/P14 Renewal of application 00083/844/P1.

Granted temporary permission on 01/09/71.





3.12 00083/844/P19 Renewal of application 00083/844/P1. Granted temporary permission on 17/01/84.

3.13 00083/844/P20 Renewal of application 00083/844/P1. Granted temporary permission on 07/03/85. This permission expired on 31/03/86 and there were no further applications for uses on this site. Unauthorised use for parking with ancillary servicing and cleaning then continued without enforcement. Regrettably the premises acquired established use rights and evidence was submitted to support this. Therefore a Lawful Development Certificate was issued in October 2005 in the terms set out below:

3.14 00083/844/ LAW1

Off airport car park for up to 100 cars, ancillary cleaning and servicing of stored cars and retention of 2 existing buildings used in connection with the business

LDC granted 05/10/05

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 Outline permission, with layout, scale and access to be considered, is sought for the erection of a 160-bedroom budget hotel with associated parking and landscaping.

39

4.2 The submitted layout shows a building which rises from two to seven storeys, set back 7m from the Bath Road frontage, 43m wide by 28m deep. The development takes the form of a rectangular block with part recessed frontage above first floor level and a ‘stepped’ side elevation providing a series of flat roofs at first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth floor levels. The main entrance to the building is from Bath Road at the centre of the site frontage.

4.3 Vehicular access and egress are provided directly from Bath Road at the eastern and western ends of the site frontage respectively utilising existing access points. A circular traffic system is proposed around the building for access, servicing and turning, with ramped vehicular access to the basement car-park.

4.4 The ground floor layout shows an entrance lobby and reception area with bar and coffee shop, kitchen and staff room together with 19 bedrooms (including 5 disabled bedrooms). The basement area provides office and storage areas as well as 30 parking spaces and cycle/motor cycle parking. Lifts would be provided to all floors.

4.5 The first floor would provide 32 rooms and staff facilities. Second and third floors would be inset from the western side and each would provide 28 rooms. Further insets are proposed providing 21 rooms on the fourth floor, 17 on the fifth and 15 at sixth floor level bringing the total number of rooms proposed to 160. The typical upper floor layout shows double rooms with en-suite facilities, linen/pantry and lobby areas. No disabled bedrooms are identified on the upper floors, so the total provision would be 5 ground floor rooms.

4.6 Throughout the building, various areas of flat roof would be created as the building steps in from the side and, to a lesser extent, at front and rear. These roof areas appear not to be intended to be used as terraces by guests. Even if they were, this would not harm any neighbours’ living conditions through loss of privacy or overlooking as there are no residential neighbours nearby.

4.7 To the western side of the building a car park for 26 cars and a ramped access to basement parking for 30 cars would be provided. The parking area would occupy some 60% of the site that is currently used for off-airport parking. Loading/unloading and refuse/recycling areas are shown to the rear of the building and two coach parking bays are indicated to the west, all accessed from Bath Road. There would be a pedestrian access to the reception area at the front of the building and an existing vehicular access would be closed. Five wheelchair accessible parking bays have been identified at basement level.

4.8 Narrow planting strips are proposed alongside the building and along the southern and western boundaries.

40

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 More than 300 neighbouring occupiers were notified on 18/10/2006. Eight more were hand delivered on 19/10/06. Press and site notices were also posted. No replies have been received. External bodies have also been consulted and responses received are set out below.

5.2 London Borough of Hillingdon

No response at time of writing

5.3 Transport for London

No objection raised to the proposal to use the existing access from Bath Road to the site. However, Transport for London (TFL) object to the unsatisfactory circulation within the site, particularly the potential conflict between domestic vehicles and larger commercial traffic and coaches.

5.4 Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Office The development would not achieve Secured by Design in the following respects:

• Reduced natural surveillance in basement car park

• No vision of parking or lobby areas from basement office

5.5 English Heritage

The site is within an area where archaeological remains can be anticipated. Therefore a condition should be applied to any consent requiring an agreed programme of archaeological work to be undertaken before any development takes place.

5.6 Environment agency

A Flood Risk Assessment is required.

5.7 BAA

The proposed development could conflict with safeguarding criteria unless conditions relating to landscaping, lighting, height limitation, building design, construction methodology and cranes are imposed

6.0 POLICY


IMP 1.1 Integrating Patterns of Land use and the Provision of Transport

IMP 1.2 The Re-use and Recycling of Urban Land.

41

IMP 5.3 Comprehensive Project Areas

IMP 6.1 Planning Obligations

ENV-B.1.1 All New Development.

ENV-B.1.5 Environmental Improvements

ENV-B.1.8 Access and Facilities for People with Disabilities

ENV-B.1.9 Safety and Security

ENV-N.1.1 Purposes of including land in and objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt

ENV-N.1.2 Acceptable Development in the Green Belt ENV-N.1.3 Green Belt Improvements ENV-N.1.4 Development near the Green Belt boundary

ENV-P.1.1 Environmental sustainability: environmental impact statements and sustainability checklist

ENV-P.1.3 Surface water run off

ENV-P.1.5 Noise Pollution

ENV-P.2.1 Waste management

ENV-P.2.4 Recycling facilities in all new developments

ENV-P.2.6 Renewable energy

E.1.5 Development involving the loss of or changes in employment uses

E.5.1 Visitor Accommodation

S.4.5 Servicing arrangements

T.1.1 The Location of Development

T.1.2 The Movement Implications of Development

T.1.4 & Appendix 3

Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing for Developments

T.2.1 Pedestrian Access

T.2.2 Pedestrian Safety and Security

T.3.3 Special Parking facilities for People with Disabilities

T.5.1 Air Quality Implications of Traffic

42


SPG1 Design and layout

SPG3 Safety and Security Guidelines

6.3 London Plan

2A.1 Sustainability Criteria

3B.10 Tourism Industry

3D.6 Tourism Strategy

5D.1 The strategic priorities for West London

3D.8 Green Belt 6.4 London Plan Supplementary Guidance

Accessible London

6.5 Central Government Guidance

PPS1 General Policies and Principles

PPS6 Planning for Town Centres

PPG13 Transport

PPG21 Tourism

PPG2 Green Belts

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES


• Whether this development is acceptable in the Green Belt;

• whether this is an appropriate location for hotel accommodation and in accordance with UDP Policy;

• whether the proposed building is acceptable in terms of its size, scale and design;

• whether the proposed development would result in loss of privacy and noise and disturbance to adjoining occupiers;

• whether the proposed parking, service and access provision is adequate for the number of guest rooms proposed; and

• Whether the proposal respects sustainable building principles.

43

7.2 Green Belt

a) Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) - Green Belts sets out Central Government policy on Green Belt and promotes its permanence and open character. The most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness. PPG2 specifies that the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for purposes such as agriculture, outdoor sport and recreation or for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

b) Policy ENV-N.1.1 seeks to safeguard the permanence and integrity of the Green Belt. Policy ENV-N.1.2 states that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the Council will not permit, except in very special circumstances, any development which is not compatible with the principal purposes of the Green Belt. Policy ENV-N.1.3 states that the council will pursue improvements of the Green Belt on landing its ownership and on land in private ownership when opportunities occur.

c) In this area of Cranford the Green Belt forms a buffer against any westward sprawl. Specifically, this site marks the edge of Cranford Village and is contained within a narrow strip of green belt land between Avenue Park, to the north of Bath Road and the open space alongside the River Crane, which includes a Nature Conservation Area to the south. It provides an important visual break in development at the edge of the borough adjacent to the Bath Road.

d) This area of Green Belt also forms an important part of Comprehensive Project Area 4 (CPA 4) comprising approximately 385 ha of land along the Crane Valley. Comprehensive treatment of this area is needed to preserve and enhance the ecological and nature conservation value of this important green chain and Improve public accessibility, landscaping and recreational use of the Crane Valley. Any development near the Green Belt boundary must not detract from the open aspect of the Green Belt. The Council has prepared a Green Belt Management Plan to support the protection and improvement of public and private land within the Green Belt.

e) A sequential test has been provided, which seeks to demonstrate that this is an appropriate location for hotel development and planning permission has been sanctioned for a larger hotel incorporating part of this application site. However, no case has been presented to demonstrate an over-riding need for this particular proposal which conflicts with Green Belt policy, wherein the building mass on the jet site is increased, nor to justify such development within the Green Belt.

7.3 Hotel Location

a) Objective E.5 of the adopted UDP states that the Council should encourage employment opportunities and other benefits to the local economy regarding the development of Hounslow’s tourism attractions,

44

and to improve the quality and quantity of tourist accommodation whilst having regard to the wider environment.

b) Hotels are considered to be an employment generating use in the UDP. They are also a high trip-generating use. The proposal should therefore comply with the sequential test approach as defined in revised UDP Policy E.1.1 whereby development should be maximised in town centres followed by edge of centre locations. There is some evidence to demonstrate lack of opportunities in town centres or edge of town centre sites that could accommodate the proposed development and to show why this site is considered an appropriate location for an airport hotel.

c) In addition, for visitor accommodation such as this, criterion (ii) of UDP Policy E.5.1 requires high public transport accessibility in respect of Heathrow, Central London and local visitor attractions. The site is relatively well served by public transport in respect of buses to and from Heathrow but is remote from main line and underground rail services and a robust Green Travel Plan is required in order to promote means other than car based journeys.

d) On the basis of the reports published by BAA and Hotel specialist TRI Consulting, this proposal would only constitute a minor contribution to the high demand already present at Heathrow Airport. Providing more hotel bedrooms is in line with Government policies to provide more tourist accommodation and fits in the context of the opening of Terminal 5. However, the application fails to demonstrate any over-riding need for a hotel on this particular site, which would have a significant negative impact on Green Belt land.

7.4 Size, Scale and Design

a) With regard to the size, design and massing, the building would be significantly taller and more bulky than the existing buildings on the site. The development would increase the building height on site from two to seven storeys. There is an extant planning permission for the erection of a five-storey office building on the Europa House site fronting Bath Road to the east; the vacant office building on the opposite side of Bath Road (Heathrow House) is six storeys in height. This would make it the tallest building in the area right on the fringe of the Green Belt.

b) The remaining frontage in this part of Bath Road is characterised by two and three storey commercial buildings. The site faces the boundary of the Cranford Village Conservation Area where existing development is two and a half storey in height.

c) The 425-room hotel scheme, which combined the Europa House site and the Jet garage site, showed a three-storey annexe building on the Jet site. This was in order to minimise the visual impact of the development on the Green Belt land to the south and west.

d) The off-airport parking site is entirely within Green Belt land where there is a general presumption against built development. This proposal

45

would provide a building rising to seven storeys on a footprint, which covers approx. 16% of the existing parking site. Existing single-storey buildings, which occupy a similar ground floor area, close to the western boundary would be removed and replaced with car-parking.

e) The proposed development represents a significant intrusion into and adjoining green belt land.

7.5 Privacy/ Disturbance

a) The proposed hotel has 160 rooms and would intensify the use of the site compared to the present use. This would have potential for increased noise and disturbance to adjoining residents, particularly if people are arriving and departing at unsocial hours. However the nearest residential accommodation is located to the north of the busy Bath Road and in Dudset Lane, some 100m to the south-east of the site. The hotel entrance is located on the northern side of the building, away from neighbouring residential properties.

b) The development would be affected by noise, and part of the site was previously used as a petrol filling station. Underground fuel storage tanks must be effectively dealt with.

c) Due consideration must be given to ambient noise levels and acoustic glazing is likely to be required to proposed bedroom windows.

7.6 Parking provision, servicing and access

a) The site is relatively well served by public transport in respect of buses to and from Heathrow but is remote from main line and underground rail services.

b) The UDP standard would require a minimum of 32 parking spaces at a ratio of one space per five rooms or a maximum of 80 parking spaces at a ratio of one space per two rooms for a site that is only relatively well served by public transport. The scheme proposes parking provision of 56 spaces (approx. one space per three rooms), a similar ratio to the Europa House scheme. These would be provided at ground level at the side (26 spaces) and at basement level (30 spaces) accessed by a ramp at the side of the building. On-site parking provision is set below the maximum in recognition of the lower requirement in relation to an airport hotel.

c) For any approved of an hotel in this area, the applicant would need to submit a Travel Plan.

d) The applicant has submitted a Travel Plan that incorporates measures such as: integration with Heathrow shuttle bus, travel information, a staff car-sharing club, provision of cycle storage and the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The intention is that implementation of this plan would reduce the amount of traffic which might be generated by hotel clients and employees.

46

e) Access to the proposed hotel would be achieved via two existing crossovers off Bath Road; a third existing crossover would be removed. TfL will not support the introduction of any additional access points on Bath Road. Access to the proposed hotel can be achieved via existing crossovers off Bath Road. However, comments from TfL indicate that the current plans should be amended to improve circulation within the site. The route for service vehicles around the site is inadequate and conflict with domestic traffic would occur at the ramp to basement level.

7.7 Sustainable building principles

a) Sustainability underpins many of the UDP policies and the London Plan. These require developments not only to be sustainable in transport terms; but also to include appropriate recycling facilities and to minimise waste; to include energy efficiency measures and promote the use of renewable energy; and not to increase significantly the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

b) Policy ENV-P.1.1 considers whether an environmental impact statement is needed and encourages the use of a Sustainability Checklist. This development is not large enough to merit a full impact statement, but it is substantial and significant enough to justify use of the Checklist. The developers have completed a Checklist.

c) Policies ENV-B.1.1, ENV-P.1.3, ENV-P.2.1, ENV-P.2.4 and ENV-P.2.6 require that all developments should include recycling facilities and minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures, be sustainable in transport terms, promote the use of renewable energy and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

d) As a large new building, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognises and adopts sustainable development principles. There is no doubt that the development could comply with these principles and it is considered appropriate to deal with these matters by means of planning conditions prior to the start of works rather than at this stage.


8.1 Disabled toilet facilities and bedrooms, a lift to all floors and suitable parking would be provided and access would be level.

9.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

9.1 UDP Policy IMP.6.1 seeks planning obligations to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development.

9.2 If planning permission were to be granted then the main areas for inclusion into a S106 agreement would be:

• The creation of employment and/or training provisions for local people

47

• A Green Travel Plan • Highway improvements, including the provision of a s278 Highway

Works Agreement • Green Belt enhancements within Comprehensive Project Area 4

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The site is in a general location that has been considered to be appropriate for an airport hotel. However the application fails to demonstrate an over-riding need for a hotel on this site. The proposed development is unacceptable because of its position, form and layout. It would intrude into Green Belt land and would not protect the character of the area. Further, the proposed car and coach parking provision and turning facilities for service vehicles within the site are inadequate and would be likely to cause conditions harmful to pedestrian and vehicle safety. It is therefore an inappropriate form of development within and adjoining designated Green Belt land, which would detract from the appearance, open character and function of the Green Belt in this location

10.2 The development is not in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development), ENV-N.1.1 (Purposes of including land in and objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt), ENV-N1.2 (Acceptable Development in the Green Belt), ENV-N1.4 (Development near the Green Belt boundary), E.1.5 (Development involving loss or changes to employment uses) E.5.1 (Visitor Accommodation), T.2.1 (Pedestrian Access), T2.2 (Pedestrian Safety and Security) and T.1.4 (Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments).

RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee comment on this proposal and note:

• That their comments will be taken into account when reaching a decision.

• That, if an acceptable scheme cannot be negotiated, the scheme will refused under delegated powers

• That, if an acceptable scheme is agreed, the matter will be referred to Sustainable Development Committee for decision.

48

References: P/2006/3753 00507/S/P14

Address: Airport Works, 109 Green Lane, Hounslow

Ward: Cranford

Proposal: Redevelopment to provide new light industrial (B1c), general industrial (B2) and warehouse/distribution (B8) building with associated external works.

Drawing numbers: 788-01-B and 788-02-SK-A

Application received: 11th December 2006 For comment 1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The proposal is to clear the site and construct a commercial building comprising B1, B2 and B8 use. Permission has been granted for this development in 2002 and is still valid as it expires on 31st May 2007. The applicant has submitted a new application in order to extend the benefit of the current permission for a further three years.

1.2 Members are requested to comment on this application, which is to be reported to the Sustainable Development Committee for decision.


2.1 The site has an area of 1.03ha and is positioned on the west side of Green Lane. Lawrence Road adjoins the southern boundary of the site. It previously contained a large commercial building and small ancillary buildings occupying approximately 75 percent coverage of the. The main building has been demolished and some small buildings remain. It is within a commercial area which is an employment location, as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 Permission was granted to redevelop the site in 2002 subject to a legal agreement (see paragraph 3.1). Since then the main buildings on the site have been demolished and a number of small buildings and structures remain. Vehicles are currently stored on the site.

2.3 The site lies within a Public Safety Zone in respect of the airport and is also within an Air Quality Management Zone.

HESTON & CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) 11th January 2006 Mark O’Leary: Tel 020 8583 4993 e-mail: mark.o’[email protected]

Agenda Item 10

50

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1 00507/S/P12 Redevelopment to provide new light industrial (B1c), general industrial (B2) and warehouse/distribution (B8) building with associated external works.

Granted 27th May 2002. This was subject to a legal agreement requiring that the developers submit a Green Travel Plan prior to the commencement of the works. They are obliged to comply with the plan at all times and one of the targets must be to achieve a minimum percentage of employees reduction in car dependency. They are further required to carry out yearly reviews for at least 15 years and submit these to the Council to show how successful it has been in reaching its targets.

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 Permission is sought on the same basis as before. That is, to erect a building with a floor area of 5849 square metres to provide B1(c), general industrial (B2) and warehouse/distribution (B8) floor space and 90 car parking spaces.

4.2 The submitted drawings show a rectangular building approx. 7lm x 69m set back on approximately the same building line as the previous factory on this site with a front two-storey projection approx. 26m x12m to provide offices. An area approx. 35.4m x 7.4m within the main building would provide a mess room and male and female changing facilities with offices above.

4.3 The proposed building would be of steel framework construction with a

faced brickwork plinth and micro ribbed grey coloured cladding panels with brickwork piers. The roof would be hipped and metal clad.

4.4 The access from Green Lane would remain as existing, although an existing

access to Lawrence Road would be closed. Parking for 90 cars would be laid out on the frontage of the site, along the southern flank and to the rear of the building. Provision would also be made for 12 lorry spaces and a bike shed.

4.5 Additional landscaping is proposed to be carried out along the frontage to

Green Lane and along part of the Lawrence Road frontage. A new 2.4m high palisade fence around the site to replace the existing is also proposed.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 26 neighbouring residents were notified and the application was also advertised in the local press and a site notice displayed at the front of the site. No response has been received at this stage.

51

5.2 The Civil Aviation Authority have been consulted and no response received at this stage.

6.0 POLICY

6.1 Unitary Development Plan Unitary Development Plan

6.2 The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted on 6th December 1996. The current UDP, which was adopted on 12th December 2003, is an alteration to the previous plan. When the current application was determined by the Sustainable Development Committee both the old and, (as now listed) the current policies were considered in the determination of the proposal. Since then there have been no significant changes than the adoption of the London Plan in 2004. The London Plan is now part of the UDP but does not result in any relevant policy changes which go to the heart of this case.

IMP.4.1 Primary Locations for Economic Development

IMP.5.1 High Quality Building and Urban Design

IMP.6.1 Planning Obligations

ENV-B.1.1 New Development

ENV-P.1.5 Noise Pollution

ENV-B.1.6 Air Pollution

ENV-P.1.1 Environmental Sustainability: Environmental Impact Statements and Sustainability Checklist

ENV-P.1.3 Surface Water Run Off

ENV-P.2.1 Waste Management

ENV-P.2.4 Recycling Facilities in all New Development

ENV-P.2.6 Renewable Energy

E.1.2 Locations for Business (B1) Use

E.1.3 Location of General Industry (B2) and Storage and Distribution (B8) Uses.

E.2.1 Environmental Criteria

E.2.3 Improvement of Employment Sites

E.3.1 Disabled Access

T.1.4 Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments

52

T.6.7 Public Safety Zones and Other Operational Constraints

6.2 London Plan

2A.1 Sustainability Criteria

3B.5 Strategic Employment Locations

6.3 National Guidance

Planning Policy Guidance 4 – Industrial, Commercial Developments, and Small Firms

Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport

6.4 There have been no changes to Planning Policy Guidance 4 and 13, since the determination of the current approval.

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to be considered are:

• Whether the principle of the proposed development would accord with UDP Employment Policy.

• Whether the proposed scale and design of the building is acceptable and

whether the proposed use would cause noise and disturbance to local residents.

• Whether the proposed car parking, servicing and access provision is

appropriate.

• Whether the increase in the number of people working on the site would be acceptable in a Public Safety Zone. Principle

7.2 Permission has previously been granted for the development which expires in May 2007. The application is to renew this permission for a further three years. There has been no change to the UDP policies relevant to this case since the date of the current permission.

7.3 The site falls within Proposal Site E13 which requires redevelopment for a

range of buildings of B1, B2 and B8 uses. On the previous application it was considered that the site does not have good accessibility and therefore is suitable only for relatively low trip-generating development. Redevelopment for B1(c), B2 and B8 uses is therefore in line with Unitary Development Plan Policy.

53

Scale, design and amenity

7.4 UDP Policy E.2.3 encourages the improvement of amenities, appearance and efficiency of existing industrial sites, subject to the environmental criteria of Policy E.2.1 being met.

7.5 The impact on the neighbouring premises is currently being re-assessed but

it was considered on the previous application that there would be no harm to neighbours.

7.6 The scale and design of the proposed building is compatible with the

surrounding area and would provide a modern building to improve the appearance of the site. A lift and disabled w.c facilities would be provided on both floors of offices.

7.7 With regard to the site coverage, this proposal would result in a plot ratio of

0.577:1. UDP Policy would normally require a ratio of 0.5:1. However, the proposal represents a reduction in the floor area that existed on site at the time of the submission of the previous application.

Parking and access

7.8 90 parking spaces and 12 lorry spaces are proposed. While the number of parking spaces is in excess of the 30 spaces set by the parking standards, this was considered to be acceptable on the previous application. This was because the proposed parking would have resulted in a reduction on the existing number of spaces on the site and because the applicant would have to prepare a Green Travel Plan giving options as to how people could travel to work other than by private car.

7.9 Parking for people with disabilities and cycle parking facilities are proposed. 7.10 Access would be as existing and the site is satisfactorily related to the local

highway network. On the previous application it did not have good public transport accessibility but there was at that time an outstanding Section 106 contribution from the nearby Prologis Park development towards the improvement of bus routes in the local area that will provide a new route between Feltham and Hounslow West via Green Lane. This legal agreement has been signed and implemented.

Public Safety Zone

7.11 The site falls within a Public Safety Zone. National Guidance makes it clear that the basic policy objective restricting development in these areas is that there should be `no significant increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in public safety zones’. The exceptions to this general presumption can include redevelopment or change of use which could not reasonably be expected to increase the number of people.

7.12 The applicant states that there were 170 people employed on the site on the

previous application. On completion of the development it is expected that

54

140 people would be employed. There would not therefore be a significant increase in the number of people working in the Public Safety Zone and this can be limited by planning condition.

7.13 The Civil Aviation Authority on the previous application had no safeguarding

objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

7.14 The reduction in the number of car parking spaces on the site would also

result in a reduction in the level of emissions in the area in accordance with the requirements of Air Quality Management.

Sustainability

7.15 Sustainability underpins many of the UDP policies and the London Plan.

These require developments not only to be sustainable in transport terms, but also to include appropriate recycling facilities and to minimise waste, to include energy efficiency measures and promote the use of renewable energy, and not to increase significantly the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.16 Policies ENV-B.1.1, ENV-P.1.3, ENV-P.2.4 and ENV-P.2.6 require that all

developments should include recycling facilities and minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures, be sustainable in transport terms, promote the use of renewable energy and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.17 As a large new building, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to

sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognises and adopts sustainable development principles. These matters are currently being assessed.


8.1 Conditions would be imposed to ensure that the proposed building would be accessible for people with disabilities including disabled parking facilities.

9.0 SECTION 106 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS: 9.1 On the previous application it was considered that the proposed

development would require a Section 106 agreement to be entered into requiring the provision of a Green Commuter Plan giving options as to how people travel to work. An approval would be subject to this agreement.

9.2 It was also considered that because the development would result in a

reduction in floor area and parking on the site and there would be no significant changes in the number of people who are already working on the site, it is not considered that any other planning benefits could be justified.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION:

That members note this report and comment on the proposal. Members’

55

comments will be taken into account when reaching a decision and members are asked to note that if an acceptable scheme cannot be negotiated, the case would be refused under Delegated Powers.

Contact: Mark O’Leary

Telephone: 020 8583 4993

Background Papers: This report has been or is due to be considered by:

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Heston West

56

Contact: David Bevan Tel: 020 8563 5188 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Committee

56 Clifford Road, Hounslow

Report by: Director of Planning

Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the hip to gable roof extension of this house and the associated rear dormer. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee considers it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

• All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an

enforcement notice in relation to 56 Clifford Road, Hounslow requiring within four calendar months:

• Removal of the rear dormer roof extension. • The reduction of the roof to its original size and shape. • Removal of all resultant debris.

• The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with

the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”)

• The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 TCPA 1990 in the event of non-

compliance with the enforcement notice and the recovery of the Council’s costs. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 This is a two-storey end of terrace house located on the northern side of this road. The

street is predominantly residential in character. The property has been extended by means of a 5.00m deep rear extension. This extension appears in 2003 aerial photographs and is presumed immune from enforcement action.

2.2 Initial enforcement investigations established that a hip to gable roof extension has

recently been built at the house. At the rear a large rear dormer has also been built. The roof extension was built during 2006.

Agenda Item 11

57

2

Planning History 2.3 P/2006/2424 – Subsequent to a breach being established the owners submitted a

retrospective application to retain the hip to gable roof extension and rear dormer. This was refused on 15th September 2006.

Enforcement History 2.4 An investigation into hip to gable extensions at 56 and 58 Clifford Road began on 22nd

June 2006 after receiving a referral from Building Control. On 4th July 2006 the site was visited by an enforcement officer who found that the two properties had built unauthorised extensions.

2.5 Due to the size of existing extension, the works to the roof of 56 Clifford Road cannot

be considered under permitted development as the allowance of 50 cubic metres has been breached in the past by the rear extension.

2.6 A letter was sent on 5th July 2006 outlining that a breach had been established and

giving the owner 28 days to either remove the breach or submit for planning approval. The owner contacted the Planning Enforcement Team via email on 17th July 2006 indicating that they would be submitting an application. On 24th July 2006 an application was received, however this was refused on 15th September 2006. As by virtue of its size and position within the existing roof face fails to preserve the character of the existing property and the surrounding street scene.

58

3

3.0 ANALYSIS Expediency in general 3.1 The expediency of enforcement action is assessed with reference to guidance

contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’. 3.2 Expediency is also assessed with regard to the statutory Development Plan, which for

the Borough consists of the London Plan (February 2004) and the Unitary Development Plan (U.D.P.), which was formally adopted in December 2003.

3.3 On the subject of loft extensions the following UDP policy applies:

Policy H.6.4 Extensions and Alterations

Proposed extensions and alterations should complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the general street scene. The Council will have regard to special housing needs, such as the housing needs of extended families and people with disabilities, but the extension or alteration must not have an undue adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Extensions should normally be consistent with the Council’s guidelines on house extensions and meet among others the following criteria: (i) Proportion: The extension should have proportion and balance and must not

over-develop the site in terms of mass or density. It must fit in with the shape of the property.

(ii) Position: Extensions should respect property boundaries and be positioned to

avoid loss of light to adjoining properties. Side extensions should be set back one metre from the front elevation, and on corner sites, one metre from the side boundary. Roof extensions should generally be restricted to the main roof slope to the rear of the properties.

3.4 The Residential Extension Guidelines, for Roof Extensions, Roof lights and Solar

Panels, Roof terraces and Balconies specifies the following:

(i) If dormers are proposed on both the side and rear roof slopes, they must remain independent from each other and not wrap around to create one large extension.

(ii) A dormer window or roof extension must be constructed in the centre of a roof face, and set in from the roof level and the eaves level, as well as the side of the roof.

(iii) On larger and semi-detached houses the set-in from the side of the house should be at least 1m on either side, 0.30m set down from the ridgeline of the roof, and 0.50m above eaves level.

(iv) If proposing to convert a sloped hip-end roof into a flat gable-end rood on the side of the house, permission will normally be refused.

Unauthorised roof extension 3.5 The property has already been extended by means of a large single storey rear

extension. This was erected without the benefit of planning permission, but is believed to be over four years old and immune from enforcement action. The loft extension is

59

4

considered to harm the appearance of the house itself, and the surrounding area, in particular the street scene.

3.6 The size of the rear dormer, harms outlooks from neighbouring properties; it is

overbearing and not set in from either side of the property. The height and design of the extension detracts from the street scene, causing an unbalanced look to the row of terraced properties. The residential guidelines recommend that dormers be positioned in the centre of the roof face to minimise the impact on the appearance of the house. Due to a lack of a set in, this objective is not achieved and the visual harm is evident.

3.7 The loft extension and rear dormer are disproportionately sized for their setting,

unsightly because of their unsympathetic design, and out of keeping with and harmful to the appearance of the house and the area as a whole. The owner has been given the opportunity to remedy this breach of planning control, however when a retrospective application was received planning permission was refused.

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 4.1 The over-development of the property (Both at ground and now roof level) has

changed the look and character of the house. It is too big for the property and causes great harm to the street scene and the surrounding neighbourhood. This extension is therefore contrary to policies H.6.1 Extensions and Alterations and ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development), of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Residential Extension Guidelines.

4.2 Based on the information in this report it has been concluded that no action short of the

proposed enforcement described in this report can remove the harm caused by these breaches of planning control.

60

5

4.4 In these circumstances, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action as recommended at the start of this report.

Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines, GPDO This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Cranford

61



58 Clifford Road, Hounslow


Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the hip to gable roof extension of this house and the associated rear dormer. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION



enforcement notice in relation to 58 Clifford Road, Hounslow requiring within four calendar months:

• Removal of the rear dormer roof extension. • The reduction of the roof to its original size and shape. • Removal of all resultant debris.




compliance with the enforcement notice and the recovery of the Council’s costs. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 This is a two-storey end of terrace house located on the northern side of this road. The

street is predominantly residential in character. The property has been extended over 7.00m in depth by two large single storey rear extensions. These extensions appear in 2003 aerial photographs and are presumed immune from enforcement action.

2.2 Initial enforcement investigations established that a hip to gable roof extension has

recently been built at the house. At the rear a large rear dormer has also been built. The roof extension was built before the aerial photographs taken early 2006, but applied for building regulations in mid 2006 and it was not in place when aerial photographs were taken in 2003.

Agenda Item 12

63

2

Planning History 2.3 There is no planning history for the site. Enforcement History 2.4 An investigation into hip to gable extensions at 56 and 58 Clifford Road began on 22nd

June 2006 after receiving a referral from Building Control. On 4th July 2006 the site was visited by an enforcement officer who found that the two properties had built unauthorised extensions.

2.5 Due to the size of existing extensions, the extensions to the roof of 58 Clifford Road

cannot be considered under permitted development as the allowance of 50 cubic metres has been used up in the past by the rear extensions.

2.6 A letter was sent on 5th July 2006 outlining that a breach had been established and

giving the owner 28 days to either remove the breach or submit for planning approval. A letter dated 12th July 2006 signified that the owners intended to submit an application in an attempt to regularise the breach. The owner subsequently wrote again requesting that further time was given until the end of September 2006 for the submission of plans. This submission was never made.

64

3




3.3 UDP policy on loft extensions is as follows:


Proposed extensions and alterations should complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the general street scene. The Council will have regard to special housing needs, such as the housing needs of extended families and people with disabilities, but the extension or alteration must not have an undue adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Extensions should normally be consistent with the Council’s guidelines on house extensions and meet among others the following criteria: (i) Proportion: The extension should have proportion and balance and must not



avoid loss of light to adjoining properties. Side extensions should be set back one metre from the front elevation, and on corner sites, one metre from the side boundary. Roof extensions should generally be restricted to the main roof slope to the rear of the properties.

3.4 The Residential Extension Guidelines, for Roof Extensions, Roof lights and Solar

Panels, Roof terraces and Balconies specifies the following:

(i) If dormers are proposed on both the side and rear roof slopes, they must remain independent from each other and not wrap around to create one large extension.

(ii) A dormer window or roof extension must be constructed in the centre of a roof face, and set in from the roof level and the eaves level, as well as the side of the roof.

(iii) On larger and semi-detached houses the set-in from the side of the house should be at least 1m on either side, 0.30m set down from the ridgeline of the roof, and 0.50m above eaves level.

(iv) If proposing to convert a sloped hip-end roof into a flat gable-end rood on the side of the house, permission will normally be refused.

Unauthorised roof extension 3.5 The property has already been extended by means of two single storey rear

extensions. These were erected without the benefit of planning permission, but are believed to be over four years old and immune from enforcement action. The loft

65

4

extension is considered to harm the appearance of the house itself, and the surrounding area, in particular the street scene.

3.6 The size of the rear dormer harms outlook from neighbouring properties; it is

overbearing and not set in from the side of the property. The height and design of the gable extension detracts from the street scene, causing an unbalanced look to the row of terraced properties. The residential guidelines recommend that dormers be positioned in the centre of the roof face to minimise the impact on the appearance of the house. Due to the lack of set in, this objective is not achieved and the visual harm is evident.

3.7 The loft extension and rear dormer are disproportionately sized for their setting,

unsightly because of their unsympathetic design, and out of keeping with and harmful to the appearance of the house and the area as a whole. The owner has been given the opportunity to remedy this breach of planning control, but has failed to do so. Further delay is not considered appropriate.

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 4.1 The over-development of the property (both at ground and now roof level) has changed

the look and character of the house. The owner has changed the appearance of the house. It is too big for the property and causes great harm to the street scene and the surrounding neighbourhood. This extension is therefore contrary to policies H.6.1 Extensions and Alterations and ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development), of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Residential Extension Guidelines.



4.4 In these circumstances, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action as

recommended at the start of this report. Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines, GPDO This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Cranford

66



21 Eton Avenue, Heston


Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the side extension at this property. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION



enforcement notice in relation to 21 Eton Avenue, Heston requiring within three calendar months:

• Reduction of the side extension to match the details approved in planning permission

00420/21/P1. • The re-instatement of a garage to the ground floor of the two-storey side extension.

• The matching up of the pebbledash finish across the entire front of the house. • Removal of all resultant debris.




compliance with the enforcement notice and the recovery of the Council’s costs. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 This is a semi-detached house on the northern side of this road. The street is

predominantly residential in character. The property has a single storey rear extension and a two-storey side extension.

2.2 Initial enforcement investigations established that the side extension had not been built

in accordance with approved planning permission 00420/21/P1.

Agenda Item 13

68

2

Planning History 2.3 00420/21/P1 – An application was submitted in October 2003 for the erection of two

storey side and single storey rear extensions and alteration to the front porch to dwellinghouse. This application was approved on 18th November 2003.

Enforcement History 2.4 On 5th May 2004 after two complaints alleging that the side extension was not built in

accordance with the approved plans and was flush with the front of the house. There was also suspicion that the extension was being converted to a separate residence.

2.5 It was established that the side extension had not been set back 1.00m as shown on

the approved plans, that the extension was therefore in breach of planning control and a letter was sent to the owners on 14th June 2004. As no attempt was made to either remedy or regularise the breach a committee report was prepared in 2004. However the issue surround the alleged conversion to flats had not been fully investigated.

2.6 A site visit carried out on 26th September 2006 however showed that while the property

had been split into separate units, the occupiers shared toilet and kitchen facilities. The total number of people living in total was reported as being 5 adults and 5 children.


contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’.

69

3

3.2 Expediency is also assessed with regard to the statutory Development Plan, which for


3.3 The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan states the following with

regards to residential extensions:


Proposed extensions and alterations should complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the general street scene. The Council will have regard to special housing needs, such as the housing needs of extended families and people with disabilities, but the extension or alteration must not have an undue adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Extensions should normally be consistent with the Council’s guidelines on house extensions and meet the following criteria; (i) Proportion: The extension should have proportion and balance and must not



avoid loss of light to adjoining properties. Side extensions should be set back one metre from the front elevation, and on corner sites, one metre from the side boundary. Roof extensions should generally be restricted to the main roof slope to the rear of properties.

Policy ENV-B.1.1 Extensions and Alterations The Council will consider all development proposals having regard to the following criteria to ensure that proposals make a positive contribution to overall environmental quality.

3.4 The Residential Extension Guidelines, for residential Two Storey Side & First Floor

Side Extensions specifies the following: - It is very important that side extensions accurately reflect the design of the

main house and remain secondary in their size and appearance - The extension should normally be set back at least 1m from the main front

wall of the house to stop the creation of a ‘terracing effect’. Unauthorised extension 3.5 The owner has breached the approved plans in two separate ways. Firstly the size of

the side extension, in particular the failure to set it back from the front of the house, changes the entire look of the house, and unbalances the size of the pair of semi-detached houses. The failure to incorporate a garage emphasises this

3.6 The Residential Extension Design Guidelines make it clear that it is important that such

extensions are subordinate to the scale of the original house. This is achieved by setting back the front elevation and setting down the roof. Failure to do so unacceptably changes the scale of the house in its setting and, equally important in

70

4

this case, unbalances the appearance of this pair of semi-detached houses, significantly damaging the character and appearance of the local street scene.

3.7 The front porch extends across the side extension and does not conform with the

Council’s guidelines on porches. With the re-instatement of the garage to the ground floor as approved, the porch would have to be replaced anyway.

3.8 As the house is set back both from the road and the neighbouring houses, the size of

the side extension does not affect light to the neighbouring house. But due to its size and design, the extension has a larger negative effect on the street scene as a whole.

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 4.1 The extension has abused planning control, the approved plans clearly set out what

was intended, and would have given the owner a very generous extension to his house. However the failure to firstly include a garage and create a separate albeit not independent unit has caused distress to the local residents. The extension should have been set back from the front of the house as stated in the U.D.P. and also in the Council’s residential guidelines. This extension is therefore contrary to H.6.1 Extensions and Alterations, and ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development), of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.




recommended at the start of this report. Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Heston East

71

Contact: Gerard McCormack Tel: 020 8583 6453 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Planning Committee 159 Brabazon Road, Heston


Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice to achieve compliance with the scheme for a rear dormer roof extension permitted under planning permission reference 00139/159/P1 and a two- storey side extension permitted under planning permission reference 00139/159/P2, as detailed in Section 1 of this report. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee consider it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an Enforcement Notice in relation to 159 Brabazon Road, Heston requiring within six calendar months:

• Reduction in the height of the roofline on the two storey side extension

by 0.5m so that it accords with the approved plans (ref 00139/159/P1 and 00139/159/P2)

• Removal of the second entrance to the property and the return of the

ground floor of the extension to an integral garage in accordance with the approved plans (ref 00139/159/P1 and 00139/159/P2)

• Removal of the rear dormer roof extension from above the two storey

side extension • That the rear roof extension be amended so that it accords with the

rear extension permitted under 00139/159/P1 and achieve the set ins of 0.5m from the top, bottom and side of the pre-existing roofline as shown in the approved plans under that permission.

• Removal of all the resultant building materials and debris from the land

And for:

The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”)

Agenda Item 14

73

2

The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 TCPA 1990 in the event of non-compliance with the enforcement notice and the recovery of the Council’s costs.

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The site consists of a two-storey semi-detached house on the southern side of

Brabazon Road. The street is predominantly residential in character. 2.2 Initial enforcement investigations established that building work at 159 Brabazon Road

was not being carried out in accordance to the approved plans of planning permissions 00139/159/P1 and 00139/159/P2.

Planning History 00139/159/P1 - Erection of a rear roof extension incorporating two roof lights to the front

of the property

Granted 7th February 2002 00139/159/P2 - Erection of a 2 storey side extension with garage, single storey rear

extension and roof extension to existing dwellinghouse Granted 27th June 2002 Enforcement History 2.3 A report came in to the Council in December 2003, reporting an alleged breach of

planning control stating that the building works being carried out were not in accordance with the previously approved plans.

2.4 The site was initially visited on 8th December 2003, where it was established that the

works did not comply with the relevant planning consents. 2.5 Letters dated 16th December 2003, 19th January 2004, 11th March 2004 and 24th

October 2006 were sent to the owner requesting that they make contact with the Council, and alter the development to accord with the two approved schemes. The owner phoned on 18th March 2004, requesting a new set of planning application forms, which were duly sent out. On the 26th October 2006 the owner met the case officer, who reaffirmed to him what he was required to do in order to remedy the breach of planning control at 159 Brabazon Road. At this meeting the owner stated that he would be submitting a planning application. To date no application has been received.


contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’.

74

3

3.2 Expediency is also assessed with regard to the statutory Development Plan, which for

the Borough consists of the London Plan (February 2004) and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which was formally adopted in December 2003.

3.3 The UDP states the following with regards to new development:

Policy ENV-B.1.1 New Development

The Council will consider all development proposals having regard to the following criteria to ensure that proposals make a positive contribution to overall environmental quality.

(A) In relation to the context, form and layout, form and layout of the buildings and

spaces, new development should:

(A.1) relate well to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing, character and use of the adjacent townscape;

(A.2) respect the proportions of existing neighbouring buildings where there are

strong uniform design characteristics, such as doors, windows and roofs; (A.3) enhance the townscape value of an area through good urban design; (A.4) use durable and high quality materials that relate satisfactorily to its

surroundings in terms of colour, scale, texture and pattern 3.4 The UDP states the following with regards to extensions and alterations.

Policy H.6.4 – Extensions and Alterations The criteria relevant to the extension and alterations at 159 Brabazon Road are as follows: (i) Proportion: The extension should have proportion and balance and must not

over-develop the site in terms of mass or density. It must fit in with the shape of the property;


avoid loss of light to adjoining properties. Side extensions should be set back one metre from the front elevation, and on corner sites, one metre from the side boundary. Roof extensions should generally be restricted to the main roof slope to the rear of properties;

(iii) Materials: Proposals should aim to match the type of materials and colour to

both the existing building and the surrounding area;

(iv) Details: Attention should be paid to design details, such as position and style of windows and doors and must complement the existing building and respect the character of the area.

The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines give a more in depth description of

extensions and alterations that would be likely to receive planning permission.

75

4

3.5 The main considerations of the property being extended are as follows:

• The general principle of development • The impact of this use on the neighbours’ living conditions • The compliance of this use with the Council’s supplementary guidance

‘Residential Extension Guidelines’ The impact on the appearance of the subject property and the surrounding area 3.6 With regard to the impact of the two storey side extension on the appearance of the

existing house, the street scene and the local area, the extension as built is out of character with the area generally and is not considered to be subservient to the original house due to it not being set down from the original roof and the inclusion of a roof extension. This is directly contrary to the intent of the Residential Extension Guidelines.

3.7 The Council’s Planning Policies seek to strike a balance between protecting neighbours’ living conditions and the appearance and quality of the local environment against residents’ reasonable expectations of extending and improving their homes.

3.8 The planning approvals given show that extensions to this house are acceptable in

principle. However, as set out below, the scale and design of what the owner has actually built fails to strike this necessary balance.

3.9 The two-storey side extension is not in proportion with the existing house, fails to be

subordinate to the existing building, and is of a design out of keeping with the character of both the existing house and street scene. The extension gives rise to a terracing effect because the first floor is not set back or set down in accordance with policy and guidance. Door and fenestration design are out of keeping with the existing house, particularly as a separate entrance doorway has replaced the approved garage door.

3.10 The roof extension, as built across the full width of the original rear roof slope and the roof of the second rear extension, has additional bulk that is not subservient to the original house. The roof extension has not been set down 0.30m from the main ridge nor set in 0.5m from the sides of the roof. This is not in accordance with the guidance in the Residential Extension Guidelines. The large box dormer style is considered to be out of keeping with the character of the house and streetscene. The roof extension has not been constructed in the centre of the roof slope of the original house or set in appropriately from either side. As such it does not comply with the Residential Extension Guidelines.

3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 4.1 The extension as built involves a rear “loft” extension that is not subservient on this roof

slope due to its excessive width and bulk. The proposal fails to meet the guidance notes in the Residential Extension Guidelines in terms of set ins from the side and eaves. In this particular case it is considered appropriate for an enforcement notice to be served to remedy the breach as the extension has an unacceptable effect on the street scene due to its bulky appearance and sets an undesirable precedent. This roof

76

5

extension is therefore contrary to policies ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s residential extension guidelines.

4.2 It is considered that the two-storey side extension, by way of its positioning, size, scale,

design and appearance, does not respect the character of the dwelling and those that surround it and harms neighbours' living conditions and is therefore contrary to policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) of The Adopted Unitary Development Plan; and the Council's Residential Extension Guidelines.

4.3 The applicant has repeatedly been asked to remedy this breach of planning control but

has failed to do so. Nor has he sought to test whether planning consent would be granted by applying for retrospective permission to retain the unauthorised extensions.


proposed enforcement described in this report can remove the harm caused by these breaches of planning control. In these circumstances, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action as recommended at the start of this report.

Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Heston West

77

1

Contact: Robert Dewhurst Tel: 020 8583 5171 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Committee- 11th January 2007

24 Sutton Hall Road, Heston


Summary To the rear of 24 Sutton Hall Road, Heston a detached outbuilding is being used as a separate residential unit, without the benefit of planning permission. This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the use of the outbuilding as a separate residential unit and the removal of bathroom and kitchen facilities from the outbuilding. 1. RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee consider it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an Enforcement Notice requiring within three calendar months;

• The cessation of the use of the outbuilding as a separate residential unit. • The removal of bathroom and kitchen facilities. • The removal of all resultant debris

And for;

The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with this Enforcement Notice and the carrying out of works in default under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 7 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991), together with the Council’s costs.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 2.2 2.3

The property is a two-storey, three bedroom semi-detached dwellinghouse, located on the northern side of Sutton Hall Road. The character of the area is predominately residential comprising pairs of semi-detached houses and is not within a Conservation Area. The road, which extends beyond Sonia Gardens to the rear of 24 Sutton Hall Road is unadopted and privately owned and therefore is not a public highway under the Highways Act of 1980. A planning application (ref; 1093/24/PI) was granted in June 1962 for the erection of a building to be used as a garage and coalbunker. A planning application (ref; 1093/24/P2) was granted in March 1992 for the erection of a garage at the rear of the garden. The development that is the subject of this report is different in size, shape and use. Following a complaint to the Planning Enforcement Team, in August 2005 an enforcement investigation established that a detached building to the rear of 24 Sutton Hall Road was being used as a separate residential unit without the benefit of planning permission.

Agenda Item 15

79

2

2.4 2.5

In response to this planning enforcement investigation a letter was sent to the owner of the property in November 2005 out lining the breach of planning control. As a result of the enforcement investigation the owner submitted a retrospective planning application for a Certificate of lawfulness for the retention of existing outbuilding for use as a self-contained unit, at rear garden of existing house. This Certificate of lawful was refused for the following reasons: - ‘Insufficient evidence has been submitted to establish that the outbuilding’s use as a self-contained residential unit has been established for a period of over 4 years. As such, the building is not immune from enforcement action under Sec 171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore is considered to be contrary to the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, with regard to the building being for ancillary use. As such, the Certificate of Lawfulness is not granted’.

3. ANALYSIS

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Expediency of taking enforcement action The expediency of enforcement action is assessed with reference to guidance contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’. Expediency is also assessed with regard to the statutory Development Plan, which for the Borough consists of the London Plan (February 2004) and the Unitary Development Plan (U.D.P.), which was formally adopted in December 2003.The relevant UDP Policies are ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development), H.6.3 (Backland Development/Infill Development) and T.1.4 (Car & Cycle Parking & Servicing Facilities). These policies emphasise the need for the careful consideration to the proportion, position, materials, design, vehicle access, loss of amenity in terms of outlook and open aspect and overlooking. Other relevant material is provided in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, in particular section 6 (detached outbuildings) of the Residential Extension Guidelines, which were adopted in October 2003 following public consultation. Within Section 6 the guidelines state that; ‘The outbuilding must only be used for normal domestic uses relating to the residential use of the main house. While the outbuilding can be connected to the electricity, water and TV/telephone supplies of the main house, if you intend to use the outbuilding as a separate residential unit, the proposal will be refused planning permission. The creation of a new residential unit in the rear garden could lead to a number of privacy, overlooking, noise and disturbance problems.’ The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Residential Standards and Controls’, which was adopted in February 1997, is also of relevance, in particular sections 10 (private amenity space), 11 (roads, footpaths, parking and servicing) and 12 (internal space provision). Unauthorised residential use of outbuilding This outbuilding does not cover more than 50% of the garden area, it is over 5 metres from the dwellinghouse and the height of the ridged roof is less than 4 metres. If the bathroom and kitchen facilities were removed, and the unautherised use of the outbuilding as a residential unit ceased, the outbuilding would constitute permitted

80

3

development.

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10

The outbuilding has been divided into 3 rooms comprising a kitchen, living/dining room, and bathroom. The kitchen contains fully fitted units and several appliances including a cooker, washing machine, boiler, sink, fridge, microwave and a set of chairs with dining table. The bathroom contains a shower, W.C. and washbasin, and the living/dining room contains a set of chairs and a table. There was evidence of residential use (i.e. dental and toilet products, fruit and laundry in the kitchen).

The key issues in assessing the expediency of taking formal enforcement action in respect of the continued use of the outbuilding as a separate unit are:

• The general principle of the use of buildings in rear gardens of properties as separate residential units.

• The impact of the use of this residential unit upon the surrounding area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

• Compliance with the Council’s adopted Guidelines with regards to floor area, room size, amenity space and parking provisions.

The use of the detached outbuilding as a separate residential unit is contrary to Council’s adopted UDP policies. The Council consistently takes enforcement action against the use of outbuildings within the rear gardens of properties as separate residential units, and such action usually takes the form of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the unauthorised use. There is no garden or allocated private amenity space and the number of people living within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse could lead to an increase in noise, traffic and general disturbance, results in loss of privacy and is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of both the dwellinghouse and neighbouring properties. There is a pedestrian but no vehicle access to the rear of the property for the occupants of the outbuilding to use. The detached outbuilding has no garden or private amenity

81

4

3.11 3.12 4 4.1

space and is thus contrary to the Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997), Residential Standards and controls, section 10, paragraph 4, which states that 25 sq metres of private amenity space is required for each unit of three or less habitable rooms. The SPG says ‘ that 2 parking spaces in total should be provided for the 3 bed dwelling, and one parking space for the detached dwelling, there is off street parking at the front of the dwellinghouse for 2 vehicles, which can be accessed independently, therefore there is a short fall of one parking space. It is considered that the use of the detached outbuilding as a separate unit is likely to lead to an increase in the amount of vehicular activity to the property, any additional vehicles would need to park on the highway, reducing the width of the public highway and restricting the free flow of traffic on a road that already has limited street parking, resulting in conditions prejudicial to both highway and pedestrian safety, and as a result this conflicts with policy T.1.4 of the Unitary Development Plan. It is therefore concluded that the unauthorised use of the outbuilding as a separate residential units results in conditions that are detrimental to the occupiers of the outbuilding and those of adjoining residential properties, in loss of amenities in terms of traffic, noise, private amenity space, living conditions and general disturbance. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION It is considered that the detached outbuilding used as a separate residential unit within the curtilage of this single-family house is not in a suitable location for such a use. It does not provide suitable living accommodation for the occupiers of the unit in relation to the Council’s policies for internal layout, garden space, off street parking, and servicing, it harms residents’ living conditions at neighbouring properties, there is an unacceptable increase in noise, traffic, and general disturbance with an increase in loss of privacy for both the occupants of the dwellinghouse and neighbouring properties.

4.2 4.3

Accordingly the residential use of the detached outbuilding as a self contained dwelling is an over development of the site, it does not satisfy the principles of infill development, nor does it provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future residents, and there is no suitable access to the site nor is there any adequate on/off street parking. Therefore it would harm neighbours’ living conditions, the appearance of the neighbouring properties and the wider street scene area. Accordingly the residential use of the detached outbuilding is contrary to policies ENV-B.1.1 (All New Development), H.4.1 (Housing Standards and Guidelines), and H.6.3 (Back land Development/Infill Development) and T.1.4 (Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. No action short of the enforcement notice proposed would overcome the harm and remedy the breach of planning control, it is therefore considered expedient to take enforcement action as recommended at the start of this report.

Background Papers: 1. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Heston East

82

1

Contact: Robert Dewhurst Tel: 020 8583 5171 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Committee 11th January 2007

15 Browning Way, Hounslow


Summary This report seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the conversion of this house into two self-contained flats without planning permission. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION



enforcement notice in relation to 15 Browning way, Hounslow requiring within two calendar months:

• Cessation of the use of the property as two self contained residential units. • Removal of the kitchen facilities from one of the self contained residential units. • The restoration of the property to a single-family dwellinghouse. • Removal of all resultant debris.




compliance with the enforcement notice and the recovery of the Council’s costs. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 This is a two-storey semi detached house located on the southern side of this road.

The street is predominantly residential in character. The property has a single storey rear extension; it may have been permitted development; it is in any event, immune from enforcement as it is over four years old.

2.2 Initial enforcement investigations established that the house has been converted into

two self-contained flats. In response to this investigation the owner indicated while on site, that the property had been flats for ‘a long period of time’, a request for any documents or evidence to support this was made to the owner; the Enforcement Team has received no such evidence. The Council’s records indicate that the property still has the status of a single-family house.

Agenda Item 16

84

2

2.3 There is no planning history for this site. 3 Enforcement History 3.1 An investigation was setup in January 2006 to investigate an alleged conversion of a

semi-detached house into two self-contained flats. A site visit in June 2006 confirmed that a sub-division of the house had taken place and a letter was sent in August to the owners of the property outlining that planning permission should have been obtained and inviting them to submit an application to attempt to regularise the breach of planning control, or convert the property back to a single family house, the owner did not reply. No further attempt was made to contact the owner from this point.

3.2 Council records show the property as being a single dwelling. There is no history of

planning consent for the conversion of the property into two flats. The rear extension was built over four years ago when the property was in use as a single-family house, should the property have been two flats at the time of the erection of the rear extension it would have required planning permission. However it is likely that the conversion of the property into two flats took place after the completion of the rear extension.

4 ANALYSIS Expediency in general 4.1 The expediency of enforcement action is assessed with reference to guidance



4.3 The U.D.P states the following with regards to conversion of houses to flats:

Policy H.3.4 Conversions of Houses to Flats 4.4 The Council will resist the sub division of small houses suitable for single-family

occupation and will normally only allow the conversion of larger dwellings to flats provided the certain criteria are met. Those relevant to this case are:

(i) properties considered suitable for conversion have a minimum original net

internal floor area of 120sq.m (1,300sq.ft) except in situations not suitable for families;

(ii) the converted property must provide at least one family sized unit (3 bed

spaces), preferably at ground floor, except in situations not suitable for families;

(iv) the converted property should have regard to the Council’s guidelines for amenity space and minimum room sizes in conversions (see SPG)

(v) there shall be no undue loss of amenity for neighbouring occupiers or the

surrounding area; and

(vi) where possible, the converted property should have regard to the access standards for people with disabilities.

85

3

Conversion of dwellinghouse into two flats 4.5 At present the dwellinghouse has been converted into two flats, one on the ground

floor and one on the first floor. Both are self-contained with separate kitchens and bathrooms. The floor space of the house including extension is just over 96m2, this is divided 54m2, for the ground floor and 42m2 first floor respectively.

4.6 Policy H.3.4 Conversions of Houses to Flats seeks at least one family sized unit (3 bed

spaces), preferably at ground floor, except in situations not suitable for families. In this case, no family sized accommodation is provided on the ground floor.

4.7 The property was originally built for occupation by a single-family house and was only

84m2. The conversion has resulted in the creation of two units with substandard accommodation in terms of floor space under 44m2 for the top flat and no provision of private useable amenity areas. The extension gives the ground floor flat an additional floor space of 12m2, and the shared garden is reduced accordingly. Flats for use of more than one occupant require a minimum of 45m2 internal floor space, while a larger unit for three or more people would require 57m2.

Upstairs kitchen Downstairs kitchen 4.8 The conversion of this dwellinghouse into two flats is likely to generate higher levels of

activity particularly in terms of visitors therefore resulting in increased vehicular activity to the property as well as increased noise. The street is entirely residential in character, comprising single-family houses and therefore the noise as well as general disturbance generated from this conversion results in an adverse effect for the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

4.10 The two flats are not easily accessible for people with disabilities or mobility problems 4.11 The off street-parking requirement for a single-family house of this type is a total of two

spaces. Two parking spaces are provided to the front of the property, so the conversion of the property to two single units would not increase the need for any more parking spaces. Due to limited on street parking in this area, with little or no parking available, the increase in vehicle activity to the address could result in future parking problems.

86

4

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 5.1 The conversion of the property into two self contained flats has resulted in substandard

accommodation for the occupants arising from the unsatisfactory room sizes, as well as inadequate provisions of private amenity spaces and no family sized unit on the ground floor. It also results in the loss of a small family house, for which there is an identified need in the Borough. This conversion is therefore contrary to policy H.3.4 (Conversion Of Houses to Flats), and H.4.1 (Housing Standards and Guidelines) of the Unitary Development Plan.

5.2 The owner has been encouraged to submit planning applications to the Council to test

whether the flats could be regularised. She has failed to do this. In the absence of such applications, this report assesses the planning merits of the unauthorised developments and has concluded that, were applications to be submitted, they would certainly not be recommended for approval.




recommended at the start of this report. Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Heston west

87

Contact: Gerard McCormack Tel: 020 8583 6453 E-Mail: [email protected]


16 Marnell Way, Hounslow


Summary An unauthorised outbuilding has been erected in the rear garden of this semi-detached house. The outbuilding requires planning permission as it has a mono-pitched roof and is higher than 3 metres above ground level. This report seeks authority for an Enforcement Notice to be served requiring the reduction in height of the outbuilding to not more than 3 metres above ground level, so that it will then constitute ‘permitted development’ and not require planning permission. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee consider it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for: All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an Enforcement Notice requiring within two calendar months:

• Reduction in height of the outbuilding so that no part of it is higher than 3 metres above ground level and;

• The removal of all resultant debris

And for: The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with this Enforcement Notice and the carrying out of works in default under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 7 of the planning and Compensation Act 1991) and the recovery of the Council’s costs.

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The site that is the subject of this report comprises a two-storey semi detached

property, located on the southern side of Marnell Way. The character of the area is predominately residential comprising pairs of semi-detached and rows of terraced properties.

2.2 The Planning Enforcement Team received a complaint in July 2003 alleging that a

detached building was being built in the rear garden of 16 Marnell Way. A site inspection by a planning enforcement officer in October 2003 subsequently established that the outbuilding had been constructed and was more than 3 metres high. On the 6th January 2004 letter was sent to the owner informing them that they were in breach

Agenda Item 17

89

2

of planning control. A planning contravention notice was also enclosed however this was never returned to the Council. Failure to do so is a prosecutable offence.

2.3 On the 7th December 2006 a site visit was conducted where it was established that

there was an outbuilding with a mono-pitched roof that was over 3 metres in height. The outbuilding is positioned along the boundary line with number 18 Marnell and its scale is considered to be oppressive and cumbersome on the streetscene.

3.0 ANALYSIS Expediency of taking enforcement action 3.1 The expediency of enforcement action is assessed with reference to guidance


the Borough consists of the London Plan (February 2004) and the Unitary Development Plan (U.D.P.), which was formally adopted in December 2003. Other relevant material is provided in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled, Residential Extension Guidelines’, in particular Section 7 relating to detached outbuildings.

3.3 The residential extension guidelines recommend that a detached outbuilding must be

positioned to minimise any overshadowing, leave a practical amount of garden, and respect the design and appearance of nearby houses. The guidelines also recommend that outbuildings should be setin from the boundaries of the property by at least 1 metre, and that the style of the roof of the outbuilding, and the materials used in its construction, should match the original property.

COMMENTS

3.4 The Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines recommend that outbuildings should

be set in from the side and rear boundaries of the curtailage of a dwellinghouse by at least 1 metre, in order to ensure that there is no loss if amenity to the occupiers of the adjacent properties. In this case, the outbuilding is not set in at all from the side and rear boundaries of the curtailage of the dwellinghouse.

3.5 It is therefore considered that the siting of the outbuilding causes loss of outlook and

amenity to the occupiers of adjoining properties. The greatest harm is caused to the occupier of No. 18 Marnell Way, as the outbuilding is 4m high (approx) and stretches along the boundary with this property. This results in a considerable loss of outlook and a small amount of light during the late evening due to the orientation of the sun.

3.6 The outbuilding is set forward of the front building of the properties on the southern half

of Marnell Way, namely numbers 18 through to 40 line. It is considered that the height, bulk and scale of the building make it uncharacteristic and obtrusive which combined significantly reduce the openness of the Marnell Way corner.

3.7 Furthermore, the mono-pitched roof of the outbuilding contrasts with the roof design of

the original house, which has a ridged roof. Therefore the detached outbuilding fails to complement the original house.

90

3

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 4.1 The outbuilding, by reason of its size, position and appearance in relation to

neighbouring properties, is considered to be unduly obtrusive and detrimental to the outlook and amenities of adjoining occupiers, contrary to Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) and H.6.4 (Extensions and Alterations) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (December 2003) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘Residential Extension Guidelines’.




recommended at the start of this report. Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Residential Extension Guidelines This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Hounslow West

91

1

Contact: Harsha Bhundia Tel: 020 8583 5180 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area Committee - 11 January 2007

ST ALBANS FARM, STAINES ROAD, HOUNSLOW

Report by: Director of Planning This report seeks Members’ authority to serve enforcement notices in respect of various unauthorised changes of use on the site known as St. Albans Farm, Staines Road. 1.0 RECOMMENDATION


• All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of enforcement

notices in relation to St Albans Farm, Staines Road, Hounslow requiring within eight calendar months:

• PLOT 1 – cease the use of the land for the storage and sorting of earth, spoil,

demolition waste, builder’s rubble and waste materials in connection with a waste transfer station. Cease the use of the land for the storage of skips. Cease the use of the land for the storage of earth moving equipment, shipping containers and civil engineering equipment. Cease the use of the land for the parking and maintenance of vehicles and lorries. Cease the use of the land for the storage of cargo containers.

• PLOT 3 – cease the use of the land for the storage and sorting of earth, spoil,

demolition waste, hardcore and waste materials in connection with a waste transfer station. Cease the use of the land for the storage of earth moving equipment, shipping containers and civil engineering equipment.

• PLOT 6 – cease the use of the land for the stationing of a caravan. Cease the use of

the land for the storage, sorting and transfer of waste materials. Remove all resultant debris from the premises.

• PLOT 7 – Cease the use of the land for the storage of waste materials.

• PLOT 9 – Cease the use of the land as a scaffolding storage business.

• PLOT 10 - Cease the use of the land for storage and parking of vehicles and stationing

of a caravan.

• PLOT 12- Cease the use of the land for the parking lorries and skip lorries and storage of skips. Cease the use of the land for the storage and sorting of waste.

• Remove all resultant debris from the land • The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with

Agenda Item 18

93

2

the above enforcement notices, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”)


compliance with the above enforcement notices and the recovery of the costs for doing so.

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The St Albans site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt as designated in the Councils

adopted Unitary Development Plan. Formerly the site comprised a sand and gravel pit, subsequently filled with rubble waste, and has been used for various commercial and industrial purposes since 1950’s. It occupies an irregularly shaped area of some 2.83 ha (7 acres) at the junction of Staines Road and Green Lane. To the east of the site is the Central Park Industrial Estate comprising industrial units. To the south of the site is the extensive area of Hounslow Heath, which incorporates a golf course. The site is internally divided into many areas 12 plots most of which are separated by way of boundary fencing of corrugated metal, chain link, concrete or wooden panels.

2.2 Enforcement investigations have established that several unauthorised uses are taking

place on this site without the benefit of planning permission. 2.3 The owners have been contacted and invited to make an application to remedy or

regularise these breaches of planning control and despite a meeting and exchange of several letters no action has been taken in attempt to resolve these breaches.




3.3 The London Plan and Unitary Development Plan together are constituents of the

development plan. The London Plan was adopted in February 2004 and has been the development plan for London since September 2004. The Unitary Development Plan was adopted in December 2003 .The London Plan is the strategic plan setting out an integrated social, economic and environmental framework for the future development of London. The Unitary Development Plan has greater relevance for local borough-wide issues. If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document adopted, approved or published (section 38(5) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 1990. Of relevance to the site is policy 3D.8 (Green Belt).

94

3

3.4 PPG 1 sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable

development through the planning system. 3.5 PPG 2 makes clear that there is a general presumption against inappropriate

development in the Green Belt and that such development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances are needed to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

3.6 PPG 10 sets out the overall objective of Government policy on waste, as set out in the

strategy for sustainable development. 3.7 PPG 23 sets out the Governments policy on planning and pollution control. 3.8 The Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-N.1.1 and ENV-N.1.2

also reflect the paragraph above. Policy ENV-N.1.1 states that the main aim of Green Belt in Hounslow is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The four purposes including land in the Green Belt in Hounslow are:

(a) to prevent neighbouring built up areas from merging into one another (b) to check the unrestricted sprawl of greater London (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and; (d) to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other

urban land. 3.9 Policy ENV-N.1.2 states that the open low-lying character of Hounslow’s Green Belt

provides opportunities for a diverse range of land uses including outdoor recreation, landscape amenity and nature conservation. In order to protect and enhance its open character, land within the Green Belt should be retained only as open land and kept free from built development. The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their sitting, materials or design.

Background 3.10 The St Albans Farm site was shown as Green belt and Public Open Space in the

County of Middlesex Development Plan in 1951 and in the Initial Development Plan in 1965. Its Green Belt status was reviewed and maintained in the Council’s West Area Local Plan adopted in 1989 where it constituted Target Area 20, together with the land to the north, now developed commercially.

3.11 In 1992 the Council’s Planning and Transport Committee approved a Green Belt

management plan to provide a strategic framework for the long term enhancement of the Green Belt as well as shorter term proposals. The plan proposed that action should be taken to secure the removal of inappropriate uses such as the car breakers, and waste transfer stations by way of compulsory purchase and enforcement action and restore the site to an appropriate Green Belt use. These provisions are now included In the Comprehensive Project Area 4 of the UDP relating specifically to this site.

95

4

3.12 In 1996 the Council agreed a strategy for the site, which highlighted that due to the Council’s financial restraints, and the lawfulness of plots 2, 4 and 5, that a policy of comprehensive treatment was no longer feasible and the objectives of the new approach were to reduce the number of activities within the site by taking enforcement action against areas 1, 3, 6 and other unauthorised development as well as rationalisation of a reduced number of activities within the site to achieve greater openness. Part of this strategy was also to provide landscaping along the sides to screen the activities in the centre of the site and, if possible, by moving the access to the site to Green Lane, this however, has not transpired.

3.13 St Albans Farm has been currently internally divided into 12 plots. Between 1992 and

1993 six enforcement notices were served relating to plots 1,2,3,4,5,6, these were all appealed by several appellants and a public inquiry followed in 1994. The Inspector upheld all the notices save one relating to plot 2, which was quashed. However, these notices were successfully appealed to the High Court by the appellants on a point of law. The Court ordered in November 1994 that the decision to uphold the notices and to refuse to grant planning permission be quashed, and that the appeals be remitted to the Secretary of State for rehearing and re-determination. The Secretary of State appealed against that decision to the court of appeal. The Court of Appeal ordered in February 1996 that the Secretary of State’s appeal be dismissed and that the decision of the court be affirmed.

3.14 The court’s decisions were particularly concerned with the appeals against the

enforcement notices issued on plots 4 & 5 on a point of law relating to the period within which immunity to such enforcement proceedings was acquired by the appellants.

3.15 In order to place the breaches of planning control in context, following are summaries

of each of the individual plots identifying their current status whether lawful or otherwise. These plots are shown on a map appended to this report.

Plot 1 3.16 An enforcement notice was issued in 1992 requiring the discontinuance of the use of

this area for the parking and maintenance of vehicles in connection with a vehicle supply and transport contractors business. This notice was appealed in 1994 and the Inspector declined to grant planning permission for the use on Green Belt grounds and dismissed the appeal.

3.17 The appellant subsequently appealed to the High Court and it was held that the

Inspectors decision and the appeals should be quashed and that the Secretary of State should re-determine this appeal along with various others. This was later Confirmed by the Court of Appeal in February 1996. The second Inspector after a second public inquiry upheld the notice and the appellants were given 12 months to comply with the notice. This notice was complied with.

96

5

3.18 At present this plot is being used for the storage of skips, open storage and sorting of earth, spoil, demolition waste, builder’s rubble and waste materials in connection with a waste transfer station. As well as storage of earth moving equipment, shipping containers, cargo containers and civil engineering equipment and the parking and maintenance of vehicles and lorries. This is clearly a different use from that which existed in 1994 and which had been abandoned by 2003.

Plot 2 3.19 This plot is sited on the prominent corner of Green Lane and Staines Road. It is

entirely hard surfaced and is used for haulage yard and waste compacting/transfer station. There are substantial buildings on the site. An enforcement notice was served in 1992 requiring the cessation of the waster transfer aspect of this use.

3.20 At the 1994 Public Inquiry the Inspector found that the waste-transfer/waster storage

uses carried on were immune from enforcement action and accordingly the appeal was upheld. This use is therefore considered lawful.

Plot 3 3.21 In 1992 enforcement notices were served on this plot requiring the discontinuance of

the use of the land for storage and breaking of motor vehicles and for sale of spare parts. In the 1994 public inquiry this plot was been divided into 4 smaller compounds of various sizes known as 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D.

3.22 The following notices were served:

3B- Discontinue the use of the land for one or both of the following (a) vans or (b) skips in served in 1997. 3C- Discontinue the use of the land for storage of skips in served in 1998 3D- Discontinue the use of the land for the parking of skips, skip lorries, lorry trailers and bulk waste trailers in served in 1997

3.23 Further evidence was examined at the January 1997 inquiry and the Inspector

concluded that these different uses represented a degree of compliance with the enforcement notices issued in 1992. These notices were upheld at the second Inquiry in 1997 and a unilateral undertaking was given in 1998 in connection with the above enforcement notice relating to area 3C requiring the clearance of all skips from the land.

3.24 At present this area is no longer subdivided into 4 separate areas and it appears to

have merged with area 1. The area appears to be used for open stock piling, storage and sorting of earth spoil, demolition waste, hardcore and other waste in connection with a waste transfer station. The waste is openly stored in the form of mounds and in some places the mounds reach as high as 12 metres. This use does not benefit from planning permission and is clearly not the use found to be lawful in 1997.

Plot 4 3.25 This area is in use as a car breakers yard. An enforcement notice was served requiring

the discontinuance of the use of the land for the storage and breaking of motor vehicles and for the storage and sale of spare parts and motor engines in 1992 and

97

6

withdrawn and re-served in 1993, however, after the Court of Appeal’s decision this notice was withdrawn as the use was held to be lawful. This plot is also known as 1 Green Lane.

3.26 In October 2006 the occupier of this plot applied for a Lawful Development Certificate

for the existing use as a car breakers yard, which was granted in December 2006 (application reference 00507/1/LAW4) therefore this use is not in breach of planning control.

Plot 5 3.27 This area has a similar history to that of plot 4. This site is occupied by Heathrow

Japanese car spares. The site is lawfully in use as a car breakers yard and the occupier of this plot obtained a certificate of lawful use from the Council for its current use in 2003 (application reference 01054/K/LAW3). Therefore the uses occurring on plots 4 and 5 are lawful and the Local Authority has no reason to take any further action against these uses under planning legislation.

Plot 6 3.28 Previously this site was used for the storage of motor vehicles, scrap metal, and earth

moving machinery. An enforcement notice was served in 1992 seeking the cessation of this use. Following the appeal to the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Secretary of State upheld the notice and the owners were given 12 months to comply with the notice.

3.29 This notice was complied with and in 1999 this area was vacant. At the present time

this plot appears to be used for the storage and transfer of waste and stationing of caravans without the benefit of planning permission.

Plot 7 3.30 This area has been created since the 1994 Public Inquiry and was demarcated by the

erection of metal fencing some 3.5m high. This site was occupied by Connell Ltd for the parking and maintenance of items such as vans, heavy-lorries, earth-moving plant and equipment, mobile generators, road rollers, dumper trucks, etc.

3.31 In 1997 the Council issued enforcement notices requiring:

(a) The removal of the fencing erected around this plot and discontinue the use of the land for the parking of lorries vans earth moving equipment portable buildings oil tanks shipping containers plant timber and civil engineering equipment.

(b) Discontinue the use of the land for the storage of lorries vans earth moving equipment portable buildings oil tank shipping containers earth moving equipment portable buildings oil tanks shipping containers plant timber and civil engineering equipment.

3.32 Investigations have established that the fencing around this plot and shipping

containers have not been removed. Authority to prosecute this breach of planning control already exists and will be followed up. At the present time this area is also being used for the storage of waste without the benefit of planning permission.

98

7

Plot 8 3.33 This area has a lengthy history. The site was lawfully used for general engineering and

industrial purposes dating back to the 1950’s. There is a substantial workshop building adjacent to the Staines Road boundary, which was erected without consent. A long series of temporary permissions was granted for its retention, however the last expired in 1974. By 1992 this building had became immune from planning enforcement. This known as building 1.

3.34 Just prior to the 1997 Inquiry a second building known as building 2 was erected

without permission. An enforcement notice requiring removal of second building was served in 1997. Subsequently an appeal against this notice was lodged and dismissed in September 1997. This notice became due for compliance on 26th March 1998. This notice has not been complied with and therefore the building at present is illegal. Authority for prosecution exists in respect of this unauthorised building and will be pursued.

The following plots were not included in the sweep of enforcement action in 1992 and have never been the subject of formal enforcement action. Plot 9 3.35 Records indicate that previous uses on this land may have been for light engineering

uses but the area was vacant for some years. At the present time it appears to be used for the storage of scaffolding without the benefit of planning permission, which started at some point after 2003.

Plot 10 3.36 This site was not included in the sweep of the 1992 enforcement notices, as there was

insufficient evidence of a clear breach of planning control on the land. Records indicate a long history of business use. At present this site appears to be used for parking of vehicles owned by employees and stationing of a caravan, which it is understood, started at some point after 1999.

Plot 12 3.37 This plot is also referred to as “plot 2” on previous planning records. This site was

previously occupied by A E Procter Ltd and used for the storage of rubble and hardcore in organised areas of storage. The site has been the subject of numerous temporary planning permissions since 1983 with the last permission expiring in February 1997. The present waste transfer use is therefore unauthorised and requires planning permission. This area is also being used for the parking of lorries.

3.38 Therefore to summarise the uses on the following plots are in breach with clear

unauthorised uses:

1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12

99

8

3.39 Planning policy Guidance 18 “enforcing planning control” states that in considering any enforcement action, the decisive issues for the Local Planning Authority should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting public protection in the public interest.

3.40 The character and appearance of the site given the uses described above are

considered incompatible with the locality in view of the fact that the site

(i) is in the Green Belt (ii) is situated in a prominent location being beside two busy roads one of which is a

classified A road. (iii) adjoins the River Crane which is an attractive landscaped area (iv) is immediately opposite the entrance to the Hounslow Heath Golf course (v) adjoins landscaped open space to the east.

3.41 The uses being undertaken on the site are clearly incompatible with the Green Belt

status of the land and are seriously harmful to the character and appearance of the area. They are also contrary to the policies set out in the Unitary Development Plan, which seeks to protect Green Belt against inappropriate development and uses.

3.42 The Inspector at the second public inquiry concluded the following:

National and local policies set a strong presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and PPG2 makes clear that such development is by definition harmful. The appellants do not dispute that the uses to which the notices apply do not fall with the categories of development recognised as appropriate and the onus rests upon them to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances which nevertheless justify the grant of planning permission. The issue therefore is whether there are very special circumstances such as to outweigh these major objections and justify granting planning permission. In my view it clearly cannot be argued that very special circumstances arise because of an absence of visual harm; such harm is manifest.

I share the view of the UDP inspector that despite the current uses on the site, there is an important visual relationship between the open Green Belt land, which adjoins the site on 3 sides, and that permanent loss of the site to the Green Belt would erode the break between Hounslow and Bedfont and further undermine the openness of an already fragmented Green Belt. His conclusion that the Council’s past inaction did not amount to the exceptional circumstances which could justify removal of the site from the Green Belt was reached without there being any certainty either of successful enforcement action against certain uses or of capital funds being made available to acquire other unsuitable uses. I do not therefore consider that the changes in circumstances since the previous inquiry have so altered the situation of the site as to remove its potential to serve a Green Belt purpose, although clearly there will be an opportunity to review this and the success of the strategy when the UDP is reviewed. Accordingly I do not accept that very special circumstances current exists which would justify granting permanent planning permission on the deemed applications.

100

9

3.43 The UDP Inspector who considered objections to the inclusion of St. Albans Farm in

the Green Belt in 1994 stated the following in his report;

10.8.6 I believe travellers on Staines Road and southbound along Green Lane are acutely aware of this site in the context of the extensive open land to the south…….Despite the current uses on this land, I consider an important visual relationship exists which, if permanently lost, would seriously erode the break between Hounslow and Bedfont which has a legitimate Green Belt purpose in separating the 2 communities, thus promoting their separate identities. Despite and to an extent because of the erosion of open land in this locality over the years, I am in no doubt that the proper future of this site is for Green Belt uses.

3.44 Presently areas 2, 4, 5, and 8 benefit from lawful uses and the local authority are

unable to enforce against these uses except for building 2 located in area 8, which is illegal. Plot 4 is located on the northern end of the site fronting on to Green Lane. Plot 2 is located in the south eastern part of the site bounded by Staines Road and Green Lane and Plot 8 is located on the south west of the site bounded by Staines Road. The unlawful uses occurring on areas 1, 3, 6. 7, 9, 10 and 12 are sandwiched between lawful uses on the southern and eastern part of the land and the industrial site to the north.

3.45 Therefore even if the unauthorised uses are cleared from the site, full clearance of the

site and restoration of the entire site to an appropriate Green Belt function cannot be achieved. However, it is considered that the unlawful uses on the land are inappropriate and do not fall within the scope of those identified as acceptable in PPG2 or policies ENV-N.1.1, ENV-N.1.2, ENV- B.1.1, ENV-P.1.9 of the Unitary Development Plan. It is considered that the inappropriate uses on the land should be cleared where possible to reduce the harmful uses (both to the visual amenity of the area and environment) and create more openness of the site. It is not considered that very special circumstances exist that might justify a departure from the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

3.46 Whilst it cannot be denied that the unauthorised uses on the land are sources for

employment in the locality it is not considered that this reasoning overcomes the detrimental harm to nor justifies inappropriate development in this Green Belt. The developments and uses on this land are therefore contrary to policies ENV-N.1.1 and ENV-N.1.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Background Papers: The Unitary Development Plan (U.D.P), PPG2, PPG18 This report has been or is due to be considered by: Heston and Cranford Area Committee This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: Cranford

101

Contact: Bharat Patel Tel: 020 8583 4871 E-Mail: [email protected]

Heston and Cranford Area (Planning) Committee – 11 January 2007

SCHOOL TRAVEL PLAN (Safer Routes to School) , NORWOOD GREEN SCHOOL - CRANFORD

Report by: Director of Street Management & Public Protection

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 This report outlines the progress to date on the Norwood Green School - School Travel

Plan (Safer Routes to Schools) project and seeks the Committee's approval to the scheme designed to improve the walking and cycling environment and road safety in the vicinity of the school.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 That the Area Committee:

2.1.1 Notes the proposals to introduce a Safer Routes to School Scheme accessing Norwood Green School.

2.1.2 Approves the proposal for the implementation of the Safer Routes to School

scheme. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Norwood Green School is one of the schools included in the Borough’s Safer Routes to

School programme for the 2006–2007 financial year. In liaison with the school, the Road Safety Team within the Traffic Section has been involved in the production of the School Travel Plan which is a requirement prior to any physical measures being funded by Transport for London (TfL).

3.2 These plans are intended to reduce short car journeys by encouraging parents and children to walk and cycle to school and by using public transport.

3.3 Funding from Transport for London (TfL) during 2005/06 has enabled the Road Safety

Officers to work with a number of schools in the development of their School Travel Plans. Norwood Junior Green Junior School completed their first travel plan in April 2005, and have recently reviewed and updated their actions and is available to download from www.hounslowSTP.org/Norwood-Green-Junior. The School Travel Plan process includes the surveying of staff, parents and pupils to identify existing travel patterns and highlight any areas of concern that they encounter on their route to school. As a result of this survey, a number of initiatives have been implemented which include additional cycle stands within the school, cycle training, promotion of public transport use and road safety training.

Agenda Item 19

103

2

3.4 In the submission of the Borough Spending Plan for 2006/07 to TfL, proposals were included for the introduction of a Safer Routes to School scheme on the roads around the school. The Council was successful in securing £60,000 from TfL for all costs, including officer’s time, for the proposals.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Consultation has already taken place with staff at Norwood Green School who have

been forwarded the scheme proposals (APPENDIX A) and who welcome and support the proposed measures.

4.2 An information letter (APPENDIX B) has been sent to all the residents within the area informing them of the proposals.

4.3 Plans of the scheme were distributed to the emergency services and bus operators

who attended the Traffic Management Liaison Meeting held at the Council offices on 30th November 2006 and no objections were received. The Police, who were unable to attend the meeting, have been forwarded the plans of the proposals for their comments.

5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 The government has realised that getting pupils to school is a big cause of congestion

and wants to try and reduce the number of people coming to school by cars. 5.2 It is often quicker and easier to walk to school than to drive, particularly over a short

distance of a mile or less. As well as reducing pollution and congestion by removing cars from the road, walking is also a great form of exercise.

5.3 Over longer distances a bike is a good way of getting to and from school. It is also

clean, relatively cheap and often just as quick as driving. 5.4 The main aims of the Safer Routes to School scheme are to:

• To make walking and cycling easier and a safer choice of travel. • Improve the safety of vulnerable road users such as children, cyclists and the

elderly and disabled. • Improve safety in the vicinity of the local school. • Reduce the number of parents driving to school. • Reduce the environmental impact of traffic near the school.

5.5 Due to the nature of the wide footway on the north side of North Hyde Lane and the

need to retain as much parking as possible the following is proposed: -

• A two way cycle track on the footway outside Norwood Green Junior School that will run from the junction with Raleigh Road to opposite 142 Thorncliffe Road and then on the opposite footway from 124 to 138 Thorncliffe Road.

• The reconstruction of the footway along North Hyde Lane to make walking a

more desirable option.

104

3

• The provision of parking to include carriageway parking on the south side of North Hyde Lane and footway parking (two wheels on the footway and two wheels on the carriageway) along the north side of North Hyde Lane. This will reduce the risks to pedestrians wishing to cross the road.

5.6 Surveys undertaken as part of the School Travel Plan revealed that a large number of

children who attended Norwood Green Junior School came from areas sited west of the school.

5.7 The proposed start /end of the cycle track junction with Raleigh Road /North Hyde

Lane is closed to all through traffic apart from emergency vehicles. This will create a safe environment and an incentive to cycle, as it would be possible to cover a substantial distance without risk of injury from other road users.

6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The estimated total cost for the proposals is £110,000. £60,000 allocation has been

approved by Transport for London for this particular School Travel Plan scheme in the financial year 2006/2007.

6.2 Funding received from TfL is not sufficient for the project and a bid for further £50,000 has been made to SUSTRAN (sustainable transport charity looking after the national cycle network and other cycling projects) in order to complete the scheme. Should the bid be unsuccessful then the project will commence as planned at the junction of Raleigh Road but will terminate outside the entrance to Norwood Green Junior School.

6.3 The Head of Finance comments that the TfL funding of £60,000 is for this financial year only so it is essential that the scheme be completed promptly and within budget. Failure to do so may result in the Council having to meet some of the costs for which there is no budget provision. The scheme will not be able to proceed further than the entrance to Norwood Green Junior School unless the bid made to SUSTRAN is successful.

7.0 DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 7.1 A relevance test has been carried out and it is considered that an Equalities Impact

Assessment is not necessary for this project. 7.2 The proposals should bring accident levels and the fear of accidents down for all road

users and this will particularly benefit vulnerable road users such as young and elderly people, visually impaired and those with walking disabilities.

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The proposals will improve the walking and cycling environment. The reduction in the

number of cars on the road will reduce pollution – emissions are often particularly bad around school gates as a result of parents leaving the car engine running when dropping off their children.

9.0 NETWORK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 9.1 The Traffic Manager comments that the proposals will have negligible effect on traffic

congestion on the Borough’s road network, including the Strategic Road Network, and

105

4

are entirely consistent with the Council’s policies of improving road safety and encouraging the use of alternative forms of transport to the private car. In addition, due consideration must be given to minimizing disruption to traffic flows during construction, should the scheme be approved.

Background Papers: Borough Spending Plan 2006/07 This report has been or is due to be considered by: Assistant Director – Street Management (Traffic Manager): Signed: Fred Robinson Date 11 December 06 Heston and Cranford Area Planning Committee This report is relevant to the following wards: Heston West and Heston East

106

APPENDIX B The Resident 202 to 264 & 241 to 271 North Hyde Lane, Dade Way, 124 to 150 Thorncliffe Road Dear Resident Re. Safe Routes to School proposals – Norwood Green Junior School Please find enclosed a plan outlining the Council’s proposals for a Safe Routes to School programme outside Norwood Green Junior School on North Hyde Lane and Thorncliffe Road. Hounslow Council is committed to the development of Safe Routes to School, the aim of which is to reduce short car journeys by encouraging parents, carers and children to walk and cycle to school and by using public transport. Following meetings between Traffic Engineers and teachers from Norwood Green Junior School the proposals consist of:

• The introduction of a cycle track on the footway outside Norwood Green Junior School that will run from the junction with Raleigh Road to opposite 142 Thorncliffe Road and then on the opposite footway from 124 to 138 Thorncliffe Road.

• The reconstruction of the footway along North Hyde Lane to make walking a more

desirable option.

• The provision of parking to include carriageway parking on the south side of North Hyde Lane and footway parking (two wheels on the footway, two wheels on the carriageway) along the north side of North Hyde Lane. This will reduce the risks to pedestrians wishing to cross the road.

The works have been programmed to commence in January 2007 and to be completed in March 2007. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the proposals then please do not hesitate to contact the project engineer Carl McMahon on the above telephone number. Yours sincerely Carl McMahon - Assistant Traffic Engineer

Traffic SectionLondon Borough of Hounslow, The Civic CentreLampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN.

Your contact is: Carl McMahon Direct Line: 020 8583 5113 Fax: 020 8583 4894 E-Mail: [email protected] ref: CM/SRS/815 Your ref:

Date: 29th November 2006

Street Management & Public Protection Director – Suresh Kamath

107

G:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\9\AI00029942\HCappealsreportDec060.doc

Contact: Laura Morris Tel 020 8583 2045 laura.morris@hounslow.

gov.uk

HESTON AND CRANFORD AREA COMMITTEE (PLANNING) January 2007

RESULTS OF PLANNING APPEALS

Report by: Director of Legal Services

Summary The report gives an outline of appeal decisions received since Mid-November 2006. The decision letter is available for inspection in the Members' Suite. 1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 To note the report NO. SITE DATE OUTCOME 1. 82 Firs Drive, Cranford 15 November 2006 Dismissed 1. 82 The Firs Drive, Cranford, Hounslow TW5 9TD

Appeal against refusal of planning permission for single and two storey side and rear extension and part first floor rear extension to house. (Refused 23 May 2006, delegated decision). Appeal dismissed, 15 November 2006. The Council considered that the proposed extensions would, by reason of their size, scale, and appearance infill an important visual gap, and appear as obtrusive features, resulting in harm to the appearance pf the building and character and appearance of the Cranford Village Conservation Area. The Inspector considered that the main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Cranford Village Conservation Area. The Inspector considered that the proposal was not in line with SPG or relevant planning policy, and that the proposal would significantly reduce the visual gap between the appeal property and No.80 and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector was also of the view that the characteristics and the bulk of the proposal would be

Agenda Item 20

109

G:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\4\9\AI00029942\HCappealsreportDec060.doc

noticeably at odds with the prevailing form of buildings nearby and so would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Background Papers: Appeal files

This report has been or is due to be considered by:Sustainable Development Committee

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: All areas

110

��

��

��

�� !��"��#$� %��&�#��''&(��

��

��

��))��

�&*��'�+�%�#��+�+�(&*&��*��,�� -��.��/�0��1��(��/

��

��

��'��+

�� !"#

��$%��&��'��(�) ��* +(��,�-�.

/�0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��2�� 1��+ �� 3��4�� '��*��'��

5 �'�� "��'��22� � 1�� %�'��*�� 1��2��

��#��#6!��$� ��

�5�'��3�72� *�)��7��(�5��1 �'(��,�-�8

/�5 ��%�� &��'

�� '�1�**�� 1��732�� '��3� 1��2��*'��9��*�3�� 1��2� *�+��

��5��1 �'�:�**��5 ��%�� $��

��-��, ��#�

�-�$%��5��2��(�) ��* +(��,�-�0

/�/�%�*�'�$��*�2��

��2�� 1��*�� 3� ��*'��1 �� '�� 1��4��

��""�� ,,"

�� 5��2��(�) ��* +(��,�-7�

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��'��'��4��

��""��;$�� !��

�� 5��2��(�) ��* +(��,�-77

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1��'��2��'� ��*'��'�� 1��

��#��",�6",!��$ ��#

�",�6",!�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-�<

��%�'��$�� %�'

. ** +�� *�� 1=��#��",�6",!�� '� ��!��,�1 ��'�%�* �� 1�

��1 ��'��*�'�%�* ��'��22� (�'��*�� 5 �'�� (� 1��%�'��

1 ��'��'��4��*��2�� 1��*'��(��'��*��'2�� 1��

Agenda Item 21

111

��#��"!,��-��

��'��>��%��/�� *�) ��*�"!,�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-?�

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��'�� *�� 1��2�� 1��4�� *��'��2�� 1��1�%��

� ��3�� *(�2 ��''�� *��#-�� *�1* ��2�(�+�� 2��'��'�

*��'2��'��*��'�� 5 �'�� +��%�� 1�� %�'��*��

�� 1@��#��"!,��-�'��'��@

��#��!��" ��"

��!�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-�;

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� 1��*�� 3�� *'��'�2�� 1��4��

��,�"��;$�! ��

��&��;��(�) ��* +(��!��

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�� 1��4��2��3��'

��!,��,��$� ��"!

��,�.��0��%�(�) ��* +(��,�-�$

/�5 ��%�� &��'

� �� A�B��+��5��1 �'�:�**��5 ��%�� $��

��#�&��$� ��-�

�5��1 �'�� *�)�**(��-�)��7��(�5��1 �'(��,�-�?

� �.��$2��

� �� A�� *��+��5��1 �'�:�**��5 ��%�� $��

��""��"�� !"

��"�� 5��2��(�) ��* +(��,�-7�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� 1�� *�3� ��'� 1��'��

��#��"#�6"-�� !"

�"#�6"-�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-7;

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� %�*� 1�5 �'�� '�*�%��3�� (� 1�� %�'��*�� #��"#�6"-��'��'�

��#��(�� ** +�1 ��2��'�� 1�'�*�%��3�� 4�� @

��#��"!,��-�& ��"

��'��>��%��/�� *�) ��*�"!,�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-?�

/�0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��'�� *�� 1��2�� 1��4�� *��'��2�� 1��1�%�� 3�

� ��*(�2 ��''�� *��#-�� *�1* ��2�(�+�� 2��'��'�

*��'2��(�'��*��'�� 5 �'�� ,��4��*��**�� (��22�(��'��'�

'�� 1��*�� 1��2��#��"!,��-�'��'��@

��#��"!,��-�0 ��!�

��'��>��%��/�� *�) ��*�"!,�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-?�

/�0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��'�� *�� 1��2�� 1��4�� *��'��2�� 1��1�%��

� ��3�� *(�2 ��''�� *��#-�� *�1* ��2�(�+�� 2��'��'�

*��'2��'��*��'�� 5 �'�� *�� 1��* � 1�� %�'��*��

�� 1@��#��"!,��-�'��'��@

��$ ��#-

��$%��&��'��(�) ��* +(��,�-�.

/�0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��2�� 1��+ �� 3��4�� '��*��'��

2 �'�� * � 1�� %�'��*�� 1��2��112

��--��,��B�! ��,-�

:��B11�2��5��,��7�*��3�� '(�) ��* +(��!��>?

/��*�2 ��#�� 1�2�� $��'

/��**�� 1�!�4�'��*��'�� *��'��4��'��2� +�%��'�� 1� 1�

��*'��#�'�3�� 1�2�� @

��#�� "�

��5*�11 �'�� '(�) ��* +(��!�";�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4�� @

��"��$0�! ��!-

>B;;<��$&&B��#�� '(�) ��* +(��,�-�;

/�$'%��$�� %�'

/��**�� '�'��*�3� 1�%�� 4��**3��**��'��'�� 6�**��'�� *�2�� @

��"��$��;$�� !,

�7��(�> *3 ��) ��$��*�3��3(�) ��* +(��!��)

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 �� 1�7��3�C��7��7��%�2�C��

11�2��2��11��

��*��%

��-#-��"��! ��-

��"�7��*9�5* �(�) ��* +(��0.

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

5 �%�� 1��4�� *�� '��2�� 1��1��1* ��4��

��,�,�"�� !�

�"�&��2� 1�� '(�) ��* +(��,��?

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1�� 3��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��!-�� "�

��> ��7��(�) ��* +(��!;7

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��'��4�� @

��-��"��

��"��3(�) ��* +(��,��>0

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� *�� '�'�'�2��

��-�!��

��1��+�� '(�) ��* +(��!�"��

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

��2�� 1�� 3��'��'��*�� 3��4�� 4�� @

��!��

�!�� '��*(�) ��* +(��,�-$$

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��+ �� 3��'��'��*�� 3��4�� 1��*�� 3� ��*'��

��'�� 1��4��

��!�� #�

��0 ��3�(�) ��* +(��,��0

/��'��+�

�� 1�� 1��'��2��'��* +�1 ��2�� 113

��#��;$�� "�

�� '(�) ��* +(��0$

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��1��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1��*�� 3��'��'�� 4��

��-#-�� !#

��7��*9�5* �(�) ��* +(��0�

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

5 �%�� 1��4�� 1 ��*�� '��2�� 1��*�� 3��'��1� ��

�4�� 4��

��#��-�� ,

��-�� '(�) ��* +(��0�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��1*��

��"��!!�� !��

�!!��(�) ��* +(��,��>�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� 1��'��'�� 1��4�� '�* 1��2 �%��

��,��##�� !�-

�##�:�2��.�� '(�) ��* +(��,��$�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� 1��*�� 3� ��*'��1 ��'3�� +�� +��+@2��'��2��

� ��'�� 1��4��

��,��,,�� ,��

�,,�0�% ��3�(�) ��* +(��,��

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��-��!!��, ��#!

��!!��5� +�3(�) ��* +(��,��>�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� 1��4��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��,��7�� ,-

�7��+�**�/�1��$�'��3�72� *�7��;��(�) ��* +(��,�-�.

/�5 ��2�*�B+��$�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� +��4��2*�'�2 ��3��'�� 2��2*�� @

��-��;$�� ,,

��5� +�3(�) ��* +(��,��>�

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��4��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��*��*�

��,�!��;$�� ,�

�!��D��'�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,��

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

114

��-,�� !�

��*��'(�)�� (�) ��* +(��,��7$

/��'��+�

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 2 �� 1��2�E��2�� 1��1� ��2��

� �2�(�2 ��2�� 1��1*�� 1�� *�2��4�� 2�� 1� %��'��4�� '�

2 �%�� 1��4�� *�� @

��,��#�� #!�

��#�7��5* �(�) ��* +(��,��F

.�**��*�� $�� %�'

/��**�� 1��2��'�� 1�� 4��*�� 3��4��

��B$� ��,#�

��D��$%��(�) ��* +(��!�;

��%�� B�'�� &��'

.�**�� 1��A�7�*%��2��+��%�� B�'�� @��B�

��#�� ,�-

��B*'�5 ��0��%�(�) ��* +(��,��

.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4�� @

��-��#��;$�� #�

�#��*�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,��

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��1��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��!"�� !�

��7��&� %��5��2��(�) ��* +(��!0$

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��'��'��4��

��,"�� ,#

�,"�5��*�5* �(�) ��* +(��,��>

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��!��!��, ��-,

�!�� $%��(�) ��* +(��,��)�

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

�� 1��4��2��'�� 1� %��4��*�� 3��4��

��"��##�7��. ��,�

��5�%�2�5��(�##�;�� '(�) ��* +(��!0�

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� '�� 1��2�� *�%��

�� %�'��2 �1��2��'�'��1�2�*�� +��2�� 1�,��+�%�� 2��2��

'��*��'�� 5 �'�� !��'��*�'��22� � 1��*�� "��##�7��'��'�

�#��,

��!��

�� $%��(�) ��* +(��,��)�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

��2�� 1��+ �� 3��'��'��*�� 3��4�� 4�� @

��"��##�� -�

��5�%�2�5��##�;�� '(�) ��* +(��!0�

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

/��**�� 1��$�� '�2 �1��2��2��@115

��"��##�$0� ��#�

��5�%�2�5��##�;�� '(�) ��* +(��!0�

/�$'%��$�� %�'

/��**�� 1�$�� 1� ��*�%�� 1��4��*'��@

��"��##�7�� ,�

��5�%�2�5��(�##�;�� '(�) ��* +(��!0�

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� '�� 1��2�� *�%��

�� %�'��2 �1��2��'�'��1�2�*�� +��2�� 1�,��+�%�� 2��2��

'��*��'�� 5 �'�� "��'��#�� 1��*��

��"��##�7��'��'��#��,

��"��,�6�"�� ,-

��,�6�"��;�� '(�) ��* +(��!�A

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

��2�� 1��1��1* ��*�%�*�� 4�� 1 ��+ ��'� ��*1�2 ��'��'�2��

1��+ ��''�� *�2��2�� '��3

��!"��"��, ��#�

��"�>��3�� '(�/*�+ ��(��,��

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

��2�� 1�1��1* ��4�� 4��

��!"�� -�

��7��&� %��5��2��(�) ��* +(��!0�

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

0�� *�� 1��4��2 ��%�� 3��'��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��*��2�*�

��!��! ��##

��:�*�(�)�� (��,�-)�

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

�� 1��1� �� 2��'��*�� 3��4�� 4��

�� #"

��*�3��3�(�) ��* +(��,�-)>

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��#�!��"��! ��#�

��"�� 1��*'�� '(�) ��* +(��,�->?

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��+ �� 3��'��'��*�� 3��4��

��,��

��/�� *��)�3�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,A8

/�0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��+�+� *��*�� 2�*��*��+�� 11�2�(�1 '�+� *��*��1�2�*��(�* �'��

��3(�� (�� 2��'��*'��(��2�**��3�1�2�*��'��1�2��2��@�� %�� 1��*�2�

+��'��@�0�%�* �� 1��* 3��*'��(��(��'��#�� +�� 2��'�2��

��(�* �'��'��22��'��*��'�� 5 �'�� '��3�� 1�

�� %�'��*�� ,�'��'��#��

��#�,�!�� "�

�!�� )3'��;��(�7 ��**(��,��?

/�.�**��*�� 1��'

/��**�� 1��%��2�*��2� %�� 4��@

116

��,�> ��

��/�� *��)�3�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,A�

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��+�+� *��*�� 2�*��*��+�� 11�2�(�1 '�+� *��*��1�2�*��(�* �'��

��3(�� (�� 2��'��*'��(��2�**��3�1�2�*��'��1�2��2��@�� %�� 1�

��*�2�+��'��@�0�%�* �� 1��* 3��*'��(��'��#�� +�� 2��'�

2��(�* �'��'��22�(�'��*��'�� 5 �'�� 1�� %�'�

�*�� 1��2��,�'��'��#��@

��!!�#��;$�� ",

�#��$��3�� '(�) ��* +(��,�->;

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�*�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1�� *��'�� 1��4�� (��4�� 1�

* ��(�� 1��+ �� 1�*�� 1� �� 1�* ��(��'��2�� 1�� *'��

�� 1�� @

��;$��

��3��2� 1�(�) ��* +(��,�-))

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��1��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 �� '��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��,�. ��-#

��/�� *��)�3�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,A�

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��+�+� *��*�� 2�*��*��+�� 11�2�(�1 '�+� *��*��1�2�*��(�* �'��

��3(�� (�� 2��'��*'��(��2�**��3�1�2�*��'��1�2��2��@�� %�� 1�

��*�2�+��'��@�0�%�* �� 1��* 3��*'��(��'��#�� +�� 2��'�

2��(�* �'��'��22�(�'��*��'�� 5 �'�� +��

��3 � 1�� %�'��*�� 1��2��,�'��'��#��@

��!#��-#�;$�� #�

��-#�$��&� %�(�) ��* +(��,�-0�

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 �� '��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��#�,"��, ��

�,"�� +��3(�) ��* +(��,�-�&

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��+ �� 3��'��4�� 4�� @

��#��,��;$�� ,,!

�,��3(�) ��* +(��,�-�$

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1�� 1��4�� 4��

��,��

��/�� *��)�3�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,A�

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��+�+� *��*�� 2�*��*��+�� 11�2�(�1 '�+� *��*��1�2�*��(�* �'��

��3(�� (�� 2��'��*'��(��2�**��3�1�2�*��'��1�2��2��@�� %�� 1�

��*�2�+��'��@�0�%�* �� 1��* 3��*'��(��'��#�� +�� 2��'�

2��(�* �'��'��22�(�'��*��'�� 5 �'�� -��7 ��2�� 1��* � 1�

�*�� %�'�#��

��#"��#��, ��!��

�#�� '(�) ��* +(��,�->�

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��*�� 3��4�� 4�� @

117

��#��-�� #"

��-��3(�) ��* +(��,�-�;

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1�� 3��'��'��*�� 3��4�� 4��

��#��,�;$�� !!,

��,�� +��3(�) ��* +(��,�-�&

/�5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*�8��&��'

5��1�2�� 1�;�+1�*��1 ��2�� 1�� *�� 1��4�� '��'�� 1�

* ��(�� 1��A�� 1*�� 1� �� 1�* ��+��* 1��2 �%�� 2��*�� 1�

��2��

��!!�#"�� !�!

�#"�$��3�� '(�) ��* +(��,�->;

/�.�**��*�� $�� %�'

��2�� 1��+ �� 3��'��4�� (��*�� 3��4�� '�2 �%�� 1��4��

* 1�� *�� 2 �� 1� ��'�� 1�*�� 4�� @

��,#��!�$ ��,��!��

� ��)3'��) �� )3'��1�)�3�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,�7

0��*��$�� %�'

. ** +�� %�*�1 ��2�� 1�� 1��2 �'�1* �� 11�2�� '�3�2��2��6�'��*��'�

�� 2 �'�� ,��0��*�'�$22� � 1�� ,#��!�'��'��#��,��,

��,#��$5��$� ��#

��** +�� )�3�� '(�7 ��**(�8��,��

/�5 ��%�� &��'

�� %�*� 1��4�� $�� +�� +��&��'�8�� 5 ��%�� $��@

��(�! � ��5 ��

��%��$��! ��#,#��!--,

"�(,#��+��*! �$&*��$�*� ��&*�+�� (��*&+��+� �!

��*��+��'��+�� %��&�#��))&��

�$&*��&*��%�.��$��

'�%%�-&�#�-��+*!

��'��+3��*��2�*�3��*��%��+��*��*�

118

heston and cranford area committee (planning)...

Documents