Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal by Starbones Ltd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal by Starbones Ltd Summary proof of Evidence of Philip Grover BA (Hons), BTP, DIP ARCH (CONS), MRTPI, IHBC relating to Design and Heritage matters on behalf of London Borough of Hounslow Planning application Reference: 00505/EY/P18 & 00505/EY/AD22 Appeal Reference: APP/F5540/W/17/3180962 & APP/F5540/Z/17/3173208 May 2018 1.0 Witness details 1.1 My name is Philip Russell Grover and I am a Director of Grover Lewis Associates Limited, a specialist town planning and built heritage consultancy. I have over 35 years’ experience as a built heritage professional dealing with all aspects of development in the historic environment, including issues related to integration of new development within sensitive historic contexts. 1.2 I hold an Honours Degree (BA) in Architecture from Oxford School of Architecture (now Oxford Brookes University), a Bachelor’s Degree in Town Planning from South Bank Polytechnic (now South Bank University) and a Postgraduate Diploma in Architectural Conservation from the University of Bristol. I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and a founder member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). 1.3 The evidence that I have prepared and provide for this appeal, Ref. APP/F5540/W/17/3180962 & APP/F5540/Z/17/3173208 in this proof of evidence, is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, the Royal Town Planning Institute. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. Planning appeal: Chiswick Curve © Grover Lewis Associates Ltd. Summary PoE: Philip Grover – Design & Heritage matters May 2018 1 2.0 Appeal background and scope of evidence Appeal details 2.1 The appeal is in respect of the refusal of an application for full planning permission by the London Borough of Hounslow for the redevelopment of land adjacent to the Chiswick Roundabout, Great West Road, London W4 for a 32- storey building, plus two basement levels, comprising 327 residential units and office, retail/restaurants uses (LPA Ref: 00505/EY/P18), and refusal of an associated application for advertisement consent for three internally illuminated signage panels to the proposed building (LPA Ref: 00505/EY/AD22). Scope and nature of evidence 2.2 My evidence is given on behalf of the London Borough of Hounslow. Grover Lewis Associates was appointed by the Council in January 2018. I have been engaged as an independent expert witness to assess the scheme and to provide specialist design and heritage evidence. I have not previously advised the Council with regard to the application for planning permission. 2.3 My evidence deals solely with those aspects of the Council’s reasons for refusal that relate to design and heritage, namely matters cited in Reasons for Refusal 1 and 2 of the planning application and Reason 1 and 2 of the application for advertisement consent. I should emphasise that my evidence does not seek to weigh any harm against the wider public benefits claimed the proposals. This aspect of the case is addressed by Mr. Baker who deals with the overall planning balance. 2.4 My evidence is informed by relevant published guidance, professional experience, and a critique of assessments made by others. I have made myself familiar with the case and carried out fieldwork and research between January and April 2018. Planning appeal: Chiswick Curve © Grover Lewis Associates Ltd. Summary PoE: Philip Grover – Design & Heritage matters May 2018 2 3.0 Decision-making context 3.1 My evidence takes account of relevant legislation as well as both the national and local heritage policy context. It also has regard to relevant national guidance relating to design and heritage matters. 3.2 Statutory duties relating to proposals affecting listed buildings and conservation areas are contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (CDH.01). 3.3 Central Government planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CDC.01), published in March 2012. Of particular relevance to my evidence are policies relating to the need for good design and policies relating to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. These matters are dealt with in section 7 and section 12 of the NPPF respectively, and I summarise the key policies in my main proof of evidence. Interpretation of the policies in the NPPF is provided by the on-line National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (CDC.02) (March 2014). I summarise the relevant content of the NPPG in my main proof of evidence. 3.4 The development plan policy context that is relevant to this appeal comprises both the strategic policies set out the London Plan (2016) (CDC.04) and the local development plan policies set out in the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan (September 2015) (CDD.01). I summarise the development plan policies that are particularly relevant to the design and heritage aspects appeal proposals in my main proof of evidence. 3.5 In my main proof of evidence, I summarise other relevant guidance, namely Historic England publications: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (GPA2) (March 2015) (CDF.12 The Setting of Heritage Assets (December 2017) (GPA3) (CDF.13) and Tall Buildings (GPA 4) (CDF.14). 3.6 I have had regard to the above statutory duties, planning policies, and guidance, in my assessment of the impact and effects of the appeal proposal on the surrounding areas including designated heritage assets. In reaching my conclusions I have also had regard to relevant case law relating to impacts on heritage assets, namely Barnwell Manor (CDH.05), Bedford (CDH.04) and Irving (CDH.06). Planning appeal: Chiswick Curve © Grover Lewis Associates Ltd. Summary PoE: Philip Grover – Design & Heritage matters May 2018 3 4.0 The appeal site and proposals The appeal site 4.1 I describe the appeal site and its wider context in my main proof of evidence. I summarise the main aspects below. 4.2 The appeal site is located to the north-west of the Chiswick Roundabout, which forms the busy traffic intersection at the junction of the A4 Great West Road, the A406 North Circular Road (Gunnersbury Road), the A205 South Circular Road, the A315 Chiswick High Road, with elevated M4 motorway passing overhead. The site and its immediate surroundings are dominated by traffic routes that converge at this point, and in particular by the elevated section of the M4. Currently, the site has advertising hoardings around its perimeter, including three large advertisements on each of its three corners. The appeal building 4.3 The appeal proposals comprise a building formed of three connected volumes of curved plan form; an east tower rising to a maximum of 32 storeys (120.29m AOD), a west tower rising to 98.57m AOD) and a 17-storey linking element. From its narrow base the building flares out gradually over the first five storeys, then rises up vertically from that point. The first six floors of the proposed 32- storey building would be used for offices, retail and/or café space and amenity space. A public atrium is proposed on the ground floor. The floors above would contain 327 residential units. Two basement levels would provide motorcycle and cycle parking, space for refuse, plant, substations and switch rooms. 4.4 The external envelope of the building predominantly comprises clear glass curtain walling and will have a reflective appearance. The elevations are proposed to be articulated by horizontal and vertical fins of anodised aluminium, ‘wedged balconies’ and coloured panels. Advertisements 4.5 The appeal proposals, as amended, incorporate illuminated LED digital advertisements at three locations on the lower parts of the façade to maximise viewing exposure on the principal roads that converge at the Chiswick Roundabout. Planning appeal: Chiswick Curve © Grover Lewis Associates Ltd. Summary PoE: Philip Grover – Design & Heritage matters May 2018 4 5.0 Heritage assets and impacts Background 5.1 The appeal site does not fall within a conservation area and there are no statutorily or locally designated heritage assets within the site. Likewise, the immediate context of the appeal site in the vicinity of the Chiswick Roundabout is not sensitive from a heritage standpoint. However, given the very large bulk and height of the appeal proposal, there are a great many heritage assets beyond the immediate vicinity of the site that could potentially be impacted upon by the appeal proposal. 5.2 A number of important area-based heritage assets, each containing individually designated and non-designated heritage assets, are located in relatively close proximity to the site and would be impacted upon by the appeal proposal. Most notably these include the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, which is inscribed as a World Heritage Site as well as being designated as a grade I Registered Park and Garden and a conservation area. Part the World Heritage Site also lies within the Kew Green Conservation Area. Also notable is the grade II* Registered Park and Garden at Gunnersbury Park (which is located within the Gunnersbury Park Conservation Area). In addition to the designated historic landscapes referred to above, a number of conservation areas would be impacted upon by the appeal proposals 5.3 In my main proof of evidence, I set out the significance of each of the area- based heritage assets (including where appropriate the individual designated assets within them). I highlight the contribution that setting makes to their significance. I then discuss the impacts that the appeal proposals would have on the setting and significance of heritage assets most affected by the appeal proposal. I summarise the impacts below. Summary of heritage impacts Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew 5.4 Contrary to the Appellant’s claims, I consider that the appeal proposal would form a harmful and intrusive feature from a number of positions within the Royal Botanical Gardens and in some cases would be visible in juxtaposition with listed buildings located within the designated area.