Planning Committee 6th March 2014

e-mail: sunny.desai@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2013/2286 00981/B7/P3

Address: Coomb House, 7 St. John’s Road, Isleworth, London TW7 6NJ

Proposal: Conversion of the property from existing offices (B1/D1 uses) to a hotel (C1 use) including the erection of third floor, part fourth floor, part fifth floor and front extension

Drawing numbers:

828/RDP/P02, P03 Existing Plans

828/RDP/P04, P05, P06,P07, P08 Amended plans received 21/10/14

Supporting Documents:

Design and Access Statement, dated June 2013, received 12/07/13;

Noise and Vibration Assessment Report 9864.NVA.01, dated 15/03/13, received 12/07/13;

Energy Statement, dated 24/06/13, received 12/07/13;

Green Travel Plan, dated May 2013, received 12/07/13;

Marketing Report, dated 31/05/13, received 12/07/13;

Sequential Testing, dated June 2013, received 12/07/13;

Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme, dated April 2013, received 12/07/13;

Waste Management Statement, dated 26/03/13, received 12/07/13; and

Transport Assessment date May 2013, received 12/07/13.

Business Plan Received 16/9/13

Update Transport Note received 11/2/14

CGI Images received 11/2/14

Application received:

03/07/13

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the conversion and extension of the existing office building on the site to provide a 59 bed hotel with associated car parking, alterations to the vehicular access and hard and soft landscaping.

1.2 It is considered that the scheme is acceptable and approval, subject to safeguarding conditions and a s106 agreement, is recommended.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The site is located on the western side of St. Johns Road directly north of its intersection with a national rail line overbridge. The site is located 100m south of the traffic light controlled intersection of London Road and St Johns Road.

2.2 The site is approximately 1053m2 and irregular in shape. It has frontages to St Johns Road to the east and to a private road to the north

2.3 The site contains an existing office building (predominantly vacant). The building is three-storeys in height (10.6m) with a four storey element in the south-western corner (13.6m). The building has a roughly rectangular footprint, with a step in on its north-eastern corner to accommodate the entrance. The existing building has a mostly opaque glass exterior. There is currently a lay-by area to the front of the site with 28 parking spaces to the rear, accessed from St Johns Rd via the private access road to the north of the building.

2.4 In terms of public transport the site is located 250m from the entrance to Isleworth main line national rail station. Multiple bus routes pass near the site. Two routes, 117 (Stains to West Middlesex Hospital) and H37 (Hounslow to Richmond) pass directly in front of the site. Several more pass by on London Road 100m to the north of the site. These routes provide access to the site with services between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital, Sunbury to Brentford, Hounslow to Shepherd’s Bush, and Hounslow to Aldwych. The above culminates in a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL1) for the site of ‘moderate’ (3).

2.5 The site is located within, albeit on the edge, of the Spring Grove Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

2.6 To the north of the site is a row of shops with residential units above. To the rear are various light industrial uses within an industrial estate. To the south is a national rail line. There are no buildings immediately opposite the site, with semi-detached dwellings further to the north.

2.7 Whilst not within a conservation area itself the site sits immediately opposite the southern tip of the Spring Grove Conservation Area, and just north of the Woodland Grove Conservation Area.

2.8 The site is identified as having an industrial history.

1 The PTAL is a measure of the extent and ease of access to a site by public transport, with a rating of 1

being very poor and 6 excellent.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 The relevant planning history for the site is:

3.2 00981/B7/COM1 Installation of 3 roof mounted antennae, 3 microwave dishes and associated equipment cabins.

Refused: 22/10/01

Reason: The proposed telecommunication installation, by reason of its siting and appearance, would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding area and would be contrary to policies ENV1.1, ENV-B.1.1, ENV1.12 and ENV-B.1.7 of the UDPs.

3.3 00981/B7/P1 Change of use of the second floor from B1 (offices) to a flexible use for either B1 (offices) and/or D1 (non-residential education and training facility) for a period of ten years from the date of permission

Approved: 29/11/10

4.0 DETAILS

4.1 The proposal involves the change of use from a mix of office (B1a) and non-residential institution uses to a hotel use (C1).

4.2 The proposal involves maintaining the existing structure (existing height of 10.57m with maximum height of 13.64 on southern elevation), adding a full additional level (increase in height of 3.49m), a second recessed level (increase in height from existing of 3m on southern elevation), and a small third level for plant (total increase in height on southern elevation of 5.1m). The building would be extended at the front by 3.9m.

4.3 The proposal would increase the floor space to a total of 2399m2, alterations to the vehicular access and the provision of car parking and hard and soft landscaping are also proposed.

4.4 The proposal would see the existing building extended and re-clad with a combination of brick, louvers, cladding at the uppers two levels and aluminum framed double glazed windows.

4.5 The hotel would provide:

• 59 bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms

• Combined reception/lobby/restaurant/bar area – accessible via the main entrance and the car park to the rear. Note: The restaurant would provide light meals and breakfast for guests of the hotel.

• ‘Back-of-house’ ancillary service areas – including kitchen, housekeeping, office space, staff facilities and plant rooms.

4.6 The existing forecourt would be resurfaced to provide a new landscaped courtyard and soft landscaping and boundary planting (existing vehicular access is to be removed). The existing brick wall would be replaced with low metal railings and the existing ‘Marker’ Post would be retained. It is understood that the marker post denoted the original boundary of the grounds relating to a property called Mevagissey formerly at the junction of St John's Road/London Road. This property was built and occupied by Mr Andrew Pears (Victorian employer and benefactor, proprietor of the nearby A F Pears soap.

Figure 1: Amended site and landscape plan

4.7 Fifteen car parking spaces are proposed (a reduction in 13 spaces from the existing situation), three of which would be disabled accessible. Two of the disabled spaces are within close access to the rear entrance. Six of the spaces are in an under croft area to the rear of the building. It should be noted that the scheme has been amended to increase the on site parking by three spaces.

4.8 Vehicle access to the site would be from a private access road off of St Johns Road. Car parking facilities would be for guests only. Secured cycle parking would be provided for employees and guests (ten spaces). Tracking drawings have been provided to show that a coach could enter the sites rear car park and turn.

4.9 The Design and Access statement notes that it is intended to operate a taxi service (using a local cab firm), which would pick up and drop off guests at Heathrow airport and local train stations. A Travel Plan and Traffic Management Plan (which includes a car park and traffic management plan would form part of the S106 agreement.

4.10 It is envisaged that the hotel will employ a number of full and part-time staff. This will range from management staff, receptionists, catering/bar staff, and cleaners.

4.11 The proposal includes an indicative green roof, details of which would be secured by safeguarding conditions.

5.0 CONSULTATION

5.1 A site notice advertising the application as a major application was posted, and the application was advertised in the local press.

5.2 Local residents and businesses were consulted on the 19/7/13. A further round of consultation, in respect of amended plans, took place on the 11/2/13 (with details of the amended plans).

5.3 The Applicant also presented the scheme to local residents prior to submitting the application.

5.4 Ten submissions were received (4 related to the retention of the existing marker post), including nine objections to the scheme, commenting as follows:

Comment Response

Lack of parking will result in people parking on the street

See paragraph 7.46-7.63

The proposal will result in an unacceptable increase of traffic. St. John’s Road is very busy.

See paragraph 7.46-7.63

Loss of privacy/overlooking See paragraph 7.39-7.45

Visually overbearing See paragraph 7.39-7.45

The ‘Survey’ marker to the front of the site, bearing the inscription, “AP 1892”, should be maintained.

The Applicant has agreed to retain this feature. This would be secured within the s106 agreement.

A condition should be included not allowing buses to park on St

Parking would be subject to existing traffic orders. Notwithstanding the

Johns Road. above the s106 would require a car park management plan which would confirm no coaches serving the hotel park on the main road.

5.5 The Isleworth Society have commented that whilst they have no

objection to the proposals they request that the existing ‘marker post’ is retained and that this is secured by condition.

5.6 The St Johns Road Residents Association commented that whilst they

have no objection in principle they feel that parking, particularly coaches could be an issue.

5.7 Hounslow Chamber of Commerce have written to support the

development. 5.8 Transport for London have no objection, and are satisfied with the

parking provision and the impact upon local highway network. 5.9 The Environment Agency have no objection. 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 has replaced national policies and guidance formerly contained in Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes and some other documents. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that, where pertinent, the NPPF is a material consideration and as such, it 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 Unitary Development Plan (other than those policies that are wholly inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework), Employment Development Plan Document, Brentford Area Action Plan and the London Plan.

The emerging Local Plan

6.4 On the 4th June 2013 the Council's Cabinet approved that the “Policy Options for Local Plan" should go out to consultation. As emerging policy, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers that the emerging Local Plan is capable of being a material consideration. Given that the emerging Local Plan is still in the consultation stages, the LPA considers that in general limited weight can be given to it at this stage.

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES

7.1 The main planning issues that will be considered are:

1. The principle of a hotel development

2. Design and appearance

3. Impact upon neighbours’ living conditions

4. Traffic and parking

5. Sustainable design

6. Accessibility

Issue 1: The principle of a hotel development

Loss of offices

7.2 The NPPF (para 22) states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.

7.3 Policy EP4 of the Employment DPD states that a change of use of an office site/ building outside a town centre or Key Existing Office Location (refer to Annex 1 and Proposals Map) will be acceptable if: a. the existing use of the site for office is detrimental to amenity of the surrounding area, OR b. evidence is provided of the active marketing of the site for offices for a period of at least one year.

7.4 It is considered that in accordance with Policy EP4 of the Employment DPD sufficient evidence has been provided by the applicant, indicating that the site has been predominantly vacant since 2007. Since when attempts have been made to market the building as a whole, as it is now predominantly vacant. (It is noted that some short term occupants have periodically located within parts of the building but this has been at unviable long term rates and tenants have shown no interest in long term occupation).

7.5 The lack of demand for the existing use is despite an active marketing campaign, which included some internal refurbishment and flexibility in units space being offered, and is largely as a result of the office comprising of outmoded and second hand stock, the lack of interest in locating offices in the micro location and the fact that there is adequate alternate stock within the borough.

7.6 Therefore, sufficient marketing evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the re-use of the land in its current use is unlikely.

7.7 Furthermore the change of use to a hotel, as another employment generating use would maintain a level of employment at the site.

Suitability of location for hotel development

7.8 Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period.

7.9 The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

7.10 The Mayor of London’s Tourism Vision aims to enhance London’s status as a global tourism destination. Policy 4.5 of the London Plan seeks to implement this strategy to achieve 40,000 additional hotel bedrooms by 2031. The London Plan states that beyond Central Activities Zone, capacity for this additional provision should be identified within town centres, and in other locations such as Opportunities Areas, subject to these sites having good access to public transport, to central London, and other national or international transport termini.

7.11 Policy EP10 (Location of Visitor accommodation and conference facilities) states that proposals should be directed to town centres in the first instance, followed by edge of centre locations.

7.12 In accordance with EP10 of the EDPD, any hotel application should be accompanied by a sequential assessment that demonstrates that there are no suitable alternative town centre or edge of centre sites. The planning application is accompanied by a sequential assessment. The Sequential Assessment states that the application site is an out-of centre location. One of the Government’s objectives for achieving prosperous economies is to promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres. In addition location of high trip uses within more accessible town centres provides a more sustainable future by reducing the need to travel by private vehicle. One of the ways the Government seeks to achieve this is by focusing new economic growth and development of main town centre uses (which includes hotels) in existing centres as a first preference.

7.13 The proposed hotel location is outside of Hounslow or Brentford Town Centres, which are the nearest established centres, and which in respect of Hounslow is also identified as a centre of metropolitan importance by the London Plan. Although new hotel development is supported in the borough, the principle of the development on this site must be considered with regard to it’s out of centre location.

7.14 Isleworth is not in one the borough’s town centres, however the site is located very close to London Road; this part of that road, along with part of St. John’s Road (31 – 37), is designated as a Minor Neighbourhood Centre. There are a range of shops and services on this part of London Road which serve the needs of local residents, and would support the hotel function. Additionally, the hotel may support the retail function of the Minor Neighbourhood Centre.

7.15 The site has a PTAL of 3, which is considered moderate. However, it is noted that the site is located nearby Isleworth station, providing rail services to the employment cluster in Brentford and central London. Bus services also operate locally, including along St. Johns Road and London Road.

7.16 As part of the application the applicant has undertaken work to demonstrate that this out of centre location was acceptable for a hotel development. However officers conclude that sequentially more preferable sites are available. However it should be noted that one of the key aims of the sequential test is to improve sustainability of new developments and reduce unsustainable impacts and the impact of the proposed development on the location should be a key factor in the assessment of whether a hotel is suitable in this location.

7.17 It should be noted that the current use of the site is as office use, in itself a high trip generating use. Therefore consideration has to be given to the additional impacts the proposed hotel would have the potential to create compared with those of the existing use. Given the evidence provided, it also appears unlikely that the existing building would be reused as office accommodation and is likely to remain unoccupied, and at risk of falling into disrepair.

7.18 Both nearby centres of Hounslow and Brentford are considered to be well served by hotel accommodation and this, when taken with the significant distance to these locations, would ensure that the development would have no harmful impact upon their viability and vitality.

7.19 In respect of need a Market Demand Appraisal has been submitted and sets out hotel supply, demand (current and future) and a needs appraisal. It argues that there is a specific need for budget hotel accommodation within the Isleworth area.

7.20 The market demand appraisal notes that the proposal is for a budget chain hotel aimed principally at the local business market. Because of this local demand, Isleworth has been identified as a particular search area by a number of hotel operators including Travelodge, Choice Hotels and the InterContinental Hotels Group (supported by correspondence with operators).

7.21 It goes on to note that the specific local demand for a budget hotel in the Isleworth area is attributed to the following locational factors:

• a growing market associated with Heathrow Airport

• local business demand e.g. headquarters of multinational companies such as Sky TV Campus at Osterley employing 10,000 people and is their media headquarters (one rail stop away at Syon Lane or 20 minutes walk from the Site)

• West Thames College – an Academy of around 6,500 students and 450 staff – the main Isleworth Campus is within walking distance about 250m from the Site

• West Middlesex University Hospital, with about 1,800 employees and 400 beds (serving Hounslow, Richmond and Ealing Boroughs) and including Teaching Hospital for The Imperial School of Medicine – within walking distance about 850 m from the Site.

• Golden Mile’ – large conglomeration of multi-national companies on A4 Great West Road between Syon Lane and Brentford BR Stations.

7.22 The market demand appraisal concludes that ‘whilst more sequentially preferable sites may exist within town centres where the policy seeks to direct hotel proposals, there is a need for a specific type of hotel (budget hotel) in this specific location and which in our opinion cannot be met in a town centre location which would not be as convenient or sustainable a location to meet this specific need’.

7.23 The NPPF defines an Economic Role as one of three key strands in achieving sustainable development an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.

7.24 The applicant has also noted that the proposal would result in economic benefits to the local area, through attracting additional visitors to the locality and through trickledown effects from the proposed hotel use, potentially helping support Isleworth Local Centre.

7.25 Further to this the proposed hotel use expected to create a number of part and full time jobs. Additionally the S.106 would seek contributions towards employment initiatives including job brokerage, apprenticeships, construction training all of which would help ensure that local people would benefit from the opportunities created by the hotel development.

7.26 Therefore it is considered that this change of use would provide a new employment offer, including both full time and part-time employment opportunities. In this regard the new employment offer may compensate the loss of office floorspace and activate the site, supporting the justification of the scheme against Policy EP4 as detailed above.

7.27 Therefore it is considered, as a result of it replacing a high trip-generating existing use and the potential benefits to the local economy, local townscape and the opportunity to reuse a vacant building, that the principle of a hotel development is acceptable in this case. This would be

subject to the proposal having an acceptable impact upon the appearance of the area, safeguarding neighbours’ living conditions and having an acceptable impact upon local highways and parking conditions.

Issue 2: Siting, design and appearance

7.28 The NPPF states that ‘Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people’.

7.29 UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 promotes high quality design that enhances overall environmental quality and townscape. Section 1.0 of the UDP Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) states that the design and layout of proposed developments must be compatible with, and make a positive contribution to the character of the locality. New buildings must relate satisfactorily to adjoining and neighbouring buildings and spaces. Scale, massing, siting, size and height should be respected by new development, although this need not exclude original innovative design.

7.30 It is considered that the existing building is dated, unattractive and is harmful to the character and appearance of the St Johns Road street scene. Its loss or in this case it’s re-cladding and extension would not be resisted.

7.31 The proposed development which includes the existing building to be extended and remodeled with a new exterior treatment is considered to offer the chance to enhance the tired, dilapidated exterior of the building through re-cladding of the extended superstructure with a combination of high quality, contemporary materials (Samples of materials would be required by condition).

Figure 2: Proposed east elevation

7.32 The design has been amended to address officer concerns. Specifically this includes:

• A lighter cladding at upper floors- Which serves to soften the building from views from outside the site.

• A set in of the upper floor away from three buildings edges including the southern boundary – Which reduces any impact upon outlook when viewed from the rear of properties to the south.

• Repositioning of plant room further into the centre of the roof away from the southern elevation to reduce the visual impact of the proposed extension.

• Changes to southern elevation fenestration – to add interest visual interest through fenestration and a mix of cladding materials.

• Alterations to the ground floor entrance to ensure high levels of accessibility

7.33 The introduction of fenestration and louvers adds interest to the façade of the building. The overall bulk of the extended building is broken up with the staggered footprint, which is maintained from the existing situation, and the use of contrasting (brick and metal cladding).

7.34 The increase in height and scale at upper floors is considered acceptable in this location and context when noting the immediate neighbours are the elevated railway line and an industrial estate to the rear, the site is set back away from the St Johns Road frontage reducing its visual impact.

7.35 Overall it is considered that the extension to the building and the additional massing, by being reduced and set away from the building boundaries (including the southern boundary which faces towards Aylett Road) would not represent a visually overbearing or obtrusive structure in this location and indeed the visibility of the building from wider areas such as the adjoining Conservation Areas would be limited.

7.36 Having glazing serving the restaurant area of the hotel at ground floor facing onto St Johns Road would also help create an active frontage and help animate the front elevation of the building. Increased planting around the boundaries of the site and the new landscape treatment within the forecourt would also serve to create a new focal point and enhance the visual interest to the front of the site, benefiting the St Johns Road street scene.

7.37 The removal of the St Johns Road frontage brick wall and its replacement with metal railings, when taken with the soft landscape enhancements would ensure that the existing ‘Marker Post’ (Which is to be retained) would now be more prominent within the street scene and have a more attractive setting than currently is the case.

7.38 Overall it is considered that the proposed design would be appropriate in this location and context by resulting in an enhancement to the quality of the appearance and character of the building and would benefit the street scene and surrounding area.

Issue 3: Impacts on neighbours’ living conditions

7.39 UDP Policy ENV-B.1.1 states that in relation to the context, form and layout of buildings and spaces, new development should minimise any detrimental impact on adjoining properties. The impact of the proposed building on the living conditions of neighbours will be considered below. In particular, regard shall be given in the assessment to the effect of overlooking, daylight as well as changes to the outlook of neighbouring residents.

7.40 In respect of residential properties to the south, that face south onto Aylett Road, it is not considered that the development would result in any unacceptable harm to neighbours’ living conditions. Firstly the subject building is positioned to the north of these neighbours and therefore would not result in any daylight or sunlight impact to the rear elevation of these neighbours. In respect of the increase in height this is considered modest, when taken with the significant separation distances involved approximately 50m away from rear elevations and the fact that the subject building is separated by an elevated mainline railway line and tree screening, that no unacceptable impact in terms of loss of outlook or a sense of enclosure would result.

7.41 Notwithstanding the above, the amended plans show the plant room being set in of 6.16m from the southern elevation of the building and the third floor being set in 1.5m from the building edge. These set-ins further reduce any visual impact and ensure the increase in massing has no unacceptable impact on neighbours’ living conditions or upon the appearance of the area.

7.42 In respect of upper floor at No.5 St Johns Road adjacent the site to the north, as this property is orientated east/west it is not considered that the proposals would result in any unacceptable harm upon living conditions. The flank windows within that property do not serve habitable rooms or are not the primary source of light.

7.43 Directly to the west is an industrial estate and therefore there would be no harm to living conditions. Similarly there is no residential development directly opposite the site (access road and car park to Isleworth Station)

7.44 Whilst any construction project results is some noise and disturbance this would be short term and with appropriate mitigation would be acceptable. The applicant would be required as part of the s106 to enter into a Considerate Contractor scheme which would minimise disturbance to neighbours during the construction period. Safeguarding conditions would also limit the hours of construction.

7.45 Overall it is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact upon neighbours’ living conditions.

Issue 4: The implications for traffic and parking in the locality

Trip generation

7.46 There is an established office use on the site and the existing office building could be occupied tomorrow without the need for planning permission and in the view of officers it is reasonable to assess trip generation of the proposal against this background.

7.47 The existing office use is a high trip generating use with concentrated

peak flows occurring during the hours of the peak flows on the surrounding highway network. In contrast, the proposed hotel use will generate a more balanced traffic flow over the working day and will generate fewer traffic movements in the main peak traffic hours. The number of vehicles expected to visit the site during the ‘nightime’ is expected to be minimal.

7.48 Therefore there would not be an unacceptable impact upon the local

highway in terms of trip generation and junction capacity.

Parking

7.49 The site has a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) of 3, which is moderate. Notwithstanding the above the site is close to Isleworth Mainline Railway station and numerous bus services along London Road. In addition the site benefits from the adjacent shops and services that form part of Isleworth Minor neighbourhood centre.

7.50 The overarching aim of London Plan Policy is to reduce parking levels

and to encourage more sustainable modes of transport. UDP Policy T.1.4 states that developments must provide parking and servicing facilities in accordance with Council standards with provision to be made for people with disabilities. Operational requirements such as space for deliveries and loading must also be met on site.

7.51 The parking standards in Appendix 3 of the UDP state the minimum and

maximum parking standards applicable for hotel developments will largely relate to the PTAL of the site and its anticipated use in relationship with adjoining land uses and occupiers. The Council’s parking standards require a minimum parking provision for hotels of 1 space/5 beds ( 11 spaces) and a maximum of 1 space/2 beds (29 spaces).

7.52 15 car spaces are proposed (this includes an increase of three spaces

following officer concerns) which is between the two figures and is considered appropriate given the PTAL rating of 3. Transport for London are also satisfied with the parking level proposed. Secure cycle storage, for employees, is provided within the building (accessed from the rear car park).A car parking / traffic management plan will be required to be submitted that will also include details of taxi service arrangements.

7.53 The applicant has noted that there would be parking provision available within the adjacent Industrial estate however this cannot be secured as it is outside the applicants’ ownership.

7.54 It is considered that the parking provision is in line with the Council’s

standards and London Plan Policy and is appropriate for a hotel use in this location with a PTAL of 3.

Surrounding road network

7.55 Notwithstanding the above officers are keen to ensure that the development does not result in any unacceptable overspill parking or inappropriate coach parking, specifically in respect of the area to the south which do not benefit from parking restrictions.

7.56 A travel plan and the proximity of good levels of public transport including

buses serving London road and Isleworth Mainline station will reduce the number of guests arriving by private vehicles. A draft travel plan has been submitted and would form part of the s106 agreement. This would include measures to limit vehicle trips to the site and remedial measures if modal shift targets are not achieved on a year by year basis.

7.57 Payment of a financial contribution of £23,000 to enhance local public

transport services has been agreed. This figure has been calculated, using the SPD Planning Obligations document. Again this would serve to improve the local public transport network for the local community and encourage the use of public transport rather than private vehicles. One suggested use of these funds is towards local bus stop improvements.

7.58 A car park management plan/Traffic Management Plan would be secured

within the S106 agreement. This would control vehicles on and around the site and measures include:

• Recommended routing for both guests and service vehicles arriving at the site, provided through information on the hotel web site and on the booking confirmation for guests;

• On-site arrangement for coaches and service vehicles including timed visits and specified parking/loading areas;

• Restriction on associated coach parking on St Johns Road

• Hours of servicing limited to 9am to 7pm;

• An arrangement for taxi shuttle service;

• Car park management including ensuring spaces are only available to hotel guests;

• Requirement for on site parking to be free for guests

• Public transport use to be promoted to guests, including through the aforementioned site Travel Plan;

7.59 In addition the s106 would require a contribution towards consultation on

the implementation or widening of a Controlled Parking Zone following the completion and commencement of the use (after 1 year) with additional funding to implement any CPZ if required.

7.60 The Transport Assessment notes that the proposed scheme, by its

nature as a budget hotel and its limited scale, is not going to be marketed towards coach operators. Coaches will be positively discouraged and are therefore rarely, or never expected to visit the site.

7.61 Notwithstanding the above, tracking drawings have been submitted that

demonstrate how a coach can enter and exit the site adequately, dropping off within the rear car park and existing via the adjacent industrial estate road (the applicant has confirmed they have a right of way).

7.62 Furthermore as noted above the car/traffic management plan, which

would restrict coaches from parking along St Johns Road.

Summary 7.63 It is considered that the proposed use and its associated trip generations

would, subject to safeguarding conditions and measures within the s106 agreement, have an acceptable impact upon local highways conditions and local parking conditions.

Issue 5: Sustainable Design

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

7.65 In particular, Chapter 5 of the London Plan, collectively requires developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change, and to minimize carbon dioxide emissions.

7.66 The proposed development would re-use a previously developed building utilising established infrastructure. As a large refurbished building, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognizes and adopts sustainable development principles.

7.67 Indeed the altered re clad building would replace the previously aged structure with new durable materials that would satisfy relevant

standards for insulation and energy efficiency (Resulting in an 11.14% carbon reduction).

7.68 In addition 198m2 Photovoltarics panels within the roof space would achieve a further 20.8% carbon reduction. Furthermore the sustainability’s attachment notes the following measures:

- Reuse of demolished materials on site for aggregates etc where possible

- Use of recycled material from locally sourced where possible - Use of eco label white goods - Use of low emission gas boilers - Use of energy efficiency light fittings throughout

7.69 The Council’s Sustainability consultants have reviewed the submission and are satisfied that the proposals would be acceptable in sustainability terms and meet the aspiration of the London Plan. The measures proposed would be secured by safeguarding conditions.

8.0 Accessibility

8.1 London Plan Policy 7.2 states that the Mayor will require all new development in London to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design.

8.2 The development is proposed to be fully accessible for people with limited mobility (this would be secured by safeguarding conditions). The following should be noted:

• Doors to the north east corner of the Entrance Lobby will be automatically opening with level thresholds (amended).

• DDA toilets are provided on the ground.

• Disabled parking bays are located near the entrance within the rear car park.

• All lifts will be designed in accordance with Part M requirements

with controls at the correct heights and a full intercom link with reception.

• A minimum of 6 bedrooms will be provided specifically to meet the needs of disabled guests including fully accessible shower rooms and sufficient wheelchair turning space to allow bed transfer.

9.0 Legal Agreement (s106)

9.1 UDP policy IMP6.1 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a developer enters into a planning obligation to secure planning benefits related to the proposed development. A payment or 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. Accordingly, it is mandatory that each criterion be satisfactorily addressed prior to granting planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement.

9.2 The agreed heads of terms required to mitigate the impact of the development are:

5. Travel Plan

Preparation and implementation of a plan to reduce the number of car trips made by employees or other users of the development. This document includes, as noted above, details of the dedicated taxi service for the proposed hotel and a coach management plan as well as specified targets to reduce car trips to the site.

(ii) Construction Training

Participation in a programme to provide employment training places during construction for local people to the value of £4,500.

(iii) Employment Initiatives

Payment of a financial contribution or equivalent in lieu to facilitate elements such as job brokerage and skills training, apprenticeships to develop the career path and skills of local people. This would ensure that local people could benefit from the site being redeveloped and employment returned to a currently vacant location.

(iv) Public Transport

Payment of a financial contribution of £26,989 to enhance local public transport services has been requested. This figure has been calculated, using the SPD Planning Obligations. Again this would serve to improve the local public transport network for the local community and encourage the use of public transport rather than the private vehicle.

(v) Traffic Management Contribution – £40,000 towards consultation on and implementation if required a controlled parking zone to the south of the site.

(vi) Considerate Contractors scheme

It is appropriate that the developer registers to the Considerate Contractors Scheme. All sites registered with the Scheme are monitored by an experienced industry professional to assess their performance against the eight point Code of Considerate Practice which includes the categories Considerate, Environment, Cleanliness, Good Neighbour, Respectful, Safe, Responsible and Accountable.

(Vii) Car park/Traffic Management Plan

Preparation and implementation of a plan to manage the vehicles arriving and departing from the site.

(Viii) Marker Post - Commitment to retain and maintain the existing marker post within the forecourt of the site for the lifetime of the development.

10.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties and in particular with respect to its duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, section 149. Following a relevance test, which is available at: http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/council_and_democracy/equality/eias/ environment t_eias.htm it is considered that there will be no specific implications with regard to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.

11.0 LOCAL FINANCE INITIATIVES

11.1 Some new developments granted planning permission on or after 1st April

2012 will be liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to the Mayor of London with respect to the funding of Crossrail. This is at the rate of £35 per m2

of new floor space.

11.2 This proposal is liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy on commencement of development.

12.0 RECOMMENDATION

APPROVAL

1 That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance.

2 The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 06/5/14 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment or within Legal Services.

3 If the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by

the date specified above (or any agreed extended period), then the Assistant Director – Community Safety, Regulatory and Development Services or Head of Development Management is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development

acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in this Report.

4 Following the grant of planning permission, where (a) requested to enter into a deed of variation or legal agreement in connection with the planning permission hereby approved and by the person(s) bound by the legal agreement authorised in paragraph 1 above, and (b) where the planning obligations are not materially affected, and (c) there is no monetary cost to the Council, the Assistant Director – Community Safety, Regulatory & Development Services or Head of Development Management is hereby authorised (in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee and upon the advice of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance) to enter into a legal agreement(s) (deed of variation) made under Sections 106 and/or 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation.

5 If planning permission is refused, the Assistant Director Community

Safety, Regulatory and Development Services or Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it (a) duplicates the planning application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and © that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time.

Draft Safeguarding Conditions

1 A1a Time Limit

2 B3 Materials Samples

3 B5 Implementation in accordance with approved plans

4 C29 Hours of construction

5 Non std

Hours of use (restaurant)

6 Non std

Restriction on amplified noise

7 C28 Hours of Servicing and Deliveries (9am-19)

8 C34 Illumination, mud and dust on Construction Sites

9 E1 Landscaping and Lighting

10 E6 Landscape maintenance

11 F8 Boundary treatment

12 On-site renewable energy

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for a scheme meeting the requirements of Policy 5.2 of the Consolidated Draft London Plan (2010) which asks for a 25% reduction in regulation CO2 emissions below the Part L 2010 TER – through energy efficiency or/and renewables).The details shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development and to contribute to meeting the renewable energy targets in the Mayor’s London Plan 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions ).

13 SSUUDDSS

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place until details of a Sustainable Drainage Scheme, including measures for living roofs and/or walls, harvesting of rainwater, the minimization of water run-off from the site, aiming for minimization levels, and the conservation and reuse as appropriate of other water supplies in the building have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be carried out as approved.

(Reason. In the interests of sustainability, the management of surface water run off and Policies 5.13 Sustainable Drainage and 5.11 Green Roofs and development site environs) of the London Plan.)

14 Sustainable Construction

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, for a sustainable construction scheme, to comply with the “essential” standards for materials in the Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. These being- 50% timber and timber products from Forest Stewardship

Council (FSC) source and balance from a known temperate source.- Insulation materials containing substances known to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion or with the potential to contribute to global warming must not be used.-Minimize use of new aggregates- Reduce waste during construction and demolition phases and sort waste stream on site where practical –Specify use of reused or recycled construction materials –minimizing solar gain in summer - minimize water use –protecting and enhancing green infrastructure- outdoor lighting should be energy efficient and minimize light lost to sky.- All boilers installed must be low Nox boilers, conforming to at least NOX class 5.

Reason. In the interest of sustainability and comply with essential standards in the London Plan and with London Plan Policy 5.3

15 Submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan

Development shall not commence until a Bird Hazard Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall include details of:

Management of any flat/shallow pitched/green roofs on the building which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and “loafing” birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8 ‘Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design.

The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved upon completion of the roof areas and shall remain in force for the life of the building. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority.

16 Inclusive Access

17 Green Roof

Informatives

Highways

• The developer has to contact Hounslow Highway for a joint survey before start of the work to record an existing condition of the public highway.

• The works on the public highway to be carried out by Hounslow Highways or under 278 agreement

• The construction vehicular route to be provided to Hounslow Highway to monitor the condition of the network.

• The developer to provide programme of works to Hounslow Highways to monitor future planned work in the vicinity