APP/G6100/V/19/3226914 Your Ref: GLA/4279 & 01508/A/P6 10
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our ref: APP/G6100/V/19/3226914 Mr Mark Connell Your ref: GLA/4279 & 01508/A/P6 JLL 30 Warwick Street London W1B 5NH 10 September 2020 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION MADE BY L&Q LAND AT CITROEN SITE, CAPITAL INTERCHANGE WAY, BRENTFORD TW8 0EX APPLICATION REF: GLA/4279 & 01508/A/P6 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of David Nicholson RIBA IHBC, who held a public local inquiry on 14-24 January and 4-6 February 2020 into your client’s application for planning permission for redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme of 441 residential units (Class C3) including 50% affordable housing with ancillary facilities, flexible uses (within Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1) and a nursery (Class D1). Comprising buildings of 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 storeys in height with associated cycle parking, car parking, play space, landscaping and public realm improvements, ref. GLA/4279 & 01508/A/P6, dated 3 November 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 application be approved. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where noted, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to approve the application. 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 2017. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR1.5, notwithstanding the criticisms by the Royal Borough of Kensington Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 42853 Phil Barber, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF and Chelsea, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and ES Addendum May 2018 complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Policy and statutory considerations 6. 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. 7. In this case the development plan consists of the 2016 London Plan (LonP) and the 2015 Hounslow Local Plan (HLP). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR3.3-3.13. 8. The Secretary of State also agrees that the Richmond Local Plan is a material consideration, but for the reasons given at IR15.91 gives it limited weight. 9. 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’), as well as those set out at IR3.17-3.27. 10. 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 11. The emerging plan comprises Intend to Publish London Plan (IPLP) 2019. The Secretary of State considers that the emerging policies of most relevance to this case include D9 Tall Buildings; H4 Delivering Affordable Housing; HC1 Heritage conservation and growth and HC2 World Heritage sites. 12. 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 London Plan is at an advanced stage of preparation, and the Secretary of State has directed the areas where changes must be made. However, details of the way in which the Plan will deliver the aims set out in the Secretary of State’s directions are not yet finalised. The Secretary of State considers that policies in the emerging Plan where no modifications have been directed (which includes the policies set out in paragraph 11 above), carry significant weight. Main issues Impacts on heritage assets 13. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis of heritage issues at IR15.3-15.51. He agrees, for the reasons given at IR15.5, that any harm to designated heritage assets would be from the impact of the development on the significance of these derived from their settings. He agrees with the Inspector at IR15.6 that any harm to the significance of the Orangery would also harm the Outstanding 2 Universal Value (OUV) and the significance of the World Heritage Site (WHS), Registered Park and Gardens (RPG) and Conservation Area (CA). For the reasons given at IR15.7-IR15.21 he agrees with the Inspector that in terms of the ability of the public to appreciate the Orangery, the effect of the scheme in the setting would be negligible (IR15.21) However, he also agrees with the Inspector at IR15.22 that listed buildings should be preserved for their own sake and the setting of the Orangery is important to the OUV of the WHS. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR15.22 that the degree of erosion to the significance of the listed building, and so that of the WHS, would be slight. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees (IR15.23-15.24) that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Orangery, and thus the OUV and WHS, and that this harm would be nowhere near the level of substantial. For the reasons given at IR15.25, and taking into account HE’s findings on this matter (IR9.21) he concludes that the level of harm to the significance of the Orangery, and so on the OUV of the WHS, on account of impact on its setting the harm is ‘less than substantial’, and that within this scale, the harm is moderate. 14. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR15.26-15.31 the Secretary of State agrees that the cumulative impact of the proposal, when viewed with existed buildings, on the significance of Kew Gardens, would be minor (IR15.30). He further agrees at IR15.30 that when the cumulative impact is taken together with the direct impact he finds above, this would amount to a little, but not much, more than moderate harm, and that this would not come close to a substantial level of harm within the ‘less than substantial’ scale. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR15.31 on the question of a tipping point. 15. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis of the proposed planting scheme at IR15.32-15.34. He agrees for the reasons given at IR15.33 the screening would take time to materialise and that there might be a number of reasons why it might not be effective. He further notes that the Council has not agreed to support the scheme or to accept the funding for it (IR15.34). The Secretary of State concludes the planting scheme is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, and that therefore the Undertaking to fund the scheme would not comply with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. Unlike the Inspector, the Secretary of State has not taken the Unilateral Undertaking into account in determining the application or given it any weight. This does not affect the Secretary of State’s overall decision. 16. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis of potential impacts on the Strand-on-the-Green Conservation Area and its associated listed buildings at IR15.35-15.41. For the reasons given he agrees that the scheme would have a harmful effect on the contribution the settings make to the significance of the group of listed buildings (IR15.37), and thus to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole. For the reasons given at IR15.39 he concludes that this harm would be moderate on the ‘less than substantial’ scale. For the reasons given at IR15.40 he further agrees overall the weight to the harm to the significance of the SotG CA and its listed buildings on account of impact on their settings, and the cumulative harm, should be assessed, within the scale of ‘less than substantial’ harm as a little more than moderate. 17. For the reasons given at IR15.42-15.45 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions in relation to Kew Green, the Wellesley Road Conservation Area and Kew Bridge or its Conservation Area. 18. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis of the likely relative heritage impacts on any alternative scheme at IR15.64-15.68.