References: P/2007/3230 P/2007/3244

00600/K/S32 00600/AE/CA1

Address: Heston Community School, Heston Road, Hounslow

Ward: Heston East.

Proposal: Part demolition of the existing infant school, full demolition of the junior school, Norwood block and relocation of the existing children’s centre and erection of a new school building for nursery, infant and junior school, a new community school building and associated parking.

Drawing numbers: Site Drawings: HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04201-Rev P00, HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04202-Rev P00, HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04203-Rev P02, HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04204-Rev P00, HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04205-Rev P02, HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04206-Rev P01, HS-CA-00-G00-DRG-AR-04207-REV P00, HS-CA-00-000-DRG-AR-05201-Rev P00, HS-CA-00-000-DRG-AR-05202-Rev P00, HS-CA-00-000-DRG-AR-06201-Rev P00, HS-CA-00-000-DRG-AR-06202-RevP00(As Amended)

Plans: HS-CA-PS-G00-DRG-AR-070001-Rev P04, HS-CA-Ps-U01-DRG-AR-070002-Rev P04, HS-CA-PS-R00-DRG-AR-07003-Rev P03, HS-CA-PS-R00-DRG-AR-07004-Rev P00, HS-CA-SS-G00-DRG-AR-07100-Rev P06, HS-CA-SS-U01-DRG-AR-07101-Rev P06, HS-CA-SS-U01-DRG-AR-07102-Rev P05, HS-CA-SS-R00-DRG-AR-07103-Rev P05 (As Amended)

Elevations: HS-CA-PS-000-DRG-AR-05001-Rev P01, HS-CA-PS-000-DRG-AR-050002-Rev P01, HS-CA-PS-000-DRG-AR-050003-Rev P00, HS-CA-SS-000-DRG-AR-05102-Rev P02, HS-CA-SS-000-DRG-AR-05103-Rev P00 (As Amended)

Sections: HS-CA-PS-000-DRG-AR-06010-Rev P03 HS-CA-SS-000-DRG-AR-06101-Rev P01 (As Amended)

Landscaping: CS/030488/LS/001/Rev B, CS/030488/LS/002/Rev A, CS/030488/LS/SK02/Rev B. CS/030488/LS/SK03/Rev B, CS/030488/LS/Sk04/Rev A CS/030488/LS/SK05/Rev A, CS/030488/LS/SK06/Rev 0, CS/030488/LS/SK07/Rev 0 (As Amended)

Application received: 10 October 2007

Kelly McMann: Tel 020 8583 4938 e-mail: Kelly.mcmann@hounslow.gov.uk Sustainable Development Committee 16 June 2008

1.0 Summary 1.1 The application proposes the part demolition of an existing infant school building and

full demolition of a junior school and a part single storey, part 4-storey block also used for educational purposes. A new infant and junior school building, community school buildings are proposed with associated landscaping and parking.

1.2 Approval of the application is recommended, as the works would not involve the loss or change of use of the existing school campus. The new buildings would be located a substantial distance from nearby dwellings and their design and position would not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and adjacent Metropolitan Open Land nor the nature conservation and biodiversity of the Nature Conservation Area. The site comprises the southern section of Heston Village conservation area and edges the open fields between Heston and Osterley Park conservation areas. Older buildings along the street which provide historic and identity value to the settlement edge of the conservation area have been retained for re-use and incorporated in the overall design. The main reasons for the redevelopment of the school campus are:

• The current facilities and buildings of the school fail to meet relevant government guidelines and standards for schools.

• At present there are a substantial number of classes held in temporary buildings.

• It is considered that vehicular access to the site would be improved.

• It is also considered that the development would enhance the existing educational facilities through improved and well-designed internal teaching spaces, increased opportunities for play and recreational activities.

1.3 This proposal is part of a comprehensive scheme to redevelop the whole school campus. An indicative master plan for the whole site has been provided and includes proposals to demolish and re-build all buildings on the site. The masterplan includes a new community, infant and junior school, a new sports hall with associated sports courts, a community centre, canteen and a building for administration purposes.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site has an area of approximately 9.63 ha and is currently used as a school

campus. A location map identifying the site is shown below.

2.2 There are five main buildings on site which consist of three schools: infant, junior and

secondary (the Community School). The campus has 1766 pupils and 231 staff. The main community school building (Sutton Building), the largest most visually predominant building within the site from the streetscene and the infant school are located to the south of the site, Heston Junior School is to the north and the Norwood Building and sports hall which are associated with the community school are located within the centre of the site.

2.3 Heston Road is south of the site. Wheatlands, a residential area, St Leonard’s Church

and churchyard are to the north and New Heston Road, which is made up of a mixture of commercial and residential premises is located to the west.

2.4 A significant area of open space also adjoins the site to the east. Some of this land is

used as playing fields for the schools and is designated within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Local Open Space. There is also an area of local open space to the north within the school campus, which is used as sports pitches The school’s playing fields and an area on the eastern boundary of the site are designated as a Nature Conservation Area. Running along the north and west boundaries of the site is a public footpath used as part of the Ramblers Association network, that is lined with mature trees, shrubs and vegetation

2.5 There are two existing points of access for vehicles. The first is located to the east of

the site and connects Heston Road to a series of small car parks throughout the eastern side of the site. The second access is located towards the west of the site, and connects Heston Road to more parking bays next to a caretaker’s building in the south of the site and bays next to the main community school building and sports hall, the Norwood Building and the Junior school to the north. There are three entrances for pedestrians. One fronts the Community School and the other two the infant school.

2.6 Pedestrian and cycle access to the site is via Heston Road. There are two pedestrian

crossings (one zebra, one pelican) on Heston Road fronting the site and a bus shelter just to the east on both sides of the road.

2.7 The site forms the southern part of the Heston Village Conservation Area designated in 1974. The conservation area centres on the landmark of the statutorily listed St Leonard’s Church, which with the listed Lynch gate and vicarage / hall, form the core of the historic village. The main objective of conservation in the area, as stated in the UDP (SPG) is to retain the essential village character together with the inter-linked pattern of footpaths and open spaces connected with the area. To that end the appearance of buildings, trees and boundary treatments is important. Many of the settlement’s pedestrian links and routes relate to paths from the church around and beside the school site, and the older existing buildings within the site are important to the character and townscape of the settlement’s south western edge.

2.8 The schools campus also has a varied character. The main Community School building

(Sutton Building) and the infant school are located to the south of the site and form the main street frontage for the site. The Sutton Building is from the 1920s. It is mainly one storey in height with a two storey block in the centre and an original bell tower to its roof. The infant school of 1861 is the oldest of a group of buildings including a caretaker’s cottage and small fire station of 1925. The caretaker’s house to the south end is isolated and further set back.

2.9 Some of the older buildings have substantial modern extensions dating from the

1960s/70s. The sports hall and some of the infant school are also modern. This also includes the Norwood Building a part single-, part four-storey building. Along the eastern boundary were several prefabricated huts used as classrooms, which have recently been removed. The Sutton Building was extended along the site frontage in the 1980s in a large-domestic dormered style.

3.0 HISTORY 3.1 The Sutton building was built in 1925 with extensions built in 1986 and 1994. The

sports hall was built in 1994 and the Norwwod building in 1960. 3.2 The junior school was constructed in 1936 and remains substantially unaltered. The

Infant School was built in 1861 and was extended to the rear with two classrooms and toilets in 1994.

3.3 In order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site, a planning application was

submitted under the reference 00600/K/S31 to relocate nine mobile classrooms from the eastern boundary of the site to the adjoining playing fields for a temporary period of two years. This was given consent on 19 July 2007.

3.4 A draft planning brief for the redevelopment of the site was submitted to the Heston

and Cranford Area Planning Committee on the 8th January 2003. The brief was put forward for public consultation. Whilst the brief was not formally adopted, the key principles are still relevant to the assessment of this application and include: • A requirement for the development to provide satisfactory access, parking and security. • The need to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and

Metropolitan Open Land. • To have regard to surrounding residential properties. • The need to retain existing playing fields. • Ensuring that the school can operate during construction.

3.5 The Heston Village Conservation Area appraisal statement began in reports to Area

Committee in January 2006, and was approved by sustainable Development Committee in March 2006, together with approval for consultation purposes of draft management guidance. It was agreed that the infant school building should be locally listed.

3.6 An application for conservation area consent has been submitted for the part demolition of the existing infant school and full demolition of the junior school (ref: 00600/AE/CA1).

4.0 DETAILS 4.1 Given that the masterplan relies on funding not yet available, this application relates to

an initial phase of the master plan which is shown below. 4.2 The development includes the demolition of the Norwood Building and the junior

school to the north and the part demolition of the existing infant school to the south, the erection of a new infant/junior and a new community school building with associated parking and access. The development would also involve new hard and soft landscaping. Below is the proposed site layout.

Community School

4.3 The proposed community school (east of the site) would be the located in the area currently used for the nine prefabricated classrooms. It would sit directly behind the caretaker’s house, which is to be retained. Its front elevation and main entrance would be on the west side of the building, facing the existing Sutton Building and its rear elevation would face the playing fields to the east.

4.4 The footprint of this building would be mainly rectangular and would measure 4,119

sq.m. It would be set back approximately 40 metres from Heston Road, approximately 20 metres from the playing fields and 12.5 metres from the east side facing elevation of the Sutton Building. IT would be approximately 64.2 metres wide and approximately 21 metres deep fronting Heston Road and 25 metres wide facing towards the northern boundary. Its roof would be mainly flat and would be 11.4 metres high. There would be five large angled projecting roof lights towards the northern end of the building which would project 1.8 metres above the main roof.

4.5 The external features would include two projections (box forms) located on the south

elevation, one on the north elevation, two on the west elevation and two on the east elevation. These box–like features would project 2.4 to 3 metres from the main façade. On the east, west and north elevations they would have glazed windows and be clad in timber. On the south facing elevation these box-like projections would be constructed using contrasting materials. The one closest to the west of the building would be glazed with timber cladding and the other (closest to the east of the site) would be half brick with render and half timber. The style and layout of glazing would also differ from that used on the other projections.

4.6 Internally this building would have three floors and would provide teaching spaces for

art and design, food technology, business and enterprise and English. There would also be staff and administration areas and learning resources including a library, ICT suite and study area for 6th form students. The new Community School would be used for school purposes only. However, it has been designed in a way to allow for it to be used out with school hours if required in the future. Infant and Junior school

4.7 The proposed infant and junior school would be located towards the west of the site, directly behind the existing infant school, which would be retained except for modern additions to the north and side that would be removed. It would have a U-shaped footprint, splitting the building into three wings. Its footprint would have an area of 2,709 sq.m its main entrance would be on the west elevation. There would be a separate entrance for the nursery on the east elevation. The elevation facing west would be 45.5 metres wide and would be approximately 56 metres away from Heston Road. The east elevation would be 16.5 metres away from the west elevation of the Sutton Building and the rear of the front block would be approximately 100 metres from the northern boundary of the site.

4.8 The building would be two storeys with a flat roof featuring eight pitched roof lights on

the middle wing of the building. The height of the main roof would be 7.4 metres above ground level. The roof lights would project above the main roof by 0.9 metres.

4.9 A block on the south facing elevation that would project 3 metres above the main roofline of the building would include the main entrance and the main internal staircase. A main entrance canopy, providing shelter would project 1.2 metres from the block, would be 15.5 metres in width and 3.7 metres high.

4.10 Further canopies are proposed on the elevations facing the internal courtyard. 4.11 This building would have similar box-like projections to those used on the proposed

Community School building. A mixture of brick and timber is also proposed with various styles of glazing.

4.12 This building would provide classrooms for both the infant and junior pupils, learning

resource spaces, staff and administration area and spaces for community uses, including a library, ICT and an internal teaching balcony.

Traffic, Parking and Access

4.13 The development involves new parking arrangements around the site. 63 of the existing parking spaces would be relocated including 22 located in an existing car park to the south-east of the site behind the caretaker’s house, 14 unmarked spaces in front of the Sutton Building, 6 in front of the sports hall, 12 to the north-east of the Norwood Block and 9 behind the existing infant school.

4.14 A total of 38 spaces would remain as existing, namely 2 behind the existing caretaker’s

building, 7 in front of the sports hall, 19 to the west of the Sutton Building and 10 adjacent to the main access to the site.

4.15 New spaces would be created including 2 spaces in front of the proposed new

community school, 11 spaces along the eastern boundary, 24 spaces in a new car park behind the new community building and 28 spaces in a new car park west of the site, next to the existing infant school building which is to remain. In total, the new scheme would contain 103 spaces.

4.16 The new car park to the west of the site would replace the modern extensions to the

existing infant school which are to be demolished. 4.17 Vehicular access would be via the existing access to the centre of the site. A new one-

way vehicular route with traffic calming would be created which would run from the existing access parallel with the south elevation of the new infant/junior school and would provide access to the proposed new car park west of the existing infant school. This route would exit back onto Heston Road to the west of the site next to the site boundary.

4.18 The existing vehicular route, which runs between the Community School and the

sports hall, would remain but would become one-way and extended across the site to run parallel with the north facing elevation of the proposed new community block to serve the new car park. It then turns to run along the eastern boundary of the site with vehicles exiting at the existing access point on the south-east of the site adjacent to the existing caretaker’s house.

4.19 Traffic calming measures would be introduced along the northern part of this access.

The existing entry to the site and the exits to the east and west of the site would have automated, sliding gates.

4.20 Cycle stores would be provided in front of the proposed community block, against the

south elevation of the proposed new infant school and to the west of the existing sports hall.

4.21 Pedestrian access to the Sutton Building would remain as existing. A new pedestrian

access would be created towards the west of the existing caretaker’s house and would lead directly to the entrance of the new community block. A further pedestrian and cycle access would run parallel with the western elevation of the existing infant school building and would lead directly to the main entrance to the new junior school entrance. Pedestrians would be prevented from using the vehicular access to the site to prevent conflict.

4.22 A plan has been submitted, to show a temporary parking layout during the construction

process. The prefabricated huts were moved to the school playing fields last year. The table below shows the sequencing and development of the site.

Phase Description of works Completion Date

1 Construction of community block. Feb 2011

2 Demolition of Norwood Block, demolition of single storey extensions to infants school with the infant school and temporary accommodation provided, decant of kitchen and dining facilities into the sports hall gym and mobile classroom, construction of new infant/junior school starts.

Feb 2010

3 New primary school complete. Existing junior school demolished and landscaping started for the primary school and infant school remodelled into dining facilities for the community school.

Aug 2011

4 Landscaping and infant school dining facilities completed, sports hall gym reinstated and temporary dinning mobile removed.

Dec 2011

Landscaping

4.23 The applicants have submitted details of the new landscaping which would be implemented after construction of the new school buildings.

4.24 A tree protection plan has been submitted. It shows that many of the trees on site

would be retained. The main losses would include a cluster of several apple trees behind one of the caretaker’s houses on the southern boundary and a selection of trees including two large cherry trees and several deciduous trees located within the centre of the site. The condition of these trees ranges from fair to good. In accordance with Council customs for its own trees, none are subject to tree preservation orders, although they do have some level of protection as they are within a conservation area. This is discussed in more detail in paragraph 7.42.

4.25 Much of the new landscaping would relate to the provision of additional games courts

and hard and soft play areas. The existing junior school building is to be replaced with a wildlife and nature area, a soft activity play area and a hard games court area. The wildlife and nature area would have a pond.

4.26 Hard play areas for the infant and junior school would include a paved playground area

to the north for the proposed infant school. The nursery play area is to be located within the courtyard of the new building. This area would include hard and soft landscaping.

4.27 The junior soft sports pitches would be located east of the hard games court area

adjacent to the northern boundary of the site as existing. The existing infant school would have a hard standing in front for outdoor eating.

4.28 The existing games courts for the community school would remain unchanged. As

stated previously, an area of hardstanding would link the proposed community school to the Sutton Building. It is envisaged that this area would consist of both hard surfaces with retained mature trees and lighting.

4.29 To the south east of the site, a large wildlife and nature area would be designated

which currently has a car parking area. Most of the landscaping which surrounds the site would be retained, with new planting around the western and southern boundaries.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 An exhibition was held on 1 October 2007 showing the plans which were originally

submitted for this application. They included plans showing the full demolition of the existing infant school, which has now been omitted from the scheme There have since also been changes to the proposed parking and access arrangements and the location of some of the hard and soft landscaping The exhibition was well advertised and generated good attendance from local residents, parents and other interested parties. Representatives from the design team were available on the day to answer questions.

5.2 Approximately 337 addresses were consulted on 23 October 2007 for a period of 28 days, including properties in the following roads: Alderney Road, Heston Road, Hogarth Gardens, Church Road, New Heston Road, Old Cote Drive, and Weatlands.

5.3 External Consultations include the Metropolitan Police and English Heritage. Internally, comments have also been sought from the Council’s Access Officer, Environmental Strategy and CIP.

5.4 Six letters of objection were received and two petitions with 683 signatures of local residents objecting to proposals to demolish the existing infant school and any proposals to construct new buildings on the adjacent Metropolitan Open Land and Nature Conservation Area. Comments from the 6 objection letters included the following:

Comment Response

The number of pupils should not be increased on site, as there is already a traffic and access problem. An increase in pupils on site would exacerbate the situation.

See paragraphs 7.46 to 7.57

More emphasis should be given to pre- and after school care.

As stated in paragraph 4.6, the community school has been designed to allow for possible community use in the future.

Comment Response

The demolition of the existing infant school would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Full demolition of the existing infant school is no longer taking place.

The existing Sutton Building should not be retained as it is of no architectural merit.

It is disagreed that the Sutton Building has no architectural merit. However it is envisaged that subject to funding this building may be replaced by modern buildings.

The Nature Conservation Area should not be built upon. See paragraphs 7.34 to 7.42

Changes to the cycle track and the use of the public footpaths would lead to the loss of wildlife on the Nature Conservation Area.

The public footpaths are not included in the application site.

The cycle paths over local pavements would be dangerous.

There are no proposals to use footpaths out with the school site for any purpose.

There is a lack of information provided about the impact on wildlife at Osterley Fields.

See paragraphs 7.70 to 7.76.

The loss of 24 mature trees on site would lead to the loss of wildlife.

See paragraphs 7.42 & 7.70 to 7.76.

5.5 On 8 November the application went to the Heston and Cranford Area Committee for

comment. Members made the following comments:

• They wished to ensure that there would be enough parking spaces in the proposals to prevent overspill onto the streets.

• They queried the easternmost vehicular access and were advised that there would be a one-way in, one-way out system for the Community School.

• They queried whether there would be a drop off zone or lay-by arrangements and were advised this was being assessed.

• They were sympathetic towards the great level of public opinion to retain the infant school.

• They noted that public concerns had been raised that footpaths, which had been put in as boundaries to protect wildlife, would be affected and about broader environmental impacts.

5.6 The Council received amended plans on 14 May 2008. The plans aimed to address members' and the public concerns relating to the retention of the infant school and involved the alterations to the proposed new buildings and parking layout. All residents and internal and external consultees were re-consulted that day. Site notices were also posted near and outside the site on 15 May 2008.

5.7 On 20 May 2008, a second public exhibition took place at the school showing the amended plans. This involved an informal drop-in session between 2.30pm and 7.30pm. This exhibition was also well attended. The following comments were made:

Comment Response

Clash of architectural styles on site would be unacceptable.

See paragraphs 7.5 to 7.33.

Existing infant school should not be used as a canteen, should be used as a community facility.

Initially the plans submitted with the application included full demolition of the existing infant school due to funding limitations. A canteen was proposed to the west of the Sutton Building. It is considered that the only option in order to secure the future existence of the infant school is to use it as a canteen. The canteen, which was originally proposed, has been omitted.

Sight lines need improvement. As stated in paragraph 7.49, the Council’s Head of Traffic and Parking has no objections to the proposal. Satisfactory visibility splays will also be secured by condition 27.

Aircraft noise and rainwater harvesting needs to be taken into consideration.

These issues will be secured by conditions.

Use of public footpaths as cycle tracks unacceptable.

No existing public footpaths are located within the application site.

No explanation of how the biodiversity of Osterley fields will be protected.

See paragraphs 7.70 to 7.76.

More thought required in relation to safety and security.

Much consideration has been paid to this issue (see paragraphs 7.58 to 7.59). No objections were received from Metropolitan Police with regards to Secure By Design assessment.

Parking for parents should have been considered.

Parking for parents would increase traffic to the site and would not be sustainable.

Concerns relating to decanting the pupils and staff.

A phasing sequence has been provided. This would ensure each of the schools could function throughout the construction and demolition stages. This can also be secured by condition.

5.8 Several people stated that they were generally pleased with the proposals, particularly

in regard to the retention of the existing infant school.

6.0 POLICY 6.1 Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

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.

6.2 The Development Plan 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.

6.3 Material considerations and emerging policies As part of its prospective Local Development Framework, the Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Planning Obligations and Air Quality, which are statutory material considerations and will be applied alongside the Development Plan.

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

6.4 The most relevant saved policies in the UDP are considered to be: Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Adopted December 2003) IMP 1.1 Integrating the patterns of land use and the provision of transport IMP 6.1 Planning Obligations ENV N 1.11 Protection and improvement of local open space ENV N 2.3 Promotion of nature conservation management ENV N 2.6 Landscape features ENV N 2.7 Trees and Community Woodlands ENV-N.2.2 Sites of Regional/Local Nature Conservation ENV-N.1.7 Development Near the Metropolitan Open Land Boundary. ENV N 2.9 Green Chains and Corridors (MAP) ENV N1 Publicly Accessible open Space Deficiency (MAP) ENV N2 Green Chairs and Corridors (MAP) ENV B 1.1 New Development ENV B 1.9 Safety and security ENV B 2.2 Conservation Areas ENV B 2.8 Views and landmarks ENV P 1.3 Surface water runoff ENV P 1.5 Noise pollution ENV P 1.7 Light pollution ENV P 2.4 Recycling facilities in new developments C 2.1 Educational facilities C 5.3 Outdoor recreation facilities C 5.4 New small private sports and leisure facilities T 1.2 The movement implications of development T 1.4 Car and cycle parking and servicing facilities for developments (Including

Appendix 3) T 2.1 Pedestrian Access T 2.4 Public transport infrastructure Unitary Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (1997).

London Plan

2A.1 Sustainability Criteria 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities 3A.20 Health impacts

3A.24 Education facilities 3A.2.6 Community Strategies 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.23 Parking strategy 3D.10 Metropolitan Open Land 3D.13 Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation Strategies. 3D.11 Open Space provision in DPDs 3D.14 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. 3D.1.5 Trees and Woodland 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 4B.11 London’s built heritage (p183) 4B.12 Heritage conservation (p183) 4B.13 Historic conservation-led regeneration 6A.4 Priorities in planning obligations Associated Supplementary Planning Guidance

National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Notes and Statements (PPS) PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG13 Transport PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment PPG 17 Sport and Recreation PPS 23 Planning and pollution

PPG 24 Noise

Planning Circular 09/98 ‘Playing Fields’

7.0 PLANNING ISSUES 7.1 In relation to the above policies and guidance there are a number of planning issues

arising from the nature of such a complex application. Although the Planning Brief was not adopted, the issues raised in this document are relevant. The key issues are as follows:

1. Is the redevelopment for educational purposes acceptable in principle? 2. Does the proposal adequately address the constraints of the site? And:

I. Safeguard the existing character and appearance of the Heston Village Conservation Area.

II. Protect the adjacent Metropolitan Open Land, Local Open Space and Nature conservation Area.

III. Reduce the need for decanting/keeping the school operational during construction.

3. Would the development facilitate improved vehicular and pedestrian access as well as appropriate security?

4. Impact on neighbours

5. Sustainability

6. Biodiversity and nature conservation.

Is the redevelopment for educational purposes acceptable in principle?

7.2 The proposal would not involve the change of use of the existing site. Policy C.2.1 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) supports the retention and provision of educational facilities where there is a local need.

7.3 Information submitted by the applicant shows that there is a local need to redevelop

this site to enhance the educational facilities and accessibility of the site. At present the current facilities are considered to be sub-standard, particularly in regard to the use of temporary classrooms in prefabricated huts. The main objectives of the development are to provide replacement buildings which are suited for modern teaching requirements, to relocate the space on site in order to facilitate and enhance the close working relationships which exist between the existing schools and to provide an effective and secure site on which the schools can operate in the future. London Plan Policy 3A.21 (Educational Facilities) states that boroughs should have regard for the need of new educational facilities.

7.4 Policy C.2.1 also states that new facilities and extensions will normally be permitted

provided that they meet certain criteria. These relate to their impact on the character and appearance of the area, accessibility, impact on residential amenity and that they would not involve the loss of existing playing fields. These issues will be discussed further in the remainder of this report. Does the Proposal Adequately Address the Constraints of the Site?

Heston Village Conservation Area

7.5 Policy ENV-B.2.2 states that the Council will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of existing conservation areas by ensuring that the development respects the existing architecture in scale, design and materials and that there will be a presumption in favour of retaining any building in a conservation area, which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.

7.6 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out, as

described in more detail in PPG15, the range of justification required for an assessment of the merits of demolition, in particular on the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area.

7.7 The London Plan Policy 4B.12 (Heritage Conservation) encourages boroughs to

“identify areas, spaces, historic parks and gardens and buildings of special quality or character and adopt policies for their protection and the identification of opportunities for their enhancement, taking into account the strategic London context.”

7.8 As stated previously, this proposal is part of a larger comprehensive plan to redevelop

the whole site and it involves the part demolition of the existing infant school and full demolition of the existing junior schools and Norwood Building. These buildings would be replaced by a new junior/infant school and community school and associated landscaping. The remainder of the existing infant school would be used as a canteen. It is therefore necessary to establish the impact that the loss of part of the infant school and the junior school and Norwood block and their replacement buildings would have on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.9 As the full development of the site relates to funding not yet secured, there must be a presumption that the site may remain as a mixture of old and new for the foreseeable future.

7.10 The Heston Village Conservation Area was designated in 1974. A Conservation Area

appraisal went to Committee in January 2006 and was approved. Part of the appraisal stated the following “The character is of a hamlet at a crossroads, in this area of flat land and open skies, with road-side settlements only one-plot-deep in an agricultural landscape.

Further south on Heston Road the conservation area has a more rural feel because there are fewer buildings lining the streets and fields become more dominant. The open spaces give the area a very agricultural appearance indicating their origins. The wider open setting of playing fields, and Osterley Park in the distance, extends the horizon. In 19th and 20th Centuries there was expansion with public buildings. The buildings here form an interesting group, particularly the old Infant School of 1861, which is a picturesque small scale symmetrical building of polychrome brick, Gothic with a bell-turret; and further on the Heston Community School of 1925 with its fire station at the entrance. Old walls aligning the linking paths are together important features.”

7.11 The above comments highlight the contribution of the existing school buildings in

relation to the Conservation Area and state that the infant school is of particular importance.

7.12 A statement has been submitted stating that it would be necessary to demolish some

parts of the existing infant school building, mainly its modern extensions to the rear and side to allow for construction of the proposed new infant/junior school building.

7.13 The modern extensions were built in 1994 and have little architectural merit, with no

heritage significance. Therefore it is considered that their demolition would be acceptable, subject to the demolished area being made good and any necessary works being sympathetic to the original part of the building that shall be retained.

7.14 A demolition plan has been provided showing that it is only the modern extensions

which are to be demolished. Where demolition is proposed, the plan stipulates that the original external walls, which sit behind the extensions, will be cleaned and repaired as necessary. Full details of the demolitions works and structural works, including samples of materials to be used should be secured by condition 26.

7.15 The other major demolition proposed is the junior school, which, although not listed or

as historic as the infant school, does also have architectural merit, particularly as it is close to the network of paths leading between the village core and church and the school road and fields.

7.16 This building is located at the rear of the site, behind the existing infant school and is

not a prominent feature of Heston Road. 7.17 A statement has been provided to justify the loss of this building. It states that the

intended new site layout for the campus, with the existing and new buildings, would change the pattern of the vehicle and pedestrian routes. Additional hard and soft play and sports areas are also to be added to the site, which are considered an essential part of the school curriculum, in place of the building.

7.18 Additionally, a review from 2008 undertaken by an education consultant, describes the

junior school as unsuitable for purpose for the following reasons:

• All 7 classrooms are more than 15% undersize.

• The library is more than 15% undersize and poorly located.

• The main hall is more than 15% undersize.

• The staff room is more than 15% undersize. 7.19 The statement makes the point that unlike condition, where a space that is in a poor

state of repair can be refurbished, spaces that are too small cannot be made larger within the footprint of an existing building unless there is surplus capacity that allows spaces to be combined. This is not the case at Heston Junior School where the shortfall of teaching spaces has been overcome by providing 3 mobile classrooms representing 30% of teaching capacity. In addition these mobile classrooms are also unsuitable in that each one:

• Is more than 5% undersize

• Is isolated from the main school

• Has no access to an ICT network

• It has severe environmental issues (solar gain in summer and too cold in winter). 7.20 Preserving the existing building would also reduce the opportunity to provide large

areas of hard and soft landscaping and sporting facilities. Policy 3D.13 of the London Plan emphasises the need to provide safe access to well designed stimulating play and informal recreational facilities.

7.21 Clearly there is a conflict between the need to retain the existing junior school building

in order to preserve the historic value of this part of the Conservation Area and the need to modernise the school within existing funding parameters. Given the findings of the survey and given that the existing junior school is not listed or located prominent in the streetscene, it is considered that its demolition would be acceptable, subject to the provision of new classrooms and landscaping as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the school.

7.22 The applicant’s sustainability checklist at 16(a) highlights removal of the four-storey

high Norwood building as a net benefit to the aesthetics of the surrounding townscape because “it is out of scale with the school campus and the surrounding townscape”. Officers consider that this building is of its time, very modular in its design and does not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

7.23 As previously stated, there are other temporary and recent structures and extensions,

including prefabricated units, most of which would be demolished and relocated. It is considered that their removal would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.24 The creation of one school building catering for both infants and juniors would mean an

overall reduction in building footprint on site. The applicants have stated that this is to allow sufficient space for children’s play, which would include both hard and soft landscaping. Both its height and width when viewed from the street would be similar to that of the existing infant school.

It has a modern design that contrasts with the traditional style and form of the existing infant school and the Sutton Building. However it is proposed that the finish of the building would include brickwork to the upper parts of the building, which is the key material used on site at present, providing some continuation in appearance.

7.25 Moreover, the design of the new building is considered of sufficient quality not to harm

the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 7.26 The main entrance of the building would be on the west elevation and visually

prominent from the street. It is considered that the entrance canopy provides a interesting visual break to the building. It is also considered that the proposed roof lights and box-like projections add further interest to the building and give it architectural quality and identity.

7.27 When viewed from the south, much of the new infant/junior school would be masked

by the existing infant school. While it would be higher than the existing infant school, it is considered that this contrast in height and architectural detailing will add an interesting layered effect to the appearance of the site, particularly when viewed from Heston Road.

7.28 The proposed infant/junior school would not be readily visible from north of the site,

due to the level of soft landscaping proposed. Access and activity will provide distant animation for the paths to the north west.

7.29 The erection of the Community School building would not result in the demolition of

any existing buildings other than temporary structures. However the impact of this building on the character of the Conservation Area needs to be assessed, especially given that it would be highly visible from outside the site.

7.30 This building would be similar in character to the proposed infant school. Again it would

be a modern building, but brick would be used on the upper levels, which would be in keeping with the brickwork used on the existing Sutton Building. Like the infant school, several roof lights and box-like projections are proposed. The most visually predominant of these features are the two box-like projections on the south facing elevation. Again it is considered that they add an interesting feature to the building. On this elevation the projections would differ slightly in their appearance, giving this elevation a architectural quality and identity.

7.31 This building would also be set back from the road by a substantial distance and

therefore would not dominate the street scene, unless standing directly opposite the south elevation. Trees would screen the east facing elevation and landscaping, the existing Sutton Building would block views of the west elevation and landscaping would also screen the north elevation.

7.32 It is proposed that most of the existing trees are to be retained on site and further soft

landscaping added. 7.33 Trees and shrubs would heavily screen the car park proposed to the southwest of the

site. There would also be some soft landscaping proposed to the centre of the car park. Wildlife and nature area and soft landscaping to proposed new car park to the south of the site, which would enhance the appearance of the area.

Metropolitan Open Land, Local Open Space and Nature Conservation Area

7.34 Policy ENV-N.1.9 states that the Council will pursue ways of improving the positive role of MOL in providing an attractive landscape and visual amenity.

7.35 Policy ENV-N.1.11 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for any

change of use which would result in the loss of, encroachment upon or form an intrusive element in the overall open aspect of public open space, including parks nature conservation areas and playing fields.

7.36 Previously a group of pre-fabricated huts were the structures on the site closest to the

Metropolitan Open Land. They were about 1 metre west of the MOL and have been relocated to the school playing fields to allow for the construction of the new playing fields. Once constructed the new Community School building would be closest to the MOL, a similar distance away. The new community building would also encroach on the Local Open Space and Nature Conservation Area.

7.37 The proposed Community School building, with its modern in design, would be set

away from the MOL. A heavily landscaped buffer would be provided between the MOL and the proposed Community School. The height and bulk is considered to be satisfactory and the external features and finishes are considered to be appropriate for the site. The Community School would also replace the existing pre-fabricated huts which are not desirable structures in this location, lacking design merit and not giving any particular air of quality to their setting.

7.38 The master plan proposes that this proposed Community School would be the main

building for teaching purposes, however it is envisaged that a further building along the southern boundary of the site would be built. The footprint of buildings associated with the Community School, including the one proposed for this application would also be smaller than at present, eventually reducing the visual bulk of buildings on the site next to the MOL.

7.39 Some parking is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site and to the north of

the proposed Community School (also encroaching onto the local open space). Again the eastern boundary of the site would be heavily screened by trees and landscaping blocking views of the parking from the MOL.

7.40 Parking on the Local Open Space is generally considered to be unacceptable. As

previously stated, policy ENVV-N.1.11 discourages development on such land. However the policy does state that in very special circumstances, development may be acceptable.

7.41 As discussed in paragraph 7.21, it is considered that in this case there are very special

circumstances to allow such development on the Local open Space. As the Sutton Building would remain until funding is available, there is limited scope to relocate parking and access routes. It is considered that the parking and access proposed would be an improvement on the existing arrangements.

7.42 London Plan policies 3D.7 and 3D.10 emphasise the value of open spaces to the

environment. The development would not involve the loss of any playing fields and the existing ramblers footpath would also be retained. As previously stated, a tree protection plan has been submitted. Most of the trees on site would be retained. There would be some loss of trees to the south and northwest of the site, however these are mainly small in scale of only fair rather than good condition and are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

The loss of these trees would be mitigated by the substantial increase in new trees, shrubs and soft landscaping proposed within and surrounding the site. Details of tree protection measures for retained trees need to be required by condition 12.

Reducing the Need for Decanting/keeping the School Operational During Construction

7.43 A key constraint of the site is the need ensure that the schools continue to function with minimum disruption. The applicant has submitted a phasing sequence showing the site development. As stated previously, an application has already been submitted to relocate the temporary classrooms on eastern boundary of the site. They have already been moved and would be used by pupils during the construction of the Community School.

7.44 The construction of the Community School, scheduled for completion in 2009 is the

first phase of the development. Once the Norwood Building has been demolished staff and pupils would then be transferred into the new Community School. During the construction of the new infant school pupils would remain within the existing junior school building until its completion.

7.45 A condition is recommended, requiring the submission of a scheme of phasing for the

development (see condition 23).

Pedestrian and vehicular access and security

7.46 When the development is fully implemented there would be a small reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces on site from 108 to 103 spaces. Policy T.1.4 and Appendix 3 of the UDP provide standards for the maximum desirable provision of parking for education facilities. It states that the maximum requirement for both primary and secondary schools is 1 space per teacher, 6% of which should be allocated for people with disabilities.

7.47 At present there are approximately 1766 pupils and a total of 231 members of staff

which, if all staff were present at all times, would generate a maximum parking provision of 231. No increase in the number of staff and pupils is proposed and the applicants are satisfied that the level of parking provision is sufficient for the school’s needs. Whilst the proposed parking provision falls below UDP maximum parking standards, it should be noted that Local, National and Regional Policies all advocate the encouragement of lower on-site parking provision and the use of more sustainable modes of transport.

7.48 It should also be noted that PPG 13 advises that Local Authorities should not require

developers to provide more spaces then they themselves wish. London Plan Policy 3C.22 (Parking Strategy) also seeks to ensure that on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary.

7.49 An in-depth Transport Assessment has been submitted which states that because the

redevelopment would not affect the level of pupils and staff that attend the schools, it will not increase the trip generation of the existing site. Nor would the development have a significant impact on the existing highway network. This Transport Assessment has been analysed by Officers and its conclusions are accepted.

7.50 Traffic calming measures are proposed along the northern length of the access to reduce the possibility of vehicles circulating the site at speed, allowing pupils and staff to move around the site safely. Separate pedestrian access would be provided, linking Heston Road to both the junior school entrance and nursery entrance. At present access to the Norwood Block, existing junior school and sporting facilities have to be accessed by pedestrians via the vehicular access to the centre of the site. The new layout would improve the situation.

7.51 The cycle stores would be provided for the Infant/junior school and the community

block to allow juniors, infants and senior pupils the opportunity to store their bikes safely on site. An appropriate level of disabled parking bays would also be provided and would be spread around the site, with some to be next to the new community school, some within the new car park to the south west of the site and some in front of the existing sports hall.

7.52 Traffic calming would also be part of the new vehicle route that runs between the new

Infant and Junior school and the existing Infants School building and a raised crossing point will be provided at the point that the pedestrian access to the new school building crosses this route.

7.53 It must be remembered that the main users of these vehicular routes during a normal

school day will be teachers, most of whom will enter the car park s before pupils arrive and leave the car parks after the majority of pupils have left the campus.

7.54 Cycle stores would be provided for the Infant/junior School and the community block to

allow infants, juniors and senior pupils the opportunity to store their bikes safely on site. An appropriate level of disabled parking bays would also be provided and would be spread around the site, with some to be located next to the new community school, within the new car park to the west of the site and in front of the existing sports hall.

7.55 As part of the Council’s ongoing School Travel Planning Programme, there is an

existing requirement for the school to provide the Council with an updated travel plan every two years. The Schools Travel Advisor is satisfied with the proposals set out in the plan, however a condition will be added to the consent requiring production of an updated travel plan which would include details of the revised layout plans.

7.56 A temporary parking plan has been submitted, showing the layout of the parking during

the decanting and construction phases. These arrangements would be secured by condition 23 to ensure the ongoing function of the school during construction.

7.57 Given the level of landscaping surrounding the site, it is considered that the school

campus would be a well-screened allowing pupil to use recreational facilities in a safe and secure environment, in compliance with policy ENC-B.1.9 of the UDP.

7.58 Policy ENV-B.19 states that new developments should be designed to create a safe

and secure environment and to reduce opportunities for crime in accordance with the Council’s Safety and Security Guidelines. The Crime Prevention Officer has been consulted and has no objections to the proposal.

7.59 Given the level of landscaping surrounding the site, it is considered that the school campus would be well screened, allowing pupils to use recreational facilities in a safe and secure environment, in compliance with policy ENV-B.1.9 of the UDP.

Impact on Neighbours

7.60 Policy ENV-B.1.1 states that all development proposals should have regard to the amenity of nearby residents. There are three principal aspects of residential amenity which need to be considered; these are loss of outlook, overshadowing, and noise and disturbance and loss of privacy.

7.61 There would be no change in use to the site, therefore the existing type and level of

activity would remain the same, particularly as there would be no change to the level of pupils and staff.

7.62 Both of the proposed buildings would be located a substantial distance from the

neighbouring residents (approximately 50 metres). The site would also be substantially screened. Therefore it is unlikey that any residents would be adversely affected compared to the present situation.

Sustainability

7.63 Sustainability underpins many of the UDP policies and the London Plan. These require developments not only to be sustainable in transport terms; but also to include appropriate recycling facilities and to minimise waste; to include energy efficiency measures and promote the use of renewable energy; and not to significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.64 Policy ENV-P.1.1 considers whether an environmental impact statement is needed and

encourages the use of a Sustainability Checklist, which the applicants have submitted. 7.65 Policies ENV-B.1.1, ENV-P.1.3, ENV-P.2.1, ENV-P.2.4 and ENV-P.2.6 require that all

developments should include recycling facilities and minimise waste, include energy efficiency measures, be sustainable in transport terms, promote the use of renewable energy and not significantly increase the requirement for water supply or surface water drainage.

7.66 As this is such a large site, the proposal can make a substantial contribution to

sustainable development in the Borough and it is important that it recognises and adopts sustainable development principles.

7.67 The proposal constitutes the redevelopment of a brownfield site in accordance with

sustainable development principles. It is also hoped that the redevelopment can create additional jobs and increased skills within the local area both within the short term (during construction) and in the long term (through improved educational facilities and training).

7.68 On the issue of renewable energy sources, the applicant has advised that the main

renewable energy source will be geothermal heating and cooling. Modern buildings would more energy efficient that the existing Victorian buildings and pre-fabricated huts. The development would achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation in compliance with policy 4A.7 of the London Plan.

7.69 Consent for this application, should also be subject to a condition requiring the

minimisation of water run-off from the building by at least 50% of that of an undeveloped site, and the conservation and reuse as appropriate of other water supplies in the building. There should also be conditions relating to air quality, etc.

Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

7.70 As previously stated there would be a minor encroachment upon the Nature Conservation Area as a result of the proposed community block, to the east of the site. Policy 3D.14 of the London Plan states that where development is proposed which would affect a site of importance for nature conservation or important species, the approach should be to seek to avoid adverse impact on the species or nature conservation value of the site, and if that is not possible, to minimise such impact and seek mitigation of any residual impacts.

7.71 The part of the nature conservation area, which would be used to construct the new

community school, has already been developed due to the location of the prefabricated huts, the remainder of the nature conservation area would be left undeveloped.

7.72 The landscape statement submitted with the application states that there is an

opportunity to enhance wildlife habitats within the site. This may be achieved due to the increase in tress and landscaping on site, by the introduction of a wildlife and nature area which includes a new pond.

7.73 An ecological appraisal has also been carried out. It comprised a desk study of existing

records and a site survey undertaken 28th March 2007. The site survey consisted of a habitat survey of the site, which also assessed the potential for the presence of protected or notable species.

7.74 The main findings of the desk study were that there are no statutory designated sites

within 2km of the application site. The closest site of importance for nature conservation is the Osterley Fields site of Borough importance, grade II.

7.75 The application site comprises of predominantly school buildings and hard standing,

semi-mature and mature trees. The phase I habitat survey identifies a low potential for bedding of reptiles and a low potential for bats to be present on the site and/or to be impacted by the proposal. A potential outlier badger sett was also identified within the site, but no signs of badger were observed.

7.76 It is therefore considered that the development would not have a significant impact on

the nature conservation area and that opportunities will be provided on site to mitigate any lasting impacts, which will also have an educational benefit.

8.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The applicant has submitted a design and access statement. The Council’s access officer has no objections to the proposal.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The application has been submitted on behalf of the Council’s Education Department in response to a need to improve the educational facilities at this site. Clearly the improvement of educational facilities in the Borough is a priority, however, given current funding constraints there is an inherent conflict with the desire to retain key buildings on the site. In this respect, the proposal is considered to strike a good balance

9.2 It is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to the issues raised in the

Planning Brief as the development would adequately address the constraints of the site, it would safeguard the character and appearance of the Heston Village Conservation Area, and would protect the adjacent MOL and public open land.

9.3 It is considered that the development would facilitate improved vehicular and

pedestrian access as well as security issues and result in a school that is more fit for modern purposes. During the works it is also considered that the school can remain fully operational with little disruption to pupils and staff.

9.4 Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with relevant Council planning policy. RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT Reasons: It providing significantly enhanced educational facilities the proposal on balance would be a positive contribution to the locality, ensuring an acceptable standard of design and layout and the provision of outdoor recreational facilities on site. The scheme would also provide a sufficient level of off-street parking and vehicular accessibility. The development would not result in the loss of existing educational facilities and would not harm the amenity of nearby residents. The scheme would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Heston Village Conservation Area, the adjoining Metropolitan Open Land and Nature Conservation Area. The development is therefore in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV-N.1.11, ENV-N.2.6, ENV-B.1.1, ENV-B.1.9, ENV-B.2.2, C.2.1, T.1.2 and T.4.1 and London Plan policies and relevant supplementary planning guidance.

Conditions: 1 A1A Commencement.

2 B4 Material samples.

3 B5 Detailed Applications (Implementation in accordance with approved plans).

4 C29 Hours of Construction. Monday-Friday 8.00-6.00 Saturday 8.00-1.00

5 C34 Illumination, mud and dust on construction sites.

6 D4 Waste and Recycled Materials Storage (Details to be Submitted).

7 D13 Sound insulation.

8 E1 Landscape Design Proposals.

9 E6 Landscape Management Plan.

10 The landscape design should in particular address detailed design, including the potential for further separation of pedestrians and vehicles. Potential for incorporation of space around the older retained buildings at the central entrance should be explored. REASON: For enhancement of use of character buildings in the conservation area and in the interests of accessibility.

11 E14 Provision for Tree Planting

12 E16 Existing trees which are to be retained.

13 E5 Boundary Treatment.

14 E4 Screen Planting

15 E11 Play Areas

16 F10 Pedestrian visibility Splays.

17 J2 Access for Disabled People.

18 SUDS No development shall take place until details of a sustainable Drainage Scheme, including measures for the harvesting of rainwater, the minimisation of water run-off from the building, by at least 50% of that of the undeveloped site, and the conservation and reuse as appropriate of other water supplies in the building have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of sustainability and the management of surface water run-off.

19 Renewable energy No development shall take place until details have been submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority, for a scheme of reducing carbon emissions from the total energy needs (heat, cooling and power) of the development by at least 20% if technically possible, by on-site generation of renewable energy. 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 Mayors London Plan.

20 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 Mayors sustainable Design and Constriction SPG. These being;

- 50% timber and timber products from forest stewardship Council (FSC) source and balance from a known timber source.

- Insulation materials containing substances known to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion or within the potential to contribute to global warming must not be used.

- Minimise 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 REASON: In the interests of sustainability and comply with essential standards in the London Plan.

21 Air Quality Any boilers installed on site in association with the approved development shall be of Low NOX type, conforming to at least NOX class 3 of better. REASON: To protect air quality and to comply with the essential standards of the London Plan.

22 Control of lighting

The development is close to aircraft taking off from and landing at the aerodrome. Lighting schemes required during construction and for completed development shall be of a flat glass, full cut off design, mounted horizontally, and shall ensure that there is no light spill above the horizontal.

Reason: To avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft through confusion with aeronautical ground lights and glare. For further information please refer to Advice Note 2 “Lighting Near Aerodromes” (available at www.caa.co.ik/srg/aerodomes).

Your attention is drawn to the Air Navigation Order 2005, Article 135, which states that “A person shall not exhibit in the united Kingdom any light which: (a) by reason of its glare is liable to endanger aircraft taking off or landing at an aerodrome: 0r (b) by reason of its liability to be mistaken for an aeronautical ground light is liable to endanger aircraft”. The order also grants the Civil Aviation Authority power to serve notice to extinguish or screen any such light which may endanger aircraft. Further information can be found Advice Note 2 “ Lighting Near Aerodromes” (available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodromes).

23 Phasing of development. A scheme of phasing of development shall be submitted in writing to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and the development shall be implemented in accordance with that scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with that scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

24 Transport Management Plan. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan, as submitted shall follow the current “Travel Plan Development Control Guidance” issued by TfL and will include: Targets for sustainable travel arrangements. I. Effective measures for the ongoing monitoring of the travel plan.

II. A commitment to delivering the travel plan objectives for a period of at least five years from first occupation of the development.

III. Effective mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the travel plan by both present and future occupiers of the development.

IV. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved travel plan.

REASON: In order to enhance the environmental sustainability of the development through encouraging use of more sustainable forms of transport and a reduction in car travel.

25 Archaeological Works. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect any archaeological artefacts on site.

26 F10 Visibility Splays.

27 No demolition works to the existing infant school shall take place until details of the works of making good have been provided. REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the building.

Informatives: 1 Noise

The noise contractors should take note of, and act upon advice given in the BS5228 Code of Practice “Control of Noise on Construction Sites”. Before commencement of the works the building contractors should, giving as much notice as possible, notify the occupants of properties surrounding the site of the nature and duration of works and the permitted hours of work. The building contractors should also provide such occupants with the name and telephone number of a responsible person who can be contacted for advice or in the event of a need to complain.

2 Dust The building contractors should take note of, and act upon advice given in the in the GLA and London Councils - Best Practice Guidance: "The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition.

3 Cranes Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during construction. We would, therefore, draw to the applicant’s attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the a aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, “Cranes and Other Construction Issues” (available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome).

4 Archaeological Works The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. This design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines.