DOCSLIB.ORG

399 Edgware Road/Former Oriental City in the London Borough of Brent Planning Application No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
399 Edgware Road/Former Oriental City in the London Borough of Brent Planning Application No planning report D&P/0859b/02 12 June 2013 399 Edgware Road/Former Oriental City in the London Borough of Brent planning application no. 12/2166 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal A hybrid planning application for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures and comprehensive mixed-use development comprising: Full planning permission (phase 1) for comprehensive mixed-use development comprising full planning permission erection of 7,817 sq.m. gross external area (GEA) Class A1 foodstore with associated service and delivery yard; 5,207 sq.m. GEA of New Oriental and Far Eastern Floorspace (OFEF) to include shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, hot food takeaways, and non-residential institutions. Outline planning permission (phase 2 and 3) comprising residential floorspace (class C3, accompanied by illustrative residential accommodation schedule indicating 183 residential units); associated car parking spaces, associated landscaping and new vehicular access from Airco Close (phase 2, all matters reserved) and two form entry primary school and nursery (class D1, all matters reserved). The applicant The applicant is Development Securities, and the architect is Sheppard Robson. Strategic issues Issues in relation to the development of out of centre retail have been resolved through further research and analyses; the provision of affordable housing has been negotiated on the basis of a review mechanism; a new primary school site has been secured as part of the mixed use development. Other issues which been resolved relate to urban design, children’s playspace, inclusive access, climate change mitigation, noise, air quality, employment and training and transport through provision of additional information and agreement. The Council’s decision In this instance Brent Council has resolved to agree a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date. S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 1 Recommendation That Brent Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 9 November 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Brent Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1A and 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008: 1A: Development of more than 150 residential units. 1B(c): Development outside Central London and with a floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m. 2 On 19 December 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/0859/01, and subsequently advised Brent Council that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 154 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 22 May 2013 Brent Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but subject to (a) an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the section 106 Details section of the committee report, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission, and on 29 May 2013 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Brent Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Brent Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 12 June 2013 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case. 5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 6 At the consultation stage Brent Council was advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 154 of this report could address these deficiencies: Principle of development: A mixed use development of the site is acceptable, but issues relating to retail use require further resolution. S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 2 Retail: As currently submitted the proposals raise strategic planning concerns regarding retail policy tests, sequential approach and potential harmful impacts on nearby town centres. The applicant should engage pro-actively with Brent and Barnet Councils to resolve the issue in relation interpretation of the Lawful Development Certificate and the extant consent. This process should also include discussion exploring the assumption presented by the applicant that there is sufficient expenditure growth to accommodate two stores in the catchment without damaging existing and emerging capacity requires further investigation. If there is no agreement on this assumption, the applicant should agree to re-model the retail impact assessment to account for accommodating two retail stores in the retail catchment. The applicant should further explore the relationship between the quantum of floorspace and the impact on the town centre hierarchy and provide further supporting evidence on the sequential test impact on vitality and viability of the existing retail hierarchy especially in relation to the sites identified in Barnet. Furthermore, in undertaking this process Brent Council should provide further evidence on the deliverability of the town centre sites identified in Burnt Oak and Edgware. Housing: The applicant viability assessment should be independently verified by Brent Council and the housing mix should be secured in the S106 agreement. Urban design: As requested design quality of the outline phases of the development should be secured through the s106 agreement, particularly in relation to compliance with GLA housing space standards; further attention should be given to treatment of the car park pedestrian entrance onto Edgware Road; concerns raised by the noise assessment should be addressed and a solution adopting “winter gardens” should be considered to improve the acoustic quality of the apartments in high noise locations; and clarification should be provided over the inclusion of roof terraces on the apartment blocks. Access: The external arrangements, levels, and landscaping details require further attention and confirmation on the ‘future proofing’ of the retail parking should be provided. Particular attention should be given to comments made in relation to the staircase/ramp link to Edgware Road. The inclusion of 10% wheelchair accessible residential units in the outline application should be secured within the s106 agreement. Energy: Based on the information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any CO2 savings from energy efficiency alone compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. The applicant should model additional energy efficiency measures and commit to the development improving on the 2010 Building Regulations compliance level through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should further respond to comments in relation to district heating and renewable energy technologies. Noise assessment: The applicant should fully respond to the comments made in relation to the Environment Statement Noise assessment particular attention should be given to the concerns raised in relation to the thoroughness of the submitted assessment. The housing balcony design form should be revised to use “winter gardens” in identifiable high noise locations. Air quality assessment: The applicant should fully respond to the comments made in relation to the Environment Statement air quality assessment. S:\Planning Decisions\Cases\0859b\Stage 1 page 3 Transport: The approach to trip generation (in particular residential Saturday trips), modal split (in particular bus residential trips), impacts on TLRN and traffic modelling presented in the revised Transport Assessment is not considered acceptable and needs to be resubmitted; issues raised in relation to car parking, vehicular access, cycle parking, the pedestrian environment, Travel,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greater London Authority
    Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace Need in London March 2009 Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace Need in London A report by Experian for the Greater London Authority March 2009 copyright Greater London Authority March 2009 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 978 1 84781 227 8 This publication is printed on recycled paper Experian - Business Strategies Cardinal Place 6th Floor 80 Victoria Street London SW1E 5JL T: +44 (0) 207 746 8255 F: +44 (0) 207 746 8277 This project was funded by the Greater London Authority and the London Development Agency. The views expressed in this report are those of Experian Business Strategies and do not necessarily represent those of the Greater London Authority or the London Development Agency. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 5 CONSUMER EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS .................................................................................... 6 CURRENT COMPARISON FLOORSPACE PROVISION ....................................................................... 9 RETAIL CENTRE TURNOVER........................................................................................................ 9 COMPARISON GOODS FLOORSPACE REQUIREMENTS
    [Show full text]
  • The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017
    The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017 Part of the London Plan evidence base COPYRIGHT Greater London Authority November 2017 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk 2017 LONDON STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Contents Chapter Page 0 Executive summary 1 to 7 1 Introduction 8 to 11 2 Large site assessment – methodology 12 to 52 3 Identifying large sites & the site assessment process 53 to 58 4 Results: large sites – phases one to five, 2017 to 2041 59 to 82 5 Results: large sites – phases two and three, 2019 to 2028 83 to 115 6 Small sites 116 to 145 7 Non self-contained accommodation 146 to 158 8 Crossrail 2 growth scenario 159 to 165 9 Conclusion 166 to 186 10 Appendix A – additional large site capacity information 187 to 197 11 Appendix B – additional housing stock and small sites 198 to 202 information 12 Appendix C - Mayoral development corporation capacity 203 to 205 assigned to boroughs 13 Planning approvals sites 206 to 231 14 Allocations sites 232 to 253 Executive summary 2017 LONDON STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Executive summary 0.1 The SHLAA shows that London has capacity for 649,350 homes during the 10 year period covered by the London Plan housing targets (from 2019/20 to 2028/29). This equates to an average annualised capacity of 64,935 homes a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralized Energy Master Planning
    Decentralized Energy Master Planning The London Borough of Brent An Interactive Qualifying Project Report submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Submitted by Anthony Aldi Karen Anundson Andrew Bigelow Andrew Capulli Sponsoring Agency London Borough of Brent Planning Service Advisors Dominic Golding Ruth Smith Liaison Joyce Ip 29 April 2010 This report represents the work of four WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of completion of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its web site without editorial or peer review. Abstract The London Borough of Brent aims to reduce its carbon emissions via implementation of decentralized energy schemes including combined heat and power systems. The objective of this project was to aid Brent in the early stages of its decentralized energy master planning. By examining policies of other boroughs and studying major development areas within Brent, the WPI project team has concluded that the council must actively facilitate the development of decentralized energy systems through the use of existing practices and development of well supported policies. i Authorship Page This report was developed through a collaborative effort by the project team: Anthony Aldi, Karen Anundson, Andrew Bigelow, and Andrew Capulli. All sections were developed as team with each member contributing equally. ii Acknowledgements The team would like to thank our advisors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Professor Dominic Golding and Professor Ruth Smith. The team would also like to thank the liaison Joyce Ip from the London Borough of Brent Planning Service and the entire Planning Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Tokyngton Wards Are Major Destinations in Themselves in Addition to Being Residential Areas
    ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT WARDING PATTERN SUBMISSION BY THE BRENT CONSERVATIVE GROUP RESPONSE TO THE LGBCE CONSULTATION NOVEMBER 2018 1 | P a g e Introduction Why Brent? During the current London Government Boundary Commission Executive (LGBCE) review process, it has become clear to us that since the previous review in 2000, warding levels have developed out of balance. Brent Council meets the Commission’s criteria for electoral inequality with 7 wards having a variance outside 10%. The outliers are Brondesbury Park at -16% and Tokyngton at 28%. Electoral review process The electoral review will have two distinct parts: Council size – The Brent conservative group welcomes to reduce the number of councillors to 57 from current 63. We appreciate that this will require some existing wards to be redrawn, and recognise that this will represent an opportunity to examine whether the existing boundaries are an appropriate reflection of how Brent has developed since 2000. In addition, the establishment of new developments such as South Kilburn Regeneration, Wembley Regeneration, Alperton and Burnt Oak and Colindale area. Ward boundaries – The Commission will re-draw ward boundaries so that they meet their statutory criteria. Should the Commission require any further detail on our scheme we would be very happy to pass on additional information or to arrange a meeting with Commission members or officers to run through the proposals. 2 | P a g e Interests & identities of local communities The Commission will be looking for evidence on a range of issues to support our reasoning. The best evidence for community identity is normally a combination of factual information such as the existence of communication links, facilities and organisations along with an explanation of how local people use those facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Brent Housing Delivery Trajectory 2018-2041
    Brent Housing Delivery Trajectory 2018-2041 Place Brent Local Plan 2018 Allocation Name Capacity 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35 2035-36 2036-37 2037-38 2038-39 2039-40 2040-41 Central Central BCSA1 ASDA/ THE TORCH/ KWIKFIT 470 20 20 28 10 15 15 12 15 100 100 100 35 STADIUM RETAIL PARK & FOUNTAIN Central BCSA2 STUDIOS 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 50 Central BCSA3 BROOK AVENUE 450 40 40 40 40 40 30 30 30 126 34 Central BCSA4 FIFTH WAY/ EURO CAR PARTS 500 200 200 100 Central BCSA5 OLYMPIC OFFICE CENTRE 253 253 Central BCSA6 WATKIN ROAD 1000 100 125 125 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 WEMBLEY PARK STATION (NORTH & Central BCSA7 SOUTH) 400 150 150 100 Central BCSA8 WEMBLEY RETAIL PARK NE01/02/03 780 0 0 0 175 175 175 125 130 Central BCSA8 WEMBLEY RETAIL PARK NE04 668 75 75 85 100 133 100 100 Central BCSA8 WEMBLEY RETAIL PARK NE05/06 732 150 150 150 150 132 Central BCSA9 FIRST WAY Remainder 481 481 Central BCSA9 FIRST WAY Access Storage 450 450 FIRST WAY Units 1-5 Inc, Cannon Trading Central BCSA9 Estate, First Way, Wembley 269 269 Central BCSA10 YORK HOUSE 0 COLLEGE OF NORTH WEST LONDON Central BCSA11 WEMBLEY 100 100 Central BCSA12 LAND TO SOUTH OF SOUTH WAY 500 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Central BCSA13 Former Malcolm House Site 100 100 Central BCSA14 St Joseph’s Social Club, Empire Way 90 45 45 Southway Motors/Fourway Supplies/ Central BCSA17 Midnight Motors, South Way, HA9 0HB 60 60 South West Lands Central 14/4931 SW01/02/SW03/04/05/SW06/07
    [Show full text]
  • EB 22 Consumer-Expenditure-Report-P5
    stbshmnts ervices Cultural services Games of chance Recreational and sporting s Restaurants, cafes etc Accommodation services Hairdressing salons & personal grooming e COICOPS CODE 9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 11.1.1 11.2 12.1.1 North East 242 438 185 1698 216 136 South East 258 420 169 1651 229 139 South West 373 536 192 2146 333 182 West 326 495 184 1954 292 162 CAZ 116 162 51 691 101 51 Inner London 694 1,074 368 4,457 603 334 Outer London 896 1,383 557 5,329 811 475 Greater London 1,590 2,456 925 9,786 1,414 809 237 APPENDIX 8 - RESULTS FROM STAGE 2A (BASE SCENARIO) Turnover estimates – base scenario A8.1 The following tables summarise expenditure on comparison goods for 2006-2031. The 2031 figures are based on the ‘Baseline’ scenario. This assumes that there will be no further development in London, but that population, workforce and expenditure will grow according to GLA/Experian forecasts A8.2 The tables list the classification of each centre (International, Metropolitan, Major, District). ‘Additional’ has been used to describe retail centres where no classification is available: these include retail warehouse parks, out-of-town shopping malls, neighbourhood centres and convenience superstores. 238 Table 3: Modelled comparison goods expenditure for town centres (2006 – 2031) Base scenario. Modelled Expenditure (£m) Centre Name Classification Borough Floorspace (m²) 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Barking & Dagenham Major Barking and Dagenham 20,446 88 104 124 157 198 258 Chadwell Heath District Barking and Dagenham 5,275 14 17 19 24 29 37 Dagenham
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Floorspace Need in London
    CONSUMER EXPENDITURE AND COMPARISON GOODS FLOORSPACE NEED IN LONDON 31st October 2017 MAYOR OF LONDON 1 Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Floorspace Need in London CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______________________________________ 3 2 INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________ 9 2A Aims and objectives ................................................................................ 9 2B Scope of the study ................................................................................ 10 Disruptive Technologies ............................................................................. 11 2C Economic context ................................................................................. 13 2D Policy context ....................................................................................... 16 2E London’s town centre network .............................................................. 16 3 METHODOLOGY __________________________________________ 18 3A Consumer expenditure forecasts .......................................................... 20 3B Comparison goods forecast needs ....................................................... 42 3B1 Baseline ............................................................................................. 42 3B2 Pipeline .............................................................................................. 44 3B3 Future potential network changes ...................................................... 47 3B4 Quality adjustment ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • All Approved Premises
    All Approved Premises Local Authority Name District Name and Telephone Number Name Address Telephone BARKING AND DAGENHAM BARKING AND DAGENHAM 0208 227 3666 EASTBURY MANOR HOUSE EASTBURY SQUARE, BARKING, 1G11 9SN 0208 227 3666 THE CITY PAVILION COLLIER ROW ROAD, COLLIER ROW, ROMFORD, RM5 2BH 020 8924 4000 WOODLANDS WOODLAND HOUSE, RAINHAM ROAD NORTH, DAGENHAM 0208 270 4744 ESSEX, RM10 7ER BARNET BARNET 020 8346 7812 AVENUE HOUSE 17 EAST END ROAD, FINCHLEY, N3 3QP 020 8346 7812 CAVENDISH BANQUETING SUITE THE HYDE, EDGWARE ROAD, COLINDALE, NW9 5AE 0208 205 5012 CLAYTON CROWN HOTEL 142-152 CRICKLEWOOD BROADWAY, CRICKLEWOOD 020 8452 4175 LONDON, NW2 3ED FINCHLEY GOLF CLUB NETHER COURT, FRITH LANE, MILL HILL, NW7 1PU 020 8346 5086 HENDON HALL HOTEL ASHLEY LANE, HENDON, NW4 1HF 0208 203 3341 HENDON TOWN HALL THE BURROUGHS, HENDON, NW4 4BG 020 83592000 PALM HOTEL 64-76 HENDON WAY, LONDON, NW2 2NL 020 8455 5220 THE ADAM AND EVE THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL, LONDON, NW7 1RL 020 8959 1553 THE HAVEN BISTRO AND BAR 1363 HIGH ROAD, WHETSTONE, N20 9LN 020 8445 7419 THE MILL HILL COUNTRY CLUB BURTONHOLE LANE, NW7 1AS 02085889651 THE QUADRANGLE MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY, HENDON CAMPUS, HENDON 020 8359 2000 NW4 4BT BARNSLEY BARNSLEY 01226 309955 ARDSLEY HOUSE HOTEL DONCASTER ROAD, ARDSLEY, BARNSLEY, S71 5EH 01226 309955 BARNSLEY FOOTBALL CLUB GROVE STREET, BARNSLEY, S71 1ET 01226 211 555 BOCCELLI`S 81 GRANGE LANE, BARNSLEY, S71 5QF 01226 891297 BURNTWOOD COURT HOTEL COMMON ROAD, BRIERLEY, BARNSLEY, S72 9ET 01226 711123 CANNON HALL MUSEUM BARKHOUSE LANE, CAWTHORNE,
    [Show full text]
  • Planning and Multiculturalism: a Paradigm Shift
    PLANNING AND MULTICULTURALISM: A PARADIGM SHIFT AMINA HIRANI Thesis submitted in part fulfilment of the requirement for the M.Phil (Town Planning) Degree UCL BARTLETT FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BARTLETT SCHOOL OF PLANNING November 2007 UMI Number: U593718 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U593718 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Declaration I, Amina Hirani, confirm that the work presented in these thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated and acknowledged in the thesis.’ Acknowledgements I would first like to thank God most of all whom I felt through those who are in my heart whom I would like to thank next. I would also like to say thank you to my supervisor Dr. HaeRan Shin for her valued advice and guidance. And last but not least, my heartfelt thanks to my colleagues at work who put me up. “We created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex One Opportunity and Intensification Areas the London Plan March 2015
    ANNEX ONE OPPORTUNITY AND INTENSIFICATION AREAS THE LONDON PLAN MARCH 2015 A1.1 This Annex (which for the avoidance Hospital), and Hounslow (Great West of doubt, forms part of the London Corridor including the ‘Golden Mile’) Plan and therefore of the statutory and in the Royal Borough of Kingston development plan) is integral to upon Thames (Kingston town centre). policy 2.13 in Chapter 2, outlining how its broad principles should be applied to specific Opportunity and Intensification Areas including indicative estimates of employment capacity and minimum guidelines for new homes to 2031, subject to phasing. A1.2 These estimates and guidelines are derived from a range of sources including the London Employment Sites Database (employment) and the London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (homes); they will be tested through the preparation of planning frameworks and/or local development frameworks. A1.3 It should be noted that in some Areas the transport system would not currently support this level of growth and developer contributions may be required to underpin enhancements. The Opportunity/ Intensification Area Planning Frameworks (OAPF/IAPF) for these areas can take different forms depending on local circumstances. Progress on their preparation and implementation will be reviewed in the London Plan Implementation Plan and is currently indicated in the Table below as (1) Proposed; (2) In Preparation; (3) Adopted; and (4) Under Review. A1.4 The Mayor is working with boroughs and other partners to identify, assess and realise the potential for new Opportunity and Intensification Areas in terms of Policy 2.13 including in the London boroughs of Haringey (Haringey Heartlands), Sutton (Sutton 343 Table A1.1 Opportunity Areas cultural, leisure and quality shopping experience and realise capacity for 1 Bexley Riverside new residential development in line with its status as a new Opportunity Area (Ha): 1,347 Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial College Union
    IMPERIAL COLLEGE SINGAPORE SOCIETY SOTONG GUIDE Keep Calm and Carry On 2013 9 Restaurants and Cafes 9 Shopping Guide BOOK 9 Entertainment 9 Sightseeing and Travel 9 Upcoming Events IMPERIAL COLLEGE SINGAPORE SOCIETY SOTONG GUIDE HI THERE! Feeling lost like a sotong? Daunted by all the things you have to prepare before heading off to a whole new experience in London? Don’t worry! The Imperial College Singapore Society zap to visit Sotong Guide is a series of four guide- our website books which we have specially prepared to guide you through your journey to London, imperial.singsoc from pre-departure to settling down. This is the fourth (and final) book in the series. This book, written in the style of a travel guide, shows you all the places where you can eat, shop and have fun. For those who enjoy exploring the world, we have also included a number of weekend destina- tions outside of London. Published by Imperial College Singapore Society You will also read about our upcoming Prince Consort Road activities and events in London, such as London SW7 2BB the annual ski trip, sports sessions and United Kingdom Major Event 2014. More information can be found on our Facebook page. ©2013 Imperial College Singapore Society Lastly, we hope that you’ll find this guide useful and we look forward to seeing you All rights reserved. No part of this publi- cation shall be reproduced, stored or at Imperial College London! transmitted by any means, whether elec- tronically or physically, without the prior 31st Executive Committee written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • 04.18 Bloomberg London, City of London Bang Bang
    ADF04_2018 Cover_Layout 1 03/04/2018 14:37 Page 1 04.18 BLOOMBERG LONDON, CITY OF LONDON How the world’s most sustainable ofce building was designed by Foster + Partners to be both a good neighbour and a box of surprises BANG BANG ORIENTAL, COLINDALE A new London food hall offered a range of tantalising design challenges ADF04_2018 Cover_Layout 1 03/04/2018 14:37 Page 2 ADF04-2018 03-22_ADF Flatplan 06/04/2018 10:56 Page 3 CONTENTS 04.18 NEWS, VIEWS & INSIGHTS PRODUCTS 04 Industry news & events 45 Planning & design 08 View Point: Architect Rory Bergin 45 Groundworks & Drainage of HTA Design 45 Structural elements 12 Practice Profile: Niven Architects 45 External envelope 05 16 International Focus 59 Insulation 18 CPD Focus 59 Heating, ventilation & services 20 Appointments & news 67 Interiors 43 Materials for Architecture 76 Landscaping & external works Show Preview 83 Classified & directory PROJECT REPORTS 26 Open for business Bloomberg’s new European headquarters is a big step away from recent landmark City buildings, with a highly bespoke, super-sustainable design. James Parker reports 34 More bang for your buck Providing the authentic Asian streetfood dining experience, a new food hall in north London was also an intriguing dish for the architects to try, as Roseanne Field reports FEATURES 47 EXTERNAL ENVELOPE: CLADDING & FACADES The obstacles to getting fire safety right, post-Grenfell James Butler of Pura Facades explains why, despite the best intentions of the final Hackitt report, there will be implementation challenges in the
    [Show full text]