London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Applications Committee Agenda for 15th September 2010 Index of Applications, Enforcement Actions, Advertisements etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARD: SITE ADDRESS: PAGE: REG NO: Avonmore And Brook Green 2009/01260/FUL Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SE 7 Ravenscourt Park 2010/00210/FUL 18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ 26 Ravenscourt Park 2010/00223/LBC 18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ 33 Addison 2010/01704/EFUL 13 - 15 Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8PH 36 Shepherd's Bush Green 2010/02018/FUL Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8TT 46 Shepherd's Bush Green 2010/02025/LBC Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8TT 52 Fulham Broadway 2010/01806/FUL Dawes Road Centre 20 Dawes Road London SW6 7EN 55 Town 2010/02038/FR3 Fulham Court Community Centre Shottendane Road London SW6 5TJ 77 Hammersmith Broadway 2010/00774/CONV 70 Hammersmith Grove London W6 7HA 93
Index of Applications, Enforcement Actions, Advertisements etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARD: SITE ADDRESS: PAGE: REG NO: Avonmore And Brook Green 2009/01260/FUL
Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SE
7
Ravenscourt Park 2010/00210/FUL
18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ 26
Ravenscourt Park 2010/00223/LBC
18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ 33
Addison 2010/01704/EFUL
13 - 15 Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8PH 36
Shepherd's Bush Green 2010/02018/FUL
Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8TT
46
Shepherd's Bush Green 2010/02025/LBC
Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8TT
52
Fulham Broadway 2010/01806/FUL
Dawes Road Centre 20 Dawes Road London SW6 7EN
55
Town 2010/02038/FR3
Fulham Court Community Centre Shottendane Road London SW6 5TJ
77
Hammersmith Broadway 2010/00774/CONV
70 Hammersmith Grove London W6 7HA 93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Avonmore And Brook Green
Site Address: Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SE
Reg. No: 2009/01260/FUL Date Valid: 20.05.2009 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Susie Saraiva Conservation Area:
Applicant: Southern Housing Group C/o Agent Description: Refurbishment and extension of the 10 existing residential blocks including additional floor at each roof level and 5 storey extensions linking the blocks to increase the number of flats from 200 to 238; provision of associated amenity space and landscaping. Drg Nos: 1410/P/105 B, 1410/P/115 A, 1410/P/116 A, 1410/P/117 A, 1410: P.151 B, 1410: P.152 B, 1410: P.154 A Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the Committee resolve that the Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine the application and grant permission upon 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 be carried out and completed only in accordance with the
detailed drawings that have been approved, unless any material alteration to these approved details has first been submitted and approved in writing by the Council.
In order to ensure full compliance with the planning application hereby approved
and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with policies EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
3) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until particulars and
samples of all new facing materials and finishes to be used on the external surfaces of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as have been approved.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with policies EN2B
and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007. 4) The development hereby approved shall not commence until detailed drawings in
plan, section and elevation, at a scale not less than 1:20 showing a typical bay of the infill extensions and typical details of the additional floor (above existing roof level) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The relevant work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and prevent harm to the street scene, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
5) Any alterations to the existing elevations of the buildings, including works to make
good the elevations, shall be carried out in the same materials and shall match in all other respects the elevation to which they relate.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street
scene, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
6) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details and samples, where appropriate, of all paving and external hard surfaces, boundary walls, fences and other means of enclosure. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy EN2B
and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 7) 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 any 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 buildings, whichever is the earlier.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street
scene, in accordance with policies EN2B, EN8B and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
8) Any landscaping planted pursuant to condition 7 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 policies EN2B,
EN8B and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 9) All off-street car parking spaces and the 6no. disabled parking bays hereby
approved shall be maintained for the life of the development and shall not at any time be used for commercial purposes.
In order to ensure the development does not harm the existing amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the level of on-street car parking stress in the area, in accordance with policy TN15 and standard 18.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
10) The development hereby approved shall not commence until a statement of how
'Secure by Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be
carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.
To ensure a safe and secure environment for users of the development, in
accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 11) The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the
sustainable design and construction measures and renewable energy efficiency measures proposed in the Code for Sustainable Homes Assessment and the Energy Report; and the approved development shall not be occupied until such measures have been implemented.
To ensure the construction of a sustainable and energy efficient development, in
accordance with Policies 4A.3 and 4A.7 of The London Plan, amended 2008. 12) In the event that the specifications for the annual energy delivery are found to be
different from those submitted in the energy demand projection assessment, A revised energy strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is occupied, calculating the development's energy demand and CO2 emissions, assessing the feasibility of combined heat and power and also on-site renewable energy technologies, showing how the latter will reduce CO2 emissions by 20%, if feasible. Any such measures approved shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development.
To ensure the integration of energy efficient generation of heat and power,
including from renewable sources, if feasible, in accordance with London Plan policies 4A.4, 4A.6 and 4A.7.
13) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details and
drawings at a scale of 1:100 demonstrating that 10% of the residential units are wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users and that the building will adequately comply with the Lifetimes Home Standards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as approved.
In order to ensure the development provides ease of access for all users, in
accordance with Policy 3A.5 of the London Plan as amended 2008 and the Council's adopted supplementary planning document "Access for all".
14) The development hereby permitted shall not commence prior to the submission
and approval in writing by the Council of details of the provision of secure and weather proof cycle storage facilities within the site. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the installation of the secure cycle storage in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for cycle parking and to promote
alternative, sustainable forms of transport, in accordance with Policy TN6 and Standard S20.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
15) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a refuse servicing
and collection plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling storage
indicated on the approved drawings Nos 1410/P/100A, 1410:P.200A and 1410/P/210 has been installed and the collection arrangements are in place in accordance with the approved details. The refuse and recycling storage shall be permanently retained thereafter.
In order to ensure a satisfactory provision for refuse and recycling, in accordance
with Policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 16) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a method statement
for construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Details shall include control measures for dust, noise and vibration, including working hours. Approved details shall be implemented throughout the project period.
To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the development site and surrounding
properties are not adversely affected by dust from the building site, in accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
17) No development shall commence until a desktop study, site investigation scheme,
intrusive investigation and risk assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. A detailed method statement for any required remediation works will need to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).
To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and
remediated in accordance with Policy G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
18) No development shall commence until any required remediation works have been
completed and a validation report to verify these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council unless otherwise authorised. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the Council is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council. Any required remediation should be detailed and verified in an amendment to the remediation statement. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).
To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and remediated in accordance with Policy G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
19) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until full details have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council of play equipment and safe surfacing to be provided in the children's play area. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the full occupation of the development and shall be maintained in a safe and full working order permanently thereafter.
To ensure a satisfactory provision of a children's play area, in accordance with
Standard S7 of the Unitary Development Plan. Summary of reasons for granting planning permission: 1) 1. Design: The proposal would be of a high standard of design which be consistent
with the scale and height and complement the character of the existing development and its setting. It would also be sustainable and durable and would enhance the public realm. The proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation areas and would be acceptable in accordance with policies EN2B, EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and Policy 4B.1 of The London Plan as amended 2008.
2. Residential Amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining
occupiers is considered acceptable. In this regard, the development would be of high quality design which, amongst other things, respects the principles of good neighbourliness, and thereby would be acceptable in accordance with policy EN8B and standards S13.1 and S13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
3. Residential Mix: The proposal would provide acceptable accommodation with
an appropriate mix of unit sizes and tenure which would result in no net loss of affordable housing on the site. The proposal thereby would be acceptable in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.10, as amended 2008.
4. Density: The proposal is of an acceptable density which would optimise the
potential of the site and would be compatible with the local context and with public transport capacity; and would meet the design principles for a compact city. The proposal would therefore be acceptable in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.2, 3A.3, 4B.1 and 4B.3, as amended 2008.
5. Highways matters: There would be no adverse impact on traffic generation and
the scheme would not result in congestion of bus routes and the primary road network. The proposed vehicular access arrangements to the site, which would utilise one existing access, would not unacceptably impact on the existing highway layout and satisfactory provision would be made for the segregation of vehicles and pedestrians. Satisfactory provision would be made for parking and cycle parking and future occupiers would be prevented from obtaining on-street parking permits, to help prevent overspill of parking onto the local highways. The accessibility level of the site is good, and there are available public transport and other services nearby and adequate provision for storage and collection of refuse and recyclables is provided. The proposal is thereby acceptable in accordance
with policies EN17, TN6, TN13, TN15 and Standards S18.1, S19, S20.1, S23 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 19th May 2009 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007. Consultation Comments: Comments from: Environment Agency - Planning Liaison Transport For London - Street Management Administration Team Avonmore Residents Association Natural England Commission For Architecture And The Built Environment Environment Agency - Planning Liaison English Heritage London Region
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 9 Matheson Road London W14 8SN 18.06.09 21 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace W14 8SE 24.06.09 Avonmore Primary School Avonmore Road London W14 8RL 25.06.09 Flat Basement Garden 1 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 03.07.09 Flat Ground Floor 1 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 30.06.09 175 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace London 23.06.09 32 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace W14 8SE 03.07.09 116 Samuel Lewis Estate Lisgar Terrace W14 8SE 22.06.09 21 Samuel Lewis Trust Lisgar Terrace London 23.06.09 62 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace W14 8SF 26.06.09 Flat 12 Avonmore Mansions Avonmore Road W14 8RN 29.06.09 15 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 29.06.09 13 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 29.06.09 Flat Ground Floor 1 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 01.07.09 139 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace W14 8SG 26.06.09 11 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 06.07.09 14 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 26.06.09 14 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 01.10.09 107 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings Lisgar Terrace W14 8SF 08.06.09 16 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 17.06.09 Flat B Ground Floor 16 Lisgar Terrace London W14 8SJ 15.06.09
8 Avonmore Road London W14 8RL 16.06.09 8 Avonmore Road London W14 8RL 16.06.09 51 Burne Jones House North End Road London 16.06.09 OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site is located on the western side of Lisgar Terrace and consists of 200 residential units, owned and operated by Southern Housing Group Ltd (SHGL), who are a registered RSL. The site is not located in a Conservation Area; however, it is immediately adjacent to the Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area to the north, west and east of the site. The Fitzgeorge and Fitzjames Conservation Area are located near the site to the south of North End Road. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, which is at low risk of flooding. 1.2 The units on the site are located in 10 separate rectangular blocks built in 1928. Each block is 5 storeys high. The buildings are solid brick structures, characterised by large chimney stacks and high cornices. 1.3 The immediate area surrounding the application site is characterised by predominately residential buildings with a mix of single dwelling houses and flats. To the south and east of the site is the Lytton Estate, which is an affordable housing estate owned by the Council and consisting of residential buildings of different ages and styles. The heights of the buildings on this estate vary from 5 storeys of Burne Jones House and Samuel Richardson House to the south and up to 9 storeys at The Grange to the east. Avonmore Primary School and the St James Independent School are located to the northwest of the site. 1.4 Since the construction of the blocks, there have been numerous minor improvements, maintenance and refurbishment works. These include alterations in the 1970's to enclose the balconies and provide internal toilets and provision of hard landscaping to the existing spaces between the blocks in the 1980's. THE PROPOSAL 1.5 The proposal is for the refurbishment and extension of the 10 existing residential blocks including additional floor at each roof level and 5 storey extensions linking the blocks to increase the number of flats from 200 to 238. The proposal also includes provision of associated amenity space and landscaping. 1.6 The infill extensions would connect each row of buildings and would be set back approximately 5m from the north eastern end of the blocks. The external walls of the new extensions at ground floor level would be constructed in a red brick similar to the existing building and the upper floors would be rendered. An archway is proposed through two of the links (between blocks C and D and blocks F and G) to allow vehicular movements through the site. 1.7 The proposed roof extension would be of a tiled Mansard style that would sit behind the existing parapet.
1.8 Following discussions with neighbouring residents, on the 15th of July, amended plans were submitted showing the removal of the top floor to the proposed link blocks between A and B and also between D and E. This amendment did not change or alter the description of the proposal as submitted initially. 1.9 Of the new 38 flats, 25 would be for private sale with the reminder to be socially rented and controlled by way of a S106 agreement. The existing units that are socially rented are not currently subject any S106 encumbrance and are intended to remain as affordable housing under the control of the RSL. 1.10 The existing layout consists of only two and three bedroom flats. The proposed flats would consist of 32 one bedroom flats, 148 two bedroom flats, 48 three bedroom flats and 10 four bedroom flats. 1.11 Amenity space would be provided in the form of south facing courtyards to the south of each link extension and shared gardens in the north eastern and south western corners of the site. In addition, soft landscaping would also be introduced along the Lisgar Terrace frontage. 1.12 Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site would be retained via Lisgar Terrace, with traffic directed in a one way system around the site. 1.13 The application is accompanied by the following documents: - Planning Statement; - Planning Design & Access statement; - Design and Access Statement Addendum, Context Appraisal; - Daylight and Sunlight Report & Self-Test Daylight & Sunlight Report - Transport Statement; - Sustainability and Sustainable Energy Strategy; - Community Statement 1.14 As discussed above, as a result of SHGL's discussions with neighbouring residents in order to improve the daylight/sunlight levels to their properties, additional daylight/sunlight reports were produced resulting in a statement of Agreed Effects by Behan Partnership and Delva Patman (consultant representing residents). 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application has been publicised by way of statutory site and press notices. Individual notification letters were also sent to neighbours in the vicinity of the site. 2.2 The following bodies were also consulted: - Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group - Crime Prevention Design Advisor - Environment Agency - The Hammersmith Society - Transport for London (TFL) - English Heritage - Avonmore Residents Association - Palace Mansions Leaseholders Association - Rugby Mansions Limited
- Natural England - Countryside Agency - Commission For Architecture and the Built Environment - Argyll & Glyn Co-operative Limited - Glyn Leaseholders Association 2.3 Environment Agency: In a letter dated the 15th September 2009, the EA advise that "as the site is now under 1 hectare in size and located in flood zone 1, which is at low risk of flooding, we withdraw our previous objection to the planning application". The initial objection to the application related to the absence of flood risk assessment. 2.4 A total of 24 letters were received from 22 neighbouring residents. Of these, 2 were in support, with 20 neighbours objecting to the development on the following grounds: The proposal would: Design - result in the overdevelopment of the site and would dominate, and be out of scale,
of the area; - detract from the adjoining conservation areas; - result in a reduction of open space to the detriment of the character of the area; - Result in extensions that are poorly proportioned and out of keeping with the
existing architecture; Amenity - result in a significant loss of light to the adjoining residential properties in Lisgar
Terrace, Burne Jones House and the School. The sunlight daylight report incorrectly identifies the affected habitable rooms in Lisgar Terrace;
- result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure; - result in an increase in noise and disturbance caused by additional residents on
the site and sound rebounding of the proposed links; - result in significant additional overlooking to the neighbouring properties; - cause shadowing over the existing amenity space on the site; Transport - increase in parking pressure and traffic resulting from the development and ratio of
parking proposed to number of units; - increase traffic including service vehicles along local highways to the detriment of
the residents. The trip generation findings are based on incorrect data. Other - adversely impact upon the local infrastructure as a result of an increase in density; - cause damage to the existing trees on the site and along Lisgar Terrace; - result in drainage problems in the area; - increase the crime in the area as a result of additional residents on the site; - create enclaves for undesirable public; - result in inadequate flat sizes for existing and future residents; - prevent air and light on to the street. - The construction would impact upon the amenity of the neighbours by way of
noise and disturbance, dust fumes etc.
- The applicant did not carry out sufficient consultation prior to submitting the application.
In addition to the above, there were a number of other non planning related concerns raised. These include the following; - The proposal would result in increased rents; - There is no guarantee that the works would ever be completed once begun. - The proposal would worsen the existing subsidence and damp issues. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main issues for consideration in relation to this application are: - The principle of residential use in land use terms; - The level of affordable housing proposed; - The scale and massing of the proposed development and the effect on
neighbouring amenity; - The building design, and relationship to the street scene and surrounding
development; and - Traffic and car parking demand generated by the proposed development. LAND USE Additional Residential Units 3.2 This application should be considered in relation to national policy in PPS 3 Housing (June 2010), local policy in the UDP, as amended 2007 and the London Plan (2008) housing policies. 3.3 PPS 3 promotes the Government's key housing policy goal of everyone having the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live; they are seeking, amongst other things, a wide choice of high quality homes, both affordable and market housing, to address the requirements of the community. UDP Policy HO1 requires no net loss of residential accommodation when measured in dwellings, bedspaces and residential floor space unless there are very special circumstances. 3.4 London Plan (2008) policy 3A.15 states that DPD policies should prevent the loss of housing, including affordable housing, without its planned replacement at existing or higher densities. Paragraph 20.4 the Mayor's Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (`SPG') states that 'Calculations of whether there is a loss of total housing of affordable housing can be made in habitable rooms rather than dwellings, where the redevelopment of an estate is providing a housing mix more appropriate to the needs of both existing and prospective future residents, for example where there is increased provision of dwellings for larger households.' 3.5 Paragraph 3.75 of the London Plan goes on to state that the Mayor's approach to estate renewal is to take account of the regeneration benefits to the local community, and the proportion of affordable housing in the surrounding area, the amount of affordable housing being, or planned to be, provided elsewhere in the borough. Where redevelopment of affordable housing is proposed, it should not be permitted unless it is replaced by better quality accommodation, providing at least or equivalent floorspace.
3.6 The existing 200 units have the following residential capacity: 140 x 2 bedroom / 4 person flats = 280 bedrooms 60 x 3 bedroom / 6 person flats = 180 bedrooms Total = 460 bedrooms The proposal comprises the following: 32 x 1 bed / 2 person flats = 32 bedrooms 83 x 2 bed / 3 person flats = 166 bedrooms 65 x 2 bed / 4 person flats = 130 bedrooms 7 x 3 bed / 5 person flats = 21 bedrooms 41 x 3 bed / 6 person flats = 123 bedrooms 10 x 4 bed / 6 person flats = 40 bedrooms Total = 512 bedrooms 3.7 The proposal would provide a total of 238 residential dwellings, an increase of 38 units and an increase in the number of habitable rooms of 92 from 673 to 765. However, there would be a net loss of 6 bedspaces, giving a total of 914 bedspaces. Given the increase in the number of dwellings, the amount of residential floor space and the number of habitable rooms, along with the greater mix of dwelling types brought up to Decent Homes standards, the proposal is considered acceptable in accordance with PPS3 and policies 3A.15 and HO1. Affordable Housing/Tenure Mix 3.8 London Plan Policies 3A.9 and 3A.10 set out the Mayor's affordable housing targets. Policy 3A.9 requires that council targets be based on an assessment of housing needs and supply and that they should take account of the Mayors strategic targets for 50% affordable and the London wide objective of 70% social housing and 30% intermediate provision. Policy 3A.10 advises that councils seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, having regard to their targets adopted in line with policy 3A.9, and taking into account the need to encourage development and the individual circumstances of the site. 3.9 The development would provide 38 additional residential dwellings, of which 13 units (34%) would be affordable, socially rented units. The existing 200 flats comprise socially rented units; however these units are not currently the subject of any S106 encumbrance but are to remain as affordable housing under the control of the RSL. Overall, an additional 32 socially rented bedrooms (45 habitable rooms) and 13 socially rented units would be provided, with the remaining 25 units being for private market sale. Officers consider that the mix of housing types and tenure is acceptable on the basis that there would be no net loss of social rent units and habitable rooms. The existing units would be also reconfigured, extended and improved to bring them up to Decent Homes standards, providing better quality accommodation for existing and future residents and at a more appropriate mix thereby complying with the relevant local, regional and national policy/guidance. DENSITY 3.10 Policy 3A.3 of the London Plan seeks to ensure that proposals achieve the maximum use compatible with local context and sets out residential density ranges in Table 3A.2. For a site with public transport accessibility of 4, the matrix advises
between 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hrha). The development would result in a density of 765 hrha. The existing density is 673 hrha. Whilst the proposed density marginally exceeds the London Plan range, policy 3A.3 indicates that development should achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with local context, design principles (policy 4B.1) and public transport capacity, and which are compatible with sustainable residential quality. 3.11 Officers consider 765 hrha acceptable in this context given that the site has good access to public transport and is only marginally outside the suggested density range. The proposed new units would be car permit free and are therefore unlikely to place additional pressure on on-street parking in the area. Furthermore, the proposal would result in the creation of a greater mix of units consisting of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom flats, the design would be of a good quality (see below) and would formalise and improve communal amenity area and playspace. Given the net change in bedspaces the change in demand on local services is considered to be negligible. DESIGN 3.12 Policy EN2B (Effect of Development on the setting of the Conservation Area) and EN8B (Design of Extensions) relate to matters of scale, massing, height, materials, colour, vertical and horizontal emphasis, and the relationship to the existing building, its neighbours and its setting. 3.13 The existing estate was built in 1928 and is consistent in its form of ten 5-storey blocks and shares its northern and western boundaries with the Olympia and Avonmore Conservation Area. The proposals for the infill link blocks and roof top additions have been designed so that they respond positively to the form and architectural detailing and proportions of the existing blocks, as well as the wider street context. The existing estate buildings are consistent in their architectural expression and the frontages have a strong sense of rhythm due to the form of the blocks, and their relationship to the street edge. The facades have a strong sense of proportion and a clearly expressed base, middle and attic floor. The elevations are robust, with brick detailing around the windows and expressing quoins on the leading corners, and multi-paned timber sash windows. 3.14 Officers consider that the existing architectural composition and qualities of the blocks, and their contribution to the street scene and setting of the conservation area is respected in the proposals. 3.15 The proposed infill blocks are set back some 5m from the frontage to retain the rhythm of the blocks and make the additions subservient to the existing form. The unifying elements would be the matching red brick proposed for the ground floor and replicated sash windows and associated detailing throughout. The main body of the infills are proposed to be rendered to clearly distinguish them from the original layout of the estate and thereby avoid a potentially overbearing continuous monolithic form. The infill blocks would change the character of the spaces on the estate in that they would become clearly internal and no longer appear as ambiguous spaces open to the street. 3.16 The additional roof floor would be added to the existing blocks in the form of a pitched roof. On the principal elevations, the new roof would be set within the existing parapets thereby minimising its impact and retaining the scale and proportions of the existing architectural composition of the blocks. A section of the roof extension to the
block in the north-east corner of the site has been removed for daylight/sunlight reasons. Officers considered a corresponding section should be removed to the north-west block to maintain symmetry and a balanced appearance to the northern elevation. 3.17 In accordance with Policy EN10, officers consider that the development will provide users with a safe and secure environment (secured by condition 10). The proposed site layout will increase the overall security on the estate by limiting access and egress to one location. The applicant has also confirmed that consultation with the police Secure by Design adviser has informed the detailed design of many aspects of the scheme and in addition, consideration is being given to providing CCTV on the estate. 3.18 Overall, officers consider the extensions to be well designed and compatible with the scale and character of the existing buildings and neighbouring properties. Officers also consider that the proposal would satisfactorily provide users with a safe and secure environment and will preserve the character and setting, together with views into and out of the neighbouring conservation areas, in accordance with UDP Policies EN10, EN8B and EN2B. RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES Overlooking/Outlook 3.19 Standards S13.1 and S13.2 respectively require that there is no significant loss of outlook and privacy to occupiers of surrounding residential properties. Standard S13.1 states that a good guide for preserving outlook is by taking a line at 45 degrees from a point 2 metres high on the boundary with the adjoining gardens. Standard S13.2 states that new windows should be no less than 18 metres as measured by an arc of 60 degrees. The proposal is considered by officers to avoid a significant impact on neighbouring properties by means of loss of outlook/overlooking by meeting both these standards. Daylight/Sunlight 3.20 New development should allow for the protection of adequate light to reach adjacent buildings. In considering this, the council has regard to non-statutory BRE guidance used in conjunction with on site judgement. To this end the applicant submitted a daylight and sunlight report with the application and officers also carried out an assessment in accordance with the BRE guidelines. 3.21 The most common methods of calculation are the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and Average Daylight Factor (ADF). These methods were used by the applicant in their daylight/sunlight assessment and tested by officers. VSC is the measure of light to a potentially affected window. The guidelines state that if as a result of any proposal there is reduction of less than 20% in the amount of light previously available to any window then daylighting is unlikely to be seriously affected. Average Daylight Factor (ADF) is a more detailed analysis and therefore more accurate method which calculates the amount of sky visibility on the vertical face of the window and also considers the window size and room use. 3.22 Following the submission of the daylight and sunlight assessments, four additional reports (including an `Overshadowing report') have been produced in an attempt to
resolve the potential issues surrounding the perceived impacts of the proposal. Discussions surrounding the varying conclusions reached in the reports have resulted in the applicants and objectors experts reaching an agreement and issuing a 'Statement of Agreed Effect'. As part of the agreement the applicant has reduced the mass by removing the proposed roof extension for the link block closest to Lisgar Terrace. 3.23 In summary, both consultants have agreed the following:
• VSC - The scheme satisfies the principal daylight test which measures Vertical Sky Component on the face of the windows.
• ADF & Daylight Distribution - The proposal does not fully satisfy the Daylight Distribution test which measures internal daylight penetration for the lower floor rooms of 13, 14, 15 and 16 Lisgar Terrace. This is due to the inherent effect of the projecting bay windows coupled with the depth of the rooms.
• All the rooms meet the target value for annual sunlight with only one shortfall of winter sunlight where the reduction in winter sunlight is 1% below the recommended minimum standard.
• The overall conclusion is that revised form of ‘massing’ will be acceptable. 3.24 In respect of the adjoining Council flats at Burne Jones House, four windows on each of the ground, first, and second floors facing the development experience poor levels of VSC ranging between 2.5% to 6% which is substantially less than the minimum recommended levels of 27%. This is a direct result of the windows being located under balconies that restrict the light levels below. The greatest reduction to these windows as a result of the proposed development would be 2% VSC, which is small and exaggerates the proportion actually lost from its former value which is already low. In real terms this reduction is diminutive and would not be perceived by the residents. It would not justify a refusal of the scheme particularly as the windows serve non-habitable rooms in the form of (non-dining) kitchens. 3.25 In relation to direct sunlight, the BRE states that windows which may be adversely affected are those that lose greater than 20% of their currently available direct sunlight. There are no habitable room windows which would experience a reduction greater than this. 3.26 In terms of the proposed flats, the figures in the report show that the vertical sky component will be at least 27% or the average daylight factor to the rooms would be a minimum of 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms. Officer’s assessment confirms this conclusion. STANDARD OF ACCOMMODATION 3.27 Standard S7A relates to internal space provisions and requires a minimum of 44.5 square metres for any residential unit of two habitable rooms, 57 square metres for three rooms and 70 square metres for four room flats. In this case all of the proposed units would all meet (and in some cases exceed) this requirement. 3.28 All units within the development would be built to `Lifetime Home' standards with good internal specifications and it is considered that the proposed units would receive adequate daylight and outlook. It is also considered that the provision of communal open space in the form south facing landscaped courtyards would adequately meet the needs of residents.
AMENITY SPACE 3.29 Standards S5A.1 and S5A.2 of the Unitary Development Plan require a directly accessible, private amenity area or garden area of no less than 36 square metres for new family dwellings and no less than 14 square metres for new non-family dwellings at ground level. 3.30 The existing development currently has no formal outdoor amenity space. The outdoor area located between the blocks is all asphalt which is unsightly and an undesirable space for residents to utilise. The development would provide formal amenity space in the form of 6 communal south facing gardens located between each of the blocks, to the south of the infill extensions linking the buildings. The proposed gardens would range in area from approximately 199 square metres to 218 square metres. Two other gardens would be located in the north east and North West corners of the site and soft landscaping is proposed along the Lisgar Terrace frontage. 3.31 The total amount of outdoor amenity space (excluding the soft landscaping along the Lisgar Terrace boundary) would be approximately 1753 square metres which represents approximately 7.4 square metres for each of the units. This is below the standard prescribed in the UDP. However, as existing situation is substandard and the proposal would significantly improve the amenity space facilities for existing residents, it is considered that the proposed amenity space provision would be adequate in this instance. 3.32 Policy 3D.13 of the London Plan and Policies EN23 (New open space provision in connection with development) and EN23B (children's play areas) are also relevant and refer to children's play and recreation areas. Where residential development with family accommodation is proposed, playspace provision will be required by means of a communal play area on site or by the provision of, or contribution to new and enhanced facilities in the immediate vicinity. Standard S7.1 and the Council SPG for children's playspace provision (approved in 1994 and therefore quite dated) requires 100 square metres of playspace for 50-99 children's bed spaces. In this case the development would result in approximately 63 children's bedspaces, requiring 630 square metres of playspace. A children's play area of approximately 300 square metres is proposed in the south western corner of the site. It is considered that this, coupled with a further 1753 square metres of grassed amenity space throughout the site, would be acceptable in terms of the overall amenity space provision (children's play area secured by condition 19). TRAFFIC GENERATION, PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 3.33 Policy TN13 requires that all development proposals be assessed against their contribution to traffic generation and other impacts on congestion, particularly on bus routes and the primary road network, and against the present and potential availability of public transport and its capacity to meet increased demand. Policy TN15 and Standard S18 relate to car parking provision for the proposed development and Appendix 12.1 (Assessment of on-street parking availability/stress) and Table 12.1set out car parking standards. Standard S19 (parking layout) is also applicable. 3.34 The applicants have submitted a Transport Statement which addresses the impact the proposal is likely to have on the local road network and access/parking arrangements. The transport statement concludes that the proposed scheme would not
result in a material increase in traffic when compared to existing traffic levels. Officers have considered this statement. 3.35 The application site has a good PTAL 4 location near several bus routes on North End Road and is approximately 450m from West Kensington underground station. 3.36 Table 12.1 prescribes a car parking rate for private housing of 0.8 spaces for units of 2 habitable rooms, 1.0 space for 3 habitable rooms, 1.2 spaces for 4 habitable rooms and 1.4 for units with 5 or more habitable rooms. A further 0.2 spaces per unit are required for visitor parking. In certain circumstances, a lower level of parking provision may be acceptable subject to the availability of public transport and local services, together with the practicality of meeting the full parking standard. Table 12.1 also indicates that affordable housing may have up to 75% less parking where conditions are included preventing residents from applying for on street parking permits. Standard S18 further states that this provision may be reduced where the proposal would not contribute to unsafe traffic conditions, additional on-street parking stress or other problems of traffic management. 3.37 Whilst there is currently no formal car parking arrangement on the site, there is room for approximately 79 spaces for residents parking on the asphalt areas between the blocks. The proposed scheme would formalise the car parking arrangements with line marking and proposes 77 car spaces (of these 6 spaces would be for wheelchair users). Each of the parking spaces meets the UDP minimum dimensions for satisfactory circulation and manoeuvring purposes. The existing vehicle access would be retained on Lisgar Terrace and would be of sufficient width (5m) to allow passing of vehicles and adequate servicing (to car parking and refuse areas respectively) without impacting the traffic flow along the highway in terms of safety or congestion. CYCLE PARKING 3.38 Currently there are no cycle spaces on the property. The development makes provision for 152 cycle parking spaces at 9 locations adjacent to the existing blocks, the western boundary and western clubhouse building. This would result in one space for each of the additional 38 units and would increase the availability of cycle parking for the existing units. The proposed cycle storage blocks will comprise brickwork to match the existing building with black painted timber framed doors and a timber fascia. The proposed indicative cycle storage facilities are considered acceptable in principle and are generally consistent with Standard S20 (cycle parking) and Table 12.2 and Policy TN6 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007 (secured by Condition 14). TREES AND LANDSCAPING 3.39 The development provides for soft landscaping for the entire length of the Lisgar Road frontage in front of the buildings and on either side of the end blocks. Additional soft landscaping is provided in the amenity areas provided in the form of south facing courtyards between the buildings (Conditions 7 and 8). REFUSE 3.40 Policy EN17 relates to refuse and recycling storage and collection. The policy requires suitable on site facilities to be provided in each development for storage of
refuse. The proposal provides for 7 fully enclosed bin stores across the site at ground floor level, providing mixed refuse and recycling storage. Additionally, swept path analysis submitted within the supporting transport statement indicates that refuse vehicles would be able to enter the site and exit on to Lisgar Terrace in a forward gear. Officers raise no objection to the development on refuse storage grounds, subject to the submission of a refuse servicing strategy prior to commencement of the development (Condition No.15). ACCESS 3.41 The Council's adopted supplementary planning document (SPD) 'Access for All' is relevant in consideration of the acceptability of the scheme in terms of disabled access. The proposal identifies key issues relating to access for people with disabilities in relation to the proposed development, and sets out how the development would ensure access for all. Level access would be provided to the development and 4 flats on the ground floor (10.5% of the units) would be provided for wheelchair users and secured by condition (Condition 13). As mentioned above, 6 of the proposed parking spaces would be designated for wheelchair use and areas for wheelchair storage would be provided throughout the development. Lift access would be provided to each of the blocks. Officers are satisfied that the development accords with the Councils Supplementary Planning Document `Access for All'. FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT 3.42 The site lies within the Environment Agency Flood risk zones 1 which requires referral to the EA on sites over 1 ha. The application was amended during the application process, changing the site boundary to reduce it below the 1ha threshold. The Environment Agency provided written confirmation that they had no objection to the proposal in respect to flood related matters. The scheme is therefore considered to accord with PPS25. ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY 3.43 London Plan policy 4A.3 deals with energy conservation and renewable energy and states that major developments should be designed to minimise energy use and integrate energy generation for renewable sources in building design where feasible. This is supported by policy 4A.4 of the London Plan, which requires an assessment of the energy demand and CO2 emissions for the development. The Council's Energy Supplementary planning Document (SPD) is also relevant in considering environmental and sustainability issues. 3.44 The applicants have submitted an Energy Statement in support of their proposal. The findings of the report are considered satisfactory to officers, subject to conditions regarding implementation of the sustainable design and construction measures as outlined in the Code for Sustainable Homes assessment. (Condition No.11). CONTAMINATION 3.45 According to the Council's records, potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) occur near 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 are included that require the applicant to undertake a site investigation report (Conditions 17 and 18) 4.0 LEGAL AGREEMENT 4.1 In order to ensure that the proposal would not result in increased on-street car parking demand, to ensure that 13 of the additional 38 units would be affordable and to allow opportunities for access to the wheelchair units, it is necessary for the scheme to be subject to a legal agreement. The draft heads of terms of the proposed legal agreement are summarised below: (1) Development to be car permit free, to exclude the occupiers of the new residential units from obtaining residents parking permits on-street (2) Exclusive marketing strategy of the wheelchair unit for a period of six months following commencement of the development. (3) Provisions to ensure that the 13 affordable units are provided and managed by an appropriate RSL or other body to ensure they remain affordable in accordance with the Council's policies. 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in land use terms, appearance, impact on traffic generation and parking, borough housing with a satisfactory relationship to surrounding buildings and residential properties and will contribute to an improved standard of affordable housing within the Borough. As such it is recommended that planning permission for the proposed development be granted, subject to conditions and a legal agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Ravenscourt Park
Site Address: 18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ
Reg. No: 2010/00210/FUL Date Valid: 22.01.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Dale Jones Conservation Area: St. Peter's Square Conservation Area - Number 1
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Thorne, Mr & Mrs Smith 18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ Description: Erection of a part two, part three storey extension to the side of the main buildings at No. 18 and No. 19 at lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor level (following demolition of existing garages at Nos. 18 and No. 19); formation of steps to rear at lower ground floor level of No. 18 and No 19. Drg Nos: 0409 AK(2-)30 rev.TP - 34; 0409 AK(2-)35 rev. TP1 - 36 Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the application be refused for the following reason(s): 1) The development is considered to be unacceptable in the interests of visual
amenity. More particularly, the proposal would be overdominant and infill the gaps between houses as a result of the insufficient set back of the ground floor (middle) level of the extensions. The extensions would be out of keeping with the existing acceptable development of this nature in The Square and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property, the streetscene and the conservation area, which the Council considers it desirable to preserve in compliance with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In these respects the proposal is contrary to Policies EN2, EN3 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 200 and Policy HE9 of PPS5 'Planning and The Historic Environment, 2010'.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 21st January 2010 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007. Consultation Comments: Comments from: Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group English Heritage London Region St. Peter's Residents' Association St. Peter's Residents' Association Thames Water - Development Control Thames Water - Development Control
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 27 St Peter's Square London W6 9NW 10.03.10 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site comprises two separate three storey plus basement Georgian villa styled properties used as two houses (18 and 19 St Peter's Square) which are located on the southern side of St. Peter's Square. The properties are Grade II Listed Buildings, located within the St. Peter's Square Conservation Area. The properties are located in Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3. 1.2 Planning History: The properties have an extensive planning history which also relates to planning appeals, including the following records: - 1982/1384/FUL, 1982/1405/FUL and 1982/1385/FUL: Planning permission and listed building consent granted (18.01.83) for the installation of railings to the frontage together with the erection of brick piers and side boundary wall with the erection of brick piers and side boundary wall and a single storey extension. - 1991/0098/FUL and 1991/0099/LBC: Planning permission and listed building consent refused (01.07.92) for the erection of a two storey building for office/studio purposes in connection with the main use of the property as a dwellinghouse. - 2001/01066/FUL and 2001/01069/LBC: Planning permission and listed building consent refused (17.07.01) for the erection of a two storey glazed side extension infilling the space between the two properties at upper ground and first floor levels. Appeal dismissed. - 2003/02538/FUL and 2003/02541/LBC: Planning permission and listed building consent refused (14.11.03) for the erection of a rear extension at first floor level over part of the existing back addition. Appeal dismissed. 1.3 The current proposal is for the erection of a part two storey and part three storey extension to the side of the main buildings at No. 18 and No. 19. at lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor level, following the demolition of existing garages at No. 18 and No. 19. Also proposed is the formation of steps to the rear at lower ground floor level of No 18 and No 19 and provision of new internal openings to allow access to the lower ground floor, ground floor and first floors of No. 18 and No.19. 1.4 This is a joint report relating to matters arising from both the planning application and the listed building consent application (ref. 2010/00223/LBC). 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 Press and site notices have been posted and individual letters of notification have been sent to adjoining occupiers along St Peter's Square and North Eyot Gardens. Consultation letters have also been sent to the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group and the St. Peter's Residents Association.
2.2 Four objections have been received in response to the public consultation exercise, with the following comments in summary: Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group: - No sections through the buildings have been provided to allow a correct
assessment of the proposals (Officer note: drawings No. 0409 AK (2-) 35 and 36 rev: TP1 are the proposed longitudinal section).
LAMAS Historic Buildings and Conservation Committee: - A higher standard of design might be desirable but the principle overall was
considered acceptable - The submitted drawings are not clear St. Peter's Residents Association: - The proposed `infill' development would have a detrimental aspect upon the
principle of the Square's original design concept of separate `triple villas with spaces between them'. The principle of `limited' infilling has been established over the years with principles of a six metre set back at first floor level which should be adhered to.
27 St. Peter's Square: - The development is not an enhancement to the conservation area. The application
proposal would be seen from the road and public gardens; - The ground floor should be set back six metres from the front screen and the
height of the extension should not be more than the cornice line around the front porches
- The depth of the `set-back' was argued in 1990 and has been agreed on other applications
- The height of the basement windows should be the same height as the windows of the basement of the main part of the house
2.3 The matters raised in the objections will be discussed within the context of section 3 of the report below. 2.4 English Heritage state that they do not wish to provide any comments on this application and issue the following recommendation: `This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice'. 2.5 The Environment Agency were consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections. 2.6 Thames Water were consulted on the proposal. They request that the applicant should incorporate within their proposal, protection to the property by installing for example, a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions. With regard to surface water drainage they state that it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water they recommend that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a
combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of ground water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. With regard to water infrastructure they state that they do not have any objection to the planning application. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning issues arising from this proposal include the impact of the proposed development upon visual amenity in terms of the impact upon the character and appearance of the Grade II listed buildings and St Peter's Square Conservation Area, and in terms of any implications as a result of the development upon the amenities of adjoining residential neighbours. 3.2 UDP Policy EN2 requires development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. UDP Policy EN3 relates to listed buildings and states that 'the Council will not normally permit alterations or extensions where their special character or historic interest would be adversely affected'. Policy EN3 states that 'the presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings will be reflected by not normally permitting their demolition, nor will alterations or extensions to them be permitted where their special architectural or historic interest would be adversely affected'. UDP Policy EN8B states that 'all extensions and alterations to existing buildings should be compatible with the scale and character of existing development, its neighbours and its setting'. The policy also states that 'in most cases these (extensions) will be subservient to the original building'. 3.3 PPS5 ('Planning and The Historic Environment'), Policy HE9 states 'There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional'. 3.4 The proposal involves the demolition of the existing garage buildings that were constructed in the late 1990's, which are located to the side of the main properties and the erection of a part two, part three storey extension to infill the area between the houses at nos. 18 and 19. The additional floorspace provided by the infill development would be used for additional accommodation for the main dwelling houses. The lower ground floor element would measure 9.9 metres in depth and would be set back 300mm from the front building façade. The ground floor (also incorporating the three storey element) would measure 8.8 metres in depth and would be set back 1.450 metres behind the front building façade. The extensions proposed would incorporate painted rendered walls including to the screen to match the main portico, and would include timber sash windows to match the main house and rendered string courses. 3.5 The principle of a side infill extension to the main properties has been established within St Peter's Square. There are such developments at nos. 6 and 7, 9 and 10, 12 and 13, 23 and 24, 32 and 33 and also at 35 and 36. The principle of the current proposal is therefore considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. The
garages, in themselves, do not have any special architectural quality worthy of preservation, and their position and influence on the streetscene is not such that their removal should be resisted on visual amenity grounds. There is, admittedly, some variation in design of the side infill extensions which currently exist in The Square; and some are more successful than others with respect to their integration with the parent property, their impact on the streetscene and on the conservation area. A number of these date back from the 1980s. 3.6 With regards to the detail, the infill extensions proposed herein are not considered to be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity. The set back of the ground (middle) floor element of the development is considered insufficient to reduce the scale and massing of the scheme when viewed from the street, which is considered to be required in order to preserve the character of the villa style properties which typically have an existing sense of openness between them. It is considered that the proposal would introduce a design feature in this prominent location which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the subject listed buildings, which would harm the character and appearance of them, the street and the wider conservation area. 3.7 In this respect, what has become a 'model approach' for side extensions to listed buildings in St Peter's Square was agreed between the Council, English Heritage and the Georgian Group in 1990 as part of the assessment of proposals at nos. 23 and 24 St Peter's Square. A condition on the permissions required that the height of the roof of the extensions should be no higher than the cornice around the top of the front porch as it continues around the flank wall of the building and that the extension over the existing single storey garage must be set back not less than 6 metres from the front wall of the main building. In 2000 applications for a double width extension between nos. 35 and 36 St Peter's Square were refused consent and dismissed at appeal on visual amenity grounds. These extensions projected to within 3 metres of the front face of the houses. In 2001 an application for works including an extension to the side set back from the front wall of the property by 6 metres was approved at no.32. 3.8 Without a suitable set back, which has been identified and established in previous permissions along St Peter's Square, it is considered that the scale, mass and bulk of the side extensions would appear excessively prominent including in views from public vantage points and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the listed buildings. The proposal in this respect would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Grade II listed buildings and the character and appearance of the St Peter's Square Conservation Area, and fails to accord with policies EN2, EN8B and EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan and with the aims and objectives of PPS5. 3.9 With regard to arboricultural issues, the Council's officers raise no objections to the works. The proposed extension would not affect the protected ash tree in the front garden as long as the usual precautions are taken and the tree is protected from accidental damage by the movement and storage of vehicles, plant, materials and spoil. It is considered that the holly at the rear of the property could be removed as part of the planning permission for the extension, as its visual impact is limited. 3.10 With regard to residential amenity, assessing the scheme against the criteria of Policy EN8B and Standard S13 of the UDP, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in a demonstrable loss of light, nor that it would result in any additional opportunity for overlooking or loss of privacy of surrounding properties,
due to the fact that the development would be confined to the side of the main flank walls of Nos. 18 and 19 St Peter's Square. 3.11 Potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) are understood to occur near to this site. In order to ensure that no unacceptable risks would be caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following any development works, if the proposal were considered to be acceptable in all other matters conditions would be recommended with respect to contamination (investigation and any necessary required remediation works), to satisfy the requirements of policies G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the UDP. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Officers consider that the proposed development is unacceptable in visual amenity terms, with particular regard to the harmful impact of the side extensions upon the character and appearance of the Grade II listed buildings and upon the streetscene and the St Peter's Square Conservation Area, which would arise from the detailed design of the development. 4.2 It is recommended that planning permission and listed building consent be refused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Ravenscourt Park
Site Address: 18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ
Reg. No: 2010/00223/LBC Date Valid: 22.01.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Dale Jones Conservation Area: St. Peter's Square Conservation Area - Number 1
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Thorne, Mr & Mrs Smith 18 And 19 St Peter's Square London W6 9AJ Description: Erection of a part two, part three storey extension to the side of the main buildings at No. 18 and No. 19 at lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor level (following demolition of existing garages at Nos. 18 and No. 19); formation of steps to rear at lower ground floor level of No. 18 and No 19; provision of new internal openings to allow access to the lower ground floor, ground floor and first floors of No. 18 and No.19. Drg Nos: 0409 AK (2-) 30 - 36. Application Type: Listed Building Consent Officer Recommendation: That the application be refused for the following reason(s): 1) The development is considered to be unacceptable in the interests of visual
amenity. More particularly, the proposal would be out of scale with the application property and it would fail to respect its original proportions arising from the insufficient set back of the upper levels of the extensions. The extensions would be out of keeping with the existing character of development in the Square and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property. In these respects the proposal is contrary to policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and Policy HE9 of PPS5 'Planning and The Historic Environment, 2010'.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 21st January 2010 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007. Consultation Comments: Comments from: Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group
Reg. No: 2010/01704/EFUL Date Valid: 07.06.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Raj Satheesan Conservation Area:
Applicant: Interpub PLC C/o Agent Description: Renewal of Planning Permission 2007/01681/FUL granted 20 November 2007 for the erection of a three storey rear extension at first, second and third floor levels to create an additional 12 bedrooms over ground floor level rear extension for new toilets, staircase and lift, in connection with existing hotel (C1 use) Drg Nos: 131-PL-01(E);131-PL-02(E); 131-PL-03(D) Application Type: Extension of Time Full Permission Officer Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of
3 years beginning with the date of this planning permission. Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2) The building development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with
the detailed drawings which have been approved. 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 EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
3) The development hereby permitted shall not take place until details and samples
of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with Policy EN8B of
the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 4) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of the external noise level emitted from proposed plant/ machinery/ equipment and mitigation measures. The measures shall ensure that the external noise level emitted from any plant, machinery/ equipment will be lower than the existing background noise level by at least 10 dBA, as assessed according to BS4142:1997 at noise sensitive premises, with all machinery operating together. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.
To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of surrounding premises is not adversely
affected by noise from mechanical installations/ equipment and their uses, in
accordance with Policies EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
5) No additional rooftop plant shall be erected or installed upon the new roof of the
building hereby permitted unless shown on the approved plans. It is considered that such structures would seriously detract from the appearance
of the building, contrary to Policy EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development hereby permitted, without planning permission first being obtained.
To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment can be
considered in accordance with Policy EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
7) No deliveries to the premises hereby approved shall take place between the hours
of 2000 and 0700 the following day. In order to ensure that noise and other disturbance caused by deliveries does not
cause harm to surrounding residents, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
8) The use hereby approved shall not commence prior to the provision of a minimum
of 3 secure bicycle parking spaces within the curtilage of the site, for the use of staff and visitors to the premises. Details of the design and location of the proposed bicycle parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to their installation and the bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details. The bicycle parking spaces shall thereafter be permanently retained.
To ensure the satisfactory provision and retention of the cycle parking facilities, in
accordance with Policy TN6 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 9) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of refuse and
recycling storage for the additional residential units hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council and the development shall not be occupied or used until such refuse and recycling storage as has been approved has been provided. The refuse and recycling storage shall be permanently retained.
To ensure that the use does not give rise to smell nuisance and to prevent harm
arising from the appearance of accumulated rubbish, in accordance with Policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
1) 1. Land Use: The proposed extension as a Class C1 hotel is considered to be acceptable in the context of the existing use of the site. The proposed development would achieve a sustainable development with efficient use of brownfield land. The proposal would co-ordinate land use and transportation. Policy 3B.4 of The London Plan, as amended 2008 and PPS1 are thereby satisfied.
2. Design: The proposal would be of a high standard of design and not
inconsistent with the scale and height of buildings in the area, complementing the character of the existing development and its setting. Policy EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007, Policy 4B.1 of The London Plan as amended 2008 and PPS1 would thereby be satisfied.
3 Highways: The impact of the proposal on the highway network and local parking
conditions is considered acceptable, and the development accords with Unitary Development Plan Policies TN6, TN13 and TN15. Policy TN13 requires all development proposal be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion. Policy TN15 requires development to confirm to parking standards S18 and S19. Policy TN6 requires the provision of cycle parking in accordance with standard S20.
4. Access: The development would provide a safe and secure environment for all
users in accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and the Council's adopted supplementary planning document 'Access for all'.
5. Environmental: The Council is satisfied that the scheme represents the
principles of good design and properly addresses environmental issues. It considers that Unitary Development Plan Policy EN10, which requires a safe and secure environment, is complied with. The proposal, similarly, accords with Unitary Development Plan Policy EN17 in that it would incorporate suitable facilities for the storage and collection of segregated waste, and with Policies EN20A and EN20B because the development would not cause any undue pollution, with no significant worsening of air quality nor undue noise and, with other pollution controls in place, would also ensure compliance with EN21, which requires that development does not cause undue detriment to the amenities of neighbours.
6. Residential amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining
occupiers is considered acceptable. In this regard, the proposal accords with UDP Policy EN8B, which requires developments to be of high quality design which, amongst other things, respects the principles of good neighbourliness.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 4th June 2010 Drawing Nos: see above
Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008 Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007.
Consultation Comments: Comments from: Charcroft Court Tenants' And Residents' Association
Dated: 07.07.10
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 173 The Grampians Shepherd's Bush Road W6 7ND 19.07.10 The Grampians Shepherd's Bush Road London W6 7LN 20.07.10 Flat 58 Bush Court 17 Shepherd's Bush Green W12 8PL 02.08.10 Flat 6 Shepherds Court 21 Shepherd's Bush Green W12 8PN 26.07.10 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application premises comprises a three storey hotel which contains 18 bedrooms and caters for low cost short-stay accommodation. In this respect the use operates as a tourist hostel. The property is located on the south side of Shepherd's Bush Green approximately 50 metres from, west of, Holland Park roundabout. The site adjoins a 15-storey residential tower to the west and terraced properties located in Richmond Way to the east. Belushi's Bar is located on the ground floor of the property. 1.2 The property itself is not located within a conservation area. However, the site is located opposite the eastern extremity of the Shepherd's Bush Conservation Area. The premises is located in Flood Risk Zone 1, which is the area at lowest risk of flooding in the borough. 1.3 The current application is for the erection of a three storey rear extension at first, second and third floor levels to create an additional 12 bedrooms over a smaller ground floor level rear extension which would accommodate toilets, a new lift area and staircase for the existing hotel (C1 use) to accommodate a maximum of 24 additional visitors. Each new bedroom would include a private en-suite facility. The third floor level of the proposed extension would be a storey higher than the existing property. The applicant states that no additional servicing would be required or would be provided and that the refuse store would remain as existing, to the rear. 1.4 This scheme was previously approved in November 2007 by Planning Applications Committee. This application seeks an extension of the timescale within which to commence the works. The only material difference in circumstances in this area since the previous approval is the arrival of Westfield Shopping Centre and the new Overground station and other tube and bus network improvements on the northern side of Shepherd's Bush Green. 1.5 There is some other recent relevant planning history. In 1995 an application for a change of use from a public house with ancillary residential accommodation to a 26 bedroom hotel was approved (ref 1995/01234/FUL). In 2000 an application for a change of use of ground floor to a café, bar and diner used in conjunction with the continued use of the upper floors as a back packer hotel, and installation of new doors and widows on the front elevation was approved (ref 2000/01549/FUL). In 2001 and 2002 two
applications for variation of conditions to extend the hours of operation of the Belushi's bar on the ground floor beyond 11 pm were refused. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application was publicised by way of individual letters of notification to nearby commercial and residential occupiers. 2.2 Four letters of objection have been received, one each from occupiers of Bush Court, Shepherd’s Court; two from residents at The Grampians. The objections relate to, in summary: - 173 The Grampians - The area (Shepherd's Bush) is overcrowded with late night drinkers and the chaos caused to the residents is sometimes too much to bear. - Flat 6 Shepherd's Court - "this is not only careless & undoubtedly senseless but it also represents, although potentially, one major nightmare scenario for many residents of Bush Court... (try to imagine the kind of aggravation those people could easily be subjected to)...I sincerely hope that as many people as possible would strongly object to this Application" - Resident at the Grampians - "The whole Shepherds Green area is overcrowded as it is, without increasing the problem by adding extra hostel accommodation in an already built up area. This will undoubtedly attract young people who'll frequent the many late night clubs/bars e.g. Walkabout, and therefore there'll be an increase in drinkers/problems/anti-social behaviour etc. which there's far too much of already" - 58 Bush Court - "I live just above the Belushi's and the area around the bar tends to get busy and noisy around the weekends. Predictably, if the hostel gets extension permission, the noise will increase infallibly and that will have a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents of Bush Court". 2.3 The Charcroft Court Tenants' and Residents' Association object to the proposal. Their objections relate to, in summary, noise levels already coming from this building throughout the night and risks of this increasing if the extension was built. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning issues arising from the proposed development are listed below and have all been considered and found to be acceptable in the application which was approved in November 2007 by Planning Applications Committee: - The principle of the hotel extension in land use terms - Design and visual amenity - Implications on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of light, outlook and privacy, and potential for noise and disturbance from the commercial use - Potential impacts on the local highway network and car parking provision LAND USE 3.2 The property is situated within the Shepherd's Bush Town Centre as indicated on the proposals map of the UDP. The general aim as identified in Policy G9A of the UDP, is for the regeneration of the Town Centres by enhancing their vitality and viability as places for a wide range of shopping, services, entertainment and other facilitates, together with employment and residential uses. 3.3 London Plan policy 3D.7 states that the Mayor will work with strategic partners to implement his Tourism Vision and to achieve 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms by
2026. Policy E11 of the UDP reflects the Council's position towards hotel development within the borough. This policy supports hotel development and extensions to existing hotels in town centres as a preferred location for such proposals, provided that the amenities of the local community are protected. Furthermore it is stated that the appropriate scale of development should be measured by adjoining buildings and public transport accessibility (PTAL). It is anticipated that a high PTAL would cater for the anticipated traffic movements arising from such uses. 3.4 The site is very well sited in relation to public transport being located opposite the new Shepherd's Bush Central line station and Overground station, in a PTAL 6 location. However, it also adjoins residential properties that front onto Richmond Way and the Bush Court tower block. The impact of the proposal on these residential properties is not considered significant, and is discussed in greater detail below. VISUAL AMENITY 3.5 Government Guidance to local authorities in relation to design and conservation issues is set out in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS 1). The proposal must therefore be considered against this document, as well as London Plan and UDP design policies. 3.6 PPS1, 'key principles', paragraph 13 (vi) states that 'Planning Policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted'. PPS1 states that 'Design Policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles'. 3.7 Policy 4B.1 of The London Plan 'Design principles for a compact city' states that 'boroughs should seek to ensure that developments: - Maximise the potential of sites - Create or enhance the public realm - Provide or enhance a mix of uses - Are accessible, usable and permeable for all users - Are sustainable, durable and adaptable - Are safe for occupants and passers-by - Respect local context, character and communities - Are practical and legible - Are attractive to look at and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and delight - Respect the natural environment - Respect London's built heritage' 3.8 Policy EN8B requires that extensions should be of a high standard of design that are compatible with the scale and character of existing development, its neighbours and its setting. Policy EN2B states that 'development will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation areas in terms of their setting and views into or out of them is preserved or enhanced'.
3.9 The extension would be located to the rear of the existing building and comprise 3 floors, cantilevered over a service bay. The land falls from the front of the property to the rear and the total height of the structure would in effect be 4 storeys including the resulting under-croft. The extension would project a total of 9.6 metres from the rear wall of the existing building. The additional floor would extend 3.4 metres in height above the existing building, but would be set back approximately 8 metres from the front of the property. Given the substantial set back, the proposed increase in height would not be prominent when viewed from Shepherd's Bush Green. 3.10 The proposed extension would match the existing materials of London Red Brick, with dark brown powder coated windows. The extension could be viewed from a small section of Shepherd's Bush Green and also to a lesser extent from Charecroft Way to the rear. The adjoining site contains a 15 storey residential tower over the West 12 shopping centre. The service bays for the shopping centre are located to the rear of the property. Given the property is on the edge of the commercial area the design of the proposal is considered acceptable in context of the nearby development. The proposed extension would be of a scale and design that would respect the existing building and would not detract from the character of the wider area and the adjacent conservation area, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8B. 3.11 Furthermore officers consider the proposed extension, with lift access to the upper floors promotes high quality inclusive design, increases the potential of this brownfield site, contributes to enhancing the mix of uses in the town centre whilst respecting London's built heritage, in accordance with the principles of PPS1 and Policy 4B.1 of The London Plan. IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURS 3.12 Policy EN8B further states that regard should be given to good neighbourliness in the design of extensions. The rear wall of the nearest residential property in Richmond Way is located approximately 15 metres to the south east from the proposed extension. Given the siting and distance of the proposal in respect to these properties it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact in terms of reduction in light. 3.13 The lowest level of flats in the adjoining residential tower block is at the same level as the proposed additional floor. The extension would be sited approximately 9.6 metres away from these neighbouring flats and the length of the nearest flank wall of the proposed top floor would be 7.6 metres. The proposed additional floor would not encroach on an angle of 25 degrees as taken from the windows in the tower block. The proposal therefore complies with the British Research Establishment guidance contained within 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight'. 3.14 UDP Standard 13.1 expects that a proposed building's proximity to adjoining residential units should be such that it would not have an overbearing and dominating effect, detrimental to the adjoining residential occupiers. As a general standard, a line is produced at an angle of 45 degrees from a height of 2 metres on the boundary of the site where it adjoins residential properties, and no part of the proposal should breach this line. However, on-site officer judgement is allowable in such circumstances. A small section of the proposed extension would encroach on this angle when measured from one of the properties in Richmond Way (No 4). Given the encroachment would be minimal and there is generally a more open aspect from these properties across the service yard to the rear of the hotel, it is not considered that the proposal would have an
overbearing or dominating effect on the neighbouring residential properties in Richmond Way. 3.15 In terms of the relationship with the adjoining flats at Bush Court, Policy EN8B (vii) of the UDP is relevant, which relates to good neighbourliness. The lowest level of flats in this tower block has windows that directly face the proposed upper levels. However the nearest part of the extension would be approximately 9.6 metres away from these neighbouring flats. Although the extension would be visible from these windows it is considered that it would not be out of scale with the neighbouring properties and would not have an overbearing impact upon the neighbouring flats or adversely affect outlook to residents who live there. 3.16 UDP Standard S13.2 states that new windows should normally be positioned so that the distance to any residential windows is not less than 18 metres of any adjoining habitable room windows. The proposed windows in the rear elevation accords with this standard such that the windows in the rear elevation are suitably positioned so as not cause any over looking on the neighbouring properties. The proposal does not contain any windows in the flank elevations. The proposal is thereby in accordance with Standard S13.2 of the UDP. Although the proposal accords with the council's standard on loss of privacy, sight line louvres are also proposed to further prevent impact on privacy for residents using their gardens to residents on Richmond Way. 3.17 The proposal also needs to be considered for its potential impact on neighbours from noise and disturbance. Policy EN20B of the UDP states that 'noise generating development will not be permitted if it would be liable to materially increase the noise experienced by the occupants/users of existing noise sensitive uses in the vicinity'. Policy EN21 of the UDP deals with environmental nuisance and states that 'all developments shall ensure that there is no undue detriment to the general amenities at present enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers of their properties particularly where commercial and service activities are close to residential properties.' 3.18 The introduction of 12 additional bedrooms to the existing hotel is considered acceptable in this location and is not likely to result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance associated with such a use given the relatively high levels of pedestrian activity and movement in Shepherd's Bush Town Centre in the evening. CRIME PREVENTION 3.19 Policy EN10 of the UDP relates to the designing out crime and aims to avoid design that creates blind spots for potential offenders. The proposal incorporates a cantilevered section over a service bay. However, there is a security fence along the property boundary which prevents access to this area by the public. It is considered that given its siting in relation to public thoroughfares the proposal would not create an unsafe development in terms of potential crime. Pedestrian access would remain from the main door on Shepherd's Bush Green. ACCESS 3.20 UDP Supplementary Planning Document -' Access for All' requires that development provide ease of access for all users, including disabled people. The access to the property would not be altered as part of this proposal which is currently via Belushi's Bar and currently contains ramps to the bar area. A lift is also proposed which provides adequate access to the upper floors for the disabled users.
3.21 The SPD requires that one additional accessible room is provided within the hotel. The proposal would provide for one such additional room, which accords with the DDA requirements and meets the national standard for accessible rooms. PARKING AND HIGHWAYS 3.22 The development proposes 12 additional rooms which would result in a hotel comprising 30 rooms. Whilst the UDP would normally require that an additional two car spaces (1 space per 10 rooms or part thereof) be provided, no additional car spaces are proposed for this development. The applicant has cited reasons that the hotel is to accommodate the 'backpacker market' which would rarely use vehicles to travel to the premises. 3.23 The property is located in an area of high public transport accessibility (PTAL 6) and opposite the new Overground and Shepherd's Bush central line tube station. Given the short term aspect and nature of the use, the officers are satisfied that the increase in room numbers would not result in any appreciable increase in visitor vehicle traffic or adverse impact on the surrounding highways, and that, in this instance, it would be acceptable without the provision of further parking spaces on site. 3.24 UDP Policy TN6 relates to on-site cycle parking. The UDP does not specify the number of cycle spaces required for a hotel use. However given the rate applied in other C1 uses approved in the borough, it is considered reasonable to apply a rate of 1 space per 5 bedrooms or part thereof for use by staff. Whilst the applicant has not provided details of the proposed cycle parking, space exists within the rear yard for the provision of secure cycle storage. A condition (Condition No. 8) has therefore been included requiring the applicant to the provide details of the location of 3 cycle parking spaces, in accordance with Policy TN6 of the UDP. REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES 3.25 UDP Policy EN17 and the Supplementary Planning Document 'Storage of Refuse and Recyclables' requires adequate storage for refuse and recycling on the property. The applicant states that the refuse store will remain as existing to the rear of the building. It is considered appropriate that further details of this be secured by way of condition (Condition No. 9). 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is considered that the development is in line with UDP policies and standards, The London Plan and PPS1. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Shepherd's Bush Green
Site Address: Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8TT
Reg. No: 2010/02018/FUL Date Valid: 29.06.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Katherine Wood Conservation Area: : Shepherds Bush Conservation Area - Number 21
Applicant: Telefonica 02 UK C/o Agent Description: Installation of 3 no. mobile phone antennas and 1 no. radio equipment cabinet at roof level Drg Nos: 202, 203, 301, 400, 500 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 hereby approved shall not be erected otherwise than in
accordance with the detailed drawings which have been 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 policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
Summary of reasons for granting planning permission: 1) 1. Siting and appearance: The proposed installation would have a negligible visual
impact and would not harm the character or appearance of the conservation area or the historic and architectural interest of the listed building. The proposed equipment would share an existing site used for telecommunications equipment which is considered to be good practice. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007, Planning Policy Guidance 8 and Planning Policy Statement 5.
2. Residential amenity: It considered that the proposal would not have an
unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. The applicants have submitted a declaration of conformity with the ICNIRP guidelines and as such the Council is satisfied that the development would not have demonstrable impacts in terms of health and safety. The development thus complies with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 28th June 2010 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007. Consultation Comments: Comments from:
Dated:
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 4 Granville Mansions Shepherd's Bush Green W12 8QA 04.08.10 13 Pennard Road London W12 8DW 02.08.10 49 Pennard Road London W12 8DW 29.07.10 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The proposal under consideration relates to the Grade II listed Shepherd's Bush Empire property, which is located on the western side of Shepherd's Bush Green. The site is within the Shepherd's Bush Conservation Area. 1.2 There is an extensive planning history involving alterations to the building dating back to the 1980s, but no applications relating to telecommunications equipment. However, there are six existing mobile phone antennae masts and four equipment cabinets within the tower to the southern side of the Empire which are owned by the telecommunications operator O2. This company has an agreement with Vodaphone to share this site, therefore the applicant for this proposal is O2, but the proposed antennae and equipment are for use by Vodaphone. 1.3 There are two applications relating to this proposal, seeking both planning permission and listed building consent for the erection of three additional masts and one additional equipment cabinet within the tower, adjacent to the existing equipment. This report will cover matters arising from both applications. 1.4 The applicants have submitted a declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines for the proposed equipment and installation, stating that the proposals are designed to be fully compliant with the requirements of the radio frequency (RF) public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.
2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 Individual letters of notification were sent to neighbouring properties in Pennard Road, Goldhawk Road and Shepherd's Bush Green, and a site and press notice were posted. Two objections have been received from Greenside Residents' Action Group and from Granville Mansions Association. In addition, a petition with 54 signatures from the Pennard Neighbourhood Watch has been received. Objections are raised on the following grounds: The listed building should not be disfigured by any development The development may be detrimental to the health of nearby residents Consultation on the application should have been spread wider given these concerns. 2.2 The Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group have been consulted on the proposal, but no response has been received. 2.3 As detailed above, the application was advertised according to statutory procedures, by way of individual letters to surrounding properties and a site and press notice were posted to give wider notice of the proposal. The other concerns raised will be addressed in the report below. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning issues arising out of this proposal are whether the proposed development would cause harm to the character or appearance of the listed building or the surrounding conservation area, and whether valid objections can be raised to the proposed installation on the grounds of health and safety. 3.2 Policy EN3 of the UDP states that 'alterations to listed buildings will not be permitted where their special architectural or historic interest would be adversely affected'. Policy EN2 of the UDP states that 'development should preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area'. Policy EN8 of the UDP states 'that development will not be permitted unless it is compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting'. National Planning Policy Statement PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) states that local authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets. PPG8 (telecommunications) sets out the Government's guidelines for the assessment of applications for telecommunications development. 3.3 The proposed three additional masts and one additional cabinet would be positioned inside the top level of the turret to the southern side of the building, facing Shepherd's Bush Green. The top of the three masts would be 23.1 m above street level, but as they would be positioned within the tower, they would not be visible from the outside. They would be a similar height to the existing sill level to the small windows at the top of the turret and it would not be possible to see the masts through the windows. Mesh screens are proposed to be fixed on the inside of the existing windows at this level which would further obscure views into the tower. It is evident that the six existing masts within the tower are not visible from the outside and do not harm the appearance or character of the building. The additional equipment cabinet would be positioned adjacent to the existing cabinets which are positioned in a horseshoe shape at a lower level within the turret and likewise would not be visible.
3.4 Given the position of the equipment within the tower, the masts and equipment cabinet would have no visual impact on the building or the surrounding area. The proposed mesh screens would match existing development at the top of the tower and would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building. The equipment would be housed on steel trays within the turret and the antennae would be fixed to the inside of the walls. These works would be easily reversible when no longer needed. It is not considered that the proposal would harm the fabric or the character of the listed building and would not harm the character and appearance of the building within the wider conservation area. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policies EN3, EN2 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, and the advice contained in PPS5. 3.5 With regard to the health concerns raised over the proposed development, national planning guidance on telecommunications development is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 ('Telecommunications'), which was revised in August 2001. This draws on the results of independent studies and reports, including the report published in 2000 by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), which is generally referred to as 'The Stewart Report'. PPG 8 states that it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards and that it remains the responsibility of Central Government to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed telecommunications system meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. The applicant has, in this case, provided a certificate confirming that the proposed equipment would comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. 3.6 It should be noted that in two appeal decisions in recent years (one dated 18.11.03 and one dated 09.02.06), Planning Inspectors have stated that in the absence of specific evidence of harm in relation to health arising from telecommunications installations and with the presence of an ICNIRP certificate, that there would be no established risk to health from such proposals. In the most recent appeal decision in New King's Road, the Inspector noted that the radiation emission from such equipment would be a tiny fraction of what it is considered acceptable by the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and health concerns were not sufficient to justify dismissing the appeal. 3.7 An informative is recommended on this matter, to ensure that the operator is aware of the need to comply with ICNIRP guidelines. In this case the applicants are proposing to share an existing telecommunications site rather than to create a new one, and given that the installations would comply with national health guidelines it is not considered that the Council could object to the installation on health grounds. 4.0 CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION 4.1 For the reasons above, it is considered that the proposed telecommunications equipment would have a negligible, if any, visual impact and would not harm the character or appearance of the listed building or the conservation area. The proposed site for the telecommunications equipment would be shared by an existing operator rather than creating a new site, which is considered to be good practice. The Council is satisfied that the installation would not be detrimental to public health or safety. As
such, the proposed installation is considered acceptable with regard to PPG8, PPS5 and Unitary Development Plan Policies EN2, EN3 and EN8. 4.2 It is therefore recommended that both planning permission and listed building consent be granted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Shepherd's Bush Green
Site Address: Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8TT
Reg. No: 2010/02025/LBC Date Valid: 29.06.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Katherine Wood Conservation Area: : Shepherds Bush Conservation Area - Number 21
Applicant: Telefonica 02 UK C/o Agent Description: Installation of 3 no. mobile phone antennas and 1 no. radio equipment cabinet at roof level Drg Nos: 202, 203, 301, 400, 500 Application Type: Listed Building Consent Officer Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The works hereby granted consent shall not commence later than the expiration of
3 years beginning with the date upon which this consent is granted. Condition required to be imposed by Section 18(1)(a) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by section 91 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004).
2) The development hereby approved shall not be erected otherwise than in
accordance with the detailed drawings which have been approved. In order to ensure full compliance with the application hereby approved and to
prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
3) The telecommunications equipment hereby approved shall, when they are no
longer required for telecommunication purposes, be removed from the building and the building shall be restored to its former condition, prior to the development taking place.
In order to maintain the architectural and historical value of the building, if the
equipment is no longer required, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007
Summary of reasons for granting listed building consent: 1) The proposed installation would have a negligible visual impact and would not
harm the character or appearance of the conservation area or the historic and architectural interest of the listed building. The proposed equipment would share an existing site used for telecommunications equipment which is considered to be good practice. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policies EN2, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 5.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 28th June 2010 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007. Consultation Comments: Comments from:
Dated:
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: Please see related report ref: 2010/02018/FUL
Reg. No: 2010/01806/FUL Date Valid: 23.06.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: John Sanchez Conservation Area:
Applicant: Mr David Bowler 143 Lillie Road LONDON SW6 7SX Description: Erection of an extension to the main building at roof level, a ground floor rear extension and alterations to the elevations of the building; erection of an additional floor on top of the existing gatehouse building (fronting Dawes Road), a ground floor extension connecting the gatehouse to the main building to the rear, and alterations to the front of the gatehouse building at ground level; reconstruction of brick wall and formation of new openings off St John's Close; use of the ground floor, as extended, as a community 'Hub' (an office facility for charities delivering support and services to the local community) with 13 residential units on the upper floors (11 in the main building and 2 in the gatehouse building). Drg Nos: 2864-D-0103/P8; 0104/P7; 0105/P7; 0106/P8; 0107/P3; 204/P8; 205/P9; 206/P8; 207/P8; 209/P4; 210/P6; 211/P5; D-301/P7; D-302/P7;Design and Access Statement REV A (17/08/2010);Transport Statement (21/06/2010);Sustainable Design and Construction Statement (June 2010);Archaeological Assessment (June 2010);Flood Risk Assessment (June 2010);Planning Addendum (July 2010);Response to Disability Forum Comments (August 2010). Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application Officer Recommendation: That the Committee resolve that the Director of the Environment Department be authorised to determine the application and grant permission upon 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 building development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with
the detailed drawings which have been 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 policies EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
3) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction
Logistics Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The details 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. All works to be carried out in accordance with approved plan.
To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding
occupiers in accordance with policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
4) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for
temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, and such enclosure has been erected in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure that the site remains in a tidy condition during the construction phase
and to prevent harms to the street scene and character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area, in accordance with policies EN2B, EN6 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
5) The development hereby approved shall not commence prior to the submission
and approval in writing by the Council of details in plan, section and elevation (at a scale 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 typical section and elevation of the additional floor over the main school building, including the position and height of the solar water heating system at roof level;
- Details including a typical section of the inserted windows on the main school building including colour and type of glazing;
- Section and elevations showing the connection and junctions of the additional floor over the gate house building with the existing building and adjacent building at 16/18 Dawes Road;
- Details including sections of the ground floor entrances through existing gatehouse building arches;
- A detailed section showing connection of extension and main school building; - A detailed section showing reconstructed boundary wall and ground floor
extension. In order to ensure a satisfactory external appearance and prevent harm to the
street scene, in accordance with Policy EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007.
6) The development hereby approved shall not commence until particulars and
samples (where appropriate) of all materials to be used in all external faces of the development which shall include details of the bonding and pointing of any external facing brickwork and replacement windows and doors, details of all paving and external hard surfaces, boundary walls, railings, gates, fences and other means of enclosure have been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy EN2B,
EN3, EN6 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
7) No plumbing, extract flues or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed on the elevations of the main school building or on the Dawes Road and St John's Close elevations of the gatehouse building, unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street
scene, in accordance with Policies EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
8) The height of the additional roof on top of the existing main school building hereby
approved shall not exceed the existing ridge height. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the existing
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in accordance with policy EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8 and Standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007.
9) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of full details of the proposed soft landscaping of the site, including planting schedules and details of the species, height and maturity of the shrubs to be planted. 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 buildings, whichever is the earlier.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with policies EN2B,
EN6, EN8B and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 10) Any landscaping planted pursuant to condition 9 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 policies EN2B,
EN6, EN8B and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 11) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a statement of how
'Secure by Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.
To ensure a safe and secure environment for users of the development, in
accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007. 12) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used prior to the
obscurely glazed windows hereby approved in the east and south elevations of the main building (facing the North End Road and Dawes Road properties), as indicated on drawing 2864 - D - 204/P6 and 205/P6 being designed and installed and thereafter retained in this form, so as to avoid any overlooking of or loss of privacy to the Dawes Road and North End Road properties
In order to safeguard the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and avoid unnecessary overlooking and loss of privacy, in accordance with Standard 13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
13) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used prior to the
obscurely glazed windows agreed in Condition 12 are fixed shut and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter shall be retained in this form, so as to avoid any overlooking of or loss of privacy to the Dawes Road and North End Road properties
In order to safeguard the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties and avoid unnecessary overlooking and loss of privacy, in accordance with Standard 13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
14) None of the residential units hereby approved shall be used or occupied prior to
the submission of details and samples of the obscure glazing and the opaque panels to be used. The windows shall thereafter be retained in this form and no alterations shall be carried out to the windows to allow them to open or to replace the obscure glazing with clear glass.
In order to safeguard the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties and avoid unnecessary overlooking and loss of privacy, in accordance with Standard 13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
15) With the exception of those indicated on the approved drawings, no new windows,
doors or other openings shall be created in the external elevations of any part of the development hereby approved, prior to the submission and approval in writing by the Council of a further planning application.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and so that the use of the buildings
does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and noise and disturbance, in accordance with EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8B, EN20B, EN21and Standard 13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
16) The ground floor entrance doors hereby approved serving both the ground floor
community hub use and the residential occupiers shall not be less than 1 metre wide and the threshold shall be at the same level to the pavement fronting the entrance(s).
To ensure adequate access for people with disabilities or mobility difficulties, in
accordance with Policy EN11 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 17) All external doors to St John's Close hereby approved shall be designed and
installed so that they only open inwards and thereafter shall be retained in this form.
To ensure pedestrian flow is not unduly affected, in accordance with Policy TN5 of
the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
18) No part of the flat roofs of the development hereby approved shall be converted into or be used as a terrace or other form of open amenity space. No railings or other means of enclosure shall be erected on the roofs and no alterations shall be carried out to facilitate access onto these roofs.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and so that the use of the buildings
does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and noise and disturbance, in accordance with EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8B, EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and standards S13.2, and S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007.
19) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of the construction and appearance of the proposed green roof, and the new hall shall not be used or occupied prior to the construction of the roof in accordance with the approved details. The green roof shall thereafter be retained.
In order that the Council can be satisfied as to the details of the proposals, and to
ensure the maximum ecological potential is achieved from these enhancements while being in keeping with the locality, in accordance with Policies EN2B. EN6, EN8B and EN29 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
20) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development hereby permitted, without planning permission first being granted.
To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment can be
considered, in accordance with Policy EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
21) No alterations shall be carried out to the external appearance of the building,
including the installation of water tanks, air-conditioning units, ventilation fans or extraction equipment not shown on the approved drawings, unless details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Any such changes shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policies EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8B, EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
22) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of a Noise Exposure Category (NEC) assessment (according to PPG24), including details of sound insulation measures for the building envelope and any silenced mechanical ventilation, in order that internal room and external amenity noise standards will be achieved in accordance with BS8233:1999. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation of the sound insulation measures in accordance with the approved
details, and the sound insulation measures shall thereafter be permanently retained.
To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the proposed flats is not harmed as a
result of noise disturbance, in accordance with Policy EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
23) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of the external noise level emitted from plant/ machinery/equipment and mitigation measures. The measures shall ensure that the external noise level emitted from plant, machinery/equipment will be lower than the lowest existing background noise level by at least 10dBA, as assessed according to BS4142:1997 at the nearest and/or most affected noise sensitive premises, with all machinery operating together. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details, which shall thereafter be permanently retained.
To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the proposed flats and the occupiers of
adjoining residential properties is not harmed as a result of noise or vibration from any proposed plant or machinery, in accordance with EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
24) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of the high/increased levels of sound insulation of the wall/floor/ceilings separating the residential units, as well as details of the acoustic glazing. Details shall ensure that the sound insulation and any other mitigation measures are sufficiently enhanced in order that the standard specified in BS 8233:1999 is achieved within residential units. 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 Policy EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
25) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied prior to the
provision of the secure bicycle storage facilities for both the ground floor office use and residential units above, as indicated on approved drawing 2854-D-0103/P8. The cycle storage facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained, in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure the provision of bicycle spaces in accordance with Policy TN6 and
standard S20.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended in 2007. 26) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied prior to the
provision of the refuse and recyclable storage arrangements for both the ground floor office use and residential units above, as indicated on approved drawing 2864-D-0103/P8. All refuse generated by the development hereby permitted shall be contained within lidded refuse bins stored within the designated refuse storage areas. The approved refuse storage arrangements shall thereafter be retained.
In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for refuse storage and collection, in accordance with policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007, and the Council's supplementary planning document `Storage of Refuse and Recyclables'.
27) No development shall commence until a contaminated land desktop study, site
investigation scheme, intrusive investigation and risk assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. A detailed method statement for any required remediation works will need to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).
To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and
remediated in accordance with Policy G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
28) No development shall commence until any required remediation works have been
completed and a validation report to verify these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council unless otherwise authorised. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the Council is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council. Any required remediation should be detailed and verified in an amendment to the remediation statement. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).
To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and
remediated in accordance with Policy G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
29) The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the
mitigation measures contained in the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), dated June 2010 produced by Campbell Reith engineers.
To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants,
in accordance with PPS25, Development and Flood Risk. 30) The development shall not commence prior to the implementation of an
archaeological field evaluation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.
In order to ensure the preservation or protection of any archaeological interests that may be present on the site, in accordance with policy EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
31) In the event that the results of the field evaluation required by condition 30 reveal
the presence of archaeological interests on the site, the development shall not commence prior to the implementation in full of a programme of works to ensure that the archaeology is either preserved or fully excavated, in accordance with a written scheme previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.
In order to ensure the preservation or protection of any archaeological interests on
the site, in accordance with policy EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
32) No advertisements shall be displayed to the external faces of the gatehouse
building or brick wall facing St John's Close unless full details of proposed signage have been submitted and approved in writing by the Council.
In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to prevent
harm to the streetscene in accordance with Policy EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8B and EN14 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007
33) No development shall take place until a photographic record of the interior and
exterior of the buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, and a copy of the approved photographic record shall be lodged with the Borough Archive.
To ensure that a proper record is made of the buildings prior to their demolition
and that the information is made available to the appropriate statutory bodies, in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
34) No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation
of the sustainable design and construction measures outlined in the Sustainability Statement produced by Downie Consulting engineers dated June 2010. The approved measures shall thereafter be permanently retained to serve the development and maintained in a working order.
To ensure a sustainably designed and constructed development that, in particular,
makes the most effective and sustainable use of water, aggregates and other resources, reduces air and water pollution and promotes sustainable waste behaviour in accordance with Policy 4A.3 of the London Plan, as amended in 2008.
35) The ground floor office use shall not be occupied prior to the submission and
approval in writing by the Council of a Travel Plan, which shall include information on how alternative methods of transport to and from the development, other than by car, will be encouraged by the applicants. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implemented of the Travel Plan in accordance with the approved details, and the Travel Plan shall thereafter continue to be fully implemented.
To ensure that the use does not generate an excessive number of car trips which would be contrary to the Council's policies of car restraint set down in Policies TN13, and TN15 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
Summary of reasons for granting planning permission: 1) 1. Land Use: The development and re-use of the existing buildings on the site
to provide a mix of residential and community office use is considered to be an appropriate use for this town centre location which is highly accessible by public transport. Policies CS10 and TC1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and London Plan policy 3A.18, are thereby satisfied.
2. The proposed development would contribute to much needed additional
housing, in accordance with London Plan Policies 3A.1 and 3A.3, and would help the borough meet its housing targets, in accordance with London Plan Policy 3A.2. The provision of 100% affordable housing in the form of rented intermediate units is considered acceptable having regard to development plan policies particularly London Plan policies 3A.11, 3.A.9 and 3.A.10. Policy 3A.10 states that boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual mixed-use schemes and 3A.11 states that boroughs should seek affordable housing on sites that have a capacity to provide 10 or more units. In the context of these policies and having regard to the provision of 13 intermediate rent units, the tenure mix is considered acceptable, taking into account the objectives of promoting an appropriate mixed and balanced community and of bringing forward a mixed use development with positive benefits for the area. In this respect no objection is raised under London Plan Policies 3A.3, 3A.9,3A.10 and 3A.11.
3. The internal design and layout of the new residential units are considered
satisfactory having regard to Standard S7.A, and the amenity space provision is also considered satisfactory, having regard to the physical constraints of the site, judged against Standard S5.A of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007.
4. Design: The development is considered to comply with UDP Policies EN2B,
EN3, EN6 and EN8B, and London Plan policy 4.B1. The proposals are considered to represent an enhancement of the public realm and provision of a high quality scheme that will respect the local setting. Policy EN2B states that development outside conservation areas will only be permitted if the character and appearance of the conservation area in terms of their setting and views into and out of them is preserved or enhanced. Policy EN8B requires a high standard of design in all extensions and alterations to existing buildings, compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. London Plan policy 4B.1 also seeks to ensure that, within developments, which should maximise the potential of sites, design should, in all its aspects, be of high quality.
5. Highways matters: The impact of the proposals on the highway network and
local parking conditions is considered to be acceptable, and the development accords with UDP Policies TN6, TN13 and TN15. TN6 requires direct, convenient, safe and secure facilities for cyclists. TN13 requires all development proposals be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion. TN15 requires developments to conform to parking standards S18, S19 and S20.
6. Environmental: The Council is satisfied that the scheme represents the principles of good design and properly addresses environmental issues. It considers that UDP Policy EN10, which requires a safe and secure environment, is complied with. The proposals, similarly, accord with UDP Policies EN17 in that they incorporate suitable facilities for the storage and collection of segregated waste, and with Policies EN20A and EN20B because the development would not cause any undue pollution, with no significant worsening of air quality nor undue noise and with other pollution controls in place, which would also ensure compliance with EN21, which requires that development does not cause undue detriment to the amenities of neighbours.
7. Residential amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining
occupiers is considered acceptable. In this regard, the proposals accord with UDP Policy EN8, which requires developments to be of high quality design which, amongst other things, respects the principles of good neighbourliness, and with Standards S12 and S13 which state that there be no significant loss of outlook or privacy to neighbouring occupiers and that no new roof terraces nor balconies be created, use of which might cause harm to the amenities of neighbours by reason of noise and disturbance.
8. Access: The development would provide a safe and secure environment for
all users in accordance with Policy EN10 of the UDP, and would provide easy access by disabled people in accordance with Policy G4(4) of the UDP and the Council's Adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SDP) 'Access for All'.
9. Sustainability: The application proposes a number of measures to reduce
CO2 emissions from the baseline. The proposal would seek to reduce pollution and waste and minimise its environmental impact. Policies GO and G3 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and Policies 4A.3 of The London Plan are thereby satisfied.
9. Flood Risk: A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted and has
considered all possible risks of flooding to the site, and has identified adequate preventative measures, in accordance with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 22nd June 2010 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007.
Consultation Comments: Comments from: Crime Prevention Design Advisor - Hammersmith Thames Water - Development Control Environment Agency - Planning Liaison
Dated: 10.08.10 07.07.10 30.07.10
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 2 Matthew Court Dawes Road London SW6 7EN 20.07.10 1 Rosaville Road London SW6 7BN 08.07.10 Dance Attic Studios 368 North End Road London SW6 1LY 01.08.10 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application site, former St John's C of E School, is located on the north side of Dawes Road, close to the junction with North End Road. Not located within a conservation area but adjoins the Walham Green conservation area. The site is located within Fulham Town Centre, a designated Archaeological Priority Area and Flood Zone 2. 1.2 The site is bounded to the east by John's Parish Hall and a former employment centre (370-376 North End Road), both on the Council's register of Buildings of Merit (BoM's). To the north by the frontage building and linked rear extension of the former Fulham public baths (368 North End Road); a grade II listed building, now used as dance studios. St John's Close (a private cul de sac) off Dawes Road, serving 8 residential properties and Matthew Court (fronting Dawes Road), bound the site to both the north and west. The site is enclosed on the Dawes Road and North End Road frontages (2/2a - 14 and 16/18 Dawes Road), by a pair of 3 storey properties and a 5 storey (plus recent additional floor) building (Mitford Buildings), comprising commercial uses on the ground floor and residential use on the upper floors. 1.3 The site is occupied by 2 Victorian buildings, together with storage facilities and a hard standing playground. There are no trees or soft landscaping on the site. A 2 storey gate house (former caretaker's house) building fronts Dawes Road, providing visible entrances to the site through 2 arches. A large 2 storeys (plus mezzanine level) school building is situated to the rear of the site. Both buildings are on the Council's BoM's list. There is no relevant planning history associated with the site. The buildings have remained relatively unchanged since they were built. The buildings were last used for adult education purposes, when the primary school moved to Filmer Road in the late 1990's. The site has remained vacant since 2008. The Proposal 1.4 The proposal is for the renovation, refurbishment and extension of the former school building and gatehouse and their conversion into office space and residential units. Internally, the floors of the existing main school building would be removed and replace with 3 levels, plus an additional storey is proposed at roof level. An additional storey is also proposed to the gatehouse building at second floor level. A single storey structure over half of the existing playground would link the main buildings together to create a large communal office space on the ground floor, along with plant space and
refuse and cycle storage. The upper floors would house 13 one and two bedroom flats (11 in the main building and 2 in the gatehouse). 1.5 The ground floor space is intended to provide a community `Hub' (an office facility for charities, delivering support and services to local communities in the borough). Similar facilities operate in both Camden and Islington. The project is led by the Fulham Community Partnership Trust (FCPT), a new charity established as the successor body for North Fulham New Deal for Communities (NDC), a community based regeneration initiative that has operated in the area for the last 10 years. The proposed Hub use would occupy the whole of the ground floor of the main school building and gatehouse, linked by a single storey extension providing in total 466 sqm. floorspace. 1.6 On the upper floors the development would provide 13 affordable residential units in a mix of 1 and 2 bed flats which, are all proposed to be key worker, intermediate rent units for Shepherds Bush Housing Association (SBHA). The main school building would be converted into 4 floors, with residential at 1st and 2nd floor (within the existing building envelope) and a new extension at 3rd floor/roof level, to provide 11 residential units. The existing gate house building would be extended by 1 storey and the upper 2 floors would provide an extra 2 residential units. 1.7 The residential and Hub users would have separate entrances. The main residential entrance would be on St. John's Close, serving a new staircase at the rear of the main school building. Entrance to the Hub would be through existing arches off Dawes Road. The 2 flats provided within the existing/extended gatehouse would have their own entrance on the Dawes Road frontage. The gate house arches would be glazed and existing railings would be retained to form the entrance to a new reception for the Hub, offering glimpses through to the new `link' space behind. The office space would be sited inside existing rebuilt perimeter wall with clerestory windows and roof lights and a glazed wall looking into the courtyard. 1.8 The playground would be landscaped for both users of the scheme. The majority of the space would be used exclusively by the residential users to provide 256 sqm external amenity space, separated by planting `buffers' from the office ground floor spaces. A small break-out space is proposed for Hub users. 1.9 The application has been revised since its original submission (balustrade to the top floor of the main building and sliding doors to the additional roof providing access to roof terraces remove and replaced with window openings and; new windows inserted in-between the existing windows have been adjusted to be of the same proportion as the top of the windows above). 1.10 In support of their proposals the applicants state the development would: - retain and bring a Building of Merit back into use, delivering significant local benefits, - provide affordable housing in the town centre, - provide a new community facility for the 3rd sector organisations to deliver support and services to the local community. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application has been publicised by means of site notices and a press advert, and 130 individual notification letters have been sent to the occupiers of adjoining properties, the Crime Prevention Design adviser, Fulham Society, and the
Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group. In addition, the Environment Agency and Thames Water have also been consulted on the proposals. 2.2 At the pre-application stage, a public exhibition was held 27 May 2010 for local business and residents, together with local interest groups. The applicants state the proposal was received with generally positive comments. 2.3 The Environment Agency, Thames Water and the Crime Prevention Officer have no objection to the proposed development. 2.4 Three objections received to the development. The main grounds of objection are summarised below. Flat 2, Matthew Court, Dawes Road: - additional roof to main school would be unsightly and result in loss of character of the original building, - access to the site should be wholly through existing arches off Dawes Road, - refuse should not be collected from St John's Close, - generally does not encourage further use of St John's Close. Dance Attic Studios (368 North End Road): - The residential development is too close to the dance studios. Possible complaint would arise from new residents from noise generated by dance studio. Fulham Society: - building of further floor on top of the gatehouse, - enclosing front courtyard area. Will impact on west facade of main school building. Raising arches to higher level on this elevation is unsatisfactory. Want courtyard development setback from main building so facade is not compromised, - not convinced moving floor levels inside building would be a commercial proposition. 2.5 The Council's Disability Forum requested the following action points: - Consider installing a lift for access to the upper floors, and ensure the lift is usable in the event of a fire (see para. 3.20 of the report) - Consider installing a drop kerb at the entrance to the Hub (see para. 3.28 of the report). - The positioning for 10 cycle racks is not sufficient for the Community Hub (see para. 3.27 of the report). - The spacing of the interview meeting room is not sufficient enough for a wheelchair user (see para. 3.20 of the report). - The toilet facilities are not adequate for the likely number and types of people working on the sight (see para. 3.20 of the report). - We are concerned about the storage facilities, hot desk spacing; specifically how much of this spacing will be at the expense of access/wheelchair users. - Check that the rooms and toilet are built to Lifetime Home Standards (see para. 3.20 of the report). 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main issues are considered to be the acceptability of the proposal in land use terms, whether the proposal is of acceptable design and appearance, whether it is
acceptable in terms of traffic and parking and its impact on amenities of surrounding occupiers. Land Use 3.2 The site is located in Fulham town centre. Was built as a school at the end of the 1890's and more recently used as an adult education centre. The lawful use of the property falls within a Class D1 Educational - 'Non residential Institutions' use. The appropriate principle UDP land use policy is therefore CS10 and London Plan policy 3A.18 which, also seeks to protect community uses and social infrastructure. Policy CS10 states that the Council will seek to retain or replace local community facilities. 3.3 The proposal includes the re-provision of a community facility on part of the site, designed as part of the NDC's Succession Strategy. The replacement ground floor space would be used as a community office 'hub', delivering support and services to the local community. The proposal aims to concentrate organisations and develop new Third sector bodies and social enterprises. The hub would provide shared offices, meeting rooms and training room space combined with access to infrastructure and back office support services. The facility would employ a Centre Manager and would be managed by CAVSA (Community and Voluntary Sector Association), with the support of the Fulham Court Partnership Trust. The hub aims to be self financing after 5 years with income generated from charges for office and meeting room space. With this in mind it is considered there are community benefits from the proposals which, would balance against the loss of the D1 use from the site. 3.4 In terms of housing, Policy 3A.1 of the Mayor's London Plan states that 30,500 net additional homes should be delivered per annum in London. Of this, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham have a target to deliver 450 net additional dwellings per annum. The proposed redevelopment to provide 13 additional units would contribute to this target. 3.5 Policy 3A.11 of the Mayor's London Plan states that boroughs should normally require affordable housing provision on a site which has capacity to provide ten or more homes. Policy 3A.9 of the Mayor's London Plan states that the Mayor's strategic target for affordable housing provision is that 50% of provision should be affordable and within that, 70% social rented and 30% intermediate. All 13 units proposed are to be intermediate affordable units with rent values set at a discounted level below the lowest open market rents available in the area. The principle of maximising the provision of affordable housing on the site is in accordance with the London Plan housing policy 3A.7. 3.6 In terms of residential density, the site is considered to be "central' with regard to table 3A.2 of the London Plan, which identifies a residential density between 650-1100 hr/ha and 175-355 u/ha. Policy 3A.3 of the Mayor's London Plan states that boroughs should have regard to these density ranges. The proposals would provide a residential density of approximately 320 hr/ha, which is considered to satisfy in principle in this location, and in accordance with the London Plan. 3.7 The site has been vacant for some considerable time. The proposed conversion would bring this building back into use and provide needed residential accommodation in this sustainable location. The proposal is considered to make more efficient use of the site in accordance with both government advice and the London Plan and is therefore considered to be acceptable, in principle, in land use terms. Accordingly, there
is no objection in principle to the proposed community office and residential use of site. The acceptability of the development therefore, hangs on the quality of the proposed extensions and alterations, the accommodation provided and the likely impact on existing amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties, likely impact in terms of traffic generation and car parking, and the external alterations to the premises. Design 3.8 Officers have assessed the application in the context of UDP policies EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8B as amended in 2007. 3.9 Policy EN2B of the UDP states that "development, (including development outside conservation areas) will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation area in terms of their setting and views into or out of them is preserved or enhanced." Policy EN3 of the UDP states that "permission will not normally be granted for any development which would not preserve the setting of any listed building." Policy EN6 of the UDP states that "permission will not granted for the demolition, loss or harmful alterations to buildings included on the Council's register of Buildings of Merit" 3.10 Policy EN8B of the UDP requires development to be of a high standard of design and be compatible with the scale and character of the existing development, its neighbours and its setting. The policy further states that 'In most cases, these will be subservient to the original building' whilst the justification to the policy states that 'Extensions should never dominate the parent building'. 3.11 The design of the proposed alterations and extensions to both buildings and the connection between the two are an important consideration, in terms of their impact on the appearance of the BoM's, neighbouring listed buildings and BoM's, views into and from the Walham Green conservation area, and/or their likely impact on adjoining properties. The site is outside but on the border of the Walham Green conservation area. The existing buildings on the site are on the Council's register of Buildings of Merit and surrounded by buildings of varying heights and scales some on either the statutory list or on the local Buildings of Merit list. The main school building cannot be seen from public areas in the Walham Green conservation area because of the height of the Mitford building on Dawes Road and other buildings on North End Road. Only the frontage gatehouse building on Dawes Road is visible from within the conservation area. Public views from outside the conservation area are also limited. There are only oblique views of the main school building from public vantage points, at the western end of the site, from Dawes Road and St John's Close. 3.12 The application consists primarily of 3 interrelated but separate elements. The proposal seeks to retain and extend the existing gatehouse on the Dawes Road frontage as well as the larger school building located in a backland position on the site and link the two together with a single storey extension, infilling part of the existing open courtyard space behind the existing perimeter wall facing St John's Close and open space beneath the gatehouse. The proposal seek to retain and restore as many of the original external architectural features as possible, including the gable ends to the existing ridge roof of the main building, the railings/gates and chimney stacks to the gatehouse and terracotta window frames. It is also proposed to replace and upgrade elements such as the existing metal windows with double glazed steel windows. Internally there are no significant architectural features left.
3.13 The proposal seeks to convert the existing 2 storey main school building into 3 storeys and extend the roof level by a further floor (4 floors in total). The most dramatic change to the building would be the roof alterations, in the treatment of the new additional floor. The extra floor is designed to be a modern, contemporary roof addition, set well back on 3 sides from the decorative brick façades below and behind retained existing gable features. The additional floor would be contained within the existing ridge height of roofspace. The façades of the proposed roof extension would be built out of distinctive lightweight translucent panels, over clad with a mix of solid and part fritted opaque glass, to reduce overlooking, reduce solar gain whilst providing light into the flats. Officers accept the proposed additional floor would be treated differently to the rest of the building and are of the view that a traditional slate mansard roof form would be inappropriate in this case and consider the building strong enough to receive the design treatment proposed. It is considered the proposed lightweight roof treatment would compliment the existing form and scale of the Victorian school building and would allow the existing gables to remain the dominant feature at roof level. It is considered that the proposed extension at roof level would therefore have acceptable appearance. 3.14 The proposed changes to the floor levels inside this building would lead to external alterations to the main school building. This involves the introduction of a small ground floor rear infill extension (within an existing void area on the northern elevation), and external alterations include the re siting of existing arch windows on both the east and west elevations and new windows inserted in-between the existing windows into the existing brickwork on 3 sides (south, east and west elevations). All existing single glazed metal metals would be replaced with doubled glazed steel windows to match the existing fenestration treatment. In order to reduce the inter-visibility and overlooking/privacy issues between the main building and the nearest residential units located in Mitford Buildings and 16 and 18 Dawes Road, and also on the side elevations, the installation of obscure glazing and obscure panels on parts of the existing and new glazing facing these neighbouring properties is proposed. The ground floor, flat roof 'link' extension would be built off a reconstructed brick wall facing St John's Close and finished with a flat roof to encourage a biodiversity 'green' roof. 3.15 The proposed extension to the gatehouse mimics the traditional form and materials of the existing frontage building. It repairs the street frontage, adding a sense of enclosure to the east side of the space and introducing activity along the ground floor frontage. In response to the objection from the Fulham Society, it is considered the extra floor on the gatehouse would be acceptable in its design, as it in effect completes the building and would hide the unattractive flank wall of the neighbouring building (16-18 Dawes Road) thereby completing the street scene in an appropriate manner. Officers have required the chimneys be retained and extended in height, as they are a significant part of the roofscape of this building. 3.16 Officers propose to attach conditions to the permission requiring the submission of further details with regard to the external materials, detailed 1:20 sections and elevations of the buildings, including details of the proposed entrance off Dawes Road and additional floor to the main school building. The proposals are however, judged to be in keeping with the appearance of the application site and would preserve the appearance of the conservation area. In this respect it is considered the proposal complies with policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6 and EN8B of the UDP, as amended.
New Residential Units 3.17 The proposal provides 13 self contained flats. Standard S7A of the UDP relates to internal space provisions and requires a minimum of 44.5sqm. and 57sqm. for 1-bed and 2-bed, respectively. The smallest 1 bed unit would be 44.8 sqm. and 61.4 sqm. for the smallest 2 bed unit. Therefore, all of the proposed residential units would meet or exceed these standards. Standard S13.3 relates to aspect, and states that no dwelling should normally have all of its habitable windows facing exclusively in any northerly direction. In this case, none face in a north direction. All the living/sleeping rooms are spacious and open plan, with large windows and would maintain an acceptable level of internal amenity. 3.18 Policy EN23 of the UDP states that all new developments will be required to make provision for open space to meet the needs of the occupiers and users. Standard S5A.1 and S5A.2 of the UDP identifies amenity space requirements for family and non-family units which are located at ground level and requires an area of private open amenity or garden space of not less than 36 sqm for family units and 14 sqm for non-family units. In this case all the residential units are above ground floor level and none of the 13 units would have access to private areas of amenity space. There would however, be access to a communal amenity space on the ground floor level, shared with the ground floor hub use. The residential amenity space would measure 200 sqm and be landscaped and not accessible to the public. The ground floor amenity space would be partitioned off with a separate space of 50 sqm provided from the hub use. Having regard to the existing constraints on the site and its town centre location, officers consider this arrangement is acceptable in this case. 3.19 The proposal makes adequate provision for refuse storage in accordance with UDP policy EN17. Communal bin stores (general waste and recycling) would be located at convenient positions for each use at ground floor level, close to entrances, allowing drop off of refuse as residents/users leave the building. 3.20 Policy 4B.5 of the London Plan deals with creating an inclusive environment and states that the Mayor will require all future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. In addition to this Policy G4(4) of the UDP and the Council's Adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SDP) 'Access for All' is relevant in the consideration of the acceptability of the scheme in terms of disabled access. The proposal identifies key issues relating to access for people with disabilities in relation to the proposed development, and sets out how the development would ensure access for all. In this case the flats are not accessible by lift so are not suitable for all older or disabled residents to reside in or visit. The main building would be served by an ambient staircase. The Disability Forum have however asked for a suitable lift in the main building. The developers advise that because only 11 flats would be served, this would add too great a cost to tenants' service charges. Also add limited and costly options on where a lift could be fitted internally because they are working with an existing building rather than new build and fitting a lift externally would result in design issues for this BoM and amenity issues with St John's Close residents. On the other points raised, the spacing of the interview meeting room in the hub is sufficiently large enough for wheelchair users. In addition, the ground floor use will be accessible. All doors to the hub would be on a level threshold with shallow gradient ramps inside and a disabled WC's and wet room can be provided within the development. Furthermore, the residential units are designed to meet lifetime home standards. Policy EN10 of the UDP requires a safe and secure environment. A condition will require the proposal to achieve Secured by Design standards.
3.21 Officers are of the opinion that the proposed flats would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation. In this respect it is judged that the flats accord with the councils standards. Impact on Neighbouring Properties 3.22 Policy EN8B of the UDP relates to the design of new development with emphasis on the principles of good neighbourliness. As such the scheme's impact on neighbours in respect of outlook, privacy as well as daylight and sunlight and shadowing has been assessed. 3.23 The proximity of a new development can sometimes result in possible overlooking of existing residential properties. Standard S13.2 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 in arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed window. It adds if the standard cannot be met then windows should be designed to ensure that no loss of privacy will occur. In this case, officers acknowledge that the proposed residential units would be located close to neighbouring residential uses in the upper floors of both Mitford Buildings and 16-18 Dawes Road (only 10 metres at their closest point). Similarly the building is close to the rear of existing commercial uses in St John's Parish Hall and the former employment centre (370-376 North End Road). At present the existing education building is fully glazed on these elevations at ground and first floor levels, directly overlooking neighbouring properties. In order to reduce the levels of overlooking and loss of privacy as a result of the proposed residential development on the upper floors, the applicants have sought to insert obscure glazing within both the existing and new fenestration which would be no closer to the neighbouring residential properties than the existing windows. Officers consider that the current proposal is a satisfactory solution given the existing situation. It is accepted that the education space is currently vacant; however, if this was occupied then the degree of overlooking and loss of privacy would exists. It should also be noted that no objections have been received from any of these properties. In comparison the existing and inset windows facing onto Matthews Court measure over 23 metres from the nearest residential windows (standard S13.2 normally requires a distance of 18.0 metres between windows). Similarly there would be no impact on residents in St John's Close. It is recognised the application premises are located within a densely developed town centre area and officers consider that this one breach of the standard would not be sufficient grounds to withhold planning permission, on its own, given that there are existing windows are within 10 metres at their closest point. 3.24 Whilst the massing of the main school building increases as a result of the introduction of the new roof form, officers consider that the proposal would not be overbearing and result in material harm the amenities of adjoining residents in Mitford Buildings, Dawes Road, North End Road or in St John's Close to warrant refusal of planning permission on residential amenity grounds. The new roof form would not be any higher than the existing ridge roof and would be set back on the southern and east/west elevations. It is therefore considered this feature will not have a significant impact on daylight or sunlight to neighbouring properties including residents in St John's Close. In view of the above it is not considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of outlook or increased sense of enclosure; overlooking or loss of privacy; loss of light and undue noise and disturbance and is judged to be acceptable in the context of Policies EN8 and Standard S13 of the UDP.
Traffic Generation and Car Parking 3.25 TN13 requires all development proposals be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion. Policy TN15 of the UDP requires any proposed development (new build or change of use) to conform to the parking standards, as listed in Standards S18 and S19 as well as Table 12.1 to ensure that there would be no increase in on-street parking demand. Policy TN4 states that development will not be permitted unless in terms of its design and layout it would facilitate ease of access by disabled people and others with impaired mobility to and from public transport facilities and car parking areas that directly serve the development 3.26 Policy TN15 of the UDP normally requires new developments to conform to its normal car parking standards. The development would provide 13 self-contained residential units and the ground floor community hub use. Currently there are no existing parking spaces. No provision for off-street car parking spaces is proposed in the scheme given the physical constraints of the site, as it is not practical to provide any. The applicants have agreed to the inclusion of conditions on any planning permission restricting the occupiers of the flats from being eligible to obtain residents parking permits to park on the highway within the controlled parking zone. Given the location of the site within Fulham Town Centre, which offers good public transport accessibility (PTAL4) and easy access to shops and services, this is considered to be an appropriate approach in this case, and, subject to such conditions, it is not considered that the proposed development would be likely to have an unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of local residents as a result of increased on-street car parking stress. On this basis, the proposed development is judged to be acceptable in the context of policy TN15 and standards S18 of the UDP, as amended 2007. 3.27 Standard S20 seeks to ensure that one cycle space per residential unit is provided. The application identifies cycle parking provision at ground level for both residential and commercial uses within secured storage areas. Secured cycle storage for each residential unit and space for the commercial units accords with UDP standards. The provision of secure cycle storage facilities for both users would be agreed by a condition. The applicants have proposed to provide secure cycle parking at the eastern end of the rear courtyard yard (one space per flat), and officers are of the opinion that this provision would be acceptable. Notwithstanding the Disability Forum's comments, the provision of 10 cycle parking spaces for the hub use is also considered satisfactory. As such, no objections raised to the proposal on traffic generation or car parking grounds. 3.28 At present there is a dropped kerb on each corner of Dawes Road with St John's Close. Consideration has been requested for the installing a wider drop kerb close to the entrance to the Hub and existing pedestrian route serving the proposed residential units in the main building by means of a legal agreement. Similarly it has been suggested a Blue Badge Bay parking bay being provided in St John's Close to allow Dial-a-ride and other adapted vehicles to drop off and pick up disabled persons and older persons visiting organisations who will use the ground floor meeting and office areas in the development. This strip of land in St John's Close is not public highway, is outside the application site and not in control of the applicants. Also as stated, there is no parking or servicing area existing on the site and the site is located on a busy section of Dawes Road. However, the majority of the people accessing the commercial use on the site would however do so by using public transport. A dropping off area could only work in St John's Close to allow persons to be dropped of or picked up. With regard to refuse, St John's Close is used to collect waste from neighbouring residential properties
and a management plan can be put in place to move the refuse within 10m of the road so that the refuse vehicle can load from the road for a minimum period without causing disruption to neighbouring residential amenity, traffic and road safety. Overall in terms of parking, the proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of policies TN4, TN6 and TN15 and standards S17, S19 and S20 of the UDP. Environmental/Sustainability Issues. 3.29 Policy 4A.3, 4A.6 and 4A.7 of the London Plan requires development to demonstrate the principles of energy efficiency. A Sustainability Statement was submitted with the application. Energy efficient design measures have been incorporated into the development to help reduce energy use and it is also planned to use a communal heating/hot water system, which is more efficient than installing separate systems for the office and residential units. Roof mounted solar PV panels are also proposed to generate electricity and offset 18% of CO2 emissions. Overall, the energy efficiency measures, use of a communal heating system and PV panels are calculated to reduce CO2 emissions by 33% from the Building Regulation standard baseline for the development. 3.30 An Eco-Homes assessment has been carried out to assess the development's expected performance in terms of a range of sustainability issues. As well as energy, water use, materials, pollution, transport, ecology etc have all been considered in the design. For example, to reduce surface water run-off, rain water will be collected for re-use on the landscaped areas; to encourage efficient use of water, low flow taps, showers and dual flush toilets will be installed; construction materials with low environmental impacts will be specified; separate waste and recycling storage facilities will be provided; a green roof is included in the design which helps increase the ecological value of the site as well as bringing benefits in terms of reducing surface water run-off and providing insulation in winter and cooling in summer. A condition is attached to ensure that the sustainable design and construction and energy measures are implemented as outlined in the Sustainability Statement to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 4A.3 sustainable design and construction; 4A.6 decentralised energy and 4A.7 renewable energy. Land Contamination 3.31 Potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) are understood to occur at and near to this site. In order to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, and in accordance with UDP policies G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 conditions are recommended. Archaeology 3.32 The site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area which covers Walham Green, a medieval settlement. Therefore UDP policy EN6 and EN7 applies. An archaeological desk based assessment to establish the archaeological potential of the site has been carried out. English Heritage has not responded to the consultation process. However, in light of the possible archaeological potential of the site further investigation of the archaeological potential should be reserved by condition in accordance with policy EN6 and EN7. Flood Risk 3.33 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment. The Environment Agency is satisfied and does not object to the development. State they are pleased to see the
betterment that this scheme will provide with regards to surface water run-off referring to the proposed green roof and tanked permeable paving system which they add will sustainably reduce the rate of surface water runoff from the site, decreasing the risk of flooding on and off site. Legal Agreement 3.34 The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to ensure the following: - The provision of 13 affordable residential units. - That no occupiers of the 13 residential units are eligible to obtaining residents' parking permits to park on-street in the controlled parking zone; - The developer to pay the cost of adjusting and widening of the footway and crossover from Dawes Road/junction of St John's Close, adjacent to the development. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement as outlined in paragraph 3.34 above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Town
Site Address: Fulham Court Community Centre Shottendane Road London SW6 5TJ
Reg. No: 2010/02038/FR3 Date Valid: 05.07.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: Roy Asagba-Power Conservation Area:
Applicant: H And F Homes Hammersmith Town Hall Description: Demolition of the existing single-storey community centre building and erection of a replacement part single-storey, part two-storey building, to provide a children's centre (ground floor level) and a replacement community centre (first floor); associated landscaping and cycle storage. Drg Nos: 864: OD01A; OD02A; OD03A; OD04A; OD05A;OD06A; ODO7A; Design and Access; Flood Risk; Application Type: Full Regulation 3 - LBHF is Developer Officer Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of
3 years beginning with the date of this planning permission. Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2) The development shall be carried out and completed only in accordance with the
submitted drawings which have been 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 Policies EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
3) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction
Logistics Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The details shall include 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. All works to be carried out in accordance with approved plan.
To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties
are not unduly affected, in accordance with policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
4) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for
temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Council, and such enclosure has been erected in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure that the site remains in a tidy condition during the construction phase
and to prevent harms to the street scene and character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area, in accordance with policies EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
5) The development hereby permitted shall not commence prior to the submission
and approval in writing by the Council of details in plan, section and elevation (at a scale of not less than 1:20) of the following matters, and no part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the completion of that part of the development in accordance with the approved details.
a) A typical bay of each of the north and west elevations of the building,
including details of cladding, entrances and fenestration as appropriate. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the
streetscene, in accordance with Policy EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
6) The development hereby approved shall not commence until particulars and
samples (where appropriate) of all materials to be used in all external faces of the development (which shall include details and samples showing the colour and texture of the proposed render, details of the bonding and pointing of the external facing brickwork, and details of the design and appearance of the proposed solar panels), details of all paving and external hard surfaces, boundary walls, railings, gates, fences and other means of enclosure have been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policy EN2B,
EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 7) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of full details of the proposed soft landscaping of the site, including planting schedules (including the climbing plants proposed on the stainless steel cable trellis on part of the north elevation of the building), and details of the species, height and maturity of any new trees and shrubs to be planted. 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 buildings, whichever is the earlier.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with policies EN2B,
EN8 and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007. 8) Any tree or shrub planted pursuant to condition 7 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 policies EN2B, EN8 and EN26 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
9) No plumbing, extract flues or pipes, other than rainwater pipes shall be fixed on
the north, east or west elevations of the building hereby approved. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street
scene, in accordance with Policies EN2B and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
10) With the exception of those indicated on the approved drawings, no new windows,
doors or other openings shall be created in the external elevations of the building, unless details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Any such changes shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and so that the use of the buildings
does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and noise and disturbance, in accordance with EN2B, EN8, EN20B, EN21and Standard 13.2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
11) No alterations shall be carried out to the external appearance of the building,
including the installation of water tanks, air-conditioning units, ventilation fans or extraction equipment not shown on the approved drawings, unless details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Any such changes shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policies EN2B, EN8B, EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development hereby permitted, without planning permission first being granted.
To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment can be
considered, in accordance with Policy EN2B and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
13) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied prior to the
provision of the secure bicycle storage facilities for 6 bicycles. The cycle storage facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained, in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure the provision of bicycle spaces in accordance with Policy TN6 and
standard S20.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended in 2007.
14) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in writing by the Council of details of the design and appearance of the proposed refuse and recyclable storage arrangements, and no part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the provision of the refuse and recyclable storage arrangements in accordance with the approved details. The approved refuse storage arrangements shall thereafter be retained. All refuse generated by the use of the building shall be contained within lidded refuse bins stored within the designated refuse storage areas.
In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for refuse storage and
collection, in accordance with policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007, and the Council's supplementary planning document `Storage of Refuse and Recyclables'.
15) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a statement of how
'Secure by Design' requirements are to be adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved and permanently maintained thereafter.
To ensure a safe and secure environment for users of the development, in
accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007. 16) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of all proposed external lighting, including security lights, and the use shall not commence until the lighting has been installed in full accordance with the approved details. Such details shall include the number, exact location, height, design and appearance of the lights, together with data concerning the levels of illumination and light spillage and the specific measures, having regard to the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers in the `Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2005' to ensure that the any lighting proposed does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the
occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policy EN2B, EN8B, EN20A, EN20C and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
17) No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the submission and
approval in writing by the Council of a travel plan, which shall include information on how alternative methods of transport to and from the site other than by car will be encouraged and facilitated, and details of how and when the travel plan will be monitored and reviewed. The travel plan shall be implemented in full compliance with the approved details upon the commencement of the use of the building and shall continue to be implemented whilst the uses remain in operation.
In order to minimise the number of unnecessary car trips and to promote
alternative methods of transport, in accordance with Policy TN13 of the Unitary Development Plan, amended 2007 and Policy 3C.2 of The London Plan 2008.
18) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the mitigation measures contained in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), dated June 2010 (reference K10/0353/A1/0005 RN/sf/G5).
To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants,
in accordance with PPS25, Development and Flood Risk. 19) The flat roofs provided by the development hereby permitted shall not be used, all
or in part, as terraces or other amenity space. Such a use could be harmful to the existing residential amenities of neighbouring
occupiers as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and additional noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy EN21 and standards S13.2, and S13.2A of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
20) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of the noise and vibration level of any proposed plant and machinery, including details of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that the external noise level at the nearest and/or most affected noise sensitive premises is at least 10dBA Leq below background LA90, as assessed according to BS4142:1997, with all machinery operating. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details, which shall thereafter be permanently retained.
To ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the proposed flats and the occupiers of
adjoining residential properties is not harmed as a result of noise or vibration from any proposed plant or machinery, in accordance with Policy EN20A, EN20B and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
21) All ventilation ducts should be fixed to the building structure with suitable anti-
vibration isolators and any fan motor should be vibration isolated from the duct, to prevent vibration and noise.
To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties
are not unduly affected as a result of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
22) No persons shall be on the premises in connection with the operation of the
children's centre or community centre uses hereby approved between 23:00 hours and 08:00 hours the following day.
To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties
are not unduly affected as a result of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
23) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of the proposed sound insulation of the building envelope. The details shall ensure that the sound insulation, and any other mitigation measures, are such that noise from uses and activities within the building is not audible at surrounding noise sensitive premises. No part of the development shall be used or occupied prior to the installation of the sound insulation in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties are not unduly affected as a result of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
24) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of details of servicing and delivery management plan. The development shall be serviced only in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure satisfactory servicing and delivery arrangements and to minimise the
risk of harm to the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with policies TN5, TN13, EN21 and standard S21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
25) No amplified or non-amplified music, nor amplified voices, shall be audible at or
within the site boundary of any residential/noise sensitive premises at any time. To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties
are not unduly affected as a result of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
26) No live music shall be performed on the premises. To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding residential properties
are not unduly affected as a result of noise and disturbance, in accordance with Policy EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
27) The development shall not commence prior to the submission and approval in
writing by the Council of the measures proposed for the protection of the existing trees in the vicinity of the site during demolition and construction works. The protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
To ensure that the trees are not harmed during demolition and construction works,
in accordance with Policy EN2 and EN25 of Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
28) The development hereby approved shall not be implemented until details of
disabled people's access to approach paths, gates, and internal facilities to support their use of the ground floor Childrens Centre and first floor Community Centre are first submitted and approved by the Council. The approved details shall be installed prior to the commencement of the use and then permanently retained for this purpose.
In order to ensure the development provides ease of access for all users, in
accordance with Policy 3A.5 of the London Plan as amended 2008 and the Council's adopted supplementary planning document "Access for all".
29) No development shall commence until a contaminated land desktop study, site
investigation scheme, intrusive investigation and risk assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The desk study will identify all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. The site
investigation scheme will provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. The risk assessment will assess the degree and nature of any contamination on site and to assess the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. A detailed method statement for any required remediation works will need to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).
To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and
remediated in accordance with Policy G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
30) No development shall commence until any required remediation works have been
completed and a validation report to verify these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council unless otherwise authorised. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the Council is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council. Any required remediation should be detailed and verified in an amendment to the remediation statement. All works must be carried out by a competent person conforming to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (DEFRA 2004).
To ensure that any contaminated land on the application site is identified and
remediated in accordance with Policy G0, G3, EN20A and EN21 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007.
Summary of reasons for granting planning permission: 1) 1. Land Use: Policy CS8 (development of new community facilities) of the
UDP supports the provision of a new community centre to meet the needs of the residents subject to site specific considerations. Policy CS10 (Local Community Services) encourages community facilities where they are compatible with the environment and a proven local need exists. London Plan Policy 3A.18 (Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities) states that boroughs should seek to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided within easy reach by walking and public transport for the population that use them. The net loss of such facilities should be resisted and increased provision be sought. The proposal has been developed in partnership between H&F Early Years and Childcare Services and H&F Homes. The Children's Services Department have identified Fulham Court as an important location for a children's centre due to the level of vulnerable families. The new community centre element of the development would replace the existing centre, which is outmoded and insufficient to deliver services in the long term. The replacement community centre would provide an accessible modern facility that is attractive to the wider community with a broad variety of uses. The proposed mix of community uses would therefore meet a known local need and would result in the provision of improved local services, in with Policies CS8 and CS10 of the UDP and the London Plan.
2. Design: The development is considered to comply with UDP Policies EN2B and EN8, and London Plan policy 4.B1. The proposals are considered to represent an enhancement of the public realm and provision of a high quality scheme that will respect the local setting. Policy EN2B states that development outside conservation areas will only be permitted if the character and appearance of the conservation area in terms of their setting and views into and out of them is preserved or enhanced. Policy EN8 requires a high standard of design in all new developments. London Plan policy 4B.1 also seeks to ensure that, within developments, which should maximise the potential of sites, design should, in all its aspects, be of high quality.
3. Highways matters: Policy TN13 states that all development proposals will be
assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion. Policy TN15 and Standard S18 requires any proposed development to conform to approved car parking standards. Standard S18.1 and Table 12.1 suggest that for car parking each site will be treated on its merits. Standard 20 requires the provision of specific cycle parking appropriate to the proposed use. The development would result in the removal of 9 parking spaces and 2 residents' parking spaces and the provision of 1 visitor space and 1 disabled parking bay. The reduction in the provision of overall parking spaces would not result in an increase in existing on-street parking stress. The estate currently has 132 parking spaces which includes 9 visitor spaces. Spaces in the estate are not allocated but residents are required to display a permit. A recent parking study indicates that 78 residents have parking permits and between 9.30am and 19.30pm between 37% and 26% of the parking spaces remained empty. Cycle parking would be provided for 6 bicycles. The impact of the proposals on the highway network and local parking conditions is therefore considered to be acceptable.
4. Environmental: The Council is satisfied that the scheme represents the
principles of good design and properly addresses environmental issues. It considers that UDP Policy EN10, which requires a safe and secure environment, is complied with. The proposals, similarly, accord with UDP Policies EN17 in that they incorporate suitable facilities for the storage and collection of segregated waste, and with Policies EN20A and EN20B because the development would not cause any undue pollution, with no significant worsening of air quality nor undue noise and with other pollution controls in place, which would also ensure compliance with EN21, which requires that development does not cause undue detriment to the amenities of neighbours.
5. Residential amenity: The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining
occupiers is considered acceptable. In this regard, the proposals accord with UDP Policy EN8, which requires developments to be of high quality design which, amongst other things, respects the principles of good neighbourliness, and with Standards S12 and S13 which state that there be no significant loss of outlook or privacy to neighbouring occupiers and that no new roof terraces nor balconies be created, use of which might cause harm to the amenities of neighbours by reason of noise and disturbance.
6. Access: The development would provide a safe and secure environment for
all users in accordance with Policy EN10 of the UDP, and would provide easy access by disabled people in accordance with Policy G4(4) of the UDP and the Council's Adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SDP) 'Access for All'.
7. Flood Risk: A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted and has considered all possible risks of flooding to the site, and has identified adequate preventative measures, in accordance with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Application form received: 2nd July 2010 Drawing Nos: see above Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007. Consultation Comments: Comments from: Thames Water - Development Control Environment Agency - Planning Liaison Transport For London - Street Management Administration Team
Dated: 21.07.10 20.08.10 03.08.10
Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: OFFICER'S REPORT 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application relates to an area of land in the southwest corner of the Fulham Court estate. The land currently comprises a single-storey prefabricated type building, which is used as a community centre, together with 10 visitor parking spaces and a small open area. To the south and southwest the land adjoins industrial/commercial premises, beyond which is an overground section of the District Line. To the north the site faces the remainder of the Fulham Court estate, the nearest buildings being Evergreen House and Foxglove House (both 5-storey). 1.2 Access to the site is via the estate (the nearest vehicle/pedestrian entrance to this part of the estate is on Shottendane Road). The site is not itself in a conservation area, but the boundary of the Parsons Green Conservation area (the rear of the properties in Novello Street) is some 40m away, on the opposite side of the District Line. The is in Flood Zone 3, and it is also in the Chelsea-Hackney Rail Safeguarding Zone. 1.3 Fulham Court has suffered from a number of complex issues for a long time and an Estate Improvement Strategy for the estate is being developed to transform it and improve the quality of life for its residents. The strategy is being developed through a multi-agency steering group which has worked through a process to understand the problems and to develop a vision for transformation. The strategy seeks to harness
resources from numerous sources to create a deliverable programme of physical and social improvements over the next 3-4 years. Phase 1 of the Strategy includes a physical improvement programme. 1.4 In January 2010 the Council approved the implementation of a Children's Centre within the boundary of Fulham Court or Barclay Close estates (subject to any necessary statutory consents and resident consultation). The report to Cabinet stated that the aim is to replicate the successful model of combining a Children's Centre with a Community Centre, similar to that developed on the Old Oak Estate - which will enable combined service to be delivered under one roof. The existing community centre itself was due to be replaced; however the decision to move ahead with the provision of a children's centre has become urgent because the capital allocation from the DCFS available to provide the children's centre would otherwise be lost. 1.5 The current application involves the demolition of the existing single-storey community centre building and the erection of a replacement, larger, part single-storey, part two-storey building, to provide a children's centre (ground floor level) and a replacement community centre (first floor), together with associated landscaping, cycle and refuse storage arrangements. 1.6 The existing community centre building is somewhat dilapidated. The new building would provide independent services at ground and first floors. The children's centre would accommodate 20 children in a dedicated under 5 space, with access to outdoors, and 17 adults in a multipurpose space. Other facilities provided at ground level in the new building would include: baby changing facilities; a consultation room; reception; storage areas; ancillary staff office; kitchen and toilets. The replacement community centre would include a large hall (max 100-120 people), a small hall (approx 30 people), a kitchen, IT/meeting room and toilets. 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 Prior to the submission of the current planning application a series of public consultation events took place on the estate, which revolved around the consideration of 3 alternative sites within the Fulham Court and Barclay Close Estates for the provision of the proposed facilities: November 2009: A scheme on a site on the north side of the Barclay Close Estate, was presented to residents and the local community. While the design of the proposed development was considered acceptable, the location of the proposed building resulted in several objections from local residents. This site was therefore dismissed as a possible option. February 2010: Residents on both estates were invited to comment on two alternative sites (which included consultation on estate wide improvements in addition to the children's centre/community centre proposals). One site was on the south side of the Barclay Close Estate, and the other was the current application site. A questionnaire circulated at the event and delivered to homes confirmed that 55% of residents preferred the current application site (cf 27% in the case of the Barclay Close Site). This, together with the existing established community centre use on the Fulham Court site, resulted in the choice of the current application site as the preferred option, and, following Cabinet approval the project proceeded on that basis.
March 2010: Informal consultation was carried out with young users about the type of services they would like to see, with input on the appearance and feel of the building. Visits were carried out to existing centres in the borough to establish aspects that work well and those elements that could be improved. May 2010: The whole estate invited to attend a meeting (18th May), where plans were displayed and a residents discussion was held. June 2010: Residents of Evergreen House (the nearest block to the proposed new building) were presented drawings and three dimensional images showing the relationship to their building. The comments were generally positive and one outcome was an amendment to the scheme to include a trellis system for some climbing planters on the north elevation facing the block to enhance their views by creating a more attractive wall. 2.2 The current planning application has been publicised by means of site notices and press adverts, and individual notification letters have been sent to the occupiers of neighbouring properties (including Evergreen House). No representations have been received in response. 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning issues are the principle of the development in land use terms, whether the proposed use would be appropriate in the location, the impact on existing visual amenities and the occupiers of adjoining residential property, whether the use would give rise to problems associated with traffic generation. Land Use: 3.2 The main issue is the acceptability of the demolition of the temporary community facility and the erection of a new, two storey community centre. Policy CS8 (development of new community facilities) of the UDP supports the provision of a new community centre to meet the needs of the residents subject to site specific considerations. Policy CS10 (Local Community Services) encourages community facilities where they are compatible with the environment and a proven local need exists. 3.3 London Plan Policy 3A.18 (Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities) states that boroughs should seek to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided within easy reach by walking and public transport for the population that use them. The net loss of such facilities should be resisted and increased provision be sought. 3.4 The proposed development was developed in partnership between H&F Early Years and Childcare Services, H&F Homes following consultation with residents. The Early Years, education and family support needs of children and parents are central to a 10 year strategy to ensure that a children’s care centre is provided in every community by 2010. A community was defined as an area with approximately 800 children under the age of 5. The Children’s Services Department have identified Fulham Court as an important location for a children’s centre due to the level of vulnerable families. The nearest existing centre is Sands End Community Centre but families do not tend to travel there as it is outside reasonable pram pushing distance and an alternative more
northern location is required, as in this case. The proposal would result in the provision of a one-stop children’s centre for children under the age of 5 and their families where a variety of services will be provided to meet the needs of local children and their families. Services will include drop-in play programmes, family support, parenting courses and other training, information on back to work initiatives, health programmes and child minder support. 3.5 The existing community centre is outmoded and is not fit as part of an expansion of outreach services and the existing space is insufficient to deliver services in the long term. The replacement community centre would provide an accessible modern facility that is attractive to the wider community with a broad variety of uses. The Community Centre will primarily be used and run by local residents and will be available to the wider community. The Centre will be used for a range of activities, involving people of all ages including: youth groups, training, bingo, dominoes, lunch clubs, doorstep library, tenant’s services and events. 3.6 The proposed mix of community uses would meet a known local need and would result in the provision of improved local services. In land use terms, the proposed development would accord with Policies CS8 and CS10 of the UDP and the London Plan. 3.7 Under the terms of policy EN22X the loss of public or private open space will not be permitted where such land either individually or cumulatively has local importance for its open character or as a sport, leisure or recreational facility or for its contribution to local biodiversity or visual amenity, unless it realises a qualitative gain for the local community and provides for the relocation of the open space. The proposal involves a small encroachment of the existing play area to the east of the existing building which would be largely replaced by two new formal play spaces / green areas to the east and west of the new building. The external play areas have been designed for a total of 40 children (3 sqm per child) in line good practice design standards. Although there are no specific policy issues on the loss of brownfield playing areas in the UDP consideration should be given to the amount of formal playing area that will be retained and whether this is sufficient to meet the needs of the community centre. Visual Impact: 3.8 Policy EN8 (Design of New Developments) of the UDP states that development will not be permitted unless it is of a high standard of design and is compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. This policy also indicates that the use of innovative and contemporary materials will be welcomed provided that these enable the design to be sensitively integrated into the existing building form and landscape. Policy EN2B relates to development which may affect the setting of conservation area and views into and out of them. 3.9 Officers consider that the existing portacabin style building has a poor visual appearance that is not of any architectural or historic interest and there are no objections to its demolition. 3.10 The proposed building measures some 30m in length, 13.5m wide and 7.5m high. The building would have a flat roof and include a set back of 3.6m from the west elevation closest to Evergreen House. The proposed building has contemporary designs that includes brickwork and render facing to match adjacent buildings. The
northern elevation, facing the estate, has been punctuated with powder coated double glazed windows and would include a stainless steel cable trellis system for planting together with an artist mural to be developed in conjunction with the community. This would provide a more lightweight and more colourful appearance to the estate. The southern elevation, facing the railway would comprise mainly brickwork with windows at ground floor level only to provide a robust and solid back to the opposing railway line and existing depot. The western elevation includes a single storey front entrance lobby. The roof of the building has been designed to include a green roof with a sedum blanket together with solar panels and rooflights. 3.11 Policy EN25 states that the Council will endeavour to prevent the removal or mutilation of protects trees. A tree survey report has not been submitted by the applicant. A row of trees exists in a line directly east of the existing building between the residential parking bays and play area. To the south of the visitor parking area is a Hawthorn Tree on the southern boundary. The applicants states that all existing trees would be retained and be protected during construction. The proposed footprint of the building has been designed to accommodate their retention. Conditions would be attached to any permission to secure this. 3.12 The proposal includes the installation of a new open mesh metal fence to form a secure external play area for the children’s centre. A small landscaped boundary would be included on the inside of that fencing. The proposed fencing would allow views of the new building and planting together with the `green trellis wall¿ would help to soften the appearance of the building. 3.13 Officers consider that the proposed scale, form, materials building is appropriate to its context and therefore accords with Policy EN8 of the UDP. Furthermore it is not considered that the proposed building would affect the setting of the adjacent Parsons Green and Walham conservation area which lies beyond the railway line. The proposal would therefore accord with EN2B of the UDP. Residential Amenity: 3.14 The north side of the building is the only part of the development that faces residential development. Whilst the massing and height of the proposed building increases significantly across the whole site, officers consider that the proposal would not be overbearing and result in material harm the amenities of adjoining residents Evergreen House or Foxglove House, to warrant the refusal of planning permission. The proposal accords with Standard S13.1 of the UDP which seeks to protect outlook. 3.15 The northern elevation contains four square windows which serve office areas on the ground floor and toilets on the first floor which do not fall within the arc of 60 degrees of the nearest habitable room windows within 18m of the new building. The remaining windows on the north elevation relate to staircase areas. The proposed windows on the north elevation would accord with Standard S13.2 which seeks to protect privacy and overlooking. 3.16 In considering the protection of adequate daylight and sunlight to existing buildings, the Council has had regard to EN8B in respect of neighbourliness and the guidance set out in Building Research Establishments' (BRE) Report 1991 - "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - A guide to good practice. When compared to the existing single storey building the profile of the proposed building has been
increased in height and footprint. However, proposed building has been set back at first floor level on its western elevation to reduce the impact of the development on the opposing residential development. A daylight analysis has been carried out which demonstrates that the development would have no significant adverse daylight and sunlight impact on the amenities of the closest residential buildings at Evergreen House and Foxglove House (which is slightly further away and generally at an oblique angle to the development). In respect of sunlight, analysis indicates that two ground floor kitchen windows at Nos 188 and 189 Evergreen House would experience a small reduction in sunlight during the winter months but this would not be noticeable to the occupants. Similarly, in terms of daylight the kitchen at No. 188 Evergreen House would be reduced by slightly more than the maximum of 20%. Officers consider that, in practical terms this means that the level of daylight and sunlight is comparable to existing and the very modest reductions are not sufficient to warrant the withholding of planning permission. 3.17 At this stage the applicant has indicated that it is difficult to quantify the amount and type of plant equipment required and whether any air conditioning would needed, but at this stage would accept planning conditions which would secured appropriate noise levels and operating hours being controlled. Overall in terms of noise and disturbance, the proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of policy EN21 of the UDP. 3.18 The application proposal would be controlled by hours of operation to prevent any potential undue harm in terms of noise, nuisance and disturbance to nearby residential occupiers. It is proposed to restrict the hours of operation to between 0800 and 2300 hours seven days a week which is considered appropriate for the use. The applicant has agreed to this. Other conditions will also seek to minimise any noise emission form the premises. A planning condition is also recommended as regards to details of lighting external to the building in order to protect the amenities of adjoining residents from excessive lighting glare. Highways: 3.19 Policy TN13 states that 'all development proposals will be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion'. Policy TN15 and Standard S18 requires any proposed development to conform to approved car parking standards as a condition of granting planning permission. UDP Standard S18.1 and Table 12.1 suggest that for car parking each site will be treated on its merits. Standard 20 requires the provision of specific cycle parking appropriate to the proposed use. 3.20 The development would result in the removal of 9 parking spaces and 2 resident’s parking spaces and the provision of 1 visitor space and 1 disabled parking bay. The reduction in the provision of overall parking spaces would not result in an increase in existing on-street parking stress. The estate currently has 132 parking spaces which includes 9 visitor spaces. Spaces in the estate are not allocated but residents are required to display a permit. A recent parking study indicates that 78 residents have parking permits and between 9.30am and 19.30pm between 37% and 26% of the parking spaces remained empty. Cycle parking would be provided for 6 bicycles. 3.21 The applicants have submitted a travel plan, which indicates that, the likely impact of the development on the surrounding highway network would be small. The majority of users for the children’s centre are expected to arrive on foot as the proposal is aimed primarily at local residents on the Fulham Court and Barclay Close estates which are
within 10 -15 minutes walk of the proposed centre. Similarly although the community centre will have some wider use it would mostly serve the residents of Fulham Court and Barclay Close estates and parking would not be required for those residents. Furthermore the centre is close to good public transport links including tubes and buses. Subject to the conclusion of a satisfactory surveys in connection with the travel plan officers raise no objections to the proposal and recommend that a condition be attached to ensure that a satisfactory travel plan is completed and a requirement for its subsequent updating and monitoring, Access: 3.22 The applicant has submitted an access statement. Officers recommend that a condition be attached to any permission to ensure compliance with the Council's SPD on Access for All. Flood Risk: 3.33 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment, and officers consider that the development would be acceptable on flood risk grounds provided that it is carried out and completed in accordance with the mitigation measures contained in the flood risk assessment. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Grant planning permission.
For identification purposes only - do not scale. Reg. No: 2010/00774/CONV Date Case Opened: 08.06.2010 Committee Date: 15.09.2010
Case Officer: James Cook Conservation Area:
Description: Conversion of the property from 4 self contained flats to 13 self contained flats without planning permission. Officer Recommendation: That the Head of Legal Services be authorised to institute appropriate enforcement and / or legal proceedings for the reason(s) stated below: 1) The use of the property as 13 self contained flats is considered to be unacceptable
by reason that all the units are of insufficient size resulting in substandard living accommodation for the occupiers of these units contrary to Standard S8.1B of the Council's Unitary Development Plan as amended in September 2007.
2) The use of the property as 13 self contained flats has resulted in an over
intensification of the use of the building which is considered to have a detrimental impact on the general amenities of the residential occupiers by reason of increased activity at the property causing noise and disturbance, together with a lack of provision for refuse and recycling storage. As such, the continued use of the property in this manner is contrary to Policies EN17 and EN21 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan as amended in September 2007.
3) The use of the property as 13 self contained flats is considered to unacceptable by
reason that there is inadequate off street parking for the number of dwellings, in addition the property is located on a local access road and the development would exacerbate the demand for on street parking in the neighbourhood. As such the development is contrary to Policy HO3 and Standard S8.2 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan as amended in September 2007.
4) The retention of the additional basement unit is considered to be unacceptable in
the aabsence of a flood risk assessment in order to ensure there is no risk of harm to the occupiers of the dwelling by way of flooding contrary to PPG25 Development and Flood Risk.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453): Date Case Opened: 08.06.2010 Policy documents: The Revised London Plan 2008
Unitary Development Plan as amended September 2007 LETTERS FROM OWNER/INTERESTED PARTIES None OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2003 as amended in September 2007
OTHER DOCUMENTS PPG25 Development and Flood Risk 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 A Victorian four storey terraced residential property situated on the eastern side of Hammersmith Grove. The property lies within the Hammersmith Grove Conservation Area. 1.2 Relevant planning history; - 2006/01485/CLE; Continued use of the property as four self-contained flats, certificate of lawfulness existing granted 3 July 2006. 1.3 In June 2010 the Council received complaint stating that there were a large number of people living at the property and that it may have been converted into more self contained units. Officers visited the site at which time it was revealed that the property had been converted into 13 self contained flats. The majority of the flats contained living/sleeping/kitchen room and an ensuite shower room. None of the units complied with the council's size requirements for converted flats. There are no Building Regulations records for the works. 1.4 A planning contravention notice was served on the freeholder to seek information about the use and the date of conversion. The freeholder has confirmed that the conversion of the property to 13 self contained flats took place in 2007 before he purchesed the property. As such, the works are not immune from enforcement action (the four year rule) and therefore require planning permission. The owner has indicated his intention to convert the property into 5 self contained flats and that he intends to submit a planning application shortly. 2.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 The main planning considerations in this case relate to whether the thirteen self contained flats provide an acceptable standard of residential accommodation, are not detrimental to the residential amenities of surrounding occupiers and do not give rise to an increase in on-street parking stress. In this respect Policies HO3. EN17, EN21 and Standards S8.1B and S8.2 apply. Conversion and change of use 2.2 Policy HO3 states conversion of buildings into one or more dwellings will not be permitted where (b) the net floor area of the original dwelling is less than 120 sq/m and (c) where the conversion only provides self-contained bedsits/1 person flats. 2.3 The original dwelling is more than 120 sq/m in floor area and therefore complies with Policy HO3 (b). However the development provides only very small studio and 1 bedroom flats suitable for 1 person each. As such, they do not comply with Policy HO3 (c). 2.4 Standard S8.1B Minimum Sizes for Flats states converted flats for full self containment should have an internal area of at least 32.5 sq/m where a separate bedroom is provided. Where a self contained bed sitting room is provided there should
be at least 25 sq/m with a minimum living/sleeping area of 14 sq/m and separate kitchens should be provided. 2.5 In this instance a total of 13 self contained residential units have been formed. The units are of the following estimated dimensions; Lower ground floor; Flat D1; 23 sq/m (studio) Flat D2; 18 sq/m (studio) Flat D3; 12.5 sq/m (studio) Upper ground floor; Flat A1; 18 sq/m (studio) Flat A2; 12.5 sq/m (studio) Flat A3; 23 sq/m (studio) First Floor; Flat B1; 18 sq/m (studio) Flat B2; 28 sq/m (1bed) Flat B3; 12.5 sq/m (studio) Second Floor; Flat C1; 28 sq/m (1bed) Flat C2; 18 sq/m (studio) Third Floor (attic) Flat C3; 23 sq/m (studio) Flat C4; 28 sq/m (1 bed) 2.6 All of the units therefore fall below the minimum required internal floor areas for self contained bedsits and only 3 flats provide the minimum 14 sq/m of living/sleeping area. None provide seperate kitchens. As such, all the flats are considered to provide poor quality, sub standard accommodation. 2.7 Policy EN21 Environmental Nuisance states all developments including conversions and changes of use shall ensure there is no undue detriment to the general amenities at present enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers of their properties. 2.8 The formation of thirteen residential units is considered to result in an over intensification of the use of this type of property resulting in an adverse impact on residential amenity for both the occupiers and surrounding residents. Not only do the occupiers have inadequate sized living accommodation as outlined above, but also the number of occupiers substantially increases pedestrian flow to and from the property which gives rise to detrimental levels of noise and disturbance. As such, the new units are considered to be detrimental to the general amenities that had been enjoyed by surrounding occupiers. Therefore the development is contrary to Policy EN21 and Standard S8.1B.
Waste collection and disposal 2.9 Policy EN17 (Waste Collection and Disposal) states that development will not be permitted unless suitable facilities are incorporated for the storage and collection of segregated waste. 2.10 The development substantially increases levels of refuse generated on the site. There is currently a bin store with 3 bins provided, this is considered inadequate for 13 self contained flats, nor is there provision for recycling. As such the development does not comply with policy EN17. Parking 2.11 Paragraph C of Policy HO3 (House Conversions) states the conversion of buildings into one or more dwellings will not be permitted where there would be inadequate on or off-street parking. 2.12 Standard S8.2 states that; (1) Permission would normally be refused for a residential property to be converted in streets where the level of on-street overnight parking exceeds the notional on-street overnight parking capacity. (2) The Council will normally limit the extent to which a residential property can be converted to a level of one unit less than the number of floors in the property as it was originally built for residential occupation and which would be in residential (C3) use following the conversion, in streets where (i) the level of on-street overnight parking leaves less than 10% free notional on-street overnight parking capacity, or (ii) where the street is classified as a strategic route, London distributor, borough distributor, or local access road where the local access road has an essential through traffic function. 2.13 The site provides only 1 off street parking place for 13 residential units and the property is located on a local access road within a controlled parking zone. Although the overnight on street parking stress in this location is below 90% in this instance it is considered that there is inadequate on or off street parking for the 13 self contained units and in the absence of a parking permit free agreement the development is contrary to Policy HO3 and Standard S8.2. 2.14 Other Material Considerations 2.15 Flood Risk; The property is located within Flood Risk Zone 3 (low risk). It is considered in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment for the additional basement unit detailing what measures have been undertaken, if any, to mitigate the risk of flooding the dwelling the development is unacceptable by reasons of the risks posed to residential occupiers of the property contrary to PPG25 Development and Flood Risk. 3.0 CONCLUSION 3.1 For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to institute appropriate enforcement action to cease the use of the property as thirteen self contained flats and reinstate the residential use of this property as a 4 self contained flats or as a single dwelling house.
