References: P/2009/2930 00248/104-108/P2

Address: 104-108 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick

Ward: Chiswick Homefields

Proposal: Part demolition of the existing building retaining the existing shopfronts, front elevation and elevation to Upham Park Road with new building behind facades to provide mixed use development comprising 504 sq m commercial floor area (A1 or A2 use only) to ground floor and basement, with 7 flats to three upper floors, erection of two dwellinghouses to rear, and associated amenity space, basement car parking, bicycle storage, and recycling and refuse storage

Drawing numbers: • Design and Access Statement (Clarke Associates)

• Planning Statement (CgMs Ltd)

• Sustainable Design and Consultation Statement including Energy Report (Scott Wilson)

• Transport Statement (Peter Brett Associates LLP)

• Air Quality Assessment (Air Quality Consultants)

• Noise Assessment (Sharps Redmore Partnership)

• Technical Note relating to Noise from Proposed Vehicle Life (Sharps Redmore Partnership)

• Shadow Study (Brook Vincent Partnership)

• Flood Risk Assessment

• Structural Report (Packman Lucas)

• OS site plan

• EX(00)000 Rev: P01 – Existing Location & Survey Site Plans

• EX(00)001 Rev: P01 – Existing Basement & Ground Floor Plans

• EX(00)002 Rev: P01 – Existing First & Second Floor Plans

• EX(00)003 Rev: P01 – Existing Third Floor Plan

• EX(00)101 Rev: P01 – Existing Elevations

• EX(00)102 Rev: P01 – Existing Sections & Elevations

• GA(00)001 Rev: P03 – Proposed Basement & Ground Floor Plans

• GA(00)002 Rev: P03 – Proposed First & Second Floor Plans

• GA(00)003 Rev: P03 – Proposed Third Floor & Roof Plans

• GA(00)101 Rev: P02 – Proposed Elevations

• GA(00)102 Rev: P02 – Proposed Sectional

Chiswick Area Planning Committee

9th February 2010

Tim Joll

e-mail: tim.joll@hounslow.gov.uk

Elevations

Applications received: 27 November 2009

COMMENT REPORT

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 On 27th November 2009 the Council received a planning application from CgMs Ltd in respect of the site at 104-108 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick. The proposal seeks to redevelop the site. The proposal includes the retention of the existing shopfronts and front and side facades, a re-profiled roof and provision of a basement. The scheme comprises a retail unit at ground floor and basement for A1 or A2 use (504m2), seven flats (2 x 1 bed and 4 x 2 bed apartments and 1 x 3 bed penthouse apartment0 and 2 x 3 bed detached houses. The scheme also includes provision for 10 car parking spaces at basement level accessed via a car lift, 9 cycle spaces also at basement level but accessed via the main pedestrian lift and refuse and recycling storage areas at ground floor level.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site has an area of 0.07 hectares and is located on a corner site with Chiswick High Road to the south and Upham Park Road to the east. The site is in a prominent location at the junction of two major arterial roads – Chiswick High Road (A315) which runs in an east-west direction through Chiswick Town Centre and Chiswick Lane South (A316) which provides an important north-south link between the M4/A4 to the A40.

2.2 The site lies at the eastern end of Chiswick Town Centre and is within the

designated town centre boundary as shown on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. It is not, however, within the designated shopping frontage although the existing retail frontage of the town centre does extend to the site.

2.3 The existing premises comprise three 3-storey Victorian properties with

additional habitable floors within the roofs. The upper floors of the buildings retain the appearance of three terraced houses with bay windows on the first floor. At roof level each property has a pitched roof which includes two front door windows with roof windows on the rear roof slopes.

2.4 The existing property is a maximum of 3.8m higher than the adjoining 3-

storey terraced Edwardian properties to the west of the site at the top of the pitched roof. The upper floors of the premises are set back from the adjoining Edwardian terrace but the interlinked ground floor, used as a car showroom and sales area, has been extended forward in line with the adjoining terrace. The aluminium shopfront with extensive area of glazing and prominent fascia signage extends across all three properties and continues round the corner into Upham Park Road. No. 104 has been extended at the rear with a single storey pitched roof building and is now used as a service centre.

2.5 A separate detached garage is located at the back of the building adjacent to No. 1A Upham Park Road. This is also used for servicing and storage of cars.

2.6 The premises are used as a car showroom and sales area on the ground

floor and yard to the rear. 2.7 The first floor of Nos. 104 and 106 is used for offices with residential on the

two floors above. All of the accommodation on the three upper floors of No. 108 is used for residential purposes.

2.8 The site is located on the edge of Chiswick Town Centre which offers a

good range of shops, restaurants, offices and other services. Turnham Green Underground Station is 400m to the west of the site and Stamford Brook is 700m to the east of the site. Both stations provide access to the District line with routes to Central London, Ealing, Richmond, Heathrow and other destinations.

2.9 The premises are not included on the statutory list of buildings of

architectural or historic importance. They are not locally listed and are not within a conservation area.

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 The car showroom/sales use has been in operation for at least 30 years.

Since the purchase of the premises by LMC Ltd some 18 years ago the only changes to the premises have involved installation of the aluminium shopfront, the signage and the shed at the rear.

3.2 00248/104-108/P1 Demolition of the existing building, and erection of two

new buildings – one new mixed use building comprising 895m2 retail (A1) floorspace and 9 new residential units and one new building comprising up to 132m2 (B1) office floorspace thereto.

Refused: 14/08/2008

Summary of reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its height, massing and external appearance, would unduly harm the appearance and form of the streetscene and would appear overly dominant in the street scene to the detriment of the local townscape.

2. The proposed development fails to provide adequate living space, due to the location of windows and private amenity space for the occupants of the new dwellings.

The proposed development, is considered to be an over intensification of the site, resulting in

unsatisfactory residential accommodation for future occupiers due to the inadequate amenity space provision, accessibility and no provision for loading and unloading.

3. The proposed arrangements for deliveries and servicing of the commercial units are inadequate, and are likely to give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic on the public highway and increase in danger for traffic and pedestrians.

4. The proposed development does not create an inclusive residential and office development, in particular no provision has been made access for people with disabilities.

5. The proposed development, by reason of its height, massing and bulk, be unduly detrimental to the outlook of neighbouring residents.

6. The proposed development makes inadequate provision for improving energy efficiency and increasing the proportion of energy used generated from renewable sources.

3.3 An appeal was lodged against the refusal of planning permission with an Inquiry held on the 6th and 7th of May 2009.

3.4 During the course of preparation for the Appeal Inquiry several of the issues raised in the reason for refusal of the application were resolved through submission of revised plans and additional information.

3.5 Prior to the Inquiry the Local Planning Authority advised the Inspector that it would only pursue Reasons 1, 2 and 6 of the original 7 reasons for refusal. These reasons related to the height, massing and external appearance of the development, issues relating to the intensity of development and inadequacy of the amenity space provision and issues relating to the outlook of neighbouring properties.

3.6 The Appeal was dismissed on 29 May 2009. The grounds for dismissal related to the overall massing and detailed design of the proposed development and the impact of this on the Chiswick High Road and Upham Park Road streetscapes.

3.7 The Inspector was also concerned about the inadequacy in terms of size and accessibility of the communal amenity space.

3.8 The Inspector did not, consider that the scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the outlook from neighbouring properties, result in overlooking, or loss of light.

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 On 27th November 2009 the Council received a planning application from CgMs Ltd in respect of the site at 104-108 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick. The proposal seeks to redevelop the site.

4.2 The proposal includes the retention of the existing shopfronts and front and side facades, a re-profiled roof and provision of a basement. The scheme comprises a retail unit(s) at ground floor and basement for A1 or A2 use (504m2). Seven apartments would be provided on the upper floors with a gross floor area of 732m2. The first and second floors would contain 1x1 bedroom and 2x2 bedroom apartments each.

Image 1: Chiswick High Road streetscene

4.3 The third floor would contain a 3-bedroom apartment.

4.4 Two 3 bedroom houses with a total gross floor area of 297m2 are proposed at the rear of the site.

4.5 In summary approximately 33% of all units proposed in the scheme would be large family sized units, with 3 or more bedrooms. A further three of the units would have two bedrooms.

4.6 The commercial unit would be accessed off Chiswick High Road. The apartments and individual houses would be accessed off Upham Park Road. Disabled compliant lifts would serve the upper floors.

4.7 The existing front façade is retained with a minor increase in height to accommodate the proposed mansard roof. The scheme reduces in height from Chiswick High Road to Upham Park Road, allowing the parapet line of

the proposed dwellings to line up with the eaves line of the adjoining property No.1A Upham Park Road.

4.8 Each of the proposed flats has an access to a shared, soft landscape garden in the north-west corner of the site. The individual houses have rear gardens and roof terraces.

4.9 The proposed development generates a density of approximately 382 habitable rooms per hectare based on a net site area of 732m2.

4.10 An Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) system and Solar Hot Water (SHW) panels to supply domestic water to residential units are the most feasible options and have been incorporated into the proposal.

4.11 The proposed scheme includes a basement car park with space for 10 cars and 9 cycle spaces. The car park would be accessed via a car lift from Upham Park Road whilst bicycles could be transported via the main pedestrian lift which serves all floors including the basement.

Image 2: Upham Park Streetscene

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Letters were sent to 129 owners/occupiers of Chiswick High Road, Upham Park Road & Thornton Avenue. A site notice advertising the application as a major application was posted on 08/12/2009, and the application was advertised in the local press on 18/12/2009. 13 letters objecting to the proposal were received including 1 from the Thornton – Mayfield Residents’ Association. A summary of the relevant issues of objection from the submissions and a response is given below.

5.2

Comment Response

The scale and appearance of the building is unsympathetic/incongruous to the surrounding Victorian architecture.

Refer to paragraphs 7.5 to 7.15

There would be a loss of light to Upham Park Road residents. The bulk and massing of the building would also be overbearing.

Refer to paragraphs 7.36 to 7.40

Traffic would increase in the area.

Refer to paragraphs 7.53 to 7.57

The scale of the A3 usage could have significant impacts for the residents of Upham Park road in terms of parking, traffic and refuse

The application no longer proposes an A3 use.

No need for an additional restaurant in the area.

The application no longer proposes an A3 use.

Increased noise and potentially odour issues.

Refer to paragraphs 7.47 to 7.51. Odour issues which may have been associated with an A3 use are no longer relevant.

Windows, terraces and balconies would create overlooking.

Refer to paragraphs 7.42 to 7.45

5.2 Letters of consultation were also sent to the following statutory bodies:

• Environment Agency;

• Metropolitan Police – Crime Prevention Office.

Environmental Agency

5.3 Have no objection to the proposed development.

Metropolitan Police – Crime Prevention Office

5.4 No comments have been received.

6.0 POLICY

6.1 When determining applications for planning permission, the authority is required to have regard to the development plan, so far as is material, and to any other material considerations. In addition, the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

6.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the saved policies in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’), the Employment Development Plan Document, the Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

NATIONAL AND STRATEGIC PLANNING POLICIES

6.3 The relevant national planning policies are:

• PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

• PPS3: Housing

• PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

• PPS12: Local Development Frameworks

• PPG13: Transport

• PPS22: Renewable Energy

• PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control

• PPG24: Planning and Noise

• PPS25: Flooding

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

6.4 The most relevant policies in the London Plan are considered to be:

London Plan

The Mayor’s Objectives

Policy I.1 The Mayor's Objectives The Overall Strategy

Policy 2A.1 Sustainability criteria Living in London Policies

Policy 3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing Policy 3A.2 Borough housing targets

Policy 3A.3 Maximising the Potential of Sites Policy 3A.5 Housing choice Policy 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision Policy 3A.8 Definition of affordable housing

Enjoying London

Policy 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres Policy 3D.13 Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation

Working in London Borough of Hounslow

Policy 3B.1 Improving Employment Opportunities for London Policy 3B.2 Office Demand and Supply Connecting London Policies – Improving Travel in London

Policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development Policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity Policy 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London Policy 3C.9 Increasing the capacity, quality and integration of public transport to meet London’s needs Policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for cycling Policy 3C.22 Parking strategy

London’s Metabolism Policies: Using and Managing Natural Resources

Policy 4A.1 Tackling Climate Change Policy 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 4A.6 Decentralised Energy: Heating, Cooling and Power Policy 4A.7 Renewable Energy Policy 4A.12 Flooding Policy 4A.14 Sustianable Drainage Policy 4A.20 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes

Designs on London Policies

Policy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city Policy 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction Policy 4B.8 Respect local context and communities

Relevant policies of the UDP

6.5 The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by Direction from the Secretary of State. The relevant UDP policies are considered to be: The relevant saved policies in the UDP are considered to be

Implementation Policies

Policy IMP 1.1 Integrating patterns of land use and the provision of transport

Policy IMP 1.2 The re-use and recycling of urban land and buildings Policy IMP 6.1 Planning Obligations

Built Environment Policies

Policy ENV-B.1.1 New Development Policy ENV-B.1.9 Safety and security

Environmental Protection Policies

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

Policy ENV-P.1.2 Water pollution and water quality Policy ENV-P.1.3 Surface water run off Policy ENV-P.1.4 Waste water management Policy ENV-P.1.5 Noise pollution Policy ENV-P.1.6 Air pollution Policy ENV-P.1.7 Light pollution Policy ENV-P.2.1 Waste management Policy ENV-P.2.4 Recycling facilities in new development

Housing Policies

Policy H.3.3 Use of Upper Floors above Shops in Town Centres Policy H.4.1 Housing standards and guidelines Policy H.4.4 Provision for children’s play in housing developments Policy H.4.5 Associated facilities for residential developments

Shopping Policies

Policy S.4.2 Shop Front Design Policy S.4.7 Access to Upper Floors

Transport Policies

Policy T.1.2 The movement implications of development Policy T.1.4 Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for

developments Policy T.2.1 Pedestrian access Policy T.2.2 Pedestrian safety and security Policy T.2.4 Public transport infrastructure Policy T.4.3 Traffic implications of new development Policy T.4.4 Road safety Policy T.4.5 On-street parking Policy T.5.1 Air quality implications of traffic Policy T.5.2 Reducing traffic nuisance in residential areas Policy T.5.3 Vehicle crossovers and hardstandings

Relevant policies of the Employment DPD

6.6 The Employment Development Plan Document was adopted on 25

November 2008 and has superseded the Employment Policies contained in UDP Chapter 7 and the following Implementation Policies contained in UDP Chapter 2: IMP.4.1, IMP.4.2, IMP.4.3, and IMP.4.4.

Policy E2 Locations for Employment

Policy EP1 Location of New Office-Based Employment

Supplementary Planning Guidance 6.7 Relevant supplementary planning guidance which would be a material

consideration for this appeal include the following:

a. Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance).

b. Housing (November 2005) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance).

c. Sustainable Design and Construction (May 2006) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance).

d. Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (March 2008) (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance).

e. London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997).

f. Hounslow Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. g. Annual Monitoring Review 2007/08. h. CABE: Design and Access Statements: How to read, write and use

them. i. National Playing Fields Association Playing Space Standards

2001. j. Guidance Note on Inclusive Design – English Partnerships 2007. k. By Design: Better Places to Live: a Companion Guide to PPG3 l. Code for Sustainable Homes m. Ecohomes Guidance n. Planning Obligations (March 2008)

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• The principle of the development

• The siting, massing and design of the proposed building

• Is the proposal acceptable in housing terms?

• Housing standards, quality and the effect on neighbours

• The implications for traffic and Parking in the Locality • Sustainability Issues

Issue 1: THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

7.2 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3), the London Plan and the Unitary Development Plan 2003 (UDP) seek to maximise housing on previously developed sites. Policy 3A.3 of the London Plan states that boroughs should ensure that development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, and encourages well designed buildings with good access to local shops, services, employment and public transport. Therefore, when considering new housing proposals, the Council will seek

to promote sustainable patterns of development and allow for new housing provided it is consistent with all other policies in UDP, and can be achieved within a high quality environment for new and existing residents. Therefore housing on the site is considered acceptable, especially on upper floors in town centres, in accordance with relevant UDP policies

7.3 PPS 3 encourages a systematic sustainable approach to selection of land for residential development, with preference given, among others, to brownfield sites with good public transport access. The site is located within the Chiswick Town Centre and has very good public transport links to bus routes and underground railway services. In principle, redevelopment of this site for housing increases housing stock in a suitable location with potentially appropriate access to existing infrastructure and town centre facilities.

7.4 Furthermore, the retention of commercial retail use of the ground and basement floors is encouraged and is in line with Policy IMP.2.4 (Enhancement of Chiswick Town Centre). The site is located within the designated Chiswick Town Centre, and it is on Chiswick High Road where commercial retail uses are appropriate and the site will provide continued retail business and employment opportunities that will benefit the local economy. Additionally, the retail commercial use of the site has been long established.

Issue 2: THE SITING, MASSING AND DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING

7.5 PPS3, at Paragraph 12, states that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities. Following this, and reflecting policy in PPS1, Paragraph 13 of PPS3 states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

7.6 UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) requires new development to make a positive contribution to overall environmental quality. In relation to the context, form and layout of the buildings and spaces, new development should relate well to its site and the scale, nature, height, massing and character of the adjacent townscape and respect the proportions of neighbouring buildings where there are strong uniform design characteristics.

7.7 The existing buildings on Chiswick High Road adjacent to the appeal site

display a strong vertical emphasis and rhythm, formed by the regular spacing of the windows and pilasters. The proposed scheme has been designed to take into account the matters raised by the Local planning Authority during pre-application discussions and the Appeal decision with regard to height, massing and scale of development.

7.8 The proposed scheme would increase the massing of the existing building to its rear, however the scale of the proposed development is significantly less than that of the previously refused scheme.

7.9 The proposal involves a reconstruction of the roof to create greater volume with a dual pitched mansard roof to replace the existing single pitched roof. It is considered that the proposed roof when viewed from the surrounding streetscape would not appear at odds with the character of the surrounding streetscape.

7.10 The Upham Park Road façade of the existing building would be retained. However, the existing 2-storey element at the rear would be extended up to 3-storeys. The proposed development then steps down to the same height as the existing dwellings along Upham Park Road. It is considered that the reduction in height would not destroy the calm regularity that exists on this section of the road at present.

7.11 The proposed new dwellings are of a contemporary design encouraged by the Local Planning Authority during the pre-application stages to create a distinct transition between the Victorian façade of the main building and the Victorian terraced properties on Upham Park road. It is considered that the design of these dwellings would respect the character of the adjoining residential properties in terms of height and scale. As noted earlier, the parapet line of the dwellings would line up with the eaves line of the adjoining property No. 1A Upham Park Road.

7.12 The existing shopfronts along Chiswick High Road are retained and refurbished replacing lost pilasters and cornice features. The proposed shopfronts and fascias would be set between the pilasters and the appearance of the frontage would provide an improvement to the existing appearance of the property, which has large fascia boards extending across the pilasters. The shopfront would also turn the corner into Upham Park Road to create more ground floor interest at this prominent corner location.

7.13 With regards to the impact of the proposal on the outlook from the adjoining properties, it is noted that the proposal would bring development closer to 1A Upham Park Road, which is the residential site most likely to be impacted by the development. However, as noted by the Planning Inspector during the recent Inquiry:

“ the principal effects would relate to the side of the house, whereas much of the property’s outlook is derived from windows to the front and rear. Furthermore, the outlook to the side, including that from the roof terrace, is currently compromised by the use of part of the appeal site as a yard storing and preparing cars. Any effect on the garden would be limited due to the high wall that separates it from the appeal site. Overall, therefore, I do not consider that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the outlook of No 1A”.

7.14 It is considered that the conclusions reached by the Planning Inspector remain applicable to the current application and the proposal would not

cause unacceptable harm to the outlook from adjoining residential properties.

7.15 Overall, a scheme with potential to meet Council’s planning objectives is proposed and the standard of provision appears to have the capacity to meet Council layout and design standards and would sit comfortably within the street scene without impacting on the calm regularity that currently exists. However, Members views are welcome.

Issue 3: IS THE PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE IN HOUSING TERMS?

7.16 PPS3 sets out the national planning policy framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives. The Government’s key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live (Paragraph 9).

Density

7.17 Residential density is a tool against which an initial appraisal is made. It is a useful guide to the nature of the development and can be used to ensure that new development reflects the character of an area, but is not a determinant in its own right.

7.18 Table 3A.2 of the London Plan illustrates appropriate densities to be achieved in relation to housing. The site has a PTAL of 5, which is defined as “very good”. Table 3A.2 of the London Plan sets the relevant density range for a development comprising of flats in this location as 200-700 hr/ha. The proposed development generates a density of approximately 382 hr/ha based on a net site area of 732m2, which is within the range stipulated in the London, though as noted, the development must be compatible with the local context and design principles from policy 4B.1.

7.19 While the proposed density is within the range established by the London Plan, the merits of the scheme and the quality of the accommodation provided needs first to be taken into consideration. These issues are assessed in the following paragraphs.

Issue 4: HOUSING STANDARDS, QUALITY AND THE EFFECT ON NEIGHBOURS

7.20 The residential component of the scheme consists of the following housing

types:

§ 2 x 3 bedroom houses (Units 1 & 2) [148m2];

§ 2 x 2-bedroom apartments (Units 3 & 6) [68m2];

§ 2 x 2-bedroom apartments (Units 5 & 8) [82m2];

§ 2 x 1-bedroom apartments (Units 4 & 7 [45m2];

7.21 In summary approximately 33% of all units proposed in the scheme would be large family sized units, with 3 or more bedrooms. A further 3 of the units would have two bedrooms capable of housing young families. Therefore, in total 66% of the units would be family sized.

Accessibility

7.22 The London Plan strongly supports the principle of Lifetime Homes and views them as a fundamental key to the delivery of the Government’s objectives of social inclusion, sustainability, equality and valuing diversity and identifies that the increased independent living they can bring will reduce pressure on hospital beds and residential care homes. Policy 3A.4 (Housing choice) proposes that all new dwellings should be built to Lifetime Home standards.

7.23 The Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004) sets out that the target of 10% should be applied to both market and affordable housing and makes clear that the requirements of a wheelchair accessible dwelling are in addition to Lifetime Home standards.

7.24 Also relevant is London Plan Policy 4B.5 (Creating an inclusive environment), which requires all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion.

7.25 The applicant has advised that all homes have been designed to lifetime home standards, and the commercial unit would be fully compliant with Part M Building Regulation requirements for access for people with disabilities.

7.26 Disabled compliant lifts would serve the upper floors.

Amenity space

7.27 The provision of good quality private useable amenity space and children’s play areas is key in all levels of the planning framework.

7.28 Private amenity space standards are set out in the UDP SPG. The 7 units proposed would, based on 24 habitable rooms, generate a private amenity space requirement of 190m2. This is calculated on the basis of the number of habitable rooms in a dwelling. Each of the one and two bedroom units is considered to have 3 habitable rooms or less, meaning each requires 25m2. The three bedroom flat has 5 habitable rooms and therefore requires 40m2. In addition the proposed two-bedroom house would require a private amenity space with a minimum area of 50m2.

7.29 The scheme includes a 135m2 communal amenity space at the rear of the site for use by the residents of the apartments. This space can be directly accessed from the rear of the apartment building. The accessibility of the space overcomes one of the Local Planning Authority’s and Inspector’s previous concerns with the proposal; In addition it is noted that the proposed amenity space is approximately one-third larger that previously proposed.

7.30 The proposed 3-bed apartment would include a 10m2 private balcony. In light of the recent Planning Inspectorate decision, it is considered that balconies on the rear elevation would be acceptable from an overlooking perspective.

7.31 The proposed houses would have roof terraces and, private rear gardens and small front gardens. The total area of amenity space available to future residents of the proposed houses is approximately 52.5m2.

7.32 The site is only about a 5-minute walk from Homefield Recreation Ground,

which could make an important contribution to the playspace needs of children in the locality. The site does not fall within an area of open space deficiency, and the Local Planning Authority did not seek any contribution in relation to public open space during the pervious appeal process.

7.33 In summary, the scale of amenity space provided on site is lower than the

level of amenity space sought within the planning framework. However, given the town centre location of the site, the size and general orientation of the proposed communal amenity space combined with the balcony of the larger family apartment and the private gardens and terraces associated with each of the individual houses, it is considered that, on balance, sufficient amenity space would be provided on site to meet the anticipated needs of future residents. However, Members thoughts on this issue are welcomed.

Internal space standards

7.34 Section 12 of the Council’s 1997, Supplementary Guidance sets minimum standards to be achieved for internal floor areas in new dwellings. These floor area standards are set out in the table below.

Number of occupants

Floor area standard (sq.m)

UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997)

1 30

2 45

3 57

4 70 for a flat, 72 for a two-storey house or a maisonette

5 79 for a flat, 82 for a two-storey house or a maisonette, 94 for a three-storey house

6 86 for a flat, 92 for a two-storey house or a maisonette, 98 for a three-storey house

7.35 Each of the proposed units complies with these requirements. The

Supplementary Guidance also lists appropriate minimum room sizes. However, these are to be applied to conversions and a more flexible approach to internal spaces standards can be adopted in new developments. It is considered that the size and layout of the proposed units accords with the intent of the Council’s and London Plan policies and Guidance.

Daylight and Sunlight

7.36 UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 (New Development) states that in relation to the context, form and layout of buildings and spaces, new development should “ensure adequate daylight and sunlight reaches properties, and minimise any detrimental impact on adjoining properties, by applying the Council’s adopted standards (see SPG).” The reference to adopted standards (see SPG) is to the UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997), which gives daylight and sunlight standards at Section 4.

7.37 The applicant has submitted a Sunlight and Daylight study.

7.38 The Building Research Establishment’s guideline: ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight – A guide to good practice’ states that with regards to gardens and open spaces that no more than two fifths, and preferably no more than a quarter of gardens, children’s playgrounds and sitting out areas should be prevented by buildings from receiving any sunlight at all on 21st March. The technical analysis submitted illustrates that 46% of the shared courtyard would be overshadowed on March 21st. This equates to an extra 7.2m2 of overshadowed space when compared to a complying scheme. The applicant has also commissioned a study which shows that on March 25th, approximately 37% of the amenity space would be overshadowed.

7.39 On balance, it is considered that the level of internal overshadowing would not unreasonably harm the living conditions of future residents.

7.40 At the Planning Inquiry, the Inspector considered that the previous appeal scheme would not have an unduly harmful impact on the sunlight, daylight, outlook or privacy of the residents of adjoining properties.

7.41 Members comments on this matter are welcomed.

Privacy

7.42 UDP Policy H.4.1 (Housing standards) requires proposals to, amongst other things, have regard to standards and guidelines for privacy and spacing between buildings. These are set out at Appendix 1 of the UDP and read,

§ The design and layout should ensure sufficient privacy intended residents and to a smaller area of garden close to each dwelling…

§ A distance of at least 21m (70ft) is recommended between the habitable room windows which directly face those of another habitable room, or any other windows that give light and outlook to rooms normally occupied during the day. In the case of windows of non-habitable rooms within 21m of another facing window, obscured glazing would be considered acceptable.

§ Roof terraces and balconies are not acceptable where they would directly overlook neighbouring habitable rooms or gardens.

§ In calculating the effects of a particular development on outlook, the natural features of the site, including slope, will need to be taken into account, together with the effects of existing and potential

extensions.

7.43 When assessing the privacy implications of the previous scheme, the Planning Inspector noted:

“Ground floor windows in 1A are shielded by the wall that separates it from the appeal site and the side of the proposed office building would be free from openings. While there would be windows and balconies facing towards 1A in the larger of the buildings, obscure glazing and screens are proposed to restrict views from these. Consequently I do not consider that there would be harmful overlooking or perception of overlooking of No 1A”.

7.44 The proposed scheme would introduce roof terraces to the proposed houses. However, it is noted that the houses are orientated such that the predominant views would be across the rear yards of the commercial premises along Chiswick High Road, rather than out towards the roof terraces and rear gardens of the properties along Upham Park Road or Thornton Avenue.

7.45 If the Council were minded to grant approval, it is considered that issues of overlooking could be adequately address by way of a condition requiring details of the balcony screens for the 3-bedroom apartment and the roof terraces of the houses to be submitted. However, Members comments on this matter are welcomed.

Scale, design and impact on the surrounding area 7.46 These matters are address in section 2 of this assessment.

Noise Impact

7.47 An Environmental Noise Assessment was submitted with the application. An assessment of road traffic noise according to PPG 24 has shown that the site falls within Noise Exposure Category (NEC) C. PPG 24 indicates that in these circumstances planning permission can be given for residential development provided that appropriate conditions are placed on any approval requiring protection against noise.

7.48 The Council’s Environmental Health Team have confirmed that adequate mitigation of noise issues can be achieved through design and suitable double glazed windows. To ensure that the proposal accords with UDP Policies ENV-B.1.1 and ENV-P.1.5, if the Council were minded to approve the application, it is recommended that it be subject to a condition requiring details of soundproofing (both internally and externally).

7.49 With regards to the noise issues associated with the proposed car lift. The manufacture information on the proposed Landmark lift is as follows:

• Noise levels during operation under load, at 1m from lift doors = 55 to 60 dB (free-field sound pressure level)

• Noise level within the lift car during operation = 55 to 60 dB (free-field sound pressure level)

• Noise level within the lift motor room during operation under load = 55 to 60 dB (free-field sound pressure level)

7.50 The nearest residential windows at 1A Upham Park Road would be approximately 5m from the lift doors. At this point, it is noted that the rating level of noise would be 27 dB would be approximately 13dB below the background noise level.

7.51 Given the low levels of noise generated by the proposed vehicle lift, it is not considered that it would significantly impact on the living conditions of future residents of the scheme or adjoining neighbours.

Refuse

7.52 Refuse and recycling storage facilities would be provided at street level with the Council’s Cleansing vehicle being able to stop in a lay-by on Upham Park Road. Servicing to the building will also take place in this location.

Issue 7: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC AND PARKING IN THE LOCALITY

7.53 Policy T.1.4 (Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments) of the UDP states that all developments must provide parking and servicing facilities in accordance with the Council’s standards as found in Appendix 3. The off-street car parking requirement for the commercial unit based on 1 space / 200m2, is 3 spaces. None has been provided. The maximum off-street car parking for the residential element is 11 spaces. The revised scheme includes a basement car park with space for 10 cars and 9 cycle spaces. The car park would be accessed via a car lift from Upham Park Road whilst bicycles could be transported via the main pedestrian lift which serves all floors including the basement.

7.54 The Head of Traffic and Parking has assessed the proposal including the submitted Transport Statement, and has advised that the parking layout is satisfactory in terms of manoeuvring into and out of the parking spaces.

7.55 With regards to the lack of parking in association with the A1 and A2 usage of the commercial area, there are some pay and display parking spaces near-by that will offer an opportunity for customers attending the shops to park.

7.56 The site is located in an area controlled by a CPZ with a heavy demand for parking. The five existing residential units on the site have residential parking permits. If the Council were minded to grant approval, a condition could be included to prevent residents from obtaining a residents parking permit in the area.

7.57 It is noted that 9 cycle spaces would be provided in the basement for the occupants of the residential units.

7.58 Members comments on Traffic and Parking are welcomed.

Issue 8: ARE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRINCIPLES APPLIED

7.59 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 significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.60 Policies ENV-B.1.1, ENV-P.1.3, ENV-P.2.1, ENV-P.2.4 and ENV-P.2.5 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.

7.61 The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement as part of the application. The energy consumption and associated carbon emission of a ‘base case’ scheme that complies with Building regulations provide a good practice energy consumption benchmark.

7.62 The proposed scheme would incorporate low energy principles including at least the following energy efficiency measures:

• Low energy lighting

• Low U-Value double glazing

• High efficiency appliances.

7.63 The Energy Statement assesses the viability of a wide range of renewable energy technologies. An Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) system and Solar Hot Water (SHW) panels to supply domestic water to residential units are the most feasible options and have been incorporated into the proposal.

7.64 The proposal is expected to achieve 18% overall carbon emissions reduction from base case Part L compliant building, with a 14% reduction in CO2 attributed to onsite renewable energy generation. The table below summarises the carbon savings and energy contribution calculated for the proposal.

Scenario System details

Cumulative CO2

emissions (tones p.a.)

CO2 savings over base case (tones p.a.)

Total CO2 savings over base case (%)

Base Case N/A 66 N/A N/A

Be Lean – Energy Efficiency Measures

Fabric, lighting and air-tightness measures and energy efficient appliances

63 3 5%

Be Clean – Energy Efficiency & Low Carbon Technologies

N/A 63 3 5%

Be Green – Energy Efficiency, Low Carbon & Renewable Technologies

ASHP 100 kW heating capacity and SHW panels 28m2

54 12 18%

7.65 Whilst the proposal does not meet the 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, it is considered that it has been adequately demonstrated that such provision is not feasible given the constraints of the site and the nature of the proposed development. Subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions, it is considered that if the Council were minded to grant approval, the development would incorporate sustainable building principles, the most efficient use of natural resources, minimise water, energy, fossil fuels while maximising the use of renewable resources.

7.66 Members comments on this issue are welcomed.

8.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

8.1 Unitary Development Plan policy IMP6.1 states that where appropriate the Council will seek to ensure that a developer enters into a planning obligation to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development. Government Circular 05/2005 provides guidance on the use of planning obligations, which may impose a restriction or requirement, or provide for payment of money from the developer to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme or mitigate the impacts of the development.

8.2 Circular 05/2005 considers whether what is requested is reasonable in scale and kind to what is being proposed. This depends on whether the obligation is:

A) Needed to enable the development go ahead; or

B) In the case of a financial payment, will the contribution meet the cost of providing the sought facility; or

C) Is otherwise so directly related to the permitted development that it ought not to be permitted without it; or

D) Is intended to offset the loss of or impact on any amenity resource present or on site?

8.3 The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD states that the exact type and

range of planning obligations, which may be sought for an individual site, will depend upon the particular circumstances and development proposed, and its impact upon the local environment, local services and facilities.

8.4 Whether or not planning obligations will be sought will be linked to the scale

and type of development. In terms of the Council’s SPD, the proposed residential component does not meet the 10 housing units threshold for planning obligations, nor does the commercial unit meet the 1,000m2 floorspace requirement for commercial developments. Whilst the Planning Authority may consider that a mixed use scheme with a combined floor area in excess of 1,000m2 such as this should require planning obligations, in this instance it is noted that the Planning Authority did not pursue any contributions during the Planning Appeal process on the previous scheme and it is not considered that any contributions would be warranted in this instance to mitigate against the impact of the proposal. However, Member comments on this matter are welcomed.

9.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The equal opportunity implications of the proposal are discussed in the body of the report and, in particular, paragraphs 7.22 to 7.26.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The proposed development would not result in an unacceptable loss of employment land and, on balance, would be a positive contribution to the locality, ensuring an acceptable design and standard of residential accommodation. Additionally, subject to safeguarding conditions, the living conditions of neighbouring residents would be satisfactorily protected and the development would not significantly affect traffic and parking conditions in the locality.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION

11.1 That Members’ comments on this proposal be referred to the Sustainable Development Committee for decision if an acceptable scheme can be negotiated. If an acceptable scheme cannot be negotiated the application will be refused under delegated authority.