1 2 5 11 13 20 17 7 2 Balfour Business Centre 26 28 22 96 17 PLANNING COMMITTEE SCHEDULE ITEM: Site Location : Land Noth of Johnson Street, Southall BM 30.32m Paddington Branch 29.9m Gas Holder Station Towing Path W SL 30 BM 31.09m 56 42 30.5 15 142 MP 10 The Cottage 1 134 3 to 4 Tank 8 12 14 Balfour Business Centre 10 11 Community Centre 84 Factory 15 30.2m Tanks Factory El Sub Sta BM 31.85m 24 25 16 21 22 El Sub Sta JOHNSON STREET 23 14 2 73 Tk 138 140 El Sub Sta JOHNSON STREET 84 82 72 76 74 70 66 56 46 36 26 74 62 50 Factory 124 122 104 102 134 136 114 116 106 108 98 100 31.1m PH 96 PO 94 LB 91 84 81 81a 79a SCOTTS ROAD 79 69 59 158 160 103 195 30.5m 183 SCOTTS ROAD 171 163 155 Factory 30.8m 28 Works Works Warehouse 123 14 117 El Sub Sta 12 10 113 6 2 1 27 TCB 11 CAXTON ROAD 1 18 6 53 13 LONSDALE ROAD 47 42 19 36 25 30 84 72 60 52 44 32 32a 25 13 1 7 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 9 13 The Bungalow 23 to 28 97 92 85 MARLBOROUGH ROAD 73 61 49 108 37 98 88 78 76 This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LB Ealing Licence no. 086355 2004 The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this web-site/document is provided by the L.B. of Ealing under licence from OS in order to fulfil its public function to act as a planning authority. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish to licence OS mapping for their own use. 64 54 52 25 42 32 DERLEY ROAD Print Date 14 / 5 / 2004 Planning Services EGIS 2002 Original Image Captured at Scale 1:2500 THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO SCALE 15 3 to 8 143a
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT DATE: 26 th May 2004 PLANNING COMMITTEE REF: 14587/21 WARD: Southall Green PLANNING OFFICER: Ron Madell AREA TEAM MANAGER: Peter Causer Address: Proposal: Land north of Johnson Street, Southall Demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of employment units (industrial - 3252 sq m), nursing home (8142 sq m), sheltered and warden assisted residential accommodation (4212 sq m), residential accommodation for key workers (nurses) (2360 sqm), car parking and landscaping (outline application all matters are reserved) Application Received: 28 th November 2003 - Revised: Type of Application: Outline RECOMMENDATION Refuse Planning Permission for the development as shown on application drawing Nos: 494.02.1/L/01 and 494.03.1/ Survey, and illustrative drawing Nos 494.02.1/S/11, A/11, A/20, A/20 (including railway embankment), /B/11, /B/20, /C/11, /D/11, /D/20, and /P/11, for the following reasons:- 1. Loss of employment land The proposal would result in the loss of a substantial area of land located centrally within a designated Major Employment Location (International Trading Estate MEL, LBE No 8), contrary to the aims of policies E5 and E12 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan and policies 6.1 and 6.4 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, which seek to retain an appropriate land supply for industrial and warehousing units in such locations, and which indicate that industrial and warehousing are the preferred uses. 2. Overdevelopment and location of residential harmful to Living conditions The proposal represents an undesirable overdevelopment of the site; the Care Home, sheltered and warden-assisted housing elements of the proposal would be poorly located in relation to local services, public transport and to the industrial character of either the remainder of the proposal or the surrounding uses in the Major Employment Location; and the living accommodation would be exposed to sources of noise and vibration. As such the proposal would fail to provide good living conditions for future residents, as sought for all residential developments in policy ES5, H26 of adopted UDP and policy 4.11, 5.5 of the Replacement UDP. 3. Inadequate Transport Information On the basis of the transport information submitted, it is not possible for the Local Planning Authority to assess the traffic and parking implications of the proposal and therefore considers that it has no alternative but to refuse the application on transport grounds, in accordance with Adopted UDP policy T40 and Replacement UDP policy 9.1. c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 2 of 9
CONSULTATION: Advertisement/Site Notice Dated 21/11/03 Neighbour Notification Consultations were carried out in November 2003. The owners/ occupiers of 4 140 Johnson Street, 1-8, 10-17, 20-28 Balfour Business Centre, Balfour Road Community Centre, Balfour Road were notified (The applicant independently delivered to over 1,400 households an invitation to a public viewing (ie exhibition) of the proposals, which was held on Saturday 6 th December 2003. A list of the addressees and a schedule of the comments noted by the applicants have been forwarded of the comments logged, 14 were of encouragement, with 4 expressing some degree of reservation.) The concerns raised and responses from the Council s notification are as follows: - One e-mailed letter of objection was received from adjacent occupiers, raising concerns: Increase in traffic volume in Johnson Street & surrounding roads Car parking difficulties irrespective of new parking proposed Noise pollution increase Response: Transport Services consider that the traffic assessment and travel plan provided have information deficiencies making it impossible to properly assess the traffic impacts of the development. Ealing Civic Society: Objection the site is within a defined Major Employment Location (MEL) in the UDP; this would be an island of residential use bounded by employment uses and the railway, with major noise and vibration issues; a nursing home & sheltered accommodation are particularly unsuitable here, and a new business centre would be preferable, to act as a buffer zone Response: Agreed that the site is within an established MEL and that there is concern over a range of noise- sensitive residential uses here. London Fire Brigade: No adverse comments (attention drawn to Guidance Note on Access for Fire Appliances) Response: The Guidance Note could be attached as an Informative, should the recommendation be for approval. Environmental Health (Noise Pollution): Mixture of rail and adjoining builder s yard noise will affect nursing home and dwellings also activity from the new industrial units; rail vibration will also have effects; the Acoustic Report does not clearly assess the proposals against Ealing s criteria; internal and external noise and ventilation issues all to be considered further. The mix of uses appears contrary to normal separation of dwellings from industrial. Response: The nursing home would face the new industrial units; the warden c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 3 of 9
assisted housing would adjoin the Brent Park Industrial Estate; and the Nurses Home would flank the main Paddington line, with frequent passenger and freight movements. Although the applicants acoustic report shows sound and vibration levels at a level (Noise Exposure Category C of PPG24) which is capable of mitigation, the external amenity areas would still be subject to disturbance, in a case where the employment and services issues already suggest that residential accommodation close to existing noise and/ or vibration sources is unacceptable. Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) English Heritage Social Services (Older People): Copy of the Council Guidelines sent to applicant. Response: No contamination apparently identified from Desk Study that would preclude remediation conditions would be required. Due to probable impact of modern building on any potential archaeological remains there is no requirement for any pre- or post-determination evaluation. A number of issues & questions: Development will adjoin noisy railway & industrial units essential to reduce exposure to noise for residents who may be very frail Size of nursing home at 144 units important to avoid institutional feel, through design & management Day centre element not clear if expectation of LA funding may not be available Both short and long term units should be considered for the Home Residential elements clarification sought as to whether for rent or purchase (mixed tenure preferred) Care Commission Inspectorate should also view plans Response: Noise issue concern shared; size of care home not directly a Planning issue although small groupings with shared facilities could assist with more domestic scale; day centre funding not directly relevant; no information offered at this stage on tenure of sheltered housing; Care Standards Commission not normally consulted at the planning application stage. Parks & Countryside Sketch landscape proposals identify existing mature trees & propose generous new planting in outline; conditions required to ensure this is carried through to detailed design. Response: Agree that suitable conditions would be required should the recommendation be for approval. Transport Services: The traffic assessment and travel plan are deficient: methodology does not identify or address the true likely trip demands, or likely traffic and parking impact; disabled provision unclear; travel plan is not substantive (ie does not appear directly related to this development). A number of detailed criticisms of information on parking and servicing; proposals for improved junction and footpath design. Response: The applicant has been advised of these shortcomings at present the information received is clearly insufficient to demonstrate an acceptable proposal in transport terms. c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 4 of 9
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Ref: Date Proposal Decision 14587/2 13.3.74 Erection of office building (outline) Approved 14587/13 27.6.88 Erection of 5 industrial units with ancillary offices, parking & servicing provision 14587/16 2.5.91 Erection of 5 industrial units with ancillary offices, parking & servicing provision Approved Approved PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: SUMMARY This application is in outline form, with all matters to be reserved. This means that matters of access, siting, design and external appearance, and landscaping are not shown as definitive proposals on the submitted drawings. However, information on the quantum of floorspace has been given, and one form of proposed development is shown on illustrative drawings. It is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the preferred use of Major Employment Land for industry and warehousing, would be incompatible with surrounding land uses, would not be well situated in relation to public transport access and constitutes an overdevelopment of the site due to its high density and scale, contrary to UDP Policy. In addition, due to the lack of information provided in relation to transport implications and servicing, it has not been possible to properly assess the traffic impacts of the proposed development. Objections have been received from an adjacent occupier, Ealing Civic Society, Environmental Health and Transport Services, on the grounds of traffic impacts, noise and vibration impacts on the residential component of the development and inappropriate siting within a MEL. The application does not comply with the Council s UDP/RUDP policies and is recommended for refusal. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site lies comprises nearly 50% on the northern frontage of Johnson Street, with a narrow open part extending between the adjoining workshop and depot and the GWR railway line. The site is occupied by a range of substantial brick-built industrial and ancillary storage buildings, chiefly two large, low-pitched single storey structures linked by a lower element, and with a 2 storey administrative office block and landscaped area facing the road frontage. Two separate access points serve the site, one central serving the smaller loading area, and that at the eastern end leading to the main hi-bay loading area and on towards the open rear areas. The site was occupied for many years by Advance Plastics Ltd, producing plastic mouldings, but is currently vacant. The floorspace currently totals 10,3 sq m. The remainder of the north side of Johnson Street is also occupied by single and grouped industrial and storage buildings. The industrial and employment premises in Johnson Street abut (to the west) the even c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 5 of 9
larger Brent Park Industrial Estate and International Trading Estate, the whole area being designated in the adopted and Replacement UDP as a Major Employment Location (MEL). Facing the site are pairs of older semi-detached houses in Johnson Street, with similar semi-detached and terraced houses in the streets running towards Western Road, the nearest main road, linking Southall town centre with Hayes, the A312 and remainder of the main road network. Details of Proposal The outline application is for total demolition, and the erection of a series of industrial and residential buildings served by two access points from Johnson Street. Nine small industrial units (total 3252 sq m) would be sited along the eastern boundary and extend into the northern margin adjoining the railway line: these are shown as single storey, in three groups. Sharing that access would be a large, nursing care home accommodating 144 residents (8142 sq m). Attached to the western end of the care home would be housing for 24 nurses (2360 sq m). Along the western boundary (facing the Brent Park Industrial Estate) would be 30 warden-assisted dwellings, and the remaining area along the Johnson Street frontage would be occupied by 24 sheltered housing units (combined total 4212 sq m). Reports submitted with the planning application are: Noise and Vibration Assessment Transport and Traffic Assessment PLANNING POLICY National Policy Guidance In considering this application, regard has been had to appropriate national and regional planning guidance. In particular PPG 1 General Policy & Principles, PPG 3 Housing, PPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms, PPG 13 Transport, PPG 24 Planning & Noise ; RPG 3 Strategic Guidance for London and the `Plan for London` (SDS). The advice and guidance contained in these plan documents is reflected in the UDP Ealing s plan for the Environment. Development Plan Policies Adopted UDP Chapter 4 Sustainable Development R2 `Environmental Regulation` R7 `Adequate Infrastructure for new Development` Chapter 7 Built Environment B1 `Design of Buildings` B2 `Landscaping` B5 `Design & Neighbouring Development` B8 `Noise & Visual Intrusion` B11 `Impact of Traffic on the Environment` B20 `Safe Environment` Chapter 8 Environmental standards ES1 `Plot Ratio and Site Coverage` ES2 `Daylight and Sunlight` ES3 `Accessible Buildings` ES4 `Planting and Safeguarding Trees` Chapter 9 Housing c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 6 of 9
H4 `Affordable Housing` H12 `Accessible Housing` H14 Sheltered Housing H16 Hostels & Residential institutions H26 `Housing Layout` H28 `Housing Density` H31 `Amenity Open Space and Residential Development` H33 `Outlook and Privacy` H34 `Refuse Collection and Storage` Chapter10 Employment E5 Major Employment Locations E12 Industry and Warehousing Development E13 Associated Development in MELs Chapter 13 Transport T31 `Parking and Development` Replacement UDP (new Plan policies) Chapter 2 Environmental Resource and Waste 2.7 Contaminated Land Chapter 4 Urban Design 4.1 Design of Development 4.3 Inclusive Design 4.4 Community Safety 4.5 Landscaping and Planting Chapter 5 Housing 5.2 Affordable Housing 5.3 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing 5.5 Residential Design Chapter 6 Business 6.1 Supply of Land and Property for Business Use 6.4 Industrial and Warehousing in Major Employment Locations Chapter 9 Transport 9.1 Development, Access & Parking REASONED JUSTIFICATION Principle of Industrial & Residential Uses The land lies in the UDP-designated International Trading Estate Major Employment Location (RUDP Policy 10.14 MEL No 8) where industrial is the preferred use. The site has no recent history of applications for change from industrial use. The supporting submissions with the application indicate that it is envisaged that the residential elements (except for the nursing home) would be provided by a registered social landlord. In addition the applicant has held discussions with NHS regarding the need for nursing home accommodation. The applicant has highlighted the particular needs of the Southall area, to pay attention to the ethnic origin, language, diet, religion and social customs of the local population. The advantages of provision of local key worker accommodation was also highlighted, and that there would be employment provided on the site in the proposed industrial units and the nursing home.. c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 7 of 9
The substantial residential elements of the proposal, to occupy the majority of the site and nearly all the Johnson Street frontage, would conflict with established MEL policy, in both the adopted and Replacement UDP. The UDP Inspector in March 2004, in response to an objection seeking the greater flexibility of land use implicit in Special Opportunity Site (SOS) designation for the International Trading Estate, saw no overriding reason for such a re-designation. He concluded succinctly that: Similarly, as a large and well established MEL, which continues to provide important local job opportunities for Southall, the International Trading Estate at Hayes is not in need of wholesale regeneration and does not meet the criteria for SOS designation. The Mayor of London has published Supplementary Guidance on Industrial Capacity part of which applies specifically to UDP designations of Employment Areas which are nevertheless below the size and significance of the Mayor s own Strategic Sites designation. In this Guidance (SPG4) a series of criteria are set out. The Advance Plastics site meets most of these criteria, although it is acknowledged that it lies in a residential hinterland, with no immediate connection to the main road network. Such shortcomings are also shared by a number of other MELs around the Borough, however, and due to the substantial site area, condition and suitability of the present buildings and central location in the wider International Trading Estate MEL, it is strongly considered that even the partial residential development sought would be unacceptable in principle. The policy objections to loss of industrial and employment land are also supported by two other inherent objections. Firstly, there is the lack of local shops, services and public transport within a convenient distance of the site. The nearest facilities are individual local shops along Western Road, whereas the main commercial and community activity is around in Southall town centre, the nearest part being about 1km away. There is also the issue of siting a large, specialised residential development within an established industrial area. The nursing home would face the new industrial units; the warden assisted housing would adjoin the Brent Park Industrial Estate; and the Nurses Home would flank the main Paddington line, with frequent passenger and freight movements. Although the applicants acoustic report shows sound and vibration levels at a level (Noise Exposure Category C of PPG24) which is capable of mitigation, the external amenity areas would still be subject to disturbance, in a case where the employment and services issues already suggest that residential accommodation close to existing noise and/ or vibration sources is unacceptable. Transport, Access and Parking The traffic and parking implications of even the reduced amount of industrial accommodation proposed (compared with Advance Plastics) cannot be properly assessed. The traffic assessment and travel plan are deficient, the methodology not identifying or addressing the true likely trip demands, or the likely traffic and parking impact. Parking provision for people with disabilities is unclear. The proposals for improved junction and footpath design could be accommodated by conditions in this outline application, but not the wider shortcomings in the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Design & Townscape As the application is in outline, although illustrative drawings are submitted these could be reserved if particular issues were considered deficient. In fact, the general massing of the residential buildings is as would be expected for the forms of special housing proposed, although their juxtaposition with existing and replacement industrial is not. Conclusions The proposal conflicts with land-use MEL policy; constitutes an overdevelopment due to density and height, and has significant transport information and servicing shortcomings. Accordingly, I recommend refusal, for the reasons relating to loss of land in a designated MEL; overdevelopment, poor location for services and transport for the care home and other specialised housing proposed and the problems in mitigating noise and disturbance for new residents;and inadequate transport information to assess the traffic and parking implications of the proposal. HUMAN RIGHTS c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 8 of 9
In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report. c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\1af6997d-c554-4c1e-8eaa-701d10a97b9c\ - land north of johnson street.doc Page 9 of 9