Our ref: APP/F5540/V/19/3226900 Mr Tom Horne Your ref: 00607/T/P1 DP9 Limited 100 Pall Mall London SW1Y 5NQ 31 March 2021 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION MADE BY BLUESCAPE LIMITED LAND AT 40 & 40A HIGH STREET, BRENTFORD, LONDON, TW8 0DS APPLICATION REF: 00607/T/P1 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Michael Boniface MSc MRTPI who held a public local inquiry on 6-9, 13-16 and 22 October 2020 into your client’s application for planning permission for demolition of the existing office building and Arts Centre to provide 193 new dwellings within buildings of part 6, part 7 storeys (Class C3), with ancillary ground floor retail/café, hard and soft landscaping, revised vehicular access and all necessary enabling and ancillary works, application reference 00607/T/P1, dated 4 August 2017. 2. On 15 April 2019, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be approved. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to grant permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR7, the Secretary of State is satisfied that overall the material provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 2853 Phil Barber, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 6. The London Plan was adopted on 2nd March 2021. The policies from the previous London Plan set out in IR15-20 have therefore been superseded. 7. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this publication to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Copies of these letters may be obtained on request to the email address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 8. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 9. In this case the development plan consists of the recently adopted London Plan (2021) and the Hounslow Local Plan (HLP) (2015). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR21-26 and those adopted in the London Plan (2021) as set out at IR37-40. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), and documents referred to at IR30-36. 11. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Emerging plan 12. The emerging Development Plan documents comprise of the West of Borough Local Plan, the Great West Corridor Local Plan and Hounslow Site Allocations (IR41). The site remains as an emerging site allocation under the emerging plan (Site 110 – Albany Riverside). 13. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. The emerging Development Plan documents that form part of the Local Plan review are at an early stage. For the reasons given at IR41 the Secretary of State considers that policies in the emerging documents carry limited weight. Main issues Site allocation 14. The Secretary of State notes (IR487) that Local Plan policies IMP2 and TC2 allocate the site for redevelopment. 2 Tall buildings 15. The Secretary of State has considered the new London Plan’s (2021) provisions on tall buildings. He concludes that as the Hounslow Local Plan defines this as an area with some suitability for tall buildings (IR490), the proposal would not conflict with part B of Policy D9. Impacts on heritage assets 16. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis of heritage issues at IR451-476. He agrees, for the reasons given at IR453 that there would be no direct harm to designated heritage assets; any harm would arise from the impact of the development on the significance derived from their settings. For the reasons given at IR454-464 he agrees with the Inspector that the appeal proposal would have an effect on the setting of Kew Gardens as a whole and also the setting of designated heritage assets within it (IR464). 17. For the reasons given at IR465-466 he agrees that the effect of the scheme in the setting of the Palace would be very minor (IR466). 18. For the reasons given at IR467-468 he agrees with the Inspector that the development would not alter the Palace’s relationship with the river or the spacious and verdant setting that provides an interlude from urban Brentford. He further agrees that the effect on significance from the increased scale of the proposed buildings within its setting would be minor (IR468). 19. He further agrees (IR469) that the proposed development would not harm the setting or the significance of the Grade I listed Kew Palace flats and Grade II listed Kew Cottages in any way. 20. He concludes for the reasons given above that the extent of the change to setting of the Royal Botanic Gardens would be minor, and that the harm to the significance of the assets would be approaching moderate on the ‘less than substantial’ scale. He concludes, for the reasons set out at IR471 and IR475, that the cumulative harms, when taken together with the direct harm, should be assessed as moderate on the ‘less than substantial’ scale (IR471). 21. The Secretary of State has had regard to the impacts on the setting and significance of the Kew Green Conservation Area (CA). For the reasons given at IR472-473 and IR475 he agrees with the Inspector that the development would diminish the semi-rural character evident in this part of the Conservation Area to some extent but the effect on its significance could not be described as more than slight, even taking into account the cumulative effects (IR473). 22. For the reasons given at IR495, the Secretary of State considers that taking the assets together, the overall harm to significance would be moderate on the ‘less than substantial’ scale. He agrees that this harm must attract great weight. Paragraph 196 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. His conclusions on this test are set out below. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there would be conflict with London 3 Plan (2021) policies HC1 and HC2 (IR492). HLP CC4 (IR490) requires a balance between harm to designated heritage assets and public benefits. Other harm 23. For the reasons given (IR477) the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that living conditions at Lighterage Court/Kew Reach would not be unacceptably harmed, but that the impact on neighbouring residents attracts slight negative weight. 24. He agrees with the Inspector that there no other harmful impacts that could not be suitably mitigated by way of conditions and obligations (IR478). Housing 25. The Secretary of State notes at IR479 that the Council has a strong housing land supply position and that no on-site affordable housing would be provided but the scheme would facilitate redevelopment of the Brentford Police Station site where 60 affordable units would be delivered, along with a further 45 market units. He has taken into account that the proposed 20% affordable housing provision across the two sites is only half of the current strategic 40% policy target for the Borough and less still against the 50% London- wide target. However, he notes that after independent assessment it is agreed by the Council to be the maximum viable amount; the level of provision would also be subject to potential uplift through a review mechanism. He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR479 that housing provision overall should be afforded significant weight.