Planning Applications Committeedemocracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s70074/Final Agenda 13th... · 2017....

London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham

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

Planning Applications Committee

Agenda for 13th October 2015

Index of Applications, Enforcement Actions, Advertisements etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARD: SITE ADDRESS: PAGE: REG NO: North End 2015/02136/FUL

Studio 62 Lillie Road London SW6 1TN 6

North End 2015/02137/LBC

Studio 62 Lillie Road London SW6 1TN 14

Fulham Reach 2015/02782/FUL

39 - 41 Margravine Road London W6 8LL 17

Fulham Broadway 2015/03106/FUL

20 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 41

Hammersmith Broadway 2015/02278/FUL

36 Overstone Road London W6 0AB 53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: North End

Site Address: Studio 62 Lillie Road London SW6 1TN

© Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham LA100019223 (2013).

For identification purposes only - do not scale.

Reg. No: 2015/02136/FUL Date Valid: 11.05.2015 Committee Date: 13.10.2015

Case Officer: Aisling Carley Conservation Area:

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Elias Studio, 62 Lillie Road London Hammersmith and Fulham SW6 1TN United Kingdom Description: Partial demolition of the existing first floor; removal of rooflights from the main roof at roof level; erection of a new additional floor at first floor level to include installation of a stainless steel flue, 4no rooflights at roof level, partial glazing to the rear at first floor level and sedum roof at roof level; installation of an external outward opening French doors to replace the existing inward opening doors to the side of single storey back addition at ground floor level; associated external alterations. Drg Nos: 1326/PL02-02A; 1326/PL02-03A; 1326/PL02-04C; 1326/PL02-05C;1326/PL02-06A; 1326/PL02-07D; 1326/PL02-08;1326/DEMO1; 1326/DEMO2A; 1326/DEMO3 Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the application be refused for the following reason(s): 1) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in relation to its

impact on visual amenity and on the significance of heritage assets including the Grade II listed building. More specifically the proposed first floor extension would be overdominant; not subservient to the building to which it relates and would be harmful to the hierarchy of massing within the group of heritage assets that provide elevations to the rear garden. The proposal is considered to cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets at both The Studio and No. 62 Lillie Road, that is not outweighed by public benefits and would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011) and policies DM G3 and DM G7 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013) and SPD Design Policies 31. 32, 34, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Andrew Marshall (Ext: 3340): Application form received: 8th May 2015 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: National Planning Policy Framework 2012

The London Plan 2011 and Revised Early Minor Alterations to The London Plan, 2013 Core Strategy 2011 The Development Management Local Plan 2013 Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document July 2013

Consultation Comments: Comments from: Dated: Historic England London Region 18.05.15 Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 64B Lillie Road London SW6 1TN 11.06.15 64 Lillie Road London SW6 1TN 09.06.15 66A Lillie Road Fulham SW6 1TN 09.06.15 The Studio 62A Lillie Road London SW6 1TN 09.06.15 42 Greenside Road London W12 9JG 04.08.15 OFFICER'S REPORT: 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application relates to a late Victorian studio building, located at the far end of the rear garden of a Grade II listed early/mid nineteenth century four storey house forming part of a Grade II listed terrace on the north side of Lillie Road. The studio is occupied as a single dwellinghouse; it is listed by virtue of dating from before 1948 and being within the curtilage of a Grade II listed building. The building has also been included on the Local Register of Buildings of Merit since 1994 as it is also a structure of local architectural and historic interest. The rear garden between the two properties is largely open, allowing views across the site. The site is not located within a Conservation Area. The property is within Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3. 1.2 Relevant Planning History: 1969/00708/HIST: Rebuilding and extension of a single storey building and alterations to elevation of main studio building at studio rear 62 Lillie Road, SW6. 1996/02162/LBC (Listed Building Consent): External alterations involving the repair of windows and repainting of brick wall removal of tank and pipe work from roof and the

installation of a skylight at rear. Internal alterations involving the re-location of the kitchen area at ground floor level and installation of cupboards to the upper floors. Reorganisation of electrical circuits and plumbing and damp prevention works together with related matters. (Approved) 2007/03496/LBC (Listed Building Consent): Replacement of glazed roof to single storey rear extension with 5 rooflights; replacement of existing box gutter to existing single storey extension; installation of a new down-pipe and outflow to front elevation of single storey extension; installation of double weathered coping stones to parapet walls of single storey extension and first floor roof terrace. (Approved). 2014/05003/FUL: Partial demolition of the existing first floor; removal of rooflights from the main roof at roof level; erection of a new additional floor at first floor level to include installation of a stainless steel flue, 4no rooflights at roof level, partial glazing at the rear with louvre overhang at first floor and roof level, sedum roof and zinc coping at roof level; removal of internal shower enclosure, cupboard and balustrade, installation of new balustrade to existing stairs, new appliances and a megaflow cylinder in the storage wall at mezzanine floor level; removal of internal WC and steps, formation of a new cloakroom storage and a WC, installation of an external outward opening French doors to replace the existing inward opening doors to the side of single storey back addition at ground floor level; associated internal and external alterations. In April 2015, the application was refused at Planning Committee on the grounds that the proposed first floor extension would not be subservient to the building to which it relates nor in keeping with its architectural character and would be harmful to the significance and unified appearance of the group of heritage assets which form the character and appearance of the rear garden folly. 2014/05004/LBC (Listed Building Consent): Partial demolition of the existing first floor; removal of rooflights from the main roof at roof level; erection of a new additional floor at first floor level to include installation of a stainless steel flue, 4no rooflights at roof level, partial glazing at the rear with louvre overhang at first floor and roof level, sedum roof and zinc coping at roof level; removal of internal shower enclosure, cupboard and balustrade, installation of new balustrade to existing stairs, new appliances and a megaflow cylinder in the storage wall at mezzanine floor level; removal of internal WC and steps, formation of a new cloakroom storage and a WC, installation of an external outward opening French doors to replace the existing inward opening doors to the side of single storey back addition at ground floor level; associated internal and external alterations. In April 2015, the application was refused at Planning Committee on the grounds that the proposed first floor extension would not be subservient to the building to which it relates nor in keeping with its architectural character and would be harmful to the significance and unified appearance of the group of heritage assets which form the character and appearance of the rear garden folly. 1.3 The current applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent are for the partial demolition of the existing first floor; removal of rooflights from the main roof at roof level; erection of a new additional floor at first floor level to include installation of a stainless steel flue, 4no rooflights at roof level, partial glazing to the rear at first floor level and sedum roof at roof level; removal of existing shower enclosure and the formation of a megaflow cylinder and storage wall units in the playroom area at mezzanine floor level; removal of internal WC and steps at ground floor level; installation of an external outward opening French doors to replace the existing inward

opening doors to the side of single storey back addition at ground floor level; associated internal and external alterations. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION 2.1 The current application has been publicised by means of statutory site and press notices. Individual notification letters (13) were also sent to occupiers adjoining the site. No objections were received. 3 letters of support were received. 2.2 The Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group raise the following objection: - "The Studio, No.62a, is situated within the curtilage of numbers 62-68, grade II listed buildings. It is located in the garden of 62 Lillie Road therefore requires listed building consent for any proposed alteration or development. We consider the proposed works constitute overdevelopment of the site, and are of materials that are unsympathetic with the existing structure, basically a gothic folly. The proposal would impact negatively on the listed buildings and the visual amenity of the site". 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning considerations to be considered in light of the Council's adopted Core Strategy 2011, the Development Management Local Plan 2013 (hereafter referred to as DM LP) and the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2013, include the quantum and intensity of development in terms of the height, scale and massing; and, the potential impact on surrounding uses particularly on the existing amenities of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise, outlook, light and privacy. DESIGN AND APPEARANCE: External: 3.2 In respect to heritage assets, among the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. Para 132 of the NPPF states 'when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.' Para 134 of the NPPF states that 'where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.' In respect to design, among the core planning principles of the NPPF is to always seek to secure high quality design. 3.3 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.' 3.4 Policy DM G3 of the DM LP (Extensions and alterations) relates to the design of extensions and alterations and states that 'the council will require a high standard of design in all alterations and extensions to existing buildings. These should be compatible with the scale and character of existing development, their neighbours and their setting. In most cases, they should be subservient to the original building. Alterations and extensions should be successfully integrated into the architectural design of the existing building.' It also identifies criteria to be considered in the assessment of the application including scale, form, height, mass, proportion, relationship to existing buildings and spaces between buildings, materials and neighbourliness. 3.5 Policy DM G7 of the DM LP (Heritage and Conservation) relates to the protection, restoration or enhancement of the quality, character, appearance and setting of the Borough's historic environment, including Listed Buildings. The policy states 'the presumption will be in favour of the conservation and restoration of heritage assets, and proposals should secure the long term future of heritage assets. The more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption should be in favour of its conservation,' it continues 'development affecting heritage assets will be determined having regard to the scale and impact of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Further, 'particular regard will be given to matters of scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use.' This is supported by SPD Design Policies 31, 32 and 34. 3.6 Planning Guidance SPD Design Policies 60 and 61 are relevant as they relate to the determination of applications for consent to all heritage assets and Design Policy 62 is relevant as it relates to the determination of applications for consent to designated heritage assets. 3.7 Section 16 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that 'In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.' 3.8 Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that 'In considering whether to grant planning permission which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.' 3.9 The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Barnwell vs East Northamptonshire DC 2014 made it clear than in enacting section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Parliament's intention was that 'decision makers should give 'considerable importance and weight' to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise'. 3.10 The main elevation of the studio house is a double height white rendered facade with a Gothic triple arched window with leaded glass. The first floor is not original and is set well back from the front elevation, it has four pointed arch windows with leaded

glass. A single storey annex runs between the rear elevation of the main house and the studio house, providing a third elevation to the garden, it is also white rendered and is a continuation of the style of the studio house. There is a tall stone classical column in the centre of the rear garden which was originally topped by a statue. The studio house, annex and column form an impressive Gothic folly composition in the rear garden, one of the largest and most elaborate such groupings in the Borough and the only one to be statutory listed. Officers consider that the heritage assessment submitted with the application gives insufficient weight to the local architectural and historic significance of both the building and the group. Officer's own research has revealed that the composition was built by Joseph Bickler, the owner of No. 62 Lillie Road from 1885 until the 1920s, who was an architectural model maker and builder. Therefore there is a clear historical association with the main house fronting Lillie Road and part of the single storey annex remains within the demise of the main house fronting Lillie Road. The property was constructed as a studio for Joseph Bickler and was never intended for residential use. 3.11 Gothic follies became popular in the nineteenth century and were typically designed as single storey buildings in order to form subservient elements in the landscape and/or in relation to the main house, in this case the original folly was a double height space and the first floor was added later. The massing and footprint of built form in the rear garden is already significantly greater than at adjacent properties. The proposed additional floor would result in an overdominant addition, by virtue of its height and massing which would not be compatible with the host building or the rear garden location. The excessive massing would undermine the integrity of the original design and would not meet the statutory presumption in favour of preservation. The proposed extension would also result in the massing of the studio house not being subservient to the main house fronting Lillie Road, nor in proportion to the massing of the single storey Gothic annex which would undermine the hierarchy of massing on the site. Officers consider the additional floor would introduce an overdominant feature detrimental to the character and appearance of the listed buildings on the site and out of keeping with the domestic rear garden location of the studio house which falls within the setting of the Grade II listed house fronting Lillie Road. The harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets would not be outweighed by any public benefits, contrary to the NPPF and the building is considered to be already in optimum viable use having previously been extended beyond its original form and massing. 3.12 The floor space of the existing first floor extension measures 22.95sqm. The original plans submitted with the application showed a proposed increase in floor space at first floor level to 55.87sqm which is some two and half times more than the existing space. While officers consider that a smaller more modest extension would be more acceptable, this would require a compromise. During officer negotiations, the applicant was encouraged to reconfigure and reduce the floorspace of the additional floor so that it included a significant reduction in scale and set back that would not impinge on the protected structure. 3.13 The applicants amended proposals included a reduction in depth of just 600mm from the front elevation resulting in an overall setback of 2.1m from the front elevation. The resulting reduction in floorspace to 44.75sqm still equates to doubling the footprint of the existing first floor and a dominate extension as the proposed setback and reduction in footprint is not sufficient. The proposed extension at first floor would appear visually excessive and would dominate the existing parent building in this back garden location. The extension would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the

listed buildings on the site and out of keeping with the domestic rear garden location of the studio house which falls within the setting of the Grade II listed house fronting Lillie Road. Internal works: 3.14 The internal alterations would not harm the significance of the listed building and as such no objection is raised to internal works. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: 3.15 Policy DM A9 of the DM LP states 'the council will ensure that the design and quality of all new housing, including new build, conversions and change of use, is of a high standard and that developments provide housing that will meet the needs of future occupants and respect the principles of good neighbourliness.' The policy continues 'proposals for extensions will be considered acceptable where it can be demonstrated that there is no detrimental impact on: privacy enjoyed by adjoining neighbours; daylight and sunlight to rooms in adjoining properties; outlook from windows in adjoining properties and openness between properties.' SPD Housing Policy 8 respectively requires that there is no significant loss of outlook and privacy to existing residential amenities. 3.16 It is important that the residential amenity of properties surrounding the application property, in terms of loss of light, outlook, privacy and increased sense of enclosure is not compromised as a result of the proposed development. Due to the extensive depth of the gardens, no new residential windows at first floor level would be within 18m of existing habitable rooms to the rear elevations of properties on Lillie Road. 3.17 As such, Officers consider that the proposed development would have no significant adverse impact on residential amenity in accordance with Policy DM A9 and SPD Housing Policy 8. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Refuse planning permission and Listed Building Consent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: North End

Site Address: Studio 62 Lillie Road London SW6 1TN



Reg. No: 2015/02137/LBC Date Valid: 11.05.2015 Committee Date: 13.10.2015

Case Officer: Aisling Carley Conservation Area:

Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Elias Studio, 62 Lillie Road London Hammersmith and Fulham SW6 1TN United Kingdom Description: Partial demolition of the existing first floor; removal of rooflights from the main roof at roof level; erection of a new additional floor at first floor level to include installation of a stainless steel flue, 4no rooflights at roof level, partial glazing to the rear at first floor level and sedum roof at roof level; removal of existing shower enclosure and the formation of a megaflow cylinder and storage wall units in the playroom area at mezzanine floor level; removal of internal WC and steps at ground floor level; installation of an external outward opening French doors to replace the existing inward opening doors to the side of single storey back addition at ground floor level; associated internal and external alterations. Drg Nos: 1326/PL02-02A; 1326/PL02-03A; 1326/PL02-04C; 1326/PL02-05C;1326/PL02-06A; 1326/PL02-07D; 1326/PL02-08;1326/DEMO1; 1326/DEMO2A; 1326/DEMO3 Application Type: Listed Building Consent Officer Recommendation: Thatt the application be refused for the following reason(s): 1) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in relation to its

impact on visual amenity and on the significance of heritage assets including the Grade II listed building. More specifically the proposed first floor extension would be overdominant; not subservient to the building to which it relates and would be harmful to the hierarchy of massing within the group of heritage assets that provide elevations to the rear garden. The proposal is considered to cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets at both The Studio and No. 62 Lillie Road that is not outweighed by public benefits and would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies DM G3 and DM G7 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013) and SPD Design Policies 31, 32, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Andrew Marshall (Ext: 3340): Application form received: 8th May 2015 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: National Planning Policy Framework 2012


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Dated: Council For British Archaeology 10.07.15 Historic England London Region 18.05.15 Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: For report see 2015/02136/FUL elsewhere on this agenda.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Fulham Reach

Site Address: 39 - 41 Margravine Road London W6 8LL




Case Officer: Joshua Howitt Conservation Area:

Applicant: Berekdar Developments Ltd C/O Agent United Kingdom Description: Demolition of the existing light industrial buildings (Class B1c) and redevelopment of the site to include the erection of a three storey building (Blocks A and B) on the Margravine Road frontage to provide 2x three bedroom dwellinghouses; and the erection of a part two, part three storey building to the rear of the site (Block C) to provide 1 x one bedroom and 5 x two bedroom self-contained flats; and associated landscaping. Drg Nos: 694-S01-P4; 694-GA00-P7; 694-GA01-P7; 694-GA02-P7; 694-GARF-P6; 694-GE01-P4; 694-GE02-P4; 695-GS00-P4; Planning Statement (June 2015); DAS (June 2015); Marketing Evidence Pack (Various dates); FRA (May 2015); Daylight and Sunlight Report (Oct 2014). Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the Committee resolve that the Executive Director of Transport and Technical Services be authorised to determine the application and grant permission up on the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and 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 development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with the

following approved drawings: 694-S01-P4, 694-GA00-P7, 694-GA01-P7, 694-GA02-P7, 694-GARF-P6, 694-

GE01-P4, 694-GE02-P4 and 694-GS00-P4. 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 BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

3) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Demolition

Management Plan, a Construction Logistics Plan and a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Details shall include control measures for dust, noise, vibration, lighting, delivery locations, restriction of hours of work and all associated activities audible beyond the site boundary to 0800-1800hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800-1300hrs on Saturdays, advance notification to neighbours and other interested parties of proposed works

and public display of contact details including accessible phone contact to persons responsible for the site works for the duration of the works. The details shall also include the numbers, size and routes of demolition and construction vehicles, 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. Approved details shall be implemented throughout the project period.

To ensure that demolition and construction works do not adversely impact on the

operation of the public highway, and that the amenity of occupiers of surrounding premises is not adversely affected by noise, vibration, dust, lighting or other emissions from the building site, in accordance with Policies DM J1, DM J6, DM H5, DM H8, DM H9, DM H10 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

4) No development shall commence 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 that the site remains in a tidy condition during and after demolition

works and during the construction phase and to prevent harm to the character and appearance of the streetscence, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

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

and approval in writing by the Council of details and samples of all materials to be used on the external faces of the new buildings and all surface treatments, and of boundary walls, railings, gates and fences and no part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the completion of the development in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy BE1 of

the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

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

writing by the Council of full details of the proposed landscaping of the site, including planting schedules and details of the species, height and maturity of existing and new trees and shrubs. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the next winter planting season following completion of the building works, or before the occupation and use of any part of the building, whichever is the earlier.

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

streetscene, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 and DM E4 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

7) Any tree or shrub planted pursuant to condition 6 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 planting in accordance with Policy BE1 of

the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM G1 and E4 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

8) 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 to the front elevation of Blocks A and B including landscaped

frontage and boundary wall. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and prevent harm to the street

scene, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

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 buildings hereby permitted.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance Policy BE1 of the

Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

10) Prior to commencement of the development, details of external artificial lighting

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Lighting contours shall be submitted to demonstrate that the vertical illumination of neighbouring premises is in accordance with the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Professionals in the 'Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2011'. Details should also be submitted for approval of measures to minimise use of lighting and prevent glare and sky glow by correctly using, locating, aiming and shielding luminaires. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.


occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM G1, DM H10 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

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

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

scene, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013)

12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (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 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 Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

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

Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extensions or other form of enlargement to the 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 written permission of the Council.

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

proposed design of the building on the site, the Council would wish to exercise future control over development which may affect residential amenity or appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM A9 and DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

14) No alterations shall be carried out to the external appearance of the development,

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 BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

15) 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 of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.

To ensure that the development incorporates suitable design measures to

minimise opportunities for, and the perception of, crime, in accordance with Policy 7.3 of the London Plan (2015), and Policy DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

16) Flat C002 at ground floor level hereby approved shall be capable of meeting the

needs of wheelchair users and shall be designed and capable of adaptation, in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (Access for All), as indicated on approved drawing 694-GA00-P7

To ensure a satisfactory provision for dwellings, meeting the needs of people with disabilities, in accordance with the Policies 3.8 and 4.5 of the London Plan (2015), Policy H4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1 and A4 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

17) All the residential units within the development hereby approved shall comply with

the Lifetimes Home standards and shall be permanently retained thereafter. To ensure that the new residential units are built to `Lifetime Homes' standards, in

accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan (2015), Policy H4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM A4 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

18) With exception to the private roof terrace areas shown on approved drawing 694-

GA02-P7, no part of the remainder of the flat roof areas provided by the development hereby approved shall be used as a terrace or other accessible amenity space. No walls, fences, railings or other means of enclosure shall be erected around the roofs, and no alterations shall be carried out to the approved building (including the permitted roof terrace enclosures) to form access onto these roofs.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and so that the use of the buildings

does not harm the amenities of the existing neighbouring residential properties and future residential occupiers of the development as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy DM H9, DM A9 and DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013), and SPD Housing Policy 8 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

19) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new windows

within the development, as indicated on the approved drawings, have been installed fixed shut with obscure glazing as shown, 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 retained in the form approved.

In order to ensure that the glazing would not result in overlooking and any

subsequent loss of privacy, in accordance with Policy DM A9 and DM G1 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013), and SPD Housing Policy 8 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

20) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Council, of an enhanced sound insulation value DnT,w and L'nT,w of at least 5dB above the Building Regulations value, for the floor/ceiling/wall structures separating different types of rooms/ uses in adjoining dwellings. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

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

affected by noise, in accordance with Policies DM H9 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013)

21) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of the sound insulation of the walls separating the adjacent commercial premises from dwellings. Details shall demonstrate that the sound insulation value DnT,w is enhanced by at least 5dB above the Building Regulations value and, where necessary, additional mitigation measures are implemented to contain noise within the commercial premises and to achieve the criteria of BS8233:2014 within the dwellings. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

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

affected by noise from commercial noise sources, in accordance with Policies DM H9 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

22) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied prior to the

provision of the refuse storage enclosures, as indicated on the approved drawing 694-GA00-P7.

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 CC3 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM H5 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

23) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied prior to the

provision of 15 cycle storage spaces for the residential development hereby approved, located within the area indicated on the approved drawing 694-GA00-P7, and such storage facilities shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

In order to promote alternative, sustainable forms of transport, in accordance with

Policy 6.9 and Table 6.3 of the London Plan (2015), and Policy DM J5 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

24) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until further details of a

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 (2015), Policies CC1 and CC2 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM H3 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

25) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the recommended

flood mitigation measures as proposed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (May 2015) otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The recommended mitigation measures shall be permanently retained thereafter.

To reduce the impact of flooding to the proposed development and future

occupants, in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan

(2015), Policies CC1 and CC2 of the Core Strategy (2011), National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy DM H3 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

26) The development hereby approved shall not commence prior to the submission

and approval in writing by the Council of details of the extent and form of the demolition of any part of the walls around the existing site, adjoining 29-35 and 43-47 Margravine Road and 9-19 Claybrook Road, and every effort shall be made to retain the section of walls in their current form. These details shall include drawings showing the finished design and appearance of the boundary walls. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details. The remaining section of walls shall thereafter be retained, and shall not be demolished, all or in part, or altered prior to the submission and approval in writing by the Council of a further planning application.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to safeguard the amenities of

the occupiers of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM G1, DM G7, DM H9 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

27) No development shall commence until a preliminary risk assessment report is

submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This report shall comprise: a desktop study which identifies all current and previous uses at the site and surrounding area as well as the potential contaminants associated with those uses; a site reconnaissance; and a conceptual model indicating potential pollutant linkages between sources, pathways and receptors, including those in the surrounding area and those planned at the site; and a qualitative risk assessment of any potentially unacceptable risks arising from the identified pollutant linkages to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment including ecological receptors and building materials. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

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

or near to, this site. This 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 Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM H7 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

28) No development shall commence until a site investigation scheme is submitted to

and approved in writing by the Council. This scheme shall be based upon and target the risks identified in the approved preliminary risk assessment and shall provide provisions for, where relevant, the sampling of soil, soil vapour, ground gas, surface and groundwater . All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

Potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) are understood to occur at, or near to, this site. This 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 Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM H7 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

29) Unless the Council agree in writing that a set extent of development must

commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until, following a site investigation undertaken in compliance with the approved site investigation scheme, a quantitative risk assessment report is submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This report shall: assess the degree and nature of any contamination identified on the site through the site investigation; include a revised conceptual site model from the preliminary risk assessment based on the information gathered through the site investigation to confirm the existence of any remaining pollutant linkages and determine the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.


or near to, this site. This 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 Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM H7 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).


commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until, a remediation method statement is submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This statement shall detail any required remediation works and shall be designed to mitigate any remaining risks identified in the approved quantitative risk assessment. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.


or near to, this site. This 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 with Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM H7 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).


commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until the approved remediation method statement has been carried out in full and a verification report confirming these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. This report shall include: details of the remediation works carried out; results of any verification sampling, testing or

monitoring including the analysis of any imported soil; all waste management documentation showing the classification of waste, its treatment, movement and disposal; and the validation of gas membrane placement. 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 shall be detailed in an amendment to the remediation statement and verification of these works included in the verification report. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.


or near to, this site. This 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 with Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM H7 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).


commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until an onward long-term monitoring methodology report is submitted to and approved in writing by the Council where further monitoring is required past the completion of development works to verify the success of the remediation undertaken. A verification report of these monitoring works shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council when it may be demonstrated that no residual adverse risks exist. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.


or near to, this site. This 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 with Policy CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policies DM H7 and DM H11 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

Justification for Approving the Application: 1. Land Use: The redevelopment of the site for residential is considered

acceptable, in accordance with the NPPF, Policies 3.3 and 4.4 of the London Plan (2015), Policies H1 and H4 of the Core Strategy (2011), and Policy DM A1 and DM A3 of the DM LP (2013). The density, housing mix, internal design and layout of the new residential units are considered satisfactory having regard to Policies

3.4, 3.5 and 3.16 of the London Plan (2015), Policies H2 and H3 of the Core Strategy (2011), Policies DM A2, DM A3 and DM A9 of the DM LP (2013), and SPD Housing Policy 8 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2013); and the amenity space provision is also considered satisfactory, having regard to the physical constraints of the site, judged against Policy DM A2 of the DM LP (2013) and SPD Housing Policies 1 and 3 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2013).

2. Design: The proposed development would be a high quality development which

would make a positive contribution to the urban environment in this part of the Borough. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with the NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2015), Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011), Policy DM G1 of the DM LP (2013), which seek a high quality in design and architecture, requiring new developments to have regard to the pattern and grain of existing development.

3. Residential Amenity and Impact on Neighbouring Properties: The impact of the

proposed development upon adjoining occupiers is considered acceptable in terms of noise, overlooking, loss of sunlight or daylight or outlook to cause undue detriment to the amenities of neighbours. In this regard, the development would respect the principles of good neighbourliness. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with Policies DM G1, DM H9, DM H11 and DM A9 of the DM LP (2013) and SPD Housing Policy 8 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2013).

4. Safety and Access: A condition will ensure the development would provide a

safe and secure environment for all users in accordance with Policy 7.3 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM G1 of the DM LP (2013). Conditions will also ensure the proposal would provide ease of access for all people, including disabled people, in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan (2015), Policy H4 of the Core Strategy (2011), Policy DM G1 and DM A4 of the DM LP (2013) and SPD Design Policies 1, 2, 3 and 11 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2013).

5. Transport: Subject to conditions there would be no adverse impact on traffic

generation and the scheme would not result in congestion of the road network. Conditions will also secure satisfactory provision cycle and refuse storage. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with the NPPF, Policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.13, and 6.16 of the London Plan (2015), Policies T1 and CC3 of the Core Strategy (2011), Policies DM J1, DM J2, DM J3, DM J5, DM A9 and DM H5 of the DM LP (2013), and SPD Transport Policies 3, 7 and 12 and SPD Sustainability Policies 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2013).

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

considered risks of flooding to the site and adequate preventative measures have been identified. In this respect the proposal is therefore in accordance with the NPPF, Policies 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 of the London Plan (2015), Policies CC1 and CC2 of the Core Strategy (2011), Policy DM H3 of the DM LP (2013) and SPD Sustainability Policies 1 and 2 of the Planning Guidance SPD (2013).

7. Land Contamination: Conditions will ensure that the site would be remediated

to an appropriate level for the sensitive residential use. The proposed development therefore accords with Policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2015), Policy

CC4 of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies DM H7 and H11 of the DM LP (2013).

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


All Background Papers held by Andrew Marshall (Ext: 3340): Application form received: 11th June 2015 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: National Planning Policy Framework 2012


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Dated: Thames Water - Development Control 24.06.15 Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 37 Margravine Road London W6 8LL 16.07.15 OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site is located on the western side of Margravine Road, and it includes a two-storey building (plus roof accommodation) on the Margravine Road frontage and a connected, large, steel-framed building which fills the remainder of the site. The site is accessed off Margravine Road through a pedestrian door located in the two-storey building and through a vehicle access which allows vehicles to enter the large-steel framed building. The site is bounded residential properties on Margravine Road and Claybrook Road, and the flank of office buildings, 29A Margravine Road, adjacent to the site. The site is vacant, but designated for light industrial purposes, use class B1(c). The site is not within a conservation area. 1.2 There is no relevant planning history for the site.

1.3 The current application is for the demolition of the existing light industrial buildings (Class B1c) and redevelopment of the site to include the erection of a three storey building (Blocks A and B) on the Margravine Road frontage to provide 2x three bedroom dwellinghouses; and the erection of a part two, part three storey building to the rear of the site (Block C) to provide 1 x one bedroom and 5 x two bedroom self-contained flats; and associated landscaping. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and a press advert, and 41 individual notification letters have been sent to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 2.2 1 representation has been received from a neighbour in response to the notification of the proposed development. The neighbour has made the following summarised comments / objections: - Concern regarding the noise and disturbance generated by building works. - Concern regarding party walls issues. Officer comment: The building works would temporary. Noise, disturbance and pollution generated by building works are generally covered under separate legislation to that for planning permission, and the Council has powers ensure the health and safety of residents. In addition, demolition, construction management and logistic plans would have to be approved by the Council prior to works starting. The Party Wall Act provides a framework for setting up an agreement and resolving disputes relating to building work which could impact on adjoining building owners. The provisions of this act are a matter for the building owner and adjoining owner(s) to resolve, and not a matter for the Council. 2.3 Environment Agency: no objection. 2.4 Thames Water: no objection subject to informative. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning considerations to be considered in light of the London Plan (2015), and the Council's adopted Core Strategy (2011), Development Management Local Plan (DM LP) (2013) and Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (PG SPD) (2013) include; the principle of the residential use in land use terms; quantum and intensity of development in terms of the height, scale and massing; design; quality of the living environment in the proposed development; impact on surrounding uses particularly on the existing amenities of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise, outlook, light and privacy; potential for traffic generation and the impact on the highway network; flood risk and contamination issues. DEMOLITON of EXISTING BUILDINGS: 3.2 The building is not listed and is not in a conservation area. The existing building is in poor condition. From a visit site deterioration was apparent and the building is understood to have been occupied by squatters for a time. The acceptability of

demolition in principle would be subject to a satisfactory replacement building(s) being provided. This is discussed later in the report. LAND USE: 3.3 London Plan Policy 4.4 seeks to ensure that industrial premises are managed to ensure that a sufficient stock of premises is retained to meet the need of different types of users, including space to accommodate demand for workspace suitable for SMEs and the needs of micro-firms. 3.4 Policy LE1 of Council's Core Strategy seeks to ensure that accommodation is available for all sizes of business, and seeks to retain premises capable of providing continued accommodation for local services or significant employment unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the premises is no longer required for employment purposes. Core Strategy Strategic Policy B states "unused or underutilised employment land may be permitted to change to residential or mixed use if there is no clear benefit to the economy in continued employment use". 3.5 Policy DM B1 of the DM LP states where the loss of employment use is proposed in line with Policy LE1 the council will have regard to; the suitability of the site for continued employment use; evidence of unsuccessful marketing; the need to avoid adverse impact on impact on established clusters of employment use; and the need to ensure sufficient stock of sites to meet local need for a range of types of employment uses in appropriate locations. 3.6 The site is currently vacant; and has been since December 2008. It is designated as B1(c) light industrial use however. As required by the aforementioned policies, the applicant has submitted evidence of unsuccessful marketing. These show that the buildings on site have been unsuccessfully marketed since becoming vacant in December 2008. The evidence includes a marketing report prepared by Goldschmidt Howland Commercial Agents covering the period December 2008 to July 2010 and a further report prepared by Vause Cribb who took over the marketing from July 2010 to present. A supplementary report has also been prepared by Mortimers to reinforce the evidence. The most recent Vause Cribb marketing report includes a record of all the enquiries that have been received over the last two years together with the sales particulars. Furthermore, an analysis of competing premises has been submitted. In addition to the marketing reports and evidence, a structural report prepared by Fairhurst has been submitted. This confirms that the current building requires substantial renovation to bring it in line with modern standards. 3.7 The reports consider the costs of renovation, and assert that even if the site was brought in line with modern standards that the building would still fall short of the standards expected by modern day industrial occupiers given its 'outdated configuration' and given the site is not able to offer any off street servicing or a dedicated yard. On visiting the site, officers agree that the building is not currently suitable for use without renovation and note that the site is constrained by its location. Officers do not consider that the location and need for renovation would necessarily prohibit redevelopment of the site for other employment uses however, or a mixed use scheme which could include employment and residential uses. The reports explore this option also. The reports note that in the past and during the marketing exercise, the applicant has been willing to let the site as a whole or in part i.e. the ancillary office space as separate to the warehousing to the rear but there has been no demand for this. Furthermore, the

applicants have consulted local agents on the premise of providing employment floorspace as part of a mixed use scheme but question its feasibility. These argue that the unsuccessful marketing evidence, as well as analysis of available commercial space nearby within the borough, demonstrate that the premise is no longer required for employment purposes. Officers agree with this conclusion and are satisfied that the premise is no longer required for employment uses. HOUSING: 3.8 The NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. London Plan Policy 3.3 states that an annual average of 42,000 net additional homes should be delivered. Table 3.1 sets an annual target of 1,031 net additional dwellings for Hammersmith and Fulham. The Draft Local Plan (January 2015) currently out to public consultation supports the new updated targets as set out in the London Plan. In the interim, Core Strategy Policy H1 reiterates the London Plan's previous annual target of 615 net additional dwellings for the borough. This is supported by DM LP Policy DM A1. The proposed eight additional units would contribute towards these targets. 3.9 Core Strategy Policy H4 and Policy DM A3 of the DM LP requires a choice of high quality residential accommodation that meets the local residents needs and aspirations and market demand. In particular there should be a mix of housing types and sizes in development schemes, especially increasing the proportion of family accommodation. 3.10 In accordance with the above policies the proposed dwelling mix (1 x 1 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) represents a range of unit sizes, including the provision of two larger family sized dwellinghouses. DENISITY and AFFORDABLE HOUSING: 3.11 With regard to the proposed density, London Plan Policy 3.4 and Core Strategy Policy H3 seek to ensure that development proposals achieve the optimum intensity of use compatible with local context, design principles and with public transport capacity, with consideration for the density ranges set out in Table 3.2 of the London Plan. This is supported by Policy DM A2 of the DM LP. 3.12 The proposed development site comprises 0.06 hectares and the site is located in Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 4 using Transport for London's methodology. According to the London Plan density matrix, the site is considered to be set in an urban area with predominantly dense development such as, for example, terraced houses, mansion blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or, along main arterial routes. This would support a density of between 200 and 700 habitable rooms per hectare (Hrh). 3.13 In this case, there are 26 habitable rooms proposed on a site of 0.06 hectares. This would be approximately 433 habitable rooms per hectare, and therefore within the density criteria of the London Plan. 3.14 It is considered that the proposed scheme has been designed to take account of its local context and character in terms of appropriate scale and massing, as well as

complying with the Council's standards on the size of residential units. Further, the site is accessible by public transport with a PTAL rating of 4. These points are discussed in more detail below, but for these reasons it is considered that the development would optimise the site's potential and that the proposed density would be acceptable on this occasion. 3.15 The number of residential units proposed is below the threshold of 10 for which affordable housing is required under London Plan Policy 3.13 and Core Strategy Policy H2 and Policy DM A3 of the DM LP. Notwithstanding this there is a requirement to consider whether there is any capacity for 10 or more units, applying the density guidance set out in London Plan Policy 3.4 (maximising the potential of sites) and table 3.2. In view of the proposed density, and due to site constraints, providing an additional 2 units would have implications on visual and residential amenity, as a result of a larger/higher building. In this respect officers consider that it would not be appropriate to include further units within the proposed development in order to meet the affordable housing threshold. Indeed, during pre-application discussions 9 units were proposed on the site but this has since been reduced to the now proposed 8. DESIGN and EXTERNAL APPEARANCE: 3.16 In respect of design, among the core planning principles of the NPPF are that development should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Furthermore proposals should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. London Plan Policy 7.1, 7.2. 7.4. 7.5 and 7.6 requires 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. 3.17 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. DM LP Policy DM G1 builds on the abovementioned policies and other design and conservation policies, seeking new build development to be of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. 3.18 The proposal is for the replacement of the existing buildings, with two new buildings. The current buildings are of little architectural or historic interest. The proposed new building to the north of the site, fronting Margravine Road, are labelled Block A and B. These would be two houses including a 'bridge' at first floor level, underneath which the entrance to the rear is proposed. When built, this new building would infill an existing 'gap' above the vehicle access at first floor level, and result in a building which reflects the some of the characteristics of the terraced housing to the west; including reflecting the pitched roofs, front bays at ground floor level and front garden proportions, whilst also maintaining a legible contemporary design. Indeed, the building fronting Margravine is considered to have regard to the streetscene, in particular its rhythm and scale. Also, through the use of materials this building would be

sensitive to the existing context (for example with the use of London stock brick and slate for the roof), and is considered to be an interesting high quality addition to the road. 3.19 In terms of the building to the rear, Block C, this would be higher than the large steel framed building it replaces, but similar in scale to adjacent office buildings and not significantly higher than the ridge heights of the terraced houses which surround the site on Claybrook Road and Margravine Road. Further, the footprint of the block has been reduced so that the building is set back from the boundaries of adjoining residential properties (unlike the existing building). In design terms the proposed block is a significant improvement on the steel framed building - although the building would not be visible from public vantage points given its location. 3.20 The primary elevation of Block C is symmetrical in design, would largely be brick built with large openings at ground at first floor levels, and two recessive elements at second floor level. The current proposal respects the relationship of scale with its neighbouring properties, and its massing and scale reflect the location and site constraints which is considered appropriate. The most prominent features of the proposed building are within the front and rear elevations which makes use of triangulated 'pop out' windows at first floor level. These add interest and rhythm to the elevation while alleviating overlooking and direct views into habitable rooms of the neighbouring properties. These triangular windows have been used in a combination with elements of obscure glazing to ensure that there is minimal overlooking from and into the site while still allowing for the perception of glazing and natural light into the flats. 3.21 In summary the proposed development has been informed by a considered analysis of existing context and situation. The height of the design and materials of the façade would complement the area. In this respect the design complies with Policy DM G1 in that it would be consistent with scale mass form of surrounding development, and respects the prevailing rhythm and articulation of its surroundings. It is however recommended final details of the materials to be used in the external appearance of the building be conditioned for future approval. (Condition 5) 3.22 London Plan Policy 7.3 and DM LP Policy DM G1 require new development to respect the principles of Secure by Design. Details of how the proposed development will incorporate crime prevention measures to provide a safe and secure environment will be secured by a condition. (Condition 15) QUALITY of THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT: 3.23 Policy 3.5 and Table 3.3 of the London Plan, Core Strategy Policy H3, DM LP Policy DM A2 and A9 expect all housing development to be of a high quality design and be designed to have adequate internal space. SPD Housing Policy 8 (iv) states that `north facing (i.e. where the orientation is less than 50 degrees either side of north) should be avoided wherever possible.' 3.24 The new residential development would provide 2 houses and 6 self-contained flats. All units would exceed the minimum dwelling size requirements of the London Plan, and all units would be dual aspect. Some rooms do have limited outlook however. Despite a large number of windows to the buildings proposed, they have been designed to ensure that neighbours do not suffer from a loss of privacy and as a result include the

use of high level windows, obscure glazed windows and louvres (which limit outlook for the future occupiers, but prevent harmful overlooking). When considering each unit, the buildings have been designed so that whilst some individual rooms would have a limited outlook, each unit benefits from having good outlook from the main habitable space within that unit. And therefore, overall every unit is considered to provide a satisfactory living environment in terms of outlook. In terms of daylight, given the number of windows and their size, each new unit would receive adequate daylight. All the main rooms within the units would be spacious and would maintain an acceptable level of internal amenity. In this respect the proposed residential units would be of adequate size and layout to provide an acceptable outlook, and sunlight and daylight levels for the prospective occupiers, in accordance with the objectives of the abovementioned policies. 3.25 DM LP Policy DM A2 supports the requirement for amenity space and also requires family housing on upper floors to have access to a balcony and/or terrace, subject to acceptable amenity and design considerations. SPD Housing Policy 1 requires all new dwellings should have access to an area of amenity space, appropriate to the type of housing being provided. The policy continues to state that all new family dwellings should have access to amenity or garden space of not less than 36sqm. SPD Housing Policy 3 ensures that where balconies and/or terraces are provided to meet amenity space requirements they should have a minimum depth and width of 1500mm. 3.26 In this case amenity space has been provided in the form of courtyards / gardens around the new buildings, and two roof terraces at second floor level. Therefore, all but one unit would have access to private amenity space. Although the proposed private amenity space for the two family sized dwellinghouses would fall short of the area the abovementioned policy normally requires, this reflects the physical constraints of the site and the desire to ensure that there is no unacceptable impact to neighbouring properties. Furthermore, in view of the generous size of the units in this case, the amenity space provided the two houses is considered to be an acceptable arrangement and it is not considered this would justify a refusal of planning permission. 3.27 London Plan Policy 3.8, Core Strategy Policy H4, DM LP Policy DM G1 and A4 and SPD Design Policies 1, 2, 3 and 11 relate to inclusive design and require new residential development to be built to lifetime homes standards, with ten percent of units designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable to this standard. The application confirms that all units will be built to lifetime homes standards and at ground floor level Flat C002 will be wheelchair accessible. This will be secured by conditions. (Conditions 16 and 17) IMPACT on NEIGBOURING PROPERTIES: 3.28 Policy DM G1 and A9 require all proposals to be formulated to respect the principles of good neighbourliness. SPD Housing Policy 8 seeks to protect the existing amenities of neighbouring residential properties in terms of outlook, light, and privacy. 3.29 A commercial development is situated to the south east of the site (the office development at 29A Margravine Road). It is considered that the impact to these premises would not result in an unacceptable working environment in terms of loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook given the layout of the buildings in relation to the proposed buildings here.

3.30 The main consideration in this respect is therefore the impact to neighbouring residential occupiers, in particular those that adjoin the site on Margravine Road and those to the rear of the site on Claybrook Road. Officers judge that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of outlook or increased sense of enclosure; overlooking or loss of privacy; undue noise and disturbance; and loss of light and is judged to be acceptable in the context of the abovementioned policies. Each issue will be addressed in turn below. Loss of outlook 3.31 In relation to the new building fronting Margavine Road (Blocks A and B) the building would not impact on neighbours nearby due to the orientation of this building and that of the neighbours closest by. Whilst at the upper floor levels on the western side of the building would project further into the rear than the two storey building it would replace, this is not considered to unduly harm those at 31 Margravine Road because of the modest size of this projection and when considered in the context that the steel framed building would be removed, the overall conditions in terms of outlook for the occupiers of 31 Margravine Road would not worsen. 3.32 With regards to the new building to the rear of the site (Block C) the replacement building would higher than the steel-framed building. The height of the existing building ranges from approximately 5 meters at the eaves level to 5.6 meters in height at ridge level. The existing building is built right up to the boundaries of the site. The proposed new Block C building would be a maximum height of approximately 9 meters. However, the proposed building would be set back significantly from the boundaries unlike the existing, and the second floor level would be significantly recessed from the edges of the building. Taking a 45 degree line from the existing wall height on the boundaries which is 5 meters in height (PG SPD Housing Policy 8) the new building would not infringe this line. Therefore, whilst there would an increase in height when compared to the existing, due to the reduction in footprint and setting back of the building from neighbouring residential properties, outlook from neighbouring residential homes would likely be improved rather than worsened by this development. In this respect the proposed development is considered to comply with DM LP Policy DM G1 and DM A9 and PG SPD Housing Policy 8. Overlooking/loss of privacy 3.33 SPD Housing Policy 8(ii) states that new windows should normally be positioned so that they are a minimum of 18 metres away from existing residential windows as measured by an arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed window. 3.34 The new building fronting Margravine Road would have new clear glazed windows to the front. These would be approximately 14 meters from the existing windows on the opposing side of Margravine Road, infringing SPD Housing Policy 8(ii). However, in the context of the street and area, this is a distance that is common between neighbouring front windows, and given that the existing building already has windows which face the opposing side of Margravine Road, it is not considered that the opportunities to overlook would result in undue loss of privacy. To the rear of this building, the windows at ground floor level would be clear but would not harm the amenities of Block C in terms of overlooking because the boundary walls would block direct views. At first and second floor, the rear windows are either obscure glazed below 1.7 meters or have louvres,

thereby mitigating against harmful overlooking and protecting the amenities of those in Block C. 3.35 Block C would replace the existing large steel-framed building which contains no windows. The windows proposed in Block C at ground floor level would be clear, but would not harm neighbouring residents in terms of overlooking because the boundaries of the gardens would block direct views. At first floor level the windows to the side elevation would be high level thereby preventing overlooking of neighbours. To the front and rear elevations the windows are close to neighbouring properties and could be harmful in terms of overlooking. In order to overcome this, triangular 'pop out' windows have been proposed in a combination with elements of obscure glazing to ensure that there is minimal overlooking from and into the site. The applicant has submitted drawings showing that where there would not be infringements of the 18 meter criteria because the clear windows are angled such that there would be no direct view to neighbouring residential windows. At second floor level, the windows which look towards either Margravine Road or Claybrook Road are to have louvres to mitigate against overlooking. The terraces at this level would be set back significantly from the edge of the building in order to protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties (the setback blocks views of windows of adjoining properties, see the proposed section drawings). The obscure glazing to be used in the development is to be secured by way of condition (Condition 19). Noise and disturbance 3.36 DM LP Policy H9 and H11 relate to environmental nuisance and require all development to ensure that there is no undue detriment to the general amenities enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers, particularly those of residential properties. SPD Housing Policy 8 (iii) adds that roof terraces or balconies likely to cause harm to the existing amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of noise and disturbance will not be supported. 3.37 The replacement building would introduce additional residential accommodation in this predominantly residential area. Officers consider that the proposed development would not result in conditions in the context of noise and disturbance that would warrant withholding planning permission would be provided within the development at second floor level. It is difficult to predict with any accuracy the likely level of noise/disturbance that would be generated by the use of the proposed terrace areas, however, on balance, having regard to the modest size of the proposed areas which would limit the capacity to accommodate a high number of people, together with the relationship with adjoining properties, it is not considered that their use would, in the normal course of events, be likely to harm the existing amenities of adjoining occupiers as a result of additional noise and disturbance to such a degree that would justify a refusal of planning permission. The size of the roof terraces are to be restricted by way of condition (see Condition 18). 3.38 Sound insulation would be ensured by way of condition in order that the occupiers are not harmed by noise either between units or between residential accommodation and the adjacent commercial premises (see Conditions 20 and 21).

Loss of daylight / sunlight: 3.39 It is considered that the impact of this proposal would not result in a harmful impact on residential amenity to in terms of loss of daylight / sunlight. The main consideration is the impact to neighbouring residential occupiers, in particular those close to Block C. Officers judge that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of these neighbouring occupiers in terms daylight / sunlight because officer's are in agreement with the analysis of the submitted Daylight and Sunlight report (October 2014). The report assesses the impact of the development on the light receivable by the neighbouring properties at 26 to 34, 31 to 37 & 43 to 49 Margravine Road and 7 to 21 Claybrook Road. The study is based on the various numerical tests laid down in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guide 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a guide to good practice' by P J Littlefair 2011. The report found that in terms of daylight all habitable room windows pass the Vertical Sky Component test and Daylight Distribution test, in accordance with BRE daylight requirements. All windows which face within 90 degrees of due south have been tested for direct sunlight and all habitable room windows pass both the total annual sunlight hours test and the winter sunlight hours test, in accordance with BRE direct sunlight to windows requirements. In addition overshadowing tests have been carried out and show that sunlight availability after the development will be no less than 0.86 its former value. This is better than the BRE minimum requirement which permits sunlight to be reduced by up to 0.8 times. The proposed development therefore passes the BRE overshadowing to gardens and open spaces test. In these circumstances, the development is not considered to result in a harmful impact on neighbours in terms of loss of light. TRAFFIC GENERATION and CAR PARKING: 3.40 The NPPF requires developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised; and development should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. 3.41 Policy 6.1, 6.3, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.13 of the London Plan sets out the intention to encourage consideration of transport implications as a fundamental element of sustainable transport, supporting development patterns that reduce the need to travel or that locate development with high trip generation in proximity of public transport services. The policies also provide guidance for the establishment of maximum car parking standards. 3.42 Core Strategy Policy T1 supports the London Plan. Policy J1 states that all development proposals will be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion. Policies DM J2 and DM J3 of the DM LP set out vehicle parking standards, which brings them in line with London Plan standards and circumstances when they need not be met. These are supported by SPD Transport Policies 3 and 7. 3.43 The proposal represents a net increase of 8 residential units. No off-street car parking is provided as part of the scheme, in accordance with Policy DM J2. In order mitigate any unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of local residents as a result of increased on-street car parking stress the applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to restrict the occupiers of the 8 flats from being eligible to obtain residents

parking permits to park on the highway within the controlled parking zone (see paragraph 3.57). Given the location of the site (PTAL 4) close to bus routes on Fulham Palace Road and Barons Court Underground Station, this is considered to be an appropriate approach in this case. Subject to this legal agreement being secured the proposed development is judged to be acceptable in the context of the abovementioned policies. 3.44 As a result of the redevelopment of the site, vehicle access into the site from Margravine Road which currently exists would no longer be required. As such, a legal agreement is also required in order secure funds for the removal the existing dropped kerb and making good of the carriageway and pavement. Cycle parking: 3.45 London Plan Policy 6.9, DM LP Policies DM A9, J5 and Table 5 and SPD Transport Policy 12 seek to ensure that satisfactory cycle space is provided for all developments. The application identifies cycle parking area at ground floor level for cycles. This location is judged to be acceptable. A condition is proposed to ensure the cycle storage for the 15 cycles, required by the aforementioned policies, are implemented before the use is occupied and is maintained for the life of the development. (Condition 23) Refuse: 3.46 London Plan Policy 5.16 outlines the Mayors approach to waste management. Core Strategy Policy CC3, DM LP Policy H5 and SPD Sustainability Policies 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 sets out the Councils Waste Management guidance, requiring development to incorporate suitable facilities for the storage and collection of segregated waste. 3.47 Refuse storage space would be provided for all refuse generated by the proposed residential use at ground floor level. Officers are satisfied that there is sufficient space within the designated area for the satisfactory storage of refuse. A condition is proposed to ensure the refuse storage is implemented before the use is occupied and is maintained for the life of the development. (Condition 22) Impact of building works: 3.48 A Demolition Plan, Construction Management Plan (CMP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) will be required to ensure that there is no harmful impact on neighbours and on the local highways network. The Demolition and CMP shall include demolition details, contractors' construction 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. The CLP shall be in accordance with Transport for London (TfL) requirements, which seeks to minimise the impact of construction traffic on nearby roads and restrict construction trips to off peak hours only. These would be secured by a condition in accordance with DM LP Policies DM J1, J6, H5, H8, H9, H10 and H11, SPD Amenity Policy 19 and 26, and SPD Transport Policy 28, and London Plan Policy 6.3. (Condition 3)

FLOOK RISK and SUDs: 3.49 The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. 3.50 London Plan Policy 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 requires new development to comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements of national policy, including the incorporation of sustainable urban drainage systems, and specifies a drainage hierarchy for new development. 3.51 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. These are also supported by DM LP Policy DM H3 and SPD Sustainability Policies 1 and 2. 3.52 This site is in the EA's Flood Zone 3. As required, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted. Land in Flood Zone 3 has a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%), or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. This indicates a high risk of flooding from the Thames, although this designation does not take into account the high level of flood protection provided by the Thames Barrier and local river wall defences which defend the site so that the annual probability of flooding from the Thames is 0.1% or less. If the flood defences failed or were breached, the site is not in an area identified by the Environment Agency as one that could be at risk of rapid inundation by flood waters. The council's draft Surface Water Management Plan shows that this location is in a Critical Drainage Area which means it is one of a number of areas in the borough that is more at risk to surface water/sewer flooding due to an intense storm. The FRA outlines appropriate resilience and resistance mitigation measures that would protect the new development from potential flood risks and this is to be conditioned (see Condition 25). 3.53 In terms of surface water drainage, the entire site is currently covered in impermeable surface meaning that 100% of surface water is directed into the combined sewer system. The proposed development would introduce landscaping to the site (details of which are to be secured by condition, see condition 6 and 7). However, further details of a Sustainable Drainage (SUDS) Strategy and measures to be implemented on the site will be secured by a condition to minimise surface water run-off in line with London Plan Policy 5.13 on sustainable drainage and Core Strategy Policy CC2 on water and flooding (see Condition 24). CONTAMTINATION: 3.54 Policy 5.21 of the London Plan, Core Strategy Policy CC4 and Policy DM H7 and H11 of the DM LP states that the Council will support the remediation of contaminated land and that it will take measures to minimise the potential harm of contaminated sites and ensure that mitigation measures are put in place. 3.55 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

conditions will be attached covering the assessment and remediation of contaminated land (Conditions 26 to 32). COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY: 3.54 Mayoral CIL came into effect in April 2012 and is a material consideration to which regard must be had when determining this planning application. This development will be subject to a London-wide community infrastructure levy. An estimate of £5,350 based on 107 sqm of additional floorspace has been calculated. This will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail, and further details are available via the GLA website at www.london.gov.uk. The GLA expect the council, as the collecting authority, to secure the levy in accordance with London Plan policy 8.3. 3.55 The Council has also set a CIL charge. The Council's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is also a charge levied on the net increase in floorspace arising from development in order to fund infrastructure that is needed to support development in the area. The Council's CIL runs alongside Section 106 Agreements (S106s) which will be scaled back but will continue to operate. The CIL Charging Schedule was presented to Council and approved 20 May and has formally taken effect since the 1st September. An estimate of £42,800 based on 107 sqm of additional floorspace has been calculated. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS: 3.56 In dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities consider each on its merits and reach a decision based on whether the application accords with the relevant development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where applications do not meet these requirements, they may be refused. However, in some instances, it may be possible to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable, through the use of planning conditions or, where this is not possible, through planning obligations. London Plan policy 8.2 recognises the role of planning obligations in mitigating the effects of development and provides guidance on the priorities for obligations in the context of overall scheme viability. 3.57 In accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) the applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement. The Legal Agreement will include the following Clauses: - Developer to pay the cost of the removal of 1 vehicular access off Margravine Road and associated alterations to the highway including the reinstatement of the kerb, making good of the pavement and alterations to existing on-street parking bays. - All the future occupiers (apart from blue badge holders) of the 8 new residential units to be prohibited from being eligible for on street residential car parking permits in existing/proposed CPZ's. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Grant planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a satisfactory legal agreement as outlined in paragraph 3.57

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Fulham Broadway

Site Address: 20 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT




Case Officer: Oliver Enticott Conservation Area:

Applicant: Mrs Wendy Tobi 18 Lloyd Sq London WC1X 9AG Description: Conversion of the single family dwellinghouse into 1 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedroom self-contained flats; installation of a new door at first floor level to the rear elevation; erection of an external staircase from first floor to garden level at the rear of the property; formation of a refuse storage at ground floor level to the front elevation. Drg Nos: P-5; P-6 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

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

2) The development shall be carried out and completed only in accordance with the

detailed drawings herby approved. 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 BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy DM G3 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

3) Any alterations to the elevations of the existing building shall be carried out in the

same materials as the existing elevation to which the alterations relate. In order to ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Borough

Wide Strategic Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011) and policy DM G3 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013).

4) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by the Council, of an enhanced sound insulation value DnT,w of at least 5dB above the Building Regulations value, for the floor/ceiling structures separating different types of rooms/uses in adjoining dwellings, namely the kitchen-living room of the first floor flat beneath the 2nd floor rear bedroom of the separate 2nd/3rd floor flat. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the development site is not adversely affected by noise, in accordance with Policies DM H9 and H11 of the Development Management Local Plan.

5) All refuse generated by the development hereby permitted shall be stored within

the designated area as shown on drawing ref: P-5 and shall only be brought to the front of the premises on the day of collection and this area 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 CC3 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM H5, and

H11 of the Development Management Local Plan 2013. 6) The residential units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of secure

cycle parking spaces to be provided in connection with the proposed residential dwellings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, and such details as are approved shall be implemented prior to the occupation or use of the flats and permanently retained thereafter for such use.

In order to promote alternative, sustainable forms of transport, in accordance with

policy DM J5 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013) and SPD Transport Policy 12 Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

7) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details and samples

of the 1.7m high obscure glazed screen to the external staircase as measured from the first floor level of the staircase and landing to be used in connection with the roof terrace have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The use of the stairs shall not commence until the glazing, as approved has been installed and it shall be permanently retained as such thereafter.

In order to ensure that the glazing would not result in overlooking and any

subsequent loss of privacy, in accordance with Policy DM G3 and A9 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013) and SPD Housing Policy 8 (ii) of Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

8) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of water

efficiency measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the council. The measures/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 the flows of foul and surface water run-off is managed in a

sustainable manner, in accordance with Policy 5.13 of The London Plan 2011, Policy CC1 and CC2 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM H3 of the Development Management Local Plan 2013.

9) The proposal at 20 Delaford Street hereby approved shall be implemented in

accordance with the recommended flood mitigation measures as proposed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. In line with advice from Thames Water, a non-return valve or

other suitable device shall be installed to avoid the risk of the sewerage network surcharging wastewate to ground level during storm conditions at 147 Hazlebury Road. The recommended mitigation measures shall be permanently retained thereafter.

To reduce the impact of flooding to the proposed development and future

occupants, in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011, Policy CC1 and CC2 of the Core Strategy 2011, National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy DM H3 of the Development Management Local Plan 2013.

Justification for Approving the Application: 1) It is considered that the proposal would not have significant effect on the

residential amenity of adjoining occupiers and would be of an acceptable visual appearance. The proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on street parking in surrounding streets. The proposed flats would be of an acceptable standard of accommodation. In this respect the proposal complies with Policy BE1, T1, H3 and CC2 of the Core Strategy 2011, Policies DM A1, A2, A9, G3, J2, J3, J5, H3, H5 and H9 of the Development Management Local Plan 2013, SPD Housing Policies 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, SPD Sustainability Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and SPD Transport Policies 3, 4 and 12 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance 2013

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


All Background Papers held by Andrew Marshall (Ext: 3340): Application form received: 30th June 2015 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: National Planning Policy Framework 2012


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Dated: Thames Water - Development Control 03.07.15 Environment Agency - Planning Liaison 03.07.15 Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 23 Delaford St London SW67LT 03.07.15 21 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 20.07.15 NAG 04.08.15 15 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 28.07.15 22 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 17.07.15 21 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 19.07.15 19 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 24.07.15 10 Delaford Street london SW6 7LT 21.07.15 Residence Of Delaford Street 30.07.15 28 Delaford Road 24.07.15 22 Delaford Street Fulham SW6 7LT 16.07.15 33 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 24.07.15 21 Delaford Street London SW6 7LT 04.08.15 OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 SITE CONTEXT 1.1 The site includes a three storey mid-terrace single family dwelling situated on the southern side of Delaford Street. 1.2 Delaford Street is characterised by a long terrace of three storey residential dwellings on the southern side of the street. Tilton Street splits the northern side of Delaford Street in two, with Sir John Lillie Primary School located to the east of it and a row of smaller, two storey terraced houses to the west. 1.3 The property is not located within a Conservation Area and is not subject to any Article IV directions. The area is situated within Flood Risk Zone 2. 2.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 2.1 In April 2015 planning permission (2015/00536/FUL) was granted for the erection of a rear roof extension, erection of a single storey rear ground floor extension, and excavation of front garden and part of rear garden to form lightwells, in connection with the creation of basement 2.2 In May 2015, the applicants submitted an application (2015/01213/CLP) for permitted development involving the erection of a two storey rear extension at ground and first floor level. Permitted development relates to certain types of minor changes to dwellinghouses which do not require planning permission. Permitted development rights

derive from national government and fall outside of the Council's control. If the application fails to meet certain set criteria it will be refused. In this case, the application was refused on the grounds that the two storey rear extension which measured 6.8m from the rear boundary wall would fail to meet the minimum separation of 7m. 2.3 In June 2015, following on from the above refusal a further application (2015/02468/CLP) was made for the same proposal and included an amendment. The two storey rear extension was reduced in depth by 200mm in order to comply with the criteria set out in the General Permitted Development Order (2015). The application was therefore granted as the Council had no grounds to withhold the approval. 2.4 The current application is for the conversion of the single family dwellinghouse into 1 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedroom self-contained flats; installation of a new door at first floor level to the rear elevation; erection of an external staircase from first floor to garden level at the rear of the property; formation of a refuse storage at ground floor level to the front elevation. 3.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) 3.1 Individual notification letters sent to the occupiers of 26 neighbouring properties. 13 letters of objection have been received. The issues raised can be summarised as follows (where appropriate Officer's comments are in brackets): i) Out of character and overbearing. ii) Underhanded methods of developers. Piecemeal development of the dwelling was a deliberate attempt to withhold information until it was too late to challenge. (The intentions of the developers is not a material planning consideration) iii) Loss of family homes. Continuous conversions will lead to a breakdown of the community. iv) External staircase will lead to overlooking and loss of privacy v) Harmful impact on on-street parking and traffic. vi) Loss of light into neighbouring gardens due to rear extensions. (This rear extension does not relate to this application as it was previously approved under permitted development (2015/02468/CLP)) vii) Loss of green space and rear gardens. viii) Damaging impact on water pressure and sewage. ix) Noise and disturbances during construction (The Council can exercise separate public protection and safety controls in respect of the side effects of development (such as noise, dust, smoke and the accumulation of rubble and waste) under separate Pollution Control and Environmental Protection legislation) x) Flood risk assessment is inaccurate as mentions no "sleeping accommodation in the basement".

(The applicant has since submitted a revised flood risk assessment to address this) xi) Condition 12 of ref: 2015/00536/FUL states that the basement must only be used in connection with the property as a single dwelling house. (If the current application to convert the house into flats is approved, this condition would be superseded) xii) First floor extension (approved under 2015/02468/CLP) is unfair. (This element of the property is permitted development) xiii) Ground floor property is being marketed as having three bedrooms when plans only show two bedrooms. (The marketing of the property is not a material planning consideration) xiv) Undue noise from having three households next door rather than one. 3.2 Thames Water - No objections. 3.3 Environmental Agency - No objections. 4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The main issues to be considered are acceptability of the conversion; the quality of the living environment for the future occupiers; whether the proposal is acceptable visually; the impact on existing amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of outlook, light and privacy; the impact on the highway network; and flood risk. CONVERSION OF PROPERTY 4.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) identifies the need for additional housing and sets out ways in which planning can significantly boost the delivery of housing through the preparation of policy documents. 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 1,031 net additional dwellings for Hammersmith and Fulham. Core Strategy (2011) Policy H1 reiterates the London Plan's annual target of additional dwellings for the borough. 4.3 This application seeks to provide two net additional residential units, contributing towards local and national housing targets. 4.4 At the local level, Policy DM A1 of the DM Local Plan relates to house conversions. It states the Council will permit conversions of existing dwellings (to contribute to housing targets) where: (a) the net floor area of the original dwelling is more than 120sqm; (b) at least 50% of the proposed units consist of two or more bedrooms; (c) housing appropriate for families has access to any garden or amenity space, and (d) where there is no adverse impact on on-street parking stress. (a)The original floorspace of the property is approximately 126m². This measurement excludes any floorspace gained from the extensions recently approved. (b) Out of the three proposed units, two of them would provide two bedrooms (Flat 1 and Flat 3).

(c) The DM Local Plan defines a "family dwelling" as a dwelling containing three or more bedrooms, whilst a "non-family dwelling" is defined as a dwelling containing two bedrooms or less. In this case, none of the units proposed are family sized. Two of the three units have access to rear gardens - Flat 1 will possess a 25m² rear garden whilst Flat 2 has approximately an 11m² garden. The proposal would meet the criteria and is considered acceptable. (d) No off-street parking has been proposed and it would not be necessary to retract eligibility for on street parking permits as there is sufficient on street parking available. 4.5 Of the 57 properties located along Delaford Street, thirteen have gained approval for conversion into flats, and include the following: Nos. 1, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 29, 31, 43, 50, 53 and 54. The earliest approvals date back to the late 1960s and the most recent ones being No. 3 Delaford Street (2005/01529/FUL), No. 29 Delaford Street (2008/01469/FUL) and No. 13 Delaford Street (2014/01845/FUL). Officers consider that flat conversions form a part of the established pattern of development along the street and the addition of one more conversion will not harm the local character of the area. 4.6 This proposed change of use is therefore considered to accord with national policies, The London Plan, Core Strategy Policy H1 and DM Local Plan Policy DM A1. QUALITY OF LIVING ENVIRONMENT Size and aspect 4.7 Core Strategy Policy H3 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). 4.8 This is supported by Policy DM A2 and DM A9 of the DM Local Plan. SPD Housing Policy 4 states that converted flats should have at least 32.5sqm where a separate bedroom is provided, whilst SPD Housing Policy 5 stipulates the internal space provision in residential conversions. SPD Housing Policy 8 (iv) states that north facing properties should be avoided where possible. 4.9 The units are of varying sizes and measure Unit 1 to be 94m², Unit 2 as 46m² and Unit 3 as 69m². All three units therefore meet the minimum space standards for two bedroom dwellings as outlined in the DM Local Plan and Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. Internally all of the units offer comfortable sized rooms which exceed the minimum standards as set out in SPD Housing Policy 5. All three units are also dual aspect. Whilst the kitchen and one bedroom in Flat 1 would suffer from less natural light due to their location at basement level, both rooms are serviced by lightwells. All other habitable rooms in all three units are considered to receive good levels of daylight and sunlight and also good outlook. A similar, though slightly larger, three unit conversion was recently approved at 13 Delaford Street (2014/01845/FUL). 4.10 This quality of floorspace and intended rooms is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy Policy H3 and DM Local Plan Policy DM A2 and A9 and SPD Housing Policies 4 and 5..

Noise and Insulation 4.11 DM LP Policies DM A9 and DM H9 are aimed at ensuring that residents of future housing are not unduly affected by noise and disturbance from adjoining sites or the wider setting. The application would allow for the development of three flats on top of one another. The kitchen/living room of the Flat 2 on the first floor is located directly beneath bedroom of Flat 3 above. In light of this, appropriate sound insulation measures are secured in condition 4 prevent any potential for noise pollution through the walls and ceiling of Flat 3. 4.12 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would provide a high quality of residential accommodation for future occupiers, subject to the incorporation of conditions. DESIGN and CONSERVATION 4.13 When assessing planning applications in regards to their design, London Plan Policies 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6 require development to be of the highest architectural quality and be adaptable to the changing needs of users and the neighbourhoods in which the developments are located. 4.14 At a local level the Council's Core Strategy requires a high standard of design in all alterations, and that extensions to existing buildings respect the local context and protect and enhance the character, appearance and setting of the borough's conservation areas (Policy BE1). The Development Management Local Plan 2013 builds on this and DM G3 states that any new proposal should be subservient to the original building and be compatible with the scale and character of the existing development, their neighbours and their setting. 4.15 The current application does not propose to extend the property any further into the rear garden. At first floor level the proposal is to install a door in the approved two storey rear extension, allowed under permitted development, to access an external staircase which would lead down into the rear garden. The staircase is shielded with 1m obscured screen. The doorway and staircase are regarded as being modest in scale and sympathetically designed, subservient to the original building and is visually acceptable. 4.16 To the front of the property a refuse storage unit is proposed in the front yard. The 2m3 storage unit is located along the boundary wall with No. 19 Delaford Street and is deemed a minor alteration to the property, and one which will not harm the character of the either the building or the streetscene. 4.17 Overall, the proposal complies with Policies 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan, Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DM G3 of the DM Local Plan. IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS 4.18 The borough has a high density of development and it is necessary to ensure that the amenities of existing residential occupiers are not unduly affected. DM Local Plan Policy DM A9 which states that extensions will be considered acceptable where it can be demonstrated that there is no detrimental impact on privacy enjoyed by neighbours in adjoining properties.

4.19 SPD Housing Policy 8 contain safeguards against sense of enclosure, loss of outlook, loss of privacy and disturbances against neighbouring occupiers. In particular, SPD Housing Policy 8 (iii) stipulates that generally a roof terrace/balcony 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. 4.20 While the proposed door and external staircase would be located close to the boundary with No. 19 Delaford Street it would include a 1.7m high obscured glass screen from the doorway, with another 1m high obscured screen own the first few steps to prevent loss of privacy. This is further secured by condition 7. Officers consider that there will be limited opportunity for overlooking or loss of privacy from the staircase, and that this would not be sufficient to justify the withholding of planning permission. 4.21 In terms of neighbourliness, it is not considered that the nature of the proposal would have any demonstrable harm on existing residential amenities in terms of noise and disturbances, and the proposed conversion would not be out of keeping with the locality. 4.22 Overall it is considered that the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring properties is acceptable in accordance with Policies DM A9 of the Development Management Local Plan and SPD Housing Policy 8 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document. HIGHWAYS MATTERS 4.23 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that developments which generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes (such as public transport) can be maximised; and that development should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. 4.24 Policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.13 of The London Plan set out the intention to encourage consideration of transport implications as a fundamental element of sustainable transport, supporting development patterns that reduce the need to travel or that locate development with high trip generation in proximity of public transport services. The policies also provide guidance for the establishment of maximum car parking standards. 4.25 Core Strategy Policy T1 supports The London Plan. Policies DM J2 and DM J3 of the Development Management Local Plan set out maximum vehicle parking standards, which brings them in line with London Plan standards and gives circumstances when they need not be met. Policy DM J2 stipulates maximum residential parking standards for one to two bedroom units as less than 1 car park space per unit. This policy further states that 'All developments in areas with good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than 1 space per unit'. Policy DM J3 states that 'Market housing with zero or reduced parking will only be considered in areas with good levels of public transport accessibility'. 4.26 The site is located in a PTAL 3 area, meaning the development has moderate public transport accessibility. There is a net increase of two units with the proposal. The

2015 weekday overnight occupancy figures indicate an occupancy of about 70% which suggests that two extra units would be unlikely to create parking stress in excess of 80%. Due to this, it is considered the development could proceed without the need for car permit restrictions. CYCLE PROVISION 4.27 London Plan Policy 6.9 of The London Plan specifically relates to cycling and says that 'When determining planning applications, developments should provide secure, integrated cycle parking facilities, in accordance with the minimum standards set out in Table 6.3'. Local Plan Policy DM J5 requires all 1-2 bedroom units to have a minimum of once cycle space per unit. 4.28 This development requires three cycle parking spaces, and this provision is secured by condition 6. REFUSE PROVISION 4.29 London Plan Policy 5.16 outlines the Mayor's approach to waste management. This is supported by Core Strategy Policy CC3, and Policy DM H5 of the Development Management Local Plan 2013 sets out the Council's Waste Management guidance, supported by SPD Sustainability Policy 3, 4 and 6 which requires suitable storage space for refuse and recycling to be provided. It is not acceptable for waste material to be left on the highway for extended periods of time 4.30 The installation of bin containers measuring 2m3 located in the front yard provides adequate refuse provision for the development. This provision is secured by condition 5. FLOOD RISK 4.31 The NPPF states that 'Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere'. 4.32 London Plan Policies 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 require development to comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements of national policy, including the incorporation of sustainable urban drainage systems, and specifies a drainage hierarchy for new development. 4.33 Policy CC1 of the Core Strategy 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'. This is supported by Policy DM H3 of the Development Management Local Plan 2013. Local Plan Policy DM H3 requires developments to reduce surface water run-off and to promote the use of water efficient fittings and appliances. 4.34 This site is in the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 2. This indicates a medium risk to flooding although this does not take account of the presence of flood defences such as the Thames Barrier and local river walls which provide a high level of flood protection. If these failed or were breached, the site would not be at risk of rapid

inundation by flood waters. As required, a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application. This contains adequate flood mitigation measures which is secured by condition 9. 4.35 The proposal would be designed to ensure that run off is encouraged to infiltrate the ground and not be directed into the sewer network. Furthermore, the proposal would also include methods to divert and collect rainwater for re-use in the garden. Water efficient fixtures/fittings should also be installed to help reduce water use and minimise foul water flows from the site. This is secured by condition 8. 4.36 Neither Thames Water or the Environment Agency raised concerns with the proposal. 5.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 5.1 The principle of the residential use is considered to be in accordance with land use policies and the development would make an efficient use of an existing property. The proposed external staircase to the rear and refuse storage to the front are considered to be visually acceptable. A high quality of accommodation would be provided for future occupiers, without prejudice to the amenities of existing residents and commercial neighbours. The development would not have a detrimental impact on the highway network or local parking, subject to conditions ensuring that the development would be car parking permit free. Environmental matters including flood risk and contaminated land matters are also considered to be acceptable. As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with relevant national guidance, London Plan Policies, the Core Strategy, DM Local Plan and Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document Policies. 5.2 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Hammersmith Broadway

Site Address: 36 Overstone Road London W6 0AB




Case Officer: Alison Coster Conservation Area:

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hutchinson Flat D Second Floor 36 Overstone Road London W6 0AB Description: Erection of a rear roof extension, involving an increase in the ridge height by 300mm; installation of two rooflights in the front roofslope. Drg Nos: 0454/P/05, 0454/P/06, 0454/P/07,0454/P/09, 0454/P/10, 0454/P/11, 0454/P/12 Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the application be refused for the following reason(s): 1) The proposed increase in the height of the ridge of the roof of the existing property

by 300mm is considered to be unacceptable on visual amenity grounds. More particularly, the proposed increase in the ridge height would represent a visually discordant development which would be clearly visible from public views from Kilmarsh Road and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the application property, would disrupt the uniform height of the ridge line in the terrace and therefore harm the appearance of the streetscene. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Bradmore Conservation Area. In this respect, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy (2011); Policies DM G3 and DM G7 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013) and SPD Design Polices 31, 32, 61 and 62 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013); Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of The London Plan (2015); and paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF (2012).

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


All Background Papers held by Andrew Marshall (Ext: 3340): Application form received: 15th May 2015 Drawing Nos: see above

Policy documents: National Planning Policy Framework 2012


Consultation Comments: Comments from: Dated: Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 82 Overstone Road London W6 0AB 21.05.15 OFFICERS' REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application relates to a lower ground plus three storey Victorian terraced flatted property, located on the eastern side of Overstone Road; and specifically to the top (second floor) flat. The property is located within the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3. Coverdale Road is also covered by a Regulation 7 Advertisement Direction restricting the display of advertisements. 1.2 The application property lies within the Bradmore Conservation Area; and the boundary of the Hammersmith Grove Conservation Area runs along the rear boundary of the application site. The Bradmore Conservation Area was extended on 13th October 2014 to include (amongst other roads/properties) Overstone House & nos. 2-92 (even) and nos. 1-71 (odd) Overstone Road. The conservation area was extended as a response to requests from local residents, amenity groups and ward members. Officers reviewed the area and considered additional streets should be included within the conservation area boundary because of their special architectural and historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve and enhance. The boundary of the conservation area was consequently amended. 1.3 There are two relevant Planning records for this property. In June 1981 planning permission was granted for the erection of an extension at second floor level to the back addition and the conversion to use the property as four self-contained one bedroom flats In May 1983 planning permission was granted for the erection of a part two part four storey rear extension in connection with the use of the property as four self-contained one bedroom flats, ref: 1983/00600/FUL. 1.4 The current application seeks planning permission for the erection of a rear roof extension, involving an increase in the ridge height by 300mm and the installation of two

rooflights in the front roofslope. The scheme would provide a second (ensuite) bedroom to the top (second floor) flat. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION 2.1 The application has been publicised by means of site and press notices and letters sent to neighbours. 2.2 One objection response was received from a resident in Overstone Road. Their comments can be summarised as follows: It is disappointing to continue to see applications for increases in ridge height and installation of rooflights now that Overstone Road has been included in the conservation area. 2.3 Officers' response: These matters are addressed under section 3 of the report below. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning considerations in light of the NPPF, The London Plan (Adopted July 2011, FALP March 2015), and the Council's adopted Core Strategy (2011), Development Management Local Plan (2013), and Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013) are; design and conservation matters; impact on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties in regards to outlook, light, privacy, noise and disturbance; and environmental matters such as energy and flood risk. DESIGN and CONSERVATION 3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and supporting National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) recognises that good design in indivisible from good planning. It states that 'Planning should drive up design standards across all forms of development'; that 'good design is about creating places and buildings, or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, last well, and will adapt to the needs of future generations; that 'Good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of place' and 'is required to be functional, attractive and sustainable'. Paragraph 132 says that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. Paragraph 134 says that 'where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.' 3.3 When assessing the design of planning proposals London Plan Policies 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 and 7.8 require development to be of the highest architectural quality, be of a sympathetic form, scale materials and architectural detail, conserve the significance of heritage assets, and to be adaptable to the changing needs of users and the neighbourhoods in which the developments are located. 3.4 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.' 3.5 Policy DM G3 of the Development Management Local Plan (DMLP) states 'The Council will require a high standard of design in all alterations and extension to existing buildings. These should be compatible with the scale and character of existing development, their neighbours and their setting'. The policy further states that 'in most cases, these will be subservient to the original building'. Alterations and extensions should be successfully integrated into the architectural design of the existing building. The council will consider the impact of alterations and extensions on existing buildings, surroundings and take into account the following: (a) scale, form, height and mass; (b) proportion; (c) vertical and horizontal emphasis; (d) relationship of solid to void; (e) materials; (f) relationship to existing building, spaces between buildings and gardens; (g) good neighbourliness; and principles of accessible and inclusive design. 3.6 DM Local Plan policy DMG7 states that 'The council will aim to protect, restore or enhance the quality, character, appearance and setting of the borough's conservation areas and its historic environment, including listed buildings, historic parks and gardens, buildings and artefacts of local importance and interest, archaeological priority areas and the scheduled ancient monument' 3.7 SPD Design policies 31, 32, 61 and 62 are relevant. They expect that in decision making the council will seek to identify the particular significance of any element of the heritage environment that may be affected by the proposal; and that there will 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 will be. They also expect that extensions and alterations should be appropriate to the architectural character of the building and should not have a significant effect on the character of the conservation area, that the pattern of development and building lines must be protected; and that the design and materials of rear extensions should be in keeping and integrate with the existing property and conservation area. SPD Design Policy 32 specifically relates to roof extensions and materials. Supporting paragraph 4.211 says that the design of any rear roof extension should be sympathetic to the character of a conservation area. Where they are visible from the street, including long views, then particular attention will need to be paid to their appearance. In some cases, high visibility of the rear roof properties may prohibit a roof extension where it would have a detrimental effect on the character of a conservation area. 4.213 says that existing roof lines should not be disturbed, and that raising the height of the ridge or increasing the pitch of front roof slops to accommodate greater internal ceiling heights is considered unacceptable. 3.8 The proposal involves the erection of a rear roof extension and insertion of two rooflights in the front roofslope, to provide a second level and an additional bedroom and bathroom to the top floor flat. This would create a larger flat, so could be considered as being adaptable to the changing needs of the occupants. Because of the existing shallow pitch of the roofslope, the applicant proposes to shoot the existing ridge back to create an increase in the internal floor to ceiling height. The overall effect would be that the ridge height would be raised by 300mm but the pitch of the roof would remain unchanged. The rear roof extension would be a typical mansard roof, set at an angle of 70 degrees with mansard rear timber windows, and finished in slates to match the existing roof materials; with brickwork of second hand London Stock. The existing chimney stacks would not be raised.

3.9 The terrace within which the property is located is currently undisturbed by roof extensions and has an attractive uniform appearance, where the ridge height is read as one long consistent line. Officers consider that the proposed increase in the ridge height would appear as a significant alteration to the building. A 300mm increase in ridge height would be particularly noticeable in this location given the uniformity of the existing terrace and the fact that the property sits centrally opposite Kilmarsh Road which is perpendicular to the property and allows for clear long views of the roofline. 3.10 The proposed alterations to the ridge height would be out of character with the terrace and would be clearly visible from public vantage points.The alterations would be most prominent when viewed from Kilmarsh Road. Overstone Road runs perpendicular to Kilmarsh Road and 36 Overstone Road is located directly at the eastern end of Kilmarsh Road. It is therefore possible to see the roof of 36 Overstone Road and its neighbours very clearly. The proposed increase in the ridge height would thereby be clearly visible against the neighbouring properties. The applicant has submitted an average sight line as part of the application in order to try to demonstrate that the proposed roof alteration would not be visible from the opposite side of the street but the information fails to recognise the fact that the site can be clearly viewed from Kilmarsh Road, where the increase in ridge height would be noticeable against the neighbouring properties and harmful to the overall appearance of the streetscene. 3.11 Officers do not raise objections to the design of the two proposed rooflights which would be installed in the front roofslope. These would be modest in size and would be located so that they would align with the centre of the windows at first and second floor level. Front rooflights are common features of roofslopes within the conservation area and Officers are satisfied that they would not harm the overall appearance of the host dwelling. The proposed design of the rear roof extension (excluding the increase in ridge height) is also considered to be acceptable. The proposed 70 degree mansard with two small dormers is a design which is common of rear roof extensions across the borough. The rear dormers are modest in scale and would align with the windows below. The rear roof would not be visible from any public vantage points. 3.12 Officers note that planning permission was approved in April 2012 (Ref. 2012/00511/FUL) for the erection of a rear roof extension, involving an increase in ridge height by 210mm at 29 Overstone Road. The context of this property is different from that currently under consideration because the property is located on a section of the street where it is not possible to achieve long views, and so the ridge line is not especially visible.. 3.13 Overall, the proposed design of the extension is considered to be inappropriate for the building and its surrounding context, and would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area by raising the front roofline by 300mm. The proposal would not be compatible with the strong existing ridge line of the properties on the eastern side of this street. In this context the proposal would fail to comply with the design requirements of SPD Design Policies 31, 32, 61 and 62 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013) which relate to development within, and the setting of, conservation areas and protection of heritage assets. The statutory test for Local Planning Authorities in relation to planning applications in a conservation area is to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this case the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and therefore,

would not meet this statutory requirement. Officers consider that the proposal would offer no public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset. The proposal is also considered to be contrary to Policies BE1 of the Core Strategy and DM G3 and DM G7 the DM Local Plan and London Plan policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 and the NPPF. IMPACT ON RESIDENTS' AMENITY 3.14 Policies DM G3 and A9 of the Development Management Local Plan require all proposals to be formulated to respect the principles of good neighbourliness; with policy DM A9 making particular reference to protecting the existing amenities of neighbouring residential properties in terms of outlook, light, and privacy. Further guidance on how this can be assessed is set out in SPD Housing Policy 8. As such the scheme's impact on neighbours in respect of outlook, privacy as well as daylight and sunlight and shadowing; and noise/disturbance have been assessed. Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing 3.15 The extension would be located at roof level. It would not project beyond the rear plane of the dwelling, but would result in an overall increase in the roof height. Because the roof extension would not project beyond the plane of the existing building and given the relationship to neighbouring windows and gardens, it would not materially detrimentally impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in regards to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing. Outlook 3.16 SPD Housing Policy 8 (i) acknowledges that a building's proximity can have an overbearing and dominating effect detrimental to the enjoyment by adjoining residential occupiers of their properties. Although it is 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. If any part of the proposed building extends beyond these lines then on-site judgement will be a determining factor in assessing the effect which the extension will have on the existing amenities of neighbouring properties. 3.17 The existing property does not comply with this policy because 36 Overstone Road has a short garden of 4.7m depth. However, the site backs on to 47 Hammersmith Grove which has a rear garden measuring over 25m long. Officers consider that because of the separation distances involved, the alterations proposed to the roof would be far enough away so as to not result in a harmful loss of outlook to residents of the property to the rear. Privacy 3.18 SPD Housing Policy 8 (ii) states that new windows should normally be positioned so that they are a minimum of 18 metres away from existing residential windows as measured by an arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed window. The application would not result in a new opportunity for overlooking because the rear dormer windows would be located above existing windows and windows in the rear of

properties on Hammersmith Grove are located considerably more than 18m away. 3.19 There are two rooflights proposed in the front roofslope. These would be set at the angle of the roof and would not allow direct views towards properties on the western side of the street. The proposal would thereby comply with SPD Housing Policy 8 (ii). Noise and Disturbance 3.20 DM Local Plan Policies H9 and H11 relate to environmental nuisance and require all development to ensure that there is no undue detriment to the general amenities enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers, particularly those of residential properties. SPD Housing Policy 8 (iii) adds that roof terraces or balconies likely to cause harm to the existing amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of noise and disturbance will not be supported. 3.21 The proposal involves an extension to an existing flat, to be used for residential purposes. The new floor would be located above the application flat. It is considered that the normal use for residential purposes is unlikely to result in any material increase in noise and disturbance to neighbours; though if an approval were to be forthcoming sound insulation measures should be considered between the application flat and neighbouring residential units. The application does not propose any roof terraces or balconies. No objections are raised to the proposal in regards to DM Local Plan Policies H9 and H11 and SPD Housing Policy 8 (iii). ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Flood Risk and sustainable urban drainage 3.22 The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. 3.23 This site is in the Environment Agency's Flood Zones 2 and 3. Land in this zone has a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (>1%), or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. This indicates a high risk of flooding from the River Thames. However the site is well protected from flooding by the Thames Barrier and local river wall defences. 3.24 Policy CC1 of the Development Management local Plan (2013) requires that new development is designed to take account of increased 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. These are also supported by Policy DM H3 of the Development Management Local Plan (2013) and SPD Sustainability Policies 1 and 2 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2013). The development would be set at roof level and so would be at very low risk of flooding. Flood mitigation measures are not considered to be necessary in this case.

3.25 Local Plan policy DM H3 requires developments to reduce the use of water and minimise current and future flood risk by implementing a range of measures such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and also the use of water efficient fittings and appliances. Implementation of SuDS measures should be proposed where possible - e.g. by using measures such as permeable surfaces and/or use of water butts to collect rainwater for re-use in the garden. Water efficient fixtures and fittings should also be specified as part of the planned works to help minimise water use and reduce foul water flows from the site. Should the application be found to be acceptable in all other respects, it is recommended that an informative be included recommending the installation of water efficient fixtures and fittings. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Officers consider that the proposed development would be harmful in terms of design and appearance and would detrimentally impact on the conservation area. Officers are satisfied that the development would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents and it would not detrimentally impact on flood risk. 4.2 It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Date post:	24-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Planning Applications Committeedemocracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s70074/Final Agenda 13th... · 2017....

Documents