PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 December 2015 natalie.lynch@hounslow.gov.uk gemma.bassett@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2015/3392 00703/A/P13

Address: Land at Lionel Road South, Brentford TW8 9QR

Ward: Brentford

This application is being taken to Planning Committee as a Major scheme

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 Planning permission (ref 00703/A/P11) for this site was granted on 12 June 2014, with a legal agreement. The hybrid planning application granted full planning permission for the demolition of all buildings and erection of a new stadium with ancillary accommodation and associated infrastructure. The application also gave outline consent for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of enabling development, comprising up to 910 residential units (C3 Use Class), up to 1,200sqm retail/other floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2 Use Classes), a hotel of up to 160 bedrooms (C1 Use Class), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, up to 775 car parking spaces, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and public and private amenity spaces with all matters reserved.

1.2 This application is for all reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) in relation to the Central Eastern, Capital Court, and Central Southern sites comprising 648 residential units, 368sqm of commercial floorspace (A and D Use Classes), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, car parking, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and private amenity space. A number of conditions which were attached to the outline consent would also be discharged as part of this application.

1.3 The proposal would provide a good standard of living accommodation and commercial uses that would not adversely impact on neighbouring residents’ living conditions and would add to the local character and appearance of the surrounding area.

1.4 The application is recommended for approval.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

Figure 1 – Site location plan

2.1 The application site has an area of 4.7 Ha and is comprised of three plots of land adjoined by railway lines, Lionel Road South and Capital interchange Way (see figure 1). Lionel Road South is a one-way north to south route linking Chiswick High Road (just to the north of Kew Bridge) to the Great West Road (A4) and the elevated M4 motorway to the north. The first 50m of Lionel Road South (at the northern end) is two way. Kew Bridge railway station adjoins the southern end of the site.

2.2 The site is divided up into a number of site areas. The central area of the site (“the Central site”) is a roughly triangular shaped plot bounded by railway lines to the northwest and east, with Lionel Road South running along its southern and southwest side. This site has a variety of industrial type uses, and is principally used for waste transfer with construction waste being sorted and recycled. Other uses include vehicle repair, car hire, construction hire and engineering. Much of the site is unsurfaced, with stockpiles of various waste materials amongst a number of pre-fabricated buildings. A two-storey brick building c1870s adjoins Lionel Road.

2.3 The second plot is a smaller triangular shaped site to the southwest of Lionel Road. This site is also bounded by railway lines on two sides. It was formerly occupied by a builder’s yard and has a number of two-storey buildings and sheds (“the Duffy site”)

2.4 The third and final plot is an irregular shaped plot to the east of the main site, which has railway lines to the west and Capital Interchange Way to the east. It has a four storey office building, Capital Court, which is one of a pair of 1980s office buildings, the other building having recently been converted to a secondary school (“the Capital Court site”).

2.5 A small area of footpath at the far southern end of the site, is within Kew Bridge Conservation Area.

2.6 Owing to its location between railway lines and the low lying nature of the land, the site is relatively isolated and self-contained from the surrounding environment. The character of the surrounding areas differ significantly with these displaying diverse uses, and varying urban grain, building scale and form.

2.7 The adjoining areas to the north and west form part of the A4/M4 corridor and contain the elevated motorway and large commercial buildings, which are largely replacements of earlier industrial development. Buildings here range in height between 39m to 62m AOD (above ordnance datum).Further north is Gunnersbury Park, a large area of open space that is designated as Metropolitan Open Land, a conservation area, Grade II* listed park and garden and a Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance.

2.8 To the southwest, beyond the Brentford Fountain Leisure Centre and mixed use shopping parade along Chiswick High Road are residential areas, comprised largely of two and three-storey terraced and semi-detached housing with some flats, the latter includes Rivers House, a 9-storey converted residential building (37m AOD).

2.9 These residential localities are of high townscape value and much of the area is designated within either Wellesley Road or Strand on the Green Conservation Areas, the riverside containing many listed buildings.

2.10 To the immediate south, on the opposite side of railway lines is Kew Bridge Station, which has a Grade II station building, as well as residential development of houses and flats on Kew Bridge Road and off Green Dragon Lane. Kew Steam Museum, a group of listed buildings (Grade I and II) is a key feature of this area, with its distinctive tall standpipe tower (campanile) being a prominent landmark as it rises to 67m AOD. Further beyond this and fronting the Thames, is a new mixed use scheme adjacent to Kew Bridge. This scheme is partially complete and has buildings up to 9-storeys (34m AOD) with it adjoining a similar height building (Regatta Point). Part of this area is designated as Kew Bridge Conservation Area.

2.11 West and southwest are the six Brentford Towers, 23 storey residential blocks (72m AOD). These buildings are of a uniform design and are prominent in the skyline of the area. A new development under construction, known as Kew Bridge West, lies adjacent to these towers and the Steam Museum. Phase 1 has nine buildings ranging from 8 to 16-storeys (up to 64m AOD) and Phase II three buildings of 4 to 7- storeys (up to 32m AOD)

2.12 Kew Bridge, itself a Grade II Listed Building, crosses the Thames to the south of the site. It provides a long axis for a north-south view that terminates at the Vantage West office building (62m AOD) that is directly north of the site. Across the Thames and into the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames are Kew Green and the Royal Botanic Gardens, both of which are designated as conservation areas. Additionally Kew Gardens is a World Heritage Site and area designated Grade I on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. It has many Listed Buildings including Kew Palace. The Garden’s World Heritage Buffer

Zone incorporates Kew Green and extends to the Brentford side of the Thames.

2.13 The site is allocated in the Hounslow Local Plan (Site No. 13) for mixed use for a community football stadium with enabling residential and hotel (C1) with ancillary retail and services (A1-A4) uses.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 00703/A/P11 Submission of a Hybrid Planning Application for Brentford Football Club for: Full Planning Permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of a stadium with ancillary accommodation (D2 Use Class), associated infrastructure including a new vehicular and pedestrian bridge from the eastern corner of the site into Capital Interchange Way, reopening of an existing pedestrian underpass from Kew Bridge Station beneath Lionel Road South and the construction of a new covered, open sided link from that underpass to the stadium external concourse, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, public realm improvements, 60 car parking spaces, 400 cycle parking spaces and landscaping; and Outline Planning Permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and erection of associated enabling development, comprising up to 910 residential units (C3 Use Class), up to 1,200sqm retail/other floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2 Use Classes), a hotel of up to 160 bedrooms (C1 Use Class), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, up to 775 car parking spaces, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and public and private amenity spaces (all matters reserved)

Approved with a legal agreement – 12 June 2014

3.2 00703/A/P11(NMA) Non material amendment sought for minor changes to the west stand stadium elevation of planning permission 00703/A/P11 dated 12/6/2014 for submission of a Hybrid Planning Application for Brentford Football Club for: Full Planning Permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of a stadium with ancillary accommodation (D2 Use Class), associated infrastructure including a new vehicular and pedestrian bridge from the eastern corner of the site into Capital Interchange Way, reopening of an existing pedestrian underpass from Kew Bridge Station beneath Lionel Road South and the construction of a new covered, open sided link from

that underpass to the stadium external concourse, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, public realm improvements, 60 car parking spaces, 400 cycle parking spaces and landscaping; and Outline Planning Permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and erection of associated enabling development, comprising up to 910 residential units (C3 Use Class), up to 1,200sqm retail/other floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2 Use Classes), a hotel of up to 160 bedrooms (C1 Use Class), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, up to 775 car parking spaces, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and public and private amenity spaces (all matters reserved)

NMA Approved – 31 July 2015

3.3 00703/A/P12 Reserved Matters application in relation to a two-storey car-park (ground and podium level) on the central western site (Phase 1/Block D) pursuant to planning permission of 00703/A/P11 dated 12/6/2014 for Submission of a Hybrid Planning Application for Brentford Football Club for: Full Planning Permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of a stadium with ancillary accommodation (D2 Use Class), associated infrastructure including a new vehicular and pedestrian bridge from the eastern corner of the site into Capital Interchange Way, reopening of an existing pedestrian underpass from Kew Bridge Station beneath Lionel Road South and the construction of a new covered, open sided link from that underpass to the stadium external concourse, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, public realm improvements, 60 car parking spaces, 400 cycle parking spaces and landscaping; and Outline Planning Permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and erection of associated enabling development, comprising up to 910 residential units (C3 Use Class), up to 1,200sqm retail/other floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2 Use Classes), a hotel of up to 160 bedrooms (C1 Use Class), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, up to 775 car parking spaces, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and public and private amenity spaces

Decision Pending

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 Planning permission (ref 00703/A/P11) for this site was granted on 12 June 2014, with a legal agreement. The application granted full planning permission for the demolition of all buildings and erection of a new stadium with ancillary accommodation and associated infrastructure. The application also gave outline planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of enabling development, comprising up to 910 residential units (C3 Use Class), up to 1,200sqm retail/other floorspace (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2 Use Classes), a hotel of up to 160 bedrooms (C1 Use Class), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, up to 775 car parking spaces, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and public and private amenity spaces with all matters reserved. The original application included an Environmental Statement which was considered as part of the assessment of the proposal, with this statement relating to maximum parameters for the amount of development and maximum building envelopes.

Figure 2 – Component sites

Figure 3 – Central Southern, Central Eastern and Capital Court Sites

4.2 This application is for the reserved matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in relation to the Central Eastern, Capital Court and Central Southern sites (see figures 2 and 3). Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 defines each reserved matters as follows.

• ‘Access’ – the accessibility to and within the site, for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.

• ‘Appearance’ – the aspects of a building or place within the development which determine the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture.

• ‘Landscaping’ – the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated and includes: (a) screening by fences, walls or other means; (b) the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or grass; (c) the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks; (d) the laying out or provision of gardens, courts, squares, water features, sculpture or public art; and (e) the provision of other amenity features.

• ‘Layout’ – the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development.

• ‘Scale’ – the height, width and length of each building proposed within the development in relation to its surroundings.

4.3 The proposal comprises 648 residential units, 368sqm of commercial

floorspace (A and D Use Classes), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, car parking, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and private amenity space.

4.4 This application also seeks to discharge some of the conditions that were attached to the outline consent. The following conditions attached to the outline consent (ref 00703/A/P11) only will also be assessed in this report and determined as part of this application.

• 9 – housing standards

• 10 – compliance with design code

• 27 – archaeology scheme

• 28 – WSI for stable block

• 30 – details of materials

• 33 – details of hard and soft landscaping Central Southern – Blocks E & F

4.5 The Central Southern site (see figures 4 and 5) consists of two residential blocks situated either side of a communal courtyard garden. Block E positioned to the west side, would be 14 storeys high and would provide 62 residential units in the following mix, 13 x 1 bed, 33 x 2 bed, 16 x 3 bed. The units would all be private sale units. Block F positioned to the east side would step up from 6 storeys high at the junction between Lionel Road South and Kew Bridge Road to a maximum of 15 storeys high to the north. Block F would provide a total of 176 residential units in the following mix, 83 x 1 bed, 77 x 2 bed, 16 x 3 bed.

4.6 A total of 92 car parking spaces and 278 cycle parking spaces would be provided for the residential units in Blocks E and F at basement level. Vehicular access to the car parking would be

4.7 The communal courtyard area would be enclosed by a single storey pavilion to the north and an entrance lobby to the south which would be set back from the kerb of Lionel Road by 10m.

Figure 4 – Central Southern Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Figure 5 – Central Southern CGI (from Kew Bridge Station platform)

Central Eastern – Blocks G & H

4.8 The Central Eastern site (see figures 6 and 7) consists of two residential blocks on a two storey podium (basement and ground floor). At basement level there is car parking and at the ground floor level there would be a

communal area and courtyard garden. Block G is positioned to the west and would be 12 to 15 storeys high. The lower portion of the block would be used as a car park by the Football Club on match days and as the outside broadcast area. A total of 82 residential units would be provided in this block in the following mix, 34 x 1 bed, 38 x 2 bed, 10 x 3 bed.

4.9 Block H would be 14 storeys high and would provide 94 units in the following mix, 52 x 1 bed and 42 x 2 bed. At the ground floor level there would be five residential units, 3 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed. All of the units in Blocks G and H would be private rental and would be accessed by a single storey entrance lobby that would run between the two buildings at ground floor level.

4.10 Vehicle access to this part of the site would be via a bridge from Capital Interchange Way. A total of 64 car parking spaces and 196 cycle parking spaces would be provided for the residential units.

Figure 6 – Central Eastern Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Figure 7 – Central Eastern CGI (from east side of new bridge link) Capital Court – Blocks I, J, K

4.11 Capital Court (see figures 8 and 9) consists of three residential blocks. The blocks would be positioned on a two storey podium, with parking at the basement level and a lobby and flexible A/D Class unit at ground floor level. Block I would be positioned to the north and would be 13 storeys high and would provide 93 residential units, in the following mix, 48 x 1 bed, 34 x 2 bed, 11 x 3 bed. These units would be private rental units.

4.12 Block J would be 12 storeys high and would provide a total of 70 residential units. The unit mix would be 21 x 1 bed, 49 x 2 bed. These units would be for private rental.

4.13 Block K would be 9 storeys high and would provide a total of 66 residential

units in the following mix, 32 x 1 bed, 28 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed. These units would be for private sale.

4.14 There would be a total of 42 residential car parking spaces and 306 cycle parking spaces. There would be also be a total of 161 car parking spaces for Brentford Football Club operational use, including match days.

Figure 8 – Capital Court Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Figure 9 – Capital Court CGI (from Capital Interchange Way)

Landscaping and Open space

4.15 Each residential unit would have access to a private balcony or a roof terrace and each of the three sites would have communal open space. A public park has been secured by the s106 attached to the outline permission and this would be provided on the Duffy site.

4.16 There would be hard and soft landscaping around the seven blocks and within the communal amenity spaces. The planting and paving would echo the site’s railway heritage with strong linear lines. There would be narrow strips of sett paving representing railway tracks, bands of paving in contrasting colours, rustic style furniture and a naturalistic planting scheme. Commercial uses

4.17 Four ground floor commercial units with a combined floorspace of 368sqm would be provided across two of the sites, two units on the Central Southern site with frontages onto Lionel Road South and two units on the Capital Court site fronting onto the plaza that adjoins Capital Interchange Way. Capital Court would have a flexible A/D use. Design and appearance

4.18 The application cites connotations of the rail heritage of the area as an

influence on the design rationale for the scheme along with the Design Code that was approved as part of the outline permission. In particular the linear railway lines that frame the site are integral to the architectural concept. Each of the three residential sites would have an underlying horizontal emphasis communicated by a number of architectural details, as well as components that look to articulate their overall massing.

4.19 In terms of detailing, each storey height would have a ‘C’ shaped cassette/ channel 450mm deep with two flanges 30mm wide separated by a flange 390mm wide. There would be vertical fins to each building 400mm wide and Horizontal fins would be used to emphasise changes in floor plates and layers.

4.20 Balconies would either bolt onto the façade or be inset. Bolt on balconies would have frameless acid etched glass panels. Inset balconies would have a 30mm x 30mm stainless steel channel and clear glass.

4.21 The tops of the buildings would have different treatments to each block; Block E would have a squared uniform treatment. Block F would have two tiers of two storeys, above which would then be a projecting tower of 5 storeys. Blocks G and H would have the top four storeys set back with large roof terraces that would wrap around the north and the south elevations. Blocks I, J and K would have no variation in roof form.

Materials

4.22 It is proposed that the buildings will be metal-clad, primarily in zircon XDKB025 with horizontal banding in champagne XDCC030.

4.23 Each site would be differentiated by the use of colour accents; coloured

balcony soffits returns, and key façade frames along with the underside of projecting balconies would be detailed in Trespa Meteon M53.0.2 ST Copper Red or Trespa Meteon A06.3.5 Ochre Satin. Vertical fins and some horizontal detailing would be carried out in anodized steel (Gooding Aluminium GA SA10). Access

4.24 Vehicular access would be along Lionel Road South and Capital

Interchange Way, with a bridge over the railway tracks providing access to the Central Eastern site. At Central Southern, there would be a pick-up and drop-off zone and the entrance to the basement car park would be at the front of the two blocks. At Capital Court there would be a layby for drop off and refuse collection. There would be two entrance points in the northern elevation of Block I which would provide access into the basement car park. At Central Eastern, vehicular access would be across the new link bridge and the entrance to the car park would be through Block G. Pedestrian access into Central Southern would be through the communal lobby area. This would provide access to the communal amenity space between Blocks E and F.

4.25 Pedestrian access to the communal amenity space in Capital Court would

be either side of Blocks I, J and K. There would be pedestrian access across the link bridge on both sides which would provide access to Central Eastern.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 The application is accompanied by a planning statement which acknowledges that a two day public exhibition was held at Brentford Boating Arch (Unit 5, Kew Bridge Arches) on 15 and 16 May 2015. Meetings with the Lionel Road Liaison Group were held on 24 March 2015, 14 May 2015 and 12 October 2015.

5.2 15,000 newsletters were delivered to addresses in the surrounding area –including Chiswick, Kew, Brentford and Ealing. Advertisements were placed in the Hounslow Chronicle and the Richmond & Twickenham Times. There is also a project website which has been live since April 2014 at: www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com

5.3 5 site notices were put up on 12 August 2015 and a press notice was published in the Hounslow Chronicle on 21 August 2015. The planning application documents were made available to view in hard copy at Brentford Library, the application was also available to view on the Council’s website.

5.4 Consultation letters were sent to statutory consultees, neighbouring boroughs, local amenity groups and to over 11 000 properties and respondents to the previous planning application ref. 00703/A/P11.

5.5 Two further versions of the consultation letters were sent out, with all properties and persons finally consulted by letter on the 09 October 2015.

5.6 The outline application for the site ref. 00703/A/P11 attracted over 3000 responses, by comparison, the reserved matters application has received 118 responses comprising:

84 responses in objection: 77 public, 7 statutory consultees

28 responses in support: 19 public, 9 statutory consultees

5.7 2 public representations were received in support of the proposals but which raised concerns covered in other objections. 4 public representations were received from members of the public who were no longer interested in the proposals.

5.8 A summary of individual responses is given below.

Comments raised in objections Response Design and appearance of buildings is a departure from the design code and is too uniform.

The design and appearance of the buildings has satisfactorily addressed the Design Code and has been influenced by the rail heritage of the area.

Proposed blocks are too rectangular/boxy/ utilitarian, with no interesting features.

The blocks include detailed designed features include projecting and recessed balconies, horizontal fins and coloured soffits. The tops of the buildings would have different treatments with setbacks.

Dark industrial and metallic finishes conflict with the palette of the surrounding area and accentuate building height.

The proposed materials provide a neutral colour palette accentuated by metal and glass detailing. The cladding would have dark brown tones with some storeys emphasised by horizontal banding in a lighter champagne/ dark beige colour. The predominant Zircon cladding is towards the darker end of the field palette set out in the design code, it would continue the tonal association with the approved stadium design, and would reflect the detailing to industrial buildings within the surrounding environment creating a robust appearance. The lighter champagne/ dark beige colour would provide variation and tonal interest to the

buildings.

The approach to colour would be subtle, with the ochre satin and copper red accent tones being applied to soffits, returns, the undersides of balconies and to the frames of the horizontal fins. These are less vivid than the colours in the detail palette of the design code but would provide variation and interest to elevations relative to proximity to the site.

Uniform elevation treatment and height would overly dominate and cause greater harm to surrounding views and conservation areas.

The elevations of each block have been treated differently with variations to create separate addresses and identities for each area and cluster of blocks.

Not in accordance with the design code.

The proposal is in general conformity with the Design Code and minor variations have been made as a result of the more detailed design work that has occurred for this application.

Reduction of amenity space.

The outline consent considered an indicative quantum of communal amenity space. There is a reduction in 723sqm of the proposed communal amenity space compared to the illustrative areas indicated at the outline stage. It was acknowledged in the outline consent that the site would never be able to provide the required communal amenity space to comply with the Local Plan and as such any communal space would need to be of a high quality and design. There are now a higher proportion of smaller sized units proposed and as such the demand for communal amenity space would be lower than expected. The communal amenity space has been designed to a high standard with planting and different levels for different spaces such as a BBQ area and children’s play area. The communal space would be finished to a high quality and this would outweigh the shortfall in communal amenity

space.

Reduction of children’s play space.

As there are a higher proportion of smaller sized units, the child yield is lower than assessed in the outline application. The proposed provision of children’s play space would be in line with the Mayors SPG.

Small, dark, unsafe amenity space.

The communal amenity space has been positioned between the blocks and to the rear of the Capital Court site and would be easily accessible by residents. It would receive good daylight and is securely enclosed.

Inadequate quality of public realm.

The proposed public realm would be of a high quality design and finish and would result in a major improvement to footpaths and the streetscene of the locality.

Play space area is set out in construction logistic plan as site services for phase 2– but has to be provided before first occupation of phase 1.

Noted. The Construction Logistics Plan is subject to further assessment and this has been secured by a condition in the outline consent.

Shortage of parking spaces on site.

The number of parking spaces proposed has reduced compared to the numbers proposed at outline stage The proposed level of car parking is in line with the London Plan standards and would promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport. The trip generation contained within the original Transport Assessment which was assessed in the outline application was based on census data for the local area, with peak hour movements predicted to be under the 198 car parking spaces proposed (AM Peak 184 two way movements and PM Peak 161 two way movements). As such, the reduction in the number of car parking spaces is unlikely to have an adverse impact on parking in the surrounding area. The reduction in the number of car parking spaces would result in more people traveling to and from the site by more sustainable means such

as walking, cycling or by public transport. TfL raised no objection to the proposal. There is sufficient public transport capacity in the area to cope with the additional demand. Therefore, the proposed number of car parking spaces would be considered acceptable in this instance.

Increased pressures on traffic and parking to surrounding residential areas.

This matter was assessed during the application stage and deemed to be acceptable. The overall amount of parking has been reduced, which would lessen impacts on traffic and parking in the area. o be re-evaluated as part of the travel plan due to decrease in on-site parking

Excessive proportion of single aspect, north facing units given the forthcoming Duffy site.

It was acknowledged in the outline consent that there would be a proportion of single aspect, north facing units. A condition was attached to the outline consent restricting the total number of single aspect, north facing units to 10% of the overall 910 units. This application proposes 26 single aspect, north facing units out of a total of 648 residential units for the three sites. This would equate to 4% and would be below the maximum allowance. All of the units which single aspect and north facing would be 1 bed residential units in accordance with the Mayors SPG.

Inadequate room heights. The Housing SPG sets a Baseline Standard that a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m should be achieved in all habitable rooms with a height of 2.6m being desirable. The proposed finished floor to ceiling height in all the units would be 2.5m and would comply with the Baseline Standard.

Poor levels of residential privacy. A number of pinch points were identified at outline stage and in order to mitigate this, the designs proposed alternate orientation of living spaces and a combination of high-level and low level windows, 2.1m high privacy screens and privacy film which would

be used to minimise potential privacy issues.

Poor levels of daylight to residential dwellings.

Central Southern would have the worse situation with a VSC of 7.6-11.09% for the windows at the lower levels which face out onto the stadium. This is well below the recommended 27%. The BRE guidance says that between 5 and 15% it is very difficult to provide adequate daylight unless very large windows are used. The worse affected units would be F1.6 and F.17 and the living/dining areas would be served by large windows. In terms of ADF, the living/kitchen/dining room of F.1.6 and the two bedrooms of F.1.7 would fail to have adequate levels of internal illuminance. However, on balance the other 646 would all receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight.

Excessive number of units per core

The Housing SPG sets out a good practice guide that there should be a maximum of eight units per core. Blocks F, I and K would exceed these and provide nine units per core. The Housing SPG says that the number of people sharing a circulation core and landing would both affect how intensively the space would be used. For example eight family sized units is normally a maximum, but up to 12 single person units per core may be acceptable. The proposed unit mix would provide a higher proportion of smaller units (1 and 2 bed) and as such the number of people accessing the floor would be similar to if there were eight units per core which were all 3 bed units. The proposal for nine units per core would not have an adverse impact on residents of those Blocks and would be considered acceptable in this instance.

Increased pressures on sewers and drainage

Conditions 23 and 25 of the outline consent required the submission of further details on water and drainage infrastructure. These details have been

submitted as a separate application and are still being assessed by officers.

Increased safety risk from added footfalls due to lack of site permeability.

This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11.

Poor residential access on match days.

This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11. There would be minor inconvenience prior to and after matches but these are irregular occurrences and would be known to all occupiers, with arrangements for access to be managed with cooperation from the football club as part of the Stadium Management Plan.

Over-development of the site Officers report 2013 states a maximum of 635 units for these 3 sites, proposal is for 648.

The outline consent granted permission for up to 910 residential units across the whole of the site with all other matters reserved. It was envisaged that 635 units would be provided across these three sites. The proposed mix includes a higher proportion of smaller sized units and as such there are now a higher number of units proposed, however this means that fewer residential units will be allowed on the Duffy site.

Increased pressures on public facilities – doctors, schools, etc.

This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11.

Increased litter and street waste. This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11.

Increased crowding at Gunnersbury and Kew Bridge stations / buses.

This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11.

Increase in air and noise pollution.

This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11. Notably the number of parking spaces on the site has significantly reduced, which would lessen traffic generation from the site.

Increased noise from construction.

This was assessed at outline stage in planning ref 00703/A/P11.

Insufficient social housing. This was assessed at outline stage in

planning ref 00703/A/P11 and is tied into the legal agreement.

Construction Logistics Plan - Stile hall garden should be

a no through route - Restrict use of Thames

Road and Hartington Road

Noted. The Construction Logistics Plan is subject to further assessment and this has been secured by a condition in the outline consent.

Compulsory Purchase Order is an inappropriate use of powers due to profit of the development.

This does not form part of the assessment of this application. This application is for the reserved matters relating to the residential and commercial units proposed in the Capital Court, Central Eastern and Central Southern sites only.

5.9 The following responses from statutory consultees and amenity groups were received.

Statutory Consultees Response Brentford County Council

Objection - The application has failed to follow the

design code- - Proposals are too uniform in appearance - Lack of tapering and variation to skyline - Poor quality materials - Lack of privacy between residential units - Poor air quality - Poor quality amenity space with lack of

daylight - Lack of mature trees in landscaping

British Pipeline Agency (BPA)

No objection

Crime Prevention No objection Principles of ‘Secured by Design’ should be required by condition as a minimum

Canal & River Trust No objection Environment Agency No objection Friends of Stile Hall Objection

- Proposals inconsistent with design code - Lack of variation and tapering at roof level - Dark cladding - Poor quality living accommodation with

insufficient ceiling heights, poor levels of daylight and privacy and restricted access on match days

- Poor quality communal and play space - Lack of evidence of public benefit

- Stile Hall Gardens should be a no through road in the CLP

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

No objection

Heathrow No objection Highways England No objection Historic England No objection to archaeological issues Kew Residents Association

Objection - Density is too great and out of keeping with

the surrounding landscape - Increased traffic congestion and air

pollution - Overcrowding of Gunnersbury station

Kew Society Objection - Partial reserved matters is not a

comprehensive view of the totality of design

- Not in accordance with design code - Dominant appearance would harm historic

setting of local listed buildings - Excessive glazing and reflective materials - Style and appearance of balconies does

not reflect the code - Poor quality living accommodation

Kew Royal Botanic Gardens

Objection - Loss of curved edges and tapering to tops

of buildings - Dark materials inappropriate to location - A second letter was received on 30

November raising the same objections Strand on the Green Association

Objection - Lack of variation between blocks and sites - Insufficient levels of privacy between units - Increased pollution - Poor quality amenity spaces and

landscaping - Construction traffic should be restricted

along Thames Road and Hartington Road and redirected to the A316

Sport England No objection Thames Water No objection Transport For London No objection Ealing Acknowledged – no comment West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society

Objection - Proposals fail to minimise the impact of the

scheme on the character of the surrounding area and listed buildings

- Dark materials with lack of variation between sites

- Railway line design concept is inappropriate for location

- Lack of tapering and attention to roof forms - Poor quality living accommodation with low

internal ceiling heights - Insufficient levels of privacy between units - Disproportionate number of north facing

units would impact on development at the Duffy site

- Insufficient daylight levels - Poor quality private amenity space - Inadequate consideration of the phasing,

construction logistics plan and location of new play space

- Poor site permeability

5.10 The application was presented to the Chiswick Area Forum on 08 September 2015 and Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum on 17 September 2015.

5.11 Since the application was received, it has been drawn to members’ attention on the pending decisions list dated Week 45 (06 – 13 November 2015). This application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

6.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

6.1 The determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local finance considerations must also be assessed. The National Planning Policy Framework

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

The Development Plan

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

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

Determining applications in a conservation area

6.5 In considering whether to grant planning permission with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Determining applications in respect of listed buildings

6.6 In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

6.7 Relevant London Plan Policies 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply

3.4 Optimising Housing Potential

3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments

3.8 Housing Choice

3.10 Definition of Affordable Housing

3.11 Affordable Housing Targets

5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions

5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction

5.7 Renewable Energy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage

5.21 Contaminated Land

6.9 Cycling

6.10 Walking

6.13 Parking

7.2 An Inclusive Environment

7.4 Local Character

7.6 Architecture

8.2 Planning Obligations

8.3 Community Infrastructure Levy

6.8 Relevant Local Plan Policies

CC1 Context and Character

CC2 Urban Design and Architecture

CC3 Tall Buildings

CC4 Heritage

EC2 Developing a Sustainable Local Transport Network

ED1 Promoting employment growth and development

EQ1 Energy and Carbon Reduction

EQ2 Sustainable Design and Construction

EQ3 Flood risk and surface water management

SC1 Housing Growth

SC2 Maximising the Provision of Affordable Housing

SC3 Meeting the need for a Mix of Housing Size and Type

SC4 Scale and Density of New Housing Development

SC5 Ensuring Suitable Internal and External Space

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The proposal relates to the reserved matters for the Capital Court, Central Eastern and Central Southern sites, comprising of 648 residential units, 368sqm of commercial floorspace (A and D Use Classes), vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, car parking, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and private amenity space.

7.2 The following planning issues will also be considered as part of the assessment of this application:

• The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal

• Compliance with the design code

• The impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

• The quality of accommodation

• The impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents

• The implications for traffic and parking conditions in the locality

• Sustainability

• Planning obligations

The acceptability, in principle, of the proposal

7.3 The principle of the redevelopment of the site to provide new housing has already been considered acceptable through the granting of outline planning permission (ref 00703/A/P11) with all matters reserved.

7.4 The new housing and commercial floor space was considered acceptable as it was enabling development that would help to fund the new stadium and resulted in positive improvements to the social, environmental and economic well-being of the area. A viability assessment was assessed as part of the outline permission and this demonstrated that the scheme would only be viable with the housing that is proposed.

7.5 The principle of a residential development and commercial floor space in this location has already been established through the outline consent and the site is allocated within the local plan for mixed use with housing. Therefore, the principle of a residential and commercial development in this location is considered acceptable in principle.

Compliance with the design code

7.6 A Design Code document was prepared and secured as condition 10 of the outline consent. The purpose of this document was to control and guide the subsequent detailed design of reserved matters to ensure a high quality and comprehensive scheme for the whole site. The Design Code includes commentary on internal layout, massing, proportions, materials, windows and balconies, access, open space, form, colour, character and key fundamentals that were used to informed a detailed design rationale. It is not however a prescriptive document, with final detailed design to be the subject of a thorough architectural response that provides high quality architecture that adds positively to the townscape and which gives special regard to the sensitive setting of the site, which is near to designated heritage assets including a number of conservation areas and listed buildings.

7.7 As the design of the scheme has evolved, there have been some minor alterations to the approved design code and these are detailed below.

No Coding Diagram

Reserved Matters Design

Rationale Acceptable?

1 Movement Hierarchy

The semi-private residential circulation has changed within the courtyard areas becoming private

These areas have always been envisaged as being for use by residents, rather than the general public. They still fulfil the function of semi-private space, as distinct

Yes. The proposal has not resulted in the loss of any public open space as these areas were always envisaged to be used by residents given their location between the residential blocks.

from private gardens and balconies, and the public park to the south of Lionel Road South.

2 Access Points

Commercial unit moved from Block I to Block J

Joint access between Blocks I and J

Capital court commercial elements have been re-positioned to the more prominent area within Block K.

The joint access allows dual level access to the communal open space and shared facilities within these Private Rental Sector blocks.

Yes. The commercial units have been re-positioned to a more visible area and as such would attract more customers.

3 Vehicle Movements

Lionel Road South drop off by hotel moved to opposite side.

Block I shared podium/residential access

The Duffy site is part of a later phase and the details of the drop off will be detailed in a separate reserved matters application.

This allows dual level access to the communal open space and shared facilities within these Private Rental Sector blocks.

Yes. The details of this drop of will be submitted in a separate reserved matters application and will be assessed at a later date.

This allows dual level access to the communal open space and shared facilities within these Private Rental Sector blocks.

4 Cycle Routes

Stadium cycle parking moved to Link Bridge.

It is not feasible to house stadium cycle parking within or nearby outdoor broadcast area due to presence of HGVs.

Yes. The proposed cycle parking for the stadium would now be in a more convenient and safer location for cyclists.

7

Emergency Vehicle Access

Additional emergency vehicle access to rear of Block F concourse

To provide emergency access route to every residential core.

Yes. This would ensure that emergency vehicles can access every residential core and attend an emergency

more quickly.

10

Block Orientation

Single aspect north facing units eliminated from Block J and are now solely contained within Block H.

Rationalisation and improvement in the outlook and daylight and sunlight for the residential units.

Yes. Where possible, units are dual aspect and this has resulted in Block H containing the only single aspect, north facing units.

12

Proposed Site Levels

Change in levels at the podium level, which result in an increase height of 1.5m at Central Eastern and 2.9m at Central Southern.

These minor revisions have been assessed in the context of the original Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Statement and are considered to have little or no visual impact, with the findings of the original visual impact assessment remaining valid.

Yes. The proposed change in the podium levels has allowed an improved entrance to the residential blocks and the addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment confirms that the amendment would have little or no visual impact.

13

External Space Provision

Commercial unit moved from Block I and Block J

Capital Court commercial elements have been re-positioned to the more prominent area within Block K.

Yes. The commercial units have been re-positioned to a more visible area and as such would attract more customers.

14

Ground Level Use Classes

Commercial unit moved from Block I and Block J

Capital Court commercial elements have been re-positioned to the more prominent area within Block K.

Yes. The commercial units have been re-positioned to a more visible area and as such would attract more customers.

7.8 The proposed amendments to the Design Code are considered to be minor amendments that have been a result of further detailed design work. The amendments have improved the overall scheme and would not result in an adverse impact on neighbours living conditions or to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

7.9 Condition 10 of the outline consent required the submission of further details of the street frontage and residential blocks on the Central Southern site to ensure that these blocks would have a two storey undercut or setback to maintain the Lionel Road South vista. A single

storey cut back at the ground floor level of Block E has been retained and this would allow views through to the stadium behind and improve the public realm with an increase in the pavement width to cope with additional pedestrian movements during match days. The frontage would be completely glazed and would introduce an active frontage onto this section of Lionel Road South. The glazed appearance would also allow views through to the stadium beyond and would improve legibility. Overall, the information submitted is considered satisfactory to recommend the discharge of condition 10.

The impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

7.10 The NPPF states that good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development and that decision takers should always seek high quality design. It states that achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well, and adapt for the needs of future generations, with good design responding in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of a place, putting land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use.

7.11 The NPPF also says permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. It is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. However planning permission should not be refused for buildings and infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concern about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).

7.12 London Plan Policy 7.1 sets a series of criteria that should be considered by boroughs when assessing planning applications. In particular it states that development should be designed so that the layout, tenure and mix of uses interface with surrounding land, community infrastructure, the Blue Ribbon Network, local shops, employment opportunities, commercial services and public transport. Policy 7.4 of the London Plan builds on this. It outlines criteria by which buildings, streets and open spaces should provide high quality design. London Plan Policy 7.6 requires architecture of the highest quality that contributes to a coherent public realm, meets the principles of inclusive design and optimises the potential of sites.

7.13 Local Plan policy CC1 seeks to ensure that all new development conserves and enhances their special qualities and heritage. Policy CC2 aims to retain, promote and support high quality urban design and architecture to create attractive, distinctive and liveable places.

7.14 As part of the outline application, the agreed parameters, heights and density of the proposed buildings were assessed and the impact this would have on the character and appearance of the site and in views from the surrounding areas. This application now proposes detailed design and it is

now possible to assess the appearance and scale the proposed buildings would have on the character and appearance of the site and in views from the surrounding areas.

Impact on the character of the site itself

7.15 The site lies bounded within and adjacent to a triangle of land resulting historically from intersecting railway lines, which disrupted the agricultural land and earlier alignments and leaving a space useful for industry. The original station lay to the north and with the new Lionel Road led to the placing of the “medieval” gatehouse access into Gunnersbury Park. Within it is a mostly flat secretive area which itself is not sensitive, although the site had small vernacular buildings, relating to the railway itself and some still un-demolished stables for the gas works. Artificial hills and cuttings to allow crossing the lines create changes of level allowing uncelebrated views of the steam tower, seen when approaching from the north. It is not in a conservation area, is outside the Thames Policy area, outside the Kew Gardens World Heritage Buffer Zone, and has no designated heritage items. Other than Lionel Road there is no public access within the site and does not create a townscape. Although its low rise buildings ensure in a wider context its impacts are fairly benign, the open storage of recycling and mix of industrial uses is apparent from along Lionel Road and parts of the M4/ A4, with this detracting from the overall character.

7.16 The proposal is for seven buildings ranging up to 16 storeys high which are all within the outline parameters set out in the outline consent. Significantly the detailed design process has resulted in significant refinement of the height, footprint and massing of the proposed buildings compared to the maximum outline parameters that were approved. Most of the car parking would be provided at basement/ lower ground level, with the exception of Capital Court which would be on a two storey podium. This would allow active frontages to be provided along footpaths and would help to create a sense of place. At Capital Court, the commercial units have been located in Block K as this would be the most prominent frontage to attract potential customers. At ground floor level, there would be a reduced scale of the proposed cladding to give the elevation treatment at this level a more human scale. At the upper levels, there is some variation to the tops of buildings to reduce the overall impact of their height.

7.17 The layout includes both private and semi-private communal open space between the blocks, the nature of which would help to define the public and private realms and create distinctive character areas across the site. Apart from the minor revisions discussed above, the general layout of buildings and open spaces is unchanged from that illustrated in the outline scheme, though the detailed design has seen substantial refinement of the buildings’ footprints, with the extent of a number of the these being reduced. London Plan policy 7.3 on designing out crime requires proposals to take account of the principles of Safer Places and Secured by Design and there are recommendations in this regard from the Housing SPG. Condition 19 of the outline consent required details of compliance with these principles. This has been submitted as a separate application and is still being assessed by officers.

Impacts on the character of surrounding areas

7.18 As the policy framework discussed above sets out, the development cannot be considered in isolation. Despite the site itself not being sensitive, other than as a low lying space, the height and siting of the buildings will mean they are visible from surrounding areas, some of which are sensitive. The impacts of the proposed buildings on views from over 30 vantage points were considered in the outline permission. This assessment took account of designations such as conservation areas, listed buildings and gardens, Metropolitan Open Land and protected viewpoints and landmarks. Officers have considered these views as well as assessing impacts more generally throughout the surrounds.

7.19 The proposed development would be apparent from the following nearby conservation areas:

• Gunnersbury Park and Surrounding Area – to the north beyond the M4. Comprising a large open space around listed buildings, the park is also designated as Metropolitan Open Land, a conservation area, Grade II* listed park and garden and a Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance. Its character is derived from the listed buildings and associated parkland and cemetery. The garden estate to the east is also within the conservation area but has shorter distance views.

• Wellesley Road – to the southeast, on the eastern side of Chiswick High Road, has a variety of high quality Victorian buildings edging the streets.

• Strand on the Green – to the southeast, alongside the Thames. It is an historic riverside settlement, ribbon development adding to a picturesque setting including many attractive early small-scale houses and listed buildings.

• Kew Bridge – to the south, including Kew Bridge. It is focussed on the convergence of a number of important transport routes, and includes the grade II listed Kew Bridge and grade I and II listed buildings at the Kew Steam Museum. It recognises the industrial character created by the pumping station and its associations, and their high quality of architectural style. The bridge and standpipe are architectural landmarks, and Kew Bridge station, though currently vacant and its locally listed neighbours are in poor condition forms with them an architecturally attractive group.

• Kew Green – to the south, on the opposite side of the Thames. Its value is as an historic open space (village green), along with associated high quality of 18th and 19th century buildings to the east of the green. This area is in the Kew Gardens World Heritage Site buffer zone.

• Royal Botanic Gardens – to the south, (corresponding with the World Heritage site). Kew Gardens was made a World Heritage Site in 2003 in recognition of its contributions to botanical and environmental science, plant collections and influence landscape and garden design. The area is also designated Grade I on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. It also has many listed buildings including the Temperate

House, the Palm House, Queen Charlotte’s Cottage, and the Japanese Gateway as well as Kew Palace, which is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

7.20 Gunnersbury Park is to the north of the site and policy CC4 states that development would not normally be permitted which would adversely affect the site, settings or views to and from historic park and gardens. The Thames Landscape Strategy (Hampton to Kew) is also relevant. This is guidance covering the environment of the Thames, which aims to conserve and enhance the riverside landscape. The relevant section highlights the contrast between the Surrey and Middlesex banks for the nearby stretch of the Thames, with Brentford having an industrial past as opposed to the green spaces of Kew and the Botanic Gardens. Its objectives correspond with policies protecting the character of the area as they relate to the riverside environment and its heritage and views. It specifically calls for no more flat-topped buildings dominating the view, a reference to Rivers House.

7.21 The proposed development would appear in the background of some listed buildings. Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge station, both Grade II Listed, lie to the south. To the southwest is the Grade I and II listed cluster of building at Kew Steam Museum. Further away there are listed buildings on Kew Green and Strand on the Green, as well as inside Kew Gardens.

7.22 The Capital Court Buildings, Blocks I, J and K range in height from 9 to 13 storeys, with blocks I and J being reduced in height by 2 and 1 storeys, respectively, in comparison to the approved parameters. The volume or massing of Block J would be reduced by 35% compared to the approved parameters, significantly reducing its height when viewed from Chiswick High Road. On the approach to Lionel Road South from Chiswick High Road, Building F has been lowered in height where the site converges into a point, with this building also having 30% less volume than the approved parameters. Building F acts as the entrance to the site with the Brentford Football Club logo included on this elevation. The maximum height of six storeys would ensure that this building is not overbearing on the street scene. Blocks G and H would have 10% less volume than the approved parameters. The reduction in the volume of the buildings when compared to the approved parameters would help to reduce the overall bulk and massing of the buildings at the higher levels.

7.23 Condition 30 of the outline permission, required the submission of materials. A sample panel of materials has been submitted as part of the application and a mock up panel was prepared off-site. The submitted details are considered acceptable and this condition would be recommended to be discharged.

Impact on Gunnersbury Park and surrounding Conservation Areas and environs to the north

7.24 In the outline consent, the impact of the development to the north of the site was considered acceptable subject to breaks and shapes forming a varied skyline. Blocks E, F, G and H are most apparent from this viewpoint. The

staggered tops of the buildings to Blocks F and G is effective in breaking up the bulk and massing of the proposed development and would ensure that the development does not appear as one mass. There is extensive tree coverage from this perspective and where the buildings are visible they are of a similar scale to other existing buildings along the M4 corridor.

Impact on Wellesley Road Conservation Area and environs to east

7.25 The outline consent recognised that there would be a low magnitude of change to views from this area and highlighted that the scale of the buildings from along Chiswick High Road would be in line with surrounding commercial buildings.

7.26 The buildings would be visible from one key viewpoint looking out from the conservation area along Wellesley Road. From this angle, there would be a minimal view of blocks E, G, H, I, J and K. The staggered roof levels to block F would be prominent but would appear as a destination at the end of the vista. Cumulatively the squared tops and dark materials have a similar visual impact to Kew School which sits in the foreground. The frosted balconies and vertical steel framing break up the dark massing of block F so that it reads as two buildings.

7.27 Change to Capital Interchange Way would be significant but this is a less sensitive area, and the Design Code anticipates a varied skyline. Although it brings taller buildings away from the main roads they would edge the stadium on the eastern side, and to the extent that much of the new access will be from Capital Interchange Way will assist legibility. There would be considerably more activity as a result of the new bridge and the buildings and landscaping would improve the public realm, pedestrian experienced and enhance the street scene of the road itself.

Impact on Strand on the Green Conservation Area

7.28 The outline consent recognised that there would be minimal impact on views from within this conservation area, but that views across from the south bank of the river would be impacted. Accordingly the importance of colours and surface finishes from this viewpoint should visually retreat and break up the mass and bulk of the buildings.

7.29 From within Strand on the Green, the proposals would appear as two towers with the architectural detailing of the vertical fins and zips being prominent. Some coloured balcony returns and frames would also be visible and would positively add to the variation and interest of the buildings.

7.30 Where the buildings would be visible across Strand on the Green, the proposed tone of the cladding would complement the tones and proportions of the rooflines to existing buildings along the river within the conservation area. The squared tops to block F and staggered tops to block H would provide some variation to the massing. The horizontal fins/ tuning forks are effective in fragmenting the darker metal cladding and also prove to reflect the white render banding to Pier House.

Impact on Kew Bridge Conservation Area and environs to south and west

7.31 Given the sensitivity of the listed Steam Museum, the outline consent highlighted the importance of form and materials in order to minimise the impact on the townscape from this approach. It identifies the need for the final design to take cues from this area, which is noted as having industrial history. It recommends that brickwork and natural materials should be used in order to reduce reflectivity and visual obtrusiveness. The refinement of the building height, footprint and width that has been undertaken as part of the detailed architectural design, has reduced the volume of Block F by 30% from the maximum parameters agreed with the outline permission, this allowing for a wider gap between Blocks E & F, permitted greater spacing between buildings helping to reduce the impact of their scale, which as acknowledged in the original permission will transform the site.

7.32 The proposal utilises the industrial rail history of the area as a design inspiration. From Kew Bridge, the vertical emphasis on block E and to the projecting tower of block F are most prominent and appear as two stand alone, contemporary towers. The remainder of block F is then stepped down to meet the height of Rivers house with its bulk broken up by vertical columns of balconies and vertical metal fins. The dark cladding would appear to blend with the existing rooflines. In particular, the proposed dark cladding relates well to the architectural detailing on the development at 1 Kew Bridge (St. George), whilst the metal fins and framing would prove to complement the white render of Rivers house. Whilst no brick would be used, the materials – as discussed from other viewpoints- would not appear visually obtrusive and would add to the local townscape.

7.33 From the west, along Kew Bridge Road the proposals are more of a contrast. The dark cladding is effective in blending with the appearance of the already approved football stadium. There would be a step change in height at roof level which would maintain a degree of separation from the Steam museum tower. Coloured soffits and framing would not be obvious from this viewpoint and the scheme would appear as a mono-tonal addition to the skyline that would not be overly prominent in its materials or appearance.

Impact on Kew Green Conservation Area

7.34 The outline consent acknowledges that there would be a low magnitude of change to Kew Green Conservation Area. The top three to four storeys of Blocks E and F would be visible but would read as one mass. The vertical framing and fins would be effective in reducing the appearance of the new building mass which would from a distance, appear proportionate to the frontages of properties along Kew Green. The glazing to balconies and windows would also reduce the darkness of these tower elements from this approach.

Impact on World Heritage Site, Kew Gardens

7.35 The outline application addresses that the impact from within Kew Gardens will be negligible due to the restriction on the height of the buildings and the level of screening afforded by trees.

Design and Appearance

7.36 Generally, each block can be read as having three massing components;

- The ground level podiums and entrances - The main body / mid-sections - Tapered / staggered building tops

7.37 Central Southern site Block E is the exception to this as it takes a standalone tower form. Capital Court Block J is also an exception as there would be no variation to the roof form or upper floors.

7.38 The Design Code sets out that the materials should complement the character of the local townscape and have a recessive rather than intrusive effect. Surface treatment should be robust and reflective of the materials and former industrial character of the immediate environs.

7.39 The proposed materials provide a neutral colour palette accentuated by metal and glass detailing. The cladding would have dark brown tones with some storeys emphasised by horizontal banding in a lighter champagne/ dark beige colour. The predominant Zircon cladding is towards the darker end of the field palette set out in the design code, it would continue the tonal association with the approved stadium design, and would reflect the detailing to industrial buildings within the surrounding environment creating a robust appearance. The lighter champagne/dark beige colour would provide variation and tonal interest to the buildings.

7.40 The approach to colour would be subtle, with the ochre satin and copper red accent tones being applied to soffits, returns, the undersides of balconies and to the frames of the horizontal fins. These are less vivid than the colours in the detail palette of the design code but would provide variation and interest to elevations relative to proximity to the site.

7.41 Architectural detailing would take the form of a variety of channels, vertical and horizontal fins. Balconies and windows would also provide the opportunity for detailing to elevations. It is considered that this would be acceptable, however in the interests of maintaining the quality of the proposals it would be expedient to condition the submission of such details at 1:20 scale.

7.42 At Central Eastern, the proposed 4m high glazed entrance lobby would physically link the two buildings and would help to define the semi-private amenity space to this site.

7.43 As a result of more regular floor plans, the building envelope would be relatively simple. Elevations would have straight alignment and achieve variation through projecting balconies to Block G and through winter gardens to Block H. Accordingly, the Central Eastern site would have a more vertical emphasis than either Capital Court or Central Southern.

7.44 At Capital Court, the ground floors to Blocks I, J and K would incorporate double height (6m) glazed entrance atriums; one to Block K and one that would wrap around between blocks I and J. A 6m high green wall would be

installed the length of the wall between Blocks J and K, and along the north east elevation to block I. Overall it is considered that this would create appropriate active frontage that would mitigate the potential dead frontages as a result of refuse and servicing areas within the podium level.

7.45 At Central Southern, the entrance lobby to Blocks E and F would be set back from the kerb of Lionel Road by 10m to allow for circulation space within the public realm to the south of this site.

7.46 Of the three sites, Central Southern would have the most variation in architectural treatment between the Blocks. Block F would have the largest floor plate of the buildings within the application. The building envelope would be more varied and angular than Central Eastern with the north part of the block offset from the southern part of the block by approximately 5 degrees. Block F and utilises angular, chamfered winter gardens to the south and north elevations with a combination of projecting balconies and winter gardens to the east and west sides. These read as a series of vertical features of varying character that splits up the horizontal massing of the block.

7.47 Block E would be comparatively smaller and would have a more regularised, rectangular tower shape. There would be a vertical emphasis to the building, with framed balconies to the south elevation, projecting balconies to the east, with coloured framing and a chamfered, angular balcony style to the north elevation.

7.48 Overall, the variation in the treatment of the tops of the buildings, and the horizontal fins demarking the massing and scale of the buildings provides enough differentiation between each of the three sites to be distinct from each other. The proposed materials would comply with the approved design code and through careful positioning of vertical and horizontal fins, coloured soffits and framing, and use of clear and obscured balcony glass, would prove to ensure good quality visual variety in the elevations which would vary on distance from the site and successfully limit the visual impact of the proposals on their surroundings.

7.49 The proposal is considered to achieve a high quality design and architecture that would help to create a new character for this area. The scale and layout of the buildings including the height, width and length of each building would be within the parameters set out in the outline application. The layout and reduction in the volume of the buildings would help to break up the bulk and massing of the buildings when viewed from the surrounding area. At ground floor level, the layout of the buildings would provide good circulation and public space, improving the experience for pedestrians. The landscaping would provide a high quality public and private realm for the residents. The design and appearance of the buildings helps add to the area and creates a character for each of the three areas with different detailed designed features including projecting and recessed balconies, horizontal fins and coloured soffits. The carefully considered materials, hard and soft landscaping, and public realm would, along with the substantial refinement of the buildings’ form, height and massing from the outline stage, would provide a grouping of buildings with high quality architecture that respects

the surrounds of the site, including sensitive areas and creates a new locally distinctive townscape, that would add positively to the character of the area. The overall design would help to regenerate the site and enhance its townscape value. In terms of the reserved matters, the proposed scale, appearance, layout and landscaping would be considered acceptable.

Housing standards and amenity space

Unit mix

7.50 The approved outline scheme included up to 910 units across the whole site, accepting the development would be at a high density. As noted above the illustrative mix previously showed 635 dwellings on the sites subject to this reserved matters application, with the final design now having 648 dwellings, reflecting amendment of the mix to provide a higher proportion of smaller sized units. Overall the density of the scheme will be unchanged as this means that fewer residential units will be allowed on the Duffy site. London Plan policy 3.8 states that development proposed should aim to meet local needs by providing an adequate mix of dwelling sizes and mix of tenures to reflect local and strategic demand, with all dwellings to meet Lifetime Homes Standards. The proposed unit mix for the 648 residential units would be, 286 x 1 bed, 303 x 2 bed and 59 x 3 bed.

7.51 Policy SC3 of the Local Plan seeks to secure an appropriate mix of tenure and unit size. The policy goes onto state that site characteristics and local area monitoring can justify alternative approaches to unit mix. Policy SC3 seeks a Borough wide preferred housing mix of 30% one-bed, 40% two-bed, 25% three-bed and 5% four-bed dwellings. The proposed mix for this development is 44% one-bed, 47% two-bed and 9% three-bed. This unit mix represents a shift towards a greater proportion of smaller sized units. The development site is high density with lower parking provision and limited private and communal spaces. As such the site would not lend itself to support a large proportion of family sized units. A large number of large homes with private gardens and off-street parking, more suited to larger families have been approved on the related Griffin Park site and this would help to contribute to the Borough wide preferred mix.

7.52 Furthermore, a total of 344 of the units would be Private Rental Sector (PRS) units, which typically serve smaller householders and would appeal to a broader range of prospective future residents. London Plan policy 3.8 says that the planning system must take a more positive approach in enabling this sector to contribute to achievement of housing targets. The mixture of Private Sale and PRS units enables a greater number of units to be delivered and marketed simultaneously and earlier in the development process, this in turn has a significant positive effect on the development cashflow which can assist in improving and supporting the overall viability of the development and the funding available for the stadium and affordable housing, and ultimately the delivery of the scheme and its wider public benefits. Such tenure also complements the existing and prospective local employment sector with the adjacent Golden Mile containing high numbers of staff which could make use of the accommodation, reducing the need to travel. The proposal would still provide a good number of family sized units

and a higher proportion of smaller sized units would be considered acceptable for this site.

7.53 All of the units would be private tenure as no affordable housing is presently proposed owing to the viability of the development (see paragraph 7.82). The site has no immediate residential neighbours but in the wider area there are large numbers of social housing units nearby to the west, whilst housing to the south and east is largely private and high vale, meaning the development would in broader terms sit within socially mixed community.

7.54 The London Plan strongly supports the principles of Lifetime Homes and views them as fundamental to 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. All of the units would meet Lifetime Home Standards.

7.55 London Plan Policy 3.8 further specifies that all units within the scheme should be based on ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards and that 10% of all units should be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair using residents. Condition 10 of the outline consent required at least 10% of the units to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable. 65 units would be wheelchair adaptable and these would be positioned across all tenures within the development.

7.56 The Housing SPG sets out a good practice guide that there should be a maximum of eight units per core. Blocks F, I and K would exceed these and provide a maximum of nine units per core. The Housing SPG says that the number of people sharing a circulation core and landing would both affect how intensively the space would be used. For example eight family sized units is normally a maximum, but up to 12 single person units per core may be acceptable. The proposed unit mix would provide a higher proportion of smaller units (1 and 2 bed) per core and as such the number of people accessing each floor would be similar to if there were eight units per core which were all 3 bed units. The proposal for nine units per core in Blocks F, I and K would not have an adverse impact on residents of those Blocks and would be considered acceptable in this instance.

Access and servicing

7.57 High density unit design should carefully consider internal access and circulation arrangements to the housing blocks and within building cores, with an aim of ensuring they are accessible to all and that internal building corridors are safe and well managed. The submitted information shows approaches and access to each building and all units would be able to be fully accessible meeting Lifetime Homes and Part M of Building Regulations requirements (disabled access) and the baseline standards of the Housing SPG.

7.58 The submitted material demonstrates that all buildings would meet the baseline standards for shared circulation spaces, with their design meeting the minimum circulation dimensions, having audio-visual verification control

systems for entrances, and adequate numbers of lifts and wheelchair access to all buildings. The lowest floor of the residential units would be accessed from street level as well as ramps and stairs owing to variation in the ground levels of the site. Cycle storage and refuse and recycling areas would be able to be provided within secure basement areas and forecourts.

Unit sizes

7.59 London Plan Policy 3.5 (Quality and Design of Housing Developments) states that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to their context and the wider environment. All residential units and individual room standards must be assessed against guidance which set specified areas, to ensure an acceptable level of residential accommodation for future residents.

7.60 London Plan Table 3.3 (see table below) sets minimum space standards for houses of different sizes. This is based on the minimum gross internal floor area (GIA) required for new houses relative to the number of occupants, whilst also taking account of commonly required furniture and spaces needed for different activities and moving around, in line with ‘Lifetime Home’ standards. These standards are reflected in Local Plan policy SC5.

Dwelling type Minimum GIA

(sqm)

1p 37

1b2p 50

2b3p 61

2b4p 70

3b4p 74

3b5p 86

3b6p 95

7.61 All the units have been designed to meet the minimum London Plan space standards and would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers of the development.

Daylight and outlook

7.62 In addition to adequate floor areas, units should have good quality outlook and natural light, ideally being dual aspect, as this can provide better daylight and sunlight, cross-ventilation, mitigation of air and noise pollution and offer a choice of views and more flexible use of rooms. The Housing SPG recommends that where possible the provision of dual aspect

dwellings should be maximised and that visual and acoustic privacy should be provided. It was acknowledged in the outline consent that the proposed scheme would have some single aspect, north facing units owing to the high density, awkwardly shaped plots and tall blocks of flats with central cores for access.

7.63 Local Plan policy CC2 seeks to reduce the reliance on single aspect dwellings. The Housing SPG has a baseline standard for dual aspect housing, stating ‘Developments should avoid single aspect dwellings that are north facing, exposed to noise levels above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur, or contain three or more bedrooms’. Condition 9 of the outline permission restricted the number of single aspect north facing units to 10%. A total of 26 units would be single aspect and north facing. These units would all be 1 bed/2 person units and located in block H (H0-1, H0-2, H1-2, H1-3, H2-2, H2-3, H3-2, H3-3, H4-2, H4-3, H5-2, H5-3, H6-2, H6-3, H7-2, H7-3, H8-2, H8-3, H9-2, H9-3, H10-2, H10-3, H11-2, H12-2, H13-2, H14-2). This would equate to 4% of the total number of units proposed (648) in this application. Overall, throughout the whole scheme if the maximum number of 910 residential units were to be provided, this would equate to 2.9% and would allow a maximum of 7.1% of single aspect, north facing units to be provided in the Duffy Site which has been identified in the Design Code as having the potential to have a higher proportion of single aspect, north facing units.

7.64 Having regard to the baseline standard, no two and three-bed units would be single aspect and north facing, and mitigation for noise pollution is provided for all units such as enclosed balconies. The proposed layout has sought to minimise the number of north facing single aspect units through specifying zones for building cores and arranging layouts to limit their number. The north facing, single aspect units have been restricted to one bedroom units and would include design features such as wrap around balconies which would maximise light and outlook.

7.65 An internal illuminence report has been undertaken in accordance with the BRE Guidance ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’ 2011. The criteria against which internal illuminance is considered is detailed within Appendix C of the Second Edition 2011 which is used in conjunction with BS 8206-2 Code of practice for daylighting and the CIBSE Lighting Guide LG10 Daylighting and window design. The guide states that where a predominately daylit appearance is required, the ADF should be at least 5% or more if there is no supplementary electric lighting or 2% or more if there is. In respect of kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms there are additional recommendations of 2%, 1.5% and 1% respectively. BS8206-2 further advises that achieving 2% in living room will give an improved daylight provision whilst 3% - 4% would improve the situation further.

7.66 This guidance takes into account the amount of sky that can be viewed from the centre of a window, utilising a method that considers the ‘Vertical Sky Component’ (VSC) for the window. This method considers the potential for daylight by calculating the angle of vertical sky at the centre of a window (with 40% being the maximum value for an unobstructed window).

7.67 The BRE target figure for VSC is 27% or greater to maintain good levels of daylight. If the 27% VSC target is not achieved, then a comparison of existing and proposed VSC levels with the new development in place is calculated. The BRE advises that acceptable levels of daylight can still be achieved if VSC levels are not reduced by more than 20%. If the loss is greater, then the reduction in daylight would be noticeable with rooms likely to become darker, though the closer to the target the less noticeable the impact will be.

7.68 Central Southern would have the worse situation with a VSC of 7.6-11.09% for the windows at the lower levels which face out onto the stadium. This is well below the recommended 27%. The BRE guidance says that between 5 and 15% it is very difficult to provide adequate daylight unless very large windows are used. The worse affected units would be F1.6 and F.17 and the living/dining areas would be served by large windows. In terms of ADF, the living/kitchen/dining room of F.1.6 and the two bedrooms of F.1.7 would fail to have adequate levels of internal illuminence. However, on balance the other 646 would all receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight and this would be considered acceptable given the constraints of the site.

Outlook and Privacy

7.69 The Mayor’s Housing SPG notes that a separation distance of 18 – 21m between habitable rooms is a good rule of thumb to ensure there would be no adverse impact through overlooking. However, it also says that adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban space and housing types, and sometimes unnecessarily restrict density. The Housing SPG requires each dwelling to be provided with an adequate level of privacy in relation to neighbouring property, the street and other public spaces. The proposed layout has buildings sited within 21m of each other and it was noted in the outline consent that careful design would be required to ensure adequate screening and privacy for all units.

7.70 Condition 11 of the outline consent required details of windows, balconies and privacy screens for each unit. A number of pinch points have been identified and in order to mitigate this, the designs proposed alternate orientation of living spaces and a combination of high-level and low level windows, 2.1m high privacy screens and acid etched glass which would be used to minimise potential privacy issues. These details have been submitted by the applicant as part of a separate application and are still being assessed by officers.

7.71 Condition 9 of the outline consent required the development to meet the Baseline Standards set out in the Housing SPG as a minimum and aim to meet the Good Practice Standards. A report has been submitted to demonstrate compliance with these standards with the Baseline Standards being achieved as a minimum. In some instances, the Good Practice Standards have been achieved. This information would be considered satisfactory to discharge the condition.

Private and communal amenity space

7.72 Being a large residential scheme the proposal should consider open space and landscaping strategically to consider the full range of possible provision, including outdoor sport and play facilities, local parks and other public spaces in accordance with London Plan policy 3.7. The Housing SPG recognises that provision of public, communal and open spaces also makes a key contribution to residents’ quality of life, and there is a particular need to take account of the requirements of children, older and disabled people. It has baseline standards for private and communal amenity space and further recommendations are made in the SPG on Providing for Children and Young People’s Informal Recreation.

7.73 Private amenity space would be provided for each unit in the form of balconies which would comply with the baseline standard as set out in the Housing SPG of 5sqm for 1-2 person dwellings and an extra 1qm for each additional occupant.

There is also communal amenity space provided between the buildings, on podium levels and roof terraces. A total of 4,872sqm of communal amenity space would be provided across the three sites. As part of the legal agreement for the outline consent, a public park was also secured and this would be in the Duffy site and brought forward at a later date. As part of the assessment of the outline consent, it was acknowledged that the proposed level of communal amenity space would fall below the Local Plan standards. It was acknowledged that the site was constrained in the level of communal amenity space that could be provided and the emphasis would be placed on the quality of these areas. It was envisaged at outline stage that 5,595sqm of communal amenity space could be provided for these three sites. Therefore, in this application there is a shortfall of 723sqm as a result of the introduction of the communal lobbies at the Central Eastern and Central Southern sites. However, the communal amenity space has been designed to a high standard with planting and different levels for different spaces such as a BBQ area and integrated children’s play area. There would be narrow strips of sett paving representing railway tracks, bands of paving in contrasting colours, rustic style furniture and a naturalistic planting scheme. The communal space would be finished to a high quality and this would outweigh the shortfall in communal amenity space.

Children’s play space

7.74 London Plan policy 3.6 seeks to ensure that all children and young people have safe access to good quality amenity space. The Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG gives guidance recommends a minimum of 10sqm of play space for each child that is likely reside in the development.

7.75 The Play SPG says larger developments should incorporate play space on site, however if there is existing provision within an acceptable distance of a proposed development, financial contributions toward off-site play space as an alternative to new provision may be considered, though play space for under-fives must be on-site. The guidance states that the play space for older children must be within reasonable and safe walking distance of new housing, with it recommended that the maximum walking distance for 5 to

11 year olds is 400m, and for the 12+children 800m. As part of the outline consent, a public park adjacent to the Duffy Site was secured to satisfy the requirement for playspace for 5 to 11 year olds and there was no requirement for playspace for children aged over 12 years given the close proximity to Gunnersbury Park. As a result, there was only a requirement to provide doorstep playspace for children under 5 years only. A total of 570qm was envisaged across these five areas.

7.76 There are a higher proportion of smaller sized units proposed and as such the child yield would be lower than envisaged at outline stage. The total child yield would be 32 children under 5 years old. A total of 311sqm of doorstep playspace would therefore be required. Furniture would be designed into the fabric of the landscaped communal amenity areas for the three sites and would include balancing logs, boulders, totems and a speaking tube/listening ear feature.

7.77 The proposed hard and soft landscaping details would enhance the appearance of the development, providing visual interest and relief from the surrounding Blocks. The use of planting and landscaping would help to create a new character for this site. In terms of the reserved matters, the proposed landscaping details would be considered acceptable. The details submitted would be considered satisfactory to recommend the discharge of condition 33.

Affordable housing supply

7.78 London Plan Policy 3.3 (Increasing Housing Supply) recognises the need for more homes in London to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford. The Council seeks the maximum proportion of affordable housing achievable on-site in accordance with the London Plan in order to contribute towards the Mayor’s target of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of the Plan. In Hounslow this equates to approximately 40% of all new housing provision.

7.79 As noted above, the redevelopment of the site would help to fund the club’s replacement stadium at Lionel Road, and the viability of affordable housing at the site has been considered as part of the wider scheme for the delivery of the new stadium, and at present no affordable housing is proposed owing to this not being viable with this conclusion having been independently assessed. However the affordable housing planning obligation from the legal agreement requires re-testing of the viability assessment, prior to commencement of the new stadium at Lionel Road South and also prior to commencement of the redevelopment of Griffin Park. Any uplift in value that improves the viability of the wider scheme to an extent that affordable housing is viable will be secured by the legal agreement and this may result in the provision of affordable housing in the last phase of this development in the Duffy Site.

The impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents

7.80 The NPPF requires sustainable development, and as part of this development should aim to minimise adverse effects on the local environment, which includes neighbouring properties. London Plan policy 7.6 states buildings should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. Policy CC2 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals minimise overbearingness and overshadowing and ensure sufficient sunlight and daylight to adjoining/adjacent dwellings.

7.81 Owing to the site being largely bounded by railways and roads, it is separated from nearby residential areas, which lie to the west and southwest. Commercial buildings adjoin the north and east. This context limits impacts on neighbouring properties, though owing to the large scale and tall height of the buildings there are potential impacts in respect of outlook and privacy and daylight and sunlight, which were all assessed at the outline stage.

Outlook and privacy

7.82 The new buildings are located beyond railway lines, and separated by their windows facing the site are all more than 21m from the proposed buildings (nearest opposing windows are 42m away). Windows of other neighbours such as offices to the north and the school to the south are at least 21m (school) and 25m (offices) from the site, retaining an acceptable level of privacy.

Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing

7.83 Local Plan policy CC2 seeks to ensure that development proposals minimise overbearingness and overshadowing and ensure sufficient sunlight and daylight to adjoining/adjacent dwellings. At outline stage, the worst case scenario was modelled on the basis of the maximum parameters. The proposed buildings are within the maximum parameters and in some instances refinement from the detailed design has resulted in their height and volume being substantially below the maximum parameters set out and thus would be an improvement on what was considered acceptable at outline stage.

Transport and Access

Car parking

7.84 The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) ranging from 3 (moderate) at the northern end of the site to 4 (good) from its midpoint south. Policy EC2 (Developing a sustainable local transport network) seeks to secure car parking in line with the London Plan standards. A total of 198 residential car parking spaces have been proposed for the 648 residential units. This equates to a ratio of 0.31 spaces per units and is less than the 0.66 spaces agreed at the outline planning application stage.

7.85 The proposed level of car parking is in line with the London Plan standards and would promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport. The trip generation contained within the original Transport Assessment which was assessed in the outline application was based on census data for the local area, with peak hour movements predicted to be under the 198 car parking spaces proposed (AM Peak 184 two way movements and PM Peak 161 two way movements). As such, the reduction in the number of car parking spaces is unlikely to have an adverse impact on parking in the surrounding area. The reduction in the number of car parking spaces would result in more people traveling to and from the site by more sustainable means such as walking, cycling or by public transport. TfL raised no objection to the proposal. There is sufficient public transport capacity in the area to cope with the additional demand. Therefore, the proposed number of car parking spaces would be considered acceptable in this instance.

7.86 10% of the 198 car parking spaces would be designated as disabled car parking spaces. A car parking management plan was secured as part of the outline consent and this should also include details as to how the number of disabled spaces could be adjusted to meet a higher demand. This would be secured by condition.

7.87 The number of car parking spaces for use by the stadium was agreed at the outline application as 150. This application is applying for a total of 161 spaces. Given the reduction in the number of residential parking spaces, the additional 11 spaces for use by the stadium is considered acceptable (and it is noted that a number of these spaces are ‘stacked’ and are not independently accessible).

Cycle parking

7.88 Policy 6.9 (Cycling) of the London Plan states that development should provide secure integrated and accessible cycle parking facilities at a standard of 1 per 1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces for all other sized units. A total of 782 cycle parking spaces would be provided. The London Plan standard would require a minimum of 1010 cycle parking spaces to be provided. This would be a shortfall of 228. Condition 42B of the outline consent requires cycle parking to be provided in accordance with the London Plan standards. The applicant would be required to provide 1010 cycle parking spaces to satisfy this condition. Access

7.89 Vehicular access to the residential blocks would be from Lionel Road South and Capital Interchange way with a new link bridge providing vehicle and pedestrian access to Central Eastern. Access to the basements would be across the shared surface areas and into the basement and podium levels. To ensure that the car parking spaces would be accessible, swept path diagrams would be required to be submitted prior to commencement of development. The reserved matters for access to the site would be considered acceptable. Servicing and deliveries

7.90 Deliveries, servicing and refuse collection would be carried out on site and

a condition would be imposed requiring the submission of swept path diagrams to ensure that the vehicles can access the site. Condition 36 of the outline consent required the submission of details of the arrangements for the storage and collection of refuse and recycling. The applicant has submitted details as part of a separate application and this is being assessed by officers. Travel plan

7.91 A residential travel plan has been submitted as part of the application and compliance with this has been secured by the legal agreement secured by the outline consent. Archaeology and other heritage

7.92 The NPPF and London Plan Policy 7.8 emphasise that the conservation of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF says that applicants should submit desk-based assessments, and where appropriate undertake field evaluation, to describe the significance of heritage assets and how they would be affected by the proposed development. If archaeological safeguards do prove necessary, these could involve design measures to preserve remains in situ or where that is not feasible archaeological investigation prior to development. Conditions 27 and 28 secured the submission of a WSI for the site which has been submitted and agreed with English Heritage. The archaeological conditions will not be fully satisfied until all works are complete, including any post excavation assessment/analysis leading to publication.

Sustainability

7.93 London Plan Policy 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) applies to all developments and states that development should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

• Be lean: use less energy

• Be clean: supply energy efficiently

• Be green: use renewable energy

7.94 Condition 15 of the outline consent required the submission of a detailed scheme of feasible on-site sustainability measures. This information has been submitted as a separate application and is currently being reviewed by officers.

7.95 Condition 23 of the outline consent required the submission of a site wide drainage strategy. This information has been submitted as a separate application and is currently being reviewed by officers.

Planning obligations

7.96 A payment of other benefit offered pursuant to a section 106 agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission and cannot be required unless it complies with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulation 122), which provide that the planning obligation must be:

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

(b) directly related to the development; and

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

7.38 Accordingly, it is mandatory that each criterion be satisfactorily addressed prior to granting planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement.

7.39 As part of the outline consent, a number of obligations were included within the legal agreement and these would remain unchanged.

8.0 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

8.1 Some new developments granted planning permission will be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the Mayor of London and Hounslow.

8.2 CIL is payable on m2 of new floor space or where a new dwelling is created or the net floor area increase exceeds 100 m2

Mayors £35 per m2

Hounslow Housing

East £200 m2

Central £110 m2

West £70 m2

Supermarkets,

superstores

and retail

warehousing

£155 m2

Health care,

education and

emergency

services

facilities £0

All other

uses £20

m2

8.3 Outline planning permission was granted prior to the adoption of Hounslow’s CIL and as such the proposal would only be liable to pay the Mayor’s CIL. The total floor space would be 67,036.88sqm. The total payable amount would be £2,346,290.80.

9.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

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

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 In conclusion, the proposal would provide a good standard of living accommodation and commercial uses that would not adversely impact on neighbouring residents’ living conditions and would add to the local character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, and complies with the Development Plan, comprising the London Plan and the Hounslow Local Plan, and meets the objectives of relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. It is recommended that the application for reserved matters relating to outline consent (ref 00703/A/P11) be granted.

10.2 Sufficient details have also been provided to discharge the following conditions from the outline consent, 9, 10, 27, 28, 30, 33.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION:

11.1 That the application for reserved matters relating to outline planning permission (ref 00703/A/P11) for the Central Southern, Central Eastern and Capital Court sites be GRANTED subject to safeguarding conditions and pursuant to the 2014 legal agreement.

11.2 That the following conditions 9, 10, 27, 28, 30, 33 relating to outline planning permission (ref 00703/A/P11) for the Central Southern, Central Eastern and Capital Court sites be GRANTED.

Conditions: 1 NON-

STD Prior to commencement of development, detailed drawings at 1:20 scale of the horizontal channels/cassettes, vertical fins, horizontal fins, tuning forks, balconies, window fenestration and external apertures (entrances, shop fronts, stores) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development relating to appearance in the interests of visual amenity of the area and having regard to the site’s sensitive location.

2 NON-STD

The programme of archaeology evaluation shall be carried out as agreed in the five Written Scheme of Investigations for evaluation works across the site by MoLA and dated June 2015: Archaeology WSI Stadium Site; Archaeology WSI Central Southern; Archaeology WSI Central Eastern; Archaeology WSI Capital Court; Archaeology WSI Duffy, MOLA Written Scheme of Investigation for Standing Building Standing Building Survey, Dated 18 June 2015 and AFL Architects Stable Block Report Rev P4, Dated 30th June 2015 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local

Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory regard is given to archaeological heritage.

3 NON-STD

The submitted materials (zircon XDKB025, champagne XDCC030, Trespa Meteon M53.0.2 ST Copper Red, Trespa Meteon A06.3.5 Ochre Satin, clear glass, acid etched glass and Gooding Aluminium GA SA10) shall be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

4 B5 The proposed development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and the plans submitted therewith and approved by the Local Planning Authority, or as shall have been otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission.

5 NON-STD

The car parking management plan secured shall include details as to how the number of disabled car parking spaces would be adjusted to meet a higher demand based on the adaption of the allocated 10% accessible dwellings. Reason: To ensure that there would be an acceptable number of disabled car parking spaces if 10% of all the units were converted to wheelchair accessible units in line with London Plan policy 6.13 (Parking).

6 NON-STD

Prior to the commencement of development, swept path diagrams showing how vehicles including refuse and emergency vehicles would access the site and how vehicles would access the car parking spaces within the Blocks shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, or as shall have been otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the car parking layout is satisfactory in accordance with London Plan policy 6.13 (Parking).

Informatives:

1 Granted, in accordance with pre-app advice

To assist applicants, the London Borough of Hounslow has produced

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

Drawing Numbers: Residential Travel Plan Framework, Internal illuminence Analysis, Planning Statement, L-90-007 Rev. G, L-90-010 Rev. C, L-90-009 Rev. C, L-90-008 Rev. C, A-H-80-001 Rev. F, A-I-70-007 Rev. H, A-I-70-003 Rev. H, A-I-70-002 Rev. H, Unnumbered Central Southern Quantums, Unnumbered Central Eastern Quantums, Unnumbered Capital Court Quantums, Delivery and Servicing Management Plan, L-90-030 Rev. A, L-90-022 Rev. B, L-90-013 Rev. D, L-90-028 Rev. A, L-90-018 Rev. B, L-90-011 Rev. D, L-90-019 Rev. B, L-90-029 Rev. A, L-90-020 Rev. B, L-90-012 Rev. D, Unnumbered Cycle Parking Numbers 26.06.2015 ‐ Rev Y , Unnumbered Car Parking Numbers 26.06.2015 ‐ Rev Y , Statement of Community Involvement, A-K-70-102 Rev. A, A-K-70-101 Rev. C, A-K-70-202 Rev. A, A-K-70-201 Rev. C, A-K-70-303 Rev. A, A-K-70-302 Rev. A, A-K-70-301 Rev. C, Design and Access Statement chapters 1-8 and 10 Received: 29 July 2015 Landscaping Reserved Matters Submission dated July 2015, L-90-007 Rev G, A-02-100 Rev B, A-02-003 Rev E, A-02-002 Rev A, A-02-000 Rev E, L-90-009 Rev C, A-CSS-04-400 Rev C, A-CSS-04-006 Rev A, A-CES-04-005 Rev A, A-CSS-04-005 Rev A, A-CES-04-004 Rev A, A-CES-04-003 Rev A, A-CES-04-002 Rev B, A-CES-04-001 Rev E, A-CCS-04-002 Rev A, A-CSS-04-002 Rev B, A-CCS-04-001 Rev F, A-CSS-04-001 Rev E, A-CSS-04-004 Rev A, A-CSS-04-003 Rev B, A-CCS-04-004 Rev A, A-CCS-04-003 Rev A, A-CSS-03-300 Rev A, A-CES-03-300 Rev A, A-CCS-03-300 Rev C, A-CSS-04-017, A-F-70-303 Rev B, A-H-70-001 Rev G, A-F-70-302 Rev B, A-F-70-206 Rev A, A-E-70-204 Rev A, A-CSS-03-000 Rev T, A-CSS-70-010 Rev M, A-CSS-70-009 Rev M, A-CSS-70-008 Rev M, A-CSS-70-002 Rev P, A-CSS-70-001 Rev K, A-F-70-205 Rev A, A-F-70-203 Rev B, A-F-70-111 Rev A, A-CSS-70-015 Rev G, A-CSS-70-013 Rev G, A-CSS-70-012 Rev G, A-CSS-70-011 Rev F, A-CSS-70-003 Rev B, A-E-70-301 Rev A, A-E-70-203 Rev A, A-E-70-101 Rev A, A-F-70-105 Rev B, A-CSS-03-301 Rev A, A-CSS-03-302 Rev A, A-CES-03-016, A-CES-03-001 Rev F, A-H-70-204 Rev A, A-H-70-012 Rev G, A-H-70-011 Rev F, A-H-70-000 Rev A, A-G-70-002 Rev H, A-G-70-301 Rev B, A-G-70-201W Rev B, A-G-70-013 Rev G, A-G-70-012 Rev J, A-G-70-006 Rev E, A-G-70-003 Rev E, A-G-70-001 Rev G, A-CES-03-000 Rev J, A-H-70-203 Rev A, A-H-70-202 Rev A, A-H-70-201 Rev A, A-H-70-105 Rev A, A-H-70-104 Rev A, A-H-70-103 Rev A, A-H-70-102W Rev B, A-H-70-102 Rev B, A-H-70-101 Rev A, A-G-70-105 Rev A, A-G-70-204 Rev A, A-G-70-203 Rev A, A-G-70-202 Rev A, A-G-70-201 Rev B, A-G-70-104 Rev A, A-G-70-103 Rev A, A-G-70-102 Rev A, A-G-70-101 Rev A, A-K-70-002 Rev H, A-K-70-001, A-I-70-301 Rev C, A-I-70-102 Rev C, A-CCS-03-002 Rev F, A-CCS-03-001 Rev L, A-CCS-03-000 Rev L, A-CCS-03-013, A-K-70-008 Rev H, A-K-70-007 Rev H, A-I-70-201 Rev A, A-I-70-202 Rev A, A-I-70-101 Rev C, A-I-70-103 Rev A, A-CCS-03-302 Rev C, A-CCS-03-301 Rev C, A-CES-03-301 Rev A, A-CCS-03-B01 Rev Q, A-

CSS-03-400 Rev C, A-F-80-003 Rev F, A-F-80-002 Rev F, A-F-80-001 Rev F, A-F-80-004 Rev F, A-E-80-001 Rev F, A-G-80-001 Rev H, A-K-80-001 Rev F, A-I-80-001 Rev F, A-CES-03-B01 Rev J, A-CSS-05-003 Rev B, A-CSS-05-001 Rev C, A-CSS-05-002 Rev B, A-CSS-05-004 Rev C, A-CES-05-004 Rev B, A-CES-05-001 Rev C, A-CES-05-002 Rev B, A-CES-05-003 Rev B, A-CCS-05-006 Rev B, A-CCS-05-005 Rev B, A-CES-05-005 Rev B, A-CES-05-006 Rev B, A-CSS-05-006 Rev B, A-CSS-05-005 Rev B, A-CCS-05-004 Rev C, A-CCS-05-003 Rev B, A-CCS-05-002 Rev B, A-CCS-05-001 Rev D, A-02-403 Rev A, A-02-401, A-02-404, A-02-402 Rev A, A-02-400, Greengage Screening ref. 550642JB19MAY15FV02_Screening dated 06 July 2015, Greengage Screening ref. 550642JB19MAY15FV03_Screening dated 21 July 2015 Received: 30 August 2015 Boer Pioneer Play SOL.030.188, Design and Access Statement chapter 9 Received: 29 October 2015 Background Papers:

The contents of planning file referenced on the front page of this report, save for exempt or confidential information as defined in the Local Government Act 1972, Sch. 12A Parts 1 and 2