References: P/2007/3869 00607/AM/P3 WITHDRAWN

Address: Gujo, Smith Hill, High Street, Brentford

Ward: Syon (& Brentford)

Proposal: Retention of one residential mooring to the site for the mooring of the vessel Gujo, providing six residential flats (four one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats)

Drawing numbers: • 001/1 (Site Location Plan)

• 002 Rev No B (General Arrangement Plan)

• 003 Rev No B (Elevations)

• 004 (Services Schematic)

• 11.08.05 – 09 Rev No D (Barge Plans – ‘Gu-jo’ Residential 1 & 2 Bed Apartments)

• ‘Mooring, Waterman’s Office Park, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 0DS Design & Access Statement’

• ‘Port of London Authority to Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow River Works Licence relating to River Works at Waterman’s Park, Brentford’ (referenced AN/6/157-8 and dated Twentieth August 1996)

• ‘Port of London Authority to Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow Supplemental River Works Licence relating to River works at Waterman’s Park, Brentford’ (referenced AN/06/157 and dated 27 September 2006)

• Letter from the Environment Agency to Chris Atherton of Living River Limited referenced (SE)M 31930 and dated 5 December, 2006 and formal Consent No. (SE)M 31930 attached thereto dated 4th day of December 2006

• Email string (email from Owen, Lucy of the Port of London Authority to Chris Atherton sent 15 October 2007 14:21 and from Mitch Cooke to Owen, Lucy of the Port of London Authority sent 14 September 2007 10:10)

all received 11 December 2007

Application received: 11 December 2007 SUMMARY AND UPDATE:

Planning application reference 00607/AM/P3 was called in by Councillor Dakers for reason that “Sustainable development of waterways are of high strategic importance in Brentford & Isleworth so members should be involved in the careful consideration of applications with potentially significant impacts”. Councillor Hardy supported the call in of the application.

Burnetta Van Stipriaan: Tel 020 8583 4916 e-mail: burnetta.van-stipriaan@hounslow.gov.uk Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning) 24 April 2008

The planning application was on the agenda for the March 2008 meeting of IBAC (as agenda item 5), with a recommendation for enforcement. The applicant withdrew the planning application; the addendum report to the March 2008 meeting set out: The applicant has, by email sent 26 March 2008, withdrawn the application,

“….in order that we can resubmit with all the relevant environmental/ecological/FRA studies requested. I would also like to arrange a site visit with you before this resubmission in order that we can discuss some of the issues raised in your report on the ground. I anticipate that the resubmitted application and supporting material will be with you within the next four to six weeks.” The report that follows is that which was on the agenda for the March 2008 meeting. However, with planning application reference 00607/AM/P3 having been withdrawn, Officers only seek Members authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the mooring of the vessel Gujo at Smith Hill, High Street to provide six residential flats without the benefit of planning permission (see Paragraph 10.2 of the report that follows for the relevant recommendation).

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The application is retrospective with the applicant having applied for “Residential mooring

for vessel, Gujo”. The application, described by the Local Planning Authority as “Retention of one residential mooring to the site for the mooring of the vessel Gujo, providing six residential flats (four one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats)” is considered to be unacceptable for the following reasons, in summary:

1. The proposal interferes with the waterway and access thereto and includes steel fencing that, by reason of its size (height), design and appearance, is considered to be unsatisfactory.

2. The application is inadequate in respect of the following: • flood risk assessment; • hydrological and river flow assessment; and • ecological survey

3. It is considered that the proposal is likely to give rise to reverse sensitivity effects prejudicial to the restoration of the boat houses (sheds) located on Lots Ait.

4. The proposal would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the flats due to inadequate unit/room sizes.

1.2 Refusal is, therefore, recommended.

1.3 This report also seeks Members’ authority to issue an enforcement notice in respect of the mooring of the vessel Gujo at Smith Hill, High Street to provide six residential flats without the benefit of planning permission.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site comprises land and water space. A rectangular area on the western boundary

of the Watermans Art Centre that is bound to the west by the strip of land known as Smith Hill forms part of the application site. It is effectively enclosed having steel fencing fronting Smith Hill (see Photograph 3 at Section 7.0 of this report). The mooring location lies principally to the rear (south) of the Watermans Arts Centre, on the northern bank of the River Thames, opposite Lots Ait. An access bridge spans a horizontal distance of 5m from the rectangular area of land to the vessel Gujo that has been moored for residential occupation (Gujo provides four one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats).

2.2 The site falls within the Brentford Town Centre, the Thames Policy Area and the

Brentford Regeneration Area (UDP Proposals Map, Map 2). The part of the site that is within the River Thames is also designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Nature Conservation Area (UDP Proposals Map, Map 2).

2.3 The strip of land that is known as Smith Hill connects to the High Street. It has a public

right of way. Smith Hill is stepped to its north and has a concrete slip way at the bottom (south).

2.4 No. 41 High Street lies to the east of Smith Hill. It contains three buildings, one fronting

the High Street and two side-by-side to the rear fronting the River. All three buildings have been vacant for many years.

2.5 Lots Ait on the River Thames is partly occupied by a derelict former boatyard. 2.6 Bus routes in the vicinity of the site are the 65 (Kingston-Ealing Broadway), 235

(Brentford-Sunbury Village), 267 (Hammersmith-Fulwell Bus Garage) and 237 (Shepherds Bush-Hounslow Heath), as well as the E2 (Brentford-Greenford) and E8 (Brentford-Ealing Broadway) that service the underground (Piccadilly and Central lines). Brentford train station is located on Station Road about 1km away.

2.7 There are existing moorings in the area, namely in the vicinity of Waterman’s Park

extending eastward. 3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 3.1 00607/AM/P1 Point Wharf, High Street, Brentford

Retention of 30m houseboat (Ambulant) Approved 19 February 1997 subject to one condition

3.2 00607/AM/P1(A) Point Wharf, High Street, Brentford Following approval for houseboat – Submission of refuse and sewage facilities Condition 1 of permission approved 19 February 1997 No further action

3.3 00607/AM/P2 ‘Ambulant’, Point Wharf, High Street, Brentford Retention of 33m long houseboat ‘Ambulant’ Approved 10 March 1998 subject to one condition (Condition 1: That the details submitted relating to the disposal of refuse and sewage shall be implemented within 2 months of the date of the permission and thereafter permanently retained)

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The application as submitted is for “Residential mooring for vessel, Gujo”, and is

described by the Local Planning Authority as “Retention of one residential mooring to the site for the mooring of the vessel Gujo, providing six residential flats (four one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats)”. The vessel has been moored since 10 October 2006 (as stated at Question 12 of the application form).

4.2 In the covering letter for the application, the applicant, being Living River Limited, submits “…we believe that we have acted in accordance with the regulatory requirements at all times, including securing the necessary supplemental river works licence and land drainage consent…” The letter continues,

“By way of specific history, following discussions with the Planning Dept at LB Hounslow, Living River Limited were advised to seek an in principle view on the suitability of the site for a residential mooring from the PLA. …on the 8th March 2006 the PLA confirmed that there was no objection in principle to the proposal on navigational grounds, subject to a number of minor points of clarification. During the spring and early summer of 2006 various discussions took place between Living River Limited and Officers of both LB Hounslow and the PLA. These discussions resulted in the Supplemental River Works Licence being issued on September 27th 2006. This licence specifically permits the residential mooring of GUJO at this location. As you are aware River Works Licenses are issued when the PLA are satisfied as to the planning status of the site concerned.”

The applicant has not, however, submitted evidence of advice from the Local Planning Authority.

4.3 The applicant confirms in the same letter that each unit is self-contained and connected to mains water, drainage, electricity, BT broadband and satellite tv facilities, also having underfloor heating from a diesel powered boiler, a central fire alarm system, individual burglar alarms and intercom activated access from the gate on Smith Hill. Drawing no. 004 (Services Schematic) is annotated “service connections to vessel via underside of access bridge”. As set out in the Design & Access Statement,

“One proprietary access bridge spanning a horizontal distance of 5 m from the bottom of Smith Hill along with two 2.4 diameter timber buffers adjacent to the existing river wall and approximately 27 m apart link with the 38.5 m long Freycinet river barge converted into 2 number 2 bed apartments and 4 number 1 bed apartments.”

4.4 With regard to refuse collection the applicant states in the letter dated 10 December 2007, “…weekly sack collection was initiated by LBH Refuse Services in February of this year following a site visit”.

4.5 Further, the applicant states,

“…we are working with the leased owners of the adjacent office block regarding redevelopment and we intend to submit a planning application for further moorings in the near future as part of this wider proposal. In this regard we have agreed a scope of works with the PLA for the river related development and we are currently undertaking the necessary surveys as part of this exercise. …I enclose a copy of this specification…

…we would be happy for any consent to be time limited in order to allow the other proposals for the area to be implemented.”

5.0 CONSULTATIONS Consultees

5.1 The Council initially consulted on the application by letter dated 20 December 2007 describing the application as “Installation of one residential mooring to the site”. Letters were subsequently sent out dated 2 January 2008 describing the application as “Retention of one residential mooring to the site for the mooring of the vessel Gujo, providing six residential flats (four one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats (Please note the amended description)”.

5.2 The following parties have been consulted: • Port of London Authority • British Waterways • The Regents Network • Environment Agency • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority • Natural England • Inland Waterways Association • West London River Group • Brentford Community Council • Thames Water Property • Ferry Quays Residents Association • Owner/occupiers including Hither Green Developments and Barratt West London.

Representations 5.3 The Port of London Authority (by letter dated 3 January 2007) has no objection, writing,

“As you will be aware and as detailed in the covering letter from Living River there is considerable interest in re-developing the area around Watermans Park. As such it is considered that a temporary permission should be granted so that this application does not prejudice the long term redevelopment of this area.

The applicant is reminded that the existing supplementary River Works Licence is for a period up until September 2008. Should it be proposed to moor the vessel at this location past this date it will be necessary to vary the existing Licence.”

5.4 British Waterways London (by letter dated 7 January 2008) has no comments to make for reason “The proposal does not lie within the consultation zone (150m either side of the centre line) of any waterway, reservoir, canal, feeder channel, water course, let off or culvert owned or managed by British Waterways”.

5.5 The Environment Agency (by letter dated 18 February 2008) has no objection, stating,

“We have no objection to the application as proposed as the moored vessel is existing.

However, protection of the surrounding habitat and river from detritus and any fouling liquid will be required if conversion and works are done in situ (in original position).”

5.6 The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (by letter dated 8 February 2008) has no objection.

5.7 The London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (by letter dated 12 February 2008) makes the following observations:

“1. Access It is a requirement that Fire Brigade access to within 45 metres of each dwelling is achieved, otherwise a Dry Mains connection must be provided to enable the Fire Brigade to gain closer access for Fire Fighting Purposes. As the nearest access to this proposed development is Brentford High Street it is unlikely it will be within the required distance.

2. Design and Construction The Design and Construction must comply with Approved Document B in terms of Fire Separation, Means of Escape, Means of warning in case of Fire and suitable Escape Lighting away from and in the premises to a place of safety.”

5.8 Natural England (by letter dated 30 January 2008) has no comment to make.

5.9 Inland Waterways Association (by letter dated 14 January 2008) objects, writing,

“We believe that the proposed, and indeed occupied, site on the tidal Thames at the rear of the Waterman’s Centre is inappropriate for a short term residential mooring; particularly were this to jeopardise any future longer-term mooring proposals on this stretch of the river bank. On the positive side, the vessel appears to be reached through a secure compound which also provides the necessary services… However access to the vessel itself is only via a single gangplank on to the bows, and the vessel is moored alongside a high wall. In consequence, and particularly in view of the relatively high number of residents planned to be accommodated, we are concerned that this ‘single exit’ arrangement might not provide sufficient evacuation provision…We are confident that you will seek the authoritative views of the London Fire & Rescue Service in this respect. Finally we also share Hounslow Council’s aspirations for the development of the Thameside path in Brentford and would be concerned if this were to be compromised by this mooring and/or its associated land-based service compound.”

5.10 Mr Nigel Moore (by email sent 20 January 2008) objects to the proposed development. He writes, “My greatest concern over this barge has been the positioning. It presently obtrudes across the passage to the Lot's Ait boatyard. This is absolutely unacceptable, and no such obstruction or nuisance that could interfere with the planned re-use of a refurbished boatyard (as protected under the BAAP), should be countenanced. If, as seems probable, the vessel obtrudes by reason of being too large to fit within the riparian frontage of the landowner, (with whom there is presumably an agreement to moor), then it is simply too large for its location on this issue alone.

The same principle of ensuring that every encouragement is given to the refurbishment and re-use of the boatyard, dictates that residential uses so close to the potential operations must likewise be rejected.

The appropriate place for residential vessels in this area, remains the wharfage on Waterman's Park. …the future more active use of the waterways must take precedence over non waterways uses…[is] using the waterspace as an “extension of developable land”.

Whilst not perhaps essentially germane to any determination on this issue, this seems an appropriate place to comment on the obstructions in the boatyard passageway that have been installed by the Council itself. Barriers and street lighting designedly prevent any vehicular use, which would be essential to viable boatyard operation.”

5.11 By email sent 11 February 2008 Mr Nigel Moore has also objected on behalf of the Brentford Community Council. Mr Moore writes,

“I object very strongly to this vessel or anything like it, especially for residential use, being given permission at this location. The need for the boatyard to be refurbished takes precedence over all other considerations, and there is not the slightest reason (that I can see), why these floating flats should have been imposed upon this location instead of further east.

Both in terms of obstructing the Smith Hill access, and in locating residential use directly opposite, the boatyard's future use is compromised, in opposition to Planning aspirations for the site.

This is the first time that a residential use boat has been moored here. They have operated cynically to legitimise a fait accompli and have not, from the documentation sent to the BCC, obtained the clear approval of the PLA, nor more certainly on the evidence, the Environment Agency. I would like to see a clarification from the EA as to whether they understood that this use was a very new one, and whether they did intend to approve residential use of this boat here, or whether they thought the boat had always been there, and they were approving construction of an improved gangway only. If they did approve the boat's use on this spot, I'd want to know the grounds for shifting rationale concerning this site over the River Brent/Soaphouse Creek moorings.”

5.12 Mr Keith Baker of Keith Baker Marine Engineering (by letter dated 6 March 2008) supports the proposed development, writing,

“I am concerned that…a negative view has been aired in regard to the “Residential” aspect. …Currently there is no more commercial activity in this area and the pleasure boat work decreased…and my business now relies on residential vessels for approximately 85% although many of these do occasionally cruise as well.

I know that it is similar for the other marine operations still remaining in the borough and feel that we should support applications like this.”

6.0 POLICY Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

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

6.2 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the London Plan. The UDP was adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007 by direction from the Secretary of State. The 'London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)' was adopted in February 2008.

Material considerations and emerging policies

6.3 As part of its prospective Local Development Framework, the authority has prepared two draft development plan documents (‘DPDs’): the Employment Development Plan Document and Brentford Area Action Plan, which are subject to Examination Hearings in March and April 2008 respectively. As emerging policy, the two DPDs are material considerations in determining applications for planning permission.

Relevant policies of the 'London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004)' 6.4 The following London Plan policies are of relevance to the application:

Living in London Policies 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities Connecting London Policies – Improving Travel in London 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling 3C.23 Parking strategy Enjoying London Policies 3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation London’s Metabolism Policies: Using and Managing Natural Resources 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.7 Renewable energy 4A.12 Flooding 4A.13 Flood risk management 4A.16 Water supplies and resources 4A.17 Water quality 4A.18 Water and sewerage infrastructure 4A.19 Improving air quality 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4A.34 Dealing with hazardous substances Designs on London Policies 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.3 Enhancing the quality of the public realm 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.6 Safety, security, and fire precaution and protection 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.11 London’s built heritage 4B.15 Archaeology The Blue Ribbon Network 4C.1 The strategic importance of the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.2 Context for sustainable growth 4C.3 The natural value of the Blue ribbon Network 4C.4 Natural landscape 4C.6 Sustainable growth priorities for the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.11 Increasing access alongside and to the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.12 Support facilities and activities in the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.13 Moorings facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.14 Structures over and into the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.15 Safety on and near to the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.16 Importance of the Thames 4C.17 Thames Policy Area 4C.23 Docks

Relevant policies of the Council’s UDP adopted in December 2003 and was amended and saved as of 28 September 2007

6.5 The following UDP policies are of relevance to the application: Implementation Policies IMP.2.1 Regeneration of Brentford Town Centre and Riverside IMP.3.1 Brentford Regeneration Area IMP.5.2 Thames Policy Area Natural Environment Policies ENV-N.1.5 Protection of Metropolitan Open Land ENV-N.1.6 Metropolitan Open Land: Acceptable uses ENV-N.1.7 Development near the Metropolitan Open Land boudnary ENV-N.2.2 Sites of regional/local nature conservation ENV-N.2.3A Species protection ENV-N.2.4 Habitat protection ENV-N.2.5 Habitat reconstruction ENV-N.2.6 Landscape features Built Environment Policies ENV-B.1.1 New development ENV-B.1.5 Environmental improvements ENV-B.1.9 Safety and security ENV-B.3.2 Sites of archaeological importance (Map ENV-B3 shows the site falls

within the Council’s Archaeological Priority Areas) Waterways Policies ENV-W.1.1 Design in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.2 Mixed uses in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.5 Nature conservation in the Thames Policy Area ENV-W.1.6 River related infrastructure and other facilities ENV-W.1.9 Use of the River Thames for recreational activities ENV-W.1.10 The Thames Path National Trail and access to the River ENV-W.1.11 Access to the Thames foreshore ENV-W.2.1 Tidal defences – River Thames, Crane, Brent and the Duke of

Northumberland’s River ENV-W.2.3 Other waterways ENV-W.2.5 Residential moorings ENV-W.2.6 Stationary or floating structures in or over the waterways Housing Policies H.4.1 Housing standards and guidelines Environmental Protection Policies ENV-P.1.2 Water pollution and water quality ENV-P.1.4 Waste water management ENV-P.1.6 Air pollution ENV-P.2.1 Waste management ENV-P.2.4 Recycling facilities in new developments Transport Policies T.1.4 Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments T.2.1 Pedestrian access T.2.2 Pedestrian safety and security

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Relevant supplementary planning guidance/documents include: 6.6 London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning

Guidance (February 1997)

Residential standards and controls: Section 9 Form and design Section 10 Private amenity space Section 12 Internal space provision

6.7 Planning Obligations, Supplementary Planning Document to the Hounslow Development Framework (March 2008)

Other relevant documents Other relevant documents include: 6.8 The Blue Ribbon Network The Heart of London, published in January 2006 by the

Greater London Authority

6.9 London Canal Committee’s Guidelines for Canalside Development (see UDP Policy ENV-W.2.2)

6.10 Assessment of Boatyard Facilities on the River Thames for the Greater London Authority Final Report, 25 April 2007 by Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd

Brentford Area Action Plan 6.11 The Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP) is a policy document that will form part of the

LDF and will replace all ‘Brentford specific’ policies and proposals in the UDP.

6.12 Objective 5 of the BAAP reads “To support Brentford’s distinctive role for the provision of waterside industries and support facilities, and reconnect the area with its unique waterside location including the river and canal banks and foreshore”. Under this objective it is stated, “Moorings, specifically off-line moorings, will be promoted and supported within waterside development sites”. It is stated that support for further on-line moorings will only be considered appropriate in locations that will not impede navigation and/or visitor moorings.

6.13 Policy BAAP1 (Sustainable Development) sets out criteria that “In view of local circumstances, specifically relating to air and noise pollution, flood risk and provision of social and community infrastructure and services” will be taken into account when considering new applications.

6.14 Amongst other things Policy BAAP5 (Regeneration and Protection of Brentford’s River and Canal Support Facilities, Infrastructure and Activities) states that the Council will encourage future use of Brentford’s waterside for those uses that have interdependence with the water, offer access, and support greater use of the waterways for passenger and freight transport, recreation and education uses.

6.15 BAAP Development Site Policy RR1-Ferry Wharf, Point Wharf, Goat Wharf, and Soaphouse Creek does not extend to include the application site with reference to Plan 6 and Map RR1 of the BAAP, although with regards to Lots Ait it is stated that the preservation and restoration of boat sheds and ecological management area is sought.

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

• Whether a residential mooring is acceptable in this instance including whether the proposal would (a) affect safe navigation/access; (b) impact on biodiversity; and/or (c) incorporates appropriate facilities;

• Impact on neighbours’ living conditions; and • Whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of the standard of accommodation.

This section of the report also considers the expediency of enforcement action and sets out the proposed enforcement action.

Planning Assessment Issue 1: Whether a residential mooring is acceptable in this instance including whether the proposal would (a) affect safe navigation/access; (b) impact on biodiversity; and/or (c) incorporates appropriate facilities Planning policy assessment framework

7.2 London Plan Policy 4C.3 sets out that boroughs should protect and enhance the biodiversity of the Blue Ribbon Network by allowing development into the water space only where it serves a water-dependent purpose or is a truly exceptional case which adds to London’s world city status. London Plan Policy 4C.6 similarly states that the uses of the Blue Ribbon Network and land alongside it should be prioritised in favour of those uses that specifically require a waterside location, including water transport, leisure, recreation, wharves and flood defences. For sites that are not suitable or not needed for these priority uses, London Plan Policy 4C.6 states that developments should capitalise on the water as an asset and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network in order to improve the quality of life for Londoners as a whole, as well as for the users of the development. As well, London Plan Policy 3D.10 seeks to protect the Thames Riverside, as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), from inappropriate development.

7.3 With regards to moorings facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network London Plan Policy 4C.13 states:

“The Mayor will, and boroughs should, protect and improve existing mooring facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network. New mooring facilities should generally be in basins or docks but may be appropriate in areas of deficiency or as an aid to regeneration, where the impact on navigation, biodiversity and character is not harmful.”

7.4 Supporting Paragraphs 4.176 and 4.177 for the policy then read,

“4.176 Waterside moorings for visitors and residents are a key support facility currently in short supply. Moorings can add to the activity, diversity and safety of the canals and parts of the river network. New moorings should be designed to minimise their impact on waterway navigation and biodiversity and be managed in a way that respects the character of the waterway and the needs of waterway users. New residential and long-stay visitor moorings should have land-based support facilities, including power, water, sewage and rubbish disposal, secure storage and washing facilities.

4.177 Proposals to use moorings for other uses should only be permitted where they can be shown to be of wider benefit to the Blue Ribbon Network such as an education resource. The Blue Ribbon Network should not be used as an extension of the developable land in London nor should parts of it be a continuous line of moored craft.”

7.5 UDP waterways policies seek to protect and enhance the status, quality and vitality of the

Thames Policy Area and to prevent an increased risk of flooding (Objectives ENV-W.1 and ENV-W.2). UDP Policy W.2.5 (Residential Moorings) states that applications for new permanent residential moorings on any waterway will normally be considered favourably providing that nine conditions are met.

7.6 UDP Policy ENV-N.1.6 (Metropolitan Open Land: Acceptable uses) states that residential moorings will be considered in accordance with Policies ENV-W.2.5 and also ENV-W.2.6.

Planning application 00607/AM/P3 7.7 Whilst moorings require a waterside location, residential uses do not (as has already

been stated, the application is retrospective and seeks to authorise the use of the mooring to the site for the vessel Gujo, providing six residential units). At the same time, both the London Plan and the UDP state that it is important to cater for residential moorings subject to ensuring that they do not result in a deterioration of the environmental quality of the waterways setting and do not cause other problems.

7.8 The mooring is located to the rear of the Watermans Arts Centre, with the bow of the vessel Gujo visible from the High Street at its junction with Smith Hill and from Smith Hill itself, as can be seen in Photographs 1 and 2 below (the vessel protrudes some 1.3m scaling from drawing no. 003 Rev No B; Photograph 2 also shows that lines and chains extend westward from the vessel to the river bed).

Photograph 1: View towards Lots Ait. The bow of the vessel Gujo is visible at the bottom of Smith Hill. The Watermans Art Centre is to the left of the photograph.

Photograph 2: View from Smith Hill showing the bow of the vessel Gujo extending westward.

7.9 The Port of London Authority has no objection to the proposal (see Paragraph 5.3 above), considering that a temporary permission should be granted so that this application does not prejudice the long term redevelopment of this area.

7.10 Nor does the Environment Agency object to the proposal (see Paragraph 5.5 above).

7.11 With regards to the Environment Agency’s position of having no objection as the moored vessel is existing, it should be noted that the application is retrospective and, as well, that the ‘River Works Licence relating to River Works at Waterman’s Park, Brentford’ submitted in support of the application states at Clause 9 that it does not constitute consent under any other Act of Parliament than under Section 66 of the Port of London Act 1968.

7.12 Had planning permission been sought prior to the mooring of the vessel the Environment Agency might have objected. The Environment Agency has advised (subsequent to their letter dated 18 February 2008, by email sent 3 March 2008),

“…for new proposals for moorings, our Encroachment Policy for Tidal Rivers and Estuaries applies. The Policy states that we should consider every case on its merits but that we are generally opposed to works on tidal rivers and estuaries that cause encroachment. The Policy also states that one of the considerations should be: Non-river dependent uses on river structures or within tidal rivers and estuaries.” (original emphasis)

7.13 It is considered that the proposal interferes with the waterway and, notwithstanding the presence of the railings and two street lights installed in Smith Hill, access thereto, contrary to (ii) and (iii) of UDP Policy ENV-W.2.5, which respectively state that the location of permanent residential moorings should not interfere with other uses of the river or bank or act as a barrier separating people from the waterway. In this instance, the proposal also fails to meet to UDP Policy ENV-W.1.11, which states that the Council will maintain and, where appropriate, enhance opportunities for access to the foreshore. Whilst the applicant states “…we would be happy for any consent to be time limited in order to allow the other proposals for the area to be implemented” it is considered that the grant of planning permission would not be well-founded given the mooring of the vessel Gujo as described above and in the absence of an assessment of the proposal’s impact on navigation and other information as discussed below at Paragraphs 7.16 to 7.18.

7.14 The access bridge to the vessel Gujo has been designed so as to allow it to move in tandem with the tidal range of the River1. The access bridge and the steel fencing that has been erected (see Photograph 3 below) are, however, considered contrary to (iii) of UDP Policy ENV-W.2.5 (already discussed above) and, as well, to (iv) of that policy, which requires that residential moorings incorporate appropriate facilities to allow safe and secure access between vessels and the riverbank, without interfering or endangering those using riverside walkways. In the same way the proposal also fails to meet London Plan Policy 4C.11, which seeks to increase access alongside and to the Blue Ribbon Network. In light of these policies and Objective 5 of the BAAP which, amongst other things, reads “Specific attention will be given to delivering a continuous path along the Thames, where this does not interfere with boatyard operations…”, it is recommended, should Members resolve to grant planning permission, that the permission be time-limited to 6 September 2008, to coincide with the expiry of the ‘Supplemental River Works Licence relating to River works at Waterman’s Park, Brentford’2.

7.15 Should Members resolve to grant planning permission for a temporary period it is further recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the existing steel fencing to be replaced (that a condition be imposed calling for details of fencing that is more sympathetic in terms of its size (height), design and appearance to be submitted and approved and carried out as approved; the existing steel fencing is considered unsatisfactory).

Photograph 3: Steel fencing with secure mail boxes for the flats that Gujo provides, the vessel and railings installed in Smith Hill

1 As set out in the Design & Access Statement 2 The Supplemental Licence submitted in support of the application varies the Licence as varied

by a Supplemental Licence dated 8 May 2006. Officers have requested that Supplemental Licence (i.e. the Supplemental Licence dated 8 May 2006) from the applicant.

The application is inadequate 7.16 A scope of works for a flood risk assessment for a “proposed 5 residential barges” is

detailed in the email string submitted with the application, with the Port of London having said that they are happy with it. However, a flood risk assessment has not been submitted with this application in respect of this application. The Council has, therefore, been unable to assess whether the proposal would reduce flood risk and whether provision to safeguard occupiers who might be placed at risk from flooding has been made.

7.17 A scope of works for a hydrological and river flow assessment for a “proposed 5 residential barges” is also detailed in the email string. Whilst the Port of London has said they are happy with it, they have commented,

“…the hydronamic desk study may not be able to provide sufficient information on the effects on sedimentation and erosion. If this is the case then the next stage of assessment – modelling – may be required.”

However, no hydrological and river flow assessment has been submitted with this application. The Council has, therefore, been unable to assess whether the mooring of the vessel Gujo impedes the free flow of tidal or flood water or causes sedimentation and erosion problems along the river.

7.18 Nor has the applicant submitted an ecological survey, despite part of the site being a designated Nature Conservation Area. The Port of London Authority has agreed a scope of works for an ecological survey for a “proposed 5 residential barges”. However, in the absence of an ecological survey relating to this application the Council is unable to assess whether the vessel Gujo would/has an impact on ecology. This is contrary to development plan policy including UDP Policy ENV-W.2.5(viii), which reads “any proposal should not prejudice the river, its foreshore or banks as a nature conservation resource.”

Service/support facilities, provision for service vehicles and car parking 7.19 Water supply, sewage and waste disposal are provided, as well as mains electricity (see

Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 above). Further to the detail set out at Section 4.0 the covering letter for the application also sets out that each unit has a “…fully fitted kitchen including washer/dryer, fridge, freezer, hotplate and combi-microwave oven.” There is no provision for service vehicles and car parking; however, with parking standards a maximum and given that the site falls within the town centre this would not be considered unacceptable were planning permission to be granted for a temporary period. It is therefore considered, that the proposal meets UDP Policy ENV-W.2.5(v) and (vi) which respectively read:

(v) any provision for service vehicles and car parking must not adversely affect the amenities of the waterway, and adequate service facilities (e.g. water supply, sewage and waste disposal facilities) should be provided within a reasonable distance to be agreed with the Planning Authority

(vi) Mains electricity should be provided where it is considered that the use of engines or generators would be liable to cause nuisance to nearby occupiers

7.20 A management agreement has not been submitted in accordance with UDP Policy ENV-W.2.5(ix), but could be secured by the imposition of a planning condition.

Issue 2: Impact on neighbours 7.21 Waterway support facilities, infrastructure and activities that support use and enjoyment

of the Blue Ribbon Network are to be supported and encouraged under London Plan Policy 4C.12. The supporting text for the policy states (at Paragraph 4.172 that these include boat building, servicing and repair activities, mooring sites and posts, boat houses and boatyards, slipways, steps and stairs and other landing or stopping places and at Paragraph 4.174 that new support facilities and infrastructure should not affect safe navigation on the waterways or adversely impact on important waterway biodiversity.

7.22 UDP Policy ENV-N.1.5 seeks to safeguard the permanence and integrity of MOL, with special regard to conserving and enhancing its particular character, appearance, historic and cultural value and its ecological value, whilst increasing access to and enjoyment of it. With regard to the Thames Riverside, the policy states,

“The Thames Riverside is characterized by its banks, islands, areas of nature conservation value, its river related features e.g. piers, slipways, wharves, steps, docks etc and its river uses, e.g. boatyards, residential moorings, etc, particularly those uses on Lots Ait and Isleworth Ait which all contribute to the special character of the riverside”. (emphasis added)

7.23 Lots Ait remains a proposal site under the BAAP, falling within Development Site RR1, with the preservation and restoration of boat sheds and ecological management area sought.

7.24 It is considered that the proposal is likely to give rise to reverse sensitivity effects prejudicial to the restoration of the boat houses (sheds) located on Lots Ait that the BAAP states “…offers a significant opportunity to contribute to the development of Brentford’s waterside employment cluster”, contrary, therefore, to development plan policies including London Plan Policy 4C.12. In this instance, should Members resolve to grant planning permission it is recommended that the permission be time-limited to 6 September 2008, to coincide with the expiry of the ‘Supplemental River Works Licence relating to River works at Waterman’s Park, Brentford’

Issue 3: Whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of the standard of accommodation 7.25 The Council’s Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997)

(UDP SPG) sets out the minimum floor areas in all new dwellings that the Council is seeking to secure, as well as minimum room sizes within conversions, with all rooms to be of a size and shape to allow satisfactory arrangement of furniture and circulation space.

7.26 Floor plans of the six residential flats have been provided (Drawing no. 11.08.05 – 09 Rev No D). Scaling from the same, three of the four one-bedroom units would meet the Council’s floor area standard for one occupant (a minimum of 30 square metres), but not that for two occupants (a minimum of 45 square metres). The other one-bedroom unit would have a floor area of approximately 23 square metres, below the normally acceptable minimum.

7.27 The two-bedroom units would both meet the UDP SPG floor area standard for two occupants, but not that for three occupants (a minimum of 57 square metres).

7.28 The main bedroom of each of the two-bedroom units would fail to meet the UDP SPG minimum main bedroom room size of 12 square metres.

7.29 Under the UDP SPG, flatted developments should provide communal amenity space with safe and convenient pedestrian access that is well landscaped and maintained and screened from parking areas and roads. The standard for each flat with three habitable rooms and under is 25 sq.m. No amenity space is provided. This would not be considered unacceptable were planning permission to be granted for a temporary period (time-limited to 6 September 2008; see Paragraphs 7.14 and 7.19 above).

Expediency of enforcement action 7.30 Under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the

Council has the power to take enforcement action where it assesses that a breach of planning control has resulted in material harm in planning terms.

7.31 Guidance as to how to apply this power and when a Council should find enforcement action expedient is contained in PPG18 and Circular 10/97, both entitled ‘Enforcing Planning Control’. The government urges local planning authorities to use enforcement action as a last resort. Reports are not brought forward to Committee unless it has been concluded that there is no other course of action available.

7.32 In addition to Government guidance the statutory Development Plan, which in Hounslow comprises the Council's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the London Plan (see Paragraph 6.2 above), set criteria against which to judge whether a breach of planning control is unacceptable.

Proposed enforcement action – recommendation 7.33 That the Committee considers it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the

statutory Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for:

All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an enforcement notice in relation to the residential mooring to the site for and of the vessel Gujo requiring by 6 September 2008:

• The removal of the vessel Gujo and the steel fencing, access bridge and service connections associated with the residential mooring of the same; and

• Removal of all resultant debris; and for

The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 of the Act in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice, including the recovery of the Council’s costs in carrying out such work.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Equal opportunities implications have been discussed in the body of the report with

regards to access to the riverbank and riverside.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The application is retrospective with the applicant having applied for “Residential mooring

for vessel, Gujo”. The application, described by the Local Planning Authority as “Retention of one residential mooring to the site for the mooring of the vessel Gujo, providing six residential flats (four one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats)” is considered to be unacceptable for the reasons set out in the body of the report. Refusal is recommended and Members authority to issue an enforcement notice sought.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION:

10.1 Refusal of retrospective planning permission

1. The proposal interferes with the waterway and access thereto and includes steel fencing that, by reason of its size (height), design and appearance, is considered to be unsatisfactory. In this instance the proposal is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-W.1.1 (Design in the Thames Policy Area), ENV-W.2.5 (Residential moorings), ENV-W.2.6 (Stationary or floating structures in or over the waterways), ENV-N.1.5 (Protection of Metropolitan Open Land), ENV-N.1.6 (Metropolitan Open Land: Acceptable uses) and ENV-W.1.11 (Access to the Thames foreshore) and London Plan Policies 4C.11 (Increasing access alongside and to the Blue Ribbon Network) and 4C.13 (Moorings facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network).

2. The application is inadequate in respect of the lack of following: • flood risk assessment; • hydrological and river flow assessment; and • ecological survey

so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to fully consider and assess this development. In the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal would: • fail to reduce flood risk and safeguard occupiers who might be placed at risk

from flooding; • impede the free flow of tidal or flood water and cause sedimentation and erosion

problems along the river; and • prejudice the river and its foreshore as a nature conservation resource

failing, therefore, to meet Unitary Development Plan Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-W.2.5 (Residential moorings), ENV-W.2.6 (Stationary or floating structures in or over the waterways), ENV-N.1.5 (Protection of Metropolitan Open Land), ENV-N.1.6 (Metropolitan Open Land: Acceptable uses) and ENV-W.1.5 (Nature Conservation in the Thames Policy Area) and London Plan Policies 4C.3 (The natural value of the Blue Ribbon Network), 4A.3 (Sustainable design and construction), 4A.12 (Flooding) and 4A.13 (Flood risk management).

3. It is considered that the proposal is likely to give rise to reverse sensitivity effects prejudicial to the restoration of the boat houses (sheds) located on Lots Ait, consequently failing to meet Unitary Development Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-N.1.5 (Protection of Metropolitan Open Land) and ENV-W.2.5 (Residential moorings) and London Plan Policies 4C.12 (Support facilities and activities in the Blue Ribbon Network), 4A.20 (Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes) and 4C.23 (Docks).

4. The proposal would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the flats due to inadequate unit/room sizes. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development) and H.4.1 (Housing Standards and Guidelines) and Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (February 1997).

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

All necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of an enforcement notice in relation to the residential mooring to the site for and of the vessel Gujo requiring by 6 September 2008:

• The removal of the vessel Gujo and the steel fencing, access bridge and service connections associated with the residential mooring of the same; and

• Removal of all resultant debris; and for

The institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 of the Act in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice, including the recovery of the Council’s costs in carrying out such work.