planning applications committee

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Planning Applications Committee

Agenda

Wednesday 9 November 2011

7.00 pm Small Hall - Hammersmith Town Hall

MEMBERSHIP Administration: Opposition Councillor Alex Chalk (Chairman) Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Oliver Craig Councillor Rachel Ford Councillor Peter Graham Councillor Andrew Johnson Councillor Alex Karmel

Councillor Colin Aherne Councillor Michael Cartwright Councillor Wesley Harcourt

CONTACT OFFICER: Laura Campbell

Committee Co-ordinator Governance and Scrutiny

�: 020 8753 2062 E-mail: [email protected] Reports on the open agenda are available on the Council’s website: http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy Members of the public are welcome to attend. A loop system for hearing impairment is provided, along with disabled access to the building. Please note that audio recording, filming or taking pictures of Council meetings are not allowed. For queries concerning a specific application, please contact the relevant case officer.

Date Issued:

31 October 2011

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Planning Applications Committee Agenda

9 November 2011

Item Pages 1. MINUTES 1 - 19 To approve as an accurate record, and the Chairman to sign, the

minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 23 September and 11 October 2011.

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

If a Councillor has any prejudicial or personal interest in a particular report he/she should declare the existence and nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of the item or as soon as it becomes apparent. At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a prejudicial interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken, unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Standards Committee. Where members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance, then the Councillor with a prejudicial interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration, unless the disability has been removed by the Standards Committee.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 20 - 117

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will be recorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.

. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham


Minutes

Friday 23 September 2011

PRESENT Committee members: Councillors Alex Chalk (Chairman), Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler (Vice-Chairman), Colin Aherne, Michael Cartwright, Rachel Ford, Peter Graham, Wesley Harcourt, Andrew Johnson and Alex Karmel Other Councillors: Councillors Stephen Cowan and Gavin Donovan (for item 21.1)

The Chairman informed that this was the adjourned meeting from 14 September 2011.

18. MINUTES RESOLVED THAT: The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Applications Committee held on 14 September 2011, be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, subject to the following amendment: Insert before Minute Number 14 – Councillors Aherne, Cartwright and Harcourt were not present at the start of the meeting when the decision to adjourn it was taken. They joined the meeting at 7:30pm.

19. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Oliver Craig.

20. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS There were no amendments to the declaration of interests made at the adjourned meeting on 14 September 2011. Councillor Peter Graham declared a personal interest in application 2011/00407/COMB as he was the Appointed Director of Riverside Trust, which operated Riverside Studios and is referred to in the application.

Agenda Item 1

Page 1


Councillor Alex Karmel declared a personal interest in application 2011/00407/COMB as he received declarable hospitality from St George, the applicant, when he opened Imperial Park in his capacity as Mayor.

21. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

21.1 Hammersmith Embankment Site Known As 'Fulham Reach', Land Bound by Chancellor's Road, Distillery Road and Winslow Road, Including Sections of Thames Path, Thames River, Frank Banfield Park, and Highway Land London W6, Fulham Reach, 2011/00407/COMB Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details. Councillor Peter Graham declared a personal interest in the application as he was the Appointed Director of Riverside Trust, which operated Riverside Studios and is referred to in the application.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a personal interest in the application as he received declarable hospitality from St George, the applicant, when he opened Imperial Park in his capacity as Mayor. An additional condition was proposed by Councillor Karmel, seconded by Councillor Johnson, to ensure that residents’ television signals would not be affected by the development. The Committee agreed to this condition and asked officers to draft the condition as appropriate.

At 9:17pm, the Chairman adjourned the meeting for 5 minutes due to disruption in the meeting. The Committee resumed at 9:22 pm The Committee heard a representation against the application from Councillor Gavin Donovan, Ward Councillor for Fulham Reach. Councillor Stephen Cowan, Ward Councillor for the adjacent ward of Hammersmith Broadway, was also present at the meeting and was given 5 minutes to speak. The Committee voted on planning application 2011/00407/COMB, subject to the additional condition as agreed and set out above, and the results were as follows: For: 6 Against: 3 (Councillor Aherne requested that his name be recorded against the vote). RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor for London; that the Director of Environment be authorised to determine the application 2011/00407/COMB and grant permission up on the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the following:

Page 2


(1) an additional condition be included to ensure that residents’ television signals will not be affected by the development, in order that the amenity of residents is not affected;

(2) the conditions set out in the report and Addendum. At 9:45pm, following the decision on the above item, the committee adjourned for 3 minutes. The Committee resumed at 9:48pm.

21.2 Temple Lodge, 51 Queen Caroline Street, W6 9QL, Hammersmith Broadway, 2011/01147/FUL and 2011/01149/LCB The above two items were considered together. Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details.

RESOLVED THAT:

(1) Planning application 2011/01147/FUL be approved subject to the conditions

set out in the report and information contained in the Addendum; and (2) Application 2011/01149/LCB be approved subject to the conditions set out

in the report and information contained in the Addendum.

21.3 405 - 409 King Street, W6 9NQ, Ravenscourt Park, 2011/01239/FUL and 2011/01248/CAC The above two items were considered together. Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details. The Committee voted on applications 2011/01239/FUL and 2011/01248/CAC and the results were as follows: For: 5 Against: 3 Abstain: 1

RESOLVED THAT:

(3) The Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine the

planning application 2011/01239/FUL and grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the report and Addendum; and

(4) Application 2011/01248/CAC be approved subject to the conditions set out

in the report and information contained in the Addendum.

Page 3


Meeting started: 7.00 pm Meeting ended: 10.30 pm

Chairman

Contact officer: Katia Richardson Committee Co-ordinator Governance and Scrutiny

�: 020 8753 2368 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 4

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Addendum 23.09.2011 Reg. No: Site Address: Ward Page 2011/00407/COMB Hammersmith Embankment Site, known as Fulham Reach 10 Fulham Reach, W6 Page 11 Amend condition No. 1 by deletion and replacement as follows: The detailed element of the development hereby approved (Phase 1) shall not commence later

than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this planning permission. The outline element development hereby approved shall be begun within 3 years of the date of this permission or following the expiration of 2 years from the final approval of reserved matters, whichever is the later unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

Page 11 Delete existing condition No. 2 and replace as follows: No phase of the outline element of the hybrid planning permission hereby approved shall

commence until all of the following reserved matters, which were not specified in the outline application, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council for that phase:

(a) appearance of the development; (b) landscaping of the development.

In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal, in accordance with

policies EN8 and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended in 2007. Page 12 Delete existing condition No. 3 and insert replacement condition as follows: Application for approval of the reserved matters stated in condition 2 shall be made not later than

5 years after the date of this planning permission. Condition required to be imposed by Section 92(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Page 14 Delete existing condition No. 11 and insert replacement condition as follows: Prior to commencement of development other than site preparation and ground work, a detailed

surface water drainage scheme supported by calculations, which demonstrate the measures taken to avoid scour and flooding during tide-locking shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Council. The scheme shall be in accordance with the measures outlined in the agreed JSA Drainage Report (4456/9a/MH/AD/PG107459 Rev B dated 01/08/2011) such as attenuation volumes and reduced outfall size for gravity discharge to the River Thames.

Page 22 Delete existing condition 47 and insert replacement condition as follows:

Prior to the first occupation of the non-residential floorspace within each phase of the development, details of the proposed uses of that floorspace shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Use of the non-residential floorspace shall accord with the details as approved, unless otherwise agreed by the Council through the determination of a planning application. To enable the detailed assessment and control of this floorspace as the development proceeds to ensure that an undesirable concentration of a single use of floorspace is avoided and to ensure that the uses will be of a scale and mix that meets local need and is consistent with the Borough’s retail hierarchy, in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009).

Page 22 Delete existing condition 49 and insert amended condition as follows:

Page 5

Prior to commencement of construction of the pontoon hereby approved, detailed design and construction methodology for the pontoon shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The information submitted should include: details regarding the siting, design and method statements for construction including timings of the works, piling information, machinery (location and storage, materials and fuel, access routes etc), hydrodynamic modelling and protection of ecologically sensitive areas. Development shall proceed in accordance with the details as approved.

Page 24 Delete existing condition 56 and insert amended condition as follows: Prior to commencement of development above ground level, the scope of the river wall remedial

works, as informed by the submitted JSA Structural Survey Report (4456/1/MCH/CV/107230 dated 19 July 2001, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The required remedial works shall be completed prior to first occupation of Phase 1 of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

Page 24 Insert additional condition No. 57 as follows:

The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved JSA Flood Risk Assessment (dated June 2011, ref: 4456/9A/AD Rev C) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. All more vulnerable uses, such as residential, are to be set above the 1 in 200 year flood level of 5.13m AOD minimum as stated in section 3.2.4 of the FRA. 2. All less vulnerable uses will have access to areas of safe refuge above the 1 in 200 year flood level at all times. 3. A flood management plan shall be produced and submitted to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the FRA recommendations for approval and implementation. This shall provide identification and provision of safe route(s) or safe refuge areas within the building for occupants to use during times of flood. 4. The ability to raise the flood defence crest level 600mm above the statutory flood defence level of 5.54m AOD to a level of 6.14m AOD to take account climate change flows, shall not be compromised. To minimise the risk of internal flooding and to ensure the safety of occupants during a flood in accordance with policy 5.13 of the London Plan.

Page 24 Insert additional condition No. 58 as follows:

Prior to the commencement of construction of the pontoon hereby approved, an Ecological Enhancement Scheme for the provision and management of the buffer zone alongside the River Thames and the provision of biodiversity habitat on the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: • plans showing the extent and layout of the inland buffer zone • details of the planting scheme (this should incorporate native species where ever possible) and all species within the 16 meter buffer zone will need to be native • details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term • details of any footpaths, fencing, lighting etc within the buffer zone. Light spillage over the River Thames and adjacent river corridor habitat will need to be minimised using focussed lighting and cowlings, to reduce the adverse impact on species such as bats which rely on the river corridor for foraging and commuting • details of green and brown roofs on the buildings. These are of particular important adjacent to river corridor due to the species they support. • details regarding proposed in river enhancements such as timber fenders and planter boxes

Page 6

To ensure the provision of ecological habitat within the site in the interests of biodiversity, in accordance with policies 5.11, 5.13 and 7.19 of the London Plan (2011) and policy EN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UDP (as amended 2007).

Page 24 Insert additional condition No. 59 as follows: The implementation of the development hereby approved shall be in substantial accordance with

the Revised Environmental Statement (June 2011) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

Condition required to ensure that the development accords with the provisions and assessment of

the approved Environmental Statement. Page 42 Additional Representations have been received since the preparation of the Committee report. A

further 193 letters of objection covering a range of previously raised issues and 14 letters of support for the application have been received. Officers are also aware of a number of representations that have been made directly to Committee Members.

Page 43 Insert an additional Para following 2.16 as follows: Queen Caroline Estate Tenants and Residents Association Object to the application on the basis of traffic congestion, impact on daylight and outlook,

relationship with Heritage Assets and inadequate provision of family affordable accommodation. Page 46 Para 2.29 The Environment Agency have now written to confirm no objection to the scheme

subject to a range of conditions, which are detailed above. Page 48 Para 2.35 Amend through the addition of the following: While Thames Water and the Applicant are close to reaching separate agreement to ensure that

the proposed development would not prejudice the delivery of the Thames Tunnel, this has not yet been completed. To provide for this, provision is proposed to be made within the Section 106 agreement to prohibit implementation of the proposed development in a manner that would prevent provision of the Thames Tunnel on the Application Site. This proposed head of term would have a five year duration from the completion of the 106 agreement or would be met when separate agreement was reached between Thames Water and the Applicant.

Page 49 Insert additional Para 2.37: English Heritage have written to confirm no objection to the

application. At pre-application stage we were concerned at the height of the buildings; considering them to be

overly dominant in their sensitive context within the conservation area, near to Hammersmith Bridge. We therefore welcome the revised proposals that show a reduction in height of both the riverside frontage buildings and those facing Frank Banfield Park.

English Heritage now considers the proposals to be contextually acceptable in this highly sensitive

location and that they will make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area.

Recommendation Further to detailed discussions at pre-application stage and a resultant reduction in height of the

buildings fronting the river and Frank Banfield Park, English Heritage considers the proposals would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, including riparian views and on the surrounding townscape.

Page 82 Para 3.282 Amendment of the first point of the range of Section 106 Heads of Terms to add at the end of the

sentence:

Page 7

... with nomination rights for the Council. Amendment of the twelfth point of the range of Section 106 Heads of Terms to state: Completion of River Wall repairs and Thames Path works to the Council’s satisfaction and to

enable the Adoption of the completed section of Thames Path. Four additional Heads of Terms are also proposed: Requirement to prevent future occupiers from being eligible for on-street car parking permits in the

relevant surrounding Controlled Parking Zones. Completion of highway works to be carried out around the perimeter of the site at the Applicant’s

expense. Requirement for agreed marketing of designated wheelchair accessible residential units within the

development. Requirement that, in the absence of an alternative land deal being completed between the

Applicant and Thames Water, implementation of the development shall not be undertaken in a manner that would prevent provision of the Thames Tunnel on the application site.

2011/01147/FUL Temple Lodge, 51 Queen Caroline Street, Hammersmith Broadway 85 W6 Page 86 Delete drawing nos. and replace with the following drawing nos. 250/22C, 23C; 24B; 25; 26B; 27;

28; 30, K-DDA01. Page 86 Condition 2; Delete drawing nos. and replace with the following drawing nos. 250/22C, 23C; 24B;

25; 26B; 27; 28; 30, K-DDA01. Page 87 Delete condition 6 and re-number the subsequent conditions. Page 87 Add an additional condition as follows: ‘Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted

drawings the development hereby permitted shall not commence until detailed drawings in plan, section and elevation showing the appearance, siting and orientation of the solar panels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as have been approved. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policies EN2, EN3, EN8 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.’

Page 89 Summary of reasons for granting planning permission: 1) 1. Design; line 2: Delete 'would respect

the local architectural and qualities of' and replace with 'would preserve the architectural and historic significance of'.

Page 90 Para 1.3; add an extra bullet point as follows: ‘Erection of single storey front and side extension

fronting Queen Caroline Street, following demolition of the existing chapel’. Page 92 Para 3.5, line 15; delete ‘(including the timber construction entrance porch)’. Page 92 Para 3.8, lines 2 and 3; delete ‘the existing narrow openings between’.

Page 94 Para 3.13; line 5; replace ‘die’ with ‘due’ 2011/01149/LBC Temple Lodge, 51 Queen Caroline Street, Hammersmith Broadway 96 W6 Page 97 Delete drawing nos. and replace with the following drawing nos. 250/22C, 23C; 24B; 25; 26B; 27;

28; 30, K-DDA01.

Page 8

Consultation comments: Reply received from English Heritage 9th September; including letter of authorisation (consider the proposals acceptable).

Delete condition 10 (duplicate of condition 9) and replace with the following condition:

‘Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted drawings the development hereby permitted shall not commence until detailed drawings in plan, section and elevation showing the appearance, siting and orientation of the solar panels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as have been approved. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.’

2011/01239/FUL 405 – 409 King Street, W6 Ravenscourt Park 100 Page 101 Drg Nos. Delete drawing no. SK18 and replace with SK18A. Page 101 Condition 2: Delete drawing no. SK18 and replace with SK18A. Page 102 Condition 7: Line 1; Delete ‘10% of the dwellings; and replace with ‘4 residential units’. Page 103 Condition 10: Line 1, insert the words ‘flatted part of’ before ‘the development’. Page 108 Add condition 34 as follows: ‘The development shall not commence until further details of the

entrance ramp to the car park, including drainage details, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. In the interests of highway safety and maintenance, in accordance with Policies TN5 and TN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007’.

0 Neighbour comments: Delete 40 St Peter’s Square 20.05.11 (duplicate) and insert Albion House,

39 St Peter's Square, received 17.05.11. Page 113 Para 2.8: Letter received from English Heritage, do not wish to offer any comments and

recommend that the application be determined in accordance with policy.

Page 115 Para 3.6, line 21; insert the word ‘subsequent’ before ‘variation to the s106 agreement’ Page 127 Para 3.59, line 4: Add the following words to the end of the last sentence: ‘and the use of water efficient appliances will help minimise foul water being discharged to the

sewer. These measures will help reduce the pressure on the public sewer system. Thames Water has not raised objection to the proposal.

Page 127 Para 3.60, line 2: Delete ‘Energy statement’ and Replace with ‘Sustainability Statement’ Page 127 Para 4.1; 4th point; add ‘and adoption of land as public highway on British Grove’. Page 128 Para 5.1, line 2; delete ‘maximise’ and replace with ‘optimise’ 2011/01248/CAC 405 King Street, W6 Ravenscourt Park 129 Page 129 Site Address: Replace 405 King Street with 405 – 409 King Street

Page 9


. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham


Minutes

Tuesday 11 October 2011

PRESENT Committee members: Councillors Alex Chalk (Chairman), Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler (Vice-Chairman), Michael Cartwright, Oliver Craig, Rachel Ford, Peter Graham, Wesley Harcourt and Alex Karmel

22. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Colin Aherne and Councillor Andrew Johnson.

23. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS In respect of minute item 24.1, 26 Sulivan Road and 92-116 Carnwath Road, Sands End 2011/01753/FUL, Councillors Brocklebank-Fowler, Craig and Karmel declared a personal interest as they were members of the club adjoining the site of the application. In respect of minute item 24.2, Janet Adegoke Leisure Centre, 56 Bloemfontein Road, W12 7DH, Wormholt and White City 2011/01744/FUL, Councillor Harcourt declared a personal interest as he was a governor of the Phoenix Canberra Schools Federation which was referred to in the planning report.

24. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

24.1 26 Sulivan Road and 92-116 Carnwath Road, Sands End 2011/01753/FUL Councillors Brocklebank-Fowler, Craig and Karmel declared a personal interest in this planning application as they were members of the club adjoining the site of the application.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details.

(The Chairman adjourned the meeting for five minutes in order for the presenting officer to receive advice).

Page 10


The Committee voted on planning application 2011/01753/FUL and the results were as follows: For: 6 Against: 2

RESOLVED THAT:

The Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine planning application 2011/01753/FUL and negotiate and complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act within the same heads of terms as set out in the report and Section 278 Agreement (and other appropriate powers) and to grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the report and Addendum.

24.2 Janet Adegoke Leisure Centre, 56 Bloemfontein Road, W12 7DH, Wormholt and White City 2011/01744/FUL Councillor Harcourt declared a personal interest in this planning application as he was a governor of the Phoenix Canberra Schools Federation which was referred to in the planning report. Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details. An amendment to the Addendum was reported, in respect of the extra condition no. 44, to replace the words “electric car parking spaces” with “electric charging points”. The Committee voted on planning application 2011/01744/FUL and the results were as follows: For: 6 Against: 2

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor of London, the Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine planning application 2011/01744/FUL and grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the report and Addendum (as amended above).

24.3 Advertising Hoarding Adjacent to 3 Woodstock Grove, Addison 2011/02462/ADV Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details.

The Committee voted on application 2011/02462/ADV and the results were as follows: For: 6 Against: 2

Page 11


RESOLVED THAT:

Application 2011/02462/ADV be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and Addendum.

Meeting started: 7.00 pm Meeting ended: 9.32 pm

Chairman

Contact officer: Laura Campbell Committee Co-ordinator Governance and Scrutiny

�: 020 8753 2062 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 12

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Addendum 11.10.2011 Reg. No: Site Address: Ward Page 2011/01753/FUL 26 Sulivan Road And 92-116 Carnwath Road, Sands End 2 SW6 Page 3 Replace the resolution under officer recommendation with “The Committee resolve that the

Director of Environment be authorised to determine the application and negotiate and complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act within the same heads of terms as set out in the report and Section 278 Agreement (and other appropriate powers) and to grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions set out below:”

Page 3 Under condition 2 delete “Planning, Design and Access Statement; Application Covering Letter

(25 May 2011); Planning Application Form (25 May 2011); Daylight and Sunlight Report (24 May 2011); Daylight and Sunlight Report, Conditions Within the Proposed Development (12 August 2011); Flood Risk Assessment (May 2011); Planning Noise Assessment (20 May 2011); Sustainability and Sustainable Energy Strategy (20 May 2011); Transport Assessment (May 2011); Air Quality Assessment (20 May 2011); Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (May 2011); Ecological Assessment (May 2011); Statement of Community Involvement (May 2011); Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (May 2011); Letter from RSK (26 August 2011).”

Page 4 Under condition 4 delete “No development shall take place on the site” and replace with “No

development shall commence on any phase approved pursuant to condition 3”. Page 4 At the end of bullet point d) in condition 4 add “at the Borough Archives”. Page 5 Under condition 6 delete “No development shall commence” and replace with “No development

shall commence on any phase approved pursuant to condition 3”. Page 5 Under condition 7 delete “development” in the first sentence and replace with “construction”. Page 5 Insert at the end of the reasons for both conditions 6 & 7 “and policies G0, G3, EN20A and EN21

the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UDP (as amended 2007)”. Page 6 Delete condition 8 and replace with “The development hereby permitted shall not commence until

further details of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS), including maintenance programme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The SUDS scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, and thereafter permanently retained and maintained in line with the agreed plan.

To ensure that surface water run-off is managed in a sustainable manner, in accordance with policy 5.13 of The London Plan (2011) and Core Strategy Policy CC2.”

Page 6 & 13 Delete conditions 9 and 43 and replace with a new condition 9: “No development shall commence

until a fully detailed sustainability statement, incorporating an energy strategy, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The approved details shall be carried out before any occupation of that part of the development to which the approved details relate and be retained in full working order for the lifetime of the development.

Page 13

To ensure an energy efficient development to help reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, in accordance with Policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.6 and 5.7 relating to energy demand, energy efficiency and renewable energy of The London Plan 2011.”

Page 7 Under condition 13 add “roof coverings and” before “external faces”. Pages 7 & 11 Delete conditions 31 and 14 and replace with a new condition 14: “No development shall

commence prior to the submission and approval in writing by the Council of full details of the proposed hard and soft landscaping of the site, including planting schedules and details of the species, height and maturity of any trees and shrubs and proposed landscape maintenance plan. These details shall include the pedestrian link from Carnwath Road to Sulivan Road, the access to each building and all other proposed shared surfaces, including surface materials and kerb details that ensure a safe and convenient environment for blind and partially sighted people. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the next winter planting season following completion of the building works for that phase, or before the occupation of that phase and use of any part of the buildings, whichever is the earlier, and the landscaping shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, and that the needs of the visually impaired are catered to in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and policy EN2, EN3, EN8 and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 7 Under condition 16 delete “Prior to commencement of the commencement of” (sic) and replace

with “Prior to occupation of the”. Page 7 Delete condition 17, which replicates condition 19. Page 8 Under condition 20 delete “Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details

of antivibration measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.” and replace with “No development shall commence on any phase approved pursuant to condition 3 until details of antivibration measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council”.

Page 8 At the end of the first sentence of condition 21 add “in the gym”. Page 9 Delete condition 23 which repeats condition 5. Page 10 Delete the first sentence in condition 28 and replace with “Prior to commencement of any phase of

development, details of measures to adequately accord with the Metropolitan Police `Secure by Design’ scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.”

Page 11 Under condition 35 insert after “details”: “including drawings in plan, section and elevation at a

scale of no less than 1:20”. Page 12 Delete condition 38 and replace with “Each phase of the development approved pursuant to

condition 3 shall not be occupied until the existing access adjoining that phase has been closed, the highway reinstated and the new access has been constructed in accordance with the permitted plans.”

Page 13 Delete condition 42 and replace with “Prior to the occupation of each phase approved pursuant to

condition 3 details of the mail boxes for the flatted dwellings on Carnwath Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Council and the mail boxes shall be installed and retained as approved.”

Page 14

Insert new condition 44 “No development shall take place on any phase approved pursuant to condition 3 until a scheme detailing how the roots of the two mature trees on the site’s eastern boundary, located within the Hurlingham Business Park, will be protected from damage during demolition and construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved protection measures shall be implemented prior to first commencement of development of the phase affecting these roots and retained until that phase has been completed. To protect existing trees in accordance with policies EN2, EN8 and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 45 “Prior to occupation of the development, details of the installation

(including location and type) of at least 28 electric vehicle charger points within the car parking areas must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The electric vehicle charger points shall be installed and retained in working order for the lifetime of the development.

To encourage sustainable travel in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.8 and 6.13.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 46 “The windows facing west towards 50 Sulivan Road at the western end of

each of the terraced, mews style houses, and the north facing windows in the house on Broomhouse Lane shall be fixed with obscured glazing that shall not be able to be opened, so to shall the north facing windows in dwellings: Plot 89, Plot 90, Plot 99, Plot 100, Plot 107, Plot 108, Plot 114, Plot 115. In order to protect the privacy of adjoining residents and future residents of the development from overlooking in accordance with policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 47 “Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, before any

development of the town and mews houses served off Sulivan Road commences, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing showing a level means of access into all properties from the rear. The development shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.

In order to provide housing choice for older and disabled Londoners with unmet need for accessible housing in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2011.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 48 “Each lift core within the development shall contain a fire rated lift, details

of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to the occupation of any building containing a lift. The fire rated lifts shall be installed as approved and maintained in full working order for the lifetime of the development.

To ensure that the development provides for the changing circumstances of occupiers and responds to the needs of people with disabilities, in accordance with policy 3.8 of the London Plan and policy HO6 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UDP (as amended 2007).“

Page 13 Insert new condition 50 “Details of the colour, composition and texture of the render and bond,

mortar mix and pointing style of the brickwork shall be submitted for the Council's approval prior to commencement of works and implemented in accordance with approved details.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 51 “Glass to ground floor management suite at corner of Broomhouse Lane

and Carnwath Road shall be clear and shall not be obscured, tinted or mirrored in any way.

Page 15

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 52 “No development shall commence on any phase approved pursuant to

condition 3 until a scheme for temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site where necessary has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, and such enclosure has been erected in accordance with the approved details and retained for the duration of the building works. No part of the temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site shall be used for the display of advertisement hoardings.'

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance of the site, in accordance with policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 13 Insert new condition 53 “No deliveries nor collections / loading nor unloading shall occur at the

development hereby approved other than between the hours of 8am and 8pm.

To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the development site/ surrounding premises is not adversely affected by noise, in accordance with Policy EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.”

Page 14 Delete policy TN28 from Justification 4 and add to Justification 7. “and policies G0, G3, EN20A

and EN21 the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UDP (as amended 2007)”. In paragraph 1.24 change “0.01%” to “1%”. Page 22 Insert under paragraph 2.16: “one letter of support for the development has been received from

20 Beltran Road, SW6 3AJ.” Page 24 In paragraph 3.10 change “less” to “loss” in the last sentence. Page 27 Delete the last sentence of paragraph 3.30 and replace with “It is considered that the maximum

level of affordable housing that could be provided is 20% as any higher level would not be viable when accounting for the necessary S106 mitigation measures and would prevent the proposed scheme from coming forward.”

Page 27 Replace the table in paragraph 3.28 with:

Number of Units

DMS Sale Price

Affordability (Income)

Manhattan 1 £105,000 £30,000 Manhattan 1 £126,000 £36,000 Manhattan 1 £138,250 £39,500 Manhattan 1 £138,250 £39,500 Manhattan 1 £173,250 £49,500 Manhattan 4 £174,825 £49,500 Manhattan 6 £202,300 £57,800 Manhattan 3 £224,000 £64,000 Manhattan 4 £224,000 £64,000 1 Bed Flat 1 £224,000 £64,000 1 Bed Flat 4 £224,000 £64,000 2 Bed Flat 2 £224,000 £64,000 2 Bed Flat 1 £224,000 £64,000

Page 16

Delete first sentence of paragraph 3.71 and replace with “In accordance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, the Council needs to have due regard for the potential of the proposal to affect the various needs of protected `characteristics' and groups.”

Page 35 In paragraph 3.83 delete “need” in the first bullet point. Page 39 Under paragraph 3.106 insert the below “The existing and proposed vehicle trips generation is set

out below:

Existing vehicle trip generation Existing AM Peak PM Peak

In Out Total In Out Total Sulivan Road 9 1 10 4 9 13 106-116 Carnwath Road 15 17 32 3 8 11 92-104 Carnwath Road 9 6 15 4 8 12 TOTAL 33 24 57 11 25 36 Proposed vehicle trip generation Proposed AM Peak PM Peak

In Out Total In Out Total Proposed (149 units) 8 30 38 16 9 25

Page 45 In paragraph 3.147 delete “Circular 05/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’” and replace with “CIL

Regulations (2010)”. Page 45 In paragraph 3.148 delete “Circular” and replace with “CIL Regulations”. Delete “relevant to

planning, and” Page 46 Delete paragraph 3.151 and replace with “In accordance with Section 106 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) and S278 of the Highways Act 1980 the applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement(s). The Legal Agreement will include: • Affordable housing provision, comprising 20% intermediate units at the sale prices outlined

in this report. • A contribution in the order of £5 million towards necessary improvements to the social and

physical infrastructure in the local area. • Travel Plan management and monitoring. • Work in partnership with the Council's Economic Development Team to maximise job

opportunities for local people including employment, training, apprenticeship opportunities, outreach programmes including schools to raise aspirations and awareness of job opportunities, including during construction phases.

• Outstanding monies will be index-linked from date of granting permission. • The communal heating system should be installed in such a way that ensures future

potential to connection to a district heat network in this part of the borough. • Linking of proposed CCTV to the Council system or other approved system. • Public rights of access to the public realm area within the proposed development, including

the public open space. To be managed in accordance with a plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Development shall accord with the details as approved.

• Securing of public access along the pedestrian link between Carnwath Road and Sulivan Road during daylight hours, with access agates remaining open during daylight hours.

• Commitment to meet the costs of the Council’s Legal, Professional and Monitoring fees, including the cost of the review of the financial viability appraisal.

Page 17

2011/01744/FUL Janet Adegoke Leisure Centre, 56 Bloemfontein Wormholt & White City 48 Road, W12 Page 52 Condition 16. Delete ‘TN13’ and replace with ‘TN8’. Page 52 Condition 18 Delete ‘TN2’. Page 52 Condition 19. Delete ‘TN13’ and replace with ‘TN8’. Page 56 Condition 35. Delete ‘TN15’. Page 58 Add extra condition, no.44 as follows:

The development shall not be occupied prior to details of the provision of electric car parking spaces at basement level having been submitted to and approved in writing by the council. Such details as approved shall be implemented prior to any use of the car parking spaces to which the details relate.

To ensure the appropriate distribution of specialist parking through the development , in accordance with policy 6.13 of The London Plan, 2011 and policies TN4 and TN15 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

Page 81 After Para 3.84 insert the following tables: Trips generated by consented development during peak hours LAND USE SIZE

sq.m. AM - IN AM -

OUT PM - IN PM -

OUT retail food 575 6 4 12 12 retail non-food 340 0 0 3 2 internet café 120 0 0 1 1 offices 1500 2 0 0 2 residential 175 units 14 30 32 18 health centre 3375 40 16 19 35 TOTAL (248) 62 50 66 70 Trips generated by currently proposed development during peak hours LAND USE

SIZE sq.m.

AM - IN AM - OUT

PM - IN PM - OUT

retail food 482 5 3 10 10 retail non-food

121 0 0 1 1

residential 170 units 14 29 31 17 health centre

3400 40 16 19 36

TOTAL (231)

59 48 60 64

Page 18

2011/02462/ADV Adjacent to 3 Woodstock Grove, W12 Addison 83 Page 86 Para 2.1 Delete ‘no responses have been received’ with ‘One objection has been received from a

resident at Norland House. The matters raised in that objection will be discussed in the body of the report below’.

Page 86 Para 1.4: Delete 2011/00058/ADV and replace with 2011/00023/AV

Page 19

London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agenda for 9th November 2011

Index of Applications, Enforcement Actions, Advertisements etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARD: SITE ADDRESS: PAGE: REG NO: Wormholt And White City 2011/02044/FR3

Land To The North, East And West Of The Former Wormholt Centre 60 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT

21

Wormholt And White City 2011/02045/LBCHF

Land To The North, East And West Of The Former Wormholt Centre 60 Hemlock Road London

56

Askew 2011/00565/FUL

117 - 123 Askew Road London W12 9AU 59

Shepherd's Bush Green 2011/00604/FUL

112 Devonport Road London W12 8NU 73

Addison 2011/01644/FUL

Land Adjacent To 1 Anley Road And To The Rear Of 31 Shepherd's Bush Road London

92

College Park And Old Oak 2011/02461/ADV

Bentworth Road Park Bentworth Road London 107

Sands End N/A

Imperial Wharf, Townmead Road, Fulham, SW6 Variation to Section 106 Legal Agreement

113

Agenda Item 4

Page 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Wormholt And White City Site Address: Land To The North, East And West Of The Former Wormholt Centre 60 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT

© Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham LA100019223 (2009).

For identification purposes only - do not scale.

Reg. No: 2011/02044/FR3 Date Valid: 28.07.2011 Committee Date: 09.11.2011

Case Officer: Katherine Wood Conservation Area: Old Oak And Wormholt Conservation Area - Number 12

Page 21

Applicant: Ark Schools & London Borough Of Hammersmith And Fulham 65 Kingsway London WC2B 6TD Description: Erection of a part 1 part 2 storey building (954 sqm external floorspace) for educational use; landscaping of remaining site, including part of The Curve and Hemlock Road, to create play areas in association with the use of the site as a school; creation of new pedestrian access to east and vehicle and pedestrian access to the west; creation of vehicle turning area to the west. Drg Nos: PL-01 Rev C; PL-03 Rev C; L03_03_11_PL.90.900;External Realm- Boundaries Treatment Option 2;L03_03_11_PL.90.300 Rev P1; L03_03_11_PL.90.301 Rev P1;L03_03_11_PL.90.302 Rev P1; L03_03_11_PL.90.303 Rev P160197982_HC_001; PL04 Rev A;PL-05 Rev A; PL-06 Rev A; PL-07 Rev B; PL-08 Rev B;PL-09 Rev A; tree removal plan Application Type: Full Regulation 3 - LBHF is Developer Officer Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of

3 years beginning with the date of this planning permission. Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2) The building development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with

the detailed drawings which have been approved ref: PL-01 Rev C; PL-03 Rev C; L03_03_11_PL.90.900;External Realm- Boundaries Treatment Option 2;L03_03_11_PL.90.300 Rev P1; L03_03_11_PL.90.301 Rev P1;L03_03_11_PL.90.302 Rev P1; L03_03_11_PL.90.303 Rev P1; 60197982_HC_001; PL04 Rev A;PL-05 Rev A; PL-06 Rev A; PL-07 Rev B; PL-08 Rev B;PL-09 Rev A; tree removal plan.

In order to ensure full compliance with the planning application hereby approved

and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

3) No development shall take place until details of the materials, including samples

and details of brickwork bond, pointing style, mortar colour and mix, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development, have been submitted

Page 22

to and approved in writing by the council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development in

the interests of visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies EN2 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

4) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until detailed drawings of

a typical bay of the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the new building at a scale of no less than 1:20 are submitted to and approved in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as have been approved.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policies EN2

and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011. 5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the hard

and soft landscaping of all areas external to the building, including planting and paving, and detailed drawings in plan, section and elevation of fences, gates and other means of enclosure at a scale of no less than 1:20, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, and the development shall not be occupied or used until such landscaping as is approved has been carried out.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and satisfactory provision for

permeable surfaces in accordance with Policies EN8 and EN2 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

6) The development shall not commence before a landscape management plan,

including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The landscape management plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure that the development provides an attractive natural and visual

environment in accordance with policies EN2, EN8 and EN29 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

7) Any material changes to the external appearance of the building, including the

installation of air-handling units, ventilation fans or extraction equipment, must first be submitted and approved in writing by the Council prior to their installation.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and prevent harm to the street

scene, and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers, in accordance with Policies EN8, EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 23

8) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, and thereafter permanently retained.

To prevent any increased risk of flooding and to ensure the satisfactory storage

of/disposal of surface water from the site in accordance with Policy 5.13 of The London Plan 2011 and PPS25.

9) Details of the 18 replacement trees to be planted, including the position, species

and height, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before any trees are removed. The approved replacement trees shall be planted in the next planting season following the removal of the nine trees shown on the tree removal plan submitted with the application. Any replacement tree being removed or severely damaged, dying or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced with a tree or shrub of similar size and species to that originally required to be planted.

To ensure a satisfactory provision for tree planting, in accordance with Policy

EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 10) No tree, other than the nine trees shown for removal on the tree removal plan

submitted with the application, shall be lopped, topped, felled or wilfully destroyed without the prior approval in writing of the Council. Prior to the commencement of any works on site a chestnut paling fence or similar barrier of a height not less than 1.5 metres shall be erected at a radius of no less than 3 metres from the trunk of each tree to be retained; the area thus enclosed shall be kept clear of all excavated materials, building materials, plant and rubbish. Further, the destruction by burning of materials shall not take place within 10 metres of the furthest extent of the canopy of any tree on the site or adjoining land.

To ensure the protection of trees during development work on the site and to

prevent their unnecessary loss, in accordance with Policy EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

11) The development shall not commence until a statement of how 'Secured by

Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation or use of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

To ensure a safe and secure environment for users of the development, in

accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

12) The permitted use shall not commence until full details of a School Travel Plan for

the new school has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.

Page 24

Upon the commencement of the use the School Travel Plan shall be implemented in full compliance with the approved details, and shall thereafter continue to be fully implemented whilst the use remains in operation. Such details must include information on how alternative methods of transport to and from the school, other than by car, will be encouraged. The School Travel Plan shall be regularly reviewed, at intervals to be agreed with the council.

To ensure that the use does not generate an excessive number of car trips which

would be contrary to the Council's policies of car restraint set down in Policy TN15 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011 and Policy T1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

13) The permitted use shall not commence until full details of a School Management

Plan for the new school has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Upon the commencement of the use, the School Management Plan shall be implemented in full compliance with the approved details, and shall thereafter continue to be fully implemented whilst the use remains in operation. Such details shall include information on the school hours of use and how arrivals/departures could be staggered; the number and times of recreation breaks; how drop offs and pick ups outside the school would be discouraged; and a plan for staff supervision at arrival and leaving times and recreation times.

To ensure that the use does not generate an excessive number of car trips, or

result in loss of amenity to neighbouring residents in terms of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy T1 of the Core Strategy 2011 and policies TN15, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

14) The development hereby permitted shall not be used or occupied until full details

of the proposed management of the school's facilities available for community use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Such details shall include any proposed charging mechanism for the facilities as well as details of times for when the facilities would be available for use by the community. The management of the community facilities shall be carried out in accordance with the details as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

To ensure the appropriate management and availability of the community facilities

in accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 and Core Strategy Policy CF1 2011.

15) The development shall not commence until full details of the refuse/recycling

strategy for the new school have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The strategy shall include details and location of the proposed refuse/recycling stores to be provided as part of the development and how refuse will be collected. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first use or occupation of the building and shall thereafter be permanently retained.

Page 25

In order to ensure a satisfactory provision for refuse and recycling, in accordance with Policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011 and the Council's Storage of Refuse and Recyclables Supplementary Planning Document

16) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extensions or outbuildings shall be erected on the site without planning permission having been first obtained.

In order to ensure that the Council can fully consider the effect of any such

proposal on the appearance of the building and character of the conservation area, and effect on neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policies EN2, EN8, and Standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

17) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used until full details

(including elevational drawings) of proposed covered cycle racks for 18 bicycles have been fully submitted to and approved in writing by the council. At least seven of the cycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation or use, and the additional eleven cycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the details within three years of the first occupation of the new building. The cycle parking shall thereafter be permanently retained.

To ensure the provision and permanent retention of the cycle parking spaces for

parking purposes, in accordance with Policy TN6 and Standard S20 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

18) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until full details of how the

development accords with the Council's 'Access for All' Supplementary Planning Document has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.

To ensure that the proposal provides an inclusive and accessible environment in

accordance with the Council's 'Access for All' Supplementary Planning Document and London Plan Policy 7.2 2011.

19) No development shall commence until details of the proposed lighting to the

pedestrian pathways to the east and west of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Details shall include the proposed locations of the lighting columns, design and height and shall demonstrate that the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers in the `Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2005' have been taken into account in respect of

- minimising glare, - preventing upward illumination and sky glow,

Page 26

- controlling vertical illuminance of neighbouring property facades to a maximum of 10 lux at ground floor level and 5 lux at first floor.

To ensure that adequate lighting is provided to the pedestrian pathways for safety

and security and that the lighting does not adversely affect occupiers of the surrounding premises, in accordance with Policies EN10, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

20) The pedestrian pathways to the east and west of the site shall be permanently

accessible to pedestrians during the development works and after the completion of the development and shall not be obstructed by building materials, site hoardings or any other obstructions.

To maintain access around the development for pedestrians, in accordance with

Policy TN6 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 21) The development shall not be occupied until details of all proposed artificial and

external lighting on the site, including any security lights, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The submitted details shall include their proposed locations, design and height and shall demonstrate that the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers in the `Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2005' have been taken into account in respect of

- minimising glare, - limiting the use of lights to periods of need for safety,

security or permitted site use, - preventing upward illumination and sky glow, - controlling vertical illuminance of neighbouring property

facades to a maximum of 10 lux at ground floor level and 5 lux at first floor. To ensure that lighting does not adversely affect occupiers of the surrounding

premises, in accordance with Policies EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

22) Prior to use of the development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Council, of the noise and vibration levels of proposed building services plant/machinery/equipment including appropriate noise mitigation measures to ensure that the external noise level at the nearest and / or most affected noise sensitive premises is 5dBA Leq below background LA90, as assessed according to BS4142:1997, with all machinery operating together and internal room and external amenity noise standards will be achieved in accordance with BS 8233:1999. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of surrounding premises is not adversely

affected by noise/ vibration from industrial/ commercial noise sources, in accordance with Policy EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 27

23) The development hereby approved shall not commence until details have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of the sound insulation measures for the building envelope, including details of acoustic glazing, which shall ensure that the internal ambient noise levels within teaching spaces, hall spaces and dining areas would be within levels recommended by BB93. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

To ensure that the users of the school are not adversely affected by noise/

vibration from dominant transport sources, in accordance with Policy EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

24) Prior to commencement of the use hereby approved, details shall be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Council, of the installation, operation, and maintenance of the odour abatement equipment and extract system, including the height of the extract duct, in accordance with the `Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems' January 2005 by DEFRA. Approved details shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the use and thereafter be permanently retained.


affected by cooking odour, in accordance with Policies EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

25) The development shall not commence until a Construction Management Plan has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The details shall include any external illumination of the site during construction, details of the site hoarding, contractors' method statements, waste classification and disposal procedures and locations, dust and noise monitoring and control, provisions within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the highway, and other matters relating to traffic management to be agreed. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

To ensure no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities of surrounding

occupiers and to ensure the site remains in a tidy condition, in accordance with Policies EN2, EN8, EN20A, EN20B, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

26) No development shall commence until a desktop study, site investigation scheme,

intrusive investigation and risk assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected,

Page 28

including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. A detailed method statement for any required remediation works will need to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).

Potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) are understood to occur at,

or near to, this site. The condition is required to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, in accordance with policies EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011, policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011, and policy 5.21 of The London Plan 2011.

27) No development shall commence until any required remediation works have been

completed and a validation report to verify these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council unless otherwise authorised. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the Council is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council. Any required remediation should be detailed and verified in an amendment to the remediation statement. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).


or near to, this site. The condition is required to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, in accordance with policies EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011, policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011, and policy 5.21 of The London Plan 2011.

28) The proposed 'outdoor learning deck' shall be used for teaching sessions only and

shall not be used as a general play space or as a roof terrace or other amenity space.

To ensure that the use of this space does not cause noise and disturbance to

neighbouring residents, in accordance with Policy EN21 and Standard S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

29) The east-facing windows at first floor level and the window at ground floor level on

the western elevation shall be non opening and glazed with obscure glass, a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before development commences. The glazing shall be implemented in accordance

Page 29

with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the building and shall be permanently so maintained.

To ensure that the development does not result in loss of privacy to neighbouring

residential properties in accordance with Standard S13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

30) The screens around the first floor learning deck shall be constructed from

obscured glass, a sample of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before development commences. The screen shall be erected in accordance with these approved details prior to the first occupation of the building and shall be permanently so maintained.

To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties in

accordance with Standard S13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

31) No alterations shall be carried out to the flat roofs of either the new building or the

existing building on the site to create a terrace or other amenity space. No railings or other means of enclosure shall be erected around the roofs and no alterations shall be made to form access onto the roof.

The formation/use of a terrace would be harmful to the existing amenities of the

occupiers of neighbouring residential properties as a result of overlooking and loss of privacy and the generation of noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy EN21 and Standards S13.2 and S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

32) The premises shall be used for a one form entry primary school and for no other

purpose, including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended in 2005), (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

In granting this permission, the Council has had regard to the particular

circumstances of the case. The use of the site for any other purpose, including other purposes within Class D1, could raise materially different planning considerations and the council wishes to have an opportunity to consider such circumstances at that time, in accordance with Policies EN21 and CS10 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

33) The number of pupils enrolled and accommodated at the school shall not exceed

220 at any one time, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. In order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the area

generally, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 30


Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development hereby permitted, without planning permission first being obtained.

To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment can be

considered in accordance with policies EN2 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

35) The ground floor entrance doors hereby approved shall not be less than 1 metre

wide and the threshold shall be at the same level to the areas fronting the entrances.

To ensure adequate access for people with disabilities or mobility difficulties, in

accordance with London Plan Policy 7.2 2011 and the Council's adopted SPD 'Access for All'.

36) No development shall commence until details of a proposed CCTV system at the

new school, which shall include cameras positioned to the north and south of the site surveying the proposed pedestrian pathway to the east, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The CCTV shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the school and shall be permanently maintained in working order thereafter.

In the interests of safety and security, in accordance with Policy EN10 of the

Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011. 37) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Servicing

Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Details shall include times of deliveries and collections/silent reversing methods/location of loading bays and vehicle movements. The use shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the surrounding premises are not

adversely affected by noise, in accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011

38) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Sustainable Design

and Construction Statement, which shall include details of measures that will be taken to achieve a BREEAM 'very good' rating, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, with all works to be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

To ensure that the development is consistent with sustainable design objectives in

accordance with Policies 5.2 and 5.3 The London Plan 2011 and Policy CC1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

Page 31

39) The reception play area to the north east of the site as shown on approved

drawing no.L03_03_11_PL.90.900 shall be enclosed with fencing prior to use of the school, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before development commences, and the space shall not exceed the area shown on the drawing by encroaching further to the north.

To ensure that play areas are not subject to unacceptable levels of air pollution, in

accordance with Policy 7.14 of The London Plan 2011 and Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011.

40) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until full details of the

proposed mechanical ventilation and air filtration systems have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with approved details, and the development shall not be occupied or used until the approved systems have been installed. The development shall thereafter be retained in this form.

To ensure that air quality would be of an acceptable level for the occupants and

users of the building, in accordance with policy 7.14 of The London Plan 2011 and Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011.

41) The mechanical ventilation and filtration systems shall be permanently maintained

in good working order. The maintenance and cleaning of the systems shall be undertaken regularly in accordance with manufacturer specifications and shall be the responsibility of the primary owner of the building.

To ensure that air quality would be of an acceptable level for the occupants and

users of the building, in accordance with policy 7.14 of The London Plan 2011 and Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011.

42) Prior to the commencement of works, details shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the Council of the relocated position of the Royal Mail pillar box. The pillar box shall be relocated in accordance with the approved details prior to the site being closed to public access.

To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance and the satisfactory provision of

public services, in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 and Policy CF1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

43) Neither music nor amplified voices emitted from the development hereby approved

shall be audible within any residential/noise sensitive premises. To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of surrounding premises is not adversely

affected by noise, in accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 32

Justification for Approving the Application: 1) 1. Land Use: The proposed development would provide a new educational

facility to meet a proven need in this part of the borough. Whilst the development would involve the loss of some open space without making provision for its replacement, it is considered that the benefits of the proposal to the local community would justify the departure from UDP Policy EN22X in this instance. The proposal would involve loss of trees, but makes provision for a net increase in trees through replacements. The proposed development would provide facilities for dual use by community groups. Measures would be taken to ensure that the site is suitable for use by a school, in terms of air quality and noise pollution. It is thus considered that the proposal complies with Policies CF1 and CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011, Policies CS8, EN25 and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011, and Policy 3.18 of the London Plan 2011.

2. Design and Conservation: It is considered that the proposed new school

building would be appropriate in scale, height, mass, proposed materials and design, and that it would not cause substantial harm to the existing character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would alter the existing setting of the nearby listed building, but it is not considered that the alteration would be harmful especially given that the setting has been previously irrevocably altered by the construction of the wide busy road to the north. It is therefore considered that the development would satisfy Policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011, Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy 2011, Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2011, and the requirements of PPS5.

3. Highways matters: There is sufficient existing capacity on the surrounding

roads to accommodate the level of traffic that would be associated with a primary school of this size without causing congestion of the road network or unsatisfactory levels of on-street parking stress. Measures to further reduce car trips to school would be contained within a School Travel Plan which would be monitored. The proposed closure of part of the highway would not result in high levels of reassigned traffic to seriously impact on road congestion or cause significant inconvenience to vehicle drivers. Satisfactory provision would be made for the turning of large vehicles, including emergency vehicles. Adequate pedestrian routes would remain around the site. There would be segregation of vehicles and pedestrians at the entrance to the site. Satisfactory provision would be made for cycle parking, and for servicing and the storage and collection of refuse and recyclables. The proposal is thereby in accordance with Policy T1 of the Core Strategy and policies EN17, TN4, TN6, TN13, TN15 and TN28 and Standards S18.1, S19, S20.1, S22, S23 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011

4. Sustainability and flood risk: The proposed development has been designed to

meet the BREEAM rating of 'very good' by including measures that conserve energy, materials and water, reduce air, noise and water pollution, and promote

Page 33

sustainable waste behaviour. It is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on a watercourse, flood plain or flood defences, and a sustainable urban drainage strategy would be put in place to ensure there is no adverse impact on localised flooding. Policies CC1, CC2, CC3, and CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policies 5.2, 5.7 and 5.13 of The London Plan are thereby satisfied.

5. Residential Amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining

occupiers is considered acceptable. It is not considered that the proposal would unacceptably impact on the outlook, light and privacy to neighbouring properties. Taking into account the limited periods of noise associated with the school, it is not considered that the impact would be so significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission on grounds of disturbance. In this regard, the development would respect the principles of good neighbourliness, and thereby satisfy policies EN8, EN21 and standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

6. Access and Crime Prevention: Subject to conditions the development would

provide a safe and secure environment for all users in accordance with Policy TN1 of the Core Strategy 2011, Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011, Policies 7.2 and 7.3 of the London Plan 2011 and the Council's adopted supplementary planning document 'Access for all'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 1st July 2011 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The London Plan 2011

Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007 and October 2011.

Consultation Comments: Comments from: Thames Water - Development Control Environment Agency - Planning Liaison Crime Prevention Design Advisor - Hammersmith

Dated: 22.08.11 05.09.11 24.10.11

Page 34

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 2 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 19 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 17 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 13 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 42 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 40 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 4 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 6 Viola Square London W12 0QF 25.08.11 4 Viola Square London W12 0QF 25.08.11 25 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 51 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 49 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 45 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 40 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 36 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 34 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 32 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 28 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 55 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 17.08.11 51 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 49 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 47 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 45 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 2 Clematis Cottages Clematis Street London W12 0QQ 25.08.11 28 The Curve London W12 0RH 11.08.11 50 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 48 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 42 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 5 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 9 Viola Square London W12 0QF 25.08.11 55 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 41 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 39 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 65 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 29 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RS 25.08.11 27 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RS 25.08.11 67 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 20 The Curve London W12 0RH 25.08.11 2 The Curve London W12 0RH 12.08.11 67 Bryony Road London W12 0SP 25.08.11 65 Bryony Road London W12 0SP 25.08.11 124 Banstead Court The Westway London W12 0QJ 25.08.11 Flat 128 Banstead Court 60 Westway London W12 0QJ 25.08.11 3 Clematis Cottages Clematis Street London W12 0QQ 19.08.11 Address Not Found 25.08.11 44 The Curve London W12 0RL 25.08.11 40 The Curve London W12 0RL 25.08.11 34 The Curve London W12 0RL 25.08.11

Page 35

4 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 20 Erica Street London W12 0SN 25.08.11 10 Erica Street London W12 0SN 25.08.11 16 Erica Street London W12 0SN 25.08.11 18 Erica Street London W12 0SN 25.08.11 44 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 42 The Curve London W12 0RL 25.08.11 4 Clematis Street London W12 0QG 25.08.11 22 Erica Street London W12 0SN 25.08.11 56 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 50 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 54 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 32 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RS 25.08.11 30 The Curve London W12 0RL 25.08.11 6 Erica Street London W12 0SN 25.08.11 46 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 67 Bryony Road London W12 0SP 25.08.11 62 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 64 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 70 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 70 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 70 Sundew Avenue London W12 0RR 25.08.11 9 Viola Square London W12 0QF 25.08.11 41 Hemlock Road London W12 0QS 25.08.11 40 Hemlock Road London W12 0QT 25.08.11 17 Standish Road London W6 9UJ 17.08.11 OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site relates to land adjacent to the former Wormholt Library, which is a Grade II listed single storey building dating from the 1930s, built as a branch library and infant welfare centre for the Wormholt Estate. The application site includes land to the north, west and east of the existing building, including part of The Curve and Hemlock Road. The A40 Westway lies to the north, flats within Banstead Court to the north-west and the two storey residential dwellings of the Wormholt Estate are adjacent to the south and east. The site is located within the Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area. It is in the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Zone 1, the area at lowest risk of flooding. 1.2 The Council currently owns the majority of the land, with a small portion adjacent to the Westway owned by Transport for London (TfL has been served notice on the application as the landowner). The roadway is public highway, with the Local Authority owning the subsoil beneath. The existing Wormholt Library building has been leased to ARK, who are operating a school from the property. 1.3 There is no planning history pertaining to the application site; though there are recent records relating to the listed building.

Page 36

1.4 A Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use was approved in April 2011 (ref: 2011/00349/CLP) to confirm that the building could be lawfully used as a Class D1 school without further planning permission. 1.5 Applications for full planning permission and listed building consent were granted in 2011 (refs: 2011/00357/FUL and 2011/00358/FR3) for alterations (internal and external) in association with use as a 1-form entry primary school for children aged 4-11. The alterations proposed in these approved applications enabled the creation of two classrooms in the existing building, allowing the school to accommodate the first and second year's intake of 30 children per year. It was noted when considering these applications that to reach full capacity (210 pupils in seven classes), additional space would need to be found to accommodate five additional classrooms and ancillary space (7 classrooms in total across the site), with the preferred option being to build on the adjacent land. The existing building could accommodate an additional two classrooms at the rear, so there is a need to find space for three more classrooms and a school hall, kitchen, dining and staff areas. 1.6 The current applications therefore represent the next phase of the development proposals for the site. The final phase would be for the conversion of the rear of the existing building into two classrooms, but permission has yet to be sought for this. Planning planning permission is sought in the current application for the erection of a part 1 part 2 storey building (954 sqm external floorspace) for educational use; landscaping of the site, including part of The Curve and Hemlock Road, to create play areas in association with the use of the site as a school; creation of new pedestrian access to east and vehicle and pedestrian access to the west and the creation of vehicle turning area to the west. Listed Building Consent is also sought for the removal of railings, gates and piers to the north of existing building to create playing space; alterations to railings to the west to create a vehicle turning point; and part resurfacing of external areas. This report relates to both applications. 1.7 As the proposal includes part of the public highway in the development site, an application for the stopping up of the highway has been made to the highways department and is being considered and consulted on separately to the planning application under its own relevant legislation. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 Prior to the applications being submitted, a series of consultation events were held by ARK Conway to advertise and discuss the proposals with local residents. Consultation brochures were mailed out to approximately 2,000 homes on 20th November 2010 and 22nd March 2011. Resident consultation events with a display of control options and, subsequently, the final design were held at the Wormholt Library on 11th and 12th April 2011 and 13th and 15th June 2011. 2.2 The planning application and listed building application have been advertised by way of five site notices surrounding the site, a press advert and individual notification letters to 309 neighbouring properties. 2.3 To date, 75 letters (9 individual letters including one signed by four residents and one duplicate letter signed by 66 residents) have been received from local residents objecting to the proposals. The objections and concern raised are as follows:

Page 37

- proposal involves building on area of green and trees, to the detriment of the character of the estate, the conservation area and the living conditions of the neighbouring residents; proposal fails to comply with Council's own policies - proposal would lead to sense of enclosure for neighbouring properties - proposal may obscure views and light to neighbouring properties - noise and disturbance of school use - inconvenience of closure of the highway and difficulties for emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles - no need for another school - additional traffic and congestion from school use, exacerbated by closure of road - detrimental effect on listed building - site is polluted with noise and fumes from the A40 and unsuitable for a school - walkway to the side could become area for muggers - Wormholt Library is desperately needed as a community building - increased potential for anti-social behaviour and loitering youths - postbox needs to be relocated - decision making is biased because of the Conservative Government's agenda for free schools and the predominantly Conservative composition of the planning committee: the community's voice will not be heard - proposal will only benefit a small number of families; investment should be put back into local state schools. 2.4 The planning matters raised will be considered in the report below. 2.5 Statutory bodies and amenity groups including English Heritage, the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group, the Hammersmith Society, the Ancient Monuments Society, the Council for British Archaeology, the Georgian Group, the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Twentieth Century Society and the Victorian Society were also notified of the proposals. 2.6 English Heritage have been involved in the development of the project and have suggested revisions which have been incorporated into the proposal. 2.7 The Council for British Archaeology has responded, commenting that the original setting of the listed building has been torn apart by the Westway and that new development may well help to redefine a small open area in front of the building and protect it from the roadway. However the Committee were unsure that the new building addresses the axis or that the approach to and space in front of the Library building would not be very tight. 2.8 The Environment Agency has responded to consultation with no comments or objections 2.9 Thames Water has responded with no objection in principle but requesting an informative regarding the position of development in relation to existing sewers. 2.10 The proposals were presented to the Design Review Panel in July 2011. The panel were broadly supportive of the design response to the site, acknowledging the constraints, and offered the following comments: - Panel believes that the layout and plan are good and strong. - recognise the constraints of the site and compliance with English Heritage and feel that the arrangement of the site is as good as it is going to get.

Page 38

- the library is a tough and robust building and the treatment of the elevation of the new building facing it could be less fussy and more open and lively. Don't believe it necessarily needs to be a brick contrast. - a split roof line would be better to avoid roof being too homogenous - Panel believe that this project will definitely benefit from more thought about details which can be conditioned. -believe that site could be more visually permeable as it is a school. 2.11 The panel's recommendations were discussed in consultation with English Heritage, however it was considered that the main recommendation, which was to add more glazing to the elevation facing the listed building, was not appropriate in this instance as the strong brick façade with regular openings is considered to reflect the listed building more sympathetically, and additional glazing would have to be controlled for solar gain, negating its benefit. It is considered that the roof form and elevational treatment is sufficiently varied to enliven the building. The site would be surrounded by railings rather than fencing, making it visually permeable. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Government issued a policy statement regarding planning for state funded schools, including free schools and acadamies, in August 2011. This stated: 'It is the Government's view that the creation and development of state-funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision-makers can and should support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations. The Government believes that the planning system should operate in a positive manner when dealing with proposals for the creation, expansion and alteration of state-funded schools, and that the following principles should apply with immediate effect: - There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools, as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework. - Local authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state-funded schools in their planning decisions. The Secretary of State will attach significant weight to the need to establish and develop state-funded schools when determining applications and appeals that come before him for decision. - Local authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state-funded schools applications. This should include engaging in pre-application discussions with promoters to foster a collaborative approach to applications and, where necessary, the use of planning obligations to help to mitigate adverse impacts and help deliver development that has a positive impact on the community. - Local authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. Planning conditions should only be those absolutely necessary to making the development acceptable in planning terms. - A refusal of any application for a state-funded school, or the imposition of conditions, will have to be clearly justified by the local planning authority. Given the strong policy support for improving state education, the Secretary of State will be minded to consider

Page 39

such a refusal or imposition of conditions to be unreasonable conduct, unless it is supported by clear and cogent evidence.' 3.2 The Council's Core Strategy Policy CF1 states that the Council will support the creation of new free schools. London Plan Policy 3.18 states that "the Mayor strongly supports the establishment of new schools and steps to enable local people and communities to do this... Proposals which address the current projected shortage of primary school places will be particularly encouraged. In particular, proposals for new schools should be given positive consideration and should only be refused where there are demonstrable negative local impacts which substantially outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school and which cannot be addressed through the appropriate use of planning conditions or obligations." 3.3 This advice is clear, but it remains to be considered whether the impacts of the development would be acceptable on the local environment and amenities of nearby residents, and whether any impact would be so harmful as to outweigh the stated benefits of providing a free school in this location. The main planning issues in this case are therefore considered to be the impact of the proposed building on the character of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building; the impact of the buildings, land use and alterations to the road layout on the residential amenities of surrounding residents; the traffic impacts; the suitability of the site for a school; and other matters including land contamination and the sustainability of the proposed development. Need for school and site selection 3.4 There is an urgent and continuing need for primary school places in the north of the borough. The new Ark Conway Academy is already fully subscribed with a waiting list. The Council's admission's team has confirmed that there are no reception places available at any of the eight nearest neighbouring primary schools north of Goldhawk Road. For September 2011 admissions, 910 applications were received, of which 452 were first preferences for 360 reception places at these schools. It is therefore clear that the proposed free school is urgently needed to assist with the shortfall of much needed school places. 3.5 The choice of the Wormholt Centre site for the location of the free school was made following extensive site investigation within the borough to find a suitable site. The Council initially undertook a review of available properties within the Borough and concluded that the Wormholt Library site was the most suitable available site for adaptation to a free school. Following the selection of the former Wormholt Library as the preferred site, Partnerships for Schools also undertook a further site search in November 2010 to consider where the additional required space could be located. A detailed search for a site in the local area was made based on the need for a secure site with adequate external play space, close to larger external and internal sports facilities. The research resulted in just two potential properties being identified including Factory Quarter in Larden Way and a site on Goldhawk Road. Following a detailed investigation, these proved unsuitable due to the lack of adequate external play space and the internal space requirements. The land adjoining the Wormholt Centre does potentially provide a feasible location for the provision of the additional space required to realise a one-form entry free school. Loss of open land and impact on trees 3.6 The proposed building would be built to the northern part of the site, alongside the Westway. The footprint of the building would be approximately 650 sqm. The new

Page 40

school building would provide three year-group classrooms, a hall and ancillary space including a kitchen and group teaching spaces, for use by the ARK Conway free school, to enable the school to reach full capacity on the same site as the converted Wormholt Library building. The buildings would be built on an area of open land which exists to the south of the A40 Westway. The land is not designated as metropolitan open space or open space of borough-wide importance. Policy EN22X is therefore relevant in this case, as it addresses proposals for development on un-designated areas of open space. The policy states: 'Development will not be permitted where such land either individually or cumulatively has local importance for its open character or as a sport, leisure or recreational facility, or for its contribution to local biodiversity or visual amenity, unless the proposed development would release a site for built development needed to realise a qualitative gain for the local community in pursuance of other physical social and economic objectives of the UDP, and would provide for relocation of the open space to a site in the locality which is at least equivalent in size, quality, accessibility, usefulness and attractiveness to that being lost.' 3.7 The open land in question does not have importance for a sport, leisure or active recreational facility, but due to its open character and presence of mature trees, it does contribute to visual amenity of the area. The proposed development would release a site for built development needed to realise a qualitative gain for the local community, in recognition of the government's objectives to provide sites for free schools. However, the proposal would not provide for the relocation of the open space due to the lack of available land for such provision. It is thus acknowledged that the proposed development would represent a departure from Policy EN22X of the UDP. 3.8 The land forming the proposed development site includes a tarmac roadway and pavement, flanked by an area of grass to the north adjacent to the subway and the Westway. To the east there is a larger area of grass with 8 trees, in front of the row of four houses facing west. There are also grassy areas to the side and front of the existing Wormholt Centre building which would be incorporated into the development site. The prime value of these areas of open space are their contribution to the visual amenity of the area and the mature trees especially provide a pleasant outlook to nearby residents. The trees and space thereby contribute positively to the character of the conservation area. Given that this land forms the boundary with the busy Westway however, the character of the whole area is severely affected by the presence of this major road. The traffic noise is such that the land is not currently used as a viable park, sports area or an area for sitting, and the value of the land is thus primarily visual. 3.9 The development would necessitate the loss of nine existing trees which are not subject to TPOs being Council-owned trees. Of these, the most significant trees are one Category 'A' Norway Maple tree on the north-east boundary and two Category 'B' trees (a Norway Maple street tree on the western boundary close to no.50 Hemlock Road and a mature Hornbeam tree on the grassed area to the north-east boundary). The trees to the north east would need to be removed because they would be directly within or adjacent to the footprint of the proposed building. Various building layouts were considered during the design process to try and retain these trees. However, due to the size requirements of the new building which needs to accommodate the proposed number of pupils and specific facilities, the size of the site and the design concept which seeks to provide a buffer against noise and pollution from the Westway, it was not possible to develop a building footprint that did not impact on these trees. Regrettably, then, these trees would have to be removed. The street tree to the west of the site

Page 41

would need to be removed to enable vehicular access into the proposed turning head. The development is dependent on the position of the turning head to enable larger vehicles to turn once the highway is closed. 3.10 Other trees to be felled include a young Norway maple in poor condition (category R) to the north of the site, a plum tree to the north (poor, category C), a Cherry tree within the site (poor, category C-) and a group of three small apple trees on the eastern grassed area (poor, category C). The category R tree is also directly within the proposed building's footprint but has a major defect that would necessitate its removal whether or not the development went ahead. The other trees are not of great value and would be removed to enable a more open play space. 3.11 Two silver birch trees (category C+)within the existing eastern grassed area would be retained. A large Eucalyptus tree (category A) in the neighbour's garden at no.10 Lilac Street would not be affected by the work and would remain. Four other trees (two category A- Lime trees and two category C plum trees) will also be retained within the site. Measures will taken to protect all retained trees during construction (Condition 10). 3.12 In compensation for the trees that would be lost, a net increase of nine trees on the site is proposed (the proposal would involve the replanting of 18 new trees to replace the 9 trees to be removed). The replacement trees would be planted predominantly on the boundaries of the site. The proposed development would in this way provide a green screen on its perimeter which would replace some of the lost visual amenity when the site is viewed from the outside. Conditions on the size and species of the replacement trees would ensure that an adequate screen is provided (Condition 9). 3.13 As outlined above, there is a pressing need for a new school in the north of the borough. The selection of this site has been made following research into other available sites, none of which had suitable space or facilities. The new school building has been designed to provide the requisite floor area within the minimum footprint for a two storey building, to maximise the amount of outdoor space available. The building would result in a new educational facility which would have significant gain for the local community. The loss of the existing trees is regrettable, but the scheme would involve a net increase in trees. The development would also have some benefit of providing a visual screen between this part of the conservation area and the Westway, which would also abate noise and pollution. It is acknowledged that the proposal would not provide for the relocation of open space, but the scheme would enable the remaining open space to become useable as a play area. On balance, then, it is considered that the harm that the development would cause to visual amenity, which would be minimised in any case via the provision of replacement planting and trees, and the loss of the open space, can be justified in this case. The departure from Policy EN22X is therefore considered acceptable. Design and impact on listed building 3.14 The existing building on the site - the former Wormholt Library and Welfare Centre - is a Grade II listed building which has been in a state of disrepair for some years and is on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk register. The use of the building as part of the proposed school has provided the impetus for the sensitive refurbishment and repair of the former library and will secure its long-term lifespan and return to active use. In this sense, the development is welcomed. It must be acknowledged, however, that the new building work proposed in this current application, which would enable the school to remain at this site, would significantly impact on the existing setting of the listed

Page 42

building. In assessing the design of new development, including proposals which would affect the setting of historic assets, the Council is guided by UDP policies EN3 (listed buildings), EN2 (development in conservation areas) and EN8 (design of new developments); Core strategy Policy BE1; London Plan policies 7.4 (local character), 7.6 (architecture), and 7.8 (heritage assets); and national planning policy statements PPS1 (delivering sustainable development) and PPS5 (Planning for the historic environment). 3.15 PPS5 states, in Policy HE.7, that: 'Local planning authorities should take into account: - the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and of utilising their positive role in place-shaping; and - the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets and the historic environment generally can make to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality. Local planning authorities should also take into account "the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use.' 3.16 Policy HE.9 states: 'There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset which is less than substantial harm, in all cases local planning authorities should: (i) weigh the public benefit of the proposal (for example, that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of its long-term conservation) against the harm; and (ii) recognise that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss.' 3.17 National planning policy statement 1 (PPS1) outlines the government's committment to encouraging sustainable forms of development and states that "Planning should seek to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects of declining environmental quality through positive policies on issues such as design, conservation and the provision of public space....Planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts pursued." The Council's Core strategy policy BE1 states that: 'Development throughout the borough should be of the highest standard of design that respects local context and character and, in particular, reflects and extends where appropriate the urban grain of the historic street based pattern and scale of development, especially in residential areas of consistent townscape character; protect and enhance the character, appearance and setting of the borough's conservation areas and its historic environment, including listed buildings.' 3.18 When the Wormholt Centre was built in the 1930s, it would have commanded a pivotal position in the heart of the estate, its classical architecture standing apart from the residential dwellings surrounding it. Designed to be viewed primarily from the east-west thoroughfare to the north, it would have formed a handsome focal point as a

Page 43

recognisably public building in the midst of the residential estate. Although the modern A40 follows the route of the original main road running through the estate, the construction of the six-lane road irrevocably changed the character of the original tree-lined avenue, and severed the connection between the two parts of the Wormholt Estate on either side of the road. Given that the listed building now fronts towards a large road, its setting is sadly diminished. The proposed development presents an opportunity to recreate and repair the setting for this building. Although the new setting would of course be different from the original vision, that has now been irreversibly altered, and the proposals for a new setting can in fact be seen as an improvement on the existing situation. 3.19 The development proposals have followed this analysis and seek to build on the frontage of the site alongside the Westway. The northern side of the building would follow the alignment of the street frontage, whilst the southern side would be aligned with the axis of the existing building, creating an enclosed courtyard in front of the listed building. The maximum possible space has been retained in front of the existing building whilst maintaining a useable floor area for the new building which would make this approach viable. It is considered that the development would give the former library enough 'breathing space' to enable the front elevation to be appreciated in its new context. Whilst long views of the front elevation would be largely obscured by new development, views of the dome and the elevations of the former Wormholt Centre would still be possible from oblique angles from the Westway. As explained above, however, it is not considered that current views of the front of the building are of great value given the dominant and blighting presence of the motorway. The new building would shield the historic building from the road and restore some of the tranquillity and elegance to its original setting. The building would also provide an appropriate termination of views up The Curve from the south east. Officers, and English Heritage, accept that this is an appropriate design approach which would alter, but not harm, the setting of the listed building. 3.20 The application for listed building consent concerns alterations to the existing railings to the front and side of the former Wormholt Library, which are listed by virtue of being in the curtilage of the listed building. No alterations to the building itself are proposed as part of this application. In consultation with English Heritage, plans have been revised to retain most of the existing railings in front of the listed building, to maintain a sense of the original setting. Openings would be formed in these railings to maximise the function of the external areas as playspace, but it is considered that the alterations to the railings would not cause significant harm to the setting of the building. A second set of piers would be relocated to enable the provision of a turning head to the west of the site. It will be a condition that the piers and gates are retained and relocated elsewhere on the site (Condition 4 on the listed building application).The proposed resurfacing of the landscaped areas surrounding the building are not considered to have a significant impact on the character or setting of the listed building, and full details of the landscaping will be reserved by condition (Condition 5 on the plannning application). The proposal is thus considered to comply with the requirements of PPS1, PPS5 and Policy EN3 of the UDP and Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy 2011. Design of the development 3.21 Policy EN8 of the UDP relates to the design of new development and states that `Development will not be permitted unless it is of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of the existing development and its setting. Schemes must be formulated to respect the historical context of the area and its sense

Page 44

of place, the scale, mass, form and grain of the surrounding development, relationship to the existing townscape, rhythm and articulation of frontages, local building materials, sustainability objectives and the principles of good neighbourliness'. UDP Policy EN2 states that 'Development within conservation areas will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced. New development in conservation areas must, where possible, respect the historic context, volume, scale, form and quality.' 3.22 Also of relevance to the application is London Plan Policy 7.4, which states that 'Buildings, streets and open spaces should provide a high quality design response that: a) has regard to the pattern and grain of the existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass, b) contributes to a positive relationship between the urban structure and natural landscape features, c) is human in scale, ensuring buildings create a positive relationship with street level activity and people feel comfortable with their surroundings, d) allows existing buildings and structures that make a positive contribution to the character of a place to influence the future character of the area, and e) is informed by the surrounding historic environment.' Policy 7.6 states that 'buildings and structures should be of the highest architectural quality, be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines the public realm, comprise details and materials that complement, not necessarily replicate, the local architectural character, and should not cause unacceptable harm to amenities of adjacent properties." Policy 7.8 states that "Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.' 3.23 The design of the new building has been informed by the need to preserve the setting of the listed building, taking into account the floorspace requirements for the new school, but also the wider context of the surrounding conservation area and the need to maintain outlook from the neighbouring properties. It was decided early on in the design process that the site could not support the amount of development required for a two-form entry primary school because of the above considerations, and the proposals were consequently reduced to a one-form entry school. The new building would be two storeys in height, with the ground floor element matching the parapet height of the listed building and the eaves level of the nearby residential dwellings, and a set-back attic storey at first floor level. The first floor would terminate just above the level of the brick pediment under the dome at the listed building, and would not exceed the ridge level of the surrounding houses (the modern flats to the west of the site are significantly higher at three storeys). It is considered that the height and bulk of the building would sit comfortably in its context. The materials would be red brick on the ground floor and green copper-effect cladding on the upper storey, reflecting the building material of the surrounding buildings and the copper dome of the listed building. The northern elevation would be enlivened by glazed panels and window openings, avoiding a blank façade on the Westway. 3.24 It is considered that the design of the new building has responded to its context and would be appropriate in terms of scale, bulk, materials and detailed design. Subject to conditions securing satisfactory external materials and detailed design (Condition 3 and 4), it is not considered that the building would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area to justify the refusal of planning permission, in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN8 of the UDP, Core strategy Policy BE1 and London Plan Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8.

Page 45

Impact of building and use on residential amenity 3.25 Although the character of the space in front of the nearest adjoining residential dwellings (120-124 Westway and 10 Lilac Street, 1 and 2 The Curve, 27 Lilac Street and flats at 104-129 Banstead Court) would be significantly altered by the provision of built development, it is considered that the building has been designed to maintain acceptable levels of outlook to these dwellings, and the development would not adversely affect daylight or sunlight to any neighbouring property. The new building would be built at a distance of 15.2m from the row of four dwellings to the east of the site, and to the west the outer corner of the single storey element to the building would be 14m from the façade of Banstead Court. The two-storey element would be at least 22m away from Banstead Court, and the proposed building would angle away from the curved façade of this flat block. Standard S13.1 of the UDP, addressing outlook, states that although dependent on the scale and proximity of development, a general standard can be adopted with reference to a line drawn at 45 degrees at ground level on the boundaries with a neighbouring property towards the development, which should not be infringed by new development. The proposed development would comfortably comply with this standard in relation to all the surrounding properties. Although the view would be affected from some properties, then, it is not considered that the development would be overbearing such as to lead to the conclusion that it would result in loss of outlook. 3.26 An assessment of how the development would affect daylight and sunlight conditions has been submitted. This shows that the proposed new building would have no noticeable impact on the daylight to the habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. The only windows which would have daylight reduced by more than 20% VSC (which is considered to be the minimum reduction necessary to be noticeable, according to the Building Research Establishment), are a ground floor high level window to the hallway at no.122 Westway, and a ground floor secondary window to no.2 The Curve. Light to both these windows is already compromised by the brick arch and canopy which exists above each window, so whilst the windows would in fact only lose a very small amount of light (less than 0.1% of ADF), the percentage difference in VSC is much greater than at other well-lit windows. The difference in light conditions would not be perceptible at any property, however. 3.27 Sunlight analysis reveals that the development would not result in significant loss of sunlight to any window except the hallway windows at nos.122 and the adjoining hallway at no.120 Westway which do not light habitable rooms and do not receive a significant amount of sunlight in the existing situation, and one window at ground floor level within Banstead Court, which serves a bedroom. This window would retain 3% annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) during the winter months, which is slightly less than the 5% suggested by the BRE guidelines. However in total the window would retain 29% APSH throughout the year which is above the BRE's suggested minimum of 25%, and amounts to a reduction of only 12% on the existing situation. It is not therefore considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties. 3.28 In terms of the retention of privacy, the proposed windows on the eastern and western elevations of the new building would be within 18m of existing residential windows (the ground floor windows on the eastern elevation would be 16m from the properties at 120-124 Westway and the first floor windows 17m; and on the western elevation one ground floor window would be approximately 15m from the façade at Banstead Court). The Council's UDP standard S13.2 is primarily designed to protect the privacy to rear windows where there is an expectation of greater privacy, and it is noted

Page 46

that it is already possible to see into the ground floor front windows to the affected properties from the public realm. However, it is considered appropriate to condition that the lower panes of the east-facing upper floor windows are obscurely glazed, as well as conditioning a privacy screen to the outdoor learning deck at first floor level, to avoid new opportunities for direct overlooking into the first floor windows to 120-124 Westway. Being a kitchen, the west facing ground floor window could also be obscurely glazed, and this would be conditioned to avoid any sense of loss of privacy for the Banstead Court neighbours (Conditions 29 and 30). Noise and disturbance 3.29 It is acknowledged that the use of the land as a primary school would be significantly different from its previous uses and that the noise of children arriving and playing would be audible at nearby residential properties. However, this should be balanced against the fact that the site is subject to a high level of noise from the Westway, which would be reduced by the screening effect of the building (this is explained further below) and the fact that audible noise would only occur for limited periods in the daytime. Play times are proposed to be limited to three periods of 15 minutes between 10.25 and 10.40, half an hour between 12.30 and 1.00pm, and 20 minutes between 2.30 and 2.50pm. The first floor terrace on the building would be used for structured teaching sessions rather than high level play space, and this will be a condition of an approval (Condition 28). Drop offs and pick-ups would generally be concentrated into half-hour periods around 8.30am and 4pm. Parents would wait for their children inside the school grounds by the main reception rather than congregating outside the school gates on The Curve. As discussed further below, the traffic impacts associated with the development are unlikely to lead to traffic congestion in these streets which are not subject to heavy traffic flows. Whilst the increase in activity on and around the site would be noticeable, then, it is not considered that noise and disturbance, which would be limited to short periods in the day, are likely to have such a serious impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents that this would justify the refusal of planning permission for the development. The noise associated with normal school activities is not considered to cause harm to the character of the conservation area given the existing noise from the Westway. Traffic and highways 3.30 Core Strategy Policy T1 is relevant, which encourages development to be guided to locations that minimise the need to travel. UDP Policy TN13 requires all development to be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and congestion and UDP Policy TN15 requires developments to conform to the approved car parking standards. However, there are no specific parking requirements for schools and each application is treated on its own merits. The application has been accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a draft School Travel Plan. 3.31 The transport assessment (TA) supporting the application applies information from twenty-two primary schools in the Borough to predict a likely modal split for the school. It is considered that this provides an acceptable analysis of likely trips for the present proposal. The predicted modal split for student travel is: Walk 65.5% Car 15.6% Cycle 8.7% Bus 7.9% Car share 1.3%

Page 47

Rail 1% 3.32 The school would hope to reach its full capacity by September 2017, when the school expects to have 210 students. The TA has assumed a certain number of students would be absent based on historic data for the Borough's schools. For 197 students likely to attend each day the predicted number of trips is as follows: Walk 129 Car 31 Cycle 17 Bus 16 Car share 3 Rail 2 3.33 The TA includes results of a parking study which included Lilac Street, Viola Square, Hemlock Road (Yew Tree to The Curve), Clematis Street, The Curve and Sundew Avenue. This shows that at peak time for school start there are 89 spaces free in these streets and for school finish 103 spaces. There would therefore be adequate capacity for the 31 cars expected to arrive for the school start and finish. This number of car trips in the morning and afternoon is a 'worst case' scenario based on data from nearby schools, and ARK Academy's School Travel Plan aims to put in place mechanisms for minimising the number of car borne trips and encouraging parents who do drive to park responsibly in the vicinity of the school to minimise congestion and disturbance. The draft travel plan includes provision for personalised travel plans for every pupil and their parents as part of the school/home visit. The school seeks to achieve 'STAR' accreditation (Sustainable travel accredited and recognised) under the joint Transport for London and London Boroughs' initiative which aims to: - Significantly reduce the number of cars travelling to and from schools - Remove the barriers, both perceived and actual, to walking, cycling and taking public transport to school - Increase the number of young people and adults choosing `active travel` over travel by car - Increase understanding among school communities of the travel options available to them - Provide information to help school communities understand the benefits of active, sustainable transport and positively influence their travel decisions 3.34 Once the school achieves its full capacity there should be 26 staff members. No off-street car parking is available on the site and the surrounding streets are subject to residents' parking controls, meaning that staff would be very likely to travel to school by car and park it locally during the day. Trips by staff members are therefore likely to be largely by public transport. The site is within a PTAL 2-3 area with a reasonable level of transport accessibility: bus routes are available on Du Cane Road approximately 400m away via the subway to the north of the site and East Acton tube station is approximately 600m away. The provision of a finalised School Travel Plan (STP) would be conditioned as part of a planning approval, as well as its annual monitoring (Condition 12). Taking into account the initiatives in the STP to reduce car trips, as well as the existing highway capacity, it is not considered that the proposed school would have an unacceptable impact on highway congestion or parking conditions in the surrounding streets.

Page 48

3.35 UDP policy S20 and Table 12.2 requires one cycle space per ten staff. 7 cycle parking spaces are proposed which is in excess of requirements for the proposed 26 staff. The applicant's transport assessment does however envisage a need for 18 spaces for children cycling to school by the date of full occupancy of the site. This would be addressed by way of the school's school travel plan which will monitor cycle parking and seek to increase the number of secure cycle parking spaces accordingly. However a condition is attached requiring the provision of seven spaces before the new building is occupied, with an additional eleven spaces provided within three years. (Condition 17). 3.36 Servicing is proposed via Hemlock Road, which is the opposite side to the pupils' entrance in The Curve. A hammerhead turning point would be constructed in Hemlock Road as part of the requirements of the stopping up order to enable the turning of vehicles at the northern end of the remaining carriageway and to avoid vehicles having to reverse, or use the private road at Banstead Court to turn. This would be of sufficient size to allow a 3-axle refuse vehicle or a 10 metre long rigid service vehicle, including a fire engine and emergency vehicles, to turn. It is considered that the servicing arrangements are therefore adequate and in accordance with UDP Policy TN28 and Standard S21. The proposed hammerhead turning point is proposed to be adjacent to the residential dwelling at 50 Hemlock Road. The frequency of use of this turning is likely to be low, however. School deliveries, based on a survey of equivalent sized schools, are likely to create a maximum of 20 vehicles per week, the majority of which (63%) would be by car or car-based vans, 5 deliveries by transit vans and two deliveries by HGV. A service management strategy would be conditioned to ensure that deliveries are controlled to minimise noise and disturbance (condition 37). Other vehicles using the turning head would be bi-weekly refuse vehicles and an occasional delivery vehicle using Hemlock Road. It is not therefore considered that the amenity of no.50 Hemlock Road would be seriously compromised by the use and position of this proposed turning head. As mentioned above, the provision of the turning head is not considered to cause significant harm to the setting of the listed building provided that the original boundary treatment is relocated. Highways stopping up 3.37 The development requires a 'stopping up' of the public highway. Authority to stop up a road can only be granted as part of a separate application for stopping up, subject to separate consultation. An application for the proposed stopping up has already been received by the Council and a notice of the proposal has been advertised under Sections 247, 249, 252 and 253 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. As objections have been received to the application for stopping up, the matter will be referred to the Mayor of London for a decision. The implications of the stopping up are relevant to this planning application, however, and will be considered below. 3.38 The roadway to the north of Hemlock Road and The Curve would be closed to vehicular traffic. An alternative route for pedestrians and cyclists would be provided between The Curve and the A40, by way of a footpath to the east of the site. This would be straight, well lit and 3 metres in width. A route from Hemlock Road to the A40 would also be retained for pedestrian/cycle use by retention of the existing western footway in Hemlock Road adjacent to the site, which is also approximately 3 metres in width. The stopping up of the roadway would not significantly impact on the length of pedestrian or cycle journeys therefore, and would not seriously inconvenience pedestrians making journeys in this area.

Page 49

3.39 The traffic levels on the Curve and in surrounding streets are low. A traffic survey undertaken on Monday 13th June 2011 showed that the maximum traffic flows using the road which is proposed to be stopped up occur between 18:00 and 19:00 hours when there are a total of 26 movements. This is less than one vehicle every two minutes and does not coincide with the peak hours for traffic arriving at the proposed school. At school start and end times (0800 - 0900 and 15:00 - 16:00 hrs) the current traffic flows are below the peak flow - 14 vehicle movements and 12 vehicle movements respectively. It is not considered that reassignment of such small traffic flows would give rise to any significant local problems in terms of increasing traffic congestion. The streets surrounding the site are in a grid pattern and there are several different routes into and out of the area which do not use this part of The Curve. The use of the Curve is not an obvious route into or out of the estate on to Old Oak Road and the junction with the Westway, with the possible exception of residents on Lilac Street and the northern part of the Curve. For the majority of vehicular journeys there are in fact shorter routes than travelling via the area to be stopped up. The longest reassigned journey would be between Lilac Street and Banstead Court, where the effect of the road closure would add another 411m to the journey. However the number of such journeys are small - the applicant's survey data collected from an Automatic Traffic Counter over 14 consecutive days in July 2011 recorded between zero and three cars turning north from Lilac Street and Banstead Court per hour. The additional distance travelled should also be seen in the context of the overall length of an average car journey, where it becomes less significant as a percentage of the total distance travelled. Given the small number of journeys which would be affected by the road closure and the availability of alternative routes it is not considered that the reassigned traffic flows would cause an increase in traffic congestion or a significant inconvenience for drivers. 3.40 The closure of the road would result in the loss of 32m of parking bays, equating to 5 spaces, one of which is directly outside no.50 Hemlock Road. The bays would recommence from no.48 onwards. Overnight parking stress in Hemlock Road is relatively low, however - the Council's surveys in the past two years (undertaken on the evenings of 21st October 2010 and 7th July 2009) suggest that only 57% of available parking spaces were occupied overnight (20 out of 35 spaces), and the loss of five spaces would increase the stress to 66% occupation which still gives a sufficient amount of parking capacity. As mentioned above, a turning point would be provided as part of the proposal to enable large vehicles servicing residents in Hemlock Road, such as refuse, delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles, to turn without needing to reverse. 3.41 The relocation of the postbox which is currently positioned just to the north of the proposed site boundary on Hemlock Road, will be undertaken by the applicant in consultation with Royal Mail, and it is envisaged that this would be repositioned as closely as possible to the original site. The same would be the case for any other public or statutory facilities on the site. In light of the above considerations it is not considered that residents would be seriously inconvenienced by the proposed works. No significant concerns are raised to the proposed stopping up and associated highways works. 3.42 Highways works associated with the development and the stopping up, including the construction of a new footway where Hemlock Road meets The Curve as well as amendments to signage, drainage works, diversion of Statutory Undertakers' equipment and the cost of the improved footway to the east of the site would be required to be funded by the developer. Highways markings such as keep clear markings and additional signage would also need to be implemented. A funding agreement with the Council would be drawn up to secure the funding of these works (under section 278).

Page 50

Crime prevention 3.43 UDP Policy EN10 requires developments to provide a safe and secure environment. The site will be secure and the applicant is in discussion with the Crime Prevention advisor over aspects of the design to ensure compliance with Secure by Design criteria. A condition will be attached requiring details to be submitted of how the development achieves SBD accreditation (Condition 11). A matter for particular attention is the safety of the pathway to the east of the site which would become the new pedestrian route from the A40 to Lilac Street. Residents have raised the concern that this pathway has the potential to be a "mugger's alley" due to the enclosure of the site to the west. The pathway would be approximately 30m in length and 3 metres wide, and is straight with no recessed areas. The boundary treatment on the western side is proposed to be permeable with railings instead of a solid fence, in recognition that an increase in natural surveillance and a sense of openness would be more welcome than a solid boundary. The lighting of this pathway is of prime importance to its security, albeit that the lights should not lead to an unacceptable increase in light pollution to the existing residential properties at this location. A condition will require details of satisfactory lighting of this path, to be installed before development commences. It is recommended by the Crime Prevention advisor that CCTV cameras should be installed at either end of the pathway to the east, and this would be a condition (Condition 36). It should be noted that this pathway would be well surveyed on both sides in the daytime and is subject to surveillance from the residential properties at night. Alleyways generally tend to attract crime when they are not subject to natural surveillance. In this case, the pathway would also be broad, well lit and straight, and it is not considered that subject to conditions, there would be significant concern in terms of safety or the generation of crime. Air quality and noise 3.44 Due to the close proximity of the Westway, the site is subject to traffic noise and pollution from air-borne particulates (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The design for the proposed school building has taken these local environmental factors into account, including using the new building as a barrier to the Westway's noise and pollution, with the addition of a mechanical and filtered ventilation system to help improve internal air quality. 3.45 London Plan policy 7.14 addresses air quality and states that development proposals should 'minimise increased exposure to existing poor air quality and make provision to address local problems of air quality (particularly within Air Quality Management Areas and where development is likely to be used by large numbers of those particularly vulnerable to poor air quality such as children or older people) such as by design solutions, buffer zones or steps to promote greater use of sustainable transport modes through travel plans'. As children are a vulnerable group who need protection under the Equalities Act 2010, the issue of air quality and exposure to pollution has been carefully considered. 3.46 An Air Quality (AQ) assessment has been submitted to support the application, which assesses the potential air quality impact of the development and its construction, and also the expected pollution levels in the school grounds at a range of locations and heights. The report has been analysed by officers. As the borough has been designated as an Air Quality Management Area for PM10 and NO2, the assessment focuses on these two pollutants and considers their current levels at the development site in 2010

Page 51

and also for a future year of 2013 which should be the first year of operation for the new building. 3.47 The changes in traffic flows associated with the development are well below the levels that could cause any significant impacts on the existing local air quality. In terms of the assessment of the potential impacts of the construction phase, the site is classified as a medium risk site, particularly as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site and dust generating activities could result in some emissions going beyond the site boundary. However, the implementation of pollution control mitigation measures would ensure that dust nuisance and pollution from site are prevented and minimised. A condition would be attached to require the submission of a Construction Management Plan outlining the proposed mitigation measures (Condition 25). 3.48 A detailed assessment has been carried out of the expected levels of PM10 and NO2 within the school grounds at heights of 1.5m, 4.5m, 6m and 8m above ground level at 19 specific receptor points. Contour plots of NO2 and PM10 concentrations for 2011 and 2013 across the site have also been generated. The predicted concentrations have been considered with respect to the UK air quality objectives for NO2 and PM10. Both of these pollutants have long-term annual mean objectives of 40 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre). Both pollutants also have short-term targets: for PM10, a daily concentration of 50 µg/m3 should not be exceeded more than 35 days in the year and for NO2, hourly concentrations should not exceed 200 µg/m3 more than 18 times a year. 3.49 The assessment of external air quality predicts that the PM10 annual mean and daily targets would be met across the whole site. The highest predicted concentration at ground level would be at the façade of the new building directly adjacent to the Westway. However, only 11 instances of daily PM10 exceedence are predicted annually on the site, which is less than a third of the allowable number (35 instances per year); and some of which might fall on weekends. Annual mean levels and number of allowable daily exceedences would decrease further into the site, as the distance from the Westway increases. For NO2, the assessment predicts that the annual mean target would be exceeded across the site. Similarly to PM10, the highest levels are forecast for the façade of the building directly next to the Westway at ground level. With increasing distance from the road, levels fall significantly, so that at the south of the site, levels reduce to around 40-41 µg/m3 (compared to 65-66 µg/m3 at the Westway). With regard to the outdoor air quality, Defra guidance states that exceedences of the hourly objective are only likely where the annual mean is above 60 µg/m3. The model forecasts that a small part of the school grounds directly adjacent to the Westway in the north-east part of the site could fall into this category. However, this area does not form part of the playground, providing an entrance pathway only. Another factor that needs to be taken into account when considering short-term exposure outdoors is that none of the break times at the school are planned to last for an hour or more, so even if NO2 levels did become elevated during school time, no exposure over a 1 hour period would occur. It would be a condition that the reception class play area is fenced so as not to exceed the area shown on the drawings (Condition 39). It is thus considered that the external areas would not give rise to exposure to unacceptable levels of pollutants. 3.50 With regard to the indoor air quality, mitigation measures are proposed in the form of mechanical ventilation. The air intake would be at a height of 8m above ground level on the proposed new building and located on the roof towards the south, furthest away from the Westway. At this point, as stated above, the PM10 levels would meet the

Page 52

required objectives, however a particulate filter would be integrated into the vent to help reduce particulate levels further. Average NO2 levels at the proposed locations for the intake have been calculated to be around 43 µg/m3. This is a whole year annual average. Calculations show that if NO2 levels during school opening hours are considered, then NO2 levels at 8m above ground are reduced. In order to further reduce NO2 levels being circulated in the new building it is proposed to control the intake of external air so that, if necessary, at peak times for air pollution, the vent would automatically close. In these circumstances the ventilation system would re-circulate internal air within the building. When required - i.e. if internal CO2 levels build up and need to be reduced - the ventilation system would open the external air intake for around 30 minutes and bring more outside air into the building. The proposed ventilation system would be designed to regulate internal air quality in terms of both NO2 and CO2 to meet acceptable levels by controlling the automatic shutting off and re-opening of the vent. 3.51 This approach of integrating mitigating measures in the form of the mechanical ventilation system with particulate filters and an air intake located at roof height, away from the main source of pollution, that can be automatically opened and closed according to external pollution levels, is in line with the requirements of The London Plan air quality policy. This expects measures such as design solutions to be implemented to minimise exposure to poor air quality for developments such as schools where large numbers of children may be present. London Councils' guidance on air quality and planning also considers that where proposed developments are in areas where the NO2 annual mean is just above the objective (as in this case), then it is appropriate to consider mitigation measures to help reduce exposure, which has been proposed in this case. 3.52 It is therefore considered that the design mitigation solutions outlined are sufficient to address the pollution levels found at the site such as to exposure to both NO2 and PM10 levels that are acceptable when compared to the Government's air quality objectives levels. Conditions would be attached to require further details of the proposed air intakes and mechanical ventilation system, to ensure that the pollution mitigation strategy is implemented as outlined. The regular maintenance and cleaning of the ventilation system would also be subject to condition to ensure it operates as required. (Conditions 40 and 41) 3.53 External noise levels at the site are high as a result of the proximity to the A40 which produces constant noise source. The applicant has produced a noise survey and noise assessment which has confirmed that noise levels at the edge of the proposed new build area close to the A40 were 72 dBLAeq, 15mins. Slightly reduced ambient levels were measured around the existing listed building with levels of 68 dBLAeq, 15mins being measured at the front of the building facing the road. To the side of the building, which benefits from greater screening, levels were further reduced to around 60 dBLAeq, 15mins. This puts the site currently within an Noise Exposure C category, according to Planning Policy Statement 24. The effect of the new building can in this instance be modelled, however, and it is expected that the noise levels would reduce by approximately 15-20 dB as a result of the screening effect. The proposed play areas would be behind the building and would benefit from the screening, and the noise levels in the play areas would be expected to be 50-55dB, which is in line with the recommendations of BB93. Internally, the masonry facade construction and high performance acoustic glazing of the new building would be expected to achieve internal noise levels of 39 dB Rw, and the building envelope is expected to suitably control noise

Page 53

ingress in line with the ambient noise levels recommended within BB93. It is therefore considered that noise can be adequately controlled. A condition would be attached requiring further details of the internal and external noise levels and that the building is designed to achieve internal noise levels to comply with national recommendations for school buildings. (Condition 23). Accessibility 3.54 London Plan Policy 7.2 and the Council's 'Access for All' SPD are both relevant and require developments to be fully inclusive. The 'Access for All' SPD sets out specific requirements to enable ease of access both to and within developments. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which states that the school will be fully inclusive and will prioritise students with special educational needs. It was critical to the design that the school is accessible to wheelchair users and disabled staff and children. Special measures will be taken to ensure that level access around the site and at entrances to the buildings is provided, access to the first floor level is provided by wheelchair accessible lift, accessible WCs are provided and that the building provides facilities for the blind and partially sighted and for the ambulant disabled. It is considered that the proposed development would ensure ease of access for all users, but a condition is recommended to ensure that the development is constructed according to these relevant criteria (Condition 18). Energy 3.55 A Sustainability Statement has been submitted with the application. As the development is not classified as a major development (having a floor area under the trigger level of 1000m2), there is no requirement to meet the detailed London Plan policies on sustainable design and construction and carbon reduction. However, London Plan Policies 5.2 and 5.3 and the Council's Core Strategy Policy CC1 do require all new developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions by being "lean, clean and green" and to demonstrate that sustainable design criteria are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation. The development has been designed to meet the BREEAM rating of 'very good' by including measures that conserve energy, materials and water, reduce air, noise and water pollution, promote sustainable waste behaviour, comply with the requirements of the Considerate Constructors Scheme and implement a school travel plan. An assessment of low/zero carbon energy options is presented in the sustainability report which concludes that solar PV panels are the most applicable renewable energy technology for the development. These would be installed on the roof of the existing school building, as proposed under previous planning and listed building applications. It is therefore considered that the proposal has demonstrated a commitment to reducing its carbon emissions and contributing to renewable energy sources, in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.2 and 5.3 and Policy CC1 of the Core Strategy. The submission of a sustainable design and construction statement will be required by condition to ensure that the above measures are incorporated into the development (Condition 39). Flood Risk and Sustainable Urban Drainage 3.56 In accordance with paragraph D16 of PPS25 (Annex D), it is not considered that the proposal would raise significant flood risk issues, as it would not have an adverse effect on a watercourse, floodplain or its flood defences, would not impede access to flood defence and management facilities or add to the cumulative impact of such developments on local flood storage capacity or flood flows. The site is within the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Zone 1, which is at the lowest risk of flooding. Much of the site would be relandscaped to provide play surfacing. It will be a requirement that

Page 54

the new surfaces would be porus wherever possible in order to ease surface water run-off and avoid contributing to localised flooding. This will be conditioned via the details of landscaping surfaces (Condition 5) and by requiring the submission of a sustainable urban drainage strategy (Condition 8). Contamination 3.57 Potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) are understood to occur at, or near to, the site for the proposed building. Therefore, in order to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, and in accordance with UDP policies EN20A and EN21 and CC4 of the Core Strategy, and policy 5.21 of The London Plan 2011, conditions requiring the submission of a contamination survey and remediation report are recommended (conditions 26 and 27). Community use 3.58 The school has confirmed that the premises would be available for out-of-hours use by community groups. The Wormholt Tenant and Residents' Association have already been offered free of charge use of the existing former Wormholt Centre building, which was previously used by this group, and the WTRA now hold bi-weekly sessions at the premises. Once the new building is built, the school anticipates that it would be suitable for wider community use and is willing to make the building available out of school hours at not for profit rates. Full details of the out-of-hours use and the arrangements for making the buildings available for community groups including any charging mechanism would be requested by condition (Condition 14), to ensure that the building is available and that the use does not cause disturbance to neighbouring residents. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Officers consider that the proposed new building would provide an educational facility of substantial public benefit which decisively outweighs any potential harm to the character of the conservation area resulting from the loss of open space and trees. The impact on the setting of the listed building is considered to be acceptable and justified in this instance. The new building is considered to be of an acceptable design. The new building would be available after hours use by community groups. It is also considered that the proposal would not result in harmful levels of traffic generation and would not have a demonstrably harmful impact on the amenities of surrounding residents. In this respect, and subject to conditions, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. 4.2 A conditional approval is therefore recommended for the planning application and the application for listed building consent. As the Council are the joint applicants, the listed building application will be referred to the Secretary of State for a final decision.

Page 55

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Wormholt And White City Site Address: Land To The North, East And West Of The Former Wormholt Centre 60 Hemlock Road London



Reg. No: 2011/02045/LBCHF Date Valid: 28.07.2011 Committee Date: 09.11.2011

Case Officer: Katherine Wood Conservation Area: Old Oak And Wormholt Conservation Area - Number 12

Page 56

Applicant: Ark Schools & London Borough Of Hammersmith And Fulham 65 Kingsway London WC2B 6TD Description: Alterations to railings, gates and piers to north of former Wormholt Centre to create playing space; alterations to railings to the west to create a vehicle turning point; part resurfacing of external areas Drg Nos: PL-01 Rev C; PL-03 Rev C; L03_03_11_PL.90.900;External Realm- Boundaries Treatment Option 2;L03_03_11_PL.90.300 Rev P1; L03_03_11_PL.90.301 Rev P1;L03_03_11_PL.90.302 Rev P1; L03_03_11_PL.90.303 Rev P1;60197982_HC_001; PL04 Rev A;PL-05 Rev A; PL-06 Rev A; PL-07 Rev B; PL-08 Rev B;PL-09 Rev A; tree removal plan Application Type: Listed Building Consent LBHF Officer Recommendation: Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Secretary of State that the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The works hereby granted consent shall not commence later than the expiration of

3 years beginning with the date upon which this consent is granted. Condition required to be imposed by Section 18(1)(a) of the Planning (Listed

Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by section 91 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004).

2) The works hereby approved are only those specifically stated in the written

description and indicated on the approved drawing numbers outlined above. In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building, in

accordance with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007. 3) The new sections of railings hereby approved at ground level shall be black

painted metal to match the design of the existing railings and shall be permanently so maintained.

To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance, in accordance with Policy EN3

of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 4) Development shall not commence until details and a method statement are

submitted to and approved in writing by the Council for the retention and relocation of the four original gate piers and original gates surrounding the former Wormholt Centre. Any repositioning of the original gates and piers shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 57

To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance and to prevent harm to the

setting of the listed building, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a photographic

survey of the exterior of the former library building, including boundary treatment, and the site as a whole is completed, and a copy submitted to the Borough Archivist.

To ensure that the existing appearance of this listed building is recorded for the

future, in accordance with policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

Justification for Approving the Application: 1) It is considered that the proposal would preserve the special architectural or

historic interest of the building. In this respect the proposal is considered to comply with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007; Policy 7.8 of The London Plan, 2011 and PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 1st July 2011 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The London Plan 2011


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Council For British Archaeology

Dated: 30.08.11

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: Please see related report ref: 2011/02044/FR3

Page 58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Askew Site Address: 117 - 123 Askew Road London W12 9AU



Reg. No: 2011/00565/FUL Date Valid: 10.03.2011 Committee Date: 09.11.2011

Case Officer: Raj Satheesan Conservation Area:

Page 59

Applicant: Mr Chaskel Rand 10 Palm Court Queen Elizabeth's Walk London N16 5XA Description: Change of use of the first, second and third floors from offices (Class B1) to 8 self contained flats (class C3) Drg Nos: 753 104A Revision C, 753 105 Revision A Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of

3 years beginning with the date of this planning permission. Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country


2) The development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with the

detailed drawings which have been approved, reference: 753 104A Revision C, 753 105 Revision A


and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

3) Flat 4, at first floor level, shall not be occupied until the bottom window panes of

the existing sash windows to the side elevation underneath the central arch, have been installed so as to be fixed shut, non-openable and with obscure glazing (as shown on drawing no 753 105 Revision A), a sample of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to any development on site. Thereafter the windows shall be permanently retained in the form approved.

To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers at 3

Laurence Mews and to protect the amenity of future occupiers of the building, in accordance with Policy EN8B and standard S13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

Page 60

4) No occupier of the 8 new residential units hereby permitted, with the exception of disabled persons who are blue badge holders, shall apply to the council for a parking permit or retain such a permit and if such a permit is issued it shall be surrendered to the Council within seven days of written demand.

In order to ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of

the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on-street car parking stress in the area, in accordance with Policy TN15 and standard S18.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

5) The 8 new residential units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time

as a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to ensure that all occupiers, other than those with disabilities who are blue badge holders, have no entitlement to parking permits from the council and to ensure that occupiers are informed, prior to occupation, of such restriction. The development shall not be used otherwise than in accordance with the approved scheme unless prior written agreement is issued by the council.

In order that the prospective occupiers of the 8 residential units are made aware of

the fact that they will not be entitled to an on-street car parking permit, in the interests of the proper management of parking, and to ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on-street car parking stress in the area, in accordance with Policy TN15 and standard S18.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

6) The 8 new residential unit hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the council

has been notified in writing (and has acknowledged such notification) of the full postal address of the 8 new residential units. Such notification shall be to the Council's Head of Development Management and shall quote the planning application number specified in this decision letter.

In order that the Council can update its records to ensure that parking permits are

not issued to the occupiers of the 8 new residential units hereby approved, and thus ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on-street car parking stress in the area, in accordance with Policy TN15 and standard S18.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

7) The cycle storage area shown on the first floor on drawing number 753 104 A

Revision C shall be installed prior to occupation and thereafter permanently retained.

In order to ensure a satisfactory provision for cycle storage, in accordance with

policy TN6 and Standard S20 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 8) Prior to occupation or use of any part of the development hereby permitted waste

and recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with drawing no. 753 104

Page 61

A. Revision C. All refuse generated by the flats hereby permitted shall be stored within the premises. The facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained for this use.

In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for refuse and recycling

storage and collection, in accordance with Policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007, and the supplementary planning document `Storage of Refuse and Recyclables'.

9) No changes shall be carried out to the external appearance of the development

hereby approved, including the installation of water tanks, air-conditioning units, ventilation fans or extraction equipment not shown on the approved drawings, prior to the submission and approval of a further planning application, provided that the proposed changes would, in the Council's opinion, materially affect the external appearance of the building

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the

amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with Policies EN2B, EN8B, and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

10) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of the sound insulation of the floor/ceiling /walls separating adjoining commercial and residential premises from the new residential units hereby approved These details shall also include enhanced sound insulation between the new units themselves namely, living rooms and kitchens above bedrooms of separate dwelling units. Details shall ensure that the sound insulation and any other mitigation measures are sufficiently enhanced in order that the standard specified in BS 8233:1999 is achieved within noise sensitive premises Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

To ensure that the amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers and future

occupiers of the development site are not adversely affected by noise, in accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

11) Before the development hereby approved is commenced details, including a

sample, of the obscure glass privacy screens at a height of 1.7m high to be installed to the rear roof terrace shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The use of the roof as a terrace shall not commence until the screens as approved have been installed, and they shall be permanently retained thereafter.

In order to ensure a satisfactory external appearance and ensure no overlooking

or loss of privacy in accordance with Policy EN8B and Standard S13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.

Page 62

12) There shall be no public access to the flat roof on the southern side of the building. Access is permitted for maintenance staff and emergency escape purposes only.

To restrict use of the larger area of the flat roof on the southern side of the

building, which would otherwise give rise to conditions which would be detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of the development and surrounding occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance, occasioned by the use of this area in accordance with policy EN21 and standard S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan, amended 2007.

13) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a statement of how

'Secured by Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.


accordance with policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. Justification for Approving the Application: 1) 1 Land Use: The proposed development would achieve a sustainable

development with efficient use of brownfield land. It is considered that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of office space is justified in this case in accordance with Core Strategy 2011 Policy LE1, London Plan 2011 Policy 4.2, PPS1 and PPS3 Housing (paragraphs 38 and 44), which encourage the release of surplus office space for other uses whilst maintaining supply to meet strategic demand. The proposal would provide a mix of family and non family units and contribute to much needed additional housing, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy H1 and London Plan Policy 3.3 B.

2 Design: It is considered that the design is acceptable and is in accordance

with Policies EN2B and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007, Core Strategy 2011 Policy BE1 and PPS1.

3. Highways: Subject to conditions there would be no adverse impact on traffic

generation and the scheme would not result in congestion of the road network. Satisfactory provision would be made for cycle parking and future occupiers would be prevented from obtaining on-street parking permits by way of conditions, to help prevent overspill of parking onto the local highways. There are available public transport and other services nearby and adequate provision for storage and collection of refuse and recyclables would be provided. The proposal is thereby in accordance with Policies EN17, TN6, TN15 and Standards S18.1 and S20.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 63

4 Residential Amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining occupiers is considered acceptable. The proposal would not have a harmful impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of light, outlook or privacy and noise and disturbance and, through conditions, the use of the building would not result in unacceptable noise and disturbance to nearby residents. In this regard, the development would respect the principles of good neighbourliness, and would therefore be acceptable in accordance with Policies EN8B, EN20B and EN21 and standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

5 Access and Safety: Six of the eight flats would provide level access for future

occupiers. The development is considered acceptable in accordance with Policy 7.2 of The London Plan 2011; and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document 'Access for all'.

6 Quality of Residential Accommodation: The proposal would provide an

acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers, in terms of living space, light and aspect. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with standards S8.1A and S8.1B and S13.3 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

7 Environment: The scheme would incorporate suitable facilities for the storage

and collection of segregated waste so as to avoid undue pollution, with no undue noise and the development would not cause undue detriment to the amenities of neighbours. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with Policies EN17, EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 8th March 2011 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The London Plan 2011


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Environment Agency - Planning Liaison Thames Water - Development Control

Dated: 30.08.11 30.08.11

Page 64

London Fire And Emergency Planning Authority Thames Water - Development Control Environment Agency - Planning Liaison

29.09.11 19.04.11 15.09.11

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: NAG 18.08.11 159 Becklow Road London W12 9HH 21.08.11 3 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 19.04.11 3 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 21.05.11 7 Lawrence Mews London W12 9AT 21.04.11 5 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 21.04.11 13 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 20.04.11 11 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 20.04.11 17 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 20.04.11 9 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 26.04.11 18 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 20.04.11 3 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 21.09.11 159 Becklow Road 11.10.11 18 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 26.10.11 3 Laurence Mews London W12 9AT 25.10.11 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The subject property is a 1980s built 4-storey building located on the eastern side of Askew Road and straddling Lawrence Mews above the ground floor. The ground floor is occupied as commercial units with vacant offices above to Askew Road. The property adjoins a terrace of properties on the Council's local register of Buildings of Merit at numbers 105-115 Askew Road, and is opposite the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area. The site is also within a key local shopping centre and the Environment Agency's Flood zones 2 and 3. 1.2 Relevant planning history includes the following: - 2003/00702/FUL: Planning application refused for the conversion of first floor to four self contained flats. This application was refused on grounds of: loss of employment use; lack of off-street car parking; lack of refuse storage area; loss of privacy and two of the units having poor aspect facing north-easterly only. - 2006/00347/FUL: Planning application withdrawn for change of use of first, second and third floors from offices (class B1) to 10 self contained flats (1 x 3 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 5 x 1 bed and 1 x studio flats).

Page 65

1.3 The current application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the first, second and third floors from offices (Class B) to 8 self contained flats (class C3) with ancillary refuse and cycle storage. 1.4 The application has been amended since it was originally submitted in the interest of residential amenity, as follows: 1) Originally 9 flats were proposed; the applicant has removed one of the first floor flats and this space would now be for used as storage and cycle storage areas; 2) Windows in the side elevation of one of the first floor flats have been amended so that the bottom panes are obscurely glazed and fixed shut, to prevent overlooking to 3 Laurence Mews. 3) The larger roof terrace has been omitted, such that now it would only be accessible for maintenance. 1.5 The proposal would provide 3 x 1 bedroom flats; 4 x 2 bedroom flats and a 1 x 3 bedroom flat. The three bedroom unit on the third floor would have two private terraces to the front and rear of the building. An existing lift would be maintained. However, two of the proposed one bedroom flats at first floor level would only be accessible by a communal staircase. Storage cupboards and cycle storage spaces are proposed on the first floor and refuse and recycling area would be provided internally at ground floor level. 1.6 The current application seeks to overcome the previous reasons for refusal in application ref: 2003/00702/FUL and differs from the previous scheme in the following ways. 1.7 Reason for refusal 1 - Loss of employment on site - The applicant states the premises have been vacant since 2005 and a marketing report prepared by Sandrove Brahams has been submitted with the application, outlining the marketing efforts carried out since then. 1.8 Reason for refusal 2 - Lack of off-street car parking - The applicant has agreed that any future occupiers of the flats would not be eligible to apply or have car parking permits 1.9 Reason for refusal 3 - Lack of refuse storage facilities - The proposed ground floor plans show provision of an internal refuse and recycling storage area for all the flats. 1.10 Reason for refusal 4 - Loss of privacy to residents in Laurence Mews - Revised elevational drawings show that the bottom panes of the windows in the side elevation of the first floor flat facing towards Laurence Road would be fixed shut and obscurely glazed. 1.11 Reason for refusal 5 - 2 flats would have poor aspect - One of the first floor flats has been replaced with a storage and cycle storage area; - The other flat would have dual aspect with windows facing north and east; - A daylight and sunlight report prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners demonstrates that all flats would receive adequate daylight and sunlight.

Page 66

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The planning application was advertised by way of a site notice, and individual notification letters sent to 53 neighbouring residents. 2.2 16 letters of representation have been received from 10 neighbouring occupiers; of which 5 letters have been received from one resident at 3 Laurence Mews and 3 letters have been received from a resident at 11 Laurence Mews. Objections and comments can be summarised as follows: - Proposed loss of employment use, contrary to UDP Policy E3 and the developer has not done enough to market the office space; proposal for flats has been refused previously by the council and should not be allowed now - They are sitting on prime office space in a fast developing area of the borough - The area is already extremely highly populated and the proposal would exacerbate this - Additional flats would result in an increase in anti-social behaviour, noise and an increase in parking pressure - Loss of privacy to properties in Laurence Mews, resulting from windows and roof terraces, particularly on weekends and evenings when offices would not usually be occupied - Environmental concerns including: increased impact on drains, sewage and refuse - Structural overload from additional flats (officer comment: building control matters are not for planning) - Residential use would be harmful to the area with ventilators, extractors, boiler flues, satellite dishes, etc - Future occupiers would suffer from inadequate light and excessive noise from Askew Road - Increase footfall would result in more security issues - Proposed flats would be next to mobile telephone masts - Two of the flats would have poor aspect, with windows of habitable rooms facing into the archway of the building - Based on past experience, the building has been poorly maintained (officer comment: a non-planning matter) 2.3 Following revised drawings received (showing the amendments referred to in paragraph 1.4 above), the Council re-notified neighbours by way of a revised site notice, and individual notification letters sent to 53 neighbouring residents. One letter of objection was received from 3 Laurence Mews. Objection and comments can be summarised as follows: - Clarification sought on proposed changes in revised scheme (officer comment: officers have responded to this query outlining all of the differences) - The revised proposal still fails to address any concerns, particularly privacy and security - Confirmation that previous objections are still valid and will be taken into consideration (officer comment: officers have responded to this advising that previous letters received will be taken into consideration) - Concerns regarding this application in combination with another application at the 'Sun' public house for 8 flats and a retail unit and the combined impact of both of these proposals (officer comment: this proposal will be considered on its merits).

Page 67

2.4 MP Slaughter has written in an objection. His objection can be summarised as follows: - Loss of privacy for adjacent properties resulting from rear windows and roof terraces - Increase in parking pressure - Harmful to appearance of the area and the addition of ventilators, extractors, boiler flues, satellite dishes, etc. necessary to support 9 residential units will only make the exterior of the building look worse - My constituents have told me that previous tenants of the office block were only ever offered short-term leases and no security of tenure was possible. This seemingly undermines the information you have been given and suggests that the block was not responsibly managed and that it was the owner's intention all along to convert the building into flats for profit regardless of the impact on the local area. If what my constituents tell me is true, then this report should not be considered as evidence in support of this application. 2.5 Thames Water have responded that they have no objection with regard to sewerage and water infrastructure. 2.6 The Environment Agency have reported that they have no objection. 2.7 London Fire Brigade have reported that they have no objection. 2.8 The Crime Prevention Design Officer has responded raising no specific objection, and a condition is recommended regarding secure by design matters. 2.9 The planning matters raised above will be considered in the body of the report below. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning considerations arising from this proposal relate to whether the proposed loss of office accommodation is acceptable and whether the residential use is an acceptable replacement land use; whether occupiers of the proposed units would have acceptable living standards; visual amenity, impact on the streetscene and on the character and appearance on the surrounding area; impact on the existing amenities of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties; parking and trip generation matters. Land use 3.2 The application relates to the change of use of the first, second and third floors from Class B1 offices to Class C3 residential use. London Plan Policy 4.2 and PPS3 Housing paragraphs 38 and 44 encourage the release of surplus office space for other uses whilst maintaining supply to meet strategic demand. Core Strategy policy LE1 seeks to retain premises capable of providing continued accomodation for local services or significant employment unless certain criteria can be met. One of criterion would allow release if "it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the property is no longer required for employment purposes". 3.3 As such the key issue here is whether the site is unlikely to attract interest in re-occupation from another employment use. In support of the application, the applicant has stated the following:

Page 68

- A marketing report prepared by Sandrove Brahams (Property and Asset Management) has been submitted with this application. This states that both Sandrove Brahams and Meadowcroft have been constantly marketing these premises since 2005 and despite offering highly competitive rentals and flexible lease terms have not yet been successful in finding tenants. Since this time the offices have been fully refurbished and all offices are vacant (an officer's site visit confirmed that the building was vacant). - The marketing report states that the feedback received from potential occupants was that this was not an attractive location for offices, being too residential and not enough other office occupiers in the immediate vicinity. - Marketing efforts have consisted of: 'v' boards clearly erected on the property to attract potential tenants passing by; details available for posting as well as email to anybody enquiring about the suites; advertisements on numerous websites and the suites has also been previously advertised in the London Standard. 3.4 Officers have assessed the information submitted, and given the lack of interest in re-occupation from another employment use, it is considered the proposal would make use of previously developed land. As such the proposal would be in accordance with national advice contained within PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Communities, PPS 3: Housing, London Plan Policy 4.2 and the Core Strategy. In these circumstances it would be reasonable to agree the change of use in principle and therefore no objection is raised subject to the other development plan policies being satisfied which will be discussed below. 3.5 This application seeks to provide 8 new residential dwellings. London Plan Policy 3.3 B states that an annual average of 32,210 net additional homes should be delivered. Table 3.1 sets an annual target of 615 net additional dwellings for Hammersmith and Fulham. The provision of 8 units would contribute towards this target. Quality of residential accommodation 3.6 Core Strategy Policy HE3 seeks to ensure that all housing development is provided to a satisfactory quality, has an appropriate mix of types and sizes (with a particular emphasis on family accommodation), and is well related to its surroundings (and neighbouring residential properties in particular). The proposal would provide a mixture of one, two and three bedroom flats. The new residential units exceed the minimum floor and room size requirements in Standards S8.1A and S8.1B of the UDP and would therefore be of an acceptable size. 3.7 Adequate waste storage and recycling facilities are shown on the ground floor plan in accordance with Policy EN17 and the SPD on the Storage of Refuse and Recyclables. If the application is considered acceptable in all other respect, a condition would be attached requiring the implementation of these refuse storage facilities prior to occupation (Condition 8). 3.8 There is no requirement for amenity space since the flats would not be located at ground floor level. However the third floor flat would contain two roof terraces to the front and rear measuring 28.2sq.m and 16.2 sq.m respectively. 3.9 Standard S13.3 states that no dwelling should have all its habitable room windows facing exclusively in any northerly direction (between north east and north west). All flats would have windows which face south, east or west in accordance with this standard. Furthermore, a daylight and sunlight report has been prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners. This concludes that all 8 residential units would experience good

Page 69

levels of interior daylight and sunlight in compliance with the relevant BRE guidance. Officers concur with the findings. As such the proposal would provide acceptable levels of living accomodation, with a range of unit size and types in accordance with the Core Strategy Policy HE3. Visual amenity 3.10 The site lies adjacent to the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area Conservation Area and therefore UDP Policy EN2B is relevant. This states that 'development will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation areas in terms of their setting and views into or out of them is preserved or enhanced'. UDP Policy EN8B might also be relevant which states that 'all extensions and alterations to existing buildings should be compatible with the scale and character of existing development, its neighbours and its setting'. Core Strategy Policy BE1 'Built Environment' states that all development within the borough, including in the regeneration areas should create a high quality urban environment that respects and enhances its townscape context and heritage assets. There should be an approach to accessible and inclusive urban design that considers how good design, quality public realm, landscaping and land use can be integrated to help regenerate places. No external changes are proposed, however, and therefore no objection is raised under policies EN2B and EN8B of the UDP and Core Strategy Policy BE1. Standards (Including impact on neighbours) 3.11 No external changes or extensions are proposed such that there would not be any loss of light or outlook to neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy EN8b and S13.1 of the UDP. Privacy screens, required by condition, would protect residents' amenity by preventing overlooking. 3.12 Standard 13.2 of the UDP states that `a development's proximity can result in the overlooking of existing residential properties, either from windows or roof terraces/balconies. The standard states that new windows should be no less than 18 metres as measured by an arc of 60 degree taken from the centre of the proposed new window'. 3.13 The existing windows in the front and rear elevation would comply with this standard. However, windows in the side elevation of one of the first floor flat would be within 7.5m of existing windows in the front elevation of 3 Laurence Mews. Following concerns raised the elevational drawings have been revised to show that the bottom panes of these windows would be fixed shut and obscurely glazed to prevent any harmful overlooking. With these amendments officers consider there would not be a loss of privacy to any occupiers of adjacent properties as a result of this development, in accordance with Standard S13.2. A condition would be attached to the grant of permission requiring the obscure glazed windows to be installed prior to occupation of the flats and thereafter permanently retained (condition 3). 3.14 UDP Policy EN20B states that `noise generating development will not be permitted if it would be liable to materially increase the noise experienced by the occupants/users of existing noise sensitive uses in the vicinity'. UDP policy EN21 relates to environmental nuisance and states that `all developments shall ensure that there is no undue detriment to the general amenities at present enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers of their properties particularly where commercial and service activities are close to residential properties'.

Page 70

3.15 The proposed residential use of the site is considered to be compatible with the surrounding residential area, and would be similar to other residential units on upper floors found elsewhere along Askew Road. It is not considered that the net increase of 8 flats would materially increase noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. Furthermore, a condition (10) would be attached ensuring that sound insulation is adequately enhanced between the units and neighbouring properties 3.16 UDP Policy EN21 is also applicable in assessing the impact of proposed external amenity spaces due to their potential for increased levels of noise and disturbance. UDP standard S13.2A states that 'planning permission will not be granted for roof terraces or balconies if the use of the terrace or balcony is likely to cause harm to existing amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance'. No objection is raised under Policies EN20B and EN21 of the UDP. 3.17 UDP standard S13.2 states that 'the proximity of new development can result in the overlooking of existing residential properties from roof terraces and balconies. Generally a roof terrace is unacceptable if it would result in an additional opportunity for overlooking or result in a significantly greater degree of overlooking and consequent loss of privacy than from the access point onto the proposed roof terrace/balcony'. 3.18 The proposed third floor flat would have use of existing front and rear roof terraces. The plans have been revised such that the larger area of flat roof (at the southern end of the building) would not be used as a roof terrace, following concerns raised. A condition (no.12) would be attached ensuring this larger area of flat roof shall not be used as a roof terrace. The existing front roof terrace (28.2 sq.m. in area) would overlook the street on Askew Road, which has high levels of pedestrian and vehicular activity at all times of the day such this terrace would not be expected to result in any unneighbourly harm in terms of noise and disturbance and loss of privacy. 3.19 The existing terrace to the rear would be smaller at 16.2sq.m in area and would largely overlook the roof tops of existing properties in Laurence Mews and rear gardens of Landor Walk. Following concerns raised relating to loss of privacy, officers consider a 1.7m high privacy screens around the perimeter of the terrace, installed prior to occupation of this flat, would prevent any harmful overlooking. A condition (no. 11) is attached requiring details of this screen to be submitted to and approved in writing by the council prior to occupation of the flats and that it be erected and permanently retained, in accordance with Standard S13.2 of the UDP. Given the height of the building, and its position at third floor level, it is considered the glass screens would not be highly visible. As such there would be no harm to the character and appearance to the subject building or the surrounding area in accordance with UDP Policy EN8B. Furthermore, given the limited size of the rear terrace at 16.2sq.m, it is not considered that any harmful noise and disturbance would result, in accordance with Policy EN21 and Standard S13.2A of the UDP. Car parking, cycle parking and highways matters 3.20 UDP Policy TN15 requires any proposed development to conform to the parking standards, under UDP standards S18 to S19. In line with these standards the proposal would require 9 off street car parking spaces. 3.21 No off-street parking is proposed. The site is in an area of good public transport acceptability (PTAL 2) and there are local shops and services close by. The agent has indicated acceptance that future occupiers of the flats would not be eligible to obtain

Page 71

parking permits. Conditions would therefore be attached to this effect. With such conditions the proposal would not be expected to add in any significant way to the parking pressure in the vicinity. No objection is therefore raised under policy TN15 and S18 of the UDP, subject to these conditions (nos. 4, 5 and 6). Officers also acknowledge that the existing office use would have generated demand for parking, albeit that this would be of a different nature and likely to be during day time hours only. 3.22 Policy TN6, Standard S20 and Table 12.2 of the UDP requires the provision of 1 cycle parking space per flat. The proposed first floor plan shows an internal cycle storage area large enough to accommodate 8 cycles, in accordance with Policy TN6 and Standard S20 of the UDP. A condition (no.7) would be attached requiring this cycle storage area to be implemented prior to occupation of the flats and thereafter permanently retained. Access, safety 3.23 Six of the eight proposed flats would have lift access. two of the first floor flats would be accessible by staircase only. Given the constraints of the existing office building and the small number of flats proposed it would not be reasonable to request the provision of an additional lift to serve these flats. Officers consider that given that most of the units would have step free level access no objection is raised under access arrangements. 3.24 No changes are proposed to the external building, and the proposed residential use would not be expected to result in any additional safety issues. Flooding 3.25 The site lies within Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3. The proposal involves the change of use of the upper floors only and as such it is not considered that the proposal would raise significant flood risk issues, as it would not have an adverse effect on a watercourse, floodplain or its flood defences, would not impede access to flood defence and management facilities or add to the cumulative impact of such developments on local flood storage capacity or flood flows. The Environment Agency has been consulted and raises no objection under PPS 25 Annex D- D16. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in land use terms, in its design and appearance, in its limited impact on traffic generation and parking, having a satisfactory relationship to surrounding buildings and residential properties. The proposed development accords with Council's Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 and the Core Strategy 2011, London Plan 2011 policies and Government guidance, which seeks to maximise the potential. The standard of proposed accommodation is acceptable. 4.2 As such it is recommended that planning permission for the proposed development be granted, subject to conditions.

Page 72

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Shepherd's Bush Green Site Address: 112 Devonport Road London W12 8NU




Case Officer: Dale Jones Conservation Area:

Page 73

Applicant: Mr James McArdle c/o agent Description: Redevelopment comprising the demolition of a funeral parlour and a three storey dwelling house, and the erection of a four storey (plus basement) building, comprising seven residential units (2 x three-bedroom maisonettes and 5 x two-bedroom flats); formation of new boundary treatment along Devonport Road. Drg Nos: 1006/AG(0)03 Rev E; Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement. Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the Committee resolve that the Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine the application and grant permission subject to the condition(s) set out below and upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement: 1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of



2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in

accordance with the following approved plans: 1006/AG(0)03 Rev E. In order to ensure full compliance with the planning application hereby approved

and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

3) No demolition or construction works shall commence prior to the submission and

approval in writing by the Council of a demolition method statement and a construction management plan, which shall include details of the steps to be taken to re-use and recycle demolition waste and details of the measures proposed to minimise the impact of the demolition and construction processes on the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, including monitoring and control measures for dust, noise, vibration, lighting and working hours, waste classification and disposal procedures and locations, and the measures proposed to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the highway by vehicles entering and leaving the site in connection with the demolition and construction processes. All demolition and construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 74

In order that appropriate steps are taken to limit the impact of the proposed

demolition and construction works on the amenities of local residents and the area generally, in accordance with policies EN19A, EN20A, EN20B, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

4) No demolition shall commence prior to the submission and approval in writing by

the Council of details of a scheme for the temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site, and the temporary fencing/means of enclosure has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure that the site remains in a tidy condition during and after demolition

works and during the construction phase and to prevent harm to the street scene, in accordance with policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence prior to the submission

and approval in writing by the Council of details in plan, section and elevation (at a scale of not less than 1:20) of the following matters, and no part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the completion of that part of the development in accordance with the approved details:

a) A typical bay of the Devonport Road elevation of the development To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the

streetscene and to make the environment safe and more accessible for all, in accordance with Policy EN8, and General Policy G3(e) of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011, and the general guidance given in the Council's Access For All Supplementary Planning Guidance.

6) The development hereby approved shall not commence until particulars and

samples (where appropriate) of all materials to be used in all external faces of the development and details of all paving and external hard surfaces, boundary walls, railings, gates, fences and other means of enclosure have been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy EN8 of

the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 7) No part of the development shall commence prior to the submission of full details

of the privacy screens to be used in connection with the roof terrace at loft level of the residential development hereby approved, and no part of the residential units shall be used or occupied prior to the installation of the privacy screens in accordance with the approved details. The privacy screens shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Page 75

To avoid unduly affecting the amenities of the neighbouring premises by reason of overlooking or loss of privacy, in accordance with Policy EN8B and Standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

8) No plumbing, extract flues or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed on

the front (Devonport Road) elevation of the building hereby approved. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street

scene, in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

9) No plant, water tanks, water tank enclosures or other structures, that are not

shown on the approved plans, shall be erected upon the roofs of the building hereby permitted.


the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 10) No alterations shall be carried out to the external appearance of the building

hereby approved, including the installation of air-conditioning units, ventilation fans or extraction equipment not shown on the approved drawings, without planning permission first being obtained. Any such changes shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.


amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, in accordance with Policy EN8 and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

11) With the exception of the roof terrace hereby approved, as indicated on approved

drawing 1006/AG(0)03 Rev E, no roof provided by the development hereby approved shall be used as a terrace or other amenity space.

Such a use could be harmful to the existing residential amenities of neighbouring

occupiers as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and additional noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy EN21 and standards S13.2, and S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.


Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development hereby permitted, without planning permission first being granted.

Page 76

To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment can be considered, in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

13) No development shall commence until details have been submitted to and

approved in writing by the council for the proposed refuse storage as indicated on approved drawing 1006/AG(0)03 Rev E. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be provided prior to first occupation of the property and permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved details. All refuse generated by the development hereby permitted shall be stored within these enclosures which shall be permanently retained for these purposes.

To ensure that the use does not give rise to smell nuisance and to prevent harm to

the street scene arising from the appearance of accumulated rubbish, in accordance with Policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007and 2011 and the Council's Storage of Refuse and Recyclables Supplementary Planning Document.

14) No development shall commence until details have been submitted to and

approved in writing by the council for the proposed cycle parking as indicated on approved drawing 1006/AG(0)03 Rev E. The cycle storage facilities shall be provided prior to first occupation of the property and permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure the provision of bicycle spaces in accordance with Policy TN6 and

standard S20.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 15) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in

writing by the Council of details of any proposed external lighting, including security lights, and no part of development shall be use or occupied until the lighting has been installed in full accordance with the approved details. Such details shall include the number, exact location, design and appearance of the lights, together with data concerning the levels of illumination and light spillage and the specific measures, having regard to the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers in the `Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2005' to ensure that the any lighting proposed does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.


occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policies EN8, EN20A, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

16) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in

writing by the Council of details of the proposed sound insulation of the wall/floor/ceilings separating the residential units hereby approved, and the walls separating the residential units from the adjoining property at 110 Devonport Road. These details shall ensure that the sound insulation and any other mitigation measures are sufficiently enhanced in order that the standard specified

Page 77

in BS 8233:1999 is achieved within the residential units. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the installation of the sound insulation in accordance with the approved details, and the sound insulation measures shall thereafter be permanently retained.

To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the development site are not adversely

affected by noise and to prevent harm to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

17) The development shall not commence until a statement of how 'Secured by

Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation or use of the development hereby approved and permanently retained thereafter.


accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.


intrusive investigation and risk assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. A detailed method statement for any required remediation works will need to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).


or near to, this site. The condition is required to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, in accordance with Policies EN20A and EN21, of the UDP as amended 2007 and 201, policy CC4 of the Core Strategy, and policy 5.21 of The London Plan 2011.

19) No development shall commence in any phase until any required remediation

works have been completed and a validation report to verify these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council unless otherwise authorised. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the Council is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt

Page 78

with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council. Any required remediation should be detailed and verified in an amendment to the remediation statement. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).


or near to, this site. The condition is required to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, in accordance with Policies EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011, policy CC4 of the Core Strategy, and policy 5.21 of The London Plan 2011.

20) The 7 residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes

standards. To ensure full compliance with the planning application hereby approved and to

prevent harm arising through deviations from to approved plans, in accordance with Policy 3A.5 of The London Plan and the Council's adopted supplementary planning document `Access for All'.

21) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a trial hole shall

be dug by hand to a depth of one metre on the southern boundary of the site with 110 Devonport Road in order to establish that the location is free of major roots, if a root with a diameter in excess of 25 mm is encountered the Council's arboriculture officer shall be consulted and roots over 25 mm shall not be cut without his agreement. All roots to be cut shall be cut cleanly with a sharp saw to avoid the roots to be split or fractured.

To prevent harm in the course of demolition and rebuilding to the adjacent trees, in

accordance with policies EN8 and EN25 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

Justification for Approving the Application: 1) 1. The proposed development would result in the loss of a building in a poor state

of repair, last used for commercial and residential purposes. The redevelopment of the site is in compliance with policy 4.8 of The London Plan 2011. The proposed development would bring forward much needed additional housing in accordance with policy 3.4 of The London Plan 2011. The internal design and layout of the new residential units is considered satisfactory having regard to Standard S8 of the UDP, and the amenity space provision is also considered satisfactory, having regard to the physical constraints of the site, judged against Standard S7 of the UDP as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 79

2. The development is considered to comply with UDP as amended 2007 and 2011 policy EN8, and policy 3.5 of The London Plan 2011. The proposal is considered to represent an enhancement of the street scene and provision of a high quality scheme that would respect the local setting. Policy EN8 requires a high standard of design in all developments, compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. Policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 also seeks to ensure that, within developments, which should optimise the potential of sites, design should, in all its aspects, be of high quality.

3. The scheme represents the principles of good design and properly addresses

environmental issues. It is considered that UDP policy EN10, which requires a safe and secure environment, would be complied with. The proposal, similarly, accords with UDP policy EN17 in that it would incorporate suitable facilities for the storage and collection of segregated waste in accordance with standard S5, and with policies EN21, EN20A and EN20B of the UDP as amended 2007 and 2011 because the development would not cause any undue pollution, with no significant worsening of air quality nor undue noise and with other pollution controls in place, and as the development would not cause undue noise detriment to the amenities of neighbours.

4. The impact of the proposal on the highway network and local parking conditions

would be minimal, and the development accords with UDP policies TN6, TN13 and TN15 as amended 2007 and 2011. TN6 which require direct, convenient, safe and secure facilities for cyclists. Policy TN13 requires all development proposals be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion. Policy TN15 requires developments to conform to parking standards S18, S19 and S20.

5. The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining occupiers is

considered acceptable. In this regard, the proposals accord with UDP policy EN8 as amended 2007 and 2011, which requires developments to be of high quality design which respects the principles of good neighbourliness, and with standard S13 which states that there be no significant loss of outlook or privacy to neighbouring occupiers and that no new roof terraces nor balconies be created, use of which might cause harm to the amenities of neighbours by reason of noise and disturbance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 11th March 2011 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The London Plan 2011


Page 80

Consultation Comments: Comments from: Crime Prevention Design Advisor - Hammersmith Thames Water - Development Control

Dated: 25.10.11 27.04.11

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 71 Uxbridge Road London W12 8NR 27.04.11 67 Uxbridge Road London W12 8NR 06.07.11 Flat A First Floor 71 Uxbridge Road London W12 8NR 28.04.11 71a Uxbridge Road 28.04.11 71 Uxbridge Road London W12 8NR 03.05.11 OFFICERS REPORT BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site comprises a vacant three storey end of terrace dwellinghouse and a vacant single storey funeral parlour located on the north-east side of Devonport Road, at 112 Devonport Road adjacent to the junction with Uxbridge Road. The funeral parlour buildings wrap around the rear of the site, covering the entire plot of land that would typically be used as rear garden, as in the case of the remaining terraced residential properties further south. The site is bounded by a small alleyway that serves both the ground floor commercial properties along Uxbridge Road to the north and as an access route to those residential flats that typically occupy the upper floors above the ground floor commercial premises on Uxbridge Road. The site also adjoins the rear gardens of properties that front Warbeck Road to the east and also adjoins to 110 Devonport Road to the south, which again is residential. The application site measures 292 sq metres in total area (0.0292 hectares). 1.2 The site is currently vacant, and the funeral parlour use (Class A1) ended in late 2008. The existing three storey residential property forms the end of a terrace of other properties which are also similar in scale, proportions and materials. The ridgeline of the terrace fluctuates, however, along this stretch of the terrace. No 112 and the vacant funeral parlour have an area of hard standing to the front of the site which is in poor condition. The access way serving the rear of properties on Uxbridge Road would be retained in this scheme. 1.3 The site fronts onto Devonport Road which is predominantly residential in nature. However, Uxbridge Road is located within 29 metres to the north which is predominantly commercial in nature, also serving as a busy Borough Distributor Road for traffic. The

Page 81

application site is not located within a conservation area, and it is not located within a Flood Risk Zone. 1.4 There is no relevant planning history pertaining to the application site. 1.5 The application is for redevelopment of the site following demolition of a vacant funeral parlour and a three storey dwellinghouse, and the erection of a new four storey (plus basement) building, comprising seven residential units (2 x three-bedroom maisonettes at basement and ground levels and 5 x two-bedroom flats at first, second and roof levels) and formation of a new boundary treatment along Devonport Road. 1.6 The application has been revised since its original submission in the following ways: - The proposed rear dormer to the rear roof slopes of the property has been reduced in projection in order to reduce the total scale and massing of the proposed development; - The number of residential units has been reduced as a result from 8 residential flats to 7; - The proposed bicycle/refuse storage area has been relocated from the rear of the site to the front garden area, to ensure that safety is not compromised as a result of having to use the narrow side alleyway, and also to be in keeping with the typical layout and use of front garden areas along the terrace. 1.7 The applicants have commented as follows in support of their proposals: - the funeral parlour building has been vacant since 2008; - the site no longer suitable for commercial use and argue that it is in a poor location in a predominantly residential street. - the development will provide much needed residential accommodation - all of the residential flats will be built to Lifetime Homes standards, providing a mix of family size unit sizes (2 x 3-bed and 5 x 2-bed units). - provides a contemporary replacement building that enhances the streetscene 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and a press advert, and individual notification letters have been sent to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 2.2 Two representations were received from local occupiers in response to the original proposals from 71 Uxbridge Road, and from 71A, First Floor Flat, 71 Uxbridge Road, objecting to the development on the following grounds: - The flank alleyway is unsafe for women, especially at night; - Natural daylight would be reduced/blocked; - Parking stress will be worsened; - There would be an increase in noise and disturbance - Development would result in overcrowding 2.3 The application has since been revised (to address some of the concerns raised by local residents) and further notification letters have been sent to neighbouring

Page 82

occupiers. No additional consultation responses were received as a result of the additional round of public consultation. 2.4 A response was received from Thames Water advising that there is no objection to the planning application. 2.5 The Crime Prevention Design Officer has commented reporting that there are no objections to the scheme on crime and safety grounds. The development should be built to the 'Secured by Design' criteria, which would be secured by condition (no.17). 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning issues in this case in relation to this case are the acceptability of the proposal in land use terms, the impacts of the development on visual amenity, residential amenity, traffic generation and access provision, having regard to the policies of The London Plan and the policies and standards of the Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy. Demolition of the existing buildings 3.2 The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing building. This constitutes permitted development under the planning legislation, although it is necessary for the developer to apply to the Council to establish whether prior approval will be required in respect of the method of demolition prior to carrying out these works. In this case the demolition is part of a planning application for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site, and officers propose to deal with the demolition process by condition, as is normally the case with such applications. The condition (condition 3) would require the submission and approval of a demolition method statement, as well as a construction management plan, which would include details of the steps to be taken to re-use and recycle demolition waste and details of the measures proposed to minimise the impact of the demolition and construction processes on the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, including monitoring and control measures for dust, noise, vibration, lighting and working hours, waste classification and disposal procedures and locations, and the measures proposed to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the highway by vehicles entering and leaving the site in connection with the demolition and construction processes. The applicants have stated that the demolition of the existing three storey property at 112 Devonport Road and subsequent redevelopment (rather than retaining and extending the main property) is necessary due to the fact that the layout of the existing building with a side extension would result in an inefficient use of the internal space and poor layout, given different floor levels and that there would also be additional construction constraints associated with retaining the original structure. Furthermore, a new building would improve thermal values and reduce energy consumption through better design, improve living conditions through improvements to sound control and importantly, to provide for more accessible accommodation than the existing building allows for (in terms of Lifetime Homes). Land use 3.3 The proposal would result in the loss of a vacant funeral parlour (Class A1) to residential (Class C), officers are satisfied that, given the long term vacancy, there is no demand for the existing shop floorspace in this location. UDP Standard SH3A applies in the case of the loss of A1 units outside of Town Centres and Key Local Shopping Parades. In this case the existing funeral parlour is adjacent to the Key Local Shopping centre and is more akin to a `corner shop' for the purposes of policy. It is considered in

Page 83

this respect that corner shops are important for meeting local needs and are protected for continued retail use under SH3A sub paragraph 3. In these circumstances changes of use will not be permitted where there is a shortage of alternative shopping (where town centres, key local shopping centres and protected parades and clusters are not within 300 metres). The proximity of the subject site to Uxbridge Road Key Local Shopping Centre (within 300 metres) would, in officers' view, provide adequate alternative shopping facilities to satisfy the requirements of the policy. The proposed change of use from A1 could therefore be considered acceptable and justified on this basis. (PPS3 Housing para. 38 and 44 and London Plan , as amended 2011 policy 3.3). This approach underlines the emerging LDF, in the context of Core Strategy Policy LE1, 2011. 3.4 The funeral parlour has been vacant since 2008. The proposal would bring this vacant site into use by the creation of 7 new residential units. The loss of the site can be considered acceptable in principle on the basis of its long term inactivity and under-use, and no objections are raised in respect to the loss of an A1 use in this instance, particularly having regard to the shopping provision just to the north of the site along Uxbridge Road, a Key Local Shopping Centre. Finally, the re-use of the site for residential purposes would accord with the London Plan principles of policy 3.3 (Housing Supply). Policy 3.3 of the Mayor's London Plan states that 32, 210 net additional homes should be delivered per annum in London. Of this, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has a target to deliver 615 net additional dwellings per annum. The proposed redevelopment to provide 7 residential units would contribute to these targets. In addition, this target is also included in Core Strategy 2011 policy H1. Density 3.5 The site is located in Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 5 which is considered to have very good public transport access. The site is considered 'urban' in relation to the GLA density matrix in Table 3.2, giving an indicative density range of 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hrph) or 55-225 units per hectare (uph). The development comprises 7 residential units and provides for 27 habitable rooms. This results in a residential density of 924 hr/ha, which whilst is above the normal London Plan guidelines of 200-700 hr/ha, is not considered to be grounds for refusing planning permission in itself. Furthermore, the amount of dwellings per hectare is calculated at 240 (the maximum under the guidance is typically 225). Officers consider, that whilst the development is beyond the London Plan Density Matrix, that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the shortfall with density standards. In this respect, the development would partially replace a shop property which has been vacant for some time and for which there is no demand and provide for a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom family size units contributing towards the borough's housing targets and the wider targets regionally, and providing amenity space to standard. Policy 3.4 of The London Plan recognises that the density ranges quoted are broad, and should not be applied rigidly, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential such as local context, design and transport capacity. Taking into account the site's constraints and the sympathetic response to the historic appearance of the neighbouring buildings on the street, it is considered that the development has optimised the housing capacity on this site, particularly so as the proposed building frontage would be very similar in scale, form and in terms of use of materials with the adjoining property along this stretch of Devonport Road.

Page 84

Design and external appearance 3.6 Policy EN8 of the UDP states that `Development will not be permitted unless it is of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of the existing development and its setting. Schemes must be formulated to respect the historical context of the area and its sense of place, the scale, mass, form and grain of the surrounding development, relationship to the existing townscape, rhythm and articulation of frontages, local building materials, sustainability objectives and the principles of good neighbourliness'. London Plan Policy 7.4 states that 'Buildings, streets and open spaces should provide a high quality design response that: a) has regard to the pattern and grain of the existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass, b) contributes to a positive relationship between the urban structure and natural landscape features, c) is human in scale, ensuring buildings create a positive relationship with street level activity and people feel comfortable with their surroundings, d) allows existing buildings and structures that make a positive contribution to the character of a place to influence the future character of the area, and e) is informed by the surrounding historic environment.' 3.7 Policy H3 of the Core Strategy 2011 relating to (Housing Quality and Density) states: The council will expect all housing development to respect the local setting and context, provide a high quality residential environment, be well designed and energy efficient in line with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes, meet satisfactory internal and external space standards, and (subject to the size of scheme) provide a good range of housing types and sizes. Acceptable housing density will be dependent primarily on an assessment of these factors, taking account of London Plan policies and subject to public transport and highway impact and capacity. In existing residential areas, and in substantial parts of regeneration areas, new housing will be expected to be predominantly low to medium rise consisting of small scale developments of houses, maisonettes and flats, and modern forms of the traditional mansion block and other typologies of residential development that may be suitable for its context, with gardens and shared amenity space in street based layouts. (See also policy OS1 Improving and Protecting Parks and Open Spaces) Some high density housing with limited car parking may be appropriate in locations with high levels of public transport accessibility (PTAL 4-6) provided it is satisfactory in all other respects. With the exception of the dilapidated single storey funeral parlour buildings that occupy the large majority of the application site, the existing building on the site (112 Devonport Road) is a Victorian three storey residential unit. It occupies a prominent position within the streetscene, located at the end of the terrace of residential properties. The street is predominantly residential and has a more reduced domestic scale from the frontage, than that of the Uxbridge Road properties to the north of the site. The existing three storey application building replicates the scale, form and rhythm of those in the adjoining residential terrace to the immediate south. However, many of the original features such as timber framed windows have been lost over time, and the property is not considered to make a positive contribution to the wider street scene. 3.8 The proposal involves the demolition of the existing three storey residential property, and the single storey funeral parlour buildings that occupy the site and the subsequent erection of a three storey (plus basement) end of terrace building. The replacement building would be solely residential in use incorporating seven new residential flats, comprising 2 x 3 bedroom units and 5 x 2 bedroom units. The replacement dwelling would be designed to continue the street frontage along Devonport Road and would also re-introduce soft-landscaped rear gardens to serve the residential development and front garden to the property.

Page 85

3.9 The development scheme has been designed to incorporate a palette of materials that would be in keeping with the fabric of surrounding built environment. In this respect, the materials used would include: stock brickwork, reconstituted stone detailing, timber sash windows and clay roof tiling. Details of materials would be secured by condition to ensure a high quality external finish (condition 6). The scheme has also been modelled to ensure that both the front elevation of the proposed building would in terms of its scale and use of materials (condition 5) be in keeping with the established terrace to the south, the ridge height would be 300mm higher than that of the adjoining property no 110 Devonport Road. This would not normally be considered appropriate. However, it is observed that the ridge line varies quite significantly along the northern stretch of Devonport Road, with only small stretches of uniform ridgeline evident, and on this basis officers raise no objections, particularly so, as the development has been designed to reflect the majority of the architectural features of the adjoining terrace so that it would not impact unduly in the street views. 3.10 The frontage of the proposed building is characterised by a regular rhythm expressed by consistent bays, either side of the entrance, timber sash windows and an eaves level to respect that of the adjoining terrace. The proposed building would derive much of its visual interest from proportion, rhythm, and design of the fenestration. The plans indicate a strong vertical emphasis on the elevation, through the inclusion of the bay features; furthermore, the elevations suggest a strong sense of modelling and depth. The development would incorporate a new front garden area that would be typical of the other terraced properties. Overall, with regard to the impact of the development, particularly from public vantage points, officers are of the opinion that the proposed development has been informed by a considered analysis of existing context and situation. The rhythm, simplicity of the design and materials of the façade compliment the street scene. Accordingly, the proposed replacement building is judged to comply with UDP Policy EN8 and London Plan policy 7.4 (Local Character), in that it would be consistent with the scale mass form of the existing development, and respects the prevailing rhythm and articulation of its surroundings. 3.11 The proposed building would not follow the traditional 'L' shaped pattern of paired back additions, which would usually allow for a separation gap between the two respective buildings adjoining each other, due to the fact that the proposal would incorporate a mansion block typology on the rear façade. The typology in this instance would not follow the exact grain of development in the Devonport Road terrace of properties, but would be more in keeping with the larger scale and massing of the Uxbridge Road properties to the north, and would, therefore, as a result not appear incongruous in its setting due to the positioning of the development between the two respective road on the corner site. The proposed building would also include rear dormers at roof level. However, these elements have been reduced in scale since the original submission in order to ensure that the development does not appear 'top-heavy' in terms of excessive massing. Officers are satisfied that the resultant smaller dormers would still allow for the internal levels of floor space to be sustainable to meet the needs of future occupiers without resulting in an over dominant development due to excessively scaled additions. Again, in this respect, the development proposals are considered to accord with the principles of Policy EN8 of the UDP and London Plan policy 7.4. 3.12 The redevelopment of the site would also involve the reintroduction of boundary treatment and the formation of soft landscaped rear gardens for use by the proposed 3-

Page 86

bedroom maisonettes at basement and ground levels, with direct access to the gardens from these levels. The introduction of a low level amenity area through the demolition of the existing aluminium funeral parlour buildings is considered to represent a visual improvement in accordance with policy EN8B of the UDP. Furthermore, the scheme would not have any effect upon the narrow passageway to the north of the site which provides for servicing and access to the ground floor commercial units along Uxbridge Road and also for access to the flats above. Internal layout; daylight/sunlight; amenity space 3.13 The new residential building would provide 7 self contained flats (2 x 3 bedroom maisonettes and 5 x 2-bedroom flats). Each of the proposed units has been designed to exceed the space standards for unit sizes as outlined in Standard S7A of the UDP (minimum space standard for new development). Furthermore, some units would exceed the minimum sizes for dwellings as set out in Table 3.3 of London Plan 2011 (flats 1,2 and 7), but Flats 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are two-bedroom units on the first and second floors, would be 52.6 sq.m instead of The London Plan's expected 61 sq.m. The residential units proposed would be dual aspect in an east-west orientation. The flat proposed at roof level (Flat 7) would be orientated due east, but would also have roof lights serving the habitable accommodation on the western frontage (facing Devonport Road). On balance, officers judge that the proposed units would receive adequate levels of natural light. In terms of the size and internal arrangements, the proposed flats would provide acceptable space requirements and aspect for the prospective occupiers, in accordance with Standards S7A and S13.1 of the UDP. 3.14 Standard S5A of the UDP requires every new family and non-family dwelling at ground floor level to provide adequate private open amenity space (36sqm./14 sqm). All of the proposed residential units proposed within the development are family units. In this instance 3 out of the 7 residential units would have access to an area of private external amenity space, including the two maisonettes at basement and ground level which would each have direct access to soft-landscaped rear gardens (each measuring 39.9 sq metres in area) therefore exceeding the UDP requirement. The proposed flat at loft level (Flat 7) would have access to a private terrace area, measuring 19.6 sq metres in area; although there is no policy requirement in respect to providing amenity space for this unit. On balance, this provision and layout of private external amenity space is considered to be satisfactory in this instance to meet the needs of the development. Impact on neighbouring properties 3.15 The main consideration in this respect would be the impact on neighbouring residential occupiers, in particular to occupants at 65-75 Uxbridge Road to the north of the site, to 2 - 4 Warbeck Road to the east (rear) of the site and also to 110 Devonport Road to the south, in terms of loss of outlook or increased sense of enclosure; overlooking or loss of privacy; undue noise and disturbance and loss of light. UDP policy EN8 and Standard S13 are relevant. Loss of outlook 3.16 Standard S13.1 of the UDP relates to loss of outlook and states that 'a building's proximity can have an overbearing and dominating effect, detrimental to the enjoyment by residential occupiers of their properties'. Although dependent upon the proximity and scale of the proposed development a general standard can be adopted by reference to a line produced at an angle of 45 degrees from a point 2 metres above the adjoining ground level of the boundaries of the site where it adjoins residential properties. Where any part of the proposed building extends beyond these lines the UDP allows on-site

Page 87

judgement to be a determining factor in assessing the effect which the development will have on the existing amenities of neighbouring properties. 3.17 The existing single storey funeral parlour buildings that occupy the rear of the site extend up to the garden boundaries with Warbeck Road to the east and with 110 Devonport Road to the south, and so in this respect the existing fabric of the built development fails to accord with the principles of a notional 45-degree line drawn from ground level on the boundaries, in relation to Standard S13.1 of the UDP. The proposed development would again infringe a notional 45-degree line at a height of zero metres on the rear boundary of the site with those properties that front Warbeck Road, and which back onto the site. However, the element of the development that breaches the standard relates to a nominal part of the proposed glazed conservatory at second floor level, on top of the back addition element. In this instance, it is considered that a marginal infringement can be justified, particularly as the area of infringement relates to a lightweight conservatory at third floor level and not part of the solid brick built development, and in this respect officers consider that the development would not be harmful to outlook to justify refusing consent. With regard to outlook from the Uxbridge Road properties to the north of the site, officers adjudge that due to the relative separation distance between the flank wall of the development and the windows that are positioned within the rear elevation of the upper flats along the rear of Uxbridge Road, that loss of outlook is mitigated against, particularly so as the habitable room windows along Uxbridge Road are primarily confined to the main rear building line rather than within the back additions that project closer to the development site. 3.18 There are habitable windows on the rear elevation of the flatted property to the south at 110 Devonport Road. Though the development would extend rearwards of these windows such that existing outlook to the north would be affected, the openings would retain their outlook both directly to the rear (east) and also to the south; such that with the benefit of on-site judgement and also taking into account that the back addition at no.112 is not especially high or deep, it cannot realistically demonstrated that their would be material harm arising to outlook. On this basis, the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy EN8 of the UDP, with regard to the principles of neighbourliness. 3.19 Overlooking/loss of privacy Standard S13.2 of the UDP relates to privacy and overlooking. Normally a distance of 18m in an arc of 60 degrees should be achieved between windows in a new development and existing residential windows. The development proposes a series of habitable room windows within the rear building façade that would be set 17.8 m to the rear facing widows that are contained within the Warbeck Road properties to the rear of the site. In this instance, Standard S13.2 is technically breached by 200mm where adopting an arch of 60 degrees at 18 metres in distance. However, due to the marginal shortfall against the provisions of UDP Standard S13.2, it is not considered that the development would result in a harmful loss of privacy to justify refusing permission in this respect. 3.20 The development would also incorporate a terrace area at roof level, on top of the rear addition which would serve as private amenity space to serve the occupants of Flat 7. The terrace would measure 19.6 sq metres in area and would be designed to be surrounded by obscured glazed screens. It is considered that due to the respective separation distances to the surrounding properties (17.8 metres to Warbeck Road and 10.1 metres to the main rear building line of the Uxbridge Road properties to the north

Page 88

of the site that the terrace would not result in a harmful loss of privacy or increased overlooking, provided that privacy screens surrounding the terrace area are erected. It is proposed to secure the height and obscurity levels of the screening and overall terrace size by planning condition, in order to further safeguard the amenities of surrounding properties (conditions 7 and 11). Sunlight and daylight 3.21 In terms of measuring any impact on daylight and sunlight reaching neighbouring properties, guidance is set out in the Building Research Establishments (BRE) Report 1991 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight-A guide to good practice'. The BRE methodologies set out a range of non-statutory guidelines which need to be used in conjunction with on site judgement, in assessing the potential for any development to result in demonstrable harm. A BRE report has been submitted and officers have assessed this, establishing that in terms of the impact of the development on the nearest residential windows, these would not experience a reduction of sunlight or daylight beyond those recommended in the guidance. The result of the study illustrates that the development scheme would not result in a demonstrable loss of the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) relating to neighbouring residential properties. In this respect, officers are again satisfied that the bulk, mass and position of the development would not compromises the amenities of surrounding properties and is therefore deemed neighbourly against the provisions of Policy EN8 of the UDP. 3.22 Noise and disturbance Policy EN21 of the UDP deals with environmental nuisance and states that all developments shall ensure that there is no undue detriment to the general amenities at present enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers of their properties particularly where commercial and service activities are close to residential properties. UDP standard S13.2A seeks to prevent noise and disturbance to existing residents from roof terraces and balconies. The terrace area measuring 19.6 sq metres in floor area is considered to be moderate in overall size. It is considered that due to the moderate size of the terrace, its position and relative distance to surrounding properties is such that noise and disturbance would not be increased to harmful levels that would prejudice the amenities of surrounding residents. 3.23 Part of the premises currently have existing use rights for commercial purposes. The replacement building would introduce additional residential accommodation in this predominantly residential street. Officers consider that the proposed development would not result in conditions, in the context of noise and disturbance that would warrant withholding planning permission. Furthermore, as there are currently no planning controls on the existing commercial use the proposal would provide the opportunity to remove commercial uses and traffic, thereby improving the existing situation. In this respect the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy EN21 and Standard S13.2A of the UDP. . Traffic generation/ car parking and highways issues: 3.24 UDP Policy TN15 and Standard S18 outline parking requirements for different types of development. Table 12.1 of the UDP requires that 9 car parking spaces should be provided for the residential units. No such parking spaces are proposed, and none can be reasonably provided due to the physical constraints of the site. However, the site lies within an area of very good public transport accessibility level (PTAL 5) with a number of bus routes operating along Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road to the south. The site is also within walking distance of Shepherd's Bush tube

Page 89

station and Goldhawk Road stations, which are within a 10 minute walk, providing access to the Hammersmith and City and Central lines. The site is also within a 10 minute walk of the leisure and shopping facilities of Shepherd's Bush Town Centre. 3.25 Owing to the lack of off-street car parking and the high levels of overnight parking stress (70% average for the street in October 2010 and 75% in July 2009), the applicant has agreed for the development to be secured as 'Car Parking Permit Free' in order to prevent future occupiers of the development from obtaining on street parking permits. This would be secured by legal agreement and is considered an appropriate measure to control parking stress levels in Devonport Road, particularly so given that the calculated demand for car parking spaces from the development standards at 9 spaces. In this respect, given the likely demand for spaces and considering existing stress levels, the arrangement is both reasonable and necessary to prevent a detrimental increase in parking stress. Given this measure, taken together with the good public transport accessibility of the site and proximity to nearby shopping facilities and services, officers are satisfied that the proposed seven residential flats would be unlikely to generate any material increase in trip generation or parking pressure in the vicinity. The proposal is considered acceptable on this occasion and in general accordance to policy TN15 and standard S18. 3.26 Standard S20.1 of the UDP, requires the provision of secure cycle parking, in accordance with Table 12.2 of the UDP. The application identifies cycle parking provision at ground level within the front garden area, with storage capacity for 7 cycles that would be provide by virtue of two cycle storage facilities within the front garden. This is judged to be acceptable, and in full accordance with Table 12.2. Contaminated Land 3.27 Potentially contaminated land uses (past or present) occur at, or near to the site. In order to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, and in accordance with policies EN20A and EN21 of the UDP and 9C.8 of the Core Strategy. In this respect conditions are therefore recommended in connection with the provision of an intrusive investigation, risk assessment, remediation and verification works if necessary. Refuse and access 3.28 Policy EN17 of the UDP and the Council's Storage of Refuse and Recyclables SPD 2007 requires development to provide adequate waste storage. The applicants have identified a storage area at ground level to meet the requirements of this policy. This is considered acceptable and will be secured by (condition 13). 3.29 All the flats are to be built to the Lifetime Homes standards, in compliance with Policy 7.1 of the London Plan 2011. A condition has been attached to reserve these details (condition no.20). Trees and landscaping 3.30 One tree is located immediately adjacent to the development site boundary, in the grounds of 110 Devonport Road and would be in close proximity to the development and would need to be protected during construction work. A condition to that effect would be attached to the grant of any permission (condition 21).

Page 90

Legal Agreement 3.31 The agreement would include clauses stating that the applicant should pay for the existing crossover to be reinstated to footway and extending the length of current parking bay at the site. The agreement would also ensure that occupiers of the proposed flats would not be eligible for parking permits. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Taking the above considerations into account, officers consider that the proposed redevelopment would be acceptable in land use terms and would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for its future occupiers without prejudice to the amenities of existing surrounding occupiers. The proposal is also considered to be acceptable and in accordance with relevant national guidance, London Plan policies and UDP policies and standards relating to inclusive access, transport, environmental impacts and sustainability. 4.2 Therefore, subject to the planning conditions and legal agreement as set out in this report, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Page 91

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Addison Site Address: Land Adjacent To 1 Anley Road And To The Rear Of 31 Shepherd's Bush Road London




Case Officer: Denuka Gunaratne Conservation Area:

Page 92

Applicant: Mr David Parry 6 Lanark Mansions Pennard Road London W12 8DT England Description: Erection of a two storey over basement single family dwelling, following demolition of existing building Drg Nos: 2011 - 266-2-107 Rev A, 108, 109 Rev A, 110 Rev A, 203 Rev A, 204 Rev A, 205 Rev A, 302 Rev A, 303, 304 Rev A, 305 Rev A, 306 Rev A, 400 Rev A. Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the Committee resolve that the Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine the application and grant permission subject to the condition(s) set out below and upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement: 1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of



2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in

accordance with the following approved plans: 2011 - 266-2-107 Rev A, 108, 109 Rev A, 110 Rev A, 203 Rev A, 204 Rev A, 205 Rev A, 302 Rev A, 303, 304 Rev A, 305 Rev A, 306 Rev A, 400 Rev A.


and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

3) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until particulars and

samples of materials to be used in all external faces of the building (including samples where appropriate) and all surface treatments, have been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as have been approved.


the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 93

4) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the

landscaping of all areas external to the buildings, including planting, paving, boundary walls, fences, gates and other means of enclosure, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, and the development shall not be occupied or used until such landscaping as is approved has been carried out.


the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the sedum

roof have been submitted for the Council's approval prior to commencement of works and implemented in accordance with the approved details.


the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011. 6) Details of all lighting external to the building including to the lightwell and roof

terrace areas, including exact position, details of light intensity and spillage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to commencement of development. No external lighting shall be erected or installed other than in accordance with such details as are approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

To ensure a satisfactory appearance and to ensure the provision of lighting does

not result in glare or light overspill to surrounding properties, in accordance with policies EN8 and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.


Permitted Development) Order (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions or other form of enlargement to the residential development hereby permitted, nor erection of porches, outbuildings, hardstandings, storage tanks, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, shall take place without the prior permission of the Council.

Due to the limited size of the site, proximity to neighbouring properties and

proposed design of the building, the Council would wish to exercise future control over development which may affect residential amenity or the appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy EN8 and Standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.


Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no, antennae, satellite dishes or

Page 94

related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any external part of the approved buildings, without planning permission first being obtained.

In order to ensure that the Council can fully consider the effect of

telecommunications equipment upon the appearance of the building, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

9) The cycle parking space, shown on the approved drawing no. 2011 - 266 - 2 - 107

Rev A must be provided and retained permanently for the accommodation of vehicles of the occupiers and the users of the development hereby approved.

To ensure the permanent retention of the parking space for parking purposes, in

accordance with Standard S18 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

10) The development shall not commence until details of refuse and recycling storage

enclosures to serve the dwellinghouse hereby approved have been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. Such details as are approved shall have been installed prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby approved and shall be permanently retained for this purpose.

To ensure that the use does not give rise to smell and nuisance and to prevent

harm to the street scene arising from the appearance of accumulated rubbish, in accordance with policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007and 2011.

11) No roofs within the development shall be used as a terrace or other amenity

space. No railings, fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected around any roof, and no alterations shall be made to form access onto any roof.

The use of roofs as a terrace would be harmful to the existing amenities of the

occupiers of neighbouring residential properties as a result of overlooking and loss of privacy and the generation of noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy EN21 and Standards S13.2 and S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

12) The development shall not commence until a Demolition and Construction

Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The details shall include any external illumination of the site during construction, contractors' method statements, waste classification and disposal procedures and locations, suitable site hoarding, dust and noise monitoring and control, provisions within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the highway, and other matters relating to traffic management to be agreed. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

Page 95

To ensure no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities of surrounding

occupiers or the local highways, in accordance with Policies EN21 and TN15 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.


intrusive investigation and risk assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. A detailed method statement for any required remediation works will need to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).

To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and

remediated in accordance with Policies EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011 and Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011.

14) No development shall commence until any required remediation works have been

completed and a validation report to verify these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council unless otherwise authorised. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the Council is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council. Any required remediation should be detailed and verified in an amendment to the remediation statement. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).

To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and

remediated in accordance with Policies EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011 and Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy 2011.

15) The residential unit hereby approved shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes

standards.

Page 96

To ensure full compliance with the planning application hereby approved and to prevent harm arising through deviations from to approved plans, in accordance with Policy 3A.5 of The London Plan 2011 and the Council's adopted supplementary planning document `Access for All'.

16) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a statement of how

'Secure by Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.


accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

Justification for Approving the Application: 1) 1) 1. Land Use: The proposed development would achieve a sustainable

development with efficient use of land. The proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of employment land. The proposal would co-ordinate land use and transportation, conserving and enhancing environmental quality, ensuring a provision of good quality housing accommodation. The scheme would help to meet The London Plan target of 32,210 net additional homes delivered per annum in London and the local target of 615 net additional dwellings per annum. Policy HO1 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 and Policies H1 and LE1 of the Core Strategy and Policies 3.3B and 4.4 of The London Plan 2011 and PPS1 and PPS3 are thereby considered to be satisfied.

2. Design: The proposal would be of an acceptable standard of design,

which would complement the character of existing development in the area and the site's setting. The proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area. Policies EN2B, EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011, Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy and Policies 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4 of The London Plan 2011 and PPS1 would thereby be satisfied.

3. Highways matters: There would be no adverse impact on traffic

generation and the scheme would not result in congestion of bus routes nor the primary road network. Satisfactory provision would be made for cycle parking. The accessibility level of the site is excellent, and there are public transport and other shops and services available nearby. Adequate provision for storage and collection of refuse and recyclables would be provided. The proposal is thereby in accordance with policies EN17, TN4, TN6, TN13, TN15 and Standards S18.1, S19, S20.1, S22, S23 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 97

4. Amenity: The proposed dwellinghouse would have sufficient internal floor

space and satisfactory aspect to meet the requirements of future users of the proposed unit. The proposal is thereby in accordance with standards S7.A and S13.3 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

5. Access: The development would provide a development that seeks to

comply with lifetime homes standards for the benefit of all users. Objectives of Policy H4 of the Core Strategy 2011 on meeting housing needs and he SPD Access for All would thereby be satisfied.

6. Sustainability: The application incorporates a number of sustainable

features to be integrated within the scheme including a green roof system. The proposal would thereby seek to reduce pollution and waste, and minimise its environmental impact in accordance with policies CC1 and CC2 of the Core Strategy 2011.

7. Flood Risk: A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted and is

considered adequate in terms of incorporating preventative flooding measures into the scheme, in accordance with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.

8. Residential Amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon

adjoining occupiers is considered acceptable. In this regard, the development would be of high quality design which, amongst other things, respects the principles of good neighbourliness, and thereby satisfies policy EN8 and standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 201 and Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 31st May 2011 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The London Plan 2011


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Thames Water - Development Control

Dated: 16.06.11

Page 98

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 4 Anley Road London W14 0BY 29.06.11 2 Anley Road London W14 0BY 24.06.11 NAG 15.07.11 NAG 20.06.11 16 Anley Road London W14 0BY 25.06.11 OFFICERS' REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The site comprises a free standing building fronting Anley Road situated to the rear of a three storey end of terrace hotel, which is located on the corner of Shepherd's Bush Road and Anley Road. The building was once part of the hotel property, but has since been sold as an independent entity and no longer has any affiliation with it. The site is not within a conservation area but adjacent to Melrose Conservation Area to the west, the boundary of which is situated 42m to the west of the site. The site falls within flood risk zone 2. 1.2 The property has a lengthy planning history although these largely relate to the hotel prior to the sale of the two buildings as separate entities. The planning history specifically related to the free standing building at the rear of the hotel is as follows: - 1998/00817/FUL: Erection of an additional floor to the existing garage for use as storage purposes: Granted - 2006/00921/FUL: Change of use of existing building from garage and storage to garage and office: Granted - 2007/01643/FUL: Demolition of the existing building, erection of a three storey building over an extended basement for B1 use class: Refused and dismissed on appeal. - 2007/03630/FUL: Demolition of the existing building to make way for the erection of a three storey building with extended basement for B1 use class: Refused. The scheme was very similar to the refused 2007 proposal except that the front building line had been set back to match that of the properties in Anley Road. - 2008/02825/FUL: Demolition of existing single storey building; erection of a two storey dwellinghouse over a basement. The scheme was refused as it was considered to be unacceptable in terms of visual amenity. More particularly, the windows within the front elevation of the proposed building in respect of their alignment, size, spacing, materials and bay window design appeared squat, poorly proportioned and out of keeping with the properties in the adjoining terrace, Nos.1-31 Anley Road. Furthermore, the lack of architectural detailing, the facing brick materials and the lack of landscaping was also considered to be unsympathetic to the adjacent terrace. A subsequent appeal against the planning refusal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in June 2009. In dismissing the appeal the Inspector supported the council's reasons for refusal and was also concerned about the lack of any soft landscaped front garden area which would contrast with the front forecourt gardens of neighbouring dwellings. 1.3 The current application is for the demolition of the existing building; erection of a two storey building over basement, incorporating a front roof terrace at the first floor

Page 99

level, comprising a single family dwelling. The current application takes into account objections of the Planning Inspectorate, reasons for refusal of the previous scheme and comments and recommendations of officers and has provided enhanced design details to the frontage of the site together with external landscaping. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application was advertised by way of three site notices and a press advert. In addition, individual notification letters were sent to neighbouring residents in Shepherd's Bush Road and Anley Road. To date four letters of objections and a petition signed by 11 signatures in objection have been received. These letters raise the following issues: - Visual amenity - the development is out of keeping with the properties on the same terrace and the whole street. Lack of front landscaping will create an imposing/austere look - Overlooking of adjoining properties - Noise and disturbance from use of the proposed roof terrace - Will increase demand for car parking leading to parking congestion. - The proposed basement would be would destroy the ambiance of the street and be out of keeping with the properties in the rest of the street. Officers' response: - The issues raised will be addressed below under section 3.1 2.2 The Environment Agency has provided comments stating that they have no objection to the proposal. 2.3 Thames Water have provided comments stating that there are no objections to the proposal in relation to the impact on the sewerage and water infrastructure and they recommend an informative advising the developer to install a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, in relation to sewerage network. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The issues to be considered relate to the principle of loss of employment use, acceptability of the residential use; the visual impact of the building on the surrounding area and its effect on the residential amenities of surrounding residential occupiers, car parking and highway matters and any other material considerations. Land Use 3.2 In the absence of relevant UDP policy it is necessary to apply London Plan and Core Strategy policy. Both national and regional policy specify that employment land and premises should be retained where needed and intensified where appropriate, but unwanted land or premises could be released to provide for increased housing (PPS3 Housing Para. 38 and 44 and London Plan 2011 policy 4.4. In Core Strategy policy LE1 the release of employment premises is acceptable if, amongst other things, it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the property is no longer required for employment purposes. 3.3 The London Plan (July 2011) Policy 3.3 B states that an annual average of 32,210 net additional homes should be delivered. Table 3.1 sets an annual target of 615 net additional dwellings for Hammersmith and Fulham (excluding an increment in provision

Page 100

in the Earls Court West Kensington Opportunity Area). Core Strategy Policy H1 reiterates the London Plan's annual target of 615 net additional dwellings for the borough. It also states that this is to be achieved by 'the development of windfall sites and the change of use of buildings where land and premises are shown to be surplus to the requirements of other land uses'. 3.4 The loss of B1 use would be minimal as planning records indicate that only the first floor of the building was used for offices with the ground floor in garage use. The site is currently vacant and in a fairly dilapidated state, and, in officers' view is unlikely to be used for office or similar employment related use. The provision of one residential unit would contribute to the Mayor's London Plan requirement for delivering 615 additional units per annum without prejudicing the London Plan employment policy. Design 3.5 PPS1 promotes sustainable development, to be achieved by various means including the delivery of high quality development through good and inclusive design. PPS1 makes clear that design that is inappropriate in its context or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. 3.6 London Plan policy 7.1 requires that all new development to be of high quality that responds to the surrounding context and improves access to social and community infrastructure contributes to the provision of high quality living environments and enhances the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of the surrounding neighbourhood. London Plan policy 7.2 requires that new development embraces the principles of inclusive design. Policy 7.4 of The London Plan requires that new development responds to the surrounding setting and provides a human scale and relationship with street level activity and is informed by the historic context. London Plan policy 7.6 requires development to be of high architectural quality that is of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding area that makes a positive contribution to the immediate, local and wider area. 3.7 UDP Policy EN8 and the Core Strategy policy BE1 requires development to be compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. In particular, all proposals must be formulated to respect: (a) the historical context of the area and its sense of place; and (b) the scale, mass, form and grain of surrounding development; and (c) the relationship of the proposed development to the existing townscape, including the local street pattern and landmarks and the skyline and skyspace; and (d) the prevailing rhythm and articulation of frontages; and (e) local building materials and colour; and (f) locally distinctive architectural detailing; and (g) sustainability objectives; and (h) the principles of good neighbourliness 3.8 Policy EN2B of the UDP states that 'development, including development outside of conservation areas, will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation areas in terms of their setting and views into or out of them is preserved or enhanced'.

Page 101

3.9 The site is currently occupied by a two storey with basement building, which is not of any architectural or historic importance. There are no design objections in principle to the demolition of the existing building given that it does not make any positive contribution to the character of the street scene and provided that the new building would have an acceptable design 3.10 In dismissing the previous appeal proposal in June 2009 the Planning Inspectorate considered the refused proposal to be out of proportions with neighbours and not compatible with the scale or design of surrounding dwellings. The lack of architectural detailing, the use of UPVC for the windows and door and type of facing brick proposed was considered not to be in keeping with surrounding dwellings. In addition the lack of soft landscaping to the front garden was considered to be out of keeping with the front forecourt gardens of neighbouring properties. 3.11 The current proposal is a well designed brick house which is considered to be acceptable to officers in terms of height, massing and its relationship with its neighbours. This application overcomes the previous main design objections also by the provision of a boundary wall and some soft landscaping to the front lightwell area. 3.12 At the request of officers the application has been revised since submission in that a soldier course detail has been added to the windows, and the timber louvres to the return section of boundary wall adjacent to the bay window of the neighbouring property No. 1 Anley Road have been removed to ensure that the boundary treatment is not unduly high and imposing on the bay window of No. 1 Anley Road. The originally proposed railings to the proposed first floor amenity space have been removed and replaced with a glass balustrade and the first floor roof terrace reduced in depth by 1m to reduce visual clutter at first floor. 3.13 The proposal is considered to be an acceptable design, which would be appropriate to the character of the site and complementary to its surroundings. The proposal would create a high quality well designed contemporary building using high quality materials that would preserve the setting of the adjacent conservation area which it is considered desirable to preserve or enhance in compliance with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In this respect the proposal is judged to comply with Policies EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan. Secure by Design 3.14 Policy EN10 of the UDP states that development will not be permitted unless it provides users with a safe and secure environment. Officers consider conditions requiring the submission of details that show how Secured By Design requirements are to be achieved is appropriate (condition no 16). Impact on Neighbours 3.15 In assessing the potential impacts of new development UDP Policy EN8 requires a number of design criteria to be taken into account, one of which relates to principles of good neighbourliness. An indicator of possible harm to neighbours relates to whether daylight or sunlight to adjoining or nearby buildings would be adversely affected as a result of the proposed development. A sunlight and daylight analysis has to pay regard to the methods as set out within the Building Research Establishment's (BRE) report 1991 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - A guide to good practice'. Policy EN21 of the UDP is concerned that there are no environmental nuisance as a result of

Page 102

development . UDP Policy EN20A seeks to control potentially polluting uses and EN20B seeks to minimise noise pollution. Standard S13 of the UDP seek to prevent loss of outlook and privacy to adjoining residential neighbours. 3.16 The proposed development has slightly greater massing and bulk than the existing building but is less than that proposed in previous schemes. Officers, having assessed the scheme, do not consider the proposal would result in loss of light to neighbours. The applicant's BRE study, which has been correctly applied, indicates that there would be no material loss of light to neighbours. The neighbouring property to the east at No. 1 Anley Road does not have any habitable rooms facing towards the application site. To the west the site flanks onto the rear of 31 Shepherd's Bush Road which is a hotel building, and to the north to the side flank of 29 Shepherd's Bush Road, which is currently in use as a hotel also. The applicants' shadow analysis indicates that the proposals would not substantially affect light or give shadow to its neighbours including any existing hotel bedrooms situated at the rear of Nos. 29 and 31 Shepherd's Bush Road. The proposal is therefore not considered to be unneighbourly in this regard. 3.17 Standard 13.1 of the UDP seeks to ensure that any new development does not have an overbearing or dominating effect on adjoining residential properties. New buildings should not usually infringe a line produced at an angle of 45-degrees from point 2 metres in height at the boundaries; or at ground level where gardens are less than 9 metres in length. The proposal complies with this standard as to the rear the development backs onto the side flank of 29 Shepherd's Bush Road, and no existing usable areas of garden space are affected. In this respect, the proposal is judged to comply with standard S13.1 and policy EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan. 3.18 UDP Standard S13.2 requires that new windows should normally be positioned so that the distance to any residential windows is not less than 18 metres, as measured by an arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed new window. The proposed windows to the development would be just under 18 metres away from property across the road, and set further back than the projecting bay windows on the existing adjoining terrace. Generally a roof terrace/balcony is unacceptable if it would result in an additional opportunity or significantly greater degree of overlooking. In relation to the proposed first floor roof terrace, this would face no.2 Anley Road; however any affected windows would be just c.16m away. The terrace would also look towards the rear garden of No. 33 Shepherd's Bush Road across Anley Road, but would only have a small diagonal view at some distance of the southern most part of the property. 3.19 UDP standard S13.2A states that planning permission will not be granted for roof terraces or balconies if their use is likely to cause harm existing neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance. Due to the limited size of the proposed terrace (c.3 sq.m.) and its distance from adjoining habitable rooms the use of the terrace would be unlikely to raise significant disturbance to any proposed neighbour. 3.20 UDP Policy EN20B advises that noise generating development will not be permitted if it would be liable to materially increase the noise experienced by the occupants/users of existing or proposed noise sensitive uses in the vicinity. In addition, Policy EN21 requires that development does not result in undue detriment to the general amenities at present enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers. In officers view a residential use of the building would not unduly infringe on the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Page 103

Highway and Refuse issues 3.21 UDP policy TN13 requires all development to be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and congestion and Policy TN15 requires developments to conform to the approved car parking standards set out in standards 18 to 19, in particular table 12.1 in the UDP. 3.22 According to the standard the proposal would require 1.2 parking spaces, so technically one parking space should be sufficient. The proposal does not provide the required one parking space. The on-street overnight parking stress in recent years in Anley Road outside the site was quite high. In 2010 on the north side the capacity for 22 cars was fully met, with stress at 100% though on the south side 12 cars were parked with a capacity for 23 so stress was 52%. Statistics from 2009 and 2008 exhibit average stresses of 82% and 102%. 3.23 The on-street parking stress indicates that there is limited spare capacity to take account of the demand for the additional parking space requirements of the development. There is an existing crossover outside this premises that would no longer be required. The developer would be required to enter into a S106 agreement covering the costs associated with reinstating the existing crossover to footway level and the costs associated with reinstating the on-street parking bay. The reinstatement of the kerb would enable the existing on-street parking bay to be lengthened to create an additional space to be used by residents. However, given the very high stress levels and the fact that the development would not provide an on-site car parking space which standard requires it would be necessary, in this case, to prevent future occupiers from having access to parking permits. This would be secured by legal agreement. 3.24 Standard S20.1 states that the council will require the provision of specific cycle parking and, where appropriate, associated storage on the basis of the cycle parking standards set out in Table 12.2. In this case one cycle parking spaces is required and this has been provided at basement level. This provision is considered to be appropriate. 3.25 Policy EN17 states that development will not be permitted unless suitable facilities are incorporated for the storage and collection of segregated waste. The applicant has stated that recycling boxes will be provided for in the kitchen units, and that external bin store, accessible from Anley Road will house a dustbin. A condition is recommended to ensure that the applicant provides specific details of the refuse and recycling facilities and to ensure that these are provided on site and retained. Standard of Accommodation 3.26 UDP Standard S7A is concerned with the minimum net floor area provided in new dwellings. The floor area for a three-storey house is required to be 94sq.m. The proposed house would have a floor area of 94 sq.m. The proposal would therefore comply with S7A. 3.27 UDP standard S5A.1 requires every new family dwelling with accommodation at ground floor level to provide at least 36sqm of private amenity space. The new dwelling would have amenity areas of approximately 9 sq.m provided within the basement lightwell and the first floor terrace. The proposed amenity space albeit small would provide useful outdoor open space for future occupiers. Given that the accommodation

Page 104

provided is of good and spacious standard and that the development would makes a positive contribution to the streetscene, no officer objections are raised to this shortfall. 3.28 UDP standard S13.3 states that no dwelling should have its habitable room windows facing exclusively in a northerly direction. The house would have windows facing in a southerly direction the proposal would therefore comply with this standard. Future occupiers of the building would therefore receive an acceptable level of aspect. Flood Risk and Drainage 3.29 The property is within the Environment Agency Flood Zone 2 and 3, which requires a Flood Risk Assessment to be carried out for minor development. PPS 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS 25 (Development and Flood Risk) aim to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new developments are necessary in such areas, PPS25 seeks to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall. London Plan policy 5.11 supports the provision of green roofs within development to assist in sustainable urban drainage systems. 3.30 Core Strategy Policy CC1 requires that new development is designed to take account of increasing risks of flooding. Policy CC2 states that new development will be expected to minimise current and future flood risk and that sustainable urban drainage will be expected to be incorporated into new development to reduce the risk of flooding from surface water and foul water. 3.31 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application. This points out that the there is an existing basement at the site which would be enlarged and improved as apart of the proposal, and that the basement would have concrete walls with piles to aid as waterproofing with drainage and water proofing system protecting the basement. The bedroom would have unimpeded access to the main stairwell to the upper levels. The proposal would incorporate a sedum roof which would aid in retaining and diverting surface run off to rainwater recycling. It is noted that the drainage would route directly to the combined sewer with a non return valve to avoid flooding. 3.32 The Environment Agency have stated that the flood risk measure proposed are satisfactory subject to various conditions relating to measures detailed within the FRA being implemented. While Thames Water have no objection to the proposal subject to an informative requesting the installation of a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, in relation to sewerage network. 3.33 It is considered that the proposal would not raise significant flood risk issues, as it would not have an adverse effect on a watercourse, floodplain or its flood defences, would not impede access to flood defence and management facilities or add to the cumulative impact of such developments on local flood storage capacity or flood flows. Contamination 3.34 The Council's Environmental Quality Team has advised that potentially contaminative land uses, past or present, are understood to occur at, or near to, this site. In order to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, and in accordance with policies EN20A and EN21 of the UDP and policy CC4 of the Core

Page 105

Strategy the conditions are recommended requiring the assessment of contaminated land to be carried out. Energy and Sustainability 3.35 Information included in the Design and Access Statement shows that some measures will be incorporated to help reduce energy use and CO2 emissions by way of the design of the building which maximises natural daylight within the building provision of a green roof system, sustainable construction methods, provision of recycling facilities and insulation above that of current regulations, under floor heating. From a sustainability and energy policy perspective, these measures are welcomed. Access 3.36 The development would comply with lifetime homes standards, including all doorways and hallways. The entrance and stairs has been designed to meet ambulant disabled requirements, the kitchen and living areas are open plan for ease of access, and the WC on the lower ground floor has been designed for disabled use. All switches and controls are to be located at a usable height between 450mm and 1200mm from floor for all users. Demolition and Construction 3.37 In order to ensure the protection of existing residential amenities during the demolition and construction process, a condition is proposed requiring the submission of a management plan. Such details would be required to address issues such as any proposed illumination of the site during construction, the size and types of construction vehicles, how construction workers would be expected to get to the site, as well as providing contact details for local residents so that any problems arising during the construction process can be addressed promptly. An appropriate plan should ensure that any disruption is kept to minimum levels in order to protect the existing residential amenities of surrounding residents. LEGAL AGREEMENT 3.38 The developer would meet the full costs of crossover reinstatement and all associated works. Also, occupiers of the house would not be eligible for car parking permits. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 The proposed development accords with Council's Core Strategy, Unitary Development Plan and London Plan policies and government guidance. The development is considered to be acceptable visually, and it would not have an unacceptable impact on adjoining residents and on traffic and parking conditions. 4.2 On balance officers consider that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions appearing in this report and following the completion of a satisfactory 106 agreement.

Page 106

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: College Park And Old Oak Site Address: Bentworth Road Park Bentworth Road London



Reg. No: 2011/02461/ADV Date Valid: 05.08.2011 Committee Date: 09.11.2011

Case Officer: Katherine Wood Conservation Area:

Page 107

Applicant: London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham Hammersmith Town Hall Extension King Street London W6 9JU Description: Erection of a free-standing architectural monopole integrating two LED advertising panels of 7.5m (H) x 5m (W) x 0.5m (D) Drg Nos: Site location plan, ground plan; east elevation; north elevation; south elevation; westbound visualisation; eastbound visualisation 1; eastbound visualisation 2;eastbound visualisation 3; specifications 1;specifications 2 (all revised drawings received 17.10.11; A001 Rev C Application Type: Display of Advertisements Officer Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The period of this consent shall expire 5 years from the date of this notice. Condition required to be imposed by the Town and Country Planning (Control of

Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. 2) The advertisements hereby approved shall be erected and displayed only in

accordance with the approved drawings, and shall thereafter be retained in this form. The advert fascias shall be limited to two dimensions only, as per the approved drawings.

In order to ensure full compliance with the advertisement consent application

hereby approved and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN14 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011.

3) Prior to the display of the illuminated advertisements, details shall be permitted to

and approved in writing by the Council, of artificial lighting levels (candelas/sq m size of advertisement). Details shall demonstrate that the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Professionals in the `Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2005' will be met, particularly with regard to the `Technical Report No 5, 1991 - Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements'. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the display of the advertisement and thereafter be permanently retained.


affected by lighting, in accordance with Policies EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

Page 108

4) The advertisements shall only face towards the highway and no moving parts shall

be used in either the structure or in the advertising content of the advertising panel hereby permitted.

In the interests of highways safety and visual amenity, in accordance with Policies

TN8 and EN14 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011; and Policy T1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

5) Any illumination shall not be intermittent and there shall be no changing light

patterns. An intermittent illumination would be unacceptable in the interests of public safety

as it is likely to distract the attention of drivers of vehicles, in accordance with Policy TN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011; and Policy T1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

Justification for Approving the Application: 1) It is considered that the display of the advertisements would not be harmful to the

scale, character and appearance of the application site and would not harm the existing character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area by reason of the proposal's design, materials and location. The proposal would be acceptable on traffic safety grounds. The development is thereby considered to be in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8 and Standards S14.1 and S16.5 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 4th August 2011 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The London Plan 2011


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Transport For London - Land Use Planning Team

Dated: 20.09.11

Page 109

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site relates to a triangle of open space at the end of Bentworth Road, bounded by an elevated section of the Westway (A40) and a pedestrian alleyway to the south, with railway lines to the north and Bentworth Road to the west. The site is not within a conservation area, although the boundary with the Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area is on Bentworth Road. Thee site is not located within the White City Opportunity Area nor within or adjacent to a designated Open Space in the UDP. 1.2 This application has been made by the Council for the erection of a 20m high free standing monopole in the eastern corner of the park adjacent to the slip road off the A40, incorporating two illuminated LED advertisement panels measuring 7.5m (H) x 5m (W) x 0.5m (D). The illuminated advertisements would vary, and would appear as static images with fading changes. 1.3 An application was submitted earlier this year (ref: 2011/00058/ADV) for the erection of a similar advertisement in Bentworth Road Park, but this was withdrawn following concerns from Transport for London (TfL) that the positioning of the advertisements would compromise highway safety. The position of the advertisements in this current application has been amended, and the proposed location is approximately 30m further to the east. 1.4 The position of the proposed adverts has been amended during the period of this application, to be positioned approximately 16m further to the west, in order to avoid harm to mature trees. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION 2.1 The application was advertised by way of notification letters to the occupiers of adjoining properties. Further notification letters were sent following the receipt of plans showing the revised position of the sign. No responses have been received to the public consultation. 2.2 Transport for London (TfL) responded to the position originally proposed within this application objecting, as they consider it would increase the risk of collisions as a result of drivers being distracted at this location by the advertising panels. They have not provided any further written comments on the most recent location proposed. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed development is acceptable in the context of policies and standards of the UDP, with particular regard to its impacts on

Page 110

visual amenity, the adjacent conservation area and traffic safety. UDP policies and standards that are applicable to the current proposal include TN8, EN2B, EN8, and EN14, and Standards S14.1 and 16.5. VISUAL AMENITY 3.2 UDP policy EN2B states that any new development will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the adjacent conservation area in terms of their setting and views into or out of them is preserved or enhanced. UDP policy EN8 states that development will not be permitted unless it is of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of the existing development and its setting. UDP standard S14.1 states that the council will normally refuse consent for advertisements where the preservation of visual amenity is of prime importance. UDP standard S16.5 (free standing hoardings) states that hoardings would be unacceptable where they are out of scale with their surroundings or are located within or adjacent to sensitive areas such as conservation areas; additionally hoardings must not prejudice road safety. 3.3 The free standing structure would be located directly adjacent to the elevated section of the Westway and would comprise a single monopole which would rise to support the advertisement panels at 10m above ground level. The overall height of the sign would be 20m. The base of the structure would sit 3m above the flyover for visibility to drivers travelling in both directions. The monopole would be supported on a concrete base plinth at ground level. 3.4 The advertisement would be located approximately 60 metres east of the edge of the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the advertisement would be visible from the end of Bentworth Road and on the approach along the Westway, although this is at a distance and views would be limited from within the conservation area given the distance involved. The structure would be viewed in the context of the elevated trunk road and slip road, overhead traffic signage reaching a greater height, and the large commercial buildings on the other side of the Westway. The panels are designed to be viewed primarily by drivers on the Westway, and in this position, it is not considered that the proposed advertisement panels would significantly or adversely affect views in to or out of the conservation area. The scheme is thus considered to be in compliance with Policy EN2B. For the above reasons, it is not considered that the structure would not be out of scale with its surroundings and would not be significantly harmful to visual amenity. Therefore the proposal would not be contrary to Standards S14.1 and S16.5. 3.5 The position of the sign in the corner of the park would mean that it would not compromise the open character of the green space or its function for leisure and recreation. The proposal would necessitate the removal of one small multi stemmed tree/bush in order to construct the development. This tree is not of high quality and has a short remaining lifespan. No objection is therefore raised to the removal of this small tree. The position of the advertisement has been amended during the course of the application to ensure that the existing mature trees to the east would not need to be removed. Highway safety 3.6 The advertisements are of a size that would be seen by drivers, with the structure located on the eastbound approach to the A40 flyover on a stretch with excellent visibility. The image would be visible for some distance on both eastbound and

Page 111

westbound approaches to the structure and would not contain flashing lights or moving images that could potentially distract motorists. 3.7 The position of the structure has been revised to address the specific concerns raised by TfL on the previous application. The revised location is approximately 30m further away from the junctions of the A40 and the Wood Lane slip roads in both directions minimising any potential distraction caused at this location. 3.8 Despite TfL maintaining their objection at the new location officers do not, on balance, consider that the structure would compromise highway safety and hence is not contrary to the safety requirements of strategic routes within UDP policy TN8 and standard 16.5. There is no evidence to link road side advertising to an increase in personal injury accidents in an urban environment. Furthermore there are numerous advertising structures along the A40 and A4, some of which have been in place for many years, which have not resulted in an increase in road traffic colissions. Conditions are recommended to ensure there would be no flashing lights or moving images and no rotation or movement of the sign, to protect driver safety (Conditions 4 and 5). Other matters 3.9 The structure would be positioned approximately 75m away from the nearest residential windows and there is a screen of mature trees close to the boundary with the nearest property. It is not considered that significant adverse effect on residential amenity could be demonstrated with regard to outlook. 4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is therefore considered that the proposal would not compromise traffic safety. Further, the impacts of the advertisements in terms of scale, character and appearance of the location itself would be limited as would any harm to the setting of the adjacent conservation area, in accordance with policies TN8, EN2B, EN8 and Standards S14.1 and 16.5 of the UDP. 4.2 It is recommended that advertisement consent be granted subject to conditions.

Page 112

Ward: Sands End Site Address: Imperial Wharf, Townmead Road, Fulham, SW6 Description: Variation of the Imperial Wharf Section 106 Legal Agreement dated 12th May 2000 and the subsequent 14th Deed of Variation dated 2011. OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RELEVANT HISTORY 1.1 The report relates to the remaining undeveloped area of the wider Imperial Wharf development site, located in Sands End, Fulham. The wider Imperial Wharf site measures 12.95 hectares (31.98 acres), and is bound by Townmead Road, Imperial Road, and the River Thames to the East and the West London Railway Line to the north. The Imperial Wharf site lies within the Thames Policy Area, and within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3 as designated by the Environment Agency. 1.2 The remaining undeveloped part of the Imperial Wharf site is located on the north eastern side of Imperial Road, between the Fulham Gasholder complex and Block J2, which is currently under construction. The site comprises a mix of unmade land, car parking and an office building occupied by St George Central London. 1.3 The site has an extensive planning history, the following is considered relevant to this application: 1998/00407/OUT - Outline Planning Permission for a mixed use redevelopment of the whole site comprising 1665 dwellings, business floorspace, retail, office and food and drink floorspace, community uses, a hotel, a health and fitness club, a park and riverside walk and car parking spaces. Permission granted on 12 May 2000. 2008/01525/RES - Submission of reserved matters relating to the 'design', 'external appearance', 'landscaping', 'refuse storage', 'servicing arrangements', 'hours of operation' and 'particulars of materials' for Blocks K, L, M and N of the development and 'siting' for Blocks K (part), L and M (stage 3), pursuant to Conditions 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 4(f), 4(g), and 5 (part) of outline planning permission (ref: 1998/00407/P), dated 12.05.2000 incorporating 248 residential units; 307sq.m of office floorspace; 1035sq.m health and fitness floorspace (Class D2); associated car parking and landscaping. 1.4 Authority is now sought for revision to the Imperial Wharf Section 106 agreement, by way of entering into a deed of variation, to allow for revision to the unit and tenure mix of the final phase of Imperial Wharf and the affordability levels of the DMS units within Block L, and to revise the triggers for the provision of affordable housing in Block

Page 113

J2 of Imperial Wharf and the final phase of the development to reflect revised construction phasing. 2.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) 2.1 Housing Development and Evaluation: Confirm that the proposed revision are considered acceptable. Block L will now have 16 units of social rent, which is less than before but prudent in the current climate when grant funding is uncertain. It is also understand that the DMS units have been reconfigured to provide a far greater proportion of Manhattans and 3 studios. The Manhattans will remain at the same discounted price which had been agreed for the studios, which will make them large enough for a double income household and affordable to households with AGHI of around £53,000 which is of significant benefit to our local residents . 3.0 PLANNING ISSUES 3.1 It is considered that the main issues of this proposal relate to the acceptability of the proposed unit and tenure mix, and the impact on affordability of the proposed revisions. 3.2 Construction at Imperial Wharf is currently concentrated on Block J2, which fronts onto Imperial Road and represents the northern limit of the wider development. The remaining site between Block J2 and the Fulham Gasholder complex benefits from extant reserved matters approval for the development of four residential blocks, K, L, M, N, containing a total of 258 units. 3.3 The 2008 reserved matters approval for K, L, M, N has been subsequently amended by way of a unit exchange with Block J2. The current extant unit mix for this phase of development is detailed in the following table. Table 1.1: Blocks K, L, M, N Extant unit mix Bedrooms Block

K Block M

Block N

Block L

Total

Private 2 10 10 3 8 25 8 41 4 4 18 4 26 5 2 2 7 12 12 (Total) 36 3 12 0 51 DMS Studio 230sqft 30 30 280sqft 10 68 78 (Total) 10 98 108 Social 2 18 18 Rent 3 30 30 4 11 11 (Total) 59 59

Page 114

3.4 The Imperial Wharf legal agreement controls the sale price of the Discount Market Sale units. This is currently set at £186,150 for a standard studio unit and £212,750 for a manhattan unit. 3.5 The current Chelsea Creek application that is being considered by the Council under reference 2011/01472/COMB would supersede the majority of this development phase. Blocks K, M and N would be replaced by the Chelsea Creek scheme, with the majority of Block L sitting outside of the area of this proposed development. 3.6 As construction nears completion of Block J2, the Applicant is preparing to commence construction of Block L. This would allow for continuity of construction at Imperial Wharf while consideration and negotiation continues on the Chelsea Creek application proposals. 3.7 Approval in principle is sought at this time for revision of the unit mix for Block L, to enable discussion of the deed of variation to commence with the benefit of a supporting PAC resolution. In tandem with the progression of the deed of variation, a Section 73 approval would also be required for amendment of the approved plans for this phase of development. 3.8 As is evident in Table 1.1, as approved, Block L contains all but ten of the approved 167 affordable units of the final phase of the development, including 59 social rent units. The proposed revisions would introduce 67 private units from Blocks K and M into Block L, displacing 73 affordable units (43 social rent and 30 DMS studios) and would result in the replacement of 65 of the 68 retained DMS studio units with DMS Manhattan Units. 3.9 The comparison between the approved unit mix for Block L and the proposed unit mix is set out in the following table. Table 1.2: Block L Extant and Proposed Mix Tenure Social Rent DMS Private Beds 2 3 4 230sqft

Studio 280sqft Studio

Manhtn 1 2 3

Extant Mix 18 30 11 30 68 0 0 0 0 Proposed Mix

4 12 0 0 3 65 8 56 3

3.10 It is noted that the proposed revision would introduce one bedroom private units to the unit mix for this phase. One bedroom units would arise from the conversion of larger private units within this phase. The proposed revisions would result in the reduction of the overall total units in Block L from 157 to 151. 3.11 The proposed redistribution of affordable and private units between Block L and Blocks K and M would provide a mix of tenures within Block L that was largely reflective of the overall approval for this phase of development. The proposed revision would also reduce the number of social rent units within Block L, with these displaced to approved Blocks K and M. This is considered to be appropriate given the uncertainties surrounding current and future housing grant funding.

Page 115

3.12 The proposed revision to the unit and tenure mix for Block L is based on the exchange of units between Block L and Blocks K and M. While it is expected that Blocks K, M and N will be superseded by a revised development scheme, an alternative scheme has not yet been approved. The principle of this approach is therefore considered to be acceptable. 3.13 The detailed arrangements for providing the displaced affordable units elsewhere within the approved K and M blocks (within the floorspace of the private units brought into Block L), would be addressed through a separate Section 73 application. 3.14 The proposed revisions would result in 65 of the 68 standard (280 sq ft) studios being converted to Manhattan units. While the proposed DMS Manhattan units are similar in character to the approved Standard Studio units in that they would relate to a demand for smaller and more affordable units in the area, the Manhattan units are larger than the approved studio units (average area of 41sqm versus average area of 26sqm). The additional floorspace provides greater flexibility for occupation, with space for one or two occupiers, and improved internal living conditions for future occupiers. 3.15 On the basis of the improved flexibility and living conditions that Manhattans provide, the principle of replacing approved studios with manhattan units is considered acceptable. 3.16 However, the £212,750 DMS sale price for Manhattan units, as set by the Imperial Wharf legal agreement, is £26,600 more than the £186,150 sale price for DMS studios. This sale price translates to an increase to the required annual income for a mortgage (based on a multiplier of 3.5) from £53,185 for a studio to £60,785 for a Manhattan unit. To address this detriment to the affordability of the Block L DMS units, the Applicant has agreed that the Manhattan sale price would be decreased by £26,600 per unit, enabling them to be sold at the studio price of £186,150. In total, this represents an additional discount of £1,729,000 for the 65 Manhattan units. 3.17 The proposed conversion of studios to Manhattan units would therefore not compromise the established affordability of the DMS units in Block L and would offer an improved package for future DMS occupiers. Other Proposed Legal Agreement Revisions 3.18 In addition to the revisions proposed to the unit mix of Block L, the deed of variation would also provide for two minor revisions to existing development triggers. 3.19 The legal agreement currently prevents the occupation of more than 80% of the private units in Block J2 before the completion of 80% of the DMS units. The location of the DMS units within Block J2 and the construction phasing of the Block has resulted in more of the private units being completed ahead of the DMS units. A minor revision to the occupation trigger is proposed to align with this construction program. This revision would then prevent the occupation of more than 80% of the private units before the completion of 73% (rather than 80%) of the DMS units, enabling construction to continue throughout the building. 3.20 The second proposed trigger revision relates to Blocks K, L, M and N. The legal agreement currently prevents more than 50% of the private units within this phase being occupied until a design and build contract for the 59 social rent units has been entered into. To enable Block L to be constructed with the tenure mix proposed in this report, it

Page 116

is proposed to revise the restrictive trigger to allow for occupation of up to 74% of the private units before requiring a design and build contract for the social rent units to be entered into. 3.21 The additional flexibility that the proposed trigger revisions would provide would enable construction and occupation of units to continue in Block J2 and would reflect the revisions to the tenure distribution in the final phase of Imperial Wharf. The proposed revisions are therefore considered to be acceptable. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 To enable construction continuity, it is recommended that approval is granted for the variation of the existing Imperial Wharf legal agreement to accommodate the proposed revision to the distribution of unit and tenure mix between Blocks K, L, M and N, subject to the separate approval of a Section 73 application to amend the approved plans of the extant permission. 4.2 The minor revision proposed to the Block J2 development trigger is also recommended to be agreed, to provide further flexibility for the construction and occupation of this Block.

Page 117

planning applications committee

Documents