Thameside House, 42-50 High Street, Brentford Ward
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Contact: Sonya Heenan 0208 583 4937 e-mail: [email protected] Sustainable Development Committee 4 June 2007 References: P/2007/0661 00607/42-50/P3 Address: Thameside House, 42-50 High Street, Brentford Ward: Syon Proposal: Erection of two additional floors to the existing building, to provide three one-bedroom flats and seven two-bedroom flats and an extension to provide a lift shaft Drawing numbers: 001 Rev A, 005 Rev A, 006 Rev A, 007 Rev A, 008 Rev A, 009 Rev A, 010 Rev A, 011 Rev A, 030 Rev A, 031 Rev A and 032 Rev A dated 22 November 2005 and received 6 March 2007 Application received: 6 March 2007 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 The proposal comprises the erection of two additional floors to the existing building, to provide 3 x 1 bedroom flats and 7 x 2 bedroom flats and an extension to provide a lift shaft. There would be 35 car parking spaces, and the existing offices would be retained. The proposed density for the development would be 212 habitable rooms per hectare. 1.2 The principle of the development is considered satisfactory, in the context of the Unitary Development Plan and other relevant policy and material consideration. The development can be serviced in terms of transportation, and the physical impacts of the scheme, including the size and scale of the proposal, layout and the resultant impact on surrounding area including the riverside and other environmental issues, can be mitigated subject to appropriate conditions and a unilateral undertaking. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is on the southern side of High Street, Brentford, and falls within the town centre boundary. There is an existing four-storey 13.6 m high office block on the site that had planning permission approved in the 1970’s. 2.2 The property has an area of 1296m2, and the existing office floor space is 2034m2. The building is an ‘L’ shape, with frontage onto the High Street, and extends down towards the River Thames. It has a flat roof, and is clad in brick, with car parking located in the ground floor. There is currently minimal landscaping to the front of the site, which consists of some grass and trees, surrounded by a predominately hard surface. 2.3 The site is in a prominent location, highly visible from the High Street and to the west of the site are some existing trees, which create a visual break. Opposite the site is Albany Parade (eight storey high) and other surrounding properties to the east include 41 High Street, which is a three storey flat roofed former office block, and the buildings to the rear are also three storeys high. Further along from the site is the Watermans Art Centre, and to the west of the site are the Goat Wharf Buildings and the Premier Travel Inn. 2.4 Nearby stations are at Isleworth, Brentford and Kew Bridge. The main bus routes that serve the site are the 235 (Brentford/Sunbury), 267 (Hammersmith to Fulwell Bus Garage), the 237 (Shepherd’s Bush/Hounslow Heath) and 65 (Kingston to Ealing Broadway). In addition, routes E2 (Brentford to Greenford) and E8 (Brentford to Ealing Broadway), which service the tube, and Brentford Train Station pass nearby. This gives a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2. PTAL uses a mathematical formula to demonstrate accessibility by public transport. The values of a site may range from 1 at the lower end of the scale to 6 at the higher. 2.5 The site falls within the Thames Policy Area and the Town Centre Boundary. Kew Gardens is located on the opposite side of the river. 3.0 HISTORY 3.1 Previous planning history for the site includes: 3.2 00607/42-50/P1 Demolition of existing buildings, erection of a four storey office block and construction of a car parking area APPROVED – 28 December 1978 3.3 00607/42-50/P3 Erection of 2 additional floors to existing building to create an additional 10 x two bedroom apartments REFUSED – 1 June 2006 Reasons for refusal: 1. Scale, massing and design unacceptable in this riverside location, would not make a positive contribution to the site’s waterside setting, harmful therefore to this important Thameside location and the amenities of neighbouring properties including loss of outlook and harmful to the street scene. 2. Insufficient details of car and cycle facilities, refuse and recycling provision, wheelchair provision, and pedestrian access within the building and the impact on the existing office. It was considered that the proposal would likely lead to pedestrian conflict and parking congestion. 3.4 An appeal was lodged and dismissed on 22 November 2006. The Inspector made the following comments: “I conclude that the Council’s second reason for refusal is well founded in relation to car parking provision, and that in the absence of a proper assessment there would be a significant risk of making inadequate provision and suffering the consequences of congestion and safety problems that development plan policies aim to avoid. On the other hand I accept that the scale, massing, height and design of the proposed extension of the appeal building are not inappropriate in its surroundings. Indeed, I believe it would have a positive effect on the street-scene and the appearance of the existing building, which as the Appellant points out, is presently rather tired and dated. The additions would enliven it and would relate well to some other modern development in the locality, such as the neighbouring hotel and the development at Ferry Quays Taking into account the height of the latter, which is nearer to the river, and other nearby buildings, including the 8-storey block on the other side of the High Street, I do not doubt that the height and scale of the appeal building would be in keeping with its surroundings. The lightweight appearance of the proposed structure, its design and its set-back from the principal elevations lead me to conclude that there would be no overpowering visual effects. Nor do I consider that it would harm views from the river, the Thames Riverside open land, or Kew Gardens on the other side of the river; or that it would conflict with UDP policies relating to the river environment and the Thames Policy Area. I do not find that the proposals would harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Some of the shortcomings of detail identified by the Council could be dealt with by means of planning conditions. I appreciate that the proposals have considerable planning merits in terms of making more efficient use of land and providing for mixed use of the appeal building. However neither of these nor any of the other merits identified in the written representations are sufficient to outweigh my adverse findings on parking provision, and it is on this limited basis that I come to my overall conclusion that the appeal scheme is unacceptable.” 4.0 DETAILS 4.1 The proposal is to build two additional floors to the existing building, raising it to six storeys, to provide three one-bedroom flats and seven two-bedroom flats, and including a lift shaft to access these floors. The proposal would retain the existing 4 floors of offices, so there would be no loss of employment. 4.2 Access to the flats is via stairs and a lift is proposed. The density for the entire site is 212 HRHA, although this does not account for any of the office floor space, which must also be considered. If all of the floors were residential based on the same layout as the proposed flats, the estimated density is 636 HRHA. 4.3 Each of flats would have either one or two bedrooms, kitchen and living area. 4.4 Each flat would have a private balcony area not less than 10 m2. Only two would be at that level and one other (at 21 m2) would be less than the UDP minimum standard of 25 m2. Most would be more generous, albeit that some are not very deep, and some can properly be considered as roof terraces, not balconies. The flats would also all have access to shared amenity areas comprising two covered and one open balcony totalling 30 square metres. The total amount of amenity space is 351m2. 4.5 The proposal would put two additional floors on the existing four-storey building. The 5th and 6th floor levels would have a curved aluminium roof when viewed from the side elevation. Around the perimeter of the building there would also be a galvanised steel balcony with glass balustrade, which would be used for amenity space for the flats. There would be an extension to the front elevation, which would be curved and would have alucobond cladding for lift access to all floors. 4.6 There would be a total of 35 car parking spaces on site, of which ten would be used by the residential units. In addition, cycle parking is proposed at ground floor level, and refuse/recycling storage would also be in this area. Pedestrian and cycle access would be off the High Street. Landscaping is proposed along the front of the site to improve the appearance from the streetscene. The key changes from the previous scheme relate to provision of car parking, cycle stands, refuse and recycling areas and landscaping. 5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Council consulted the following properties. Property Street Flats 1-15 High Street, Brentford 41 318 1 and 2 Goat Wharf Hotel (Premier Lodge) 1-5 (Consecutive) Ferry Lane 1-19 (Consecutive) (including flats above) Albany Parade 31-45 Waterman’s Court Kew Palace Kew Gardens Thames Landscape Strategy Environment Agency Brentford Waterside Forum Feltham Police Station London Borough of Richmond Port of London Authority 5.2 In addition a site notice was posted, and the proposal was advertised in the Middlesex Chronicle, and available at the Brentford Library.