London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Home , Lillie Bridge (Fulham), Lillie Bridge Depot, Old Brompton Road, Piccadilly line

------Planning Applications Committee

Agenda for 12th September 2012

Index of Applications, Enforcement Actions, Advertisements etc. ------WARD: SITE ADDRESS: PAGE: REG NO:

North End Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre, Lillie Bridge 2011/02001/OUT Rail Depot, West Kensington And Gibbs 19 Green Housing Estates And Adjoining Land

North End Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre, Lillie Bridge 2011/02002/CAC Rail Depot, West Kensington And Gibbs 351 Green Housing Estates And Adjoining Land

------Ward : North End

Site Address : Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre, Lillie Bridge Rail Depot, West Kensington And Gibbs Green Housing Estates And Adjoining Land

Reg. No : Case Officer : 2011/02001/OUT John Finlayson

Date Valid : Conservation Area : 11.08.2011 Baron's Court Conservation Area - Number 27

Committee Date : 12.09.2012

Applicant : EC Properties C/o Agent

Description : Demolition and alteration of existing buildings and structures and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site including new open space, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and routes and a mixed use development comprising buildings to accommodate residential use (Class C3); office (Class B1); retail (Classes A1- 5); hotel and serviced apartments (Class C1); leisure (Class D2), private hospital (Class C2); Education/Health/Community/Culture (Class D1); below ground ancillary space (parking/plant/servicing etc). Replacement of the existing London Underground depot at Lillie Bridge with new depot, vehicle parking and associated highways alterations, structures for decking over existing rail lines and tunnels, waste and utilities, enabling works including related temporary works and structures and other works incidental to the development.

Application Type: Outline Planning Application

Earl's Court Planning Application - 2001/02001/OUT

Site Location Plan - Not to Scale

EARLS COURT REPORT CONTENTS:

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONDITIONS

RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR APPROVAL

1.0 BACKGROUND

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

5.0 EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS

6.0 TRANSFER OF JURSIDICTION

7.0 CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPD JUDICIAL REVIEW CHALLENGE

8.0 SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

APPENDIX 1 – EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:

1) Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor for London that the Committee resolve that the Executive Director of Transport and Technical Services be authorised to determine the application and grant permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the following conditions and those additional conditions proposed in the body of the report;

2) To authorise the Executive Director of Transport and Technical Services in consultation with the Director of Legal and Democratic Services and the chair of the Planning Applications Committee to make any minor modifications to the proposed conditions or heads of terms or any subsequent minor changes arising out detailed negotiations with the applicant which may necessitate the modification which may include the variation, addition or deletion of the conditions and heads as drafted to ensure consistency between the two sets of provisions.

CONDITIONS

Definitions "Above Ground Works " means any works to a building within the development above the ground floor slab.

"Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works " means infrastructure and enabling works required for the development as agreed with the Local Planning Authority which may include, inter alia: o removal of transfer structures over underground tunnels; o elevated decking between buildings; o plant and utilities; o works to London Underground Ltd depot and stabling; o temporary landscaping; o drainage; o construction and/or site roads; o accesses; and o demolition;

"Development Parcel " or " Parcel " means the parcel or parcels within each Development Plot and identified on plan ref ECM10_SKO155_C (the " Development Parcel Plan ").

"Development Plot " means the development plots identified on plan ref ECM2-PA- 03-106_A and labelled WK01, WK02, WK03, NE01, NE02, NE03, NE04, NE05, NE06, BW01, BW02, BW03, BW04, BW05, BW06 and BW07.

"EIA Phasing Plan " means the six stages of comprehensive regeneration within the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area as assessed within the environmental impact assessment and recorded within the Environmental Statement, the first stage of which comprises Application 1 and each stage of which is made up of a number of Development Parcels and is as shown on plan ref ECM4_SKO157 which formed part of the Environmental Statement.

TIME LIMITS AND PHASING CONDITIONS Time Limits

1 All applications for the approval of Reserved Matters in Parcels NE03, NE04, NE05, NE06(i), NE06(ii), BW07(i) and BW07(ii) shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby permitted in Parcels NE03, NE04, NE05, NE06(i), NE06(ii), BW07(i) and BW07(ii) shall be begun no later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

(i)either before the expiration of 7 years from the date of this permission; or (ii)2 years from the date of the final approval of the Reserved Matters for that Parcel, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved;

Reason: In accordance with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 All applications for the approval of Reserved Matters in Parcels BW03, BW04(i), BW04(ii), BW04(iii), BW05(i), BW05(ii) and BW06 shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than the expiration of 10 years from the date of this permission.

4 The development hereby permitted in Parcels BW03, BW04(i), BW04(ii), BW04(iii), BW05(i), BW05(ii) and BW06 shall be begun no later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

(i) either before the expiration of 12 years from the date of this permission; or (ii) 2 years from the date of the final approval of the Reserved Matters for that Parcel, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved;

Reason: In accordance with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5 All applications for the approval of Reserved Matters in Parcels NE01(i), NE01(ii), NE01(iii), NE02, BW01, BW02, WK01, WK02 and WK03 shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than the expiration of 15 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

6 The development hereby permitted in Parcels NE01(i), NE01(ii), NE01(iii), NE02, BW01, BW02, WK01, WK02 and WK03 shall be begun no later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

(i) either before the expiration of 17 years from the date of this permission; or (ii) 2 years from the date of the final approval of the Reserved Matters for that Parcel, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved;

Reason: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

EIA Phasing Plan

7 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the EIA Phasing Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the provisions and assessment of the Environmental Statement and Addendum and to ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner in accordance with Policies 3.1, 3.6, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011,,Policies FRA, FRA1, H1, H2, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 , Policies EN2B, EN8 and EN10 and Standards S5A, S7, S18 and S20 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10,CA7 CE1, CE2, CE3, CE4, CE5 and CE6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010 and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan (2002)

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

8 The OUTLINE planning permission hereby permitted shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the following drawings and schedule submitted as part of the planning application:

• Parameter Plans ECM2-PA-03-101_A ECM2-PA-03-102_A ECM2-PA-03-103_A ECM2-PA-03-104_A ECM2-PA-03-105_A ECM2-PA-03-106_A ECM2-PA-03-107_A ECM2-PA-03-108_B ECM2-PA-03-109_A ECM2-PA-03-110_B ECM2-PA-03-111_B ECM2-PA-03-112_B ECM2-PA-03-113_A ECM2-PA-03-114_A ECM2-PA-03-115_A ECM2-PA-03-116_A ECM2-PA-03-117_A

• Access Plans GA/15 (Rev A) GA/15-S1 GA/15-P1 GA/15-P2 GA/15-P3 GA/15-P4 GA/15-P5 GA/15-P6 GA/15-P7 GA/15-P8 GA/15-J1 • Mandatory Design Guidelines

• EIA Phasing Plan - plan ref ECM4_SKO157

• Development Parcel Plan - plan ref ECM10_SKO155_C

Reason: In order to ensure full compliance with the planning application hereby approved and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policies 3.1, 3.6, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011 ,Policies FRA, FRA 1, H1, H2, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, policies EN2B, EN3, EN8, EN10, EN26 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 Policies CP10, CA7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

9 The total gross external floorspace (GEA) areas of the land uses comprising the development hereby approved shall not exceed the following:

• Residential (C3): 617,940 sqm

• Business (B1): 84,701 sqm

• Retail (A1-A5): 23,318 sqm

• Hotel / Serviced Apartments (C1): 8,938 sqm

• Education / Health / Community / Culture / Leisure (D1/D2): 25,760 sqm

• Private Hospital (C2): 10,578 sqm

• Ancillary: 138,240 sqm

• Rail Stabling (sui generis): 11,175 sqm

Reason: To ensure the development carried out does not exceed the cumulative maximum approved and to ensure the quantum of floorspace keeps within the parameters assessed pursuant to the EIA in relation to the development in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011 Policies BE1, FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8, EN25, EN31 and of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10, CA7, CF1, CF2, CF3, CF5, CF7 and CF8 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

10 The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved Access Plans as listed in the schedule below .

GA/15 (Rev A) Junction Local Plan GA/15-S1 A4 Site Access Junction GA/15-P1 Warwick Road Site Access Junction GA/15-P2 Old Brompton Road Site Access Junction GA/15-P3 Lillie Road (Central) Site Access Junction GA/15-P4 Lillie Road (West) Site Access Junction GA/15-P5 North End Road (South) Site Access Junction GA/15-P6 North End Road / Star Road Site Access Junction GA/15-P7 North End Road (Central) Site Access Junction GA/15-P8 North End Road / Beaumont Avenue Site Access Junction GA/15-J1 North End Road / Lillie Road Junction

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in accordance with Policies 3.1, 3.6, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011 ,Policies FRA, FRA 1, H1, H2, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, policies EN2B, EN3, EN8, EN10, EN26 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 Policies CP10, CA7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

11 There shall be a mix of uses within each Development Plot (with the exception of Plot NE04) and the distribution of uses within each Development Plot shall be in accordance with the following:

Development Land Uses Plot

WK01 • Principal Land Uses – residential use (C3) and hotel / serviced apartment use (C1) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or business use (B1)

WK02 • Principal Land Use – business use (B1) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or residential use (C3) and / or hotel / serviced apartment use (C1) and / or private hospital use (C2)

WK03 • Principal Land Uses – residential use (C3), business use (B1) and private hospital use (C2) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or hotel / serviced apartment use (C1)

NE01 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2)

NE02 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2) and / or business use (B1)

NE03 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land use – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5)

NE04 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3)

NE05 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2)

NE06 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or business use (B1) and / or education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2)

BW01 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or business use (B1) BW02 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land use - retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5)

BW03 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land use – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5)

BW04 • Principal Land Uses – business use (B1) and residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2)

BW05 • Principal Land Use – residential use (C3) • Other land uses – retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and / or business use (B1) and / or education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2)

BW06 • Principal Land Uses – business use (B1) and education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2) • Other land uses – residential use (C3) and / or retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5)

BW07 • Principal Land Uses – residential use (C3), retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and business use (B1) • Other land uses – education / health / community / culture / leisure uses (D1/D2)

Reason: To ensure the development carried out does not exceed the cumulative maximum approved and to ensure the quantum of floorspace keeps within the parameters assessed pursuant to the EIA in relation to the Development in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011 Policies BE1, FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8, EN25, EN31 and of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10, CA7, CF1, CF2, CF3, CF5, CF7 and CF8 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

12 The maximum gross external floorspace (GEA) to be provided in each Development Plot shall not exceed that set out in the schedule below:

Development Plot Maximum GEA (sqm)

WK01 21,958 WK02 31,812 WK03 40,485 NE01 66,495 NE02 43,036 NE03 37,900 NE04 10,592 NE05 35,867 NE06 62,034 BW01 50,299 BW02 50,726 BW03 53,004 BW04 77,043 BW05 85,130 BW06 45,023 BW07 59,894 Total 771,235

13 The total number of Residential Units hereby approved shall not exceed 5,845 units.

Reason: To ensure the development carried out does not exceed the cumulative maximum approved and to ensure the quantum of floorspace keeps within the parameters assessed pursuant to the EIA in relation to the development in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011 Policies BE1, FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8, EN25, EN31 and of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP1, CP10 and CA7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

14 The residential floorspace hereby approved shall include units of a mix of sizes in accordance with the following unit mix range:

Unit Type Proportion Range 1 person apt 2% - 5% 1 bed 29% - 35% 2 bed 30% - 40% 3 bed 20% - 25% 4 bed + 5% - 10%

Reason: To ensure the development carried out does not exceed the cumulative maximum approved and to ensure the quantum of floorspace keeps within the parameters assessed pursuant to the EIA in relation to the development in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011 Policies BE1, FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8, EN25, EN31 and of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP1, CP10, CH2 and CA7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

15 Motorcycle parking should be provided at a minimum of 288 spaces and the car parking provided on the site and the cycle parking provided on the site shall be provided in accordance with the following ratios:

Land Use Maximum Parking Ratio Minimum Parking Ratio Cars Cycles

Residential Average 0.6 spaces per unit 1 space per 1 or 2 bed unit 2 spaces per 3 or more bed unit Office 1 space per 1,000 m² 1 space per 125 sqm Retail Disabled only with on-street 1 space per 50 sqm visitor Hotel and Serviced 1 space per 40 rooms 1 space per 10 staff Apartment Leisure Disabled only with on-street 1 space per 10 staff visitor Private Hospital Disabled only with on-street 1 space per 10 staff + 1 visitor space per 10 visitors Education/Health/ Disabled only with on-street 1 space per 10 staff + 1 Community/Culture visitor space per 10 visitors

Reason: To ensure the suitable provision of car and cycle parking within the development to meet sustainable transport objectives, in accordance with Policies 6.13 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011,Policy CC1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,Policy TN15 and Standards S.18 and S.19 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

16 Prior to occupation of each phase of the development details of the installation including location and type of active electric vehicle charger points within the car parking areas must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The electric vehicle charging points comprising 20% of the total number of car parking spaces provided on site shall be active electric vehicle charging points; a further 20% of the total number of car parking spaces provided on site shall be passive. The use of the electric vehicle charger points will be regularly monitored via the Travel Plan and if required a further 20% will be made available.

Reason: To encourage sustainable travel in accordance with Policies 5.8 and 6.13 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy TN15 and Standards S.18 and S.19 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

17 A minimum of 10% of the car parking spaces hereby approved shall be provided and maintained for use of wheelchair users in accordance with standards set out in the development plan or, where the development is yet to be completed, the number of car parking spaces allocated to wheelchair users shall be calculated in proportion with the amount of spaces completed in accordance with those standards.

Reason: To ensure the suitable provision of car parking within the development to meet sustainable transport objectives, in accordance with Policies 6.13 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy TN15 and Standards S.18 and S.19 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (Saved 2007 and 2011) and the Council's “Access for All” Supplementary Planning Guidance and Policies CL2 and CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

18 The A Class uses hereby approved shall be provided in accordance with the following limits.

• no more than 14,000 sqm to be provided as Class A1(retail) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) of which, no more than 3,000 sqm GEA of floorspace shall be occupied for convenience purposes, no more than 10,000 sqm GEA shall be occupied for comparison purposes; and no more than 1,000 sqm GEA shall be occupied for other A1 uses; and

• no more than 9,318m² to be provided as A2-A5 Use Classes.

Reason: To maintain a suitable mix of retail uses within the development, in accordance with Policies BE1 FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies 4.8 and 4.9 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10, CA7 and CK2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

19 No single retail unit falling within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order) shall have a floorspace greater than 3,000 sqm (GEA). The floorspace for the purposes of this condition shall include any basement, mezzanine or upper levels. Reason: To limit an increase in Class A1 use within the development in the absence of consideration of the impact of such an increase on other centres, and to maintain a suitable mix of uses within the development, in accordance with Policies BE1 FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10, CA7, CF2 and CK2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

20 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), carried out by ARUP with job no: 125066-00 dated 14/06/2011, and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: (i) Sleeping accommodation can be set at ground level but must be no lower than 2.8m AOD. (ii) No residential dwellings will be located in basements. (iii) A Flood Management Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the FRA recommendations at the time of Reserved Matter Application submissions and prior to commencement (save for Advanced Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works or demolition works) on a Development Parcel, for approval and implementation. This shall provide identification and provision of safe route(s) or safe refuge areas within the buildings for occupants to use during times of flood.

Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy CE2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

21 No material change of use (save for that permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) shall be permitted to the Empress State Building without planning permission first being obtained.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and because planning permission would be required for a material change of use and to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and the Applicant’s letter dated 3 rd September 2012, in accordance with Policies 3.1, 3.6, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011 ,Policies FRA, FRA 1, H1, H2, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, policies EN2B, EN3, EN8, EN10, EN26 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 20110, Policies CP10, CA7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

DEMOLITION

22 No demolition works shall commence until a Demolition and Waste Management Plan relating to that Development Parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Demolition shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Demolition and Waste Management Plan. The Demolition and Waste Management Plan shall cover the following minimum requirements:

• hours of demolition working; • health and safety; • dust and air quality mitigation; • noise and vibration mitigation; • water management; • pollution control; • ecology and environmental protection (including tree protection); • temporary fencing and/or enclosure; • emergency planning; • community liaison; • site logistics and operations; • vehicle routing and lorry holding areas; • contact details for site managers and details of management lines of reporting; • location of site offices, ancillary buildings, plant, wheel-washing facilities, stacking bays and car parking; • storage of any skips, oil and chemical storage etc.; • access and egress points to the Parcel or Parcels; • classification of all waste including hazardous waste according to current legislative provisions; • measures to minimise waste generation; • opportunities for re-use or recycling; • provision for the segregation of waste streams on the Site that are clearly labelled; • licensing requirements for disposals sites; • an appropriate audit train encompassing waste disposal activities and waste consignment notes; and • measures to avoid fly tipping by others on lands being used for construction.

Reason: To ensure no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policies 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR7, CL5, CE3, CE5 and CE6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

CONSTRUCTION

23 No Development (save for demolition works) within a Development Parcel shall Commence until the Construction Environmental Management Plan relating to that Development Parcel has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of the Development Parcel(s) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan. The Construction Environmental Management Plan shall cover the following minimum requirements:

• hours of construction working; • health and safety; • dust and air quality mitigation; • noise and vibration mitigation; • water management; • pollution control; • waste minimisation and management; • ecology and environmental protection (inc tree protection); • emergency planning; • community liaison; • site logistics and operations; • construction vehicle routing; • contact details for site managers and details of management lines of reporting; • detailed plan showing different phasing, different developers and constructors to be updated on a [6] monthly basis; • location of site offices, ancillary buildings, plant, wheel-washing facilities, stacking bays and car parking; • storage of any skips, oil and chemical storage etc.; and • access and egress points to the Parcel.

Reason: To ensure no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policies 7.6, 7.7 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR7, CL5, CE3, CE5 and CE6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

. 24 No development within a Development Parcel shall be commenced until a scheme for temporary fencing and/or enclosure relating to that Development Parcel, where necessary, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such enclosure has been erected in accordance with the approved details and retained for the duration of the building works. No part of the temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site shall be used for the display of advertisement hoardings.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street scene and public realm, in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.6 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2B, EN3 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR4, CL1 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

25 Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure protection of controlled waters. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011, Policies CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy CE2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010 and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

ADVANCE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENABLING AND TEMPORARY WORKS

26 No Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works shall commence until details of the proposed Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details. Any such details submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval shall include plans at an appropriate scale which show the proposed works in context, both existing and as proposed. All such details shall be in accordance with the Parameter Plans and, where relevant and appropriate, the Mandatory Design Guidelines. For the avoidance of doubt, any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works may be undertaken prior to the submission or approval of Reserved Matters Applications.

Reason: To allow for the submission and approval (and thereby implementation) of advance infrastructure and enabling works before reserved and pre-commencement conditions matters submission and approval.

27 No Temporary Works shall commence until details of the proposed Temporary Works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Temporary Works shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, any Temporary Works may be undertaken prior to the submission or approval of Reserved Matters Applications.

Reason: To allow for the submission and approval (and thereby implementation) of temporary works before reserved and pre-commencement conditions matters submission and approval.

SITE WIDE PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS. .

28 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development shall not be commenced until the Site Wide Sustainability and Energy Framework, which shall be in accordance with the Sustainability Statement and Energy Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

The framework shall be a strategic framework document setting out guidance for the site which shall include: energy efficiency; renewable energy production and use of renewable technologies; water consumption including propsals for the recycling of rainwater; the use of recycled materials; methods of contruction; and details, for information, on how such issues will be dealt with in RBKC, how any cross boundary issues will be dealt with and how sustainability and energy measures within the Application and Application 1 site will be co-ordinated;

The framework shall be reviewed and updated every 5 years to reflect changes to best practice standards and guidance and progression of the development and any subsequent updated version to the frameworks must also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved framework.

29 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development shall not be commenced until the Site Wide Waste Framework, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The framework shall be a strategic framework document setting out guidance for the site which shall include: guidance on how waste should be minimised during construction and in the completed development; and standards for recycling points and storage facilities required within buildings; and details, for information, on how such issues will be dealt with in RBKC, how any cross boundary issues will be dealt with and how waste measures within the Application and Application 1 site will be co-ordinated.

Reason: The site wide frameworks are to provide further strategic context on a site wide basis to the detailed submissions required in relation to reserved matters which may be on a Parcel or Plot basis, to ensure compliance with the planning application hereby approved and a comprehensive approach to development.

30 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development shall not be commenced until the Drainage and Surface Water Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The framework shall be a strategic framework document setting out the strategy to dispose of surface and foul water across the site and it shall include details, for information, on how such issues will be dealt with in RBKC, how any cross boundary issues will be dealt with and how surface and foul water measures within the Application and Application 1 site will be co- ordinated;

31 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development shall not be commenced until the Site Wide Estate Management Framework which shall be in accordance with the Estate Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The framework shall be a strategic framework document for the management and maintenance of the common areas of the site and ecological areas such as green/brown roofs which shall incorporate the following key principles: to maintain a well designed and accessible environment for residents, commercial operators and visitors; to provide and maintain a safe and secure environment for residents, workers and visitors; and to establish maintenance specifications that provide consistency and compatibility across the site. details of the operational structure for the management of the common areas; details for the management and maintenance regime for all common areas, all play space and all unadopted highways within the relevant Development Parcel; and details, for information, on how such issues will be dealt with in RBKC, how any cross boundary issues will be dealt with and how estate management measures within the Application and Application 1 site will be co-ordinated;

32 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development shall not be commenced until the Site Wide Parking and Servicing Framework has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The framework shall be a strategic framework document setting out guidance for the Site which shall include: an overarching strategy for car park management (to include pricing to deter commuter parking) and the control of parking at ground level and a scheme of enforcement; means of separating public, operational and residential parking and enforcing that separation; allocation of residential spaces between market and affordable units; the approach to allocation of parking for people with mobility problems and wheelchair users; car club allocation; cycle parking/storage differentiated by residential, public and other users; and access controls to the underground parking; handling the relationship between private and service vehicles; overarching strategy for servicing and deliveries across the site including access controls, regimes for planning and timing of deliveries and the provision of utilities throughout the site; and details, for information, on how such issues will be dealt with in RBKC, how any cross boundary issues will be dealt with and how parking and servicing measures within the Application and Application 1 site will be co-ordinated;

The framework shall be reviewed and updated every 5 years to reflect changes to best practice standards and guidance and progression of the development and any subsequent updated version to the frameworks must also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be not be carried out unless in accordance with the framework.

33 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development shall not be commenced until the Site Wide CCTV Framework, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The framework shall be a strategic framework document setting out guidance for the Site in relation to CCTV provision and it shall include details, for information, on how such issues will be dealt with in RBKC, how any cross boundary issues will be dealt with and how CCTV measures within the Application and Application 1 site will be co-ordinated.

34 Save for the Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works,Temporary Works and/or any demolition works the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a speed hierarchy strategy for all distributor and access roads within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hierarchy shall limit vehicle speed on main distributor roads within the application site to no higher than 30mph and on lower category roads to no higher than 20mph. The strategy shall employ means other than vertical deflection ("speed humps" etc.) as the principal method for reducing vehicles speeds within the development. Subsequent to the approval of the speed hierarchy strategy, the subsequent submission of Reserved Matters Applications for each development Parcel(s) shall incorporate a road network that accords with the approved speed hierarchy strategy for the site as whole, unless any variation has otherwise first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the interests of public safety and to avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflict in accordance with Policy T1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies TN5, TN15 and TN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010

RESERVED MATTERS

35 With the exception of Advance Infrastructure Works and/or Temporary Works and/or any demolition works no development within a Development Parcel shall commence until written approval of the following Reserved Matters where relevant has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority:

(i) the layout of buildings above and below ground and associated roads, routes and open space.

The Reserved Matters Application pursuant to this condition shall also be accompanied by indicative plans, sections and elevations of each building proposed within the Development Parcel. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

36 With the exception of Advance Infrastructure Works Temporary Works and/or any demolition works, no development of Above Ground Works of a building shall commence until written approval of the following remaining Reserved Matters in relation to that building has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority;

• the scale of the building; and

• the appearance of the building.

Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

37 With the exception of Advance Infrastructure Works and Enabling Works and or Temporary Works and or any demolition works. No development of Above Ground Works within a Development Parcel(s) shall commence until written approval of the following Reserved Matter in relation to that Development Parcel(s) has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority:

• landscaping.

Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

38 No Reserved Matters Application shall be submitted in relation to any Development Parcel(s) or building unless it is accompanied, as appropriate, by the following documents and/or information

i) a phasing reconciliation statement to demonstrate how the proposed development of a Development Parcel(s) is in accordance with the EIA Phasing Plan and how it relates to Development Parcel(s) commenced and to be commenced;

ii) an explanatory statement demonstrating how the proposed quantum of land uses proposed within the Development Parcel(s) are consistent with the limitations set in Conditions 11 and 12;

and in relation to the matter of layout a Reserved Matters Application shall include: i) a report and plans detailing layout of the proposed building or buildings and any relevant roads or landscaping associated with the Development Parcel(s) to which the reserved matter application relates; ii) a reconciliation plan showing how the proposed detailed layout of the roads, pedestrian and cycle routes, and the detailed layout of open spaces within the Development Parcel(s) are consistent with the parameters and principles for the layout of the wider development in accordance with the Mandatory Design Guidelines; iii) a report and plans detailing any necessary temporary layout associated with boundary treatment and condition between Development Parcel(s) of the development; and iv) a report and plans detailing layout below ground, including parking areas, servicing areas and plant areas; v) a report and plans detailing internal layout of any buildings;

and in relation to the matter of scale a Reserved Matters Application shall include: i) a statement (including accompanying design material) to demonstrate that the scale of the development accords with the relevant thresholds and parameters described in the Parameter Plans and Mandatory Design Guidelines;

and in relation to the matter of appearance a Reserved Matters Application shall include: i) plans, drawings, sections and elevations to explain full details of the materials to be used on all external surfaces (including hard landscaping) and, where practicable, samples shall be provided; and ii) a statement (including accompanying design material) to demonstrate the selection of materials accords with the Mandatory Design Guidelines;

and in relation to the matter of landscaping a Reserved Matters Application shall also include:

i) plans, drawings, sections and specifications to explain full details of proposed landscaping works, including finished ground levels, proposed drainage arrangements, play equipment, planting, finishes, fences, walls, gates, railings, screens, canopies, seating, signage and litter bins surface treatments and enclosures;

ii) a statement (including accompanying design material) to demonstrate the landscape works accord with the Mandatory Design Guidelines; iii) specification for surface changes and the size, type and appearance of all paving or other hard surfaces; materials iv) outline specification for street furniture

v) tree planting details and specification of all other planting and cultivation;

vi) management and maintenance details in accordance with the Site Wide Estate Management Framework;

vi) details of proposed green or brown roofs including detailed specifications and a supporting explanatory statement to demonstrate the anticipated distribution of green or brown roofs within that Development Parcel(s) required to accord with the Mandatory Design Guidelines;

vii) details of external lighting in accordance with the Mandatory Design Guidelines;

viii) details of hard landscaping, including, means of enclosure, means of access to each building, any shared vehicular and pedestrian surfaces (including surface materials and kerb details that ensure a safe and convenient environment for blind and partially sighted people), car parking layouts, pedestrian access and circulation areas, cycle parking layouts, hard surfacing, external furniture, play equipment and refuse storage;

ix) details of soft landscape works including planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with grass and plant establishment, aftercare and maintenance), schedules of plants, species, plant sizes, proposed numbers or densities (where appropriate), height and maturity of any trees and shrubs, sections through mounds, tree containers and raised shrub beds above the basement car park and communal roof top gardens; and

x) details of the programme for implementing and completing the planting

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out sustainably and to a high environmental quality standard in accordance with the relevant parameters and principles of the Development Specification, Design and Access Statement and Design Guidelines which accompanied the Planning Application and to ensure that the details accord with the assessment and conclusions of the Environmental Statement and Addendum and the EIA process. In accordance with Policies 3.1, 3.6, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policies FRA, FRA1, H1, H2, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 , Policies EN2B, EN8 and EN10 and Standards S5A, S7, S18 and S20 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10,CA7 CE1, CE2, CE3, CE4, CE5 and CE6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010 and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan (2002).

39 All Reserved Matters Applications shall be in accordance with the approved Parameter Plans as listed in the schedule below: [ ECM2-PA-03-101_A Planning Application Boundary ECM2-PA-03-102_A Site Area within RBKC ECM2-PA-03-103_A Existing Site Levels ECM2-PA-03-104_A Existing Site Sections ECM2-PA-03-105_A Existing Site Building Heights ECM2-PA-03-106_A Key Development Plot Plan ECM2-PA-03-107_A Proposed Site Levels ECM2-PA-03-108_B Open Space ECM2-PA-03-109_A Below Ground Layout ECM2-PA-03-110_B Maximum Development Plot Height ECM2-PA-03-111_B Minimum Development Plot Height ECM2-PA-03-112_B Ground Floor Development Plot Deviation ECM2-PA-03-113_A Vehicular Access and Circulation ECM2-PA-03-114_A Pedestrian Access ECM2-PA-03-115_A Public Transport ECM2-PA-03-116_A Cycle Routes and Parking ECM2-PA-03-117_A Parking Areas (on-street)

Reason: In order to ensure full compliance with the development hereby approved and to prevent harm arising through deviations from the approved plans, in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011 and Policies FRA, FRA1, H1, H2, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 , Policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8, EN25 EN31of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP10,CA7 CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CR2 and CR5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

40 All Reserved Matters Applications shall be in accordance with the Mandatory Design Guidelines.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with the Design Guidelines on which this decision is based and to be consistent with the principles of good masterplanning, in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9, of the London Plan 2011, Policies A FRA, FRA1, H3, OS1, and BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2 and EN2B of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and Policies CA7, CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CR2 and CR5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

DEVELOPMENT PARCEL AND BUILDING PRE COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

41 No building within a Development Parcel(s) (save for Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works and/or Temporary Works) shall commence before details at a scale of no less than 1:20 in plan, section and elevation of that building, showing details of proposed cladding, fenestration (including framing and glazing details), balconies (including roof terraces), boundary treatments, including details of fencing and other means of enclosure to lower ground and ground floor private amenity spaces and entrances shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no part of that building shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and to prevent harm to the street scene and public realm, in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 ,7.6 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy EN2, EN8 and EN31 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CA7, CR2, CL2 and CL3 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Residential

42 No Above Ground Works to a building within a Development Parcel(s) (save for Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works shall commence until details of the amount and mix of residential development relevant to that building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority together with an updated cumulative schedule showing the total side-wide quantum and mix of residential development approved at that time to demonstrate that the application is in accordance with Condition 14.

Reason: To control the extent of units and mix within the Development Parcels to ensure a suitable mix, balance and distribution of uses throughout the development in accordance with Policies 3.3 and 3.4 of the London Plan 2011, Policies BE1,H4, FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policies EN2, EN2B, EN3, EN6, EN8, EN25, EN31 and of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CP1, CP10, CH2 and CA7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010. . 43 Prior to Commencement save for Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works and/or demolition works of buildings containing residential units, details of the internal configuration of those residential units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The relevant residential unit(s) shall not be implemented otherwise than in accordance with those details as approved.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory residential accommodation is provided within the development, including for people with disabilities, in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2011 Policies BE1, H4, FRA and FRA1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy HO6 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CL2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Landscaping

44 No Above Ground Works within a Development Parcel(s) shall commence until a scheme showing existing landscape features within that Development Parcel(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show which of the existing landscape features are to be retained and which are to be removed. The scheme shall be accompanied by an arboricultural method statement for the protection of all existing landscape features indicated to be retained in the scheme which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. None of the existing landscape features within the Development Parcel(s), which are proposed to be removed, shall be removed until the scheme has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance and provision for planting in accordance with Policies 7.5 and 7.19 of the London Plan 2011, Policies BE1, and OS1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies EN2, EN8 and EN26 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR5 and CR6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

45 Any works to tree(s) on the site shall be carried out in accordance with BS5837:2012 “Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations”.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory provision for planting in accordance with Policies 7.1, 7.6 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policies BE1, and OS1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,, Policies EN2B, EN8 and EN26 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR5 and CR6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Sustainability and Energy

46 No Above Ground Works to buildings within a Development Parcel (save for Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and or demolition works)) shall commence until an Energy Demand Assessment for that building or buildings within the Development Parcel(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Energy Demand Assessment should demonstrate the total energy demands of the building(s) broken down into heating, cooling and process energy in kWh and carbon dioxide. The Assessment should demonstrate that emissions will be minimised in accordance with the energy hierarchy and achieve the carbon reduction targets set out in the London Plan. Full details of the energy efficiency measures and low/zero carbon technologies to be installed should be provided along with details of their associated carbon dioxide savings. If the required carbon dioxide reductions cannot be made on-site, details of how the shortfall will be met through alternative off-site measures should be included in the Assessment. Reason: In order to ensure the implementation of sustainable design, and low carbon Development, in accordance with Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13, of the London Plan 2011, Policies CC1 and H3 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 Policies EN28A, EN29 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011)) and) and Policy CE1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

47 All Residential Units within the development shall be constructed to achieve not less than the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and all office units shall be constructed to achieve not less than Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) standard of "Very Good", notwithstanding the requirement to meet the carbon reduction targets set out in condition 46, or in either case such equivalent standard as may be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All other buildings shall be constructed to achieve an equivalent standard appropriate to the type of building details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure the implementation of sustainable design, and low carbon Development, in accordance with Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13, of the London Plan 2011, Policies CC1 and H3 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies EN28A, EN29 of the London Borough of Hammersmith Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011)) and Policy CE1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

48 Prior to the commencement of a building (save for Advance Infrastructure and Enabling works,Temporary Works and/or demolition works) within a Development Parcel(s ) details of the rainwater recycling system for that building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall demonstrate the maximum level of recycled water that can feasibly be provided. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development is consistent with the Mayor's sustainable design objectives in accordance with Policy 5.15 of the London Plan (2011) and Policy CC1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy CE2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Contamination

49 No development (save for Temporary Works) within a Development Parcel shall commence until a preliminary risk assessment report is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This preliminary risk assessment report shall comprise:

(i) a desktop study which identifies all current and previous uses at the site and surrounding area as well as the potential contaminants associated with those uses; a site reconnaissance; (ii) a conceptual model indicating potential pollutant linkages between sources, pathways and receptors, including those in the surrounding area and those planned at the site; (iii) a qualitative risk assessment of any potentially unacceptable risks arising from the identified pollutant linkages to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment including ecological receptors and building materials.

All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure protection of the environment and controlled waters in accordance with Policies 5.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies EN20A and EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

50 No development (save for Temporary Works) within a Development Parcel shall Commence until a site investigation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be based upon and target the risks identified in the approved preliminary risk assessment and shall provide provisions for, where relevant, the sampling of soil, soil vapour, ground gas, surface and groundwater. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

Reason: To ensure protection of the environment and controlled waters in accordance with Policies 5.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,Policies EN20A and EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

51 Unless the Local Planning Authority agree in writing that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall commence until, a site investigation has been undertaken in compliance with the approved site investigation scheme and a quantitative risk assessment report is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for each phase of the development. This report shall: assess the degree and nature of any contamination identified on the site through the site investigation; include a revised conceptual site model from the preliminary risk assessment based on the information gathered through the site investigation to confirm the existence of any remaining pollutant linkages and determine the risks posed by any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

Reason: To ensure protection of the environment and controlled waters in accordance with Policies 5.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,Policies EN20A and EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

52 Unless the Local Planning Authority agree in writing that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition:

(a) No development shall commence until the approved remediation method statement has been carried out in full and a verification report confirming these works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority, for each phase of the development. This report shall include: details of the remediation works carried out; results of any verification sampling, testing or monitoring including the analysis of any imported soil; all waste management documentation showing the classification of waste, its treatment, movement and disposal; and the validation of gas membrane placement. (b) Should additional material be brought on to site following the submission of the verification report, further evidence will be required to show that the material is suitable for use, prior to any site occupation.

53 Unless the Local Planning Authority agree in writing that a set extent of development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development within a Development Parcel shall commence until an onward long-term monitoring methodology report has been produced and is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority where further monitoring is required past the completion of development works to verify the success of the remediation undertaken. A verification report of these monitoring works shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority when it may be demonstrated that no residual adverse risks exist. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

Reason: To ensure protection of the environment and controlled waters in accordance with Policies 5.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,Policies EN20A and EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

Archaeology

54 (a) No development within a Development Parcel shall commence (save for demolition works and/or Temporary Work(s) the implementation of a programme of archaeological work for that development parcel in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority. The fieldwork is to comprise of (i) archaeological evaluation; (ii) geo-archaeological assessment; (iii) appropriate mitigation based on the results of (i) and (ii) above; and (iv) historic building recording based on results of a completed historic buildings appraisal. The approved written scheme of investigation is to be implemented as approved.

(b) No development or demolition shall commence within a Development Parcel other than in accordance with a written scheme of investigation approved under part (a).

(c) No residential unit within the relevant Development Parcel (save for demolition works and/or Temporary Works) shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the written scheme of investigation approved under part (a), and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of the results and archive deposition has been secured.

Reason: Heritage assets of archaeological interest may survive on the site. The planning authority wishes to secure the provision of archaeological investigation and the subsequent recording of the remains prior to development, in accordance with recommendations given by the borough and in NPPF, Chapter 12 in accordance with Policy 7.8 of the London Plan, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies EN6 and EN7 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CL4 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Noise and Vibration

55 Façade sound insulation including glazing shall achieve ‘good’ noise levels within bedrooms and living rooms of the proposed residential dwellings as recommended in Table 5 of BS 8233: 1999(revised) ‘Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of Practice’ (or equivalent), unless non- material amendments are otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011,Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy Policy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and and Policies CE6 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

56 Details of the facade construction, including glazing, with commensurate composite sound insulation performance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the development and shall be installed prior to occupation of the relevant part of the development and be so retained. Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy Policy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and and Policies CE6 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

57 Ventilation systems, should they be necessary comply with Document F1 of the Building Regulations (or equivalent) and ideally be a passive stack system. All ventilation systems will have adequate sound attenuation properties that maintain the façade sound insulation.

Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.14 and 7.15 of the London Plan 2011 Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy Policy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and and Policies CE6 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

58 Prior to commencement (save for Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works and/or demolition works) of a building hereby approved a scheme of sound insulation, designed to prevent the transmission of excessive airborne and impact noise between proposed non residential and residential uses shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For retail and B1 office use the sound insulation performance shall achieve as a minimum a 5dB improvement in the minimum requirements in ADE. For uses that would be subject to the Licensing Act then a full assessment of the required sound insulation performance will be required. The sound insulation shall be installed and maintained only in accordance with the details so approved. The residential unit(s) shall not be occupied until the approved scheme has been fully implemented.

Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy Policy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and and Policies CE6 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010

59 Vibration Dose Values, (VDV’s), as defined in BS 6472-1:2008 (or equivalent) due to train movements shall not exceed those of Table 1 of that code for ‘low probability of adverse comment’ , unless non-material amendments are otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011 Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy Policy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CE6 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

60 The design of vibration isolation on those buildings that require isolation due to train movements will aim to achieve a level of regenerated noise of 35dBLAmax(s) within the new residential dwellings unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011 Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy Policy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (Saved 2007 and 2011) and Policies CE6 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Air Quality

61 No development of a building or buildings within a Development Parcel (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and or demolition works) shall commence until an air quality assessment and a low emission strategy for that building or buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The low emission strategy must address each development parcel group (WV, K, NE and BW) of the development and shall calculate the total emissions and per unit/area emissions from the existing use of the site and the new development. This shall include transport sources and all combustion plant including, boilers, energy plant and emergency generators. The air quality assessment should follow the London Council’s ‘Air Quality and Planning Guidance’ recommended format. It must be based on an approved transport assessment and include all stationary combustion sources and construction traffic. The air quality assessment must show how air quality will change during the construction and operational phase of the development and in combination with other cumulative developments (the baseline for the cumulative comparison should not include these additional components).

Reason: To ensure the development's air pollution impacts are mitigated in accordance with the requirements of Policy 7.14 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy EN20A of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CE5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Parking, Access and Servicing

62 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until, the detailed design, layout and location of coach, car and cycle parking, taxi ranks and service areas, as appropriate or applicable within that Development Parcel have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of any residential unit within that Development Parcel and thereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure the suitable provision of parking and servicing within the development to meet the needs of future site occupiers and users, in accordance with Policies 6.13 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011,Policy T1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies TN6, TN15 and TN24 and Standards S.18, S.19 and S20.1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and the Council's “Access for All” Supplementary Planning Guidance and Policies CR7 and CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

63 No development incorporating parking and servicing requirements within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works, Temporary Works and /or demolition works) shall commence until the Site Wide Parking and Servicing Framework has been reviewed and a Parking and Servicing Plan providing the detail, including drawings, of how the Site Wide Parking and Servicing Framework will be implemented in that Development Parcel(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of any residential unit within that Development Parcel(s) and thereafter maintained. The development within that Development Parcel shall not be operated otherwise than in accordance with the Site Wide Parking and Servicing Framework and Parking and Servicing Plan as approved.

Reason: To ensure appropriate levels, mix and location of parking is achieved and suitably integrated into the development and co-ordinated with adequate servicing arrangements and vehicular access, and that management arrangements are in place to control its allocation and use, in accordance with Policies 6.13 and 7.2 of the London Plan 2011, Policy T1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 Policies TN6, TN15 and TN24 and Standards S.18, S.19 and S20.1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (Saved 2007 and 2011) and the Council's “Access for All” Supplementary Planning Guidance and Policies CR7 and CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

64 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until details of the footway, kerbs and access ramps to any basement car park (including confirmation of the vertical clearance, width and gradient) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such details as are approved shall be implemented prior to the occupation or use of the residential units within that Development Parcel and permanently retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the detailed design of the access ramps provides sufficient vertical clearance and capacity for vehicle manoeuvring in the interest of public safety and to avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflict in accordance with Policy T1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies TN5, TN15 and TN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR7 and CR1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Emergency Access

65 No development (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) within a Development Parcel(s) shall Commence until details of the proposed works to achieve access routes for emergency vehicles for that Development Parcel have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development within that Development Parcel shall be carried in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that emergency services have effective access throughout the development in accordance with Policy 7.13 of the London Plan 2011. Policy T1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy TN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR7 and CR1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

66 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall Commence until details of how the development within that Development Parcel will accord with the Metropolitan Police "Secure by Design" requirements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such statement shall include, but not be limited to, CCTV coverage, access controls, basement security measures, and means to secure the site throughout construction in accordance with BS8300:2009. The approved details shall be carried out prior to occupation of any residential units within the relevant Development Parcel(s) and permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development incorporates suitable design measures to minimise opportunities for, and the perception of crime, in accordance with Policies 7.3 and 7.13 of the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 Policy EN10 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and and Policies CR1 and CL2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

67 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works or Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until a detailed CCTV strategy for that Parcel(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No residential unit within that Parcel(s) shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the approved details. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as have been approved and thereafter be permanently retained. Reason: To ensure that the development incorporates suitable design measures to minimise opportunities for, and the perception of crime, in accordance with Policies 7.3 and 7.13 of the London Plan 2011,Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy EN10 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR1 and CL2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Lighting

68 No Above Ground Works within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until details of all proposed external lighting, including security lights for a Development Parcel(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the use shall not commence until the lighting has been installed in full accordance with the approved details. Such details shall include the number, exact location, height, design and appearance of the lights, together with data concerning the levels of illumination and light spillage and the specific measures, having regard to the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers in the `Guidance Notes For The Reduction Of Light Pollution 2005' (or relevant guidance) to ensure that any lighting proposed does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Reason: To ensure that adequate lighting is provided to the pedestrian pathways for safety and security and that the lighting does not adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of the surrounding premises, in accordance with Policies 7.3 and 7.13 of the London Plan (2011) Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,Policies EN10, EN20C and EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR1, CR4 and CR5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Waste

69 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until a detailed Waste Strategy, which shall be in accordance with the Site Wide Waste Framework has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Waste Strategy shall be implemented as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the Development Parcel(s) and maintained permanently thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for refuse storage and collection, in accordance with Policies 5.18 and 5.19 of the London Plan 2011, Policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and the Council's supplementary planning document `Storage of Refuse and Recyclables' and Policy CE3 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

TV Reception 70 No development of a building or buildings within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works and/or Temporary Works and/or demolition works ) shall commence until details of the methods proposed to identify any television interference to residential properties caused by the proposed development within that Development Parcel, including periods during the construction phases, and the measures proposed to ensure that any television interference that might be identified is remediated in a satisfactory manner has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If any television interference to residential properties is identified following completion of the Development Parcel(s), the approved remediation measures shall be implemented, where feasible, as soon as reasonably practicable.

Reason: To ensure that television interference caused by the development is remediated, in accordance with Policy 7.7 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Flooding, Water and Drainage

71 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until details of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The SUDS system shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation within that Development Parcel(s) and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding from surface water in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011 Policies CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy CE2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

72 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall be commenced until a scheme to reduce the surface water run off from that Development Parcel(s) to a minimum and to dispose of foul water in accordance with the Drainage and Surface Water Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with details embodied within the scheme.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment. To reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011 and Policies CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

73 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.

No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the relevant water or sewerage undertaker. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 850 2777 to discuss the details of the piling method statement.

74 Soakaways shall only be used in areas on site where they would not present a risk to groundwater quality. No soakaways shall be installed prior to the details for such facilities being submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any soakaways to be installed within the development shall be installed strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011 and Policies CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan (2002).

75 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for that Development Parcel(s) based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the Development Parcel(s) is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011 and Policies CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy CE2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Mobility Issues

76 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works ) shall be commenced until details of compliance with lifetime homes standards for the residential units and of the provision of 10% of the residential units to wheelchair housing standard or accessible to this standard have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall accord with the details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development provides for the changing circumstances of occupiers and responds to the needs of people with disabilities, in accordance with policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2011,Policy H4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy HO6 of the Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CH2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

77 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until details of the means by which wheelchair access is provided to residential buildings and open spaces, including the provision of parking spaces, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as approved shall be carried out prior to any use or occupation of the buildings or open spaces and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: To ensure buildings, parking spaces and amenity spaces are provided for all occupiers in the development, in accordance with policies 7.2 and 7.5 in the London Plan 2011, Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy (2011) Policies EN2, EN8, TN6, TN15 and TN24 and Standards S.18, S.19 and S20.1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011), the Council's “Access for All” Supplementary Planning Guidance and Policy CL2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

78 Before any Above Ground Works within a Development Parcel(s) are Commenced (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works), the developer shall undertake consultation with the H & F Disability Planning Forum to confirm how the Development Parcel(s) will protect the access of particular disability groups to public amenities on the site.

Reason: To ensure that the development provides for the changing circumstances of occupiers and responds to the needs of people with disabilities, in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2011, Policy H4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policy HO6 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CL2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Highways

79 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until details of any turning heads, surface treatments for pedestrian accesses, and traffic calming measures within any covered parking areas within that Development Parcel(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any part of that Development Parcel(s) and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure the interests of public safety and to avoid vehicle/pedestrian conflict in accordance with Policy T1 of the of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies TN5, TN15 and TN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

80 No development within a Development Parcel(s) (save for any Advance Infrastructure and Enabling Works Temporary Works and/or demolition works) shall commence until details of the road, footway, footpath and cycleway layout relevant to that Development Parcel(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall show the alignment, widths, surfacing arrangements, forward visibility sight lines and vision splays, speed restraint measures, gradients, street lighting and drainage. The Development Parcel(s) shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for that Development Parcel(s) and no residential building within a Development Parcel(s) shall be occupied until the approved roads, footways, footpaths and cycleways that provide access to it have been constructed and been made available for use. Reason: To ensure the interests of public safety in accordance with Policy T1 of the of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies TN5, TN15 and TN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

81 The submitted details showing the proposed layout of on-site access roads shall incorporate junction and inter-visibility zones in accordance with the design speed of the road, which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the speed hierarchy strategy to be approved. No obstruction of sight, including landscaping, above 600mm in height shall be placed within the approved junction sight lines or inter-visibility zones. Reason: To ensure the interests of public safety in accordance with Policies TN5, TN15 and TN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

82 A Stage 2 Safety Audit shall be carried out on the vehicular access arrangements to the site and on the North End Road/Lillie Road junction works once the detailed design drawings have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and any measures recommended in the audit shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure that all access points provided into the site are safe for site and highway users in accordance with Policies 6.3 and 6.10 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy TN5 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011 and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

PRE-OCCUPATION CONDITIONS Refuse and recycling

83 Prior to first occupation of each individual building within a Development Parcel(s) details of the refuse storage arrangements for that building, including provision for the storage of recyclable materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building within a Development Parcel shall be occupied until the approved refuse storage arrangements for that building are in place and all approved storage arrangements shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for refuse storage and collection, in accordance with Policy 5.3 of the London Plan, Policy EN17 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document `Storage of Refuse and Recyclables' and Policy CE3 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Servicing

84 No residential units in a Development Parcel(s) shall be occupied until a site servicing strategy, including vehicle tracking, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing management of deliveries to and throughout the site, emergency access throughout the site, collection of waste and recyclables, times of deliveries and collections/ silent reversing methods/ location of loading bays and vehicle movement. The approved measures shall be implemented and continued thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for refuse storage and collection, in accordance with Policy 6.11 of the London Plan 2011, Policy EN17 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document `Storage of Refuse and Recyclables' and Policy CR7 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Ecology

85 No residential units in a Development Parcel(s) shall be occupied until details of a scheme of 'artificial nesting opportunities' within that Development Parcel have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall incorporate bird and bat boxes. The details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval shall include a timetable for provision and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for 'artificial nesting opportunities' within the development in accordance with Policy 7.19 of the London Plan (2011) and Policies EN28A and EN29 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR5 and CE4 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

86 No residential units in a Development Parcel(s) shall be occupied until an Ecology Management Plan prepared in accordance with the approved site wide Estate Management Framework has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority or until the site wide framework has been updated to include information specific to that Development Parcel. Any open space, the Lost River Park (or part thereof), green/brown roofs and play space provided as part of each Development Parcel(s) shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved Ecology Management Plan for that Development Parcel(s) approved pursuant to this condition.

Reason: To ensure the management and maintenance of open space, the Lost River Park, green/brown roofs and play spaces in accordance with Policies 3.1, 5.11, 5.13,7.19 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policiy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 Policies EN2, EN8, EN26 and EN28 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011 and the Council's Supplementary Guidance SPD 'Access for All' and Policies CR5 and CE4 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Landscaping

87 Save for landscaping within the Lost River Park, Exhibition Square no more than 50% of the residential units within any Development Parcel(s) shall be occupied until the hard and soft landscaping works and planting approved as part of the Reserved Matters approval or approvals for that Development Parcel(s) have been completed. The landscaping works so approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme submitted as part of the Reserved Matters Application.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with Policies 7.18, 7.19 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policy OS1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies EN2, EN8 and EN26 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CR5 and CR6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Contamination

88 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, the Local Planning Authority is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Any required remediation shall be detailed in an amendment to the remediation statement and verification of these works included in the verification report. All works must be carried out in compliance with and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.

Reason: To ensure protection of the environment and controlled waters in accordance with Policies 5.21 of the London Plan 2011, Policy CC4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011,Policies EN20A and EN21 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (Saved 2007 and 2011) and Policies PU03 and PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

Cycle Parking

89 Prior to occupation of residential units within a Development Parcel(s) details of the facilities to be provided for the secure storage of residents' cycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the residential units shall not be Occupied until any such facilities as may have been approved have been provided. Thereafter the cycle parking facilities provided shall be retained and the space used for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the suitable provision of cycle parking within the Development to meet the needs of future site occupiers and users, in accordance with Policies 6.9 and 6.13 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy TN6 and Standard S20.1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Play Space 90 Before the construction of the play space within any Development Parcel(s), a scheme detailing the play equipment, boundary treatments and ground surface treatment of the play spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The play equipment will be designed to be fully inclusive to ensure the play spaces are accessible to all. The approved play spaces shall be completed prior to 50% occupation of residential units within the relevant Development Parcel(s) in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the suitable provision of play space and incidental play opportunities for children throughout the development, in accordance with Policy 3.6 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy EN23B of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy LR15 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002 and Policy CR5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Electric Charging

91 Prior to occupation of a Development Parcel(s), details of the installation including location and type of active electric vehicle charger points within the car parking areas must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved electric vehicle charger points shall be installed and retained in working order for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To encourage sustainable travel in accordance with Policies 5.8 and 6.13 of the London Plan 2011,Policy T1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy CT1 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Mobility Issues

92 Each building within the development shall contain a fire rated lift, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any building containing a lift including details of lifts to the basement car park. All lifts should have enhanced lift repair service running 365 day/24 hour cover to ensure no wheelchair occupiers are trapped if the single lift breaks down. The fire rated lifts shall be installed as approved and maintained in full working order for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development provides for the changing circumstances of occupiers and responds to the needs of people with disabilities, in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2011, Policy HO6 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy H4 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011)and Policy CL2 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

93 The hotel(s) within the development shall have 10% of hotel bedrooms to be wheelchair accessible, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the building. The development shall accord with the details as approved.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS Permitted Development Rights 94 Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D, E, F and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended, no development within the curtilage of the residential units which form part of the development shall be carried out without planning permission first being granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring properties within the development, in accordance with Policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 and Policies EN2B and EN8 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policies CL2 and CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

95 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development, without planning permission first being granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the visual impact of telecommunication equipment can be considered, in accordance with Policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2011 and Policies EN2B, and EN8 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Policy CL6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Noise

96 Noise emitted by all building services plant and equipment shall be -10dBA below the existing measured lowest LA90(15min) background noise level at any time when all plant is in use, where the plant noise source has a tonal spectrum it shall be -15dBA. The noise emitted shall be measured or predicted at 1.0m from the façade of the nearest residential window or at 1.2m above any adjacent residential garden, terrace, balcony or patio. A noise report showing how noise emitted by the finally installed building services plant and equipment will comply with this condition shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.

Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2011) Policy BE1 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011, Policies EN20A, EN20B, EN21 and TN15 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended 2007 and 2011) and Core Strategy Policy BE1 and Policy CE6 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010.

Surface Water

97 No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To ensure protection of controlled waters. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 London Plan 2011 Policies CC1 and CC2 of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy 2011 and Policy PU04 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan 2002.

RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR APPROVAL The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: -

1) Principle of Development/Regeneration: The principle of a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site including residential, office, retail, hotel and serviced apartments, leisure, healthcare, education, community and culture uses is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with national, strategic and local planning policies, which advocate making the most efficient use of brownfield land in sustainable locations in order to help meet local and strategic housing needs. The proposed development would contribute to the regeneration of the area, improve education and employment opportunities, and promote sustainable economic growth. The size and location of the proposed retail floorspace is considered not to compromise the vitality or viability of surrounding centres. The proposed development would be an appropriate use within the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area which is well served and accessible by public transport. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with policy 2.13 of the London Plan which requires development within Opportunity Areas to optimise residential, non residential outputs and densities, to provide the necessary infrastructure to sustain growth and provide a mix of uses and Table A1.1 in Annex1 of the London Plan which sets the strategic policy direction for the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area and strategic policies FRA, FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy which require major regeneration based on a phased comprehensive approach and a comprehensive mixed use residential led masterplan providing housing, employment, hotels, leisure, offices and associated facilities and policies CP10 and CA7 of the RBKC Core Strategy which require the wider regeneration of the Earl’s Court area and a sustainable residential led mixed use development.

2) Housing : The proposed development would contribute towards providing much needed additional housing in accordance with London Plan Policies 3.3B, 3.3D and 3.3E which seek to increase housing supply and would help the borough meet its housing targets in accordance with Table 3.1 of the London Plan. It is considered that the development would contribute towards the indicative housing targets set out in strategic policy H1 of the LBHF Core Strategy which promotes the development of new housing within the Strategic Sites, policies FRA and FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy for developments within the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area which set an indicative housing target of 4,000 homes in LBHF and RBKC (excluding any increase on estate lands) across the plan period and policies CA7, and CH3 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring the wider regeneration of the Earl’s Court area and seeking to ensure an increase in residential accommodation. +The principle and density of residential development proposed is considered acceptable in accordance with policies 3.3 and 3.4 of the London Plan which requires developments to optimise housing potential, policies H1, H3 which requires high quality housing at an acceptable housing density and FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring a comprehensive mixed use residential development and policy CL1 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring density of development to be optimised relative to context. The proposed development is assessed as comprising an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes and is therefore considered in accordance with policy 3.8 of the London Plan requiring developments to offer a range of housing choice, policy H4 of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring high quality residential development that meets local residents’ needs and policy CH2 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring housing diversity. In the context of these policies and having regard to the Viability Assessment, the individual circumstances of the site and the planning and regeneration benefits arising it is considered that the provision of

affordable housing is acceptable in accordance with policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan requiring a range of housing choice and seeking to maximise affordable housing provision, policies H1 and H2 of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring high quality housing and affordable housing and policy CH1 of the RBKC Core Strategy which requires the provision of affordable housing.

3) Local Economy and Employment : It is considered that the loss of the existing employment uses on the site is justified in the circumstances. The redevelopment of the site to provide residential use would make a more effective use of this underutilised site and is considered to be an appropriate use for this location which is highly accessible by public transport. The proposed development would provide an appropriate quantum of replacement employment floorspace in accordance with policies 4.2 and 4.4 of the London Plan requiring the enhancement and increase in current office stock and the provision of sufficient land and premises to meet the future needs of different types of industrial and related uses, the guidance set out in policies FRA, FRA1and LE1 of the LBHF Core Strategy 2011 which seek new employment opportunities in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Opportunity Area and require accommodation available for all sizes of business and policy CF5 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring a range of business premises. The non-residential uses proposed would also offer opportunities for leisure uses and services to meet the needs of future occupiers. The proposed development therefore accords with policies 2.13, 2.15, requiring an appropriate mix of uses and economic growth, policies 4.2 and 4.4 of the London Plan, policies FRA, FRA 1 and LE1 of the LBHF Core Strategy and policy CK1 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring the provision and enhancement of social and community uses.

3) Retail : the proposed development proposes 23,318 sqm of Class A1-A5 retail floorspace which it is considered would provide a new and vibrant retail offer without an adverse impact on existing retail centres. The retail would also have place making benefits contributing positively to the regeneration of the site. the proposed development is therefore considered in accordance with policies 4.7 and 4.8 of the London Plan regarding the location of retail development; policy FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy seeking retail as part of a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment and policies CA& and CF1 requiring A Class uses to serve day to day needs and relating to the location of new shop uses.

4) Design and Heritage The proposed development would be a high quality development which would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. The scale and massing of the proposed development as defined by the outline parameters is also assessed as being appropriate. Specifically, the location of tall buildings closet to the Empress State Building is supported by policy FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy. Although the proposed development will be visible and will affect views from within LBHF and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, it is considered that the impact is not one of significant harm to conservation areas or local townscape and the proposed development would positively contribute to the skyline of this part of the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. The proposal preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation areas and heritage assets. The proposed design and layout is considered to address its setting appropriately and its relationship with surrounding heritage assets including Brompton Cemetery. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with: policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan requiring high quality inclusive development providing safe and secure environments which respond to their setting and are of high architectural quality with high quality public realm, and policies BE1, of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring a

high quality urban environment; policies EN2B, EN3 and EN8 of the LBHF UDP requiring development not to harm the character or appearance of conservation areas, the protection of listed buildings and a high standard of design and policies CL1,CL2 and CA7 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring development to respect existing context, character and appearance, requiring new buildings to be of the highest urban design quality and requiring a new urban quarter linking well with its surroundings.

5) Residential Amenity and Impact on Neighbouring Properties : The impact of the proposed development upon adjoining occupiers is considered acceptable. The proposed development would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers in terms of daylight/sunlight, over-shadowing, and privacy. Potential impacts in terms of air quality, light pollution, wind tunnelling, noise or TV/radio reception would be acceptable with regard to the various mitigation methods proposed which are secured by condition. In this regard, the development would respect the principles of good neighbourliness. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 7.3, 7.7, 7.14 and 7.15 of the London Plan requiring high quality and design of housing developments, playspace, housing choice, the designing out of crime, supporting tall buildings in Opportunity Areas and requiring improvements to air quality and the reduction of noise; policies H3 and CC4 of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring high quality housing respecting the local setting and requiring development enhancing and protecting the environment, policies EN8, EN10, EN23, EN23B requiring good neighbourliness, the designing out of crime ,open space provision and children’s play areas and standards S5A.1, S5A.2, S7.1, S7A, S13.1, S13.2 and S13.3 of the LBHF UDP requiring amenity space, children’s playspace and the protection of existing residential amenities and policy CL5 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring development to achieve high standards of amenity.

6) Access : The detailed access drawings demonstrate how safe and appropriate access can be achieved. The development is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with policies 6.2 and 6.12 of the London Plan which ensure the transport network is as safe and secure and an overall net benefit resulting from new roads; policies FRA1 and T1 of the LBHF Core Strategy seeking improved traffic, pedestrian and cycling circulation and requiring improved transport provision and policies TN4, TN5, TN6, TN8, TN13, TN15, TN28 of the LBHF UDP which require improved provision for all modes of transport and their users; policies CA7 and CR1 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring improved links and the removal of barriers that disconnect access and new streets to be safe and inclusive.

7) Highways : Modelling of the development has shown that the resulting vehicle trip generation from these proposals would not result in unacceptable congestion of the surrounding road network.. The development layout would integrate with surrounding roads. The level of car and cycle parking is assessed as being acceptable in accordance with the standards S18, S19 and S20 set by the LBHF UDP. The site is accessible and well served by public transport. The proposed development would enhance pedestrian linkages to the north-south and east-west of the site to the benefit of the wider Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. It is considered that any impacts arising from the development would be mitigated by conditions and s106 provision to contribute towards sustainable transport infrastructure measures within the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area and prevent significant increase in on-street parking pressures in surrounding roads. Car park management, servicing, road safety and travel planning initiatives would be implemented in and around the site to mitigate against potential issues. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in accordance

with policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.13, of the London Plan which require improvements to all modes of transport ,no adverse impact on the transport network, increases in cycling and walking ,the tackling of congestion and satisfactory parking for development in accordance with standards; policy T1 of the LBHF Core Strategy which seeks to improve transportation provision and accessibility and policies TN4, TN5, TN6, TN8, TN13, TN15, TN28 of the LBHF UDP which require improved provision for all modes of transport and their users and standards S18, S19, S20, S21 and S23 of the LBHF UDP regarding parking, servicing and pedestrian access, and policies CT1 and CT2 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring improved alternatives to car use and new and enhanced rail infrastructure.

8) Access For All : The development would provide a safe and secure environment for all users. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with policy 3.8 of the London Plan which requires development to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards, policy H4 of the LBHF Core Strategy which requires developments to achieve access standards, policy EN10 of the LBHF UDP requiring developments to provide a safe and secure environment; LBHF Council's adopted supplementary planning document 'Access for all' and policy CH2 of the RBKC Core Strategy which requires developments to achieve access standards.

9) Sustainability : The submitted Sustainability Strategy and Energy Statement demonstrate how the development complies with policies and principles relating to sustainable development and energy efficiency. The broad outline of the Sustainability Statement is considered to be acceptable for an outline application but more detailed Sustainability Statements will be required with each phase of development to show compliance with policies in place at the time. Two on site energy centres for the site wide development option are proposed. The proposal therefore seeks to reduce pollution and waste and minimise its environmental impact. The proposed development therefore accords with policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 and 7.19 of the London Plan requiring development to meet minimum CO2 reduction targets, to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and to be energy efficient; policies FRA1 which requires development to incorporate high levels of environmental performance, and policies CC1, and H3 of the LBHF Core Strategy, requiring development to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt to climate change. and residential development to be energy efficient and policy CE1 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring development to make a significant contribution to climate change.

10) Flood Risk : A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted and has considered risks of flooding to the site and adequate preventative measures have been identified. The development would therefore be acceptable in accordance with policies 5.11, 5.13, 5.14 of the London Plan, policy requiring flood risk assessment and development to mitigate flood risk, policy CC2 of the LBHF Core Strategy which requires development to minimise future flood risk and policy CE2 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring development to mitigate the effects of flooding.

11) Land Contamination : The application proposes that the site would be remediated to an appropriate level for the sensitive residential and open space uses. The proposed development therefore accords with policy 5.21 of the London Plan, policy CC4 of the LBHF Core Strategy which requires the protection and enhancement of environmental quality and policies PU3 and PU4 of the RBKC UDP requiring additional information for developments on contaminated land and ensuring the protection of future users of contaminated land.

12) Archaeology: The site is unlikely to have surviving archaeological remains but is located close to an Archaeological Priority Area. A condition will secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work by way of a watching brief throughout relevant construction times. The proposed development therefore accords with policy 7.8 of the London Plan requiring new development to be sympathetic to heritage assets, policy BE1 of the LBHF Core Strategy which requires development to protect the borough’s heritage assets and policy EN7 of LBHF UDP which requires protection of important archaeological remains, and policy CL4 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring development to protect sites of archaeological interest.

13) Ecology: None of the habitats within the application site are recorded as being of high botanical or habitat value and no native plant species of national importance have been identified as being present. Ecological enhancements are proposed through the creation of new habitats. The public realm and the Lost River Park will act as a strong green space providing new habitats the proposed development therefore accords with policy 7.19 of the London Plan which seeks the enhancement of biodiversity, policy OS1 Of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring the enhancement and protection of biodiversity, policies EN28A and 29 of the LBHF UDP which prevent harm to protected species and requires the protection of nature conservation interests and policy CR6 of the RBKC Core Strategy which seeks to deliver biodiversity benefits.

14) Planning Obligations : The application proposes that its impacts are mitigated by way of a comprehensive package of planning obligations to fund improvements that are necessary as a consequence of the increased use arising from the population yield from the development. A range of such contributions and significant provision of education, health, employment and community facilities are proposed. The proposed development would therefore mitigate external impacts and would accord with policy 8.2 of the London Plan which requires the Mayor to take account of planning obligations in decision making and policy FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy requiring affordable housing and social and transport infrastructure, policy EN23 of the LBHF UDP which requires new open space for developments, and policy C1 of the RBKC Core Strategy requiring planning obligations to secure adequate infrastructure to serve developments.

15) Environmental Impact Assessment :The Environmental Statement, the subsequent Environmental Statement Addendum and the submitted further information to the Environmental Statement and their various technical assessments together with the consultation responses received from statutory consultees and other stakeholders and parties, enable the Council to determine this application with knowledge of the likely significant environmental impacts of the proposed development.

16 Objections : Whilst a large number of issues have been raised by objectors to the scheme it is considered, for the reasons explained in the detailed analysis, that planning permission should be granted for the scheme subject to appropriate safeguards to ensure that necessary controls and mitigation measures are established. This decision is taken on the basis of the proposed controls, mitigation measures and delivery commitments contained in the draft conditions and Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement set out in this committee report, which are considered to provide an adequate framework of control to ensure as far as reasonably practicable that the public benefits of the scheme will be realised in accordance with relevant planning policies whilst providing the mitigation measures and environmental improvements needed to address the likely significant adverse impacts of the development.

Having regard to these relevant policies of the statutory development plan and all other material considerations including all environmental information put forward under the EIA process, officers consider that subject to completion of the section 106 agreement prior to the grant of permission and the imposition of conditions, the development will achieve the comprehensive regeneration of the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity area in accordance with Council planning policy objectives and those of the Mayor of London.

The application is considered to comply generally and taken as a whole with the relevant policies of the London Plan and the Core Strategies and remaining extant Unitary Development Plans of Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea Councils and there are no other material considerations which the officers consider would override the grant of planning permission in accordance with the development plan.

------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453):

Application form received: 28th June 2011

Policy Documents: The London Plan 2011 LBHF Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 LBHF Core Strategy 2011 RBKC Core Strategy 2010 RBKC Unitary Development Plan 2002 as saved

CONSULTATION AND NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS

West Kensington & Gibbs Green Residents Steering Group dated 15/09/2011 Webster Dixon Solicitors 06/07/2012 West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenents & Residents Associations 07/09/2011 On behalf of West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenents & Residents Associations 28/09/2011 West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenents & Residents Associations 28/10/2011 On behalf of West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes 17/10/2011 West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes Limited 28/10/2011 Community Organiser West Ken & Gibbs Green 11/11/2011 Community Organiser West Ken & Gibbs Green 04/04/2012 On behalf of West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes Limited & West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenents & Residents Associations 23/04/2012 Notting Hill Housing 23/09/2011 1 Aisgill Avenue, W14 20/09/2011 3 Aisgill Avenue, W14 18/09/2011

6 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 8 Aisgill Avenue, W14 20/09/2011 12 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 12 Aisgill Avenue, W14 28/09/2011 15 Aisgil Avenue, W14 19/09/2011 33 Aisgill Avenue, W14 28/99/2011 34 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 40 Aisgill Avenue, W14 18/09/2011 42 Aisgill Avenue, W14 19/09/2011 42 Aisgill Avenue, W14 19/09/2011 42 Aisgill Avenue, W14 19/09/2011 46 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 50 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 66 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 70 Aisgill Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 3 Bellamy Close, W14 20/09/2011 7 Bellamy Close, W14 19/09/2011 7 Bellamy Close, W14 Undated 9 Bellamy Close, W14 Undated 11 Dieppe Close, W14 27/09/2011 11 Dieppe Close, W14 27/09/2011 18 Dieppe Close, W14 27/09/2011 22 Dieppe Close, W14 27/09/2011 23 Dieppe Close, W14 15/03/2012 24 Dieppe Close, W14 27/09/2011 6 Franklin Square, W14 27/09/2011 8 Franklin Square, W14 27/09/2011 20 Franklin Square, W14 27/09/2011 1 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 7 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 7 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 8 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 13 Gibbs Green, W14 21/09/2011 14 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 15 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 16 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 20 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 22 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 26 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 105 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 105 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 105 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 107 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 109 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 113 Gibbs Green, W14 21/09/2011 116 Gibbs Green, W14 01/10/2011 144 Gibbs Green, W14 30/09/2011 149 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 149 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 150 Gibbs Green, W14 21/09/2011 153 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 154 Gibbs Green, W14 27/09/2011 154 Gibbs Green, W14 28/09/2011 160 Gibbs Green, W14 21/09/2011 3 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011

3 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 18 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 4 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 4 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 23/09/2011 4 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 4 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 23/09/2011 5 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 7 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 9 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 11 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place W14 20/09/2011 15 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 21 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 33 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 29/09/2011 35 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 37 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 19/09/2011 40 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 49 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 50 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 64 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 67 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 69 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 69 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 76 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 77 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 80 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 83 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 22/09/2011 83 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 84 Churchward House, 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 86 Churchward House 25 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 1 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 5 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 6 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 7 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 7 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 12 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 18 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 19 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 20 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 20 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 22/09/2011 21 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 24 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 24 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 24 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 24 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 27 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 28 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 33 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 34 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 Undated 34 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 36 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 36 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 38 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 40 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 48 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 51 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011

53 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 53 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 54 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 55 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 61 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 Undated 61 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 61 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 30/09/2011 65 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 19/09/2011 66 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 72 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 72 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 73 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 77 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 77 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 27/09/2011 80 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 19/09/2011 80 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 21/09/2011 84 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 86 Fairburn House, 26 Ivatt Place, W14 20/09/2011 1 Lerry Close, W14 27/09/2011 1 Marchbank Road, W14 20/09/2011 1 Marchbank Road, W14 20/09/2011 3 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 6 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 7 Marchbank Road, W14 Undated 7 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 16 Marchbank Road, W14 09/09/2011 16 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 19 Marchbank Road, W14 Undated 33 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 45 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 8 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 10 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 14 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 24/09/2011 33 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 35 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 39 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 40 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 42 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 23/08/2011 44 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 27/09/2011 48 Sharnbrook House, 61 Marchbank Road, W14 30/09/2011 Flat 7, 231 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 Flat 7, 231 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 Flat 7, 231 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 Flat 1, 241 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 6 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 10 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 10 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 17 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 18/03/2012 21 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 23 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 35 Lickey House, 245 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 38, Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 Undated 54 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 20/03/2012 71 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 72 Lickey House, 243 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011

24 Desborough House, 245 North End Road, W14 30/09/2011 31 Desborough House, 245 North End Road, W14 29/09/2011 37 Desborough House, 245 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 67 Desborough House, 245 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 71 Desborough House, 245 North End Road, W14 27/09/2011 3 Stanier Close, W14 Undated 3 Stanier Close, W14 22/09/2011 3 Stanier Close, W14 Undated 3 Stanier Close, W14 22/09/2011 4 Stanier Close, W14 27/09/2011 5 Stanier Close, W14 27/09/2011 13 Thaxton Road, W14 27/09/2011 Fulham Society, SW6 23/02/2012 Hammersmith Society, W12 05/04/2012 32a Anselm Road, W14 09/09/2011 65 Anselm Road, W14 16/09/2011 65 Anselm Road, SW6 29/11/2011 65 Anselm Road, SW6 29/03/2012 46a Archel Road, W14 24/10/2011 76 Archel Road, W14 05/09/2011 Archel Road (No Number Given), W14 11/09/2011 Archel Road (No Number Given), W14 11/09/2011 62 Barons Court Road, W14 27/08/2011 Kensington Hall Gardens Ltd 03/10/2011 Flat 2, Kensington Hall Gardens, Beaumont Avenue, W14 20/10/2011 Flat 2, Kensington Hall Gardens, Beaumont Avenue, W14 20/10/2011 Flat 7, Kensington Hall Gardens, Beaumont Avenue, W14 27/09/2011 Flat 54, Kensington Hall Gardens, Beaumont Avenue, W14 05/09/2011 Kensington Hall Gardens (No Number Given), Beaumont Avenue, W14 15/10/2011 Kensington Hall Gardens (No Number Given), Beaumont Avenue, W14 24/10/2011 26 West Kensington Mansions, Beaumont Crescent, W14 29/02/2012 26 West Kensington Mansions, Beaumont Crescent, W14 29/02/2012 27 West Kensington Mansions, Beaumont Crescent, W14 28/10/2011 6 Beltran Road, SW6 11/03/2012 10 Rugby Mansions, Bishop Kings Road, W14 27/09/2011 15 Rugby Mansions, Bishop Kings Road, W14 17/03/2012 16 Bovingdon Road, SW6 08/03/2012 128 Brompton Park Crescent, SW6 25/07/2011 240 Brompton Park Crescent, SW6 09/09/2011 240 Brompton Park Crescent, SW6 12/04/2012 Brompton Park Crescent (No Number Given) 06/04/2012 14 Caithness Road, W14 08/03/2012 12 Broomhouse Dock, Carnwath Road, SW6 08/03/2012 3 Challoner Crescent, W14 23/08/2011 43 Charleville Road, W14 31/08/2011 32 Charleville Mansions, Charleville Road, W14 05/09/2011 Flat 19, Charleville Court, Charleville Road, W14 28/09/2011 4a Chesson Road, W14 13/09/2011 6 Chesson Road, W14 09/09/2011 6 (garden flat) Chesson Road, W14 09/09/2011 57 Chesson Road, W14 16/09/2011 13 Collet Gardens, W14 09/03/2012 26 Comeragh Road, W14 30/11/2011 Flat 7, 79 Comeragh Road, W14 14/09/2011 103 Dawes Road, SW6 06/09/2011

3 Regal Court, Dawe s Road, SW6 06/04/2012 6 Regal Court, Dawes Road, SW6 05/09/2011 45 West Kensington Court, Edith Villas, W14 17/09/2011 1 Harwood Mansions, Effie Road, SW6 09/09/2011 7a (basement flat) Empress Place, W14 23/03/2012 4/17 Empress Place, W14 23/09/2011 Empress Place Action Group 13/09/2011 Empress Place Action Group 20/09/2011 SJS Law (on behalf of Empress Place residents) 05/04/2012 SJS Law (on behalf of Empress Place residents) 10/07/2012 1a Fane Street, W14 26/03/2012 23 Fitzgeorge Avenue, W14 30/08/2011 63 Fitzgeorge Avenue, W14 27/08/2011 419 Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions, 446 Fulham Road, SW6 21/03/2012 Chelsea Footbal Club, Fulham Road, SW6 14/11/2011 10 Gledstanes Road, W14 10/09/2011 Flat 1, 26 Gledstanes Road, W14 26/08/2011 53 Gunterstone Road, W14 05/02/2012 55 (basement flat) Gunterstone Road, W14 13/09/2011 70 Hartismere Road, SW6 29/09/2011 2 Hildyard Road, SW6 21/09/2011 Flat B, 9 Hildyard Road, SW6 25/09/2011 Imperial Studios, SW6 12/03/2012 14 Arundel Mansions, Kelvedon Road, SW6 30/09/2011 48 Kenyon Street, SW6 07/03/2012 22 Knivet Road, SW6 20/09/2011 45 Lily Close, W14 30/09/2011 30 Lillie Road, SW6 01/09/2011 32 Lillie Road, SW6 01/09/2011 32 Lillie Road, SW6 14/12/2011 32 Lillie Road, SW6 27/07/2012 48 Lillie Road, SW6 01/09/2011 85 Lillie Road, SW6 13/09/2011 86a Lillie Road, SW6 30/09/2011 86a Lillie Road, SW6 30/09/2011 86c Lillie Road, SW6 30/09/2011 86c Lillie Road, SW6 30/09/2011 86c Lillie Road, SW6 30/09/2011 90 Lillie Road, SW6 22/09/2011 135 Lillie Road, SW6 30/08/2011 31 Beaufort Court, 49 Lillie Road, SW6 06/04/2012 35 Beaufort Court, 49 Lillie Road, SW6 17/03/2012 193 Jim Griffiths House, Clem Attlee Court, Lillie Road, SW6 Sept 2011 Flat 14C, Peabody Estate, SW6 17/07/2012 Flat 17H Peabody Estate, Lillie Road, W14 14/12/2011 Flat 17 Peabody Estate, Lillie Road, W14 17/07/2012 Flat 28G Peabody Estate, Lillie Road, SW6 04/05/2012 246 Tom Williams House, Clem Attlee Court, Lillie Road, SW6 28/08/2011 4 Micklethwaite Road, SW6 30/09/2011 10 Micklethwaite Road, SW6 05/04/2012 Micklethwaite Road (No Number Given), SW6 05/04/2012 29 Mornington Avenue, W14 15/03/2012 North End Road (No Address Given) 06/04/2012 41 Kelway House, 162 North End Rd, W14 23/08/2011 43 Kelway House, 162 North End Road, W14 06/04/2012

215 North End Road, W14 19/09/2011 299 North End Road, W14 30/09/2011 305a North End Road, W14 30/09/2011 349 North End Road, W14 30/09/2011 351 North End Road, W14 30/09/2011 359 (1/2 nd floor maisonette) North End Road, W14 13/09/2011 Trader North End Road Market 30/09/2011 Trader North End Road Market Undated 4 Faraday Mansions, Queens Club Gardens, W14 30/08/2011 9 Heber Mansions, Queens Club Gardens, W14 07/09/2011 16 Tennyson Mansions, Queens Club Gardens, W14 06/09/2011 20 Yarrell Mansions, Queens Club Gardens, W14 27/08/2011 8 Ricket Street, SW6 21/03/2012 Seagrave Road (No Number Given) 12/04/2012 47 Sedlescombe Road, SW6 02/09/2011 61 Sedlescombe Road, SW6 04/05/2012 12 Sherbrooke Road, SW6 06/04/2012 17 Silverton Road, W6 08/03/2012 20 Stanwick Road, W14 30/08/2011 31a Stanwick Road, W14 01/10/2011 67 Star Road, W14 Dec 2011 5 Cheesemans Terrace, Star Road, W14 16/11/2011 209 Cheesemans Terrace, Star Road, W14 20/03/2012 140 Stephendale Road, SW6 08/03/2012 64 Talgarth Mansions, Talgarth Road, W14 30/09/2011 90 Tamworth Street, SW6 Undated 102 Tamworth Street, SW6 25/09/2011 86c Telephone Place, SW6 30/09/2011 9 Tilton Street, SW6 30/09/2011 3 Turneville Road, W14 16/03/2012 18 Turneville Road, W14 24/08/2011 17 Upper Mall, W6 13/09/2011 27 Walham Grove, SW6 06/09/2011 30 Walham Grove, SW6 20/09/2011 West Kensington (No Address Given), W14 29/08/2011 Andrew Slaughter MP 05/10/2011 Andrew Slaughter MP 06/04/2012 Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats 30/09/2011 Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats 07/04/2012 Kensington Society 09/09/2011 71 Abingdon Villas, W8 08/03/2012 9 Billing Road, SW10 20/09/2011 12 Bolton Garden Mews, SW10 29/09/2011 Flat 5, 11 Bramham Gardens, SW5 12/04/2012 30 Bramham Gardens, SW5 02/04/2012 50 Chesterton Square, W8 08/09/2011 3 Childs Place, SW5 03/04/2012 11 Childs Place, SW5 06/09/2011 11 Child's Place SW5 04/04/2012 12 Child's Street, SW5 04/04/2012 18 Child’s Place, SW5 04/04/2012 114 Cromwell Road, SW7 22/12/2011 Flat 2, 6 Eardley Crescent, SW5 20/03/2012 Flat 2, 6 Eardley Crescent, SW5 23/03/2012 Flat 15, 43 Eardley Crescent, SW5 31/08/2011

Flat 16, 43 Eardley Crescent, SW5 04/04/2012 52 Eardley Cresent SW5 06/04/2012 235A Earls Court Road Residents Association 04/04/2012 Gallery 286, 286 Earl's Court Road, SW5 02/04/2012 Earls Court Road area (no address given) 02/04/2012 1 Herbert Court Mansions, Earls Court Square, SW5 9DH 05/04/2012 13a Wetherby Mansions, Earls Court Square, SW5 11/04/2012 29 Whetherby Mansions, Earls Court Square, SW5 30/08/2011 29 Wetherby Mansions, Earls Court Square, SW5 02/04/2012 7 Earls Court Square, SW5 02/04/2012 Flat 27, 35-37 Earl's Court Square SW5 03/10/2011 Flat 27, 35-37 Earl's Court Square, SW5 06/04/2012 Flat 17, 55 Earls Court Square, SW5 03/04/2012 57 Earl's Court Square, SW5 02/04/2012 Earls Court Resident (no address given) 05/04/2012 The Studio, 59 Ifield Road SW10 (neutral?) Received 26/09/2011 Kempsford Gardens Residents Association SW5 07/09/2011 Kempsford Gardens Residents Association SW5 07/09/2011 Flat D, 7 Kempsford Gardens, SW5 30/08/2011 Flat 1 (basement), 11 Kempsford Gardens, SW5 27/09/2011 18 Kempsford Gardens, SW5 24/08/2011 24 Kempsford Gardens, SW5 02/04/2012 24 Kempsford Gardens, SW5 02/04/2012 Flat 5, 31 Kempsford Gardens, SW5 21/09/2011 Flat 5, 35 Kempsford Gardens SW5 04/05/2012 34 Sybil Thorndike Casson House, Kramer Mews, W8 27/09/2011 Flat 7, 95 Lexham Gardens, W8 (objection?) 29/03/2012 12 Longridge Road, SW5 30/09/2011 12 Longridge Road, SW5 30/08/2012 19 Nassau Road, SW13 27/03/2012 Flat 3, 1 Nevern Place, SW5 11/04/2012 Flat 12, 10 Nevern Square, SW5 05/04/2012 12 Nevern Square, SW5 02/04/2012 16 Nevern Square, SW5 03/04/2012 Flat 26, 27a Nevern Square, SW5 02/04/2012 35 Nevern Square, SW5 02/04/2012 Flat 11, 40-42 Nevern Square, SW5 12/04/2012 47 Nevern Square, SW5 08/09/2011 50 Nevern Square, SW5 16/12/2011 62G Nevern Square, SW5 05/04/2012 Nevern Square (No Number Given), SW5 02/04/2012 Nevern Square (No Number Given), SW5 05/04/2012 Flat 2, Falcon House, 202 Old Brompton Road, SW5 01/09/2011 Flat 1b, 224 Old Brompton Road, SW5 16/09/2011 Flat 1b, 224 Old Brompton Road, SW5 31/03/2012 Flat 1b, 224 Old Brompton Road, SW5 16/09/2011 Flat 5a, The Mansions, 252 Old Brompton Road, SW5 02/04/2012 Old Brompton Road (No Number Given), SW5 04/04/2012 12 Penbroke Road, W8 20/03/2012 52 Penywern Road, SW5 01/04/2012 54a Penywern Road, SW5 31/08/2011 2 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 04/04/2012 Flat 1, 10-11 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 02/04/2012 17 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 01/04/2012 32 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 11/04/2012

32 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 11/04/2012 48 Philbeach Gardens (ground floor flat), SW5 26/09/2011 48 Philbeach Gardens (ground floor flat), SW5 05/04/2012 68 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 30/09/2011 68 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 15/09/2011 69 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 02/04/2012 Flat 1, 83 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 08/05/2012 89h Philbeach Gardens, SW5 29/09/2011 Flat 5, 75 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 29/08/2011 Flat 4, 100 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 08/09/2011 24 Redcliffe Close, SW5 02/04/2012 59 Redcliffe Close, SW5 02/04/2012 59 Redcliffe Close, SW5 02/04/2012 36 Redcliffe, SW10 20/09/2011 2 Redcliffe Place SW10 (1/2 nd floor flat) 07/09/2011 2 Redcliffe Place SW10 07/04/2012 Flat 7, 27 Redcliffe Square, SW10 31/08/2011 Flat 6, 30 Redcliffe Square, SW10 24/08/2011 23 Redcliffe Street (ground floor flat), SW10 27/08/2011 62 Scarsdale Villas, W8 01/10/2011 Kensington Mansions Residents' Association, SW5 14/04/2012 14 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 30/09/2011 16 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 04/04/2012 23a Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 30/09/2011 49 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 26/09/2011 49 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 03/04/2012 49 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 09/07/2012 49 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 25/07/2012 49 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 14/08/2012 50 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 06/04/2012 51a Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 03/04/2012 51a Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 06/04/2012 63 Kensington Mansions, Trebovir Road, SW5 02/04/2012 Kensington Mansions (no number given), Trebovir Road, SW5 01/09/2011 Kensington Mansions (no number given), Warwick Road, SW5 03/04/2012 Flat 3, 107 Warwick Road, SW5 27/09/2011 10 Westgate Terrace (basement flat), SW10 10/04/2012 SW5 (No Address Given) 02/04/2012 Earls Court Resident (No Address Given) 05/04/2012 No Address Given 20/09/2011 No Address Given 23/01/2012 No Address Given 05/04/2012 No Address Given 03/04/2012 No Address Given 02/04/2012 No Address Given 02/04/2012 No Address Given 05/04/2012 No Address Given Received 03/04/2012 Councillor Linda Wade, Earls Court Ward 30/09/2011 Councillor Linda Wade, Earl’s Court Ward 06/04/2012 GLA 04/11/2011 GLA 07/12/2011 GLA 14/12/2011 GLA 03/05/2012 English Heritage 19/06/2012 English Heritage (Archaeology) 12/07/2012

English Heritage (Archaeology) 17/08/2012 Environement Agency 29/09/2011 Environment Agency 02/04/2012 Environment Agency 09/07/2012 Environment Agency 08/08/2012 Thames Water 17/07/2012 London Fire Brigade 17/04/2012 The Twentieth Century Society 27/09/2012 Natural England 24/10/2011 Natural England 30/03/2012 Natural England 20/07/2012 Natural England 10/08/2012 CPRE 28/09/2011 CPRE 12/04/2012 Open Spaces Society 28/09/2011 The Theatres Trust 14/10/2011 The Theatres Trust 13/04/2012 Sport England 23/09/2011 Sport England 26/09/2011 Disability Forum (Viewing Meeting - notes) 26/09/2011 LB Richmond 15/09/2011 LB Richmond 10/10/2011 LB Richmond 01/05/2012 Network Rail 16/08/2011 Network Rail 03/01/2012 The Archdeacon of Middlesex 28/09/2011 CBRE (on behalf of CFC) 30/09/2011 CGMS (on Behalf of Met Police) 30/09/2011 CGMS (on Behalf of Met Police) 12/10/2011 CGMS (on Behalf of Met Police) 25/05/2012 CGMS (on Behalf of Met Police) 10/07/2012 DPP (on behalf of Spen Hill Developments Ltd & Tesco Stores Ltd) 27/09/2011 Lambert Smith Hampton (on behalf of Spen Hill Developments Ltd) 05/04/2012 Association of Event Organisers (AEO) 08/09/2011 Association of Event Organisers 22/09/2011 Diversified Business Communications UK, Brighton (Member of AEO) 23/09/2011 Diversified Business Communications UK, Brighton 23/09/2011 Diversified Business Communications UK, Brighton 06/10/2011 Montgomery (Member of AEO) 23/09/2011 Emap Connect (Member of AEO) 26/09/2011 Mack Brooks Exhibitions Ltd, St Albans 12/12/2011 William Reed Business Media, Crawley (Member of AEO) 03/10/2011 Reed Exhibitions, Richmond (Member of AEO) 10/10/2011 Informa Exhibitions 12/12/2011 ESP Events Ltd, Poole Received 23/04/2012 European Convention Bureau, London 18/04/2012 Earls Court & Olympia Ltd 23/04/2012 18 Owen Waters House, 380 Fullwell Avenue, Ilford 27/09/2011 Founthill Road, Rottingdean, Brighton 26/11/2011 NAG – (Tracy Thompson) 04/05/2012 No Address Given 30/08/2011 40 Camden Gardens, NW1 04/04/2012

OFFICERS' REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND Notification of Decision and Referral of the Application 1.1 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The council has sent the Environmental Statement to the Secretary of State, as well as subsequent additional environmental information received (see regulation 13 and 19 in the table at paragraph 3.4 of the report) together with the planning application documents. Where an Environmental Impact Assessment application is determined by the local planning authority, the authority shall in writing inform the Secretary of State of the decision.

1.2 Under the terms of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Greater London Authority has been notified as the application is within the thresholds of potential strategic importance to London.

1.3 The Mayor of London formally considered the proposal on 7 December 2011 and issued a Stage 1 report. The contents of this report have been considered by both the applicant and the Council and there have been discussions with the officers of the GLA and TfL to ensure that their concerns and comments have been properly addressed as far as is reasonably practicable.

1.4 The application will be referred back to the Mayor of London prior to the issue of any decision notice. The Mayor has a period of 14 days from the date of notification to consider the Council's resolution before issuing a decision.

Context 1.5 The Earls Court development site is within the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. The Opportunity Area comprises 37.2 hectares of land split between the London Borough of Hammersmith (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. (RBKC). The Opportunity Area incorporates land within the Earls Court Ward (RBKC), the North End Ward (LBHF) and the Fulham Broadway Ward (LBHF).

1.6 The development site occupies an area of approximately 32.22 hectares and is located in both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). The site is bounded to the north by the West Cromwell Road, to the east by Philbeach Gardens, Eardley Crescent and Warwick Road, to the south by Lillie Road and to the west by North End Road.

1.7 The comprehensive regeneration of the site is proposed by two planning applications. The first, described as Application 1 in the application material has been submitted to RBKC and has a site area of 9.06 hectares. The second submitted to LBHF, Application 2, has a site area of 23.16 hectares.

Administrative Issues 1.8 The LBHF and RBKC administrative boundary bisects the site along the north/south axis from Lillie Road to West Cromwell Road. Application 2, has been submitted to LBHF in respect of a site which lies on both LBHF and RBKC land.

1.9 Both Application 1 and Application 2 are submitted in outline form and the documents submitted with both planning applications seek to fix the maximum and minimum amount of development in terms of content, layout and form by way of the

use of plot based parameter plans. The plot based parameter plans proscribe the maximum and minimum development envelopes of each of the development plots.

1.10 The alignment of the planning application boundary ensures that each plot is included wholly within either Application 1 or Application 2. However, this has resulted in two small parcels of land which are within the administrative boundary of RBKC being included within Application 2 which has been submitted to LBHF.

1.11 To enable LBHF to determine Application 2 in its entirety RBKC has to delegate this function to LBHF and LBHF has to accept the delegation. Such an arrangement is permissible under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. A meeting of the full council of RBKC 12 October 2011 approved delegating this function. A meeting of the full council of LBHF on the 27 October 2011 accepted the delegation by RBKC to determine that part of an outline planning application (known as Application 2) where the site falls on RBKC land.

1.12 Taking on RBKC’s functions in respect of RBKC land means that, when determining the application, members of the planning applications committee must have regard to RBKC’s development plan policies as part of the statutory development plan, where relevant. Given the extent of the development that falls on RBKC land, the position and nature of the application, it is not considered that such a procedure will be overly burdensome, cumbersome or confusing.

1.13 The development plots to which RBKC policies apply are: BWO7 - residential with retail use and/or leisure and community/culture use BW05 - residential with retail use and/or leisure and community/culture use BW03 – residential and retail use WK03 – residential and retail use together with either office, private hospital and/or hotel uses.

Development Scenarios 1.14 The two planning applications give rise to the possibility of different development options. The options are • Applications 1 and 2 combined • Application 1 only

The council has to consider and determine Application 2 and the report considers and assesses the impacts arising from this application. However, in some instances, as identified in section 4 of the report, it is not possible to consider the application in isolation and an assessment has been carried out of the impacts of Applications 1 and 2 combined. In those instances, such an assessment is considered appropriate given the nature of the two applications and the Applicant’s submission and officers’ view that Application 2 can only realised if Application 1 is developed. The assessment of the traffic impacts is an example of this, where it is considered that an assessment of the site-wide impacts is more appropriate and gives the decision maker a more realistic view of the likely impacts.

Proposed Floorspace for Site Wide Development Option (Applications 1 and 2)

Land Use Use Maximum Floorspace Class GIA (sqm) GEA (sqm) Residential C3 718,465 756,279

Business B1 94,408 97,833 Retail A1-5 25,797 26,732 Hotel & Serviced C1 15,748 16,319 Apartments Education / Health D1 / D2 30,712 31,827 / Community / Culture / Leisure Private Hospital C2 10,208 10,578 Sub-total 895,338 939,568 Ancillary - 171,795 177,884

Stabling Sui 10,840 11,175 generis Total 1,077,973 1,128,627

1.15 The applicant’s intention is to implement fully both planning applications for the site. The applicant also wants to retain the potential for Application 1 to be implemented in its own right as a stand alone development. The applicant due to the nature of the development does not propose to implement Application 2 on a stand alone basis.

1.16 Not all of the existing Earls Court Exhibition Centre lies within the red line application boundary of Application 1. The implementation of Application 1 development option however assumes the demolition of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre in its entirety.

The Earls Court Site 1.17 The application site is dominated by the Earls Court Exhibition Centres and the Empress State Building which are all large scale buildings and are widely visible in the area. The Earls Court Exhibition Centre comprises the Exhibition Centre building, EC1 located in RBKC and Earls Court Exhibition Hall 2 Building, EC2 located in LBHF. The buildings occupy a triangular parcel of land of approximately 10.5 hectares and combined have approximately 3.6ha of exhibition space. The maximum height is equivalent to 18 stories. Both Earls Court buildings are on a steel and concrete slab constructed on a series of concrete pillars over a network of rail and underground lines.

1.18 The 31 storey Empress State Building is sited immediately to the west of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre. The building is currently occupied by the Metropolitan Police. Adjacent to Empress State Building is a bus turning and waiting facility accessed from Lillie Road. It comprises a layover area for upto 4 buses and toilet facilities for the use of drivers.

1.19 To the north west of Earls Court 1 is an area of land identified by the developer as the Northern Access Road between the rear of Philbeach Gardens and the West London Line. It has an area of approximately 0.94 hectares and is currently unused and covered in scrub.

1.20 To the north of Earls Court 2, the Lillie Bridge Depot covers an area of 7.3ha. The depot is currently used as a maintenance facility by London Underground Ltd and comprises marshalling yards and engineering workshops. Ashfield House is a 10 storey office building on the northern edge of the site and is used as a training facility.

1.21 The West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates lie to the west of the Earls Court Exhibition Centres The estates occupy an area of 8.9 hectares.

1.22 The West Kensington estate includes residential towers of 9, 10 and 11 storeys along with low rise flats maisonettes and terraced houses. The estate comprises 463 flats and maisonettes and 141 terraced houses. There are 463 socially rented dwellings, 89 leasehold and 39 freehold. The blocks are of traditional construction with reinforced concrete frames, brick cladding, and flat asphalt roofs. The houses are traditional cavity brick construction with either tiled or shiplap cladding and predominantly pitched roofs.

1.23 The Gibbs Green Estate has 98 dwellings. There are 56 socially rented dwellings and 42 leasehold. The blocks are of traditional construction with reinforced concrete frames and brick cladding. The original flat roofs were replaced with new pitched roofs in 2003.

1.24 Within the estates are a number of Housing Association homes. Family Mosaic own 42 homes in Dieppe Close, Lerry Close and Thaxton Road. London and Quadrant own 9 properties in Aisgill Avenue and Marchbank Road. Shepherd Bush Housing Association own 7 properties in Garsdale Terrace. The estates also includes Gibbs Green school currently being used by the Queensmill Special School, the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Tenant Halls and an empty nursery building.

1.25 In the north west area of the site is the West Kensington Station. Although not statutory listed, it is locally listed as a Building of Merit and falls within the Barons Court Conservation area. Also in the north west part of the site is 175- 177 North End Road. This is a small parade of two storey terraced properties with retail uses at ground floor with residential accommodation above. These properties are also within the Barons Court Conservation Area.

1.26 The Rootstein Mannequin factory is located to the north west of the site off Beaumont Avenue. It is a two storey commercial property which is used for the production of display mannequins.

1.27 Although within the general application red line boundary formed by the adjoining roads and rail line a number of existing properties are specifically excluded from the application site. These are the Famous Three Kings public house in the north west corner, the residential properties and mansion blocks of Beaumont Avenue and Beaumont Crescent, numbers 205 - 225 North End Road, including West Kensington Mansions, the Seven Stars public house. To the south of the site the following properties are also excluded. Those in the south west corner of the site, including 297 - 31 North End Road, 82 -86 D Lillie Road including the surgery), the telephone exchange and the Holiday Inn Express Hotel and carpark off Thaxton Road. Those around Empress Place, 7 - 17 Empress Place, Prince of Wales public house, 4 - 26 Lillie Road, the terrace of 62 - 68 Lillie Road and the adjoining terrace of 28 - 60 Lillie Road

1.28 There are distinctive changes in ground level within the application site. This is largely a result of the underground and railway infrastructure. There is a

significant change in ground level from the east of the site to the west so as to provide clearance over the West London line. The ground level is highest under Earls Court 1 where the District Line passes under. There is also a significant drop in ground levels along the northern edge from the A4 flyover in the north east to the traffic junction in the north west. The western branch of the District Line to Ealing and Richmond is contained within a steep cutting that runs along the northern boundary.

Site Designations 1.29 The application site is within the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area as defined by the London Plan (2011). The site is also in Flood Zone 3 as identified by the Environment Agency, an area of high flood risk.

1.30 The following designated heritage assets are partly located within the application boundary. • Barons Court Conservation Area; a small part at its eastern edge lies within the site including West Kensington Station,175 - 177, 179 – 225 North End Road, 1 - 45 Kensington Hall Mansions and 1-8 Gibbs Green, 3 - 9,2 - 12 Beaumont Crescent and 1 - 54 West Kensington Mansions. • Gunter Estate Conservation Area; a small section of road and pavement along West Cromwell Road and North End Road on its south eastern edge are within the application boundary.

1.31 On Lillie Road to the south of the application site is the Grade II listed terrace of 62 - 68 Lillie Road. The adjacent terrace 30 - 60 Lillie Road is a local building of merit. There are eighteen conservation areas in and around the Opportunity Area.

Trees 1.32 The site contains a range of existing tree species of varying ages and quality. There are TPO trees to the rear of 175 – 177 North End Road. The trees on the site are comprised of, London Planes, Limes, False Acacia, Cherry and a variety of Maple species including Sycamore. A number of the trees surveyed are suffering from a leaf scale disease and a number of the trees, in particular those within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates, have bark damage to the lower trunk and branches.

Surrounding Area 1.33 The area surrounding the application site is largely residential in character. To the north and east, building heights are generally between four and seven storeys and comprise a large number of Victorian terraced housing of upto five storeys in height. To the east along Warwick Road and adjoining streets there are a large number of mansion blocks of upto eight storeys in height.

1.34 To the south east the area is characterised by grids of streets that follow an east west orientation and comprise largely of terraced streets. Within the area there are also more contemporary apartment buildings of predominantly four to six storeys in height. The Brompton Cemetery is located to the south east of the site. The cemetery is designated as Metropolitan Open Land, Grade I in the Register of Parks & Gardens of Special Historic Interest and within the Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area. The Cemetery includes a number of listed buildings and structures. The main entrance to the Cemetery is at its northern end, from Old Brompton Road via a Grade II* listed triumphal arch. The chapel and arcades are separately listed (Grade II*) and the Cemetery also contains a number of monuments, seven of which are also listed (Grade II)

1.35 The area to the south west of the site is characterised by a large number of Victorian east west orientated streets. These comprise terraced properties and mansion blocks which are concentrated around Queens Club Gardens.

1.36 West Cromwell Road (A4) forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and is an important trunk road within west London. Warwick Road to the east forms part of the TLRN and Earls Court one way system. The West Cromwell Road bridge is immediately to the north west of the site and there is an existing Tesco store and residential tower. To the north and west are large buildings of typically up to eight storeys in height with large footprints comprising a mixture of residential and commercial uses.

1.37 The site benefits from a range of public transport services. Earl’s Court station is to the east and is served by the District and Piccadilly lines. West Brompton station is to the south and is served by the Wimbledon branch of the District line and London Overground and Southern rail services. The station is designated as a strategic interchange in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. West Kensington station is to the north west and is served by the Ealing Broadway and Richmond branches of the District Line. There are also a wide variety of bus routes which can be accessed from the site. The routes are 9, 10, 27, 28, 74, 190, 328, 391, 430, C1 and C3.

1.38 At present the site is considered to lack permeability and it is severed by the District and West London Lines. The part of the site adjacent to Earl’s Court station has a public transport accessibility (PTAL) level of 6 on a scale of 1-6 where 6 is the highest and 1 is the lowest. Across the remainder of the site the PTAL ranges from 2-6.

The Design Guidelines provide a framework of rules for the later detailed design of development within each development plot. The guidelines contain more detail than the Parameter Plans demonstrating how buildings, open space and streets should be designed. The guidelines are expressed to be either mandatory or non-mandatory. It is intended that non mandatory guidelines are illustrative of a potential design approach but are not required to be followed when reserved matters are submitted.

Planning History 1.39 An overview of the site’s relevant planning history is set out in the table:

YEAR Earls Court Exhibition Centres Planning History 1992 In December 1992 a planning application (TP/92/1920) was submitted by Earls Court Ltd to RBKC for the construction of the Earls Court Link Road with lorry and coach parking provision, between Warwick Road and Earls Court including the former railway sidings and coach park rear of Fenelon Place, Cluny Mews and Philbeach Gardens. 1993- In 5 March 1993 an application for outline planning permission 1996 (TP/93/0434) was submitted to RBKC by Tesco Stores Ltd to develop the Fenelon Place/Warwick Road site for retail foodstore, housing, offices, leisure, coach/lorry park, the construction of part of the Earls Court Northern Access Road. In April 1994 RBKC considered both applications jointly and granted permission subject to the completion of appropriate agreements under Sec 106. In May 1996 planning permission ref (TP/93/0434) was issued 2008 In December 2008 a planning application was submitted for the provision of access road and associated area for marshalling and parking of vehicles to service Earls Court Exhibition Centre and construction of

acoustic barrier and associated works (PP/08/03398). Planning permission was granted on 23 November 2010 Lillie Bridge Depot 1988 A planning application was submitted for the erection of new points and crossing workshop and maintenance shed the widening of the roadway and provision of a turning head. Planning permission was granted in February 1988. 1989 A planning application was submitted for the erection of part single part two storey building to provide storage messrooms and offices ancillary to the London Underground maintenance depot together with 15 car parking spaces and a loading bay. Planning permission was granted in July. 1990 A planning application was submitted for the erection of a part two part single storey building to provide storage mess rooms and offices ancillary to London Underground maintenance depot together with 15 car parking spaces and a loading bay. The planning application was approved in February 1990. 1990 A planning application was submitted for the erection of a single storey building for the storage of flammable materials. Planning permission was granted on 2 July 1990. Empress State Building 1998 A planning application was submitted for the change of use to a hotel (ClassC1 Use) accommodating 513 bedrooms, with extensions to the building at ground and first floor levels to provide additional floorspace of 5958 metres to incorporate ancillary facilities including restaurant, health/leisure, conference facilities and public reception/circulation space, plant and the provision for 125 car parking spaces and 7 coach parking spaces. The planning applicator lapsed and was withdrawn in October 2002. 2001 A planning application was submitted in 2001 for the Re-cladding and extension of the Empress State Building for offices and ancillary use; infilling of the ground floor and extension at ground and first floor level to provide ancillary areas for use as staff restaurant/cafe, computer room, plant and storage areas; entrance canopy and reception to the building; an extension to the office area at the front of the building on the third to twenty sixth floors and the enlargement of the building at roof level to provide an additional office floor and two ancillary floors for use as meeting rooms exhibition and event space, bar and observation area for use by the occupiers of the building (additional gross office floor area to the main building is12,565 square metres); the erection of a three storey building comprising 304 square metres at the Lillie Road entrance to the site with ground floor retail/financial and professional use (Class A1/A2) and offices (Class B1) above; a further two storey building incorporating a health club (Class D2) of1590 square metres and restaurant (Class A3) of 324 square metres around a new piazza area in front of the main building and a covered walkway from Lillie Road. The planning application was approved on the 22 February 2002. 2003 A revised planning application was submitted in 2003 for re-cladding and extension of the Empress State Building for offices and ancillary use; infilling on the ground floor and extension at ground and first floor level to provide ancillary areas for uses as staff restaurant/cafe, computer room, plant and storage areas; entrance canopy and reception to the building; an extension to the office area at the front of the building on third to twenty sixth floors and the enlargement of the building at roof level to

provide an additional office floor and two ancillary floors for use as meeting rooms, exhibition and event space, bar and observation area for occupiers of the building; the erection of a three storey building at the Lillie Road entrance to the site with ground floor retail/financial and professional use (A1/A2) and offices (B1) above; a further two storey building incorporating a health club (D2) and restaurant (A3) around a new piazza area in front of the main building and a covered walkway from Lillie Road. Additional gross floor area (B1) to the main building 12,801 sq.m. (excluding basement plant) and 13,137 sq.m. (including basement plant). Entrance building comprises 353 sq.m. in total. Piazza building comprises 1654 sq.m.(D2) and 345 sq.m. (A3): installation of six illuminated rings around the mast to the main building together with 15 additional roof uplights.(Variation of scheme approved 22nd February 2002 RN. 2001/1503/P). The application was approved on 17 November 2003

1.40 The West Kensington Estate was built between 1972 and 1974. The Housing Association developments throughout the two estates have been developed piecemeal over the past 20 years, with the sites sold on long leases to the housing associations.

1.41 The Gibbs Green Estate was built in 1961. An eight-storey block of 62 sheltered units was demolished in 2001 and the site redeveloped by Family Housing Association.

Application Proposal 1.42 The outline planning application seeks approval at this stage for access, for the maximum amount of development identified in the plot based parameter plans and for the various land uses. Details relating to scale, layout, appearance and landscaping will be considered at a later date. The application meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 by providing additional information: whilst scale is reserved the application states the upper and lower limit for the height, width and length of the buildings, whilst layout is reserved, the application states the approximate location of buildings, routes and open spaces. The revised application is considered to provide sufficient information about the likely design to allow officers to judge the significant environmental effects of the proposal as well as discharge the authority’s duty to properly understand the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the conservation areas and listed buildings. A further explanation of this is set out in the sections on the environmental statement and design.

1.43 The main plans and documents submitted for approval fix the content, layout and form of development. • The Access Plans define the proposed access points and junctions into the site from the surrounding roads and include proposed improvements to existing streets and junctions. • The Development Specification describes the main elements of the proposal and includes a description of each planning application document. • The Parameter Plans divide the application site into a series of separate development plots split by key streets and open spaces. The Parameter Plans set out the proposed limit and constraints of each individual development plot within which the further detailed proposals would have to be contained. They set out the maximum and minimum height, width and length of the development plot. The Parameter Plans also set out the location of

principal open space areas, the hierarchy of primary and secondary routes and the maximum area of below ground/basement space. Each plot has an individual reference number which is used throughout the application material to provide information about what might happen in each individual plot. • The Design Guidelines provide a framework of rules for the later detailed design of development within each development plot. The guidelines contain more detail than the Parameter Plans demonstrating how buildings, open space and streets should be designed.

1.44 At this stage planning permission is only being sought for these plans and documents. The mandatory clauses of the Design Guidelines form part of the documents being sought for approval. Detailed designs will be the subject of further planning applications.

1.45 In addition to these documents, the applicant has submitted a Townscape, Conservation and Visual Impact Assessment in 3 volumes. The Townscape Assessment seeks to assess the impact of the proposal in townscape terms. It does so by reference to colour coded wire lines which identify the proposed maximum extent of the built development on the development plots and by reference to a proposed masterplan illustrative scheme.

1.46 The masterplan represents an illustrative development massing which fits within the parameter envelope and accords with the design guidelines. It can therefore be taken to be a more realistic representation of the development massing than the maximum parameter proposal.

1.47 A new east/west route described in the application material as the High Street and a new north/south route, described as the Broadway divide the proposed development into four areas. The development plots with GEA floorspace identified by their reference number within each area are:

North East Plots -WK03 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level together with either commercial (B1), private hospital (C2) and/or hotel (C1) uses at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 40,485m2. The range of building heights is between 31.5m and 53m AOD (height above sea level). Indicative storey heights are between 2 and 10 storeys measured from street level.

-BW01 Mixed use development including residential (C3) and commercial (B1) uses with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 50,299m2. The range of building heights is between 33-69m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 6-16 storeys measured from street level.

-BW03 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) uses with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level.. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 53,004m2. The range of building heights is between 33-59.5m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 6-14 storeys measured from street level.

-BW05 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and/or commercial (B1) and D1 use at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 85,130m2. The range of building heights is between 40-80.75m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 8-21 storeys measured from street level.

South East Plot -BW07 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level, commercial use (B1) at ground and upper levels and leisure use (D2) and/or D1 use below and above ground. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 59,894m2. The range of building heights is between 13.3m-64.5m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 2-16 storeys measured from street level.

South West Plots -BW06 Mixed use development. The principal land uses would be commercial (B1) and community / culture (D1) with residential use (C3) at ground and upper levels and leisure use (D2) at ground level. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 45,023m2. The range of building heights is between 12.8m-45.1m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 3-9 storeys measured from street level.

-NE04 Residential development (C3). The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 10,592m2. The range of building heights is between 14.2m-29.7m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 3-7 storeys measured from street level.

-NE05 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and D1 use at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 35,867m2. The range of building heights is between 23.2m-39.7m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 5-10 storeys measured from street level.

-NE06 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and/or commercial (B1) and D1 use at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 62,034m2. The range of building heights is between 14.2m-106.1m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 3-28 storeys measured from street level.

North West Plots WKO1 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and commercial (B1) and/or hotel (C1) uses at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 21,958m2. The range of building heights is between 20.2-36.7m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 5-9 storeys measured from street level.

WKO2 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be commercial (B1) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and residential (C3), hotel (C1) and/or private hospital (C2) uses at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 31,812m2. The range of building heights is between 34.5-57.3m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 7-12 storeys measured from street level.

NE01 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and / or D1 use at ground and upper levels. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 66,495m2. The range of building heights is between 8.2-38.7m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 2-10 storeys measured from street level.

NE02 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level and/or commercial use (B1) at ground and upper levels The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 43,036m2. The range of building heights is between 31.2-57.5m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 8-15 storeys measured from street level.

NE03 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 37,900m2. The range of building heights is between 23.2-41.7m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 6-11 storeys measured from street level.

BW02 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be residential (C3) with retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 50,726m2. The range of building heights is between 31.2-53.9m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 8-15 storeys measured from street level.

BW04 Mixed use development. The principal land use would be commercial (B1) with residential use (C3) at ground and upper levels and retail use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) at ground level. The maximum amount of floorspace proposed is 77,043m2. The range of building heights is between 41.6-106.1m AOD. Indicative storey heights are between 1-28 storeys measured from street level.

1.48 The maximum floorspace figures (GEA) for each category of land use proposed are:

Residential 617,940m2 Office 84,701m2 Retail 23,318m2 Hotel /Serviced Apartments 8,938m2 Private Hospital 10,578m2

Education/Health/Community Culture 25,760m2 Ancillary (parking, servicing, plant, storage, 150,421m2 maintenance, machinery and circulation predominantly at ground and basement levels) New Depot 11,175m2 TOTAL 932,831m2

Highway Works 1.49 The application seeks permission to carry out the following works to the existing highways and the creation of new site access roads. • Improvements to Old Brompton Road & Lillie Road • Access to and egress from the development via a new a new signalised junction located on the A4 West Cromwell Road between North End Road and Warwick Road improvements to Old Brompton Road & Lillie Road

Conservation Area Consent 1.50 A parallel application ref 2011/2002 for conservation area consent has also been submitted for the demolition of the following properties and structures within the application site that are located within the Barons Court Conservation Area. • 175-177 North End Road • 1-8 Gibbs Green • Brick wall to the north of West Kensington Underground Station.

Application Documentation 1.51 The documents submitted for the planning application in June 2011 were: Development Specification Parameter Plans Access Plans Community Engagement Report Design and Access Statement Design Guidelines Planning Statement Environmental Statement, comprising: • Non-Technical Summary • Volume 1: Main Technical Chapters • Volume 2: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment) • Volume 3: Technical Appendices Transport Assessment Retail and Leisure Assessment Office Assessment Housing Statement Sustainability Strategy Energy Strategy Waste Strategy Utilities and Services Infrastructure Strategy Cultural Strategy Estate Management Strategy

1.52 The Conservation Area Consent Application documents were: Plans and Drawings Design and Access Statement Planning Statement

Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment)

Planning Application Amendments 1.53 Following receipt of consultation responses and the initial appraisal of the planning application documents, the applicant submitted amendments and changes to both the planning application material and the Environmental Statement. In March 2012 further information was submitted by the applicant along with other amendments which were subject to further consultation.

1.54 Overview of revisions to planning application 2 Land Use Use Class Maximum Floorspace GEA (sqm) Revised Difference from June Residential C3 617,940 +3,996 Business B1 84,701 -20,064 Retail A1-5 23,318 -2,412 Hotel & Serviced Apartments C1 8,938 +428 Education / Health / Community D1 / D2 25,760 -3,598 / Culture / Leisure

Private Hospital C2 10,578 -1,109 Sub-total 771,235 -23,181 Ancillary - 150,421 +12,181

Stabling Sui 11,175 +970 generis Total 932,831 -10,030

a) The amount of development has been reduced from 942,861sqm. b) The proposed total number of residential units has been increased from 5,759 to 5,845. c) The scale and massing of the proposed development has been reduced and is more tightly controlled through changes to the Parameter Plans and Design Guidelines.

1.55 The following documents supersede the original versions that formed part of the June 2011 submission in relation to Applications 1 and 2: • Development Specification (December 2011) • Parameter Plans (December 2011) • Access Plans (December 2011) • Design Guidelines (December 2011) • Transport Assessment (December 2011)

1.56 The following documents form addendums to the corresponding non- superseded documents submitted in June 2011. They are part of the submission for both planning applications and should be read in conjunction with the corresponding documents that formed part of the original submission: • Design and Access Statement Addendum (December 2011) • Environmental Statement Addendum for Application 2 consisting of: -Non-Technical Summary Addendum (December 2011) -Environmental Statement: Volume 1 Addendum (December 2011) -Environmental Statement: Volume 2 Addendum (December 2011) -Environmental Statement: Volume 3 Addendum (December 2011) • Retail and Leisure Assessment Addendum (December 2011) • Office Assessment Addendum (December 2011) • Cultural Strategy Addendum (December 2011) • Energy Strategy Addendum (December 2011) • Community Engagement Report Addendum (December 2011) • Planning Statement Addendum (December 2011)

1.57 The following documents are new documents submitted in support of both Applications 1 and 2: • Internal Daylight and Sunlight Report – Illustrative Design Guide (December 2011).

1.58 In June 2012 further amendments were submitted by the applicants. An Addendum Report in relation to the testing of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing and solar glare was submitted. This took account of the recently published BRE Guidelines (2011). The Addendum Report should be read in conjunction with the previously submitted Environmental Statement of December 2011. An amended set of Parameter Plans was also submitted.

1.60 In July 2012 further information in relation to the Environmental Statement was submitted by the Applicant. This was a further daylight and sunlight report assessing the daylight/sunlight impacts on estates properties during the phased development. The further information was subject to further consultation.

1.61 In August 2012, a Phasing Plan and Development Parcel Plan was submitted. The Applicant also submitted a letter confirming how the application affected the Empress State Building.

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION

2.1 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

2.1.1 The Planning Statement (PS) submitted in support of the current planning application states that the form of the proposed development and specific technical issues have been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions with Council officers (H&F and RBKC), the GLA and English Heritage (EH). In addition, it states that detailed discussions have also taken place with Transport for London (TfL), London Underground Limited (LUL) and other relevant organisations, including Network Rail.

2.1.2 The PS goes on to state that the form and content of the proposed development has evolved as a result of these discussions, as well as a full and

targeted programme of public consultation and community engagement, designed to gain the views of local residents and a wide range of stakeholders.

2.1.3 Full details of the consultation process are set out in the applicant’s Community Engagement Report, which has also been submitted in support of the current application. This report outlines the process undertaken to engage with the public, summarises the response from this engagement, and sets out to explain the way in which the applicant has addressed the issues that have been raised.

2.1.4 Because of the length of the community engagement process it was broken into 5 distinct stages, to be carried out prior to the submission of any planning applications.

2.1.5 The applicant states that from the very start of the process they have aimed to set new standards for community engagement and to be innovative in the methods used to consult and engage with a variety of stakeholders, individuals, organisations and authorities. They submit that they have placed consultation and engagement at the heart of the planning process.

2.1.6 Each stage of consultation was delivered through the following activities: • meetings, briefings and presentations to community and political stakeholders • www.myearlscourt.com, the project website that was developed as a community engagement vehicle and has been constantly updated with news, reports of the project process and community comments • Public exhibitions and drop-ins, each designed to inform and encourage debate and comment

2.1.7 Also, the applicant states that a series of projects were arranged with the two primary schools that are closest to the site during the 2010/2011 academic year (in partnership with the Hammersmith Urban Studies Centre) with the joint aim of curriculum development and to gain the views of children to the proposals.

2.1.8 In summary, the applicant states that they set out clear overarching aims for the community engagement process in October 2009, which included: • Engage all in the community • Listen to and understand the community • Transparency • Innovation and set new standards for public consultation; and • Delivering meaningful feedback.

2.1.9 The first stage of the community engagement programme took place from October to December 2009, and involved meeting community organisations and leaders, introducing the Earls Court team and explaining how local residents could be involved in the master planning process.

2.1.10 The second stage of the programme comprised a series of 7 drop-in sessions held in February and March 2010, which the applicants state were designed to open up the dialogue to the wider community, explain the vision of the Earls Court proposals and understand the concerns and aspirations of individuals.

2.1.11 A third stage of the programme took place in July 2010, and took the form of 2 public drop-in sessions that concentrated on the master plan process, addressing the creation of a new urban neighbourhood and peacemaking.

2.1.12 The fourth stage of the community engagement programme consisted of 2 drop-in sessions that took place on 10th and 16th November 2010 and concentrated on the emerging master plan concept.

2.1.13 The applicant held a public exhibition over 4 days in March 2011 (Friday 18, Saturday 19, Monday 21 and Tuesday 22 March).

2.1.14 The exhibition was widely advertised through the following means: • Advertisements at West Kensington, West Brompton and Earls Court Underground Stations for two weeks prior to the exhibition being open to the public; • 21,000 postcard invitations distributed door to door to properties in the area; 11 Earls Court Project Application 2 | London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Statement | June 2011 • Advertisements placed in the following local newspapers the week before the opening: a. Hammersmith and Fulham Chronicle b. Westminster Chronicle c. Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle d. Ealing and Acton Gazette e. Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush Gazette f. Fulham Gazette g. Hammersmith and Fulham News • E-newsletter sent to 200 people who have registered with www.myearlscourt.com; and • Invitation postcards sent to around 150 community organisations in both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

2.1.15 A series of previews before the exhibition was opened to the public took place and included the following: • Capital and Counties Properties PLC stakeholder event; • Ward councillors from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; • Local Resident and Amenity Groups including The Earls Court Society, The Fulham Society, The West Cromwell Focus Group and The Friends of Brompton Cemetery; and • Gibbs Green and West Kensington estates Tenants and Residents Associations.

2.1.16 The applicant states that the exhibition was attended by 701 people, as follows: • Friday 18th March – 153 people • Saturday 19th March – 183 people • Monday 21st March – 188 people; and • Tuesday 22nd March – 177 people

2.1.17 The applicant also states that about 300 additional people attended stakeholder and other events at the exhibition.

2.1.18 A further public exhibition took place from 9 th to 11 th June 2011, in order to provide an update on the development proposals and an overview of the content and nature of the planning applications.

2.1.19 The applicant states that they have been in regular consultation with Network Rail and London Underground Limited (via formal meetings and workshops) over the

last two years in order to assess the potential impact and relationship of the development proposals on existing infrastructure.

2.1.20 Furthermore, because of the scale, complexity and phasing of the development, the applicants confirmed that consultation with Network Rail and London Underground Limited will continue throughout the planning application determination period.

2.1.21 In the event that outline planning consent is granted, the applicant states that they propose to commence detailed design and prepare construction methodologies for submission to Network Rail and London Underground Limited for their review and acceptance (in compliance with relevant legislation and standards).

2.1.22 The applicant confirms they are committed to an ongoing process of engagement continuing throughout the planning/development process and into the future during construction and throughout the management of the Earls Court estate.

2.2 CONSULTATION BY THE COUNCIL’S HOUSING & REGENERATION DEPARTMENT

2.2.1 Separate to the consultations undertaken in relation to the planning application, the Council’s Housing and Regeneration Department undertook a formal consultation with residents between 6 January 2012 and 12 March 2012, on whether the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates should be included in the proposed comprehensive redevelopment of the Earls Court area.

2.2.2 A total of approximately 30,000 information packs were distributed to the residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates and residents of the wider area (defined by Hammersmith Road to the North, Fulham Palace Road to the West, New Kings Road to the South and Warwick Road and Finborough Road to the East). The information pack set out four possible options for the Estates. Option 1 involved either making no changes, or transferring the Estates to a housing association or a resident-controlled private registered provider (‘the Stock Transfer Option’). Under Option 2, the Council would continue to own, manage and maintain the Estates, but would seek to develop spare plots of land within the Estates. Option 3 was a redevelopment of the Estates only (i.e. not as part of the comprehensive redevelopment plans). Option 4 was the inclusion of the Estates in the wider redevelopment plans, by way of a Conditional Land Sale Agreement between the Council and EC Properties.

2.2.3 1,427 responses were received from residents. Some of the issues raised through this consultation concerned matters relating to planning. Officers have reviewed and considered these matters as though they were responses to the consultation on the planning application. It should be noted that the main planning issues raised through the housing consultation have also been raised in response to the statutory planning consultations. Responses to the housing consultation were also received from The West Kensington and Gibbs Green Tenant and Residents Association and Andrew Slaughter MP. Both respondents have commented separately as part of the planning application consultations and therefore, their comments on the housing consultation have not been included in the analysis below.

2.2.4 Responses to the housing consultation relating to planning issues generally fell into five categories: Estate redevelopment; Redevelopment of wider area;

Transport; Housing; and Scale of development.

Estate Redevelopment:

2.2.5 692 of respondents objected to the redevelopment of the estates. Of these, 584 were residents of the estates and 108 were residents of the wider area. The principal concerns raised were that the redevelopment would result in the breaking up of a well established community, the condition of the estates is good and therefore does not warrant demolition, the impact of construction and demolition and the concern that new affordable housing would not be ‘affordable’ to most and would price existing residents out of the area. 623 respondents were in support of the redevelopment of the estates. Of these, 175 were residents of the estates and 448 were residents of the surrounding area. The key issues raised in support of the plans to redevelop the estate were that the plans to redevelop the estates will offer greater employment opportunities for residents, will provide benefits to residents who will get a new home, improve living conditions, help to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour on the estates and create a cohesive new neighbourhood.

Redevelopment of the wider area:

2.2.6 43 respondents welcomed the job opportunities created through the proposals for comprehensive development of the area. 33 respondents raised concerns over the impacts of construction over a substantial time period. 19 respondents were keen to see an improvement to the retail offer as a result of comprehensive redevelopment. 18 respondents raised the importance of retaining and preserving North End Market, noting its importance as a community asset. 17 respondents made mention of the need for development to deliver an appropriate quantum and quality of open space to cater for the needs of the development and particularly, the need for development to deliver a new park. 16 respondents requested that development provide appropriate community facilities to cater for the needs of the new population, with specific requests for a youth centre, gym and multi-faith centre. 12 respondents welcomed the increased connectivity that a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the area would provide, particularly noting the benefits in east-west connectivity, providing alternatives to Talgarth Road and Lillie Road. 16 respondents raised the need to the capacity of education and health provision to be increased to meet demand. A further 32 respondents raised concerns about redevelopment resulting in residents of the estates being further away from their existing health and education facilities and 11 respondents made the same point in relation to shops. 8 respondents welcomed the improvements that development would bring to the public realm and particular mention was made of the benefits that a park would bring.

Transport:

2.2.7 41 respondents raised concerns about congestion as a result of the intensification of development. 18 respondents raised concerns about the capacity of the West Kensington, West Brompton and Earl’s Court London Underground stations. 15 respondents were concerned that the quantity of car parking provision would be too low. This appeared to be a particular concern of estate residents who currently benefit from generous car parking provision. 15 respondents mentioned the current ease of access to Underground stations and wanted this to be preserved in the redevelopment, whilst 12 respondents made a similar point in relation to bus stops. 6 respondents welcomed the opportunity that redevelopment could create for

access to bus services. A further 6 respondents welcomed the improvements that redevelopment could create for walking and cycling.

Housing:

2.2.8 28 respondents raised concerns about the affordability of housing. Responses in this category felt that the new development should include social and affordable housing. There was a concern that housing for people on lower incomes would no longer be provided in the area. Some responses mentioned “gentrification”, and “social cleansing”. 2 respondents raised the need for redevelopment to provide for the specific needs of the retired people.

Scale of Development

2.2.9 27 respondents raised concerns about the height of new buildings. A number of responses mentioned “30 storey tower blocks” and expressed concern about the impact on Brompton Cemetery. 17 respondents raised concerns about the design on the new buildings. Respondents made references to the “glass and steel boxes” shown in the artist’s impressions in the information pack. Some felt these proposals looked “soulless” or generic. 16 respondents raised concerns about the density within the redevelopment. There were concerns about density saying there were “too many” new houses within the redevelopment area.

2.3 PLANNING APPLICATION PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS

2.3.1 In addition to the above, the current planning application has been the subject of separate publicity and consultations by the Council as local planning authority, in accordance with statutory requirements.

2.3.2 The original application was advertised by means of press adverts and site notices displayed on and in the immediate vicinity of the application site. In addition, approximately 23,300 individual notification letters were sent to the occupiers of properties in Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) on and around the application site, including the properties on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. In addition, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) was notified of the application as the adjoining borough and they sent a further 17,900 individual notification letters to residents in their own borough. Thus a total of some 41,200 individual letters were sent to properties in H&F and RBKC notifying them of the planning application. Each notification letter included a summary leaflet explaining the proposals in more detail. This first consultation took place between 22 August 2011 and 30 September 2011.

2.3.3 The application has been referred to the Mayor of London (at stage 1) as required by the Mayor of London Order 2008. In addition to the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Transport for London (TfL), a number of other statutory bodies and non-statutory amenity, interest and residents’ groups have also been consulted/notified of the application. These include: English Heritage; English Heritage (archaeology); the Environment Agency, Thames Water; Natural England; Health & safety Executive; London Underground Ltd; Network Rail; London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; Sport England; Civil Aviation Authority; Fulham Society; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Empress Place Action Group; Kensington Hall Gardens Residents’ Association; Gibbs Green Tenants’ and Residents’ Association; West Kensington Residents Association; Friends of Brompton Cemetery; Lb Richmond and LB Wandsworth. The proposals have also been the subject of presentations to the Design Review Panel (DRP).

2.3.4 Subsequent to the above consultations the application was revised. The revisions included amendments and changes to both the planning application material and the Environmental Statement. The revised application was the subject of a second round of consultation between 15 March 2012 and 6 April 2012. This second consultation reflected the procedures and scope of the original consultation in August/September 2011, as outlined above. In this case individual notification letters were also sent to any other persons or organisations that had made representations on the original proposals (23,437 letters to H&F properties). Again a summary leaflet was included with the individual notification letters explaining the proposals and the changes that had been made since the application was originally submitted.

2.3.5 In June 2012 further amendments were submitted by the applicants. These comprised an addendum report in relation to the testing of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing and solar glare, taking into account the most recently published BRE guidelines (2011). An amended set of parameter plans (relating to the plots nearest to Empress Place) were also submitted. These revisions were the subject of a third consultation process between 22 June 2012 and 13 July 2012. In this case however the scale of the consultation process was reduced, reflecting the more localised impact of the changes. More particularly, the revisions were advertised by means of a statutory press advert and site notices, and individual letters were sent to the occupiers of those properties adjoining the application site, and some properties opposite the site (1,181 letters).

2.3.6 More recently, in July 2012 further information in relation to the Environmental Statement was submitted by the applicants. This relates to an assessment of potential daylight/sunlight impacts on estate properties during the phased development. This additional information has also been subject to publicity and consultation, between 3 August 2012 and 24 August 2012, in the form of a press advert and site notices, and individual notification letters sent to the occupiers of all of the estates properties.

Summary of Representations Received in Response:

2.3.7 A total of 506 representations have been received in response to the above consultations/publicity (160 in support of the proposals; 340 objections; and 6 "others").

2.3.8 372 of these date from the time of the first round of consultation (August /September 2011 – paragraph 2.3.2 above). 117 date from the time of the second consultation (March/April 2012), 11 date from the time of the third (more limited) consultation (June/July 2012) and 6 from the most recent consultation/publicity (August 2012).

2.3.9 Of the 506 representations received 190 are from or on behalf of West Kensington and/or Gibbs Green estates residents/groups (92 in support; 97 objections; 1 “other”). 185 of these date from the time of the first consultation, with the remaining 5 from the time of the second consultation.

2.3.10 137 representations have been received from or on behalf of other H&F residents/groups (42 in support; 90 objections; 5 “other”). 107 of these date from the first consultation, 26 from the second, and 4 from the third.

2.3.11 120 representations have been received from residents/groups in RBKC (2 in support; 118 objections). 45 of these date from the time of the first round of

consultation, 71 from round two, 2 from round three, and 2 from the time of the fourth consultation.

2.3.12 of the remaining 59 representations (which include statutory & non statutory bodies and organisations) 24 are "no objections" or no objection subject to conditions, and 35 are objections. 35 of these date from the time of the first consultation; 15 from the second, 5 from the third and 4 from the time of the last consultation.

2.3.13 The contents of these representations are summarised below.

REPRESENTATIONS FROM HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM ESTATES RESIDENTS & GROUPS/ORGANISATIONS (190 representations):

2.3.14 179 representations have been received from individual estates residents (168 of which comprise proforma letters of different types – see below). 90 of these representations are in support of the proposals (85 proforma letters) and 88 are objections (82 proformas). The remaining representation is essentially neutral, in that it primarily seeks clarification of the proposals. 177 of the 179 representations were received in response to the original consultation exercise; a further 2 representations were received in response to the re-consultation exercise on the revised proposals.

2.3.15 In addition to the above, 11 representations have also been received from or on behalf of the West Kensington & Gibbs Green Residents Steering Group (support), the West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenants & Residents Associations (objection), West Kensington & Gibbs Green Community Homes Limited (objection), and from Notting Hill Housing Trust, who have property holdings in the area covered by and adjacent to the proposals. 8 of these were received in response to the original consultation exercise and 3 in response to the re-consultation on the revised proposals.

2.3.16 Summary of representations in support of the proposals (92 representations):

• Proforma letter – 80 separate representations:

“I write concerning the Earls Court Planning Application 2 (Application no. 2011/02001/OUT). As a resident of the West Kensington & Gibbs Green estates, I have a very strong interest in this matter.

I believe that this planning application, which seeks to redevelop and revitalise the area in which I live, is a very positive move for this neighbourhood: and I wish to offer my full support.

I believe that this planning application represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to redevelop our area: to improve housing and infrastructure; to create business and employment opportunities; and to grow and develop our community.”

• Proforma letter – 2 separate representations:

“I would like to write and offer my support for the Earls Court Planning Application 2 (Application no. 2011/02001/OUT).

As a resident of the local area, I have a very strong interest in this planning application. I believe that this planning application, which seeks to redevelop and

revitalise the are in which I live, is a very positive move for this neighbourhood and I wish to offer my full support

I believe that the Planning Application represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to redevelop our area, to improve housing and infrastructure to create business and employment opportunities and to grow and develop our community.”

• Proforma letter – 4 separate representations:

“I would like to write and offer my support for the Earls Court Planning Application (Application no. 2011/02001/OUT).

As a local business in the area, I have a very strong interest in this planning application. I believe that this planning application, which seeks to redevelop and revitalise the local area, is a very positive move for this neighbourhood and I wish to offer my full support

I believe that the Planning Application represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to create businesses and employment growth and improve the infrastructure in our area. This is something which I feel must be fully supported.” (Proforma letter - 4 separate representations).

Summary of other representations received in support of the development (6 representations):

• Gibbs Green estate resident for 16 years...“Fully support the development as long as they include the provision of a new equivalent flat to current residents”…”Pleased with the plans that were proposed at the planning exhibition at Earls Court earlier this year. We believe this area would greatly benefit from regeneration and provide much higher quality of life to us. We have lived in the area for 35 years and feel proud to be a part of such a marked improvement to the area and a new symbolic development.” • Development would provide jobs and “bring new things to the community”. • Fully support the proposed development, “particularly in relation to the West Kensington Estate (where I am a leaseholder. And have been a resident for over 25 years)”. Area is currently run down and “new housing is long overdue”. Development will help foster “a sense of pride in the community. This project is desperately needed.” • “I live on the West Kensington Estate”. Flat is infested with ants, despite repeated treatments, and too small. Hope to be moved to the new accommodation in Seagrave Road.

West Kensington & Gibbs Green Steering Group:

• Writing on behalf of the “board and supporters of the West Kensington & Gibbs Green Residents Steering Group” (“independent body made up of residents of the two estates”) • Application will “revitalise the area in which we live”. • “This area is very dear to us…We believe that this planning application represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to redevelop our area; to improve housing and infrastructure; to create business and employment opportunities; and to grow and develop our community.” • Have fought long and hard “to reach an agreement that will represent the very best deal for all residents on the estates….We would not give our support to a

scheme that offered anything but the most advantageous terms to residents in relation to the new accommodation and infrastructure on offer. And we could never support any scheme that disadvantaged existing residents in financial terms, or through disruption to their living standards while developments were carried out.” • Proposals represent “the most important development our neighbourhood has ever seen. • It is understandable that some may fear the changes that are proposed, but we are confident this will result in a significant increase in living standards for all on the West Kensington & Gibbs Green estates, and that is why we offer our wholehearted support.”

Notting Hill Housing Trust:

• Owns the freeholder or leaseholder of “large property holdings in the area covered by and adjacent to the proposals”, and state that “the broad thrust of the development to regenerate the area in a residential led scheme is overwhelmingly welcomed in providing more homes and employment opportunities than the current uses” • Would like the council to work with the applicants and future developers of the scheme to diversify the range of accommodation proposed. • Note the level of affordable housing proposed and its relationship to viability. • Understand the concerns of some council tenants and note that the council is working with residents to ensure that they are in an improved position to their current housing. • Question whether the 0.6 parking spaces per dwelling ratio might be too high; and consider that the “level of private and public amenity areas” should be increased. • Note that the site adjoins many important conservation areas, and suggest that if planning permission is granted it should include adequate safeguards, in the form of conditions, reserved matters and/or planning obligations to ensure the protection and enhancements of these areas.

2.3.17 Summary of representations objecting to the proposals (99 representations):

• Proforma letter – 82 separate representations:

“I object most strongly to the demolition of my home and the homes of my neighbours on the West Kensington & Gibbs Green estates.

The proposed development would destroy decent well-loved homes and wreck a well-functioning community, damaging family ties, disrupting social networks and worrying elderly residents. It is environmentally and socially unsustainable, cramming far too many thousands of extra homes and office workers into the most densely populated London borough.

Such gross overdevelopment would ruin the area and overwhelm the transport infrastructure. It would do nothing to increase the amount of desperately needed low rent social housing.

It is wrong for the Council to impose this scheme when Government policy is for local people to take control so they can improve their neighbourhoods for themselves. There should be an independently supervised ballot of all residents on the estates on

whether they support the demolition plans, and the views of the residents through that ballot should be what decides the future of their homes.

The Council should refuse the planning applications and should cooperate with the residents to transfer the estates to our resident-controlled association West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes.”

Summary of other representations received objecting to the development (17 representations):

• Nothing wrong with the estates, which are considerd to be “civilised and fundamentally pleasant” environments for their residents. Already have good transport links, local shopping, “enjoy a relatively quiet location away from the main road” and access to local green areas (including Normand Park). Have a “Doctors' practice and pharmacy just down the road”. No need to spend so long demolishing and redeveloping this land in the “piecemeal fashion proposed”, with associated long term disturbance/harm to existing residents. “…will destroy our homes in West Ken and Gibbs Green with a large impact (on) the community that lived here for many generations. • Proposed development is too big, and out of scale/character with the area/infrastructure. • Will lead to overcrowding and loss of privacy for residents; a significant increase in traffic/traffic noise, and air pollution (“will affect our children and the elderly who already suffer from asthma”). Essentially a residential area and introducing hotels and temporary apartments, offices and retail would be “socially retrograde and likely to increase social problems and crime (as the business areas are deserted at night)”. Sensitive infill in some of the more open spaces of the estate would be a more appropriate option. • Buildings too high. Existing Empress State building already an “ill-proportioned blot on the landscape which creates noisy wind turbulence” and is an argument against more high-rise buildings. The building heights proposed, and the number of high-rise buildings, would create a 'wasteland' effect. • Insufficient car parking; reduction in green space/trees. Existing infrastructure/services will not be able to cope (particularly existing roads and public transport system) • Not enough detail provided regarding the size/arrangements of the proposed homes • Question the need for the development and who will gain most from it. • Council should not tie itself to one single developer. • Leaseholders/freeholders “are in a particular trap, facing the loss of homes we chose and love - but also stuck in now unsellable properties”.

West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenants & Residents Associations and West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes Limited:

• Insufficient time to respond to the planning applications, allowing for the scale and complexity of the documentation. • Development involves forcing residents to move, demolishing 763 homes and overdeveloping the district to “the great disadvantage of our community and our neighbours”. • Submit that “67.7% of households on the estates responded to the Council’s consultation and those residents who responded decided against sale and demolition by a majority of three and a half to one” • State that over 100 people attended the first AGM of West Ken & Gibbs

Green Community Homes in September 2011 and passed the following resolution unanimously: “We object most strongly to the planning application to demolish our estates. The proposals would destroy decent well-loved homes and wreck a well-functioning community. We should be allowed to vote on whether or not we want demolition so that the community can determine its own future. The Council should refuse the planning applications and cooperate with transferring the estates to our resident-controlled association West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes.” • West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenants & Residents Associations state that in 2009 “1,000 residents from 80% of the households on the estates signed our petition against demolition and for self-determination” and that at the TRA’s AGM on 27 September 2011 a resolution was unanimously adopted to the effect that they have established West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes “to save the estates from demolition by transferring them into community ownership.” “Headline Criticisms”: • top-down imposition of demolition and “gross overdevelopment against the wishes of the local community by developers, planners and town hall bureaucrats” • Council/applicant’s “persistent dismissal of the views of the overwhelming majority of our community against demolition and for community control” • “improper and unfair use of the Council’s resources to orchestrate a minority campaign, backed by the planning applicant, in favour of the applications” • Council’s “failure to consult with residents according to its statutory obligations, and its refusal to organise a ballot of residents on the question of demolition” • “Council’s decision, in advance of a planning decision, to enter an Exclusivity Agreement to sell the estates to the planning applicant for demolition without evaluating the transfer proposals put forward by the residents” • “defective service of the planning consultation notice”, unreasonably short time period allowed for consultation, and the “confused and cart-before-the horse nature of the planning process applied thus far” • “demolition of our homes, and loss of our gardens, garages, off-street parking spaces, green areas, trees, play areas, and concierge facilities” • “absence of equivalent replacement of the amenities we enjoy” and the “lack of replacement for the more than 200 houses and maisonettes, plus the lack of any additional affordable social rented housing to meet the needs of the community” • “forcible removal of residents from their homes” and all the “inevitable negative consequences that will follow, including in particular the “break-up of a settled community, the worry and stress caused especially for elderly and vulnerable people, and the disruption to schooling, social and family ties” • “unsustainable tenfold increase in residential accommodation along with two million square feet of offices in the most heavily populated London boroughs, the unacceptable traffic congestion and the unnecessary environmental damage” • demolition of Queens Mill School, “which provides important educational services from a relatively new and fit-for-purpose building, and is the venue for our summer festival” • demolition of the two community centres, “one of which is barely ten years old and the other not much older, used frequently by residents and the local community for educational, social and organisational purposes, which are a familiar and functional part of our surroundings”. “Summary conclusions”: • Proposals represent a “waste of assets, an unsustainable blot on the landscape and a misdirection of investment – peculiarly inappropriate at a time of financial crisis and climate change”.

• Development is not designed to benefit residents the scheme is “ill-motivated, prejudiced against disadvantaged people, and driven by a combination of social engineering and greed”. • The applications, “and the way the Council has gone about them, fly in the face of the Government’s Localism and Big Society policies to empower people to take greater control of their neighbourhoods so communities can improve their wellbeing for themselves” • Submit that the Council has no other option in law but to refuse planning permission, due to a flawed consultation and the incomplete/flawed Environmental Statement, which make it impossible to assess the impact of the proposed development. • No satisfactory strategic environmental assessment. The applications are premature and are also contrary to the recently published London Plan in several material respects. • Development is “inherently unsustainable, fails to conform with national, regional and local policies, overloads an already creaking transport infrastructure, turns its back on the results of consultation, is confusingly positioned in a complex undeveloped planning framework and is wholly inappropriate in terms of scale, density, visual and physical impact – as well as in the proposed uses. The development is neither needed nor desirable and represents an immense waste of resources in a time of scarcity”. “Consultation and the Planning Framework”: • Submitted planning documents are impossible to comprehend coherently. Two of the proposals are in outline, one is for full permission – all are said to relate to a Masterplan and to an SPD “which has been withdrawn for rewriting, making any formal consideration premature. There is every possibility that the SPD will seek to conform to the planning applications – the antithesis of a planning-led system”. • Policy 3.7B of the London Plan is clear on the need for a plan-led process on sites capable of accommodating more than 500 dwellings. Consider that consideration of the applications is premature until both the Masterplan and the SPD have been further consulted upon and formally approved. • Policy 3.7B states that “The planning of these areas (over 500 dwellings) should take place with the active engagement of local communities and other stakeholders.” The consultation is confusing because of the mass of documentation and because comment and arguments put forward in earlier stages of consultation have not been analysed or answered, merely ignored. The applications disregard the fact that 80% of the residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates have opposed demolition and that residents of over two thirds of households have joined the new association to take over the estates. • Applications should be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment. That need is reinforced by the absence of any SPD or Area Action Plan itself subjected to SEA. “Sustainability”: • Proposal to demolish good housing is unsustainable, and contrary to PPS1. Also contrary to Policy 1.1A of the London Plan and the aspirations of the draft National Planning Policy Framework. Top spatial priority in the London Plan (Policy 1.1B) is to encourage the development of East London and the Thames Gateway. To permit a scheme on land that is currently adequately developed in the West and would seriously overload local infrastructure, would not contribute to the strategic development of London as envisaged in the London Plan. • PPS1 says that the Government’s “top priority....is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs”. The application seems a lost opportunity for job creation, on part of Site 1 and part of Seagrave Road, in contradiction of national policy. The Planning Statement says it “is residential-led with related supporting

uses, not even claiming to be mixed use. The developers say that “the central theme” of all the policy documents is “mixed use”. This is typical of the confusion that exists both between policy documents and the application itself, which the SPD does not help to clarify. LBHF’s Core Strategy adds to the confusion by saying that the Earls Court Exhibition Centre may not be available for development after 2012 – in which case the Seagrave Road site would not be available either. How can consultees be expected to comment concisely when there is no clear basis for comment at present? • No real transport impact assessment therefore impossible to assess the capacity of the site. LBHF’s Core Strategy says, that “Any new development will have to be supported by commensurate increases in public transport capacity and highway improvements”. This is not demonstrated in the proposals and no reasonable decision can be made on the scant evidence presented. “The Environmental Statement”: • Requirement in the Regulations for an ES to be properly prepared has not been met, which would make any decision by the Planning Authorities challengeable. ES is seriously deficient in at least two respects. It does not adequately describe the current or existing situation. Without factoring current benefits into the impact assessment of the proposed development it is not possible to assess how the new scheme would be better or worse in terms of its strategic or local impact. ES looks at the claimed benefits of the development but it does not look at disbenefits. No assessment of demolition impacts, nor evaluation of any alternatives to the demolition of the estates. • No justification for the estates demolition. There should be, within the ES, a rigorous analysis of alternatives and a justification for the chosen option. The stated problems on the estates are capable of many other more imaginative and appropriate mostly low cost management, solutions. The comprehensive development rationale to get rid of problems was discredited decades ago. This failure to explore and explain alternatives is challengeable and has now been highlighted in the Claim in the High Court against the “Exclusivity Agreement”. • Throughout the ES the existing uses, their vitality, contribution to the area, their jobs, appropriate scale, social and economic fit etc are invisible. There is no table that compares the net change in jobs and it is hard to unscramble the net change in housing, especially affordable housing. The Housing Statement, attempts to explain why there is just a small net increase in affordable housing - not in conformity with the London Plan. The net increase is 11%, even allowing for the contorted explanations about the need for Intermediate Housing and the newly proposed Affordable Renting. The fact remains that this extraordinarily low percentage is not in conformity with the London Plan. The main site was originally 100% affordable, and after the Right to Buy, over 75% remain socially rented. The “justification must be that the cost of replacing perfectly good affordable housing has to be added to the balance sheet of creating the extra houses”. • Contend that the WK and GG estates are not brown filed sites (“partially occupied or utilised”) they are thriving estates that are fully occupied – as are the Exhibition site and rail depot. It would be possible to accommodate more development on the site, as it would on the vast majority of sites across the capital. This is not the same as saying that those sites are therefore only partially occupied or utilised. • Proposals are a massive over-development. The determination to redevelop the whole of the WK and GG estates leads to a re-housing obligation on a large scale. The developers attempt to accommodate this on the same site has led them to propose a huge additional scheme to recover the costs. It suits no-one, neither the residents displaced nor the incoming occupiers, who would suffer

unacceptable densities and over-stretched infrastructure as well as imposing unacceptable impacts on adjacent areas. “The London Plan”: • Application does not conform with the London Plan in a number of respects: “Density”: • The density calculations are flawed (as set out in the response from the KensingtonSociety) and, calculated correctly, exceed the limits set in the London Plan. The excessive densities are a reflection of the scale of overdevelopment, which results in proposals that do not relate properly to, or respect, the existing built environment. It would also have a negative impact on adjacent areas, contrary to London Plan policies 7.6 and 7.7 and PPS5. “Sustainability”: • Proposals do not conform to Policy 1.1 of the London Plan. They are not sustainable (in the sense that they do not seek to maintain the use of a perfectly good asset – the WK and GG estates). They also operate against the “convergence” of east London with other parts of London (Policy 1.1B). The developments are also unlikely to achieve the necessary modal shift from private car to public transport to be sustainable. “Opportunity Area Frameworks”: • The applicants are working to an SPD, which is not a statutory document, requiring less formal consultation. This approach is not in conformity with the London Plan, “which makes clear that Opportunity and Intensification Area Frameworks, form part of the statutory development plan and states that they will be developed ‘through the preparation of planning frameworks and/or local development frameworks’ (Paras A1.1 and A1.2).” • The Strategic Policy Direction says that “the potential for a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction and strategically significant offices should be explored...” The applications contain no proposals for a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction. The application does not conform with the London Plan. This is important, since the proposals remove just such an existing facility on Site 1. • Whilst the strategic policy direction refers to the “opportunity for regeneration comprising estate renewal...” it goes on to say “A comprehensive approach should be taken to planning the future of....the local authority housing estates...”, it does not state that they should be redeveloped. The Strategic Planning Direction cannot be relied upon as a reason for re-development, as the applicant attempts to do. “Affordable Housing”: • Proposals are for 560 Social Rented units and 740 new Intermediate homes on the Earls Court 2 site. The London Plan affordable housing policies refer to additional affordable homes - The maximum proposed additional affordable housing represents 11.1% of the total. This needs to be set against the London Plan strategic guideline of 40%. • Also needs to be set against LBHF’s Core Strategy - policy FRA 1 states that “40% of allnew housing in the Opportunity Area (within H&F) should be affordable in accordance with Policy H2 – Affordability”. Para 7.124 repeats this by way of justification for the Policy. However, Policy H2 actually says “at least 40%” - and this is repeated in the justification in Para 8.11. • Para 5.13 of the Planning Statement makes clear that all of the “new affordable homes ....will be provided as intermediate tenures.” The London Plan requirement is for 60% Social rented and 40% Intermediate - can be “no plausible justification for reducing the policy target of 60% Social Rented housing to zero”. “Other comments”:

• “The Masterplan” - is both confusing and vague. The applications do not seem to stem from the Masterplan. The Masterplan allows a huge degree of flexibility and would enable the applicant to claim that they have outline permission for a range of very different outcomes. This is dangerous in terms of seeking to exert reasonable control over any eventual development. We are assuming that revised applications will be called for. The Masterplans need to be revised, consulted upon and formally agreed. In doing so, they need either to be made much more specific or should not be included as part of any consented scheme or should relate to an SEA process. At present, they have not been secured and therefore cannot be relied upon. • “Jobs” - Planning Statement says that there will be 12,000 new jobs in 207,000 s/m of floorspace. It also states that 211,000 s/m of commercial floorspace currently exists, but there are no available figures for existing jobs. It is clear is that the 12,000 jobs mentioned will not all be additional jobs, indeed the proposed commercial floorspace is less than that which currently exists. This undermines the applicants’ case and is contrary to the London Plan/Opportunity Area policy. • “Transport Impact” - very difficult to asses what is actually being proposed and what the combined impact will be. The Conclusions of the Planning Assessment make only a passing reference to transport access. The ongoing need for further studies also makes the applications premature. The two most worrying aspects are the impact of any new junction onto West Cromwell Road, and the capacity on the tube lines. • “Community Facilities” - The precise proposed provision is unclear It is considered inadequate, in terms of useable playspace, school places and space for community led activities (see Policies 7.1 and 3.1 of the London Plan). • “Cultural Strategy” - As well as the non-conformity issue posed by the lack of a “strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction” in the Opportunity Area (see above), the cultural strategy is much too vague. • “Energy, air quality, pollution and waste management” - There is a raft of strategic guidance on these matters in the London Plan which the proposals fail to address. Much more detail should be required before any informed decisions could be taken on the applications. LBHF’s Core Strategy, Para 7.115, makes clear that considerable work needs to be done on “transport accessibility, urban design and environmental assessment”. These, and other, issues of environmental sustainability are not referred to at all in the Conclusions of the Planning Statement, nor dealt with elsewhere in the submissions. “Summary and Conclusions”: • It would be unlawful for the Council to proceed to determine the planning applications on Earls Court 1 and 2 at the present time and with the present information. This is due to: • A fundamentally flawed Environmental Statement which concentrates on justifying the proposals rather than assessing the potential benefits and disbenefits and looking at the net impact. • The lack of an agreed planning framework • A failure to carry out strategic environmental assessment • The lack of sufficient relevant information, especially on transport impact, jobs impact, sustainable environment impact • The lack of consideration of alternatives to demolition of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates and absence of any justification for their wholesale demolition • The lack of adequate and meaningful consultation • The applications as they stand are clearly contrary to the London Plan in several respects. • Fundamental unsustainability (Policies 1.1 A and B)

• Inadequate affordable housing (in terms of definition, the amount proposed and the split between Intermediate and Social Rented housing – Policies 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 together with their reasoning). This also contradicts LBHF’s Core Strategy. • Gross over-development (in terms of definition, location and impact – Policies 3.4, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7 together with their reasoning) • Unsustainable transport impacts (Policies 6.1 and 6.3) • Inadequate consideration of and proposals for community facilities, cultural facilities and environmental sustainability (Policies 3.16; 4.5, 4.6; 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5.) • The Opportunity Area Framework being progressed as an SPD rather than an Area Action Plan (Para A1.2)

Summary of further comments from the West Kensington & Gibbs Green Tenants & Residents Associations and West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes Limited: on the revised planning applications received in April 2012:

• Applications are unclear in that the distinction between them and the earlier applications is confusing and sometimes contradictory. It is not clear what remains current from the earlier applications. We believe that if any permissions were to be made on the current submissions, it would not be possible to ascertain exactly what had been permitted. • Proposals also allow for ambiguity in what could be developed within the loose terms of the permissions that are sought - in terms of scale, layout, transport impact etc. • Responses given to consultations, where received, are inadequate. The responses from the Statutory Consultees are all still awaited, bar only one. It is therefore not possible for anyone, including the LPAs, to judge potential impacts. • Despite the work put in by the LPAs, and the despite Mayor's instruction, the applications do not follow the guidance in the SPD for the proper development of the sites. • Proposals for affordable housing do not conform with London Plan policy, nor local plan policy, nor the SPD. The Mayor noted that more discussion were necessary before any decisions could be taken. Those discussions are still incomplete. • Proposals regarding Housing Choice are against policy. • Housing densities are too high when set against policy and the basis of calculation does not conform to that set out in the London Plan. • The omission of a proposal for a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction is against policies of the London Plan, the local plans and that of the SPD guidance. • Applications still contain no information on the number of existing jobs, hence it is not possible to assess the impact of the proposals in terms of job creation, nor transport impacts. • Proposals for social and community infrastructure are extremely vague and require clarification before impacts can be ascertained. • The (marginally) changed approach to floor space quantum (a reduction of less than 2%) and the design approach still lead to a gross and inappropriate overdevelopment. We do not see how these minimal changes can possibly have met the Mayor's stated concerns and ask for this to be checked rigorously. • Transport impacts are still unresolved and there are huge implications for S106 agreements and viability. • The proposals to demolish the WK and GG estates are unsubstantiated, unnecessary, unsustainable and therefore against national and strategic policy.

The Estates should be invited to submit an application of their own to improve the estates. • Without prejudice we comment on the need for satisfactory S106 agreements and refer to the Mayor's comments on this in December 2011. • We would like the LPAs to require the applicants to demonstrate how they have taken the SPD into account in fully meeting all of the Mayor's previous comments. • The applicants state that they meet the LP requirements of playspace and we ask the LPAs to check this. • There are many issues around accessibility, equality, biodiversity, noise, air quality and climate change that were contrary to the London Plan and concerned the Mayor in December 2011. We share those concerns and ask that they be fully re-assessed in the new applications. “Conclusions”: • Taking into account all of the above, including the detail provided in this report, we ask the LPAs: a) to refuse the current applications for the redevelopment of the Earls Court sites 1 and 2 for the reasons given above. b) failing that, to defer consideration of the applications until such time as all consultations have been completed and satisfactorily responded to, and all the missing information has been made available to the LPAs and consultees (including a reasonable time for response) and the applications re-considered comprehensively in this light; the reason being to enable proper, reasonable and lawful decisions to be taken - which is not the case at present.

Webster Dixon Solicitors: • “..represent the tenants and/or leaseholders and/or other residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates. Their homes are set to be demolished as part of the regeneration plans.” • “..our clients have already submitted a claim for Judicial Review, challenging the lawfulness of the decision to adopt the (Earls Court) SPD.” • Submit that in view of these circumstances “it would be inappropriate for the Committee to grant permission”, and suggest that the Committee should either “reject the application in view of its reliance of an SPD that is subject to challenge, or “postpone any final decision pending the outcome of our client’s claim.”

2.3.18 Summary of other representations (1 representation):

• Enquiring as to the location of homes with gardens, and asking when a final decision will be made regarding the development?

REPRESENTATIONS FROM OTHER RESIDENTS & GROUPS/ORGANISATIONS IN HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM:

2.3.19 137 representations have been received from or on behalf of other H&F residents/groups (42 in support; 90 objections; 5 “other”). 107 of these date from the first consultation, 26 from the second, and 4 from the third.

2.3.20 Summary of representations in support of the proposals (42 representations):

• Proforma letter – 6 separate representations.

“I would like to write and offer my support for the Earls Court Planning Application 2 (Application no. 2011/02001/OUT).

As a resident of the local area, I have a very strong interest in this planning application. I believe that this planning application, which seeks to redevelop and revitalise the are in which I live, is a very positive move for this neighbourhood and I wish to offer my full support

• Proforma letter – 10 separate representations:

“I would like to write and offer my support for the Earls Court Planning Application (Application no. 2011/02001/OUT).

Summary of other representations received in support of the development (26 representations):

• redevelopment will bring “huge opportunities and improvements to the neighbourhood and the entire borough” • can “only be a benefit to our community” • essential to regenerate the area • development will raise the profile and contribute to an influx of jobs within the area • development “will benefit everybody in the area”. • will result in better new homes for disadvantaged families, • will result in “thousands of new jobs and a complete re-vamp of this neglected corner of the borough” • very large area of “poorly utilised land in prime central London that is crying out for regeneration and re-development.” • existing estates are “very poor examples of urban design” • liked the layout of the master plan with “new villages and high streets traversing the site and opening it up in a logical pattern and traditional street plan.” • Will “bring the area back to life and boost the local economy. This will be beneficial to the entire community and should be supported and approved.” • area has become increasingly run down and in desperate need of regeneration. • area has “great deal of potential and the development would provide new jobs for residents as well as improved housing.” • thorough rebuilding of the area needed, but existing residents need to be “taken care of” • “….thrilled at the prospect at redevelopment of the area and only wish it extended a bit further north on North End Rd” • excellent idea, but proposals should benefit “poor people more then rich people” • “…wonderful opportunity to improve the area. A lot of the land in that area is inaccessible and doesn’t fulfil its true potential.”

• not every building on the site should be “modernist”; should be room “for traditional London buildings, to give diversity of architecture. • will undoubtedly involve a long period of work and disruption, but the redevelopment would be an “opportunity to transform one of the tattiest parts of the borough.” • “whilst there may be some disruption to residents in the area, myself included, the long term gain of this development will certainly outweigh this.” • Site is generally very run down. It should be put to much better use. “The West Kensington Estate in particular is an eyesore.” • Impressed with the masterplan and as a local resident “particularly pleased to see that green infrastructure and publicly accessible open spaces form a substantial element of the proposal.” • Concerned that the ambitions in the application may not be fully realised, and would like to see develop commit to their plans for greening in terms of increasing open space, tree cover and living roofs etc and work with the borough councils to ensure hat such green infrastructure can be maintained on a sustainable basis. • Good opportunity to ensure that the developer reduces the risk of local surface water flooding by working closely with the borough councils and Thames Water.

Cllr Marcus Ginn:

• Supports the proposed development

Cllr Donald Johnson:

• This part of London should not simply be an "event" destination for people who come from often hundreds of miles away who have no regard for the long term prospects of this area. • Redevelopment of the proposed site will provide a vibrant, diverse and opportunity rich location for residents, local business and pleasuer seekers in the larger west London area. • As a new hub - with thousands of new and existing residents, it will lift the surounding,tired streets around it's boarders. • Would like to see sustainable construction and design - living roofs, produce growing zones (a modern take on allotments), rain water citerns, permiable surfaces and cycle only zones. • This is an opportunity to create a 21st century habitat using pioneering materials and design.

Cllr Ali de Lisle:

• Regeneration of this area is essential and will bring huge benefits in the long term, including new affordable homes, community facilities, commercial space, and a park. • Developemt will generate thousands of new jobs. • Do realise that the construction will bring temporary disruption to some residents but thelong term benefits of this visionary project will I believe out way the short term challenges it may bring.

Cllr Peter Tobias:

• Fully in favour of the proposed development as it will regenerate the whole area, re-inject life into the local economy, afford new homes to hundreds of

disadvantaged families, create thousands of new jobs and completely re-vamp a neglected corner of two boroughs.

2.3.21 Summary of representations objecting to the proposals (90 representations):

Fulham Society:

• “..very concerned about these proposals, their development and the lack of any certainty or plan in the financing of this huge project.” • “This is an enormous and complicated development. We are concerned that it will be led by the developers and their finances, rather than concerns for the local residents of H&F, as in the case of Lots Road and the affordable housing there. We would seek assurances from the planning department that they will be able to make sure that the community and affordable housing aspects of this development will be enforced at the appropriate stages of construction..” • In the context of the above, the FS’s list the following specific concerns: - not enough open space; Council should be “asking for much more….Garden squares are seen as private space, not public open space.” - too many tall buildings. “This will be an essentially residential development and we feel strongly that it should reflect the heights and scale of the areas to the west and east, which is low rise housing and mansion flat blocks”. - provision of community facilities should be firmly embodied into any planning consent, and specific locations should be allocated to them to avoid any problems with their implementation at a later date. - before any planning permission is granted more work should be done on roads and traffic on the site and on the effect on the locality. - would like to see a “specific timetable agreed, especially in relation to the development of the Council estates if they are to be included in the plan.” - would like to see “some assurance about when the first affordable housing will be built on the site written in to the planning consent.”

Hammersmith Society:

• State that although the development is in Fulham its “impact on Hammersmith in terms of height, traffic and transport, limited open space, and the lack of concrete commitments on community and cultural use will be severe and damaging.” • Submit that the application is “flawed and unsatisfactory” and that planning permission should be refused. HS list the following more detailed objections: - (Open Space) Lost River Park is “at the east edge of the development and offers nothing to the community living to the west of North End Road, and even those living in the west of the development would benefit from a good sized open space on their side. The open space layout is too biased towards passive spaces and pocket parks which do not offer opportunities for vigorous exercise.” - concerned that construction of the open space is reserved for the last phases of the development and is very expensive to provide in terms of decking over the railway lines. “We are anxious that it may be vulnerable to economic squeeze as the project continues: LBHF should ensure the terms of development are tied to providing the open space as tightly as possible.” - (Tall Buildings) opposed to the “very tall building near Empress State building and the ‘feature’ buildings of around 16 storeys” which represent “a major change to the borough skyline which will be widely visible from further afield, e.g. the open spaces along the river in Hammersmith and from higher ground such as Wormwood Scrubs, and from other locations in London. The open and generally low character of our will

be severely and permanently altered, and the setting of Brompton Cemetery will be affected.” - Tall buildings are contrary to the retained policies of the UDP (policies EN2, EN2B and EN8), the Core Strategy and the London Plan. They do not respect the principles of ‘good neighbourliness’ (policy EN8)” and will have a harmful affect on important “designate and non-designated heritage assets.” - Scheme “does not acknowledge the low rise residential character of the area and makes no effort to relate to its local context.” - (Traffic and Transport) scale of development means it will have a “huge impact on public transport which nothing in the Transport Assessment seems to address” – submit that the Piccadilly line is already at near capacity at peak times and that the Wimbledon Branch of the District Line is “the most overcrowded section of the Tube.” - There is “no assurance that the public transport network can handle the additional load from a development of this size.” - Not enough information at this stage “to gauge the impact on traffic in Hammersmith but the new junction on the A4…will have a serious bearing on the east-west flow in and out of Hammersmith and will inevitably add to congestion and poor air quality.” - (Density) quantum of development is “too vague. Residents are asked to take on trust the acceptability of an enormous development with very little supporting detail at this stage.” - (Community & Cultural use) “…aspiration is too vague. There should be unambiguous triggers in the legal agreement not only for the building of the school and health centre but also for the cultural and community space, and a more specific commitment to the nature of the cultural provision.” (HS suggest a West London Museum and Archives & Local History Centre as part of the cultural destination – Lease on the current LBHF Archives and Local History Centre expires in 2015 and the “Borough benefits from a number of collections of special interest which are not able to be displayed or fully displayed locally. This could be a valuable focus for the development and a significant attractor.”). - (Management of the scheme over 20 years) “…grave doubts over the capability of LBHF to monitor the scheme and maintain vigilant oversight effectively over the long period of its implementation, not least because of the constant pressure to reduce costs in the Council.”

Kensington Hall Gardens Ltd (letter addressed to London Underground Ltd, copied to H&F and TfL)

• Representing 70 apartments and around 140 residents. • Very concerned about the effect of the development on the surrounding public transport infrastructure. • District and Piccadilly lines already overcrowded in the morning and evening rush hours, and “London Underground’s upgrade plan states that without the planned upgrade overcrowding on the underground system will increase by 40%.” • “Proposed increase in capacity on the District line will be ‘24%’ (lower than the overall underground system increase of 30%) corresponding to only 10,000 additional passengers per hour.” • “..seems that the current upgrade plan addresses the present overcrowding only” and does not take account of the further increase resulting from the proposed development. • “it is crucial that, if the earls Court development goes ahead, further and more radical plans are devised and implemented.” • Understand that present upgrade plans relate to new stock and new signalling. Whilst these two improvements will be very welcome the benefit is limited to the

theoretical maximum that can be achieved. Additional ways of increasing capacity and reducing capacity must therefore be sought. • Put forward 3 suggestions to achieve these aims, and ask for LUL’s comments on these: - new station (in essence an extension of EC station) with new platforms connected at underground level to the present Earls Court station – effectively making the two stations linked as a single interchange station.”) - Reinstatement of the Addison Road link (closed in 1916) - New Piccadilly Line station (under the present District Line West Kensington station). Would give residents in the area the option to join the Piccadilly line at West Kensington, rather than having to use the District Line to travel to either Barons Court or Earls Court in order to change (would help alleviate pressure on the District Line.

Empress Place Action Group:

• object to the height of the proposed buildings on the eastern side to the southern end of The Broadway which overlook the gardens of the western side of Empress Place. • have read the Environmental Statement attached to the Planning Application and “learnt with alarm the true impact of the proposed buildings immediately to the West of the West side of Empress Place at the Southern end of The Broadway. The proposed height of these buildings will have a "Major Adverse" impact on the gardens of Empress Place in particular Nos. 4 and 6. This is unacceptable and as such we must object to this aspect of the Planning Application in the strongest possible terms”. • no objection to building height being raised further into the development where there are no existing buildings to be overlooked, but not where they would have a very detrimental effect on existing resident's properties.

SJS Law (on behalf of Empress Place Action Group):

• Boundary of proposed development is shared with the boundaries of Empress Place and much of it is situated on the rear boundaries of the Empress Place gardens. • Although this is accepted as being an urban environment, the character of the houses and gardens are suburban in nature and the retention of sunlight and daylight to both the gardens and buildings as well as the avoidance of overshadowing is of utmost concern to the Group. • Fact that there are proposed commercial uses adjacent to the houses and gardens comprising retail on the ground floor and B1 uses on the upper floors creates further concerns of loss of amenity, noise and overlooking. • Tall buildings are not in keeping with existing adjacent buildings and will result in an increased sense of enclosure, and loss of daylight/sunlight. • Potential noise and smell nuisance arising from the proximity of proposed commercial uses. • Overlooking/loss of privacy. • Proposals should be assessed against the most recent BRE guidelines. • Height of any new buildings in BW07 should be no more than the height of existing adjacent buildings. • A minimum distance should be left between the existing boundary of Empress Place properties and the walls of any new buildings. • Adequate safeguards will need to be put in place in order to prevent nuisance created by open storage, service deliveries, noise and smells from cooked food. Ideally uses which have the most potential to create nuisance in the future (such

as restaurant and hot food uses) should be located away from these existing residential uses.

Summary of other representations received objecting to the development:

2.3.22 The following are indicative of the nature and range of comments received, and the comments have been grouped loosely under general headings for convenience.

Demolition/Redevelopment of the estates and ECEC:

• Best part about this area “is the sense of freedom due to the green space to be found surrounding West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates”. Proposed development ..would destroy that in favour of erecting huge towering edifices. It cannot be possible to keep green space, when you are knocking down 700 homes and building 6,000”. • Unfair that long standing residents of the council estates should be removed from their homes and relocated. Although Fulham contains much wealth it is “important to the security, stability and economy of the local community that there is a mixed demographic and the people requiring social housing are adequately and respectfully serviced”. • Proposals involve “forcibly resettling thousands of tenants from a council housing estate. Apart from sympathy with these residents, this fact also makes me feel insecure because I live in social housing in the neighbourhood and fear that ‘I may be next’." • Should not be allowed to “destroy communities for the sake of commerce” • Proposals involve the demolition of a considerable number of affordable homes. These should be replaced • no justification or pressing need to re-develop the estates. Council should invest more in the existing estates, “thus lowering the impact of the works”. • Redevelopment should be limited to just the Earl's Court Exhibition area land, and the surrounding homes should be retained. • Loss of existing “iconic” ECEC • ECEC is a “fantastic leisure and other experience for the local people, London and UK”. • Proposals will not “enhance life for the local residents”, unlike existing exhibition centre • shame that Earl's Court exhibition centre is being lost, but “the idea of a complete re-development is the best thing to replace it”. • EC is a venue of international importance with ready made transport links. Better solution would be to renovate the ECEC and “use it more for exhibitions and concerts - more as a rival to the O2 in the East”. • Loss of ECEC would be an environmental and economic mistake. • “only 200 of the 760 homes to be demolished will initially be replaced by affordable housing in the Seagrave Rd development”. • Redeveloping the estates is “monstrous” • No minimum space standards, so the flats will be "rabbit hutches" – proposals represent “the slums of the future”.

Scale of development/ Height of buildings/character of the development:

• area should be redeveloped but not on this scale – too dense; buildings are too high, relative to existing; will result in a dramatic increase in traffic with consequent pressure on public transport.

• use of unsuitable building materials - finish should be sympathetic to the Victorian character of many of the existing buildings/housing stock. • Tower blocks will be out of character and will “radically change the character of this part of London for ever”. • Height of the proposed development is out of keeping with the existing residential housing stock, and will dominate the area and harm the character of this neighbourhood. • Development will create a high-rise sky line and turn a traditional residential area into a ' High Rise Metropolis'. • Lived in London for 45 years. London is a beautiful city – “why make it like Shanghai?” • Tower blocks not conducive to family life • “…conservation areas are there for a reason – to keep London ‘livable’.” • “…can see the results of other developers schemes down Hammersmith Road with the massive, ugly out of keeping offices….Why can’t they be converted into flats as they have never been filled.” • Excessive height of buildings is only a result of developers’ greed. Council has a duty “to curb the greed of the developers in consideration of the future of this area of London”. • building opposite Kensington Hall Gardens would be unsympathetic and harm both the setting of KHG and the conservation area. Proposed building should be no higher than the line of KHG's upper pediment. • “will not be in sympathy or character with the surrounding area” and “will destroy the culture, nature and appearance of this part of London”. • Development is too large, concentrated, intense and crowded and will conflict with the surrounding housing, population type and densities. • Height should be capped at 8-storeys. • Development would harm views from the Grade 1 listed Brompton Park Cemetery. • “development will impose a huge influx of population, potentially of a different socio demographic on to a quiet and socially harmonious local area and create more overcrowding, resentment and the destruction of a local community”. • Development is primarily flats, when what is required is a mixture of houses for families of different sizes and financial means that would integrate with the current surrounding buildings and provide a social investment into the area. • “...with the popularity of 'buy to let' in the area, it is likely that this development will be seized upon by speculators looking to profit from the development through private renting. This will increase the number of residents who are transitory and do not live in the area with a sense of permanency or willingness to invest and contribute to the local community”. • Site is surrounded by conservation areas - important that the style of architecture is in keeping with the local housing stock. Council should give the developers an early steer to this effect. “A design with brick at its heart is required”. • any development should be kept to a ‘human scale’ • the area is already far too busy in all respects. • unfair on the current residents who will have to live with the results of overdevelopment “long after the developers have moved on”. • Planning permission should be refused and “new appropriate plans” for this area should be developed. • those existing buildings which add distinctive character and value to the area should not be dominated by a skyline of high rise blocks • key principles should be good permeability throughout the site, the use of quality

materials for building and street furniture, maximising light levels and opportunities to provide soft landscaping. • Don't want to be “surrounded by high-rise flats and offices, living in a souless and impersonal environment that will take years to become established”. Secondly, who will be approving the architectural plans to ensure that they are not soulless boxes? • development should include “plenty of space” and buildings should not exceed 4- storeys with “wide balconies” on the estates. • Impact on conservation areas and listed buildings • height and type of some of the buildings do not integrate well into the surrounding areas of Fulham (NE06 and BW04). And height of buildings (e.g. NE01, NE06, BW07) behind existing houses will harm residents who live beneath them. • concerned that the new development will become an “isolated area” which does not link with existing communities. • existing Empress Place building is an eyesore and no new buildings should be allowed to approach it in height • need “people-sized” buildings, not anonymous high-rises that block out light and create wind-tunnel effects, are expensive to manage, and make it more difficult to create communities.” • Will compromise the character not only of the immediate vicinity but of views across London, such as from Richmond Parkland Willesden Junction. • need more organic regeneration • proposed height of all plots and in particular of plots NE06, BW04, BW05 and BW07 far exceeds the suggestion in the development plan. Current proposal creates a block of skyscrapers that will reduce lightfall and increase wind flow in the area comparable with the Clem Atlee Estate. Height should be limited to 30- 40m (up to 10 floors) for any new buildings. A reduction of residential units should be able to provide this. • Support the improvement of the area, but disappointed that the opportunity to create a quality piece of urban design has not been taken. Plans look very ordinary. • design standard and concept should be reviewed “before proceeding to the next step”. • Scheme “transcends localities and has significance comparable to Heathrow runways”.

Impact on existing residents:

• Worried “that I will not be able to continue to live in my home of over 40 years, which is rented, and which I do not want to leave”. • Not opposed to the idea of the development as a whole “which has the potential for providing the area with very considerable benefits”. • additional housing should not be at the expense of the quality of life of the current ,. residents. • introduction of such an intrusive and high density development risks “pushing out the residents and creating a 'them and us' mentality”. • Noise and other disturbance during the extended construction period • Loss of outlook/prospect • Loss of daylight/sunligh and overlooking/loss of privacy : • Reduction in the value of adjoining properties. : • “Proposed restrictions on parking in Beaumont Avenue seem to take no account of the needs of KHG's 65 flats. (Although the block is said to have its own off-

street spaces for 26 cars, in fact it has none) Restricting parking in Beaumont Avenue will force residents to park elsewhere in the locality. • Lack of certainty over mix of uses • If Beaumont Avenue is used as a through route it “will inevitably mean an increase in the amount of traffic leaving and entering the North End Road at the Beaumont Avenue/North End Road junction - already a highly traffic-stressed spot” • Noise, dirt, dust, and inconvenience resulting from the development and construction traffic over an extended period. • no benefits to local residents and nothing but noise and inconvenience for several years. • “will Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road remain fully useable throughout the duration of construction?” • Additional noise/pollution as a result of more people/traffic. • Barons Court already has to cope with the annual tennis tournaments – can not cope with anything else. • Harm to the gardens of Empress Place (in particular Nos. 4 and 6) as a result of the height of the proposed adjoining buildings, and loss of light/privacy. • Empress Place is “a quiet cul de sac away from the frenetic Lillie Road traffic” and should remain so. • Loss of prospect and views from Empress Place. Green space around Empress Place should not be built on. • removal of demolition rubble, delivery of building equipment, materials, supplies etc has not been adequately addressed. Needs to be managed properly given that the surrounding streets are already so congested. • Development could seriously impair the quality of life for local residents. • Any agreed code of construction practice should be set and enforced to a very highstandard. • concerned to keep construction traffic at Gate 8 to a minimum, in terms of duration and type of construction activity. • Object to proposed “office tower at block NE06” – out of keeping with surroundings and could threaten the long term future of small businesses and market traders in North End Road (by virtue of bringing high land and rental values to the least likely corner of the whole combined development site). • redevelopment “will see new buildings on the talgarth road with noise being bounced off and back to the residents on the other side” - At the moment the noise from the traffic is dissipated due to the low rise nature of the buildings in the area. • doubt that the development will really benefit the local area • The (North End Road) market is well used and provides character and should be protected • The proposed height of the buildings in Development Plot NE03 and BW04 is excessive. This section of North End Rd has an open space feel that would be lost if the building were to be too high. • would like reassurance that Kelway House's residents' right to light has been fully taken into consideration particularly block NE03 (and to some extent block BW04). • proposals will dramatically obscure the skyline of those residents of Lillie Road (Beaufort Court) that face North. This will effect the wellbeing of residents and reduce the value of their properties.

Impact on existing infrastructure/services:

• Existing tube stations at Earls Court and West Brompton already unable to handle passenger numbers during the rush hour (particularly West Brompton where the station entrance and barriers have not been enlarged since the addition of the Overground and the reopening of the Empress State building in recent years). • Concerned with increased traffic within the Earls Court/Lillie Road areas both during the development stage and then when there will be so many more residents • lack of details provided on traffic improvements in the area. North End Road already suffers from severe congestion and the plans seem to show no improvements being made to the junction of the North End Road and the Cromwell Road (a traffic blackspot) and one extra access road onto the A4 will only help traffic going out of London. For anyone wishing to cross the A4 they will have to use the already severely congested junctions at the North End Road and at Earls Court. • North End Road is already “one of the most congested in west London”. • esisting road network in the area is frequently grid-locked at peak times. Problem is worse when Chelsea FC are playing “can often take an hour to drive from Earls Court road to Northend Road”. This is without the additional 5000plus residences that are being proposed. • Proposed development will generate a “massive increase in the number of people using Earls Court and West Brompton Stations and generate further overcrowding. Extra platform space, station entrances and train frequency will be required in each station”. • Existing pedestrian routes along Lillie Road (particularly close to West Brompton station and specifically on the station bridge) are already insufficient/too narrow to manage the amount of footfall generated by Empress State Building, Brompton Oratory School, Lilly and IBIS Hotels – proposals would worsen the existing problems . Corner of Lillie Road and Seagrave Road is particularly dangerous. • “North End Road has a lot of north/south traffic and currently suffers congestion at the Lillie Road junction and in particular the Cromwell Road junction. With the removal of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre there will be more emphasis on events at Olympia”. This will generate more traffic approaching Olympia on the North End Road. • “Planned increase in trains capacity on the tube network is not to absorb c16k people in this development (or the predicted increase of c30k in the wider area). It is to solve the existing overcrowding / safety problem.” - development “will make commuting via Earls Court station very unpleasant and dangerous”. • proposed traffic solutions are no more than “tinkering and would only be viable if there was free flowing traffic to begin with”. • Area already suffers from some of the worse pollution in Europe. More traffic/congestion will worsen this, at the expense of the health of existing and new residents. • Council should insist on the developer “making improvements to the Lilly Road junction (presently proposed traffic lights will cause more delay than the current delay with the two mini-roundabouts) and most importantly to the Cromwell Road Junction where no improvements are proposed” - Idealy there should be an “overbridge to take straight through east-west traffic. As a minimum there should be an improved layout to provide a third lane north bound to take left filtering traffic to the west”. • Parking facilities at Olympia should be increased and “no further stress” should be “put on parking for the residents in the Olympia area”. • West Kesington is already crowded and will not be able to cope with even more people using the Piccadilly/District lines and local amenities.

• not enough information on plans to deal with traffic and transport improvements to deal with such a large increase in the local population. • happy that local shops and the market might benefit from it once completed, but there is a need to address the congested pavements and roads before a project of this size can take place. • Careful phasing and monitoring is required to ensure programmed co-ordination of new development with rail/station upgrades. Review points in the development programme should allow for revision of/re-detailing of later phases of the development • overall volume and mix of development proposed should be reduced. • Strong case for reducing commuting by encouraging local training initiatives in every aspect of both the construction and subsequent skillbase required for the proposed non-residental uses. • Victorian drains can not cope with the current heavy rainfall • Increased flood risk (Flood Risk Zone 3). (28g) • Increased flooding • Noise and air pollution • Sewerage and water pressure affects • plans for North End Road /Lille Road junction to revert to traffic light control is a major mistake. The change to the current double mini-roundabouts led to a significant & sustained improvement in traffic flows. • London's drains are “full to bursting point, even during a light shower” - and “the sewers cannot take the increased quantity of foul water”.

Local economy:

• Loss of existing small businesses due to the impact of further retail and office developments. • ECEC provides a unique commercial resource to the local area which should be protected/capitalised upon. • ECEC benefits local business and creates a large amount of jobs. It also provides as an 'eccentric' and 'colourful' cultural hub for the local area. • The cultural, business, retail and leisure facilities proposed by the developer “will either take trade from existing business or become underused or left empty and boarded up. There is only so much demand”. • Existing retail and leisure facilities in both Earls Court and Fulham are “challenged by the quality that they offer. The North End Road has become full of 'Pound Shops'. This is due to free market forces and limited demand as opposed to provision of space”. • North End Road market should not be moved – “it is the heart of Fulham and its local • residents and builds and supports the community”. Relocation of North End Road Market would “destroy the local colour and atmosphere of this part of Fulham” • loss of ECEC and related loss of jobs • “zero benefit to the local community, or the many businesses in the area”. • ECEC brings “exhibitors and visitors from all over the world, and with them comes their money. They book into local hotels, they eat in local restaurants, and they drink in local bars”.

Open space/mix of proposed land uses:

• Area does not need serviced apartments, a hotel, a private hospital or more office

Space – “needs more investment but not to displace the current community but to enhance it”. • “Do we need more retail shops?” • “Find it hard to believe that so much office space will be needed”. • Area is essentially residential and needs more “decent afforable homes which retain the charater of the area”. • Planning application is too ambiguous • lack of 5 a-side football pitches and tennis courts. • Proposed park “will be 25m at its widest” and the design “is solely driven by the railway line and not driven by a desire to create a practical space for outdoor sports activities”. • Development of this size should include a secondary school. • Proposed private hospital is unnecessary as two large NHS hospitals are already nearby (Charing Cross and Chelsea and Westminster hospitals). Fear a large private hospital could drain resources from these NHS hospitals • Development looks like another "Westfield" and “would damage the very many useful • small shops in this area which make it at present a very good place to live in. • Not clear if the blocks marked WK01/02 and WK/03 do away with the existing open space over West Kensington station. • commendable that there is a plan to “break up the impenetrable, unsightly and dangerous dead zone that exists currently” but any scheme should ensure there is sufficient green space for recreational use. • Should be “one large round park that is not narrow nor linear and that families in the community can enjoy”. • Some of the housing on this development ought to be set aside for “decent quality rented accommodation as well as for shared ownership” • Should be more affordable homes • Should be provision for “leisure activities out of doors as well as indoors, and not just walking along paths.” • fails to deliver the “open space and the cycling corridor along the railway line that the development plan suggested”. • open spaces wouls be largely in shadow

Other issues:

• Proposals are against the wishes of local residents. • “The decision is flawed as the council stands to gain from the Earls Court developments, which surely is a blatant conflict of interest.” • concerned that the development could run out of funding during the rebuilding project, and that it could “be years before the whole development is finished”. • Concerend that the development will involve two separate Councils, and that there should be continuity across both. • Area needs to be upgraded, but there should be much more consultation before any decisions are made. • blight issue “needs to be fully explained”. • Would upgrade the area “that now looks and feels somewhat derelict”, however, the “timings are incredibly slow and unrealistic”. • Concern that the developer can not guarantee that they will have financial solvency all the way up to 2032 to be able to complete the project. • “…do not want North End Road (market) moved. Fulham has a lot of old people in it and heavy shopping might be too much. The market belongs to Fulham not Earls Court.”

• Would like the Lillie Road and Brompton Road “pubs” to be replaced with “elegant” public houses with gardens and “no TV football pubs” • plans not detailed enough • potential reduction in local property prices as a result of the development • Insufficient consultation. • Will “exacerbate social divisions even further” • Local residents need “respite” – in relation to “sound, light, water, air and movement” • Impact of loss of ECEC generated custom on existing restaurant business in Lillie Road. • Would much prefer the proposed new quarter around “Thaxton Square” to be primarily residential in nature. • wish to see high quality sustainable development, enforcement of on site parking restrictions and travel plan, and high levels of security provision at all times – even if this has to be provided by private security services. • “doesn't make sense to re-develop and yet close hospitals” • developer has not yet provided detailed proposals for the removal of asbestos (demolition of ECEC) and the residents should be included in any consultation before building work is granted • views of local residents not being listened to • support progress but feel a phased approach with full consultation of the residents would be useful - feel the “project is being railroaded through” • submit that it is “doubtful as to whether the Council can objectively determine this application” as a result of an alleged “conflict of interest” • concerned about the role of the “Kwok family as major investors in this development”, which it is submitted “casts doubt on the proposed funding arrangements”. • concerned that the full impact of this development on the wider community has not been properly taken into account - Councils should produce an Area Action Plan. The function of an SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) is to deal exclusively with the development area. The failure to produce an Area Action Plan has left the impact of this development on the local community unaddressed. • concerned about “my offices which have been established here for past 15 years”, and the “business interruption I may suffer”. • hard to envisage “the heralded ‘High Street’ retaining any sense of human scale”. Questions whether the architects point to “any other world city with a successful ‘High Street’ abutted by up to 28 storeys..?” • GP shortage • Proposals amount to “gentrification” and an alternative approach should be found. • Proposals are a “waste” rather than and “improvement”. • “A lot of lives will be disrupted just so that the council could create a new sub- class to spearhead their political agenda for the catchment area. This is a disturbing and concerning trend of local government getting into bed with big business under the guise of regeneration to fulfil a narrow minded ambition with total disregards for human lives”. • Since the two main applications are linked, “each Borough must be prepared to refuse its own application, recognising that it may also thereby veto the other. Naturally, there will be close consultation between the two authorities, but that should not inhibit either from forming a stronger view than the other's of its duty”. • The West Kensington Estate is “not distinguished enough to deserve protection, but should not be destroyed wantonly and wastefully”.

• could be “appropriate for central government to call this scheme in for decision by the Secretary of State”. • proposed inclusion of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in the scheme “is at least partly for improper purposes, namely the removal of deprived social groups ('social cleansing') and obtaining of political advantage for the current administration through the removal of voters who are unlikely to support it”.

Andrew Slaughter MP

• Has commented on the original and revised application, on his own behalf and also on behalf of his constituents, including residents on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. • the application contains too many buildings that are too high for the area and the revisions cram even move buildings into a development that is already too dense. • the majority of residents of West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates do not want the scheme or wish to leave their current homes. • close-knit communities which have evolved over the forty to fifty years since the estates were built would be “shattered”. • the process and its outcome, which will take twenty years to complete, “is a travesty, and states it demonstrates top-down planning at its most rapacious”. Housing: • The estates are decent neighbourhoods. Substantial sums spent upgrading tenanted homes under the previous Government’s Decent Homes programme. The local authority is at fault for any neglect of the communal and external areas of the estates. • Poor maintenance and management is a consequence of either neglect or a deliberate policy to run down the estates. Should not be used as a reason for supporting demolition. The West Kensington and Gibbs Green Community Homes Group is committed to taking their homes into community ownership and has been joined by over two-thirds of the households on the estates. Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre: • Does not support the view that the loss of the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre can be tolerated because of O2 in the east of the city. Supports the view of the Association of Exhibition Organisers who consider the plans to destroy London’s major West End exhibition centre will have a disastrous consequences on not only the UK exhibition industry but also on the national and local economy. High rise and over dense developments: • The amount and height of development proposed is excessive. Will replace existing predominantly low-rise housing and completely re-define the skyline in an area that currently has very few high rise buildings. • the placing of so many high-rise buildings is an attempt to make as much profit from the scheme as possible without any regard to the consequences. Site is already one of the most densely-populated areas of London. Road and rail networks struggle to cope with current levels of usage. Public services from schools and hospitals to water and sewage systems are at capacity and there no prospect of the local infrastructure coping with this degree of development. Affordable homes: • the “loss of 760 good-quality, mainly low-rise social rented, and affordable leasehold and freehold properties speaks for itself”. Insufficient guarantees have been given as to location, size and type of property for displaced residents. Based on the Seagrave Road development, all displaced occupiers will be allocated units separated off from the main development contrary to the council’s stated policy of supporting mixed communities. It is likely that a substantial

proportion of existing residents will, against their wishes, leave the area rather than face years of disruption and uncertainty. Considers it is in the developer/council’s interest to seek to gentrify the area. • Beyond the existing residents, affordable housing will be limited to around 10%. This is inadequate, contrary to the London Plan and the Core Strategy. • Concerned raised about the timescale of the application and the consultation process. Considers the consultation period inadequate.

Hammersmith and Fulham Liberal Democrats:

• Object to the proposed redevelopment on the following grounds: - too large and too dense. Will harm the amenities of existing residents which have not been adequately assessed and examined by the Council. - Will “destroy and disrupt” existing communities along Lillie Road and North End Road. - Not enough affordable housing and other community benefits. - Number of units proposed requires buildings which are too big, tall and dense to fit the existing character of the area. Existing residents will suffer loss of light. - Proposed buildings are not of a “human scale”, in contrast to the surrounding housing, and would dominate the area. - Would harm the skyline and domestic character of the area. - Number of new residents would exceed capacity of local infrastructure. Could not support population increase without further investment. Development should be lead by Area Action Plan. - Would lead to significant and dangerous overcrowding at tube stations during peak hours. - Local roads are already significantly congested and some are at capacity. - Submits that some of the worst air quality black spots in Europe are within the immediate area. Pollution would increase and additional congestion could result in air quality falling below legally acceptable minimums, impacting on the health service; - Insufficient open space and park area. - Area already suffers from reduced water pressure and the drains cannot cope with heavy rainfall; area has a history of causing local flooding in basements and basement courtyards in the adjacent area. - Essential that water, drainage and flooding is considered as core elements.

The Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum (HAFAD):

• Viewed the application and commented as follows: - all residential units should be designed to achieve Life Time Home standards. - properties should be adaptable for the installation of a through lift at a later date. - should be resting spaces on the route to Lillie Road from the bottom of the site. - possibility of transport links within the site should be investigated. - lifts proposed should be accessible in the event of a fire. Question whether there are enough lifts per tower. - blue badge space allocation and their position around the site should be confirmed. - refuse and recycling areas should be fully accessible. - some concerns regarding the shared surface within the development. Suggested that a designated lower speed limit might be considered appropriate.

Chelsea Football Club:

• Submit that the current application fails to take advantage of the potential for a new strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction such as a new stadium development, with associated conference and exhibition spaces. • Also consider the application to be premature until the “OAPF has been fully adopted.” • CFC have been “exploring options to relocate elsewhere in the Borough. These options are limited but it appears that the ECWK OA could accommodate the club’s requirements.” • Support the efforts of the authorities and landowners to comprehensively regenerate ECWKOA, but consider that the current applications does not fully recognise the opportunity the site presents to provide “a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction” as identified in the London Plan. • State that the overall level of leisure, education, health, community and cultural uses in the proposed development “account for only approximately 3% of the overall floorspace applied for”. • Submit that the “creation of a new stadium, as well as additional conference and exhibition space at ECWKOA could facilitate regeneration and create a high quality flagship development, providing a gateway for London and meeting the objectives of the London Plan to provide “a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction within the Opportunity Area.” • Want to ensure that the opportunity is taken to “explore fully how a new state of the art football stadium can be integrated into this major development opportunity”, and consider that “such a component in the opportunity area would make a significant difference in terms of the deliverability and quality of the infrastructure needed to make the area a success in the shortest possible time”. • The letter goes on to list a number of specific benefits that CFC believe the incorporation of a stadium would offer (these not repeated in this report as there is no stadium proposed in the planning application currently before the committee).

2.3.22 Summary of other representations:

• Proposals make mention of gyms and garden spaces “but will there be any tennis courts and/or basketball courts to keep all these people, particularly youngsters, engaged in sports and physical activity in the fresh air, thus keeping people fit and healthy and benefiting ‘society’?” • One representation received expressed no opinion on the development either way.

REPRESENTATIONS FROM RESIDENTS & GROUPS/ORGANISATIONS IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON & CHELSEA:

2.3.23 120 representations have been received from residents/groups in RBKC (2 in support; 118 objections). 45 of these date from the time of the first round of consultation, 71 from round two, 2 from round three, and 2 from the time of the fourth consultation.

2.3.24 Summary of representations in support of the proposals (2 representations):

• The Earls Court area is in “desperate need of rejuvenation and these plans are wonderfully forward-thinking and innovative. A change is needed so badly, this project must go ahead.” • development will enhance the area by providing better housing and new people.

• no objection; support the regeneration of the area.

2.3.25 Summary of representations objecting to the proposals (120 representations):

Kensington Society:

• Scale of development is “way beyond an otherwise very generous policy set for an opportunity area: the London Plan 2011 sets limits to these parameters which the applications have comprehensively disregarded” - proposals “need to be scaled down to respect the limits of the London Plan and the limitations of the transport system”. • consultation has been flawed and proposals “take no regard of consultation responses that disputed the proposals” – in particular “fundamental objections to the density, height, massing and uses”. • Environmental Statement is incomplete, and development is large enough to require a Strategic Environmental Assessment • application is premature, “in that consultation on the second draft of the SPD has not yet happened”. • applications do not accord with the development plan, specifically the London Plan 2011. • scale, density, and massing are excessive and out of character with this part of London. • proposed uses are not appropriate, especially the large amount of offices. Too little affordable housing, social infrastructure and cultural facilities. • expect the final version of the SPD to be in conformity with the London Plan with regard to scale and density of the proposals and for the appropriateness of the uses. Proposals need to be properly tested and be in conformity with the London Plan and the respective Core Strategies of the Boroughs. • SPD should be shaped by the development plan, not by the ambitions of the applicant. • development of this Opportunity Area “is too important to get wrong – the issues raised by the first consultation and those that will undoubtedly be raised by the next consultation should shape the proposals”. • parameters of the development seem to have been “set largely in the context of the 2008 London Plan, with little or no acknowledgement of the changes that have taken place in the 2011 London Plan”. Proposals should accord with the new London Plan (2011) – particularly in respect of density, scale and mix of uses. • Make specific reference to Policy 2.11B(b), Policy 3.4, and Policy 8.4 of the London Plan and to the London Plan Density Matrix (table 3.2), and submit that the proposed development has a net residential density “considerably higher” than the “highest of the density ranges in the London Plan Density Matrix (Table 3.2)” and is not therefore in accordance with the London Plan. • “…possible that some of the mixed-use buildings have resulted in taller buildings because the applicant has added the “full” residential density to the commercial floorspace to produce a very high density in terms of a floorspace ratio/plot ratio. This would be contrary to the GLA’s forthcoming Housing SPD”. • Quantum of “office development (120,000 sqm) is strategic in scale – this is not identified as such in the London Plan”. • Would worsen existing levels of public transport stress, particularly in the case of the underground.

Kensington Mansions Residents' Association:

• Building are still “too tall and dense, with a look that is down-market and inappropriate to the architectural character of the surrounding conservation areas”. • needs to be a careful review of the “effects of this project on the environmental health of the area, and the mental and physical health of its residents”. • does not appear that there has been a “competent study of the impact of a protracted construction in an already dense residential community. The project needs to deal with noise pollution, light intrusion from nightime working, inhalation of stirred up dirt and dust, fumes and inconvenience from years of massive additional amounts of heavy goods traffic”. Authorities need to protect residents during the process and to ensure the outcome is not detrimental on all these levels. • not enough green space. Linear park must be a “genuine park that is fit for purpose and not a pathway along the site that simply ticks a box on the developer's marketing materials”. Studies have shown the beneficial impact of green space and the “highly negative impact of lack thereof”. • “The lack of adequate transport facilities and the impact of adding so much volume to already overloaded North/ South roads has not been addressed. Between the extra volume already predicted due to organic growth and the volume attributable to this project and from developments north of Cromwell Road up to Kensal Opportunity Area, the system simply will not be able to cope”.

• “Many of the diagrams of road junctions are vague, volume estimates are taken out of context, there doesn't seem to be a real plan for dealing with road and transport issues. The mooted tube improvements won't be completed until the end of the project”. • Too many tall buildings, and “WVO1/WVO2/WVO5 are much too near to the backs of Philbeach Gardens and Eardley Crescent. There are windows which will overlook and violate residents’ right to privacy and quiet enjoyment, whereas the existing buildings are not residential with windows overlooking”. • businesses in Earls Court “will be devastated by the loss of the Exhibition Centre trade and the disincentive for patrons to be in the area during the long tear down and construction years. This is both an economic and human cost that has not been evaluated. The potential employment in the future will not be a mitigant for the current restaurant/shop/hotel owners”. • project must be considered alongside the other projects in the area which will bring thousands of other new residents into the area. Much of the construction for these projects will coincide with the proposed project.

Summary of other representations received objecting to the development:

2.3.26 The following are indicative of the nature and range of comments received, and in many respects reflect the objections raised by H&F residents, as outlined above:

• Development is too big and will harm the amenities of the surrounding area. • Insufficient public open space, having regard to the proposed residential density. • Insufficient affordable housing. • No need to demolish the existing council estate properties. • Buildings are too high. • “proposed domestic living areas too small.”

• Public transport already unable to cope (particularly the underground) and existing problems will be made worse. • Increased traffic generation and congestion. • Increased traffic generation will worsen air quality. • Loss of business to existing local retailers. • Insufficient education provision. • Development will worsen existing sewage problems. • Approval should be delayed until all outstanding concerns have been resolved. • Proposals “do not appear to demonstrate any of the imaginative flair of his (Sir Terry Farrell’s) earlier works.” • Proposals will not be “judged as a fine vision, and example of outstanding 21c innovative and sustainable town planning and a place in which people will be eager to live and outsiders want to visit.” • “…aspects of the project are no different from, and no less horrid than, those seen in Chinese regional cities”. • Development is too dense, and the massing and building heights excessive and harmful. • Development seems to be wholly motivated by profit. • Inadequate space for “team games e.g. football, rugby. Cricket, etc.” • “Notwithstanding limited plots of green space, there is no park.” • “..no spiritual centre.” • No outstanding feature or “wow factor” by which the “area can be identified and the community unified” • “At the junction of the West Cromwell Road and the Warwick Road there is no attempt to design an impressive entrance to London.” • Sceptical that Thames Water and other utilities providing other services have the capacity to meet the demands of the development. • High rise buildings and tower blocks are distinguishing features of each development plot, but are contrary to the character of earls Court and this part of London, “allowing for the disruptive Empress State exception.” • “construction from 2am to 5am, with the total project apparently going on for 20 years.” • Developer’s traffic and transport increase estimates are not accurate. • “..developer’s impact assessment is restricted to the development area only, with no analysis of the impact on surrounding areas.” • High rise buildings will harm the skyline and “fatally damage the sense of liveableness of the areas” • Scale of the development will “damage the image of the area, as tall buildings in London,excluding the City and Canary Wharf, are usually associated with affordable housing population.” • Noise, disturbance and disruption during protracted construction works, which would include heavy vehicles. • Given the scale of the development there is a risk that it will not be completed. • An Area Action Plan should be prepared to properly assess the impact of this development on neighbouring areas - The Supplementary Planning Document has fallen short of addressing the needs of our local community. • Pollution levels already exceed the legal limits and Increasing the numbers of people who live here, and the consequent traffic and construction activity will only worsen the existing situation. • The bus and tube network, and Earl's Court Station facilities, are already stretched – local needs have not been effectively addressed in redevelopment planning.

• Proposal involves building on the Counter's Creek flood plain, its construction will spread the flood risk more widely. This is a particularly worrying, as the incidence of flooding seems already on the rise, and will therefore be exacerbated by the redevelopment. • concern about the ability of Thames Water to satisfy residents’ “existing needs, let alone the additional requirements of the extra population under the Development”. • Councils have a duty of care to their existing residents – “Please exercise that duty of care by preparing a thorough Area Action Plan to assess the impact of the development from the viewpoint of your existing residents”. • Support the general principle of redevelopment but the current proposal is unacceptable on the grounds of Scale and massing; Proximity of certain elements to property in Philbeach Gardens (causing overlooking/loss of privacy and an increased sense of enclosure); Potential disruption during construction; lack of open space provision; harm to the existing skyline (due to building heights and layout) • Proposal would result in narrow streets with excessively tall buildings on either side • Loss of daylight (Philbeach Gardens) • Loss of prospect/outlook (from the rear of Philbeach Gardens properties) • Lack of green space • Disruption during construction, particularly along the proposed road running along the rear boundary of Philbeach Gardens properties • Increased pressure on GPs and schools • Not in keeping with the locality having a negative impact on nearby conservation areas and listed buildings • to permit the development would be inconsistent with previous decisions that have taken place in the locality (within RBKC). • Traffic congestion on Warwick road and subsequent pollution • Represents a departure from the existing urban character • Retail use in this location is misplaced • Loss of landmark buildings • Increase in traffic and road congestion having a negative impact on road safety • Increase in traffic and road congestion having a negative impact on carbon emissions • Increased pressure on existing on-street parking • excessive height and scale and the subsequent negative impact on: Skyline and townscape views; Existing character of the locality; Overlooking and overshadowing; Micro climate (wind tunnelling, sun and reflection) • Increased flood risk • negative impact on traffic flow and parking, particularly along Earls Court road and the subsequent impact on air pollution. • Harm to existing living conditions in Philbeach Gardens (14m high wall to be built at the rear boundary) and potential disruption (noise & dust) during construction • Loss of iconic ECEC building • Loss of existing identity • Not representative of what local residents want • Lack of open space provision, including allotments • proposal should incorporate more trees, more affordable houses, low rent retail units, libraries and NHS hospitals • Loss of historic art deco architecture (ECEC Warwick road façade) • Too much affordable housing in this locality • Does not conform with LDF

• Inappropriate ratios of street widths and building heights, limiting sunlight • Lack of useable green and open space • Should be considered alongside other developments • Loss of existing buildings (EC1 & EC2 – due to iconic presence and impact on local businesses) • Inappropriate location for new shops • Disruption during construction (noise, vibration, dust, traffic) and impact on resident’s quality of life and health • Public square at Warwick road will become traffic island • Appearance is out of character with nearby conservation areas • Blight • Not what local residents want • loss of the existing buildings (EC1 & EC2 ) would result in a loss of exhibition, cultural and sports facilities and impact local jobs • Height and overshadowing (having negative impact on views and light) • Impact on schools

Councillor Linda Wade (Earls Court Ward Councillor)

• Proposal is an overdevelopment. Does not reflect feel, height, massing and scale of surrounding communities. • Density levels too high for the infrastructure to support. • Complex nature of the application is hard for the majority of residents to comprehend and respond to. • Scope of SPD is limited and does not fully address the impact of the development. • Area Action Plan should have been prepared. • Inaccurate figures produced on traffic flows. Traffic generated would be at a level the area cannot support. • Increase traffic levels will have a knock on affect on the existing poor Air Quality of the area. • Question strategy, timing and scale of delivery of Cleaner cars/charging points. • Health issues associated with scale of construction sites. • Insufficient detail relating to impact on existing residents from increase pedestrian flows. • Although the development is bike friendly there is no bike lane provision. • Emphasis placed on increasing passenger access arrangements at existing stations rather than increasing capacity of the trains. Increase in residential population will put an intolerable burden on the existing infrastructure. • Blight incurred should be geared to preventing rather than avoiding liability. • Light pollution and noise disturbance associated from night time working. • Existing area already has a problem with low water pressure and supply and potential for flooding has not been given proper consideration. • Ratio of open green space to built area is not good enough. Space required for children.Allocation within proposed gardens squares not similar in character, fill or space to existing surrounding squares. • Proposed development plots in RBKC too close to existing residential properties. • Too much impact on skyline from surrounding areas, including Brompton Cemetery. • Loss of office space has been offset by a reduction in community infrastructure.

REPRESENTATIONS FROM OTHER RESIDENTS, GROUPS & ORGANISATIONS (59 representations)

2.3.26 In addition to the above, representations have also been received from: The GLA; English Heritage; English Heritage (Archaeology); The Environment Agency; Thames Water; London Fire Brigade; Natural England; CPRE; Open Spaces Society; The Twentieth Century Society; The Theatres Trust; Sport England; Disability Forum; LB Richmond; Network Rail; The Archdeacon of Middlesex; CBRE (on behalf of CFC); CGMS (on Behalf of Met Police); DPP (on behalf of Spen Hill Developments Ltd & Tesco Stores Ltd); Lambert Smith Hampton (on behalf of Spen Hill Developments Ltd); Association of Event Organisers; Diversified Business Communications UK; Montgomery; Emap Connect; Mack Brooks Exhibitions Ltd; William Reed Business Media; Reed Exhibitions; Informa Exhibitions; ESP Events Ltd; European Convention Bureau; Earls Court & Olympia Ltd; 40 Camden Gardens, NW1; 18 Owen Waters House (Essex); and Rottingdean (Brighton). 2 Further representations have been received where no address is given.

2.3.27 The contents of these representations can be summarised as follows:

Greater London Authority (GLA)/Mayor of London:

• The Stage 1 report (dated 7 December 2011), states that London Plan policies on land use, housing, open space and children’s play space, urban design, inclusive access, equalities, biodiversity, noise, air quality, climate change mitigation and adaption and transport are relevant. The report adds that the application complies with some policies but not others. • Land use - proposals broadly consistent with the land uses anticipated by the London Plan and draft SPG but there are outstanding matters relating to the nature, quantum and distribution of these uses. • Housing - the significant housing provision is supported but the proposals are currently inconsistent with London Plan policies 3.4,3.5,3.8, 3.10,3.11 and 3.12. • Open space and children’s play space – the significant open space provision and land for food is supported but proposals inconsistent with London Plan policies 3.6 7.18n and 7.22. • Urban Design - the master plan has much to commend it but proposals currently inconsistent with policies 7.1.7.3, 7.4, 7.5,7.6 7.7 7,8 and 7.9. • Inclusive design - the proposals are inconsistent with policy 7.2. • Equalities - proposals are currently inconsistent with policy 3.1. • Biodiversity - proposals are inconsistent with policy 7.9. • Noise and air quality - proposals are inconsistent with policies 7.14 and 7.15. • Climate change mitigation and adaption – proposals much to commend them in terms of their approach to mitigation and adaption but are inconsistent with policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5-5.8 and 5.9-5.15 • Transport – proposals inconsistent with policies 6.1,6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11,6.14 and 8.3. • The Stage 1 report adds that the following changes might remedy the deficiencies and possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan: • Land use - application should address outstanding matters relating to the nature, quantum and distribution of theses uses on the site under each scenario. • Housing - further information and discussion is required on housing especially regarding estate renewal and affordable housing provision. The applicant should cooperate with the assessment of the financial viability appraisal in order to conclude this without undue delay to the determination of the applications.

• Open space and children’s play space - the proposals should be re-evaluated in the light of the confirmed child yield and amendments to the scheme and be confirmed as complying with the relevant policies and guidance. • Urban design - the applicant should submit the agreed changes and ensure that these would be consistent with all relevant policies and guidance. • Inclusive access - the applicant should address the comments raised, submit the agreed changes and ensure that the proposals would be consistent with all relevant policies and guidance. • Equalities - the applicant should address comments raised, further discuss the issue with officers to ensure proposals are consistent with relevant policies and guidance. • Biodiversity - the applicant should address comments raised, further discuss the issue with officers to ensure proposals are consistent with relevant policies and guidance. • Noise and Air quality - the applicant should address comments raised, further discuss the issue with officers to ensure proposals are consistent with relevant policies and guidance. • Climate change mitigation and adaption - the applicant should address comments raised, further discuss the issue with officers to ensure proposals are consistent with relevant policies and guidance. • Transport - - the applicant should address comments raised, further discuss the issue with officers to ensure proposals are consistent with relevant policies and guidance. • Following their initial consultation stage report, the GLA issued a letter on 3 May 2012 in response to meetings attended by the applicants with Transport for London (TfL) and GLA officers and provided an update on transport matters. This letter was drafted by TfL and GLA officers and does not constitute a formal response or decision of the Mayor. • The letter refers to the deficiencies and outstanding information set out in the Consultation stage report in respect to the transport assessment and overall transport strategy. It acknowledges the discussions and negotiations between officers of all 3 authorities including TFL which subsequently led to the revised planning application and transport assessment in March 2012. • In summary GLA officers recognise that a considerable amount of progress has been made since the consultation report in December 2011 and confirm a number of areas where further work or agreement is required. The letter goes on to state that it is expected that more detailed section 106 discussions alongside the drafting of planning conditions will take place in the coming months with regard to financial contributions, timings for delivery of mitigation and development triggers and internal sign off of highway modelling and station works will also be progressed in due course.

English Heritage

• EH consider the revised Design Guidelines to be appropriate, specifically in relation to Tall and Feature Buildings and material palettes. English Heritage now consider the Master plan proposal to be acceptable.

English Heritage (Archaeological Advisor)

• No objection, subject to the inclusion of a condition and informative on any planning permission to secure archaeological investigation (including a geo- archaeological assessment) and the recording and publication of the results in advance of any construction.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) - No objection.

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames - No objection.

Environment Agency - No objections, subject to conditions.

Thames Water:

• State that the water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demand and therefore recommend that a condition be attached to any planning permission requiring that no development commences prior to “impact studies of the existing water supply” being submitted and approved. These studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. • It is recommended that a further condition be attached to ensure that no impact piling takes place until a piling method statement has been submitted and approved. • Confirm that they are in consultation with the developer “in developing a drainage strategy. The developer has agreed for an impact study to be completed and all drainage will be subject to the output from the study.”

Natural England

• Consider the scheme offers an opportunity to provide increased and enhanced biodiversity and ecology within the area. The provision of new biodiversity and ecology, providing support for a Biodiversity Action Plan flora and fauna is supported. Inclusion of proposed landscape types are also welcomed and supported. • The provision of green/brown roofs, food production/orchards and living walls are encouraged and supported. • Natural England prefers use of bespoke solutions based on the needs of wildlife specific to the site and adjacent area. The inclusion of refuges and habitat for insects, bats and Black Redstarts is also welcomed, encouraged and supported together with the commitment to deliver Green Infrastructure and biodiversity as each phase is delivered. • Whilst some loss of habitat in respect of the rail lines is acknowledged, the proposal is considered to provide an opportunity to provide equal and or greater replacement through the delivery of the application. • Following the March revisions Natural England had no further substantive comments and welcomed the increase of open space provision.

Network Rail

• Initially expressed two primary concerns: a) Ensure that the network has the track, train and station capacity to accommodate the passengers generated by the development. b) Ensure that decking over the West London Line can be constructed safely within parameters that will not fetter future improvements. • Unable to support applicant’s conclusion that the additional demand for over ground services on the West London Line will cater sufficiently for the growth in the next 20 years. The London and South East RUS (Route Utilisation Strategy) has examined

demand on the West London Line. Shows overcrowding at peak times and RUS predicts this will worsen over the next 20 years. • Network Rail subsequently identified 3 key areas, specifically relating to capacity at West Brompton Station; Trans-European Networks (TENS) requirements and platform lengthening at West Brompton. Network Rail acknowledged that all three areas have been the subject of discussions with the applicants.

Sport England

• No objection to the proposal. Have had regard to existing land uses and consider this to be a non–statutory application. • Have assessed the application in the light of Sport England’s Land Use Planning Policy Statement Planning Policies for Sports. Based on Sport England’s Facilities Planning model, Sports England suggest that a swimming pool and sports hall could be well placed in this location and would serve existing and proposed levels of demand. Request to be consulted on the detailed design of the proposed sports facilities.

Open Spaces Society

• Consider that no thought has been given to the needs of those who live outside the area of the proposed development, where there is a deficiency of public open space in both boroughs. • Welcome the Lost River Park but add that no open space is provided of a size and shape sufficient to permit a wider variety of outdoor recreational activities that could be carried on without mutual interference. Add the open space provided is dominated by the buildings surrounding it. Would prefer the smaller public gardens and squares be replaced by a single large park, large enough to provide more attractive amenities for the whole neighborhood.

Campaign To Protect Rural England (London) – CPRE

• Consider that panning permission should be refused, primarily on the grounds that: the height of the buildings incompatible with surrounding residential areas, conservation areas and listed buildings; a fuller transport plan is required; and the provision of open space is considered to be unsatisfactory. • In addition, the CPRE question preparation of master plan ahead of completed SPD, and consider this has prevented residents authoritatively commenting on the outline application. • CPRE also raise the following concerns:: - the master plan treats site as a 1960’s comprehensive redevelopment with all buildings demolished/rebuilt as commercial development with offices, shops and flats all in high rise buildings. The open space and community space are in their view provided “only as necessary extras to obtain permission”. The master plan ignores the appearance of existing surrounding houses. - ECEC should not be demolished. Should adopt selective demolition. The main Warwick Road entrance could lead to a shopping mall with feature space similar to Covent Garden. The small halls could be used for conferences and exhibitions. Upper floors could continue their existing uses or be converted into offices. - CPRE London press for large scale redevelopment to be built as complete sustainable communities, focused on inner London, on town centers and other transport hubs, large enough to offer a range of social and economic amenities within

walking distance of peoples homes. Current scheme fulfills some of the above but is considered an overdevelopment with reliance on tall buildings. - Earls Court is the most densely populated ward in Europe. Scheme should not increase existing density level. CPRE research shows a density of 450 to 520 habitable rooms can be achieved with 3 or 4 storey terrace housing/flats. - Car parks are underground. Should be caged and lockable to provide security. - Housing should be 50% affordable for of all types. - Open space and garden squares should have spaces for small children and a covered area for bad weather. - All housing should achieved the highest BREAM ratings and solar panels for hot water and photo-voltaic cells for power. Should be a central power plan to provide heat and power. - Inadequate public open space provision on top of the lost river park and garden squares. There should be one large open sunny park of 3 hectares. In all areas of the development there must be large scale planting especially near the man made surroundings to reduce the levels of pollutants. Proposal does not meet current standards for pollution. - Currently not enough transport capacity. 16,000 more people will overrun the system. The main roads are at capacity. A two lane relief road should be built across the site on the line of the Broadway to connect the Earls Court one way system to the A4.to the north and Lillie Road to the south. -Attempts must be made to reduce traffic pollution, charging points for electric cars, car clubs and bicycle parks, links to the proposed cycle route north of Cromwell Road and the relief of the Earl’s Court one way system and planting more trees. Underground car parking for commercial uses should be kept to a minimum. Routes to them will have to be carefully considered so as not to cause congestion on the roads and at the junctions. - Users for the community facilities must be found before the Sec 106 agreement is completed. - Question need for a private hospital. - Sections of Conservation areas on both boroughs should be preserved.

The Theatres Trust

• Supports the application. Welcome the inclusion of a Cultural Strategy and the recognition of the contribution that cultural facilities can make to local areas. • Would support the inclusion of a theatre/performance space as part of the redeveloped site and the mix of uses intended to maintain the location as destination site. Would expect the proposed cultural floor space to constitute a meaningful element of the mix of uses. Recommend that a condition be imposed to record Earls Court 2 prior to the commencement of works.

London Fire Brigade (LFB) :

• The LFEPA's water office has requested the provision of fire hydrants. The LFEPA consider it will be necessary for a number of fire hydrants to be installed in agreed positions within the proposed development.

CGMS (on behalf of the Metropolitan Police - Occupier of the Empress State building):

• Empress State Building functions as the Metropolitan Police Service’s operational

headquarters. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) have raised a number of concerns on the initial proposals and revisions. • development provides insufficient mitigation against the impact upon operational policing across London and it fails to comply with national guidance and the statutory development plan. • The building is occupied entirely by the police and the majority of the services required to ensure effective operational policing are based at the building. Functions comprise key policing and security operations. • Proposed routes and development to the immediate north west will result in the loss of the car parking area ancillary to ESB. • Development of this scale within close proximity to ESB will prejudice operational policing and security operations across London. • sensitive nature and operational importance of ESB requires specific mitigation measures including secure/controlled access on a 24/7 basis. • proposal will result in direct overlooking of ESB from both residential and commercial uses. • will be a loss of operational car parking essential to the continued operational police use. • proposed access routes to the west, north and east will prejudice effective on going operational use given the required restricted access. • essential ancillary use within ESB not identified for re-provision. • Development fails to mitigate against impact upon operational policing and by virtue of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, the LPA have a statutory duty to ensure policing impact is mitigated. • Draft National Planning Policy Framework requires provision of security and community infrastructure. The applicant’s potential to prejudice strategic operational policing ensures proposal is in conflict. • PPS1 requires LPA’s to ensure infrastructure is provided and PPS12 recognizes the police as a key social infrastructure delivery agency. • Unless ESB is retained for policing or alternative premises provided development conflicts with London Plan policy 3.16. • Until confirmation ESB can be safeguarded for continued policing use proposal is contrary to London Plan policy 7.13. • LBHF Core Strategy includes policing within definition of community facility provision. Failure to confirm Protection of ESB for continued policing use is contrary to the Core Strategy. • Policy LE1 Of the LBHF Core Strategy seeks to ensure appropriate employment accommodation is provided by retaining premises capable of providing continued accommodation for local services or significant employment. There is a policy requirement to retain ESB within its current use. • Proposal conflicts with draft SPD which seeks modernization of existing office accommodation. • Scale of development will increase pressure upon existing police resources and their ability to maintain a safe and secure environment therefore contrary to Development Plan policies. Any approval should include a commitment to provide appropriate police related facilities secured by Sec 106 or by planning conditions. • Development likely to create 4100 jobs which conflicts with the London Plan that identifies a capacity of 7,000 additional jobs. • Creation of approximately 6,500 net additional dwellings considered excessive with determined against London Plan policy.

Archdeacon of Middlesex:

• Application is in the parish of St Andrew’s Fulham Fields. Not in a position to either support or object to the application, given level of detail in the outline application and all depends on the details proposed at the detailed stage. • However, would like to make the following comments: - Level of social housing proposed is much lower than expected. Buying into intermediate housing is not an option for many people. - If the relocation of social tenants is agreed, one stage decanting strategy is felt to be a good thing to avoid unnecessary dislocation of residents from their communities, schools etc. - Phasing of the development needs to be fully understood in human terms. Will greatly affect all existing new residents, the schools, churches and social facilities which serve them. - The marginalized need to be considered. Demand for facilities provided by St Andrew’s and St Cuthbert’s Centre (in RBKC) likely to increase with a huge population increase. These facilities are currently being improved with lottery funding. Need to discuss how this site and the faith community can further help meet the community needs arising from the master plan. - Need for a central community meeting space in the master plan and a good size community hall with meeting rooms and outdoor amphitheatre /gathering space available to all to use. Suggest this should be in a prominent place on the ‘High Street’. - There needs to be facilities for young people. - The London Diocesan Board for Schools will wish to develop a dialogue regarding their requirements. St Cuthbert with St Matthias School will be keen to serve the new community enabling rapid integration of incoming families with existing ones. Suggest school could be integrated within the development on a larger site. - Protection of existing views of Church spires should be ensured in the urban form and feel of the area. - The assumption that further high buildings should be permitted just because one is already there needs further thought.

Association of Event Organisers (AEO):

• AEO is the trade body and represents some of the biggest event organizers’ in the world and would be considered a major stakeholder in the Earls Court Exhibition Centre. • AEO object to the proposal on the following grounds: - Will result in the loss of valuable exhibition space, result in a loss of many small local businesses serving the exhibition centers, national and international exhibiting companies and have a significant negative economic impact on the boroughs. - Demolition of EC venues without an adequate replacement would weaken London’s ability to attract exhibition investment and would rule out Central and West London as a suitable destination for the larger shows and events. - Development at the Olympia venue cannot be viewed as a suitable replacement for the EC venue and is unsuitable for large tradeshows. Recent transport issues around Olympia will lessen its appeal as a suitable venue. -AEO would support the redevelopment of the EC venue on the condition that a replacement facility with a minimum usable exhibiting floor space of 40,000 sqm on one level in a continuous and uninterrupted space is provided.

Diversified Business Communications: ESP Events LTD; Euro Convention Bureau; Emap Connect; Informa exhibitions; Mack Brooks Exhibitions; Montgomery; Reed Exhibitions and William Reed Business Media:

• All members of AEO and object to the loss of the ECEC venues. In this context they endorsed many of the objections the AEO (above) and comment as follows: - loss of ECEC would have a disastrous effect on many local businesses. - question the location and facilities at ExCel as a viable central London location as a top international facility. - Building has a unique water feature and currently the third biggest venue in the UK. - Amazed that the ECEC is not listed.

EC&O Venues:

• Believe that the EC master plan will deliver enormous benefits for both the local community and for London as a whole. • Represents a multi-million pound investment in London that will create 7,500 new homes and 12,000 new jobs, drive economic growth and help meet London’s housing needs. • Capco is committed to ensuring that any development benefits local people, and will support their employment in the new businesses such as restaurants, clubs, shops and cultural facilities that the masterplan would create. • “Capco is committed to its world class conference, exhibitions and events business, as evidenced by its ongoing investment in Olympia. It is their aim to enhance the exhibition centre, upgrading the halls and creating more attractive, efficient and sustainable events spaces. We invested £20 million last year in the redevelopment of the venue’s West Hall and have committed a further £10 million this year in improvement and upgrade projects.”

The Twentieth Century Society (letter to Sir Terry Farrell):

• Object to the demolition of EC1 exhibition centre • The main elevation (facing Warwick Road) should be retained and incorporated in the current proposals • Building has a special role in the urban history and experience of this part of London. • The “wide range and special interest of other work by the building’s original architects further supports the Society’s case for retention of the main elevation.”

Design Review Panel Consultation Summary Response

• As part of assessing the design and townscape proposals, LBHF consulted the Design Review Panel (DRP) through the pre-planning application process and during the assessment of the submitted planning application. As part of this consultation process, officers also consulted the DRP at length on the Earls Court SPD proposals, which aimed to provide specific planning guidance to the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. These Guidelines after adoption by the Local Authorities, where then used in the assessment of the Planning application.

• Following individual design review sessions, the DRP’s raised concerns and made comments including proposals for: - Masterplan concept - The DRP supports the principle of the concept but are concerned that the good intentions implicit in the overall concept of the masterplan are seriously compromised by inappropriate scale of development proposed in order to create a development that covers the existing railway infrastructure

- Infrastructure and Site constraints - The DRP raises concerns related to the viability of decking over and building over existing rail infrastructure, which may lead to later phases of the masterplan ultimately not delivered. - East West Connections - Recommend the high street have smaller units so as not to create major retail centre. The scale of buildings along the streets does not create an attractive public space at street level - North South Connections - The Broadway is unsuccessful and will lead to congestion on the proposed West Cromwell road junction - North End Road - Welcome the proposals for the North End road - Cromwell road Frontage - The architecture of this frontage needs to be of a sufficient high quality. - Lillie Road - The proposals can benefit the street scene on the Lillie road, but concerned about traffic impact on the narrow street. - Tall Buildings - Grouping of many tall blocks of 12 or so storeys causes the panel concern about the environmental qualities achievable at street level; and - Not convinced with tall buildings of the same height clustered around Empress State building and the effect of close and distant views. Suggest that if tall buildings are to be permitted they should be slender and of varying heights - Amenity Spaces and Lost River Park - Vision of the open space welcomed but concerns raised for viability of mature trees above the decked construction; and - The lack of diversity of potential uses on the narrow Lost river Park - Car Parking -The parking levels are far too high - Sustainability - Welcomes the applicants aspirations and overall approach to sustainability - Community Facilities - The proposals do not allow for large outdoor play spaces - Transport - The panel urged the highways authority to interrogate the traffic modelling assumptions and predictions thoroughly and impose controls over allocation of parking within under crofts. - Phasing - Urges the local authority to secure a firm commitment from the applicant to establish a link between the phases that ensures the development does not stop after phase 1 - Density and Viability - The Panel questioned the high density development in this location and remain unconvinced that building over the rail infrastructure is successful and produces a desirable density in this location. - Parameter Plan and Design Guidelines Approach - Welcome the use of a parameter plan and design guidelines approach but are concerned that these in themselves will not secure good quality development and the design guidelines although helpful maybe a double edged sword that may restrict opportunities to produce good architecture and urban design if guidelines are too restrictive.

• The Panel welcomed the ambition of the applicant in tackling a comprehensive proposal for this site but comment that it is important that the masterplan is both robust enough to accept change and at the same time enable planning authorities to retain control to prevent inappropriate development for so far into the future may otherwise appear appropriate now.

• The panel does not support the application in its current form and remains to be convinced the applicant’s proposals are an acceptable scale and desirable form of development for this strategically important London site.

Other representations received:

• object to the demolition of the estate properties, which would “destroy decent well-loved homes and wreck a well-functioning community, damaging family ties, disrupting social networks and worrying elderly residents”. • Development is “environmentally and socially unsustainable, cramming far too many thousands of extra homes and office workers into the most densely populated London borough” • overdevelopment would ruin the area and overwhelm the transport infrastructure. • would do nothing to increase the amount of “desperately needed low rent social housing” • should be an independently supervised ballot of all residents on the estates on whether they support the demolition plans, and the views of the residents through that ballot should be what decides the future of their homes. • Council should refuse the planning applications and should cooperate with the residents to transfer the estates to West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes. • “another huge shame for London if Earls Court was converted into flats.” • EC is the best place to see an exhibition, and is an “iconic”, “landmark building” of historical significance that defines the area. • EC should be listed (like Olympia) to preserve its iconic status. • “opposed to this idea of Spending money that we don't have on superfluous things, and things for show” • “all efforts should be done to repair e.g. potholes in roads and pavements. Repairing life threatening hazards”. • Policing should be strengthened and they should all learn about crowd control and management. • Nations money is best spent on the armed services. • Overdevelopment; architecture out of keeping with its “surrounding heritage”; unnecessary shops and apartments; similar developments are “happening in nearby local areas – Lots Road, Portobello”

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 This application was submitted to the Council in June 2011 and therefore the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 apply. These regulations require certain projects to be assessed to establish whether they would have any significant effect on the environment. The scale of the proposals means that it is EIA development requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken and an Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted by the applicants.

3.2 The purpose of such assessment is to allow determining authorities and the public adequately to understand the significant environmental effects of the proposed development. The adequacy of the material presented in the ES and generally as part of an application is a matter of judgment for the local planning authority. In judging the adequacy of the material submitted, a local planning authority is required to act rationally and to have regard to the context within which the application is made.

3.3 When considering an outline application, the courts have strongly emphasised that effects which a project may have on the environment must be identified and assessed at the time of the procedure relating to the grant of outline planning permission. This means that where some flexibility of final development

solution is sought by a developer –“each option will need to have been properly assessed and be within the remit of the outline planning permission if it is to be permitted as an option for reserved matters.” (Central Government commentary on relevant case law)..

3.4 The nature of “proper assessment” at outline stage will of course depend upon the circumstances of each case. It may not be necessary to test every conceivable iteration of a development if a sufficiently robust representative “envelope” of impacts has been identified and tested. Ordinarily, however, the more sensitive a receptor is to an impact, the more detailed an understanding of the proposal and the assessment of the relevant impact needs to be.

3.5 The adequacy of the material presented in the applicant’s ES was assessed by officers. Gaps were identified in the initial submitted ES and the applicants were informed of the matters that needed to be addressed. These matters included to the need to consider the environment impacts of the minimum parameters, the implications of the publication of the updated BRE Guidance in late 2011 and the interim impacts on daylight/sunlight and overshadowing. Further information and clarification has been provided by the applicant. The ES is now considered to be fit for purpose and is a document upon which the local planning authority can properly consider the environmental information and assess the environmental impacts. The ES comprises: • The Environmental Statement Volume I: Main ES Chapters. • The Environmental Statement Volume II: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment • Environmental Statement Volume III: Appendices including a wide range of supporting documents such as Health Impact Assessment, Equalities Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment. • Non –Technical Summary • The following additional documents have been submitted - Addendum Report on Daylight/Sunlight June 2012 - Report on Interim daylight/Sunlight Effects July 2012

3.6 The June 2011 ES, the subsequent ES Addendum and the submitted further information to the ES identify, describe and assess the likely significant impacts of the development on the local environment, the local and regional economy and the wider area. A specialist assessment has been undertaken for each of the key environmental topic areas The ES sets out to predict the likely impacts of the development from site preparation to final use and occupation and takes account of mitigation measures which have been identified to either reduce or remove any potential adverse impacts.

3.7 The ES also includes a cumulative impacts assessment of the development proposals together with other relevant committed schemes in the surrounding area. These are as follows: - Hammersmith Embankment - Fulham Wharf - Extension to Westfield shopping centre - Seagrave Road redevelopment - 181-183 Warwick Road - G Gate- Olympia - Olympia - Odeon Cinema, Kensington High Street

- Ibis Hotel, Lillie Road - Holiday Inn, North End Road - Charles House, 375 Kensington High Street - 72 Farm Lane - Former Telephone Exchange, Warwick Road - Commonwealth Institute, Kensington High Street - Car Park adjacent to Hammersmith and City Line Station, Hammersmith - Extension of Chelsea Harbour Design Centre - Redevelopment of Hammersmith Palais - Fulham Reach - Imperial Wharf - Chelsea Creek - 100 West Cromwell Road - Former TA site, Warwick Road - Homebase, Warwick Road - Earl’s Court link Road (Northern Access Road) - Fulham Wharf .

3.8 To ensure there is consistency in the approach the ES uses the following terminology to define the impacts: • Beneficial - advantageous or positive impacts • Negligible - imperceptible impacts • No Impact - no impact identified • Adverse - detrimental or negative impacts

Where adverse or beneficial impacts have been identified these have been assessed against the following scale: • Minor; • Moderate; and • Major.

3.9 The ES comprises several studies which include a number of technical reports. The topic areas assessed in the ES are: • Deconstruction, demolition and construction • Socio- Economics • Transportation and Access • Wind Microclimate • Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing and Solar Glare • Electronic Interference • Archaeology • Ground Conditions • Water Resources, Drainage and Flood Risk • Air Quality • Noise and Vibration • Ecology • Residual Impacts Assessment • Cumulative Impact Assessment

3.10 As this application is EIA development and an ES has been submitted, when determining the application , the council is under a number of statutory duties as set out in the table below.

Regulation Requirement Where considered in the report 3 The authority shall not grant planning (i) A summary of the findings permission unless they have first of the environmental taken the environmental information statement is set out in into consideration, and they shall state paragraphs 3.11 et seq and in their decision that they have done the officers’ assessment of so. “Environmental information” each topic is considered in comprises (i) the environmental section 4 of the report; statement and further information and (ii) All representations, which any other information , (ii) any include those about the representations made by any other environmental effects are set person about the environmental out in section 2 of the report effects of the development and the issues that are raised therein are considered in section 4 of the report when dealing with the relevant topic. If permission is granted, the decision notice must state that the environmental information has been taken into account. 13 (1) copies of the environmental (1) This has been done. statement and application documents (2) The applicant sent copies must be sent to the Secretary of to the consultation bodies; State; (3) The council was not aware (2) A copy of the environmental of any such person. However, statement must be sent to as part of its public consultation bodies which has not consultation process, letters received a copy direct from the were sent to 40,000 residents applicant and inform them that they living in the site and the may make representations; surrounding area. (3) where the council is aware of any person who is or is likely to be affected by, or has an interest in, the application, who is unlikely to become aware of it by means of site notice or by local advertisement, to send a notice to such person giving details(under reg 14(2)) to enable the application to be viewed and representations to be made. 19 (1) Additional information has been (1) Notices were published in received by the council and so the The Hammersmith Gazette on council must publish in a local 26 August 2011, 9 March newspaper a notice giving details of 2012, 22 June 2012, 3 August the application, the information and 2012 how the information can be obtained, (2) Copies of additional viewed and commented on. information were sent to the (2) Copies must be sent to the SoS. Secretary of State. 20 A copy of the screening opinion, Copies are placed in the environmental statement and any council’s planning register. other information must be placed on The documents can also be the register and made available for viewed on the council’s

public inspection. website. 21 On determination of the application, These steps will be carried out the authority shall: when the determination is (a) inform the Secretary of State of the made, which in the case of the decision; grant of planning permission (b) inform the public of the decision by will be after the s.106 local advertisement (newspaper and agreement has been council website); completed. A number of the (c) make available for public requirements listed will be set inspection on the register a statement out in this report. containing (i) the content of the decision and any conditions; (ii) the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based including, if relevant, information about the participation of the public; (iii) a description, where necessary of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the development; and (iv) information regarding the right to challenge the validity of the decision and the procedure for doing so.

Summary of the Environmental Statement 3.11 The following is a factual summary of the ES. An assessment of the topic areas against development plan policy will be considered in the planning considerations section of the report.

3.12 The main access/exit route to the site will be along the A4. Construction vehicles will access via a left hand turn off the Eastbound A4 onto Warwick Road and a left hand turn into Fenelon Place leading into Tesco’s basement (at 100 West Cromwell Road).

3.13 The approach to the other access gates, except G7, which would have direct access to the site from the new A4 junction constructed as part of the development will be via a right hand turn off the Eastbound A4 onto North End Road. Demolition and construction traffic can then enter the site at any of the gates around the perimeter of the site using Lillie Road, Old Brompton Road, and Warwick Road. Vehicles leaving the Earls Court Site will do so via the same route with a left hand turn off Warwick Road onto the Westbound A4 junction away from the site.

3.14 Detailed logistics plans will be developed as part of the phase specific Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs). Secure access points with wheel cleaning facilities will be established at the site entrance locations. Pedestrian access points will generally be located close to the main vehicular access gates with separate pedestrian gates and footpaths provided.

3.15 To minimise the likelihood of congestion during the demolition and construction period, strict monitoring and control of vehicles entering and leaving and travelling across the site will be implemented through Construction Logistics Plans for different phases.

3.16 The Applicant recognises that a key aspect of the successful management of the project is the maintenance of good relations with neighbours and

implementation of a programme of ongoing liaison. In this regard a dedicated Community Liaison Manager will be appointed as part of the management team. The Community Liaison Manager will be focused on engaging with the community to provide the appropriate information and to be the first line of response to resolve issues of concern. The following actions will be taken: • Consultation with the general public and local community on the proposals and input into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

3.17 In advance of the CEMPs and alongside the National Considerate Contractors scheme, a Code of Construction Practice will be developed and agreed with the Council. One of the aims of this code will be to assure residents and other affected parties that impacts to the environment are being taken into account according to current best practice.

3.18 The CEMPs, the National Considerate Contractors scheme and the Code of Construction Practice will include: - Traffic routing and road cleanliness, the preparation of a Construction Logistics Plan, implementation of a booking system for deliveries to the site, the use of an off- Site holding area close to the M4/Heathrow corridor to control the number of construction deliveries coming into the area; and the use of appropriate wheel washing facilities. - Measures for reducing the number of vehicle movements through the reuse of crushed concrete produced during deconstruction / demolition works, the provision of an on site soil hospital to clean up any contaminated soil on site; the potential provision of a mortar batching facility and the use of prefabrication techniques and modern methods of construction if practical and viable. - The applicants are considering the potential to bring demolition and construction waste and materials by rail. If this is concluded as being viable there will be a reduction in lorry movements throughout the demolition and construction phases of development. - Segregation of pedestrians from the works and the provision of alternative pedestrian footpaths and rights of way. - Lighting for the demolition and construction works will be sensitivity positioned and directed, taking into account the neighbouring residential buildings. - Protection of buried heritage assets via archaeological field evaluation (trial trenches/pits) and archaeological watching brief during excavation works. - Handling and disposal of asbestos and contaminated soils – ongoing Site investigation work and measures for soil clean up as necessary, procedures for the storage of oil and hydrocarbons, methods for dewatering of excavations and appropriate piling techniques. - Unexploded ordnance through surveys of areas of the site not previously covered by any munitions clearance surveys and the use of a watching brief during excavation works. - Water protection measures to ensure the appropriate storage of oils, and prevention of leakages of contaminants into the existing drainage network. - The preparation of a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) which will include measures for the appropriate disposal of demolition and construction waste. -The preparation of a Dust Management Plan, and the control of emissions through for example the use of catalytic converters and the regular maintenance of vehicle engines. Continuous monitoring will be undertaken throughout the deconstruction, demolition and construction programme in relation to air quality. No waste materials will be burnt on site. - Contractors will be required to investigate opportunities to minimize and reduce the use of energy and water.

- Measures for the control of noise and vibration - Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act (COPA), 1974 will be used as an appropriate mechanism for the control noise and vibration from the demolition and construction sites. This will include further details on the perimeter hoarding / screening and noise source management; and working hours will be set out. Best practice methods will be used to keep the level of nose and vibration generated on site as low as reasonably practicable, including low vibration methods and silenced equipment and machinery. - Protection of ecology through measures to minimise harm and disturbances to wildlife or their habitats. - Individual contractor’s contracts will incorporate relevant requirements in respect to environmental controls. This will be based largely on the standard of good working practice and statutory requirements and as outlined within the phase specific CEMPs.

3.19 During the deconstruction/demolition and construction works, the potential impacts are largely related to noise/vibration, air quality (dust) and construction traffic and their associated emissions. The mitigation measures set out in the ES will be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan for each phase of the development. The phase specific CEMPs will be periodically reviewed and regular environmental audits of its implementation will be undertaken during the deconstruction/demolition and construction programme.

Socio- Economics 3.20 The ES includes an assessment of the socio economic impacts. The implementation of the development would result in the creation of jobs both during the construction phases and once completed and operational through the establishment of new commercial occupiers, in particular hotels and catering, retail and leisure uses that are attracted to the new development as well as its hinterland.

3.21 The ES expects that during the 20 year construction period, on average, 1,800 workers per year would be required on site. The majority of these jobs are expected to be taken up by workers resident in London. In addition to workers on site, the construction activity will generate significant indirect employment. Employment growth will occur locally as a result of goods and services supplied to the construction process and expenditure by construction-related workers. The development will also generate permanent jobs once completed and operational. On the assumption that all businesses currently located within the proposed development area successfully relocate within Greater London and their existing employment levels and supply chain links are maintained, the ES estimates net additional operational employment generated would be 10,970 jobs. In terms of overall job creation the ES considers the development will be beneficial to the London economy.

3.22 Additional spend by new residents occupying the development is also assessed in the ES. Based on the net provision of 6,215 units it is estimated that once completed and occupied the net gain in population from the development will be 11,944. Additional local spend will be generated and applying the average expenditure figures to the net gain of 11,944 residents the ES estimates that once completed and fully occupied the annual total net additional expenditure by residents will be approximately £211.2 million.

3.23 With the introduction of new residential uses across the site, the local population will increase and will require new services. Social and community impacts including infrastructure and uses for education, health care, open space, child and young people’s play space; sport halls and courts, and community facilities have

been based on a worst case scenario in terms of the calculated demand arising as a result of the development.

3.24 The ES baseline assessment found that across most forms of social infrastructure there is no capacity in the existing social infrastructure and provision of community facilities. The demand arising from the development must therefore be met by on site provision proposals or other forms of off site mitigation. New services will include the provision of new social and community infrastructure, including a new primary school, health centre and childcare and community facilities.

3.25 In summary, the ES concludes the development will have an overall positive socio-economic impact through the provision of employment opportunities and economic multiplier effects and through the provision of new housing.

Transportation and Access 3.26 The ES includes a full assessment of the impact of the development on the surrounding road network, the local bus network, underground and rail networks and walking and cycle routes. The assessment has included traffic surveys, the use of TfL’s transport models for forecasting future traffic on the highway network in 2031, the anticipated year of completion, analysis of cycle, bus and pedestrian routes and station capacity assessments. Consideration of the potential impacts of both the demolition/construction phases and of completion on the surrounding road network, the local bus network, underground and rail networks and walking and cycle routes has been undertaken.

3.27 Deconstruction, demolition and construction works will generate short- term increases in vehicle movements and passenger trips on the highway and the public transport network in vicinity of the site. The ES however considers these increases are not expected to cause any impact on highway, bus, underground or rail services. There will be impacts on walking and cycle routes as a result of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGVs) entering and exiting the site. Temporary accesses and crossings of pedestrian and cycle routes will result in some localized reduced pedestrian and cyclist amenity. In order to mitigate impacts, the CEMP will set out details of the management of vehicle movements and the routes to be used by construction traffic and the site access/egress arrangement will have to be agreed with the LBHF, the RBKC and TfL.

3.28 A review of the road traffic associated with the completed development has been undertaken. When considering the overall future forecast growth in road traffic, the ES considers that the road traffic associated with the development can be accommodated on the highway network.

3.29 Mitigation measures to improve the coordination and performance of the local highway network and to ‘smooth’ traffic flows are proposed. Measures include the optimisation of road signal timings and proposals for the North End Road / Lillie Road junction to be converted from its double mini-roundabout layout into a four-arm signal controlled junction with direct pedestrian crossings and improved cyclist facilities.

3.30 The ES assessment In terms of public transport considered proposed changes in underground and overground line loadings, changes in station capacities and anticipated changes in bus demand. With regard to bus demand, due to TfL’s committed District Line, Piccadilly Line and West London Line service frequency improvements overall bus demand is forecast to fall from existing levels.

3.31 Due to the increases in capacity provided by the planned District and Piccadilly Line upgrades the number of people using the underground network and the level of ‘crowding’ during the morning peak hour would the ES concludes be similar to the current situation. In the afternoon rush hour, the level of crowding is lower than in the morning peak hour. Overall the ES concludes the impact of the development on the underground network to be negligible.

3.32 In relation to the West London Line taking into consideration the planned capacity improvements, the development will lead to a small change in the number of people using the line, equivalent to 6 additional passengers per carriage, however, when the demand associated with the development is compared against the 2031 baseline position, the ES considers the impact on the West London Line to be negligible.

3.33 With regard to walking and cycling, the development will also provide pedestrian routes across the site resulting in a highly accessible place. People will be able to move around freely and efficiently. The development’s scale, diversity and quality will result in a self-contained neighbourhood where daily needs are easily met via a short walk/cycle on a safe and attractive street. Therefore with regard to these modes of transport, the ES considers the impact of the development to be beneficial.

3.34 A travel plan will be produced which will incorporate measures to further encourage sustainable travel patterns by occupiers of the new developments. In particular it will aim to discourage single occupancy journeys by private car and increase the proportion of trips by non-car modes.

Wind Microclimate 3.35 The potential impact of the development on the wind microclimate of the site, and the immediate surrounding area is considered. The assessment also presents the methodologies and criteria used and the assumptions made in the assessment of potential impacts. Potential impacts are considered during the demolition and construction phases of the development and when the development is completely built out and occupied. Mitigation measures are proposed where appropriate.

3.36 The aim of wind assessments is to inform the building design and the landscaped areas of the development so as to mitigate against both discomfort for pedestrians using and passing the site and extreme wind conditions. In total, 566 locations within and around the site were tested, under winter and summer conditions, at a variety of wind directions and speeds. Benefits arise when the measured wind speeds are less windy than the existing conditions or for the intended use of the part of the site in question.

3.37 The existing site experiences a wind microclimate that is suitable for leisure walking or better, with windier conditions at the base of the existing Empress State building and on the raised plinth level along the southwest edge of the existing EC2 building. During the summer season the wind microclimate across the Earls Court Site is less windy and conditions at all locations are suitable for standing or sitting, apart from a handful of locations at the base of the existing EC2 building

3.38 For the ES assessment a number of model configurations have been tested in the wind tunnel to understand how the phasing of the development over the 20 year construction programme will affect the wind microclimate of the site and the immediate surrounding areas. Once appropriate mitigation measures have been taken into account such as façade fins and louvers and ground level details such as

vertical screening and landscaping the ES concludes there would be no adverse effects.

3.39 In the winter season, most on-site locations, with the exception of one location situated on the north side of the High Street near the junction with West Kensington Road, are suitable for leisure walking or better throughout the year, which is suitable for public thoroughfares. The south of plot BW04 is the windiest area within the proposed development. Where outdoor sitting areas are proposed in park areas and the wind conditions are suitable for leisure walking or standing, localised shelter in the form of tree planting and landscaping will be incorporated into the detailed design to mitigate the windier than desired conditions.

3.40 Within the ground level public amenity areas throughout the site and at the representative roof level locations for terraces, outdoor sitting conditions are desired. At roof terrace level, mitigation measures such as perimeter screening and tree planting will be incorporated to shelter windier spots within the amenity areas. Similarly in other relatively windier areas, around Counters Place, North End Gardens and at the base of Empress State building, mitigation in the form of landscaping is be required to shelter these seating areas during the summer season to make them suitable for their intended use

3.41 The ES also considers the effect of the development on the wind environment around the adjacent St Cuthbert with St Matthias Church on Philbeach Gardens, and within the West London Line South of Earl’ Court SBINC, and the West Brompton Cemetery SBINC. There is no change in the existing conditions and the areas remains suitable for sitting, standing, and standing, respectively, during the windiest season. During the summertime, sitting conditions are experienced at these locations and overall the ES concludes the impact to be negligible.

Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing and Solar Glare 3.42 The likely impact of the development on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing to surrounding residential properties has been assessed in the ES and compared to the existing conditions. Mitigation measures have been adopted and incorporated into the design as and when the assessments have highlighted problems. The measures have included reductions in the height and massing of certain areas of the scheme and the orientation and spacing of the development plots in order to maximise the daylight and sunlight amenity to the surrounding residential properties.

3.43 The ES notes, that the assessments have been undertaken based upon the maximum scale parameters of the various development plots across the site. The results, therefore, represent a worst case scenario and one which could not be built out to the extent that has been analysed in the ES due to limits upon the amount of development, the need to apply an architectural solution to the development plots and the requirements for open space.

3.44 The impact of solar glare on the operation of the West London line has been assessed. The ES concludes solar glare is not relevant in the case of comprehensive proposal as the development enclose the majority of the West London Line and so remove any potential glare locations along this railway line. There is a ventilation point along the Lost River Park adjacent to development plot WV01; however there is no signal at this location and so no potential glare location.

Electronic Interference

3.45 The ES considers the potential impacts on radio reception, mobile telephone signals, wireless networks and emergency service communications . TV signals in the vicinity of the Earls Court Site are provided by the Crystal Palace transmitter). The transmitter is located to the south-east. The Croydon transmitter, located near to Crystal Palace, currently carries analogue Channel 5 signals. The Croydon transmitter was not considered because in 2012 all analogue TV transmissions will cease. The assessment therefore only focused on digital Freeview from the Crystal Palace transmitter.

3.46 The land within the electronic interference survey area where the TV signal shadow will fall is relatively flat and is to the north-west of the site. General reception of terrestrial signals is considered to be difficult due to existing tall buildings in the area such as the Earls Court 1 building.

3.47 The ES assessment shows that cable TV appears to be available within parts of the predicted shadow area and that across the shadow area there is extensive satellite usage. It was assumed that all dwellings with external roof- mounted TV aerials use terrestrial signals as their main source of TV programmes. The ES predicts as a worst case scenario 245 terrestrial aerial installations would lose significant amounts of signal. The ES also predicts up to 12 dwellings along the northern and western edges of site may lose enough satellite signal so as to lose their service.

3.48 Mitigation measures will include upgrading the existing aerials by increasing their height or through the provision of a non-subscription satellite service supplied by either the BBC and/or ITV. In terms of satellite coverage mitigation will include raising their satellite dishes on poles and/or re-siting them to the extreme north-west corner of their properties. The ES concludes that following the implementation of appropriate of mitigation the impacts on TV reception as a result of development would be negligible

3.49 Radios use signals at lower frequencies than TV signals that can bend to a greater extent around obstructions. Combined with an ability to make constructive use of reflected signals, radios are able to operate successfully in urban environments. The ES therefore considered there to be no significant risk to radio reception from the development.

3.50 The ES considers the reception of mobile telephone signals, wireless networks and emergency service communications will not be compromised unless their transmitting aerials are sited on top of nearby buildings at heights less than those of the development. Should that be the case, the affected transmitting aerials may have to be relocated. Only mobile telephone aerials were noted in the vicinity and none were considered close enough for their transmission characteristics to be compromised. Therefore, these services were not considered further in the assessment.

Archaeology 3.51 The site does not lie within a local authority designated Archaeological Priority Area. A desk based assessment was however carried out in order to determine the archaeological potential of the site. The site has a low potential to contain archaeological remains dating from the Roman and early medieval periods. There is a moderate potential for archaeological survival relating to the prehistoric period, the later medieval period and palaeo-environmental remains. The site has a high potential to contain archaeological remains dated to the post-medieval period.

3.52 Any form of ground disturbance has the potential to have an impact upon surviving archaeology. The degree of impact would largely depend on the extent and depth of proposed ground disturbance. Demolition and excavation, soil clean up or ‘remediation’ and landscaping, would partially or completely remove any archaeological remains present within the footprint of the proposed works.

3.53 The desk based assessment suggests that no buried heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit permanent preservation in situ. The ES therefore considers that the environmental impact of the development on any buried heritage assets could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation which will be agreed with LBHF and RBKC. Following the investigation, the ES considers the identified environmental impacts on buried heritage assets to be negligible. The ES also considers there maybe scope for minor benefit if broadcasting of the results of the archaeological investigation results in a significant enhancement to public understanding and appreciation of the archaeology and heritage resource and of history of the Earls Court Site and the surrounding area.

Ground Conditions 3.54 A review of the baseline conditions for the site has been undertaken in the ES to evaluate the existing ground conditions. The review and evaluation of the baseline conditions included the underlying geology, the hydrogeology, underground obstructions including structures and utilities, geotechnical considerations, the potential for UXO, and the potential for land contamination. The following areas of the site were considered the railway, Lillie Road Depot, exhibition grounds and venues, existing light industrial, warehouse uses (external to Lillie Road Depot), residential and other historic on uses.

3.55 Additionally, some localised intrusive ground investigations (analysis of soil samples) were undertaken in certain areas of the site. These however, were limited by the built up nature of the site. The review of the contamination data obtained during the intrusive investigations revealed that the contaminant concentrations in soils and groundwater were low. Ground gas was also monitored and recorded as low.

3.56 The ES recognises that there are limitations to the ground conditions assessment undertaken so far and that further research and ground / site investigation work is required to quantify the level of contamination across site. Parallel to the further phased intrusive site investigation work, detailed geotechnical / geo environmental surveys (soil, groundwater, ground gas/vapour) will also be undertaken. Following these further investigations, the risk assessment, and the potential impacts and mitigation measures presented in the ES will be reviewed and any updates required to the mitigation measures will be presented as necessary within each of the phase specific Demolition Environmental Management Plans (DEMP) and CEMPs. The ES also acknowledges there will be appropriately worded planning condition/s to secure the necessary further ground / site investigation work.

Water Resources, Drainage and Flood Risk 3.57 The potential impacts of the development on water resources, drainage and flood risk have assessed in the ES. A Drainage and Surface Water Management Strategy (DSWMS) has been included along with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), prepared which examines the potential for fluvial/tidal flood risk and includes breach modelling.

3.58 A review of the baseline conditions in terms of water resources for the Earls Court Site has been undertaken to evaluate the existing hydrogeological, surface water and drainage features / attributes of site and surrounding area.

3.59 The ES includes a full geological assessment. The geology of the site and its site and surrounds consists of London Clay overlying a Principal Aquifer. The London Clay is overlain with superficial gravels at the Earls Court Site, which contain shallow groundwater and a Secondary Aquifer. The sewer infrastructure was typically constructed during Victorian times. Most sewers receive combined storm and foul flows. The foul and storm water sewer connects to the Thames Water main sewer networks of Warwick Road and North End Road. The inclusion of untreated effluent into this sewage network determines that the flow can not be regularly discharged into the River Thames under natural conditions, however, in the event of a large storm; the existing drainage network overflows to the relief sewer which can discharge directly into the River Thames. Under normal conditions, the entire flow is directed underground to the Beckton Sewage Works via Lots Road Pumping Station, where the flows are treated and then discharged to the River Thames. Although the storm and foul flows are treated prior to discharge to the River Thames, during large storm events, the relief sewer discharges directly into the River Thames, and, historically there have been combined sewer overflows occurring at the Lots Road Pumping Station.

3.60 The majority of Thames Water’s water supply is derived from surface water abstraction and the remainder is derived from groundwater abstraction, of which there are no such abstraction points within the site.

3.61 Environment Agency mapping identifies that the majority of the site lies within Flood Risk Zone 3. Flood Zone 3 is an area with a high probability of flooding during a flood event with a greater than 0.5 percent chance of occurring annually (1 in 200 year event). A small part of the site is located in the south-west bottom corner is located in Flood Risk Zone 2 (medium probability of flooding). The remainder of the site in and around the EC1 and EC2 buildings is within Flood Zone 1 (little or no risk), due to their siting on an artificially raised platform.

3.62 The geology due to the cap of London Clay to the Principal Aquifer should prevent incidents of deep groundwater flooding. There is however the possibility that the superficial gravel may contain a perched water table and following heavy rainfall if the water table within this gravel layer rises, localised groundwater flooding in excavations and basements can result.

3.63 The ES considers all potential impacts related to water resources and drainage during the deconstruction/demolition and construction of development can be mitigated to an acceptable level through industry recognized standards, best practice measures, and through using the most appropriate demolition/construction techniques. Mitigation measures proposed include routing silty water to settlement tanks, cleaning site access points to prevent dust and mud build-up, using pre-mixed concrete and creating an emergency spillage plan.

3.64 Water consumption throughout the site preparation, demolition, excavation and construction phases of the development will be monitored, either through sub-metering or utility bills, to allow comparison against best practice benchmarks. Best practice water reduction methods will be employed on-site.

3.65 The completion and occupation of the development may potentially affect water resources. The ES identifies how this will be addressed. All potential impacts

related to leeks and spillages for the completed development will be mitigated to an acceptable level through industry recognised standards and best practice measures. Water usage levels will comply with the project’s Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) standard, and Thames Water has confirmed that they can accommodate the additional water demand resulting from the development through the utilization of the trunk mains adjacent to the site. Water saving fixtures and fittings will be adopted where possible to meet the CfSH targets and reduce water demand. Grey water use and Rainwater Harvesting will be introduced so as to reduce the impact on the water supply network.

3.66 The foul drainage proposals have been developed with consideration of the requirements of Thames Water. Options for incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) into the development have been investigated. The drainage strategy seeks to reduce the potential for site wide run-off in terms of both run off rate and volume reduction.

3.67 The groundwater regime will be investigated further during the site investigation stage. This will allow the quantity of groundwater within the gravels to be assessed. The impact of basement structures on these flows can then be determined, and mitigation measures will be introduced if necessary, such as gravel surrounds to the basements and cut-off drains. To mitigate the risk of ground water flooding to the below ground structures, basements will be impermeable lined and there will be no self contained residential accommodation located basement level.

3.68 A Flood Risk assessment has been undertaken including an overtopping and breaching analysis. The flood defence level for the River Thames near to the site is 5.41m AOD. It is proposed to locate the lowest level of sleeping accommodation at existing ground level. Any sleeping accommodation lower than 5.13m AOD will have an appropriate flood warning system. These levels have been agreed with the Environment Agency.

3.69 Due to the implementation of mitigation the impacts to water resources, drainage and flood risk from the demolition and construction works associated with the development are considered in the ES to be negligible. The ES also considers that the completed development will have a negligible impact on water resources, drainage and flood risk. Further the sustainable water management measures are considered to be beneficial to the local drainage network. The assessment indicates that providing the recommended methodologies are adopted during design and construction, the proposed development will have no significant impact on watercourses within the site in relation to the flow regime and water quality. Indeed, water quality is likely to improve through the reduction in contamination. on site.

Air Quality 3.70 An ES assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the development on local air quality conditions as a result of demolition and construction and once the development is completed and occupied. Consideration is given to air emissions associated with demolition and construction activities, including dust and lorry emissions and on completion, air emissions associated with road traffic and the proposed energy centres.

3.71 Current local air quality conditions have been determined based on collected data in addition to the use of data from local air quality monitoring stations. A computer model has been set up which has been used to model the current local air quality conditions. The computer results have then been compared to the

collected data and the data from the local air quality monitoring stations to ‘verify’ the air quality model.

3.72 A number of pollutants have been considered, however, the assessment has focused on nitrogen dioxide and dust or ‘particulate matter’ pollutants because the boroughs of LBHF and the RBKC are both designated as Air Quality Management Areas due to the local air quality currently exceeding the national standards for these two pollutants.

3.73 The assessment of the potential impacts of lorry movements on air quality during the construction of the development has been assessed in the ES against the present-day air quality conditions. A point in time has been assessed when lorry movements associated with the demolition and construction phase are at their peak At this point in time, mean annual pollutant concentrations are considered by the ES to result in a ‘small’ magnitude of change in nitrogen dioxide, and an ‘imperceptible’ magnitude of change in particulate matter.

3.74 With regards to the construction dust, the movement of soils and rubble during demolition and construction activities is anticipated to lead to the generation of airborne dust and particulate matter. Dust emissions will be carefully controlled onsite, as well as beyond the site boundary, since parts of the site will become occupied whilst other parts are still being built. Although inhabited buildings have the potential to be within a few metres of dust generating activities. A Dust management Plan will be prepared and executed.

3.75 The potential for dust emissions to cause a nuisance to pedestrians passing close to or through the site and the potential for dust gathering on vehicles for example is difficult to assess quantitatively, but given the number of construction sites that successfully proceed in London every day without significant complaints from neighbours the ES considers construction dust is expected to only represent a nuisance in immediate proximity to the construction site and would be controlled through the application of a series of best practice measures.

3.76 In terms of road traffic emissions following the completion of the development in 2031 two scenarios have been assessed in the ES. • A worst case scenario which assumes that the composition of road vehicles will remain the same as it is today and there will be no improvements in background air quality or vehicle emissions beyond 2020; and • A realistic scenario, which assumes that petrol and diesel vehicle emissions will continue to improve towards 2031,

3.77 In 2031, under the ‘worst case scenario’, a ‘medium’ magnitude of change in nitrogen dioxide, with the maximum increase predicted along West Cromwell Road. A moderate adverse impact is anticipated in terms of nitrogen dioxide. In 2031, under the ‘realistic scenario’, the greatest magnitude of change in nitrogen dioxide concentrations is predicted by the ES to be ‘small’.

3.78 Mitigation Measures set out in the ES include A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Dust Management Plan to be prepared and agreed with the LBHF and RBKC prior to the commencement of any on-site works. The plans will include details of proposed dust monitoring during demolition and construction works. Construction vehicle emissions would be minimised through: the use of catalytic converters and the regular maintenance of vehicle engines.

3.79 Further a series of mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Energy Strategy and include: • Omission of biomass fuel; • Incorporation of nitrogen dioxide abatement within energy centre 2. This type of abatement typically removes 80-90% of nitrogen dioxide emissions, converting these gases to nitrogen and water vapour; • Appropriate design of the energy centres to ensure adequate dispersion of pollutants and selection of equipment regarded as Best Available Technology (BAT); and • Regular inspection of the machinery, operation to the manufacturer’s instructions, and ensuring that equipment is well maintained.

3.80 The ES concludes that throughout the deconstruction, demolition and construction stages there are likely to be minor adverse air quality impacts associated with lorry movements, plant and equipment emissions and dust. When the development is completed and occupied there are likely to be impacts in relation to increased road traffic and emissions from the energy centres.

Noise and Vibration 3.81 The ES assesses the existing noise levels surrounding and within the site and the noise and vibration impacts associated with the development. Consideration is given to the existing noise environment and the suitability of the site for residential development. There is also an assessment of potential future noise sources, including a review of the impact of removing Lillie Bridge Depot and the Earls Court Exhibition Centres, the noise impacts associated with the introduction of road traffic attributed to the development is also considered and there is an assessment of the potential vibration levels from operational underground rail lines on the development.

3.82 It is recognised in the ES that surrounding occupiers would experience noise impact during the deconstruction, demolition and construction phase. More detailed noise prediction work will be undertaken to identify occupiers where the noise level may exceed the trigger levels presented in British Standard 5228:2009. The ES considers mitigation in the form of sound insulation and relocation will mitigate the adverse effects.

3.83 The requirement for night time demolition and construction works has arisen due to the proximity of works to the Piccadilly Line, the District Line and the West London Line. It is the policy of LUL and TFL not to allow works which pose risk to operational trains, these works must therefore be carried out at night or during planned closures of the tracks. The applicant has engaged in extensive discussions with LUL and TFL to try and minimise the requirement for night time works through the use of planned track closures. These discussions will continue prior to and throughout the deconstruction and construction phases of the development.

3.84 To limit the potential noise impact of the works, working methods have been defined which will minimise potential night-time noise impacts. Using noise estimations a noise model has been developed of the site to predict the likely noise levels at the nearest receptor locations for each night time activity. The activities have been considered against the night time noise criteria set out in BS5228. It is predicted that the activities would give rise to adverse impacts in the context of the BS5228 criteria.

3.85 A range of mitigation measures are set out in the ES to reduce or remove noise impacts. The mitigation measures would be detailed and agreed at a later

stage and submitted to the local planning authority for approval. At this stage it is anticipated that mitigation measures will focus on: • suitable planning and programming of works to avoid long continuous periods of night time work; • full enclosures and/or acoustic screens; • insulation improvements to neighbouring existing properties.

3.86 The mitigation measures presented within the ES have been produced in association with Mace Ltd, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, Keltbray Ltd, and URS Corporation Ltd who collectively have vast experience of working on large complex projects such as Heathrow Terminal 5 and the 2012 Olympic Stadium. These projects have involved consideration and management of complex issues such as working close to residential property. As such, a prerequisite of the main deconstruction and construction contractors selected through the procurement process, will be a proven track record in dealing successfully with noise and vibration sensitive sites.

3.87 Best Practicable Means will be employed to keep the level of noise and vibration generated on site as low as reasonably practicable. Measures will include • Considerate selection of plant and construction methods; • Careful programming to ensure activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors; • Use of a solid hoarding around the entire perimeter of the site to assist in the screening of noise generation from low level sources; • Use of acoustic quilts in conjunction with encapsulated scaffolding during deconstruction / demolition; • Loading and unloading of vehicles, dismantling of equipment such as scaffolding or moving equipment or materials around the site will be conducted in such a manner as to minimize noise generation and where practical will be conducted away from noise sensitive areas; and • A regime of voluntary quiet periods will be agreed with the LBHF and RBKC during noisy works associated with the demolition of EC1 and EC2.

3.88 Mitigation measures will help to further reduce the scale of the effects on the environment. The preferred approach identified in the ES is to reduce noise levels but with due regard to practicality. Sometimes, a greater noise level may be acceptable if the overall construction time and therefore length of disruption is reduced.

3.89 The ES concludes that throughout the deconstruction, demolition and construction stages of the development there will be noise and vibration impacts particularly during periods where construction activities are located close to existing and proposed buildings. Best practicable means will be used to reduce all potential noise levels and there will be noise mitigation measures.

3.90 In terms of deconstruction, demolition and construction vibration, under a typical operating scenario, the ES considers there will be a negligible impact. A vibration monitoring programme will be agreed with LBHF and RBKC. Particular care will be taken during periods where piling and/or deconstruction is likely to occur in locations close to existing dwellings.

3.91 In terms of construction traffic any increase in noise due to construction traffic is predicted in the ES to have negligible impact on the majority of roads surrounding the Earls Court Site for all construction years. Minor impacts are

predicted to occur on Lillie Road (Eastbound) between North End Road and Old Brompton Road and Old Brompton Road Eastbound Between site access and Warwick Road during Years 1 – 12.

3.92 On completion and occupation of the development the ES recognizes that there may be noise implications from plant noise .Suitable noise limits are defined to control noise within acceptable criteria. Building plant will be designed such that any potential vibration associated with the operation of the plant will not cause a disturbance. The retail outlets and food and beverage units are not expected to involve loud amplified music. Any potential noisy premises will be controlled by tenancy conditions.

Ecology 3.93 The site does not fall within any ecological statutory site designations. The West London and District Line and the West London Line to the south of the site are both Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). They are further classified as Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC). Brompton Cemetery is also a SBINC and is located to the southeast of the Earls Court Site.

3.94 The ES assessment considered the potential impact on a number of habitats; The West London and District Line SBINC, the West London Line South of Earls Court SBINC, the Brompton Cemetery SBINC, the green corridor (the railway line adjoining the site) and other habitats present across the site. A number of species were considered; bats, black redstart, other breeding birds, reptiles, stag beetle, invertebrates, and other mammals.

3.95 A habitat survey was carried out in 2010, and was then updated in 2011. The methods used to undertake the surveys were a standard technique for obtaining ecological information over a large area of land - primarily mapping using a standard set of habitat definitions for classifying areas of land on the basis of the vegetation present. The habitats identified were evaluated for their potential to support protected species. Specific surveys were subsequently undertaken for bats, breeding birds, reptiles, invertebrates, and botany / notable flora, both on-site and within the surrounding area.

3.96 The ES considers none of the habitats surveyed are of high botanical or habitat value and no native plant species of national importance have been identified as being present. No native species of conservation significance are present within the habitats. The majority of the plant species are common within Greater London, and can be found on disturbed ground, such as railway embankments and sidings and other habitats found in LBHF. The neutral grassland present is a priority habitat and is considered by the ES to be of local value.

3.97 The bat survey work indicates that bats are unlikely to be roosting in any of the buildings or trees on or immediately adjacent to the site. The site is likely to be used for foraging and commuting purposes for low numbers of bats. The site does not currently support habitats that are potentially suitable to support either foraging or nesting black redstarts.

3.98 Reptiles are not currently present within the site. The ES however noted that reptiles could potentially colonise the site in future years as they are known to be present in the surrounding area. Local populations could use the green corridor that links suitable habitat to the north to the site. The site is considered by the ES to have the potential to support stage beetles, albeit limited and it does provide suitable habitat for other mammals such as fox and occasionally hedgehogs.

3.99 The ES assessment of the overall impact of the development takes into account the new habitats created through the landscaping strategy that will mitigate for some of the habitats lost to the development and provide new habitats for species which currently use the site and which may be displaced when their habitats are removed. The ES acknowledges that the new habitats will not be fully instated or be of value to animals until the operational phase of the development and therefore will not mitigate for impacts incurred in the site preparation, deconstruction, demolition and construction phases.

3.100 As a result of the site preparation, deconstruction, demolition and construction period there will inevitably be an impact on site ecology. The ES anticipates minor adverse impacts in relation to the habitats present across the site, bats and invertebrate assemblages. The impact in relation to Brompton Cemetery, black redstarts, other breeding birds, reptiles, stag beetles and other mammals is anticipated by the ES to be negligible.

3.101 Once the development is completed ecological benefits are anticipated by the ES in relation to the West London Line and District Line, the West London Line south of the site, the green corridor, neutral grassland and other habitats present across the site, bats, black redstarts, other breeding birds, invertebrate assemblages and stage beetles. Negligible impacts are anticipated in relation to West Brompton Cemetery, reptiles and other mammals. It is acknowledged that the ecological mitigation and landscaping strategy do not go into specifics in relation to bat and bird boxes, green roofs and external lighting. Details of these elements of the ecological mitigation and landscaping strategy can be agreed at the reserved matters stage of planning.

Residual Impact and Cumulative Impact Assessments 3.102 For each of the topic areas the ES assessed both the residual impacts and the cumulative impacts. Residual impacts are those impacts that remain following the implementation of the mitigation measures presented and discussed throughout the June 2011 ES and this ES Addendum. Whilst the cumulative impacts are both the combination of impacts arising from the development itself and also the combination of the impacts of the development with other relevant developments.

3.103 In terms of residual impacts, the ES concluded during the demolition and construction phases there will be temporary adverse impacts due to the nature of the demolition and construction activities. During this period there will also be benefits due to the employment generated. Once the development is completed there will socio - economic benefits arising from the creation of new homes, new social infrastructure, a new park and the new jobs created.

3.104 In terms of cumulative impacts the ES concluded temporary adverse impacts will tend to occur to occur throughout the deconstruction, demolition and construction stages of the development. It is not unusual however for construction to take place on more than one site in close proximity to each other, particularly in London. Contractors will therefore undertake regular liaison meetings and reviews with neighbouring sites to plan works so that they do not cause unnecessary disruption.

3.105 On completion and occupation the ES concludes potential cumulative impacts will in the main relate to transport and socio-economics. In terms of the other development schemes within the area the travel demands from these schemes have been included and considered in the application Transport Assessment. The ES

concludes that the aggregated socio-economic impacts are considered to be beneficial. A new urban quarter within this part of West London will be created with a good quality environment. Employment generation and investment would be a catalyst for economic growth within the area. There would be a potential increase in the demand

4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Exclusivity and Collaboration Agreement and Conditional Land Sale Agreement

4.1 Officers are aware that several representations have raised the issue of the existence of an Exclusivity and Collaboration Agreement and the Council’s intentions to enter into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement with the developer. It is a matter of public record that in July 2011, the Council entered into an Exclusivity and Collaboration Agreement with Capital and Counties Plc, which was subsequently extended in July 2012. This gives the company an exclusive right to negotiate with the Council about the possible inclusion of Council owned land consisting of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates within the application site. It is further a matter of public record that on 3 September 2012 the Cabinet resolved inter alia to enter into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) to include the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates in the proposed comprehensive redevelopment scheme.

4.2 Officers do not consider that the commercial terms within this private law contract matter is a material consideration and have not taken it into account in forming their planning judgment. However, there are a number of provisions that relate to planning land use matters, for example the provision of affordable housing, which replicate a number of planning obligations and conditions required as a result of making the proposal acceptable and in accordance with the statutory development plan. The planning obligations and conditions are set out in the body of the report. Thus, in so far as the terms in the CLSA relate to planning land use matters, they are material considerations and have been taken into account by planning officers but it should be noted that they have no additional relevance beyond what is a material consideration anyway as part of officers usual consideration of the proposal against the development plan.

4.3 For the avoidance of any doubt, ownership of a site is not a prerequisite of the submission and determination of a planning application.

Principal Considerations

4.4 In considering any application account has to be taken of the National Planning Policy Framework, the development plan, any local finance considerations (CIL), the documentation accompanying the application, the available environmental information including the Environmental Impact Assessment, representations made and all other material planning considerations.

4.5 The main considerations relating to the application are: - Whether the development would accord with the relevant national, regional and local planning policies;. - The principle of the comprehensive regeneration of the application site - The mix and type of housing provision, including density, the amount of affordable housing and type of units proposed; - The nature and mix of the land uses proposed;

- The impact of the development in relation to surrounding land uses and heritage assets; - The impact of the development on surrounding properties and occupiers, particularly in terms of daylight and sunlight, privacy, outlook and noise and disturbance; - Transport impact, including car parking provision, traffic generation, effect on street parking, access points and highway safety for both vehicles and pedestrians and site servicing and waste management; - Sustainability, energy efficiency, drainage and ecology; - Land contamination, air quality, wind microclimate, archaeology and phasing and construction of the development and; - Planning obligations and impact on community infrastructure.

Policy Context 4.6 This section explains the national planning policy. It also sets out the regional and local strategic regeneration policies which are considered to be particularly relevant to the determination of the application as well as the Earls Court and West Kensington SPD, which is a material consideration. The policy where appropriate is set out in bold.

4.7 In subsequent sections of this report dealing with topic areas, there is further discussion where appropriate of all relevant planning policies and any other material considerations relevant to that topic. This is not repeated here.

National Policy 4.8 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect on 27 March 2012 and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The NPPF sets out national planning policies and how these are expected to be applied.

4.9 The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.10 The NPPF is aimed at safeguarding the environment while meeting the need for sustainable growth. It advises that the planning system should; a) plan for prosperity by using the planning system to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type, and in the right places, is available to allow growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; b) plan for people (a social role) - use the planning system to promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing an increased supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a good quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports its health and well-being; and c) plan for places (an environmental role) - use the planning system to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, to use natural resources prudently and to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low- carbon economy. The NPPF also underlines the need for councils to work closely with communities and businesses and actively seek opportunities for sustainable growth to rebuild the economy; helping to deliver the homes, jobs, and infrastructure needed for a growing population whilst protecting the environment.

4.11 The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means

• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Development Plan 4.12 In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 this planning application should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In relation to the Hammersmith and Fulham part of the site the development plan comprises the London Plan (2011) Hammersmith and Fulham’s Core Strategy (2011), and the saved policies from the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (as amended in September 2007 and in October 2011) The UDP policies that have not been superseded will continue to be used alongside the Core Strategy until they are replaced by the emerging Development Management Development Plan Document which is expected to be adopted in late 2012.

4.13 In relation to the RBKC land included within this application the development plan comprises of the London Plan 2011 the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy 2010 plus relevant saved policies from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

4.14 These statutory development plans are the main policy basis for the consideration of this planning application. A number of strategic and local supplementary planning guidance and other documents are also material to the determination of the application.

Regional Policy 4.15 At a regional level, the London Plan forms part of the statutory development plan. Policy 2.5 of the London Plan identifies the site within the West London sub region and Policy 2.9 in the Inner London region. Policy 2.13 sets out the Mayor's role in relation to Opportunity Areas (OA's) and what development proposals within OA's should achieve.

POLICY 2.13 OPPORTUNITY AREAS AND INTENSIFICATION AREAS Strategic A Within the opportunity and intensification areas shown in Map 2.4, the Mayor will: a provide proactive encouragement, support and leadership for partnerships preparing and implementing opportunity area planning frameworks to realize these areas’ growth potential in the terms of Annex 1, recognising that there are different models for carrying these forward; or b build on frameworks already developed ; and c ensure that his agencies (including Transport for London) work collaboratively and with others to identify those opportunity and intensification areas that require public investment and intervention to achieve their growth potential d encourage boroughs to progress and implement planning frameworks to realise the potential of intensification areas in the terms of Annex 1, and will provide strategic support where necessary.

Planning decisions B Development proposals within opportunity areas and intensification areas should: a support the strategic policy directions for the opportunity areas and intensification areas set out in Annex 1, and where relevant, in adopted opportunity area planning frameworks b seek to optimise residential and non-residential output and densities, provide necessary social and other infrastructure to sustain growth, and, where appropriate, contain a mix of uses c contribute towards meeting (or where appropriate, exceeding) the minimum guidelines for housing and/or indicative estimates for employment capacity set out in Annex 1, tested as appropriate through opportunity area planning frameworks and/or local development frameworks d realize scope for intensification associated with existing or proposed improvements in public transport accessibility, such as Crossrail, making better use of existing infrastructure and promote inclusive access including cycling and walking e support wider regeneration (including in particular improvements to environmental quality) and integrate development proposals to the surrounding areas especially areas for regeneration.

2.58 Opportunity areas are the capital’s major reservoir of brownfield land with significant capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility. Typically they can accommodate at least 5,000 jobs or 2,500 new homes or a combination of the two, along with other supporting facilities and infrastructure….

2.60 The broad locations of London’s opportunity areas and intensification areas are set out in Map 2.4. The strategic policy directions for London’s opportunity areas and intensification areas, and minimum guidelines for housing and indicative estimates for employment capacity, are set out in Annex 1. Together, the opportunity areas have capacity for 490,300 additional jobs and 233,600 additional homes; the intensification areas can accommodate 13,000 new jobs and a further 14,350 homes….

2.62 Planning frameworks, investment plans and other spatial interventions for these areas should focus on implementation, identifying both the opportunities and challenges that need resolving such as land use, infrastructure, access, energy requirements, spatial integration, regeneration, investment, land assembly and phasing. With support from strategic partners, they should set realistic programmes and timescales for delivery.

4.16 This policy seeks to ensure development in OA's achieve the optimum intensity of residential use, but remain compatible with the local context and are well served by public transport. The application site is included within the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area (EC&WKOA).

4.17 The strategic policy direction for the EC&WKOA is referred to in Table A1.1 in Annex 1 (Ref: 8) of the London Plan. Annex 1 in relation to the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area states: Earl’s Court & West Kensington Area (Ha): 36 Indicative employment capacity: 7,000

Minimum new homes: 4,000 The Area presents a significant opportunity for regeneration comprising estate renewal and housing and employment growth. A comprehensive approach should be taken to planning the future of the exhibition complex, the Transport for London Lillie Bridge Road depot, the local authority housing estates and other sites in the vicinity. The potential for a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction and strategically significant offices should be explored together with retail, hotels and supporting social infrastructure. The Mayor is working with the boroughs and landowners to develop a planning framework for the area. This, informed by a transport study, will determine the optimum development capacity for the area which is likely to be significantly higher than the minimum figures shown here. Earl’s Court has good public transport facilities and these should be further enhanced, together with comprehensive highway and streetscape improvements. Earl’s Court already benefits from a strong identity, distinctive townscape and a range of heritage assets, all of which should be upheld and promoted through the regeneration and growth of the area.

Local Policy 4.18 At a local level, the application site is the subject of a strategic site policy in the Council's Core Strategy. The Core Strategy identifies the site within part of the Fulham Regeneration Area (FRA), one of five regeneration areas identified in the borough. The Earl's Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area covers a large part of this wider regeneration area which also features Fulham Town Centre. Taking its lead from the London Plan, Policy FRA of the Core Strategy states: The Opportunity Area is a significant part of the Fulham Regeneration Area which includes Fulham Town Centre. A part of the Opportunity Area is within RB Kensington & Chelsea.

There is a substantial opportunity for major regeneration based on a phased comprehensive approach to the Opportunity Area comprising the Earls Court exhibition complex (with its car park in Seagrave Road), the TfL Lillie Bridge depot and adjacent housing estates. As a residential led mixed use scheme, this area has the potential to become a major new neighbourhood for the borough and West London providing significant new housing and employment opportunities. The original Earls Court building is located in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and that borough broadly shares the council's aspirations in its LDF Core Strategy. The London Plan identifies Earls Court and West Kensington as an Opportunity Area that ‘presents a significant opportunity for regeneration comprising estate renewal and housing and employment growth’

The impact of development of this area will be to bring significant regenerative benefits to the rest of the regeneration area and surrounding area, which will greatly enhance the economic health of North End Road. Within the town centre, this will particularly help stimulate regeneration of the area between Lillie Road and St John’s Church. There is a particular opportunity to consider regeneration of part of the North End Road and Lillie Road shopping frontages.

Whilst the street market is an important part of North End Road’s commercial offer, it limits footway width and pedestrian movement, and restricts traffic. In order to overcome these problems relocation to an off-street location should be sought but a dialogue should take place with street traders to ensure a logical solution that contributes to the wider regeneration of the area as a

whole. The potential regeneration of the Opportunity Area may present new opportunities for relocating the market in the long term.

Any new development will have to be supported by commensurate increases in public transport capacity and highway improvements.

All new development should create a high quality urban environment and accord with the urban design principles of the Borough Wide Strategic Policy on the Built Environment – BE1.

4.19 This strategic policy promotes bringing vacant and underused sites into use for residential-led mixed use development, optimising regeneration opportunities and providing a choice of housing options. The Core Strategy states a comprehensive residential led mix use redevelopment of the Earl's Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area and Fulham Town Centre would contribute significantly to the borough's housing target of 3,400 additional dwellings by 2032. The policy however adds this number of additional dwellings could be significantly increased if the adjacent West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates are included.

4.20 Policy FRA 1 of the Core Strategy is site specific and identifies the Opportunity Area. It states: Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Indicative homes Indicative new jobs 2,900 in H+F (excluding any increase 5,000 - 6,000 in H+F on estate lands 4,000 in H+F and RBKC (excluding any 7,000 in H+F and RBKC increase on estate lands)

Owner Private, Tfl, Network Rail, Council, RSL and private owners. The Earls Court & West Kensington Opportunity Area covers development sites within both the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea .

There should be a phased comprehensive mixed use residential led masterplan for the Opportunity Area that provides housing, employment, hotels, leisure, offices and associated facilities, including retail to cater for day to day needs and cultural facilities. This should include a major arts, leisure or entertainment activity that will be a major visitor attractor and create significant new employment opportunities. New local educational, health and community facilities, and new public and private open space should be provided.

Regeneration of the West Kensington, Gibbs Green and Registered Provider estates phased over up to 20 years will be considered as part of the comprehensive approach to the opportunity area. All existing local residents should have the opportunity to be rehoused within the Opportunity Area or within its vicinity if proposals affect their homes.

There should be a substantial overall net increase in housing. 40% of all new housing in the Opportunity Area (within H&F) should be affordable in accordance with Policy H2 - Affordability. With any proposals to replace existing social rented housing, the existing quantity should not be reduced but it should be redistributed across the Opportunity Area. Overall, new residential should have a mix of tenures, dwelling sizes and types, including family

housing; and be provided in densities and layouts that are compatible with high quality living environments for a mixed and balanced community.

The part of the area north of Lillie Road should be designed as a vibrant world class new quarter in inner West London linking well with its physical and commercial surroundings, especially to the west and east. If the TfL depot has to remain it should be decked over provided that it achieves planning benefits and is viable within an acceptable scheme. Building design should be of the highest quality. There may be some scope for tall buildings no higher than, and close to, the existing Empress State building, however, any tall buildings would need to be justified by a full urban design analysis.

The Seagrave Road car park must be considered as part of the comprehensive approach to the Opportunity Area. It should be primarily for residential purposes with supporting facilities, including public open space. Other employment based uses may be appropriate as part of a comprehensive development scheme for the site. The feasibility to provide direct access from Seagrave Road and the site as a whole to West Brompton station should be considered. Development proposals for Seagrave Road should provide for the opportunity to deliver approximately 25% of all housing as social rented housing subject to estate regeneration coming forward, detailed analysis and viability. This will provide opportunities for tenants on local housing estates to be re-housed into better accommodation and to facilitate regeneration on those estates.

Overall, the design, layout, massing and density of development must take account of and respect the local context and setting, local conservation areas, and local views. However, development should also recognise the substantial scope offered by the scale and location of the Opportunity Area to create a new sense of place and range of densities. For the Seagrave Road site, the design must also take account of views from the Listed Brompton Cemetery and local nature conservation.

On site street patterns and connections must be designed with regard to improving traffic, pedestrian and cycling circulation in the surrounding area and on primary routes in Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Development must improve pedestrian connections from the sites and the surrounding area to public transport facilities, particularly Earls Court.

The acceptable overall quantity of development will depend on a range of factors, especially urban design considerations, the provision of satisfactory residential standards and environmental conditions, and evidence to support non-residential uses; and, in addition, it must not exceed what is compatible with a transport capacity and the identification of deliverable improvements in the transport infrastructure. Development must also take account of the capacity of the physical infrastructure, particularly for sewerage and surface water. Any development proposals will need to address the flood risk potential as the site lies in a High/Medium Residual Risk area.

All development must incorporate high levels of environmental performance by the use of low and zero carbon technologies, including combined heat and power, the establishment of a decentralised energy network and the installation of renewable energy systems.

Development must have regard to guidance set out in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Supplementary Planning Document .

4.21 In relation to the RBKC land included within this application, RBKC’s Core Strategy and the remaining policies in its Unitary Development Plan are relevant. RBKC’s Core Strategy sets the vision for the Earls Court site and a place shaping policy. It states

Vision for Earls Court in 2028 The western edge of the Borough will be reintegrated with the Earls Court Neighbourhood Centre so that the centre is able to blossom, offering an attractive 'urban-village' environment which local residents can enjoy. Crucial to this is reducing the impact of the one-way system on residential amenity, the pedestrian environment and public transport users, preferably by returning the one-way system to two-way working or other significant environmental improvements. The function of the centre will be reinforced by improved links to the Exhibition Centre, which should be developed for mixed uses with a significant convention, exhibition or cultural use. Earl’s Court site will therefore retain its important London-wide role as a distinctive cultural brand, but also transformed into a new vibrant urban quarter. New residential-led mixed use development along Warwick Road will further reinforce this urban quarter, which will include new open space and a new school. The area will continue to offer a wide range of residential accommodation and will include community infrastructure to support local life. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements to Cromwell Road, Warwick Road and Earl's Court Road will transform the environment, making it more pleasant for pedestrians and residents, marking the arrival of the A4 in Central London .

The Vision set out for Earl's Court guides that decision making process but to ensure the place shaping role is given due weight within the planning process, a place shaping policy for Earl's Court is required.

4.22 Further relevant policies are Policy CP 10 Earls Court The Council will ensure an attractive 'urban-village' environment in Earl's Court by supporting improvements to the public realm pedestrian environment and open space. The Council will resist development proposals which prejudice the opportunities for wider regeneration of the area and compromise delivery of the vision.

Policy CA7 Allocation for Earls Court Exhibition Centre The Council allocates development on the site to deliver, in terms of:- Land use allocation: a. a minimum of 500 homes within the Royal Borough, which could be increased, in particular if (b) to (e) below are provided within LBHF as part of the masterplanning process conducted in the preparation of the SPD; b. a minimum of 10,000sq.m (108,000sq.ft) of office floor space; c. retail and other uses within the Class of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) to serve the day-today needs of the new development; d. a significant cultural facility to retain Earl’s Court’s long standing brand as an important cultural destination, located on the area of the Opportunity Area nearest to public transport accessibility; e. other non-residential uses required to deliver a sustainable and balanced mixed-use development, such as hotel and leisure uses;

f. social and community uses; g. on-site waste management facilities to handle waste arising from the new uses of the site (including recycling facilities and/or anaerobic digestion), which may be provided within LBHF as part of the masterplanning process conducted in the preparation of the SPD but must benefit development in the Royal Borough; h. low or carbon neutral developments and a Combined Cooling, Heating and Power (CCHP) plant or similar, of a suitable size to serve the site with the potential to contribute to the heat and energy demand of the wider community as part of a district heat and energy network, which may be provided within LBHF as part of the masterplanning process conducted in the preparation of the SPD but must benefit development in the Royal Borough; Principles: I. a new urban quarter which links well with its surroundings, especially to the west and east; j. a design of the road network and connections with the surrounding area that significantly improves residential amenity, the pedestrian environment and public transport access in the area of the one-way system, and does not have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion; k. an open urban square, fronting onto Warwick Road, with land uses that provide positive active edges to the building frontages; Infrastructure and Planning Obligations: l. social and community facilities; m. additional new public open space, including considering opportunities to create biodiversity; n. securing highway contributions including the investigation, in consultation with TfL and the Boroughs, into returning the Earls Court one way system two way working; implementation of those measures identified during the investigation commensurate to the development proposal; and significant improvements to quality of residential amenity, the pedestrian environment and public transport access in the area of the Earls Court one-way system; o. improvements to tube, bus and rail access, including interchange from the West London Line to the underground network and the extension of bus services into the site; p. improved pedestrian links from and through the site and the surrounding area to public transport facilities and improved cycle links to enhance north/south cycle accessibility; q. affordable housing as part of residential requirement; r. education facilities; s. other contributions as identified in the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and site specific Supplementary Planning Document.

The Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document 4.23 Supplementary planning documents are not part of the statutory development plan. They add detailed guidance on how development plan policies should be applied. Guidance in supplementary planning documents is used to support statutory development plans, not as an alternative. It cannot be used to make new policies . Statements made in supplementary planning documents carry less weight than development plan policies in determining planning applications but they are material planning considerations. The adoption of the document means it is a material consideration in the determination of any planning application submitted for the Opportunity Area.

4.24 The Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been produced jointly by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Greater London Authority. The overall objectives of the document are to: • establish detailed guidance on the application of policies within the London Plan and the borough’s Development Plan Documents (DPD’s) that will be used to assess any application in the Opportunity Area • establish and provide guidance for masterplanning of the Opportunity Area • bring forward partnership working in redeveloping the Opportunity Area and maximise public and private resources in regeneration and • bring consultation forward in the planning process by engaging the public and stakeholders as early as possible in the development process.

4.25 The document has been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to LBHF and RBKC’s adopted Core Strategies and as a SPG to the Mayor’s London Plan. LBHF adopted the document on the 19 March 2012.

4.26 The document sets out a vision reflecting the aspirations for the Opportunity Area of LBHF, RBKC and the Mayor of London, as established by both boroughs’ Core Strategies and the Mayor’s London Plan. “West London’s New Urban Quarter” 3.2 Residential led regeneration of the OA will result in a world class, aspirational, environmentally sustainable new urban quarter that people will want to live in, work in and visit. The new community will be mixed and diverse, with quality housing provided to meet a range of incomes and contribute to the Capital’s needs and potential for growth.

3.3 The new urban quarter will capture the spirit of this part of London by continuing the legacy of the Earls Court ‘brand’ with a new cultural destination that will continue to raw visitors from across the Capital.

4.27 The SPD sets out key objectives which the redevelopment of the Opportunity Area will be expected to meet. Under each Key Objective there are also a number of Key Principles that can be used to assess development proposals within the Opportunity Area.

4.28 A claim for Judicial Review was lodged in the High Court on the 18 June 2012. The remedy sought is that the decisions of LBHF and RBKC to adopt the SPD on the 19 March and 22 March 2012 be quashed.

Method of assessing application 4.29 In view of the claim for judicial review against the SPD as detailed in paragraph 4.25 above and the council’s duty to have regard to all material considerations and to determine the application pursuant to section 38 (set out at paragraph 4.9 above) officers have assessed each element of the proposal in the following manner: first, officers have assessed the proposal against the relevant policies of the development plan, then had regard to any other material considerations (other than the SPD) and have formed a view whether or not the proposal is in accordance with the relevant development plan policy and whether there are any material considerations which indicate otherwise. Once a conclusion has been reached, the relevant sections of the SPD have then been considered and conclusions reached whether or not the proposal is consistent with the provisions of

the SPD. By doing it this way, officers are able to reach a view that permission should or should not be withheld whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Emerging local policy

Proposed Submission LBHF Development Management Development Plan Document 4.30 This document is the proposed submission Development Management Development Plan Document. (The DM DPD). The document when adopted will form part of the LBHF Local Development Framework. The DM DPD sets out the proposed development management policies to be used in helping to determine planning applications and it should be read and considered alongside the Core Strategy and the London Plan. The policies within the proposed submission DM DPD aim to ensure development within LBHF accords with the spatial vision and strategic objectives set out within the Core Strategy.

4.31 The document was subject to a six week period of consultation ending on the 16 December 2011. The representations received together with a summary of the main issues and a copy of the submission DM DPD has been forwarded on the 6 July 2012 to the Secretary of State for an independent examination. Reference is made to the DM DPD at various parts of the report. In view of the representations received and the fact that an independent examination is still pending, it is considered the DM DPD should be given limited weight in considering and determining this application.

Principle of Comprehensive Mixed Use Development 4.32 The application proposes the comprehensive redevelopment of the Earls Court Exhibition Centres, the Transport for London (TfL) Lillie Bridge Road Depot and the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates to create up to 932,831sqm of floorspace comprising residential, business, retail, hotel and serviced apartments, education, health, community, culture, leisure, a private hospital and other ancillary space.

4.33 Current national planning policy supports the regeneration of under used urban brownfield sites and the delivery of mixed and balanced communities. The focus of the NPPF is on the key themes of growth, change, regeneration and development.

4.34 Map 2.4 of the London Plan identifies Earls Court and West Kensington as an Opportunity Area. Policy 2.13 sets the strategic policy for Opportunity Areas, identifying their capacity to act as London’s major reservoir of brownfield land with the capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility. Section 8 of Table A1.1 in Annex 1 of the London Plan sets out the strategic policy direction for the Opportunity Area, which identifies the area as having a capacity for a minimum of 4,000 new homes and 7,000 jobs and the necessity for a comprehensive approach to be taken to planning the future of the exhibition complex, the TfL Lillie Bridge Road Depot, the local authority housing estates and other sites in the vicinity.

4.35 It is considered that the proposed redevelopment of the application site to deliver comprehensive mixed use regeneration is in conformity with this policy context. The application site is part of a London Plan designated Opportunity Area and the reason for designating such areas is to stimulate regeneration. The very essence of Opportunity Areas is change and regeneration of a substantial scale. New

housing and economic growth are key to delivering the regeneration of Opportunity Areas. The housing targets in the London Plan are predicated on housing-led redevelopment and the regeneration of the Opportunity Areas. The Areas are crucial to the growth of London and to achieving its physical, social and economic regeneration.

4.36 A strategic objective of the London Plan in relation to the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area is estate renewal (Table A1.1 in Annex 1 (Ref 8)). The London Plan also seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with the local context, design principles and public transport capacity.

4.37 Both RBKC and LBHF Core Strategies seek to realise the development potential of the Earls Court Site. Policies seek to deliver a mix, scale and density of development that makes the most effective use of the site. The Core Strategies recognise the benefits of a comprehensive approach and how this approach could bring about the regeneration of the existing West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates. The proposed development gives this opportunity.

4.38 Regeneration of the most deprived parts of the Borough is a key strategic objective of the LBHF Core Strategy and it further states: Encourage regeneration of key council housing estates.

4.39 At paragraph 7.123 of the justification to Core Strategy policy FRA1, it states: Regeneration of the estates could take place through refurbishment or involve a phased comprehensive approach or a combination of measures. ‘

4.40 The proposed residential led mixed use redevelopment of the application site is supported at all levels of planning policy and is considered to be in accordance with national policy, London Plan policy and relevant Core Strategy policies. To ensure the delivery of an acceptable mixed use scheme through the reserved matters applications, a s.106 agreement will required the submission and approval of a land use plan.

4.41 It is also considered that the proposed comprehensive approach is an important benefit of the proposed development. Wider overall benefits are more likely to be achieved than through smaller piecemeal interventions . The development will regenerate a key brownfield site and in doing so it will result in the physical renewal of the application site and it will facilitate economic growth. In particular, the development will comprehensively regenerate the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates. The application is considered an important step in bringing forward the regeneration of this part of West London. There is strong development plan policy support in land use terms and for the comprehensive regeneration of this site.

4.42 The overarching policy objective contained in Annex 1 of the London Plan (2011) regarding the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area states that (inter alia) ‘a comprehensive approach should be taken to planning the future of the exhibition complex, the Transport for London Lillie Bridge Depot, the local authority housing estates and other sites in the vicinity’. As the overarching policy expressed in the London Plan is requiring a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the Opportunity Area, it is clear that this cannot be delivered by Application 2 in isolation, Therefore, it is considered that Application 1 which has been submitted concurrently to RBKC for determination is a material consideration as, together with Application 2 would deliver the comprehensive redevelopment of the Opportunity Area which is

supported by development plan policy. In particular, if Application 1 were to be completed in isolation, this may compromise the potential of Application 2 to be delivered at a later stage which could result in a delay in bringing forward the regeneration of the housing estates together with the overall comprehensive redevelopment of the main part of the Opportunity Area.

4.43 Officers have given considerable weight to the strong development plan policy support for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Opportunity Area and the regeneration of the housing estates and consider that to ensure that the development plan policy objectives are secured, it is necessary to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards included within the s106 agreement in order that Application 1 is not fully completed without development having being commenced and (in part) completed within Application 2. Therefore, a clause will be inserted in the s.106 agreement. It should be noted that this principle has been agreed with the Applicant and Officers at RBKC who will also include the appropriate s106 Heads of Terms in the determination of Application 1 to secure the necessary ‘linkage’ between the two planning applications. In terms of what the appropriate restriction should be, officers consider that it should mirror the phasing plan where overlap between Application 1 and 2 is expected. This is reflected in the heads of terms for the proposed s 106 agreement, which will be entered into by the developer and both the council and RBKC. Subject to this proposed planning obligation being completed, officers consider that the application accords with the relevant statutory development plan provisions and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.44 Officers also have considered the proposal against the relevant provisions of the SPD. The ‘Vision’ of the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document at paragraph 3.2, is of a “residential led regeneration of the opportunity area [that] will result in a world class, environmentally sustainable new urban quarter that people will want to live in work in and visit”. The SPD also contains within it Key Principles that seek a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the Opportunity Area. Key Principle HO1 sets out that the authorities will require a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the Opportunity Area and LBHF will expect comprehensive redevelopment to deliver estate regeneration. Having regard to these parts of the SPD, subject to the condition outlined above, the application is considered to be in accordance with this guidance and officers are of the opinion that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Phasing of development

4.45 A phasing plan has been submitted which is consistent with the ES and shows the phased development of Applications 1 and 2. The two application sites are broken into six areas and the phased development of each in some cases overlap. Phase 1 comprises the development of Application 1, and during the construction process, phases 2 and 3 in the south west and south of Application 2 commence, with the following phases of development moving north up the site. To ensure that this is the case, a condition will ensure that development takes place in accordance with the phasing plan. A plan identifying the development parcels has been submitted, which is consistent with the Phasing Plan and which has been used as the basis for the condition requiring submission of reserved matters and commencement of those parcels pursuant to Section 92 of the 1990 Act.

4.46 Whilst there are no relevant development plan policies in this regard to assess the proposed phased development, officers consider the plan to be appropriate which will result in an acceptable residential led mixed use development in each phase being secured. Furthermore, Policy FRA1 states that “the part of the area North of Lillie Road should be designed as a vibrant world class new quarter inner West London linking well with its physical and commercial surroundings, especially to the West and East”. Officers consider that the phasing plan and development parcels submitted by the Applicant ensure the early delivery of this East West connectivity. Accordingly officers consider that the proposal is in accordance with the development plan in this regard and that there are no material considerations which indicates why planning permission should be withheld.

4.47 Officer have gone on to consider the relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle PS1 states that planning obligations will be secured to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive and acceptable phased approach to any redevelopment of the Opportunity Area. Key Principle PS3 requires any Section 106 agreement to ensure that each phase is self sufficient in terms of its planning contributions towards environmental improvements, infrastructure and land uses and Key Principle PS4 requires any Section 106 agreement to include triggers requiring the delivery of/contributions towards necessary infrastructure to coincide with development/occupation. As set out in the Section 106 heads, the Section 106 agreement will include triggers which will ensure the delivery of infrastructure attendant with the quantum of development and the needs arising from this, which is considered to satisfy Key Principles PS3 and PS4. Having regard to these parts of the SPD, the application is considered to be in accordance with this guidance and officers are of the opinion that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Housing Supply

4.48 The London Plan recognises the pressing need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford. Policies seek to: • Ensure that Boroughs achieve and exceed the relevant minimum borough housing annual average target in Table 3.1 which is set at 615 homes for the LBHF and 585 homes for RBKC (Policy 3.3). • Encourage large residential developments (and accompanying suitable non-residential uses) in areas of high public transport accessibility (Policy 3.7).

4.49 There are a number of borough wide housing polices within the LBHF Core Strategy to ensure that development both within and outside the regeneration areas contribute to meeting the Council’s strategic objective of : Increase the supply and choice of high quality housing and ensure that the new housing meets local needs and aspirations, particularly the need for affordable home ownership and for homes for families.

4.50 Core Strategy strategic site policy FRA1 and borough wide policies H1 and H4 are considered relevant to the current application. Policy FRA1 states that there should be a substantial overall net increase in housing. Policy H1 looks to exceed the London Plan target of 615 additional dwellings and policy H4 seeks to increase the supply and choice of high quality residential accommodation. Further to meet the housing needs of the borough Policy HO1 of the LBHF UDP requires there should be no net loss of existing housing stock. Of little weight is policy A1 of the draft DM DPD relating to housing supply.

4.51 The Earls Court site allocation policy CA7 within the RBKC Core Strategy requires a minimum of 500 homes within the Royal Borough. The policy also sets out the circumstances in which this could be increased. Policy CH1 sets out the Housing Targets with a target of 350 net additional residential units a year.

4.52 Relevant policies within the RBKC UDP are policies H2, H15, H18 and H19. In summary these in turn require development of land and buildings to be for residential use, require a substantial proportion of housing to be provided on those sites identified in the Schedule of Major Development, the inclusion of smaller units in schemes for residential development and an appropriate mix of dwellings within a scheme.

4.53 The wider Earls Court development option will provide up to 6,775 residential units and the RBKC only development option will provide up to 930 residential units depending on the precise mix of unit sizes. It is considered the proposed residential use will play an important role in the regeneration of the Earls Court Site, and the wider Opportunity Area in accordance with stated planning policy objectives.

4.54 Residential use is a fundamental part of the proposed development and it is in an area that benefits from excellent public transport accessibility along with access to local facilities, pedestrian and cycle routes. In this regard the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy 3.7 of the London Plan which promotes proposals for large scale residential developments. The proposal is also considered to optimise the provision of new housing in accordance with London Plan policy which promotes proposals for large scale residential developments. The amount of proposed housing is considered a benefit of the development in accordance with London Plan policies 3.3 and 3.4 which look to increase housing supply. The development would also contribute to meeting the London Plan housing targets for both LBHF and RBKC and the relevant policies and targets contained within both LBHF and RBKC Core Strategies. There is no net loss of residential stock and in this regard the proposal is in accordance with LBHF UDP policy HO1.

4.55 Policy A1 of the draft DM DPD relates to housing supply, which seeks to exceed London Plan housing target and resist net loss of housing. As mentioned in paragraph 4.30 above officers have given little weight to this policy. Officers consider that the proposal is in accordance with Policy A1 because it seeks to deliver homes in excess of the indicative additional homes target in Policy FRA1of the core strategy. The proposal can be said to be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the development plan in this regard and officers consider that there are no material considerations which indicate that the application should be refused.

4.56 There is no relevant SPD provision which needs to be considered in relation to housing supply.

Regeneration of West Kensington, Gibbs Green and Registered Provider estates 4.57 Table A1.1 in Annex 1 of the London Plan sets out the strategic policy direction for the application site. The policy direction states that a comprehensive approach should be taken to planning the future of the exhibition complex, the Transport for London Lillie Bridge Road Depot, the Local Authority housing estates and other sites in the vicinity.

4.58 LBHF’s Core Strategy Strategic Objective 3 seeks to encourage the regeneration of key council housing estates. Strategic Policy A reflects the Council’s

vision of major regeneration and growth. Strategic Policy FRA, FRA1 and paragraph 7.103 of the justification to policy FRA are of relevance to estate regeneration in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. Of particular relevance to this application is strategic site policy FRA1, which says that regeneration of the West Kensington, Gibbs Green and Registered Provider estates phased over 20 years will be considered as part of a comprehensive approach to the opportunity area. Core Strategy policy FRA1 states that all existing local residents should have the opportunity to be re-housed within the Opportunity Area or within its vicinity if proposals affect their homes.

4.59 The application proposes the redevelopment of the West Kensington, Gibbs Green and Registered Provider estates land as part of a comprehensive residential led mixed use scheme phased over a twenty two year build period.

4.60 At the date of the application the number of homes subject to demolition as a result of the proposal comprises: 531 social rent homes owned by LBHF; 58 social rent homes owned by RSL’s and 171 leasehold/freehold homes that are privately owned.

4.61 In respect of the social rented homes, residents of the social rented units will be re-housed in social rented units. These social rented units will be transferred to the Council at nil cost. Accordingly, officers consider that the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.62 Officers have gone on to consider the relevant provisions of the SPD. There are a number of SPD principles which are of relevance to the re-provision of social rented homes, which officers have also considered against the proposal.

4.63 Key Principle HO1 of the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document requires a comprehensive approach to the redevelopment of the Opportunity Area and LBHF expects comprehensive redevelopment to deliver estate regeneration.

4.64 The SPD contains key principles about the loss of affordable housing and housing needs (H02 and H03) but these are considered under the ‘Affordable Housing’ section.

4.65 The application provides for the redevelopment of the estate land as part of comprehensive regeneration of the site. In this regard, the application is considered to be in accordance with Key principle H01 the SPD. Therefore, officers’ view is that there are no relevant reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Re-provision of privately owned estate homes 4.66 This section deals with the 171 privately owned homes, where a tenant has previously exercised their right to buy. At the time of the application, the majority remain owner-occupied but some are privately rented.

4.67 In relation to those residents who are owner-occupiers at the time of the application, the s.106 agreement will ensure that they are given an opportunity to be re-housed within the Opportunity Area or within its vicinity with provisions that require them to be offered a new property affordable to them. It is anticipated that the vast

majority of the new properties will meet the requirements for affordable housing and therefore these will contribute to the overall affordable housing contribution.

4.68 In relation to tenants, the s.106 agreement will contain provisions ensuring that the tenants are included within the local lettings policy and given the opportunity to be re-housed within the Opportunity Area or within its vicinity.

4.69 Non-resident landlords will not be offered a new property as they are not resident in the estates and therefore the s.106 provisions will not apply to them.

4.70 Officers consider that, given the phased approach to redevelopment of the homes on the housing estates and the council’s involvement as landowner and housing authority, it (or a nominee of its choice) is best placed to administer the offer of the affordable housing to the owner-occupiers and private tenants. As such, the s.106 will contain a provision that 171 homes are transferred to the council to meet the above-mentioned requirements.

4.71 Furthermore, the s.106 will ensure that any proceeds, net of the costs of acquiring the old property, will be reinvested in affordable housing and the regeneration of housing estates. Similarly, if any owner-occupier who does acquire a new property from the council or its nominee with an equity stake held by the council or its nominee and who then sells the property, the equity that will be realised as part of the sale will also be reinvested in affordable housing and the regeneration of housing estates.

4.72 On this basis, officers consider that the proposal and mechanism in the s.106 agreement is in accordance with the development plan policy and that there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should be withheld.

4.73 Officers have go on to consider whether there are any relevant policies in the SPD; there are not and therefore there are no relevant reasons why permission should be withheld in this regard whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Affordable Housing 4.74 The development as well as addressing the need for market housing also provides affordable housing.

4.75 The NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

4.76 Policy 3.9 of the London Plan seeks to achieve mixed and balanced communities, advising that a more balanced mix of tenures should be sought in all parts of London, particularly in some neighbourhoods where social renting predominates.

4.77 Policy 3.11 of the London Plan requires boroughs to seek to ensure that 60 per cent of the affordable housing provided is social housing and 40 per cent is intermediate housing . The second part of the policy 3.11 relates to the establishment of Borough level affordable housing targets through LDF preparation that takes account of a range of considerations that include strategic and local circumstances.

4.78 The London Plan does not specifically prescribe a percentage target for affordable housing on individual schemes, but rather seeks to Maximise affordable housing provision seeking an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year, with a London-wide objective of 60% social housing and 40% intermediate and a priority for family homes (Policy 3.12).

4.79 This would equate to approximately 40% of the total number of units required under the housing targets set out in the London Plan. This essentially affords Local Authorities greater flexibility in how they secure affordable housing units.

4.80 Policy 3.12 sets out the requirement for negotiating the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and part B advises that ‘negotiations on sites should take account of their individual circumstances including development viability, the availability of public subsidy, the implications of phased development including provisions for reappraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation (‘contingent obligation’), and other scheme requirements’.

4.81 Part B of Policy 3.14 states Loss of housing, including affordable housing, should be resisted unless the housing is replaced at existing or higher densities with at least equivalent floorspace .

4.82 Strategic Site Policy FRA1 is set out in full above. In terms of affordable housing, it states that 40% of all new housing in the opportunity Area (within H&F) should be affordable in accordance with Policy H2 – Affordability , It goes on to say that with any proposals to replace existing social rented housing, the existing quantity should not be reduced but it should be redistributed across the Opportunity Area . Borough-wide Policy H2 of the LBHF Core Strategy states Housing development should help achieve more mixed and balanced communities and reduce social and economic polarisation by improving the mix of affordable housing in the borough for those that cannot afford market housing

4.83 The policy sets a target for 40% of additional dwellings to be affordable, with a preference for all additional affordable housing to be intermediate housing and affordable rented housing unless a small proportion of social rented housing is necessary for the regeneration of council or housing association estates. Consideration will be given to: • site size and site constraints; • financial viability, having regard to the individual circumstances of the site, the availability of public subsidy and the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development; and • the affordability and profile of local housing; the scope for achieving a more mixed and balanced community in the borough, or in an area where there are existing concentrations of social rented housing.

4.84 Policy CH2 of the RBKC Core Strategy relates to affordable housing and policy CH1 relates to affordable housing targets.

4.85 Housing developments should usually provide an element of affordable housing, unless it can be demonstrated, taking into account the considerations outlined above that it would not be feasible to do so.

4.86 The proposal includes: • The re-provision of social rented estate properties • The provision of 740 homes as net additional affordable homes

4.87 Part of the proposal includes off site provision: 200 replacement estate homes, of which a large proportion will be socially rented, will be provided on the Seagrave Road site.

4.88 The number of social rented units proposed to be demolished is 589. The applicant proposes to re-provide 589 of these homes within either the application site, or within the Seagrave Road site. In respect of provision of social housing in the Seagrave Road site, which was approved in March 2012, the s.106 will contain provisions to ensure that the Applicant provides a number of social rented units from this site. The Seagrave Road site falls within the Opportunity Area and therefore officers conclude that off site provision accords with the Council’s strategic site policy FRA1 and given its proximity to the application site is acceptable in all the circumstances. After further negotiation between officers and the Applicant, the s.106 agreement will also allow the potential for 11 Farm Lane to also be used to provide replacement homes, a proportion of which may be socially rented. Officers consider that the site within the vicinity of the Opportunity Area and therefore considered to satisfy FRA1 of the Core Strategy.

4.89 In summary, the replacement of higher density social rented housing provided within the Opportunity Area will not result in the loss of social rented housing in accordance with policy 3.14 London Plan and LBHF Core Strategy and UDP policies

4.90 Homes re-provided as social rent tenures will continue to have their rents set by LBHF in accordance with Government guidelines.

4.91 In summary, the replacement of social rented housing at a higher density is considered to be in accordance with policy 3.14 London Plan and LBHF and RBKC Core Strategy and UDP policies and officers do not consider that there are any material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld in this regard.

4.92 Officers have gone on to consider the proposal against relevant provisions in the SPD. Key Principle HO2 requires no net loss of affordable housing and Key Principle HO3 requires an assessment of need demonstrating that any affordable housing being provided is sufficient in terms of size and adaption to cater for the needs of residents on the existing estates. The re-provision of the social rented units and the s.106 clause requiring an assessment of need meets the SPD requirements. Accordingly, officers do not consider that there is a reason to refuse permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or it is not.

Additional Affordable Housing 4.93 The application proposes 740 new affordable homes to be provided as intermediate tenures within the red line boundary of Application 2.

A small proportion of nomination rights will be afforded to RBKC. As discussed elsewhere, RBKC has transferred jurisdiction to the council to determine the application so far as it affects some parcels of land which lie within RBKC. This land within RBKC’s area could otherwise be used in part for the supply of affordable housing in that borough. However, the exact location of affordable housing within the proposal is not yet known as this is an outline application. Officers consider this to

be appropriate given that there is a site wide proposal for comprehensive redevelopment which will also ensure that a proportionate amount of the affordable units provided across the scheme can be made available to those in housing need in RBKC.

4.94 The planning application has been accompanied by a viability appraisal. As part of that appraisal, and for the purposes of determining the amount and type of affordable housing no grant funding has been assumed either in respect of the reprovision of the existing estates or to assist with the delivery of new affordable housing. This reflects the recent guidance provided by the HCA for the funding period up to 2015. However, the application anticipates and the s.106 agreement secures provisions in respect of the future availability of grant funding which could be used to improve the affordability of the additional 740 intermediate units. Officers consider that this mechanism is the most appropriate use of any future grant funding because it would allow the council to target those households in the lower range of incomes.

4.95 The appraisal has been independently reviewed on behalf of the council by the District Valuation Service (DVS). The DVS report covers the site wide proposals (Application 1 and 2 combined). Given that policy FRA1 anticipates site wide comprehensive regeneration and that Application 2 is contingent on Application 1 coming forward, officers consider that this is an appropriate way to assess viability of the scheme in terms of affordable housing and the deliverability of the scheme as a whole.

4.96 The DVS confirm that the applicants methodology included within the financial model on which the appraisal has been assessed is an acceptable reflection of the nature of the proposed development. The development period is envisaged to be circa 22 years and therefore a growth development model approach (revenue growth and cost inflation) having regard to the Internal rate of Return (IRR) as a measurement of risk reward has been adopted. They add that the approach is an appropriate measurement of return for multi-phased schemes over the anticipated project programme. An IRR measurement using a benchmark value of 20% takes full account of the time value of money and is used as the measure of profitability having regard to the time the project takes to complete.

4.97 In order to provide a robust assessment of the development proposals, the DVS report and assessment of the financial model includes a number of sensitivities which could occur during the programme. These include returns on the intermediate housing, the retail rents and earlier residential sales than anticipated (e.g. more during construction than post completion). On the whole, the DVS has confirmed that the assumptions and conclusions of the financial model are reasonable

4.98 The DVS report includes the anticipated IRR in the event of any variation in the above mentioned sensitivities

4.99 The DVS concludes that when considered with the re-provision of the social rented housing and the total value of the section 106 obligations, the proposal represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in accordance with London Plan policy and LBHF/RBKC policy.

Merits of review mechanism 4.100 The DVS report states that the project has a programme of circa 22 years and the model relies upon forecast revenue growth and cost inflation. It states that these factors coupled with the stage of design development of the scheme highlight

the opportunity for the scheme as a whole to either outperform or underperform the current assumptions. The DVS therefore recommends that the scheme should be reassessed by way of a mechanism to test viability of a phase/plot closer to the point of implementation to accurately assess viability having regard to more detailed design information to inform construction costs, revenue and assumptions as the scheme is refined.

4.101 London Plan policy 3.12B is relevant here. The policy states that in negotiating affordable housing, regard should be given to, ‘the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development’ and ‘the specific circumstances of individual sites. Paragraph 3.75 of the justification to the policy says that boroughs should consider whether it is appropriate to put in place provisions for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation. In addition, Core Strategy Objective and Policies are relevant. Objective 3 seeks to ‘encourage regeneration of key council housing estates.’ Policy H2 of the adopted Cores Strategy is relevant. Paragraph 8.27 states that the amount and mix of affordable housing that can be achieved in any scheme will depend on the financial viability of that scheme. It will therefore have regard to a number of factors including site specific circumstances, the availability of public subsidy and the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development.

4.102 With regard to the above, Officers have considered the benefits and risks of introducing a review mechanism into the s.106 agreement. On balance, officers have concluded that it is not appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In forming this judgement, officers note that the submitted developer’s viability appraisal adopts a growth model approach to establish that the developer can make an acceptable IRR over the passage of time. Because of this, the council has been able to secure planning obligations which it considers to be necessary and proportionate to the development to ameliorate any adverse impacts and to make the development acceptable in development terms the majority of which are provided on site and the full cost is borne by the developer. A review mechanism would be a review of the quantum of affordable housing, which would be deliverable. Officers take the view that it is not appropriate given the site specifics and the principal objectives of the development plan and the need to provide a degree of certainty to the developer.

4.103 The NPPF emphasizes deliverability and the provision of competitive returns to willing land owners and developers to enable sustainable development to come forward. It is within this context that the policies of the London Plan and RBKC and LBHF’s core strategies should be considered.

4.104 Officers have taken into account the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development, the individual circumstances of the development site and other development requirements and the need to balance the need for affordable housing with development viability and the delivery of regeneration and area improvements.

4.105 On balance, officers have reached the conclusion that the proposed quantum of affordable housing represents the maximum reasonable amount that can be viably delivered in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.12 LBHF Core Strategy policy FRA1 and H2 and (where relevant to the scheme) RBKC Core Strategy policies CH1 and CH2 by providing a significant number of affordable housing which will contribute to the Councils’ borough wide targets.

4.106 The GLA has a draft Housing SPG. This has been subject to consultation but since its publication the Government has published the NPPF and replaced a

number of its Planning Policy Statements referred to in the draft SPG. Accordingly, officers have given it little weight. Of relevance to the quantum of affordable housing the SPG advises that viability is a essential consideration to delivery of housing. On this basis, the proposal is considered to accord with the Housing SPG and that there are no other material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted.

4.107 Officers have gone on to consider any relevant provision of the SPD. Key Principle H06 says that in LBHF 40% of all new housing in the Opportunity Area should be affordable, subject to viability. Key principle H07 states that in RBKC 50% of the gross external residential floorspace above 800sqm must be affordable and provided on site, subject to viability. Viability has been considered above and concluded to be the maximum reasonable, which the SPD accepts is a reason for a lesser provision of affordable housing. On this basis, officers consider that this part of the proposal accords with this part of the SPD and are of the opinion that there are no reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Tenure split of additional affordable housing 4.108 London Plan policy 3.12 gives a “ London-wide objective of 60% social housing and 40% intermediate”. However, Core Strategy H2 says that “ the Council would prefer all additional housing to be intermediate and affordable rented housing unless a small proportion of new social rented housing is necessary in order to enable proposals for the regeneration of council or housing association estates, or the replacement of unsatisfactory accommodation, particularly in accordance with policies for the regeneration areas set out in this plan” . As this proposal is a scheme which enables comprehensive redevelopment and regeneration of the estates which is spatially supported in principle by both the London Plan and Core Strategy, officers consider that the provisions of the local plan are of most relevance. Officers have also considered the need for affordable housing as a whole and consider that greater numbers of affordable housing, albeit on an intermediate tenure without any further mix of tenure, is considered preferable in this area. On this basis, given that there are no additional social housing units (no additional units being necessary to ensure the regeneration of the estates in this instance as the same number is being re- provided), and the only tenure is intermediate, officers consider that this accords with the Council’s Core Strategy policy H2 and the development plan and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.109 RBKC policies CH1 and CH2 are also relevant to very small strips of land that form part of this application. The policy says that tenure should be provided such that they work towards a RBKC borough wide target of 85% social rented housing and 15% intermediate housing. However, Policy CH2 (q) states that in Earls Court, a minimum of 15% of affordable housing should be intermediate housing. The proposal does not meet with the tenure split set out in RBKCs policy, because 100% of the affordable housing is intermediate. However, officers consider that the deliverability of the comprehensive redevelopment of Applications 1 and 2 should outweigh the nil provision of social rented housing. Accordingly officers consider that permission should be granted on this basis.

4.110 Officers have considered the relevant provisions in the SPD. In respect of LBHF land, Key principle H06 says “The priority will be the replacement of the existing social rented accommodation to meet the needs of the existing residents of the two housing estates. The remainder of the affordable housing should be intermediate or affordable rented.” As explained above, no additional new housing is

considered to be necessary to meet the needs of the existing social rented accommodation as this has been fully re-provided. Therefore as the only provision of additional affordable housing is intermediate, this is considered to be consistent with this SPD principle and officers consider that there is no reason to refuse the application on this point.

4.111 In respect of RBKC land Key Principle HO7 says that in RBKC a minimum of 15% should be intermediate and the remainder social rented accommodation. As stated above, officers consider that the deliverability of the comprehensive redevelopment of Applications 1 and 2 should outweigh the nil provision of social rented housing. Therefore, officers consider that whether or not the SPD provision is taken into account, there are no relevant reasons to withhold planning permission.

Type of intermediate housing 4.112 The precise nature of the intermediate housing (e.g. shared ownership, shared equity or discount market sale) will be determined at reserved matters stage. Paragraph 8.21 in the justification to Core Strategy H2 says that the Council will encourage the provision of a variety of intermediate products. Paragraph 3.61 of the London Plan identifies the annual income range that the intermediate affordable housing should be targeted at.

4.113 To ensure that the new intermediate homes will meet the development plan criteria for affordability, they will be subject to the upper affordability thresholds set by the GLA with a series of bands as devised by the Council to ensure a range of affordability can be achieved for different household incomes. The following income bands will be secured in the s.106 agreement: • One third to be targeted to households with incomes of between £19,000 and £35,000 • One third to be targeted to households with incomes of between £ 35,001 and £45,000 • One third to be targeted to households with incomes of between £45,001 and the thresholds allowable in the London Plan ie. £61,400 and £74,000 (depending on room size).

Accordingly, all 740 units will meet the criteria of intermediate affordable housing and be in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions of the development plan.

4.114 Officers have considered the relevant provisions of the SPD. Key principle H08 states that intermediate housing should provide for a broad range of affordability and tenure types. As explained above, the s.106 will secure three different income bands, which offices consider appropriate to ensure a reasonable spread of households from different incomes. The type of intermediate housing will be determined at a later stage but a variety will be secured through the s.106. On this basis, officers consider that the application accords with the SPD provision and consider that there is no reason to withhold planning permission on this issue whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Service charges

4.115 All households, including occupiers of affordable housing, are required to pay towards service charges (ie. specific to the building the household occupies) and estate service charges (ie. a fair and reasonable contribution to the wider estate amenities and services from which the occupier benefits). In order to meet the requirements of Policy 3.10 of the London Plan, that the affordable housing is affordable, officers consider that it is necessary to control the level of service charge

for the residents of the affordable housing. The Sec 106 Agreement will ensure these are set at affordable levels reflective of the services received. Accordingly, officers consider that the proposal accords with development plan in this regard and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.116 Officers have considered key principle H011 of the SPD. It says that the authorities will control the affordability of any affordable housing. The justification to this relates to high service charges and maintenance rates. Subject to the s.106 agreement, the proposal would accord with this principle of the SPD and therefore officers consider that there is no relevant reason to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is or is not taken into account.

Housing Mix 4.117 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan requires new residential development to offer a range of housing choices in terms of the mix of housing sizes and types, taking account of the housing requirements of different groups and the changing roles of different sectors .

4.118 In relation to housing mix policy H4 there should be a mix of housing types and sizes in development schemes, especially increasing the proportion of family accommodation. The precise mix in any development will be subject to the suitability of the site for family housing in terms of site characteristics, the local environment and access to services .

Policy CH2 of the RBKC Core Strategy promotes housing diversity and in relation to housing mix and type requires new residential developments to include a mix of types, tenures and sizes of homes to reflect the varying needs of the Borough, taking into account the characteristics of the site, and current evidence in relation to housing need.

4.119 The wider Earl’s Court development option will provide up to 6,775 residential units and the RBKC only development option will provide up to 930 residential units depending on the precise mix of unit sizes. The proposed unit size mix ranges are:

Unit Type Proportion Range Within LBHF Proportion Range Within RBKC

1 person apt 2% - 5% 2% - 5% 1 bed 29% - 35% 20% - 35% 2 bed 30% - 40% 30% - 40% 3 bed 20% - 25% 20% - 25% 4 bed + 5% - 10% 5% - 20%

4.120 The Sec 106 Agreement will require an affordable housing plan as each phase of development comes forward. The plan will set out the location and tenure mix of affordable housing.

4.121 The development is considered to make a welcome contribution to family housing in accordance with compliance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan and relevant policies within the LBHF and RBKC Core Strategies. The housing is also part of a mixed use scheme which generates significant employment opportunities and the potential for residents to live and work on the site thereby enhancing

sustainability. Accordingly, the proposal in this regard is considered to be in accordance with the development plan.

4.122 Policy A3 of the submission DM DPD relates to housing mix. It says that all new housing should include family housing and should aim to meet a mix of: • for replacement social rental housing the new housing should meet the needs of the relocating tenants; • for intermediate housing, 1bedroom 50%; 2 bedroom 35%; 3 or more bedrooms 15% of units; and • for market housing a mix of unit sizes including larger family accommodation.

As mentioned at paragraph 4.30 above officers have given this emerging policy little weight. In respect of social rented and intermediate affordable housing the s.106 agreement will secure compliance with this policy. The table above sets out the range of unit sizes and officers consider that this range would deliver a variety of market housing sizes. On this basis officers conclude that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld.

4.123 Officers have also considered the proposal against the Key principles in The Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document relevant to housing mix. Key Principle H10 requires detailed or reserved matters applications to include an affordable housing plan setting out inter alia the tenure mix of the proposed affordable housing within any phase. Key Principle H012 says that in LBHF social rented housing mix should mirror that in the assessment of need. Key Principle H014 says that proposals will be expected to provide a range of market housing unit sizes especially the provision of larger sized family units. Officers consider that the proposed mix of unit sizes is sufficiently varied and includes an acceptable percentage of family sized homes and with the s.106 agreement requiring an assessment of need for the re-provision of the social rented units the proposal will accord with the principles in the SPD. Therefore, officers consider that there is no relevant reason to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is or is not taken into account.

Housing Standards 4.124 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan sets out the requirement that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to their context. Para 3.76 of the plan also states that schemes should be designed so that all affordable housing units have the same external appearance and entrance arrangements as the private housing. Policy 3.8 of the London Plan requires that housing be built to Lifetime Homes standards with ten percent of units designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable to this standard.

4.125 Policy 3.5 states the Mayor will and boroughs should ensure new dwellings meet the dwelling space standards set out in Table 3.3, providing adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts to meet the changing needs of Londoners over their lifetimes.

4.126 Policy 7.2 of the London Plan requires all new development to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design .

4.127 Para 8.30 of the LBHF Core Strategy states mixed tenure housing developments should be tenure blind, meaning that it should be difficult to spot the

differences in the architectural quality of market and affordable properties. Policy H4 of the LBHF Core Strategy requires all new dwellings be built to 'Lifetime Homes' standards with 10% to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents that are wheelchair users.

4.128 LBHF UDP policy HO6 and the Access for All SPD are relevant to the consideration of the acceptability of the scheme in terms of disabled access. Policy HO6 states that in developments for 20 or more residential units, permission will only be granted if: a) 10% of the units are designed to be suitable for occupation by wheelchair users and; b) A mixture of unit sizes is provided to meet the needs of family and non- family households. Of little weight are policies A4 and A9 of the submission DM DPD relating to accessible housing and detailed residential standards.

4.129 Policy CH2 of the RBKC Core Strategy relates to housing standards. The policy requires new residential developments, to be designed to achieve as a minimum all the following standards: i. lifetime homes; ii. floorspace and floor to ceiling heights; iii. wheelchair accessibility for a minimum of 10% of dwellings;

4.130 The proposed development will need also to have regard to the draft London Plan Housing SPG and the minimum amount of internal floor area (GIA set out in table 3.3 of the London Plan. Further wheelchair accessible dwellings within RBKC will need to satisfy the minimum floorspace requirements in the RBKC Access Design Guide, 2010.

4.131 The outline nature of the proposal means that the detailed design and appearance of the housing will be considered at the reserved matters stage. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement however provides details on the design principles. It is noted that: • All new homes will be provided to the minimum unit size standards set out in the London Plan. • There will be no difference externally between market and affordable housing.

4.132 Details relating to the design of the residential elements of the scheme are set out in the Design and Access Statement. A minimum of 10% of residential accommodation will be provided as wheelchair accessible units in accordance with the requirements of the London Plan. This will be secured by planning condition.

4.133 Due to the application being in outline the exact location of the wheelchair accessible units insofar of their exact distribution in terms of unit sizes and tenures has not been determined at this stage,. This will be determined at reserved matters stage. It is therefore considered that details of the location of the proposed wheelchair units be secured via a condition. In addition car parking spaces capable of use by wheelchair users should also be secured by condition.

4.134 It is intended that there would be step-free routes and shared spaces running through the site to all building entrances and lift access would be provided to all apartments from both street level and the basement car park. In terms of possible future shared surface areas a commitment to further consultation with relevant parties would be secured through a condition designed to ensure appropriate consultation on detailed proposals for shared surface streets and for public play

facilities, as envisaged in paragraph 7.18 of the London Plan. Conditions are also recommended to ensure that the communal landscaped areas are fully accessible to disabled residents and visitors (including wheelchair users and the visually impaired) thereby offering rest and recreation for both older and disabled persons and that there is a level threshold to all these spaces.

4.135 Lifetime Homes Standards comprise 16 design standards which aim to make homes more flexible, convenient, safe and accessible. All residential accommodation within the development will be designed to be Lifetime Homes compliant in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan and this will be secured by planning condition.

4.136 Officers consider that the acceptability of the proposal in this regard will be determined in detail at reserved matters stage but that provided they comply with the above-mentioned conditions will accord with the development plan. A material consideration which needs to be taken into account in this regard is the Mayor’s Housing SPG 2005 and EIP draft Housing SPG 2011. Similarly, the RBKC draft Housing Standards SPG sets out standards relevant to the consideration of proposals for the provision of housing in new buildings or in conversions, and for the protection of existing housing with shared facilities. It is intended to complement the detailed local land use polices, and offer detailed guidance. Officers have reached the conclusion that there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should be withheld on this matter.

4.137 Officers have also considered the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document. (Key Principle HO9).Key principles (HO18 and HO19) in the SPD relating to wheelchair accessible and Lifetime Homes standards are also of relevance. Key Principle HO9 require the affordable housing to be tenure blind in terms of the external appearance of the buildings and amenity and any affordable housing should be distributed by building or block throughout the Opportunity Area. Officers consider that the proposal for the above reasons accord with the SPD and therefore consider that there are no relevant reasons why permission should be withheld whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Density 4.138 The NPPF states Local Planning Authorities should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances .

4.139 Policy 3.4 of the London Plan states that taking into account local context and character, the design principles in the Plan and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2.

4 Table 3.2 provides density ranges. Setting Public Transport Accessibility Level(PTAL) 0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 6 Suburban 150-200 hr/ha 150-250 hr/ha 200-350 hr/ha 3.8-4.6 hr/unit 35-55 u/ha 35-65 u/ha 45-90 u/ha 3.1-3.7 hr/unit 40-65 u/ha 40-80 u/ha 55-115 u/ha 2.7-3.0 hr/unit 50-75 u/ha 50-95 u/ha 70-130 u/ha Urban 150-200 hr/ha 150-250 hr/ha 200-350 hr/ha 3.8-4.6 hr/unit 35-65 u/ha 45-120 u/ha 45-185 u/ha 3.1-3.7 hr/unit 40-80 u/ha 55-145 u/ha 55-225 u/ha

2.7-3.0 hr/unit 50-95 u/ha 70-170 u/ha 70-260 u/ha Central 150-300 hr/ha 300-650 hr/ha 650-1100 hr/ha 3.8-4.6 hr/unit 35-80 u/ha 65-170 u/ha 140-290 u/ha 3.1-3.7 hr/unit 40-100 u/ha 80-210 u/ha 175-355 u/ha 2.7-3.0 hr/unit 50-110 u/hr 100-240 u/ha 215-405 u/ha Notes to Table 3.2 Appropriate density ranges are related to setting in terms of location, existing building form and massing, and the index of public transport accessibility (PTAL). The settings can be defined as: • central – areas with very dense development, a mix of different uses, large building footprints and typically buildings of four to six storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of an International, Metropolitan or Major town centre. • urban – areas with predominantly dense development such as, for example, terraced houses, mansion blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or, along main arterial routes • suburban – areas with predominantly lower density development such as, for example, detached and semi-detached houses, predominantly residential, small building footprints and typically buildings of two to three storeys.

4.140 The London Plan explains that where transport assessments other than PTALs can reasonably demonstrate that a site has either good existing or planned public transport connectivity and capacity, and subject to the wider concerns of this policy, the density of a scheme may be at the higher end of the appropriate density range. Where connectivity and capacity are limited, density should be at the lower end of the appropriate range. It also explains that residential density calculations should be based on net residential area, which includes internal roads and ancillary open spaces.

4.141 The draft London Plan Housing SPG provides further guidance on implementation of this policy in different circumstances. Para 1.3.29 advises that as a broad generality, sites over two hectares usually have the potential to define their own setting. Para 1.3.6 further advises that where proposals are made for developments above the relevant density range they must be resisted, unless additional reasons to justify exceeding the top of the appropriate range can be demonstrated rigorously.

4.142 Policy H3 of the LBHF Core Strategy relates to density. Relevant extracts are: Acceptable housing density will be dependent primarily on an assessment of these factors taking account of London Plan policies and subject to public transport and highway impact and capacity….

Some high density housing with limited car parking may be appropriate in locations with high levels of public transport accessibility (PTAL 4-6) provided it is satisfactory in all other respects .

4.143 Policy CL1 para c of the RBKC Core Strategy requires the density of all developments to be optimised relative to context.

4.144 The sites current public transport accessibility level (PTAL) ranges from 2- 6 across the site. The proposed development would open up the site improving connectivity and permeability and resulting in the PTAL moving upto 6 across the

whole site. Based on a PTAL of 6 table 3.2 of the London Plan considers the site to have potential for 215 - 405 units per hectare or 650 - 1100 habitable rooms per hectare, dependent upon the number of habitable rooms per unit.

4.145 The submitted application seeks approval for a maximum quantum of residential floorspace and the precise number of dwellings is not specified. The applicant’s submitted Housing Statement states that applications 1 and 2 together could provide a maximum of 6,775 units The ES also assesses impacts in the context of up to 6,775 dwellings across the two development sites with 5,845 dwellings proposed by the LBHF application and 930 dwellings proposed by the RBKC application.

4.146 As part of the revisions the applicants have undertaken a density assessment based on 6,775 dwellings and the assessment is referred to in their Planning Statement Addendum. The assessment is based on red line site areas of 7.6 hectares for the RBKC development and 27.7 hectares for the wider site development, the respective residential densities have been assessed by the applicants as: • RBKC only development option = 122 u/ha and 550 hr/ha. • Wider site development option = 245 u/ha and 784 hr/ha.

4.147 The applicants also note in their Planning Statement Addendum that the highest density levels are focused at the proposed tall building cluster (Development Plots BW04 and NE06).The density related to these two plots is estimated to be 1,053 hr/ha. Excluding the area occupied by the cluster (2.6 ha) it is estimated that the remainder of the Site Wide Development Option is at a density of 756 hr/ha.

4.148 The application documentation does not include a density assessment for the LBHF application site alone because this is not a development option the applicants are intending to pursue. Assuming an average of 3 habitable rooms per unit which the applicants have done for the LBHF application site a density assessment can however be extrapolated from the density assessments undertaken by the applicants for the two development options. Based on a net site area of 21.1 hectares the density is 277 u/ha and 831 hr/ha assuming an average of 3 habitable rooms.. The applicant’s density calculation however is not based on the net residential site area as required by the London Plan, rather it is based on the site as a whole factoring in other uses..

4.149 The net site area can be calculated by discounting a portion of the site equivalent in area to the amount of non residential floorspace proposed. Just over 20% of the total floorspace proposed for the LBHF application site is for non – residential use. This results in a net residential site area for the density calculation of 16.08 hectares. Using this area the density of the scheme is assessed as 1090.5 habitable rooms per hectare which is within the specified parameters of Table 3.2 in the London Plan for a central setting.

4.150 In assessing density London Plan paragraph 3.28 advises that while a rigorous appreciation of housing density is crucial to realising the optimum potential of sites, it is only the start of planning housing development, not the end. It further advises that it is not appropriate to apply London Plan Table 3.2 mechanistically. It is the effect of excessively high density that can give rise to harm not high density per se. Planning policy at all levels is geared towards supporting optimum density mixed use development on urban underutilised sites. Opportunity Areas have been identified in the London Plan because they are currently considered substantially underutilised and offer the potential for the delivery of significant levels of

development. Development sites within Opportunity Areas are expected to optimise residential and non-residential densities.

4.151 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan requires the design of all new housing developments should enhance the quality of local places, taking into account physical context; local character; density; tenure and land use mix; and relationships with, and provision of, public, communal and open spaces. Paragraph 8.30 of the LBHF Core Strategy - Higher density development must have particularly good design quality and positively enhance the locality (its appearance and amenities).

4.152 The draft London Plan Housing SPG highlights that in some cases undue weight has been attached to only one part of the policy (Table 3.2 – the density matrix) when coming to a view on residential density. It also emphasises that it is essential that when coming to such a view, appropriate weight is given to the range of relevant qualitative concerns set out in Policy 3.5 and other relevant policies so an informed judgement can be made about a proposed density. The maximum of the range should not be taken as a ‘given’ or even a minimum expectation.

4.153 Securing high quality housing output is important. It is therefore clear that high density development must meet a high standard of both design and quality if it is to make a positive contribution to the appearance of the area. Given the importance of making the best use of urban land and ensuring sites are developed to their full potential in accordance with planning policy it is considered that the proposed density will be acceptable if the application is considered acceptable in the context of other material planning considerations. These have been assessed in the various topic sections of the planning considerations part of the report and no demonstrable harm is considered to arise.

4.154 It is considered that the application site can be successfully and satisfactorily developed at the proposed density to both a high standard of urban design and in a sustainable manner. The proposed density is therefore acceptable and at this density it would be possible to provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers. The proposal is in accordance with national and regional policy which encourages high density mixed use developments that create diversity and vitality. It is also clear from all levels of planning policy that the application site is intended for high density mixed use development. Policy A2 of the submission DM DPD relates to housing density and applies London Plan Policies. On this basis officers consider that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.155 Officers have gone on to consider whether there are any relevant SPD principles relating to density. In this case there are not and the SPD simply refers to the relevant development plan policies and the Mayor’s draft Housing SPG all of which are considered above. Therefore, the SPD has no bearing on the issue of density.

Design and Townscape 4.156 The planning application is an outline application. However, it is not a ‘bare’ outline as the level of detail submitted in relation to various elements of the scheme varies.

4.157 The primary intention of the application is to establish a high quality design framework within which various parcels of land will come forward for development in the future. The proposals therefore comprise a set of Parameter

Plans which establish the locations of a number of ‘development plots’ and set maximum (and minimum) building envelopes for them. These Parameter Plans and the design concepts behind them are reinforced through the design guidance set out within Design Guidelines documents. These provide a set of design rules which will provide a level of clarity and certainty over the future design of the individual plots as they are developed across the site. These guidelines provide the primary design information to inform the preparation of the subsequent reserved matters applications. The Design Guidelines contain both mandatory and non mandatory elements. The mandatory elements represent fixed design rules and elements and must be complied with and the non-mandatory guidelines should be taken into account within development proposals, but they are for guidance purposes only.

4.158 The proposals submitted are underpinned by a series of urban design principles listed in the Design and Access Statement including integrating the new development and its open spaces into the existing context through following the West London urban structure, street pattern, public realm and building typology

4.159 The application site, in part, is close to listed buildings. The site forms part of a conservation area and is surrounded by many others. In these circumstances it is important that the Local Planning Authority is able to make a properly informed judgment as to the potential impact of the proposal upon the setting of the surrounding listed buildings, the character and appearance of the conservation areas and their settings. In order properly to form the relevant judgments of acceptability reliable application material clearly defining the nature of the proposal is required. The submitted Parameter Plans and the mandatory Design Guidelines which accompany them are considered to sufficiently define the nature of the proposals to allow a proper assessment of the impact of the proposal.

4.160 The Parameter Plans propose the following development plots on the edges of the site: NE01, NE03, NE04, NE06, BW06, BW07, WK01, WK02 and WK03. The proposed development plots that share boundaries with existing properties on the edges (WK01, NE01, NE04, NE06, BW06 and BW07) have been designed as building based parameters with greater design certainty as to their scale and massing. These blocks have also been made subject to further enhanced design guidelines for developments on the edges of the site giving officers greater certainty in determining the impact of development on the edges of the development site with existing properties and interface with heritage asserts.

4.161 The applicants have submitted three volumes of Design Guidelines which are intended to provide clarity over what constitutes acceptable design quality and thereby provide a level of certainty for planning authorities and other stakeholders. • Volume 1 sets out the spatial composition of the buildings, building groups and public realm occupying each development plot. It also adds a layer of detail which will govern the design and detailing of future architecture and landscaping proposals. • Volume 2 provides a set of enhanced guidance covering suitable materials for the nine most sensitive development plots and all ‘feature buildings’. • Volume 3 provides illustrative examples of how the design guidelines may be implemented. This illustrative material seeks to demonstrate how the quantum of development could be satisfactorily arranged and accommodated within the limits set out by the Parameter Pans and within the bounds set by, and the aspirations embodied in the submitted design guidelines.

4.162 The mandatory elements of the Design Guidelines will be embodied in any planning permission by way of condition. The Design Guidelines will

subsequently control and guide the design of future detailed applications in order to ensure that the design of the overall scheme is of high quality.

4.163 National Planning Policy Framework states The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

4.164 Further the following paragraphs are pertinent to design and townscape issues. 57. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. 59. Local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they could help deliver high quality outcomes. However, design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. 60. Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. 61. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. 62. Local planning authorities should have local design review arrangements in place to provide assessment and support to ensure high standards of design. They should also when appropriate refer major projects for a national design review. In general, early engagement on design produces the greatest benefits. In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the recommendations from the design review panel.

4.165 There are also a number of relevant policies in the London Plan • London Plan Policy 7.1 requires all new development to be of a high quality that responds to the surrounding context and improves access to social and community infrastructure, to contribute to the provision of high quality living environments and to enhance the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of surrounding neighbourhoods. • London Plan Policy 7.2 requires that new development embraces the principles of inclusive design. • London Plan Policy 7.3 requires new development to incorporate crime prevention measures in order to provide a safe and secure environment. • London Plan Policy 7.4 requires new development to respond to its surrounding setting, to be informed by its historic context and to provide a human scale and relationship with street level activity . • London Plan Policy 7.5 requires the provision of high quality public realm that is comprehensible at a human scale.

• London Plan Policy 7.6 requires development to be of high architectural quality that is of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding area and that makes a positive contribution to the immediate, local and wider area. • London Plan Policy 7.7 which guides the location of tall and large buildings, requires that they do not compromise the character of the surrounding area and that they should incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials. • London Plan Policy 7.8 requires development to respect heritage assets by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. • London Plan Policy 7.21 seeks the retention of existing trees of value with new development and their replacement when lost.

4.166 LBHF Core Strategy Policy FRA 1 states: Overall, the design, layout, massing and density of development must take account of and respect the local context and setting, local conservation areas, and local views. However, development should also recognise the substantial scope offered by the scale and location of the Opportunity Area to create a new sense of place and range of densities. For the Earls Court site, the design must also take account of views from the Listed Brompton Cemetery and local nature conservation.

4.167 Policy BE1 requires that all new development creates a high quality, accessible, urban environments that respect their surrounding settings, including heritage assets. This policy also defines tall buildings as being those which are significantly higher than the generally prevailing height of buildings in the surrounding area and states that those which have a disruptive and harmful impact on the skyline will generally be resisted. It also makes clear that there is scope for tall buildings in the regeneration of the borough and that the general character of each particular area will be an important consideration in assessing the acceptability of tall buildings. It adds that proposals for tall buildings will require a full urban design assessment.

4.168 The following policies in the LBHF UDP are of relevance: • Policy EN2B states that development, including development outside conservation areas, will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation areas, both in terms of setting and views into and/or out of them, is preserved or enhanced . • Policy EN3 requires that new development preserves the settings of Listed Buildings. • Policy EN8 states that development will not be permitted unless it is of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of the existing development and its setting . It requires schemes to be formulated to respect the historical context of the area and its sense of place, the scale, mass, form and grain of the surrounding development, relationship to the existing townscape, rhythm and articulation of frontages, local building materials, sustainability objectives and the principles of good neighbourliness. • Policy EN10 requires new development to design out crime. • Policy EN23 requires al new development to provide open space to meet the needs of occupiers and users, particularly, as is the case in and around the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area, the locality is identified as an area of open space deficiency. • Policy EN25 seeks the retention of trees with development and suitable replacement where removal is considered to be acceptable. • Policy EN28 requires landscaping proposals within the ‘Green Corridors’ indentified in the Proposals Map that make a positive contribution t the perception of

the local environment as both leafy and green. A green corridor is identified alongside the alignment of the West London Line in the Opportunity Area.

4.169 The following policies in the RBKC Core Strategy are relevant: • Protect the existing context, character and appearance of areas and to contribute positively to the townscape in terms of scale, height, mass, bulk, proportions and materials. Development which interrupts, disrupts or detracts from strategic and local vistas, views and gaps will be resisted (Policy CL1). • Ensure that development is designed to be functional, robust, attractive, locally distinctive, sustainable, inclusive and secure (Policy CL2). • Resist proposals that exceed the prevailing building height within the context, except where the proposal is for a local or district landmark. Proposals that are of metropolitan scale will be resisted. Full planning application(s) for all buildings that exceed the prevailing height within the context will be required (Policy CL2). • An open urban square, fronting onto Warwick Road, with land uses that provide positive active edges to the building frontages (Policy CA 7). • Require all major development outside a 400m radius of the closest entrance to the nearest public space to make provision for new open space which is suitable for a range of outdoor activities for users of all ages. If this is not possible due to townscape reasons a S106 contribution will be sought to improve existing publicly accessible open space. All major developments will also be required to provide on site external play space, including for under 5’s, based on expected child occupancy • (Policy CR5).

4.170 Policies within the RBKC UDP (amended 2007) seek to: • Ensure that all development preserves and enhances the residential character of the Royal Borough(Policy STRAT 9). • Promote high environmental and architectural design standards in new developments and in alterations and additions to existing buildings (Policy STRAT 11). • Ensure that all development in any part of the Borough is to a high standard of design and is sensitive to and compatible with the scale, height, bulk, materials and character of the surroundings (Policy CD27). • Require development to be physically and visually integrated into its surroundings by preserving existing public routes, creating new routes where appropriate, and extending links to maintain a high level of accessibility; ensuring that the appearance of buildings form a pattern which reflects the traditional urban form of the Borough; maintaining a clear distinction between private and public space, and ensuring the provision of active building frontages, particularly at ground floor level in appropriate locations; and preserving and creating those aspects of architecture and urban form which contribute to local distinctiveness and character (Policy CD28). • Ensure that where open space forms part of a proposal it is designed and landscaped to a high standard (Policy CD38). • Require that the design of new and altered buildings or areas adequately takes into account the safety and security of the users of the facilities and that of neighbouring residents (Policy CD39).

4.171 The RBKC SPD Height within the Royal Borough sets out guidance for building heights and particularly in relation to tall buildings. It provides an analysis of the physical context of the Royal Borough and guidance, elaborating upon the policies used to determine planning applications for new large scale buildings in Kensington and Chelsea, particularly tall buildings, as set out in the Council’s statutory development plan. The guidance identifies at the strategic level those parts of the Royal Borough that are unable or less able to absorb the impacts of tall

buildings, and describes the positive tests that new proposals for tall buildings should satisfy. It provides a checklist of design issues that applicants of tall buildings must address in their planning submissions, and advises discussions with the council at an early stage.

4.172 The assessment of design and townscape is broken down into three areas. The first is connectivity and urban grain covering, spatial layout and the street network. The second relates to skyline covering tall buildings, feature buildings and roofscape and the third relates to views.

Connectivity and Urban Grain - Spatial Layout 4.173 The planning application is a parameter plan based masterplan with a series new urban blocks in between new streets running East - West and North - South. There are 23 new urban blocks defined as development plots which define a new urban grain on the application site.

4.174 Plots WV01, WV02, WV03, WV05, WV04, WV05, WV06 and WK04 are within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and linked to plots BW01, BW02, BW04, BW05, BW06, BW07, NE01, NE02, NE03, NE04, NE05, NE06, WK01, WK02, WK03 Within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham by the Lost River Park which sits above the West London Line.

4.175 The Design and Access statement together with the Parameter Plans set out the design framework and place making principles. The new urban blocks are arranged in distinct character areas within the illustrative masterplan. This illustrative masterplan is capable of being built out within the maximum and minimum parameters having regard to the design guidelines.

4.176 The design framework is considered to significantly improve the connectivity from each side of the development site where presently the disconnected layout of streets hinders movement. The north–south and east-west main routes through the site will encourage and promote better thoroughfares, ease of access and permeability for all forms of transport. In this regard the proposal is considered to be in accordance with regional and local policy,

-The Four Villages 4.177 The character areas are described as four new villages. They are centred around the three existing underground stations and the potential extension of the North End Road Market. A new high-street, a new north/south route described as the Broadway, the Lost River Park and four residential quarters are important components. These underpin the structure of the urban grain, connectivity, permeability and access to public open space on the application site and local environment. They are knitted into the proposed street network, series of public open spaces and form part of enhancing the setting of existing local Landmarks and Views Compositions. The indicative masterplan shows the four villages which are capable of being built in accordance with the Parameter Plans.

4.178 On the eastern side of the site within RBKC centred around the Earls Court Station is proposed the Earls Court Village. Within the village are an exhibition square opposite the station off Warwick Road and a Circus in the heart of the village. This element of the proposal is contained within Application 1 which will be considered separately by RBKC.

4.179 On the southern edge of the site focused around the West Brompton Station along Lilly Road is proposed the West Brompton Village. Within the village is Counters place opposite the station which creates a new link between RBKC and LBHF and announces the access to the Lost River Park.

4.180 On the western side of the site is proposed North End Village. The focus of the village is the creation of a new public space along North End Road either side of the junction with the High Street and North End road with the potential to hold a market.

4.181 On the northern boundary along the West Cromwell Road and West Kensington station is proposed West Kensington Village. Within this village is proposed Cromwell place as part of the Metropolitan Gateway on the new junction created between the West Cromwell Road and the Broadway.

-The High Street 4.182 Running east to west from North End road junction with Star road to Warwick road opposite Earls Court station is a new street that links RBKC and LBHF. This street is proposed as a new high street providing cultural, community, retail, commercial, education and recreational facilities. The street intersects, North End Village, the Broadway, the lost River Park and Earls Court Village.

-The Broadway 4.183 Running north to south is a new street creating a new link between Lilly Road to the south and West Cromwell Road to the north. The street intersects the High Street and creates a new junction with the A4, West Cromwell Road.

-The Lost River Park 4.184 A new park is proposed on the deck running lengthwise along the West London Line. The Park is designed to provide publicly accessible open space with different characters along its length.

-The Residential Quarters : 4.185 The intersection of the High Street and the Broadway creates 4 quadrants which are proposed as distinct residential quarters. The primary character of these residential quarters is a series of green spaces or garden squares. These are Gibbs Green Square and North End Square to the west of the Broadway and north of the High Street, and Thaxton Square to the south of the High Street. These contribute in the formation of a comprehensive urban grain built on the characteristics of the surrounding urban environment which includes residential garden squares.

-The Street Network 4.186 LBHF Core strategy policy FRA 1 states that On site street patterns and connections must be designed with regard to improving traffic, pedestrian and cycling circulation in the surrounding area and on primary routes in Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Development must improve pedestrian connections from the sites and the surrounding area to public transport facilities, particularly Earls Court ”

4.187 The Design Guidelines set parameters to which at reserved matters stage, further layers will be added to the urban grain proposed at outline planning. These further layers will be expected to make the urban grain finer and even more reminiscent of that found in the existing context. Primarily this will be as a result of the introduction of routes through development plots. Those plots that have been

treated as building based parameters (WK01, WK04, NE01, BW04, NE04, NE06, BW06, WV04, WV06 and WV03) rather than plot based parameters give an indication of the effect that this will have on the levels of permeability and the fine nature of the urban grain across the entire site. The illustrative masterplan is considered to give a good indication of the urban grain that could be created within the established parameters once the plots have been worked up in more detail. The illustrative masterplan shows that the proposals submitted in terms of the pattern of streets and open spaces, realise the vision set out in the Design and Access Statement, where it is stated that proposals should be designed to feel like a piece of London, rather than an isolated development.

4.188 Other submitted Parameter Plans (Vehicle Access and Circulation, Circulation-Pedestrian Access and Cycle Routes and Parking) demonstrate that the proposed urban grain delivers a well defined street hierarchy . The proposed hierarchy of routes is made up of primary, secondary and tertiary routes, each of which has a different role to play. The primary routes define potential neighbourhoods within the site, the secondary routes subdivide these neighbourhoods and ensure greater permeability and the tertiary routes offer additional variety in terms of environments and route choices.

4.189 The Parameter Plans then develop this concept further by describing separate user hierarchies for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Although the pedestrian and cyclist hierarchies are only illustrative at this outline stage, they do confirm the potential that exists within the design framework for well connected and legible routes for all street users. It is important to note that the different proposed user hierarchies overlap, with the same routes being used for different movement types. Encouraging different road users to share the same routes can make great contributions to the vitality and attractiveness of streets.

4.190 The Design and Access statement states that pedestrians should be encouraged to walk into and through the site . The most direct way to achieve this, is to extend existing streets into and through the application site. The Parameter Plans establish a framework for walk able public realm. For example, they establish the particularly important direct extension of Star Road into the Opportunity Area. They also show strong connections from Chesson Road, Barons Court Road and Beaumont Crescent.

4.191 The extension of existing routes into and through the site is well established in the Parameter Plans and that it is given sufficient priority in the Design Guidelines. For example, mandatory clause 4.9.37 states that one of the aims and objectives for the streets in the new development is to create and repair connections across the wider area . It is expected that this and other similar clauses will continue to guide the designers on detailed proposals for the site, giving certainty that these new connections and extensions of existing streets will be introduced where appropriate.

-Streets as Places 4.192 The Parameter Plans together with the Design Guidelines show a holistic approach to street design which has been central to the development of the proposals. Part 2.2 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines (Access, Circulation and Movement), “Streets as Places”. states that “streets are considered the most important part of the overall vision for the development” and a number of mandatory street design key principles are established. It is considered that all of these principles will be delivered through subsequent detailed designs, including the requirement for a strongly pedestrian orientated urban character, the requirement for

streets to have identity and character and the requirement for streets to be multi- functional in order to provide for activity as well as movement. Further emphasis is placed on the importance of streets as places through the role that ‘Street Structure’ plays in the descriptions of each of the proposed “Character Areas” set out in Part 3 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines. These guidelines contribute to the ways in which the character and identity of streets are expected to contribute to the character and identity of the areas in which they are found. 4.193 Officers conclude that this demonstrates that an appropriate urban grain has been central to the proposals to date and that it will continue to be a primary consideration for subsequent designers who work up the detailed reserved matters applications in accordance with LBHF core strategy FRA1. Furthermore, the submitted parameter plans establish a strong framework from which it is considered an appropriate urban grain will develop as designs are worked up in further detail.

4.194 Officers conclude that this demonstrates that an appropriate urban grain has been central to the proposals to date and that it will continue to be a primary consideration for subsequent designers who work up the detailed reserved matters applications in accordance with LBHF core strategy FRA1. Furthermore, the submitted parameter plans establish a strong framework from which it is considered an appropriate urban grain will develop as designs are worked up in further detail.

4.195 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. The vision for the Opportunity Area, as set out in the SPD, states that any new development must be integrated into the existing urban fabric and character of the surrounding area, respecting the heritage assets and the pattern of streets, buildings and open spaces . It also states that design proposals should adopt the best of typical West London character. As recognised in one of the SPD Urban Form Strategy’s Key Objectives, one of the best ways to achieve this successfully is to design a new urban grain, or pattern of streets and open spaces, that is clearly inspired by that found in the surrounding context.

4.196 Key Principles UF1: Introduce a number of new east-west and north-south connections across the OA that overcome the existing severance. Key Principle UF3 of the SPD requires new development to establish a clear and well defined network of streets providing a variety of environments and a choice of routes . It goes on to state that the urban grain formed by these new streets should be inspired by the street types and patterns identified in the best of the surrounding context. To further strengthen integration into the existing context, Key Principle UF4 of the SPD requires development proposals to extend existing streets into and through the Opportunity Area.

4.197 Clause 2.2.3 in the Design Guidelines sets out the applicant’s access, circulation and movement aims and objectives. These include establishing a hierarchy of routes that create permeability within and through the site and creating a framework of secondary and tertiary routes that will knit the masterplan in with the existing urban grain, providing a finer network of connectivity . Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. The vision for the Opportunity Area, as set out in the SPD, states that any new development must be integrated into the existing urban fabric and character of the surrounding area, respecting the heritage assets and the pattern of streets, buildings and open spaces . It also states that design proposals should adopt the best of typical West London character. As recognised in one of the SPD Urban Form Strategy’s Key

Objectives, one of the best ways to achieve this successfully is to design a new urban grain, or pattern of streets and open spaces, that is clearly inspired by that found in the surrounding context.

4.198 Key Principles UF1: Introduce a number of new east-west and north-south connections across the OA that overcome the existing severance. Key Principle UF3 of the SPD requires new development to establish a clear and well defined network of streets providing a variety of environments and a choice of routes . It goes on to state that the urban grain formed by these new streets should be inspired by the street types and patterns identified in the best of the surrounding context. To further strengthen integration into the existing context, Key Principle UF4 of the SPD requires development proposals to extend existing streets into and through the Opportunity Area.

4.199 Clause 2.2.3 in the Design Guidelines sets out the applicant’s access, circulation and movement aims and objectives. These include establishing a hierarchy of routes that create permeability within and through the site and creating a framework of secondary and tertiary routes that will knit the masterplan in with the existing urban grain, providing a finer network of connectivity . Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account

-Street Enclosure 4.200 Street enclosure is the relationship between the height of the buildings and the widths of the streets onto which they front. Through street enclosure ratios, designers can create well proportioned environments, ensure adequate levels of natural light reach the public realm and signify the role of the street in the movement hierarchy, thus aiding legibility and way finding.

4.201 If tall buildings are used to frame narrow streets this can result in ‘over enclosure’, creating a ‘canyon-like’ experience for street users. Conversely, if low buildings are used to frame wide streets this can result in ‘under enclosure’ and give the impression that there is no relationship between the buildings and the public realm. Designing streets with appropriate enclosure ratios can also play an important role in ensuring that new development sensitively integrates into the existing context.

4.202 The Design Guidelines. Part 2.2 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines states that building facades will be expected to be “space defining” and to “articulate a unified volume of enclosure to the public realm”. Section 4.9.9 of the Landscape Kit of Parts (Part 4 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines) sets out principles in relation to street enclosure, giving sufficient confidence that it has been considered in the development of the proposed scheme.. These mandatory guidelines (found in clauses 4.9.10 to 4.9.12) are as follows: • Buildings shall establish a continuous alignment along the length of the street to establish sufficient enclosure to contain and define the street. • The building line must be located between the maximum and minimum building extent. Façades of buildings shall be considered as ‘space defining’ to provide a unified volume of enclosure to the public realm. • Facing residential façades shall be designed in a way that minimises overlooking and maximises privacy and daylight.

4.203 The important primary streets like the Broadway and the High Street are designed as wider streets with taller buildings framing them, whilst residential or

tertiary streets tend to be narrower and/or have with shorter buildings fronting onto them. This approach contributes significantly to the delivery of a legible network of streets that aids way finding. The minimum widths of the streets are established in the Design Guidelines.

4.204 It is important to note that the street widths established do not represent the width of the carriageway, but rather the entire width of the open space that exists between the proposed building parameter envelopes. These widths include carriageways, footways, on street parking, landscaping and street furniture. In many cases, there are additional ‘spill out zones’ for any shops and businesses that front onto the street or ‘defensible spaces’ for any residential buildings. These are provided within the parameter envelopes for the buildings, in the ‘zones of deviation’ and will add to the width of the streets.

4.205 The Broadway is the widest route proposed at 20m to 25m wide from building front to building front, giving it a grand sense of scale and signifying its role as an important thoroughfare within the new neighbourhood. In general, the maximum building heights proposed along the Broadway range from 15.7m AOD on Lillie Road(which, in this location is could be approximately the equivalent of 3 - 4 residential storeys) to 49.3m AOD on the A4). The Broadway is also the location of the taller ‘feature buildings’ and one of the ‘tall buildings’ proposed in the Design Guidelines. The heights of the buildings reinforce the grand sense of scale created by the width of the street. They also ensure that, as such a wide street, it is not ‘under enclosed’. This contributes to the role of the Broadway as a gateway from West Cromwell Road and as the central spine that will form the “backbone” of the new neighbourhood.

4.206 Similarly, the importance of The High Street, the main east-west route through the site as both a destination in its own right and an important thoroughfare through the site, is signified by its width and the heights of the buildings found along it. Predominantly, it is proposed that the High Street will have a width of 20m from building front to building front, although there are areas along it that will be narrower in order to create a variety in character. This width is reflected by maximum building heights that.(which, in this location could be approximately the equivalent of 8 residential storeys) to a ‘feature building’ of 80.75m AOD (which, in this location could be approximately the equivalent of 23 residential storeys).

4.207 The Parameter Pans and Design Guidelines propose an approach that establishes a general datum shoulder height along the principal routes of the High Street and the Broadway in order to unify the streetscape whilst also encouraging variety through a series of different set-backs and feature buildings (Design Guidelines clause 2.3.7). This design concept is established in a mandatory clause in the design guidelines and the maximum and minimum shoulder heights themselves are established in the Parameter Plans.

4.208 For the High Street there are a number of cross sections within the design guidelines that demonstrate the sort of enclosure ratios that can be expected. There are also further cross sections in the Design Guidelines, demonstrating the potential enclosure ratios that other streets could achieve within the application parameters.

4.209 In terms of the potential enclosure ratios achieved along the streets within the site, there is a number of cross sections within the design guidelines that demonstrate the likely environments that the implementation of the parameter plans and the design guidelines could result in.

4.210 Officers conclude that the streets in the outline proposals have ratios that respond well to those identified in the Opportunity Area’s existing context and that they will therefore contribute well to ensuring that the new development is well integrated into its surroundings this is in accordance with LBHF core strategy Policy FRA1 and LBHF UDP EN8 and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.211 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle UF36 in the SPD, which states that all proposals for regeneration within the OA will be expected to demonstrate a comprehensive, holistic approach to street design that treats streets as places where people will want to spend their time. The submitted Design Guidelines show a holistic approach to street design has been central to the development of the masterplan framework, Part 2.2 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines (Access, Circulation and Movement), “Streets as Places”. states that “streets are considered the most important part of the overall vision for the development” (clause 2.2.17, page 28) and a number of mandatory street design key principles are established.

4.212 In line with this Earl’s Court SPD Key Principle, the important primary streets like the Broadway and the High Street are designed as wider streets with taller buildings framing them, whilst residential or tertiary streets tend to be narrower and/or have with shorter buildings fronting onto them. This approach contributes significantly to the delivery of a legible network of streets that aids way finding. Proposals for the minimum widths of the streets that make up the masterplan framework are established in figure 2.2.11 of the Design Guidelines.. It is important to note that the street widths established do not represent the width of the carriageway, but rather the entire width of the open space that exists between the proposed building parameter envelopes. These widths include carriageways, footways, on street parking, landscaping and street furniture. In many cases, the additional ‘spill out zones’ for any shops and businesses that front onto the street or ‘defensible spaces’ for any residential buildings. These are provided within the parameter envelopes for the buildings, in the ‘zones of deviation’ and are used, will add to the width of the streets.

4.213 The Earls’ Court SPD establishes general guidance suggesting that only 1 storey above shoulder height would be acceptable if the OA is to integrate into its existing context. However, it also establishes the conditions in which this rule may be broken; “any further storeys above shoulder height will need to be justified in relation to street proportions and design”. There are many locations in the submitted parameter plans, particularly towards the centre of the site, where there is the potential for more than one storey to be created above shoulder height. Along wider streets such as the Broadway and the High Street in particular, this approach is justifiable along the lines suggested in the SPD. The parameter plans limit the potential for excessive set back height above shoulders by establishing building envelopes around the edges of the Opportunity Area that are sensitive to their location. Either the maximum heights do not allow for more than one storey above shoulder height (e.g. along the A4) or they propose a stepped approach, with one storey above the initial shoulder height and then an additional set back and another storey on top of that (e.g. along Lillie Road and North End Road). this approach creates the reduction of the visual impact of the upper storeys from street level.

4.214 The streets on the masterplan of submitted outline proposals have ratios respond well to those identified in the Opportunity Area’s existing context (as identified in the Character Area Analysis SPD Supporting Evidence Document) and that they will therefore contribute well to ensuring that the new development is well

integrated into its surroundings. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

-Design for Pedestrians and Cyclists 4.215 The Design Guidelines and Parameter Plans propose that the pedestrian are a priority. Mandatory street design principles found within part 2.2 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines (Access, Circulation and Movement), require walkability to be given paramount importance through the ease of way-finding, legibility, resting places and views . This approach is confirmed and enhanced by the guidelines contained in the section of the Design Guidelines dedicated to “Walkability” in the Landscape Kit of Parts. Here, it is demonstrated that, within the current proposals, it is possible for all homes to be located within a 5 minute (400m) walk of key daily facilities and services.

4.216 Similarly, the importance of cyclists in the design development to date is established in the Landscape Kit of Parts which contains a section entitled “A Culture of Bikes”. Through a mandatory clause in this section, the importance of designing streets to prioritise cyclists and create safe and attractive conditions for cycling is established. There is also an illustrative Parameter Plan setting out potential cycle routes and cycle parking that could be delivered within the proposed scheme. Although it is only illustrative, it does demonstrate how a successful site wide strategy for cycle movement could be articulated.

4.217 Through the Design Guidelines, the outline proposals encourage walking and cycling. Mandatory clause 4.5.31 h states that the movement zone is the pedestrian area of public realm outside of the zone of articulation and shall accommodate the free-flow movement of pedestrians . The Parameter Plans show a pedestrian only street, the arcade-like ‘Warwick Walk’. This has the potential to become an exceptional piece of public realm, and is clearly intended to differ significantly from the general approach that has been taken to street design. There are also numerous clauses within the Design Guidelines that emphasis the approach of encouraging walking and cycling including clause 2.2.5, which although not mandatory, does seek to ensure that streets will be wide enough to accommodate all/a combination of the above [road users] as well as providing sufficient space for public realm and place-making .

4.218 The application site features a number of significant topographical changes, many of which came about by the development of the railway infrastructure over time. As a result, achieving inclusive access with appropriate gradients is a challenge and is also likely to continue to challenge subsequent designers. The plan in figure 2.2.13 in Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines sets out how the proposed site levels established in the Proposed Site Levels Parameter Plan and the mandatory rules for levels in future developments established in clause 2.2.32 of the Design Guidelines would be realised as gradients along the streets. The majority of gradients are 1:20. There is however, also one street with a steeper gradient of 1:18.6 and one with a gradient of 1:19.3.. The proposed gradients on balance are considered to be acceptable in light of the exceptional circumstances generated by the existing topographical conditions on the site.

4.219 Part 4 of Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines(The Landscape Kit of Parts) sets out the potential approach to the more detailed aspects of designing to ensure accessibility for all. It contains a mandatory clause that gives officers certainty that subsequent designers will address important issues such as:

• Pavement detail, including materials and colours; • Shared surface treatments (to be safe, uncluttered, inclusive and easily defined by all people); • Carefully located street furniture; • Walkable surfaces; • Dropped kerbs and raised pedestrian tables; and • Seating.

4.220 Within the section of the Design Guidelines entitled “A Culture of Bikes”, the importance of cycle parking for both residents and visitors is established through two mandatory clauses. Mandatory clause 4.9.47 states that a combination of residential cycle parking solutions will be provided to suit a range of needs. Parking solutions will include: • On street parking. • On plot parking in secure and weatherproof shelters. • Parking within buildings.

4.221 Mandatory clause 4.9.50 states that provision for short term visitor cycle parking shall be distributed throughout the development, in particular: • At regular intervals along the High Street. • At key destinations along the Broadway. • At key entry destinations to the Lost River Park. • At all transport interchanges (bus, rail and tube) Officer conclude that the above proposals and guidelines along with the Cycle Routes and Parking Parameter Plan, provide certainty that cycle parking will be delivered according to a rational strategy.

4.222 Officers have also considered the proposals against the SPD. Key Principle UF36 in the SPD requires all proposals to demonstrate a comprehensive, holistic approach to street design that “encourages cyclists and pedestrians”. The Earls’ Court SPD sets out a number of ways in which the proposals for regeneration in the Opportunity Area could encourage walking and cycling. The majority are addressed in the Design Guidelines. Those that aren’t are too detailed to be addressed at outline stage, but it is expected that they will be considered during the Reserved Matters stage. For example, the SPD requires all footways include an unobstructed zone reserved for pedestrian movement. This is addressed in a number of places in the Design Guidelines, including mandatory clause 4.5.31 which states that “the movement zone is the pedestrian area of public realm outside of the zone of articulation and shall accommodate the free-flow movement of pedestrians”.

4.223 The SPD also requires that designers avoid extensive pedestrianisation in order to ensure that the activity generated by other road users contributes to the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians. This is addressed in the Parameter Plans which show that the only street in the master plan framework that would be accessible to pedestrians only is the arcade-like ‘Warwick Walk’. This has the potential to become an exceptional piece of public realm, and is clearly intended to differ significantly from the general approach that has been taken to street design. There are also numerous clauses within the Design Guidelines that emphasis this approach, including clause 2.2.5, which although not mandatory, does seek to ensure that streets will be wide enough to “accommodate all/a combination of the above [road users] as well as providing sufficient space for public realm and place-making ”. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

-Boundary Treatments and Active Frontages 4.224 The Parameter Plans include a permitted ‘zone of deviation’ between each building and the public realm. It is within this space that the residential thresholds and ‘spill out spaces’ for other commercial uses) will be located. In line with urban design best practice, the permitted zone of deviation varies depending on the type of street on which the building is found and the type of use likely to be found within the buildings. There is a maximum deviation of 1.5m to allow for spill out spaces outside commercial premises. In contrast, the maximum deviation along quieter residential streets is 3m, which allows for a small front garden, in line with many of those observed in the surrounding context. The specific details of the form that these threshold or spill out spaces take, including the materials selected for boundary treatments that will enclose them will be subject to future detailed designs.

4.225 A mandatory clause in the Design Guidelines sets out the expectation that subsequent detailed designs submitted at reserved matters stage will make building frontages ‘active’ in order to add interest, life and vitality to the public realm. This clause states that this may include: • Frequent doors and windows • Articulation of facades with projections such as bays, porches, canopies. • Narrow frontages to business and community buildings giving vertical rhythm to the street. • Lively internal uses visible from the outside, or spilling onto the street.

4.226 Although proposals for the exact location of front doors would be too detailed to submit at this stage, there is some guidance in the Design Guidelines that provides comfort that this approach will be considered by subsequent designers. For example, mandatory clause 4.5.10 states that where private residential uses are the major typology of a plot, direct entry into individual units shall be considered . Furthermore, mandatory clause 4.9.26 requires clearly identified building entrances which contribute to the ease of way finding and are articulated to establish a language and rhythm to the street.

4.227 The Design Guidelines also recognise that residential mansion blocks may not be a suitable typology for individual ground floor entrances to every flat. This is because grand communal entrances are one of the defining features of this typology. Mandatory Clause 4.2.26 addresses this, but leaves sufficient flexibility for either communal or individual entrances to be used: Residential Mansion Block:-These shall generally have a front entrance per lobby and core. Units accessed from street level may have their own separate entrance. Thus officers conclude that the proposed boundary and edge treatments are consistent with UDP policy EN3 and EN8 and LBHF Core Strategy policy FRA1 and BE1, and that there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should be withheld.

4.228 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. In the SPD, Key Principle UF33 requires the buildings that front onto streets and open spaces to “create strong, consistent building lines with boundary treatments that are appropriate to the use found within them”.

4.229 Paragraph 4.98 of the SPD sets out an expectation that residential threshold spaces will be included between residential buildings and the public realm

onto which they front in order to ensure that “residential buildings have sufficient privacy” . In the Design Guidelines, mandatory clause 4.5.9 sets out that: “where private residential uses exist at ground floor, the design of the building’s base and it’s [sic] adjacent public realm shall direct passers-by away from windows and thresholds in order to provide privacy for residents. This shall be in the form of a defensible zone in front of windows and entrances”.

4.230 The SPD suggests that one efficient way to achieve active frontages is to ensure that all ground floor units have their own front doors onto the street. Although proposals for the exact location of front doors would be too detailed to submit at this stage, there is some guidance in the Design Guidelines that gives officers comfort that this approach will be considered by subsequent designers. For example, mandatory clause 4.5.10 states that “where private residential uses are the major typology of a plot, direct entry into individual units shall be considered.” Furthermore, mandatory clause (4.9.26) requires “clearly identified building entrances” which “contribute to the ease of way finding” and are “articulated to establish a language and rhythm to the street”. The proposals are also consistent with SPD key principles, UF19, UF27, UF29 and UF30 on development on the edges of the Opportunity Area. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Skyline -Tall Buildings 4.231 The Parameter Plans propose three buildings described in the application as tall buildings. These are found in Plot BW04, NE06 and plot BW06 the location of the existing 31 storey Empress State building. The location of new tall buildings around the Empress State building creates a new composition of tall building that form a cluster. This is in keeping with policy FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy … Building design should be of the highest quality. There may be some scope for tall buildings no higher than, and close to, the existing Empress State building, however, any tall buildings would need to be justified by a full urban design analysis.

4.232 The tall buildings in Blocks NE06 and BW04 are described as no taller than the Empress State building. The revised Parameter Plans for these plots, have been submitted as building based parameters providing enhanced and tighter minimum and maximum envelope parameters. These tighter parameters provide very little flexibility in terms of height, mass, or alignment. The little flexibility there is built into the Parameter Plans is intended to allow small variations in the final detailed design, but is not enough to significantly alter the overall impact of the tall buildings.

4.233 The building based parameters for tall buildings ensures that there is a much greater fix on the three dimensional envelope of tall buildings and therefore it is at this outline stage possible to form a realistic judgment of the impact that the mass of tall buildings will have on the surrounding townscape. These measures in the outline planning application are in keeping with Guidance on Tall Buildings published by English Heritage and CABE July 2007 which reads in paragraph 5.1: Tall buildings should not be supported by local planning authorities unless it can be demonstrated through the submission of fully justified and worked-up proposals that they are of excellent architectural quality and in the appropriate location. For this reason CABE and English Heritage consider that outline planning applications for tall building proposals are appropriate only in exceptional cases where the applicant is seeking to establish the principle of a tall building as an important element within a robust and credible masterplan

for an area to be developed over a long period of time. In those cases, CABE and English Heritage must be satisfied that the parameters for any tall building set out in an outline planning application and the principles established within the accompanying design and access statement will result in excellent urban design and architecture. It is essential that the planning authority makes these parameters and design principles a condition of outline consent to ensure that the commitment to high quality can be realised through proactive control of reserved matters.

4.234 The parameters of the tall buildings show that the proportion and articulation of the buildings are designed to emphasise slenderness. The mass of tall buildings is formed to allow views across the site and the wider context. Their mass reduces to the top of the building to lessen their impact on the skyline. The Design Guidelines contain separate and specific enhanced design guides for tall buildings which have been prepared to give greater assurances that a high quality design can be achieved from future submissions and a greater control of that design quality. As the application is in outline form, the detailed architecture of the taller buildings has not been developed. However, the applicant has provided illustrative examples of the tall building proposals where the Design Guidelines have been followed. The enhanced design guidelines for tall buildings provide specific guidance on materials, façade treatment, the design of top, middle and bottom, roof level articulation, architectural composition and orientation. The guidelines recommend that tall buildings must have a positive active engagement with the immediate context at ground level. This is illustrated in the indicative scheme. The guidelines require that • tall buildings to be of the highest architectural quality that are designed and detailed to stand out as landmark elements of the masterplan. • to be buildings which appropriately contribute to the skyline. to be buildings with exemplary standards of sustainable construction. • to be buildings which are sensitive to their impact on the immediate micro-climate in terms of wind, sun, reflection and overshadowing. • to be buildings that enhance and have a positive relationship with both the existing and proposed context in terms of the following: - Proportion. - Composition. - Relationship to other buildings, streets, public and private open spaces. The design guidelines also include guidance to ensure the fenestration is appropriately arranged, and ordered to enable acceptable articulation and a distinction between characteristics of each elevation.

4.235 Officers conclude that the guidance goes beyond the level of design detail that would generally be acceptable for an outline proposal. It is considered the additional design guidelines in addition to the limits in the Parameter Plans on the location, position, building footprint and height provide the assurances needed to ensure tall buildings of the highest quality are delivered at the later reserved matters stage. Officers consider this to be in accordance with the CABE and English heritage guidance on tall buildings, London plan policies, 7.1, 7.6 and LBHF core strategy BE1, and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.236 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle UF23 of the SPD requires that: All buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings will be expected to address the following four design aspirations:

1. slenderness; 2. how the building meets the sky; 3. how the building meets the ground; and 4. articulation of the facade. Key Principle UF24 also requires that: In any proposal that retains the Empress State Building it should be integrated into an attractive composition of new tall buildings that form a cluster around it. Key Principle UF25: Proposals for tall buildings should indicate how their impact on microclimate, wind turbulence, overshadowing, noise, reflected glare, aviation, navigation and telecommunications interference will be mitigated.

4.237 The Design Guidelines contain separate and specific enhanced design guides for tall buildings which have been prepared to give greater assurances that a high quality design can be achieved from future submissions and a greater control of that design quality. As the application is in outline form, the detailed architecture of the taller buildings has not been developed. However, the applicant has provided illustrative examples of the tall building proposals where the Design Guidelines have been followed. The enhanced design guidelines for tall buildings provide specific guidance on materials, façade treatment, the design of top, middle and bottom, roof level articulation, architectural composition and orientation. The guidelines recommend that tall buildings must have a positive active engagement with the immediate context at ground level. This is illustrated in the indicative scheme. The guidelines require that • tall buildings to be of the highest architectural quality that are designed and detailed to stand out as landmark elements of the masterplan. • to be buildings which appropriately contribute to the skyline. to be buildings with exemplary standards of sustainable construction. • to be buildings which are sensitive to their impact on the immediate micro-climate in terms of wind, sun, reflection and overshadowing. • to be buildings that enhance and have a positive relationship with both the existing and proposed context in terms of the following: - Proportion. - Composition. - Relationship to other buildings, streets, public and private open spaces. The design guidelines also include guidance to ensure the fenestration is appropriately arranged, and ordered to enable acceptable articulation and a distinction between characteristics of each elevation.

4.238 Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be in accordance with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

-Feature buildings 4.239 The proposals contain within them parameters for buildings that are described as feature buildings. These buildings are located at key points particularly along the Broadway and they contribute to the overall architectural and urban design composition of the proposal. Feature buildings help with the expression and importance of the tall buildings by providing an appropriate backdrop and scale transition for the proposed tall buildings. Feature buildings are defined in the Design Guidelines as: • Buildings of a high architectural quality that are designed and detailed to stand out as landmark features. • The tall building element sitting on top of mid-rise buildings or podium (fig: 4.3.2 in the design guidelines) • A building less than or equal to 77% of the height (AOD) of a tall building. • Buildings with exemplary standards of sustainable construction. • Buildings which appropriately contribute to the skyline.

• Buildings which are sensitive to their impact on the immediate microclimate in terms of wind, sun, reflection and overshadowing. • Buildings that enhance and have a positive relationship with both the existing and proposed context in terms of the following: -proportion. -composition. -relationship to other buildings, streets, public and private open spaces.

4.240 In the Parameter Plans and Design Guidelines, the feature buildings are made subject to the same stringent enhanced guidance as required for tall buildings. This includes specific guidance on materials, façade treatment, the design of top, middle and bottom, roof level articulation, architectural composition and orientation.

4.241 The feature buildings are also subject to similar guidance as required in the CABE and English Heritage guidance for tall buildings and are proposed as tighter parameters ensuring there is a much greater fix on the three dimensional envelope of the feature buildings and therefore it is possible to form a realistic judgment of the potential impact that the mass of feature buildings will have on the surrounding townscape in the same way as the assessment for the tall buildings.

4.242 Officers conclude that similar to the Tall buildings for which the same guidance applies to the feature buildings, the guidance for Feature buildings goes beyond the level of design detail that would generally be acceptable for an outline proposal. It is considered the additional design guidelines in addition to the limits in the Parameter Plans on the location, position, building footprint and height provide the assurances needed to ensure tall buildings of the highest quality are delivered at the later reserved matters stage. Officers consider this to be consistent with the CABE and English heritage guidance on tall buildings, London plan policies, 7.1, 7.6 and LBHF core strategy BE1 and that are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.243 Officers have gone on to consider the relevant provisions of the SPD. For the purposes of the SPD, feature buildings are assessed under the same principles as tall buildings. Therefore for the reasons given above under the tall building section the proposal accords with the SPD and officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

-Roofscape 4.244 The general approach in the Design Guidelines is to differentiate between the degree of roofscape articulation appropriate for low rise buildings, mid rise buildings and tall and ‘feature’ buildings. According to the glossary at the front of the Design Guidelines, low rise buildings will generally be 6 storeys or shorter and will tend to be located around the edges of the site in response to the existing context. In terms of roofscape, they are expected to be: restrained and in-line with the vision of the character area and the building’s context. There shall be consistency, alignment and uniformity with adjacent low-rise buildings and a sense of continuity to the visual harmony of the street.

4.245 Mid rise buildings will generally be of 7-12 storeys and will tend to be located towards the centre of the site, along primary routes and along the West Cromwell Road. For mid rise buildings, the roofscape is expected to differentiate a building or plot from its neighbour. The articulation of the roofscapes of tall and ‘feature’ buildings is considered elsewhere in the report.

4.246 Officers conclude that at this outline stage that the suggested approach to roofscape design for mid and low rise buildings is satisfactory. The consistent roofscapes of the low rise buildings have the potential to integrate well the development with its existing context, whilst the more varied roofscapes of the mid rise buildings will create a new and unique identity towards the centre of the site. They will also create variety and contribute towards ensuring that the environments created are not monotonous. However, the success of this approach is subject to the receipt of satisfactory detailed design proposals at reserved matters stage.

4.247 Officers have gone onto consider the relevant provisions of the SPD. For roofscape the proposal is assessed against the same principles as that for vistas and views, which has been set out below, and the conclusion set out below also applies here.

Vistas and Views 4.248 The Design Guidelines and Design and Access statement show how views and vistas have been taken into account in the development of the proposals. They also suggest how the proposals can be taken forward and developed by the subsequent designers of detailed design submissions.

4.249 The overview for the Vistas and Views section in the Design Guidelines states that the creation of views and vistas form a strategic part of the public realm and landscape network, underpinning the establishment of key routes and nodes. These key views identify and define recognisable places both within and without, aiding orientation, legibility and cohesion .

4.250 Two important vistas have been identified. The first being the vista to Andrew’s Church along Star Road, the second to St Cuthberts Church along Beaumont Avenue.

4.251 In terms of the vistas, the direct connection that is established within the parameter plans from the site to Star Road retains and potentially improves the view of St Andrews Church. The importance of St Cuthbert’s church is identified in figure 2.4.1, the proposed site plan showing key views within the site. The submitted design guidelines state that a new view looking west from the North End Road is created through the positioning and massing of the parameter plan plots. This new view celebrated the Church of St Cuthbert (Grade II*) . An illustrative sketch showing what this view could look like and how well the church could potentially be framed accompanies this guidance. This demonstrates that the proposed scheme has the potential to achieve a well-framed view of St Cuthbert’s Church.

A number of potentially significant views have been identified. These include views along the Lost River Park, from West Cromwell Road into the site, both well enclosed and glimpsed views into garden squares and a series of views deflected off buildings along the High Street. The proposals have paid due regard to the importance of view compositions and the Design Guidelines will continue to guide the detailed design of subsequent reserved matters submissions.

4.252 The Parameter Plan proposals are supported by a detailed Townscape and Visual Analysis which forms part of the Environmental Statement. This is an analysis of 57 viewpoints

4.253 The Townscape and Visual Analysis involved the use of verified photography, wire line and 3D model imagery of the maximum and minimum parameter envelopes on application proposals and photo real renders of illustrative

tall buildings proposals. Several of the views particularly along view corridors with extensive planting and tree foliage were analysed in winter and summer conditions. This comprehensive townscape analysis and the results there of contained in Volume 2 of the ES provide assurances that the proposals have undergone stringent testing to ensure any impact on existing and neighbouring properties is minimised and setting of historical assets and conservation areas is either preserved or enhanced were possible.

4.254 Of the 57 views submitted as part of the townscape and visual analysis, 24 views were located within LBHF. The key views analysed and their assessment is as follows

4.255 Views 8, 9 and 11 are long range views from; Centre of Wandsworth Bridge looking north; Fulham Palace Gardens and the Thames Path west of Hammersmith Bridge.

4.256 In view 8 from Centre of Wandsworth Bridge looking north, the proposed development appears in the form of partial view of the very top of the north tower within plot BW04 visible to the right of Barton House, partly concealed by the Empress State building. All other blocks within the development will be concealed behind the buildings in the foreground. The impact of the scheme on the view is not discernible from this view

4.257 In view 9 from Fulham Palace Gardens, the proposed development is not visible. Therefore there is no impact on this view.

4.258 In view 11 from the Thames Path west of Hammersmith Bridge, the proposed development will be visible in the skyline with tall buildings in plots BW04, BW06 and NE06 appearing as a cluster around the Empress State building to the left of Charing Cross Hospital building but significantly lower than the hospital building. Also visible in this view will be the feature building in plots BW04 and BW01 on the north end of the Broadway. Creating a cluster of the tall buildings in this view ensures the impact of the Empress State building will be reduced as a single bulky object rising above the roof line of the terraces on Hammersmith Bridge Road. The revised design of the towers will also present more slender, articulated forms, which will slightly reduce their impact on the view.

4.259 Views 37, 38, 39 and 40 analyse the application proposals from observation points to the south of the application site.

4.260 In view 37 from Britannia Road from the junction with King’s Road, the large roof of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre, which is currently visible will be removed, with benefit to the view. Plots WV04, WV06 within application 1 and BW07 will be visible above the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation at a lower height than the existing Earls Court Exhibition Centre roof. The proposed development will be visible in this view however the view is enhanced through the removal of a single mass large building roof and will appear as a layered and articulated distant recessive urban backdrop. The revised proposals show height of plots WV04 and WV06 reduced and the overall visibility of the proposals reduced in comparison to the original submitted scheme. Thus the impact on the view is considered limited.

4.261 In view 38 from the western edge of Eel Brook Common, the proposals in Plot NE06 (the south tower) and plot BW04 (the north tower) will be visible to the left of the Empress State building above trees and roof tops on the edge of the common. Plot BW05 with a lower tower will also be visible to its right. The new buildings will be

seen at a distance in relation to the existing Empress State building creating a cluster composition of tall buildings in line with CABE and English Heritage guidance on tall buildings and Core strategy policy FRA1. They will mitigate the impact of the Empress State building as a single bulky building rising above the tree line. Although the proposed development will be visible in this view, the revised design of the towers in the proposals will present more slender, rectilinear articulated forms, which will reduce their impact on the view, but create a new cluster composition with Empress State building. The Parameter Plan envelopes and Design Guidelines set mandatory guidance that will ensure the articulation and architectural treatment of the towers will create buildings that will contribute to a coherent recessive urban backdrop, complementing the existing setting and enhancing the enclosure of the common.

4.262 In view 39 from Farm Lane in the Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area, the proposals in plot NE06 (the south tower) will be visible behind the Hotel Ibis to the left of the Empress State building. Plot BW05 (the north tower) will be just visible to the right of the Empress State building. The Townscape and Visual analysis describes the view as: The Proposed Development will be seen in relation to the Empress State building and Hotel Ibis at the northern end of Farm Lane and will mitigate the impact of the Empress State building as a single bulky object projecting above the roofline on Farm Lane – and in views looking north from the conservation area generally – by setting it within a more coherent and visually interesting middle ground townscape . It is considered that although the proposed development will be visible in this view, the revised design of the towers in the proposals will present more slender, rectilinear articulated forms, which will reduce their impact on the view and create a new cluster composition with the Empress State building.

4.263 In view 40 from Lillie Road at the junction with North End Road, the very top of the south tower in plot NE06 will be visible to the left of the Empress State building. The townscape and visual analysis shows that a significant expanse of sky will be maintained around the form of the Empress State building and the most prominent plot, NE06, will be slim and well articulated in form. The top of the south tower will read as a more slender articulated form. The mass of the building visible above the roofline will be reduced and the articulation and architectural treatment will complement the existing buildings and read as a recessive secondary building beyond the foreground townscape. The impact of the proposals in this view is considered not to be detrimental to the view.

4.264 Views 41 to 49 analyse the proposals from the west of the application site including points within Queens Club Gardens conservation area and Barons Court conservation area. These 10 views are clustered within the western end of the application site at similar distances. Key views are considered to be, 41, from Normand Park, view 42 along Archel road, view 43 from Queens Club Gardens and views 45 from Queen Club and 47 from Comeragh Road from the junction with Palliser Road are representative of the typical observation points in this location.

4.265 The proposals are visible in all the views in varying degrees, mostly as buildings in the distance at the end of street vistas or in the skyline above existing parapets. The Townscape and Visual Analysis analyses in detail the potential impact on each of the views and considers the impact to be minimal. In circumstances where the proposals are visible the Analysis sets out that measures used in the design of the parameter envelopes and the formulation of the relative Design Guidelines for the visible plots to mitigate any impact and enhance the townscape view.

4.266 In view 41 from Normand Park, a wide panorama of the application site is visible with proposals in plots NE06 (south tower) BW04 (north towers) NE02, BW01, BW02 and BW03. The proposals appear in this view as a noticeable alteration to the skyline of the park however the composition of plots NE06 and BW04 will create a cluster of taller forms around the Empress State building that will enhance the enclosure of the park and provide balance against the group of taller buildings within the existing Clem Atlee Estate to the south of the park on the right of the view. Plots on the western edge of the proposals will be visible at a lower level in front of the towers and to their left, replacing the horizontal roofline of the West Kensington Estate. The impact of the proposals in this view are considered to be creating an interesting and varied skyline above the roofs of existing buildings to the north-east of the park and the composition of tall buildings in the location, their height and massing is considered in accordance with Core Strategy policy FRA1.

4.267 In view 42 from Turnville Road looking along Archel road, proposals in plots NE06 (south tower) BW04 (north tower) and NE05 are visible at the end of Archel road. The existing 10 storey block on the West Kensington Estate which is currently visible in the view is replaced by a lower proposal in NE05. Behind them the proposals in plots NE06 (south tower) will partly obscure the Empress State building. The tall building appears as a slimmer form revealing more of the existing Empress State building behind it. It is considered that the visibility of the proposals in this view and the proposed tower composition enhances the layered quality of the townscape. It creates stepping and articulation of the parameter envelope that will help to mediate between the scale of the taller buildings in the Opportunity Area and the domestic scale of North End Road and the conservation area.

4.268 In view 43 from Queens Club Gardens, the proposals will be visible in plots BW04 (north tower) and NE06 (south tower) although the visibility is through the trees above the roof line of the buildings on the eastern edge of Queen’s Club Gardens, and the very tops of the proposed towers will be seen in relation to the Empress State building, as slightly taller but slimmer and less prominent forms. It is considered that although visible in this view, the impact of the proposals on the view will be mitigated through the articulation and architectural treatment of the towers as shown in the parameter envelopes.The proposals will complement existing buildings in the conservation area and form a recessive urban backdrop.

4.269 In view 45 from Queens Club, the proposals will be visible in the tops of plots BW04 (north tower), NE06 (south tower) BW01 and WK02 above the rooftops on Gledstanes Road and to the right of Barons Court Mansions. Although the proposals are visible the protrusions above the roofs in this view will be minor; they will be visually assimilated into the articulated roofline of gables and roof extensions and will not be discernible, preserving the wide panorama of open sky above the terrace.

4.270 In view 47 Comeragh Road from the junction with Palliser Road, the proposals will be visible in plots at the northern end of the site, NE02, BW01 and fronting West Cromwell Road, WK02 and WK03 behind buildings on Challoner Street. The proposals will not appear above the roofline of the terraces lining Comeragh Road. It is considered although proposals are visible in the termination of this view, the impact of the proposals will generate a layered, well-articulated composition of buildings which will enhance the legibility of the Opportunity Area from the east while preserving the strong perspective of the existing channelled view.

4.271 Views 50 to 54 analyse the townscape impact of the proposals from the north and north west of the site with observation points in the Gunter Estate conservation area, the Fitzgeorge and Fitzjames conservation area and the Olympia and Avenmore conservation area. In these group of views, the proposals are visible in plots to the north end of the application site, plots WK01 and WK02 and WK03 fronting the A4 West Cromwell Road with the tops of plots NE02, BW02 BW01 and BW04 visible behind them. The impact of the proposals in views 52, 53 and 54 on the northern conservation areas is considered minimal. The proposals appear in the distant skyline and enhance the views through articulation of roofscapes.

4.272 In views 50 and 51, the proposals are observed along the A4 Talgarth and West Cromwell Road. It is considered the proposals will provide much improved street frontage, public realm and enclosure to this section of West Cromwell Road. It is described in the Townscape and Visual Analysis, as a ‘metropolitan front door’ to London for those arriving from the west . The scale and visual prominence of this potential gateway into the London in relation to the existing buildings in this view is considered appropriate.

4.273 Views 55, Barons Court Road east, 56, North End Road from the junction with Castletown Road and 57, Beaumont Crescent from Castletown Road, analysis the impact of the proposals where development is proposed to appear on the North End Road edges in and on the boundary of the Barons Court Conservation Area. The views show that at the edges proposals will be visible in plots WK01, WK02 and WK03 in view 55, WK01 in view 56 and NE01 in view 57. The proposed parameter envelopes have been reduced at the edges in these plots and appear in this view at a scale that respects the immediate neighbouring existing context. Although visible in these views it is considered the proposals enhance the existing street context by continuing the street frontage and rooflines.

4.274 The proposals will deliver a major redevelopment of the site and will transform this part of London with changes to some of its skyline profiles when viewed from the surrounding conservation areas within LBHF. It is considered the proposals will not demonstrably harm any heritage assets. It will provide townscape and visual benefits and enhance some heritage assets. Officers conclude that the 54 views assessed as part of the outline proposals the impact of the development on viewing corridors and vistas and the mitigation proposed thereof are in accordance with requirements of LBHF core strategy FRA1 and BE1 as well as LBHF UDP EN2B, RBKC SPD on building heights and RBKC policy CL1 and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.275 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. The SPD in Key Principle UF21 requires that: All proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they do not have a negative impact on the views identified and analysed in the Townscape and Visual Analysis SPD Supporting Evidence Document. Therefore all applications must be accompanied by a set of verified views from the points identified in that document and a thorough analysis of the impact that proposals will have on them. Where a scheme has a specific impact, not already covered by the Townscape and Visual Analysis SPD Supporting Evidence Document, further verified views will be sought.

4.276 The comprehensive analysis of townscape views undertaken provides assurance that the proposals have undergone stringent testing to allow any potential impact on existing and neighbouring properties and the setting of historical assets and conservation areas to be assessed. In consideration of the English Heritage/CABE criteria on townscape and views, It has been demonstrated that the

site is an appropriate location for tall buildings and that the urban design principles of the proposed development will be of excellent quality in their own right. Further control for the detail design of the tall elements appearing in the townscape has also been provided in the form of enhanced Design Guidelines. Key Principle UF6: Retain and/or improve views of special existing local landmarks. Key Principle UF7: Create new view compositions in the OA that complement those identified in the surrounding area and aid navigation and way finding.

4.277 Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Overall Design and Townscape Conclusions 4.278 The LBHF Core Strategy policy FRA 1 sets out LBHF’s strategic policy in relation to the part of the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity area with the LBHF boundary. It specifically states in relation to design and Townscape that: The part of the area north of Lillie Road should be designed as a vibrant world class new quarter in inner West London linking well with its physical and commercial surroundings, especially to the west and east. If the TfL depot has to remain it should be decked over provided that achieves planning benefits and is viable within an acceptable scheme. Building design should be of the highest quality. There may be some scope for tall buildings no higher than, and close to, the existing Empress State building, however, any tall buildings would need to be justified by a full urban design analysis”

4.279 It also further asserts that for any development on the opportunity area: Overall, the design, layout, massing and density of development must take account of and respect the local context and setting, local conservation areas, and local views. However, development should also recognise the substantial scope offered by the scale and location of the Opportunity Area to create a new sense of place and range of densities. For the Seagrave Road site, the design must also take account of views from the Listed Brompton Cemetery, and local nature conservation. On site street patterns and connections must be designed with regard to improving traffic, pedestrian and cycling circulation in the surrounding area and on primary routes in Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Development must improve pedestrian connections from the sites and the surrounding area to public transport facilities, particularly Earl’s Court.”

4.280 The policy further requires that: Development must have regard to guidance set out in the Earls Court/West Kensington Opportunity Area Supplementary Planning Document. Officers have considered the proposal in this regard against the SPD in the manner as described in paragraph 4.29 above.

4.281 Based on the design analysis of the application submitted and as amended the proposals are considered to be in compliance with the requirements of planning policy for this area. The proposals: • Maximise connectivity through establishing new east west links through a new high street, and other proposed westerly street connections, and a new Broadway and other north south street connections

• Establish an urban grain that is inspired by the surrounding pattern of streets and open spaces through uses of a fine block and street structure with incidences of garden squares and open spaces • The proposed lost River Park, garden squares and civic spaces will provide good quality public open space offering a range of recreational and ecological opportunities and help to overcome the existing deficiencies in access to public open space and play facilities as identified in the London Plan. • The outline proposals and provisions in the Design Guidelines ensure that proposals for new buildings on the edges of the application site are sensitively integrated into the existing context through creating new urban blocks with existing properties integrated, proposal of massing and scale that is lower at the edges and respects neighbouring buildings, enhancing existing context through repairing of street frontage along North End Road, A4 West Cromwell road and Lillie Road. • Sensitively preserving and enhancing the skyline and the townscape through proposals for tall building around the existing Empress State building, thereby creating a cluster composition of tall buildings and ensuring the proposals of high and tall building in the Parameter Plans are located and sited in such a way that has minimal negative impact on the quality and character of the surrounding townscape especially when viewed from the surrounding 19 conservation areas. • The proposal of a new street network and place with well proportioned streets that encourage walking and cycling and respond and link to the surrounding street network.

4.282 It is considered the application proposes a development that will be integrated into the existing urban fabric and respects the character of the surrounding area, respecting the heritage assets and the pattern of streets, buildings and open spaces. The Design Guidelines further provide tools and controls ensuring that when applied at detailed application phases, the environment created will be of high quality throughout, adopting the best of typical West London character and complementing it with the best of contemporary design. It will provide safe, stimulating, well managed neighbourhoods that are attractive, exciting and served by a first class, well connected network of streets and open spaces that encourage walking and cycling. The proposals also ensure the two neighbouring boroughs will be connected through improved east-west connections in the Opportunity Area

4.283 The redevelopment of the area will incorporate sensitively designed, publicly accessible, green, open spaces, including a number of garden squares. They will offer a range of opportunities for both formal and informal play and recreation as well as enhancing the ecological value of the area. All public open spaces, play spaces, streets and buildings will be inclusive and accessible.”

4.284 Officer have also had regard to the guidance in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document. The submitted Design and Access statement, Design Guidelines and Townscape and Visual Analysis all refer to guidance in the SPD .The following are relevant key principles in the SPD: • Key Principle UF1: Introduce a number of new east-west and north-south connections across the OA that overcome the existing severance. • Key Principle UF3: Establish a clear and well defined network of streets providing a variety of environments and a choice of routes. The urban grain of new streets proposed for the OA should be inspired by the street types and patterns identified in the best of the surrounding context. • Key Principle UF4: Extend existing streets into and through the OA.

• Key Principle UF5: Extend the existing pattern of garden squares found around the OA into the new neighbourhood and use their most successful features as design precedent for new publicly accessible green open spaces. • Key Principle UF6: Retain and/or improve views of special existing local landmarks. • Key Principle UF7: Create new view compositions in the OA that complement those identified in the surrounding area and aid navigation and way finding. • Key Principle UF10: High quality civic spaces should be well integrated into the proposed urban grain, especially in those locations that are expected to have high levels of movement and activity and where appropriate ground floor land uses are proposed. • Key Principle UF11: New public open spaces within the OA will be expected to provide for a mix of different leisure pursuits including sports pitches, children’s play, court games, passive recreation, community gardening and nature conservation. • Key Principle UF12: Any proposal for comprehensive regeneration will be expected to include a publicly accessible local park of at least 2 hectares, either as one discrete park or as a series of contiguous smaller spaces that meet the criteria set out in Table 7.2 of the Mayor’s London Plan (2011). • Key Principle UF13: As far as possible, all residential properties should be within 10m walking distance of a publicly accessible green open space. • Key Principle UF19: Preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of surrounding conservation areas and listed buildings. • Key Principle UF20: Preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of Brompton Cemetery and its listed buildings. • Key Principle UF21: All proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they do not have a negative impact on the views identified and analysed in the Townscape and Visual Analysis SPD Supporting Evidence Document. Therefore all applications must be accompanied by a set of verified views from the points identified in that document and a thorough analysis of the impact that proposals will have on them. Where a scheme has a specific impact, not already covered by the Townscape and Visual Analysis SPD Supporting Evidence Document, further verified views will be sought. • Key Principle UF23: All buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings will be expected to address the following four design aspirations: 1. slenderness; 2. how the building meets the sky; 3. how the building meets the ground; and 4. articulation of the facade. • Key Principle UF24: In any proposal that retains the Empress State Building it should be integrated into an attractive composition of new tall buildings that form a cluster around it. • Key Principle UF26: The height and massing of new buildings on the edges of the OA will be expected to respect the scale and massing of neighbouring buildings. • Key Principle UF27: Development will be expected to preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of any listed buildings or conservation areas around the edges of the OA. • Key Principle UF29: Sensitively incorporate the existing buildings that remain on the edges of the OA into new urban blocks. • Key Principle UF30: Development within the OA should not prejudice future development of other sites outside its boundary.

• Key Principle UF36: All proposals for regeneration within the OA will be expected to demonstrate a comprehensive, holistic approach to street design that treats streets as places where people will want to spend their time and that encourages cyclists and pedestrians. • Key Principle UF38: Ensure that all streets and public open spaces are addressed by the public fronts of buildings.

4.285 As set out in the preceding paragraphs the proposal is considered to also accord with the relevant provisions of the SPD. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Historic Environment 4.286 The following designated heritage assets are partly located within the application boundary. • Barons Court Conservation Area; a small part at its eastern edge lies within the site including West Kensington Station,175 - 177, 179 – 225 North End Road, 1 - 45 Kensington Hall Mansions and 1-8 Gibbs Green, 3 - 9, 2 - 12 Beaumont Crescent and 1 - 54 West Kensington Mansions. • Gunter Estate Conservation Area; a small section of road and pavement along West Cromwell Road and North End Road on its south eastern edge are within the application boundary.

4.287 Along Lillie road, houses number 62, 64, 66 and 68 are Grade II listed buildings and share their rear cartilage boundaries with the application site. The Earls court SPD requires that any proposals on the application site demonstrates due regard to the significant heritage asserts surrounding the Opportunity Area and particular attention must be paid to PPS 5: Planning for Historic Environment.

4.288 The Brompton Cemetery is located to the south east of the site. The cemetery is designated as Metropolitan Open Land, Grade I in the Register of Parks & Gardens of Special Historic Interest and is within the Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area. The Cemetery includes a number of listed buildings and structures. The main entrance to the Cemetery is at its northern end, from Old Brompton Road via a Grade II* listed triumphal arch. The chapel and arcades are separately listed (Grade II*) and the Cemetery also contains a number of monuments, seven of which are also listed (Grade II).

4.289 The following conservation areas within LBHF and RBKC adjoin or are close to the site. • Seddlescombe • Walham Grove • The Walham Green • Barons Court • Queens Club Gardens • Turnville/Chesson • Olympia and Avonmore • Dorcas Estate • Fitzgeorge and Fitzjames • The Gunter Estate • Brompton Cemetry • Philbeach • Nevern Square

• Earls Court Village • Earls Court Square • Courtfield • The Boltons

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 4.290 Sections 66 and 72 require Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas when making planning decisions. By virtue of Section 66: In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses .

Similarly by virtue of Section 72, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

4.291 NPPF paragraphs 131 and 132 are also relevant. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic viability; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.

4. The following policies in the London Plan are also relevant : Policy 7.4 requires new development to respond to its surrounding setting, to be informed by its historic context and to provide a human scale and relationship with street level activity.

Policy 7.8 requires development to respect heritage assets by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.

4.292 Policy FRA 1 in the LBHF Core Strategy requires the overall design, layout and massing of development to take account of and respect the context and setting of conservation areas. Policies CL3 and CL4 in the RBKC Core Strategy confirm the statutory duties as do polices EN2, EN2B, EN2D and EN3 of the LBHF UDP. Of little weight is policy G7 of the submission DM DPD relating to heritage and conservation.

Application for Conservation Area Consent 4.293 The application for Conservation Area Consent proposes the demolition of 2 buildings and 1 structure in the Barons Court Conservation Area. The first building is 175-177 North End Road which is part single, part two storey terrace occupied by retail uses at ground floor level with residential accommodation above. The second

building is 1-8 Gibbs Green a four storey block of flats with a street frontage onto Beaumont Crescent. The structure to be demolished is a brick wall to the north of West Kensington Underground Station

4.294 In terms of the buildings and structures to be demolished it is considered that175-177 North End Road and 1-8 Gibbs Green Close have limited heritage significance and as such do not contribute positively to the setting of the conservation area. Their replacement with new buildings as part of the proposed development will not harm the setting of the conservation area. The setting of West Kensington Station, which is locally listed, it is considered will be improved by the proposed development and therefore the demolition of the wall is considered acceptable.

Heritage (impacts on conservation areas and listed buildings)

4.295 There are no complete designated heritage assets on the Earls Court Site. The following designated heritage assets are partly situated within the Site boundary: • Earls Court Station, Listed Grade II; the Station is just east and outside of the Site and connected to the existing Earls Court Exhibition Centre by a disused tunnel, escalator shaft and ticket hall which are within the Site • Barons Court Conservation Area; a small part at its eastern edge lies within the Site, including the existing buildings of West Kensington Station, 175-177 North End Road and 1-8 Gibbs Green Close and part of North End Road • Philbeach Conservation Area; small section of road and pavement along Warwick Road on the eastern edge of the conservation area fall within the Site boundary; and • Gunter Estate Conservation Area; small section of road and pavement along West Cromwell Road and North End Road on its south-east edge fall within the Site boundary

4.296 The parts of the Grade II Listed Earls Court Station, Barons Court Conservation Area, Philbeach Conservation Area and Gunter Estate Conservation Area within the Earls Court Site have been assessed within The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment). Only one structure on the Earls Court Site is considered to be of merit: West Kensington Station within Baron’s Court Conservation Area; it will be retained.

4.297 Part of the Grade II listed Earls Court Station lies under the Earls Court Site. The PPS5 Heritage Assessment considers that neither the pedestrian tunnel nor the ticket hall is of architectural significance. The escalator shaft is of spatial interest and will be retained, along with what remains of its original fittings. It will connect to the new public realm above ground proposed on the Site, across Warwick Way from the existing station entrance.

4.298 As required by PPS5, the potential impacts on heritage assets on and off Site as a result of both Development Options has been fully assessed and any harm weighed against the enhancements and public benefits brought by the scheme overall. The assessment concludes that the proposals will be, on balance, of significant benefit to the local and wider historic environment. The significance of each heritage asset, and the parts of the setting that contribute to that significance, will be preserved by these proposals.

4.299 Volume II of the Environmental Statement: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment), provides an assessment of the Proposed Development in terms of heritage considerations, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and historic assets in the vicinity of the Earls Court Site. Fifty seven views are assessed in the Townscape and Visual assessment. These views were selected and agreed for assessment in consultation with the LBHF, RBKC, GLA and English Heritage.

4.300 Views from Brompton Cemetery are considered to be sensitive. Both the Empress State building and the Exhibition Centres are visible on the skyline from most points within the cemetery. The approved Seagrave Road proposals will provide significant enclosure to the western edge of the cemetery and will screen much of the development proposed. Further from the application material the proposed buildings that will be visible are focused around the Empress State building. This will help to mitigate its impact as an otherwise singular element projecting above the skyline. The heights of the new buildings will step up towards Empress State building which will remain visible as a local landmark but will be set within a coherent composition of recessive distant townscape with a well articulated roofline. This approach it is considered exploits the opportunity given by the demolition of the exhibition centres which is included in Application 1 to be determined by RBKC to improve the setting of the cemetery and it ensures that new buildings visible from the cemetery are positioned in composition with the Empress State building in order to improve its integration on the skyline

4.301 The proposals show a development that increases in scale from the edges, where it is low in height, bulk and massing and becomes higher towards the centre of the site. The proposals create an urban grain on the edges of the site that picks on the strong structure and pattern of the urban grain in neighbouring urban environment.

4.302 The measures employed in the planning application and enhanced mandatory Design Guidelines for development on the edges, ensure the proposals on the application site edges will be sensitively and well integrated into and enhance the existing context and respond well and have regard to: • The heights of adjacent buildings • The existing terraces and mansion blocks incorporated into new urban blocks • The widths of existing streets extended onto the application site • Existing private rear gardens • Proximity to conservation areas, listed buildings and heritage assets.

4.303 As identified within the London View Management SPG, the development will not be visible from the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, the Royal Botanic Gardens and Kew or Maritime Greenwich World Heritage sites. It will not harm the setting of any World Heritage site.

4.304 English Heritage have considered the revised proposal and have issued their formal comments. They conclude that they consider the proposals to be acceptable.

4.305 The potential impacts on heritage assets as a result of the development have been assessed. It is considered the settings of the adjacent listed buildings will not be harmed. The settings of the adjacent listed buildings, Grade II* listed Church of St Cuthbert and the Grade II listed 62-68 Lillie Road (and adjacent locally listed terrace) is considered to be improved by the Proposed Development. It is also

considered that the development will not harm the settings of local conservation areas and in respect of other views from wider conservation areas the development where visible will not harm the significance of these areas. The setting and significance of Brompton Cemetery will also not be harmed by the proposed development. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with national, regional and local policies regarding designated heritage assets.

4.306 Officers have also considered relevant provisions of the SPD: Key Principle UF19: Preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of surrounding conservation areas and listed buildings. Key Principle UF20: Preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of Brompton Cemetery and its listed buildings. Officers consider that the application accords with these principles. In addition, officers have considered key principles UF26, UF27 and UF29. The development on the edges has been designed to respect the heights and massing of the neighbouring buildings and thus accords with key principle UF26. The proposal is considered not to harm the surrounding heritage assets in accordance with key principle UF27. Proposed blocks NE01, NE04, NE06, BW06 and BW07 sensitively incorporate existing properties on the edges outside of the application site into new urban blocks as required by key principle UF29 of which some buildings are listed. In light of all of the above, officers consider the application is to be in accordance with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Public Open Space 4.307 The NPPF states Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up to date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.

4.308 London Plan policy 7.18 supports the creation of new open space in London to ensure satisfactory levels of local provision to address areas of deficiency and the loss of local protected open spaces must be resisted unless equivalent or better provision is made within the local catchment area.

4.309 LBHF Core Strategy policy OS1 requires a mix of new public and private open space in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Areas when development takes place and improving provision and access to parks and open spaces, play space and areas of nature conservation interest.

4.310 LBHF UDP policies EN23 and EN23B are relevant. Policy EN23 requires all new developments to make provision of open space to meet the needs of users and occupiers. Policy EN23B states Development will not be permitted if this would result in the loss of existing children’s play space, or result in an increased deficiency in the availability of such play space. Where residential development that provides family dwellings is proposed, play space provision will be required by means of communal play area on site or by the provision of, or contribution to ,new or enhanced facilities in the immediate vicinity .

4.311 The Applicant proposes to deliver public open space in the form of a 2 hectare linear park (the ‘Lost River’ park), three garden squares, and a number of smaller discrete parcels of open space. In total, mandatory clause of the Design Guidelines 4.10.12 secures the delivery of a minimum of 2.4 hectares of public open green space proposed outside of the development plot boundaries. In addition to

this, there will be space allocated for communal gardens and private gardens but this will be subject to the detailed design of individual development plots

The Lost River Park 4.312 The planning application includes a proposal for a linear park made up of four contiguous open spaces along the alignment of the West London Line. This is referred to as the ‘Lost River Park’, and is described in a mandatory clause in Volume 1 of the Design Guidelines as a collection of open spaces utilising the open space above the West London Line (outside of development plots) and open space within development plots lining the west side of the West London Line .

4.313 The Design Guidelines also contain a mandatory clause that states Not less than 2 hectares of public open space constituting the Lost River Park shall be provided (comprising of open space above the West London Line and open space within development plots lining the west side of the West London Line ” This clause is crucial because it gives certainty of not only the quantum of open space, but also that it will be publicly accessible. This is repeated in in another mandatory clause which states that The Lost River Park is to provide no less than 2ha of publicly accessible open space within the masterplan.

4.314 Much of the minimum 2 hectares of this linear park is established in the Open Space Parameter Plan as an open space between development plots, running north-south along the entire length of the site. However, as explained in the clauses quoted from the Design Guidelines, this space alone does not total 2 hectares. In order to achieve the full two hectares, the Lost River Park also requires the inclusion of a number of spaces within development plots. This is shown in the illustrative plans of the Lost River Park found within the Design Guidelines. These additional spaces that punch into the development plots have a number of advantages, including: • adding extra width to the linear park, ensuring that it has the potential to accommodate a variety of different activities; and • creating a direct relationship between the private and public realm ensuring that local people feel a sense of ownership over the public open spaces.

4.315 This additional width is particularly important, because the area shown on the Parameter Plan alone is 23m wide at its narrowest point and 46m wide at its widest point. The illustrative plan of the Lost River Park suggests that this approach could double the width of the park in places.

4.316 The linear nature of the Lost River Park also contributes to the achievement of principles found within both borough’s Core Strategies, where aspirations for a green corridor are established: Whilst UDP policy EN28 states Within the Green Corridors identified on the Proposals Map, the landscaping of development proposals will be required to make a positive contribution to the perception of the local environment as both leafy and pleasant. Proposals for tree planting, open space and general greening of the environment within the corridors will be promoted and welcomed )

4.317 The exact location, layout and design of these spaces within the development plots are not submitted for consideration at this outline stage. The Design Guidelines however establish sufficient certainty that these spaces will be delivered. This is particularly through a mechanism drawn into “Part 5: Architectural Principles for the Development Plots” of the Design Guidelines. This mechanism requires, through mandatory diagrams for open space to be located on and occupy a

minimum of 40% of the frontage of all of the development plots fronting onto the LBHF side of the Lost River Park (Plots BW01, BW03, BW05, BW07).

4.318 These illustrations are complimented by mandatory clauses, such as 5.12.12 which states that a minimum of 1,480 sqm of the open space provided within the plot shall be designed and detailed as part of the Lost River Park to provide publicly accessible open space . In total the plot by plot design guidelines require a minimum of 3925 sqm of the public open space that forms the Lost River Park to be delivered within development plots. In order to achieve at least 2 ha across the entire Lost River Park, this leaves 16075 sqm to be delivered within the public realm between development plots.

4.319 Parameter Plans have been submitted for approval stating the maximum and minimum heights of the development plots that can be expected. This offers a degree of certainty that can be used to assess whether the concept of the Lost River Park, as an integral part of the Opportunity Area will result in a high quality, successful open space. On both sides of the open space the approach to scale corresponds to the general approach to townscape and massing proposed for across the site. Building heights rise from the edges of the site towards its centre. This is reflected in mandatory clause 3.3.17, which establishes the scale and massing of the Lost River Park and states that : From the Broadway, the scale and massing of the buildings step up towards the intersection with the High Street (Node 4), from here the building massing and scale reduces to meet the existing buildings at Lillie Road .

4.320 The heights of the buildings that are proposed to front onto the Lost River Park give an idea of the “sense of enclosure” that will be created. The sense of enclosure within an open space is created by the relationship between the heights of the buildings and the width of the space. The Parameter Plans make provisions for buildings to be set back at shoulder height. The shoulder height of a building is the line above which the top storeys of a building are set back, thus reducing their visible impact at street level.

4.321 The Design Guidelines show sections through the Lost River Park. These sections show scenarios that could be delivered within the limits established by the parameters proposed for the development plots. One is taken from the widest point in the Lost River Park. It shows that the minimum enclosure ratio possible based on the Parameter Plans is 1:08.

4.322 Detailed designs for the layout and use of the spaces, will be subject for approval at reserved matters stage. As indicated by the illustrative “Open Space, Amenity and Connectivity Principles” drawings that accompany the plot by plot guidance in part 5 of volume 1 of the Design Guidelines, there is likely to be a degree of private, or communal open space provided adjacent to these public open spaces within the development plots and a degree of public open space provided adjacent to each other within these plots.

4.323 This approach does offer significant benefits that reflect the approach to open space in the Opportunity Area’s context. Primarily, it reflects the ‘glimpses’ into open spaces that are offered by the communal gardens and private garden squares found all around the Opportunity Area. Although there is no public access to these spaces, they offer a valuable visual amenity to the public realm that surrounds them. It also ensures that there are a number of areas within the Lost River Park that are likely to be significantly wider than the typical dimensions suggest between the plots. This will increase the variety of spaces on offer and the potential activities that could

be accommodated. This feature is typical of the garden squares that form part of the surrounding townscape context bounding the Opportunity Area within both LBHF and RBKC

4.324 In general, details about the appearance and landscaping of the park are reserved and more detail will be submitted at later stages. At this outline stage, the Design Guidelines provide sufficient certainty that these detailed designs will be developed to a high standard as a result of a number of mandatory clauses. For example, included within the twelve mandatory key guiding objectives under the “Lost River Park Character Objectives” is a requirement to provide a park design which creates an identity and image.

4.325 Further detail on what will be expected as a part of this is provided in mandatory clause 3.3.14, which establishes 5 requirements for the design and detail of the open spaces that will make up the Lost River Park. These include responding to the topography of the site and responding to the design of the surrounding buildings. The Design Guidelines split the Lost River Park into eight primary gardens , each of which it is intended will have individual, but complimentary characters and will be drawn together through a common language of design. There is a set of mandatory design principles to be integrated into the park, including: • provision and articulation of defensible amenity and landscape buffer zones to residential dwellings adjoining the park • structural tree planting located to articulate the urban nodes • formation of topography to establish Character Areas enclosure • network of connected spaces and routes establishing a hierarchy of safe, legible but varied pedestrian paths • variety of flexible and integral seating provision • promotion of ecology and the integration of biodiversity aspirations, habitat creation and linkages to other ecological connections beyond the park • Establish a safe, secure place • Integration of educational, diverse, challenging, and inspirational play space, either equipment led or preferably naturalistic play environments.

4.326 When assessing any reserved matters applications that are submitted, it is envisaged that mandatory Design Guidelines such as these will be used to control and guide design work in order to ensure that concepts such as the Lost River Park retain their integrity and meet the policy requirements set out in the Boroughs’ Core Strategies and the London Plan.

4.327 The advantage of a linear park approach has over one large discreet park is that it has the potential to be delivered in a number of phases, increasing in area as the population of the development increases. The phasing plans in the Environmental Statement shown that construction of the first part of the Lost River Park could begin in Year 3 when, following the demolition of the Exhibition Centres, work could commence on construction of the southern most part of the cover over the West London Line, in order to form the Lost River Park. As the phasing diagrams show, this could continue year on year, progressing further northwards until, approximately Year 15 when it appears to be complete. As a result of this approach, as different buildings across the site are occupied, the amount of open space will increase.

4.328 The proposed open space provision on site totals 15.43 hectares (ha and has bee designed to meet demand and accessibility requirements of the resident population. Of this 15.43 ha, 10.82 ha would be publicly accessible. Provision has

been planned so that all publicly accessible open space within 400 meters of residential units. A primary source of open space will be the Lost River Park measuring 2.03 ha The amount of open space within each phase of the development will be secured within the s106 .

4.329 Officers conclude that the proposal of the lost river park as a large public open space is in accordance with LBHF Core Strategy Policy OS1, UDP policies EN23 and EN28 and RBKC policy CR5 providing for sufficient public open space on the proposed development and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.330 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD which through Key Principle UF12, requires the inclusion of a publicly accessible local park of at least 2 hectares to be included within any proposals for comprehensive regeneration in the Opportunity Area. The SPD suggests that this could be provided either as one discrete park, or as a series of contiguous open spaces that combine together to make up a linear park. The advantages of a linear park made up of a series of smaller, contiguous open spaces are outlined and include maximising doorstep access to open space, the potential to accommodate a wide range of activities, the avoidance of disruptions to connectivity and / or permeability and the ability to be delivered sequentially in order to serve the needs of the new population in each phase of development, this is highlighted in SPD key principles UF17. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Garden Squares 4.331 The pattern of open spaces is an important element of any successful urban grain. Policy OS1 of the LBHF Core strategy requires a mix of new public and private open space on the Earl’s Court Opportunity Area. The planning application proposes to deliver three publically accessible garden squares. The illustrative material gives an impression of the impact that they will eventually have on the urban grain and how they could contribute to the creation of a successful place.

4.332 In plan form, the proportions of these spaces have been designed to reflect those of the existing garden squares in the surrounding area. The most northerly space has the same proportions as Earl’s Court Square The other two are slightly smaller than any of the other existing garden squares, however they are closer together. Mandatory clause 4.11.22 and 4.11.23 sets in place principles defining the character of the garden squares and 4.11.23 sets in place principles for the spatial structure of the garden squares. There are also mandatory clauses relating to boundaries and frontages, trees and materials and furniture, which together control the nature and appearance of the squares.

4.333 Officers conclude that the proposals for garden squares as another typology of open space on the development is consistent with LBHF Core Strategy policy OS1 and UPD policy EN23 and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.334 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD which requires new development to extend the existing pattern of garden squares found around the OA into the new neighbourhood and use their most successful features as design. Within the planning application the delivery of garden squares is established as one of the six mandatory components of the public realm and landscape as expected in clause 4.10.3 of the SPD. The Open Space

Parameter Plan shows three well proportioned rectangular open spaces evenly distributed across the western side of the site that each have the potential to become high quality, publicly accessible garden squares that are fully compliant with the SPD. As required by Urban Design best practice, they are fully integrated into the street network and each is surrounded by development plots. This will ensure that they are well overlooked and that there is an appropriate level of activity around them at all times of day they are likely to feel safe. This will encourage people to use them, thus contributing to their vitality and sense of place. However, it is important to note that the success of this will be subject to the quality of subsequent detailed design proposals.

4.335 Detail design of these spaces has not been submitted as part of the planning application but the design guidelines establish principles that will be applied in the future design of the garden squares. These principles reflect the design features of existing garden squares which the SPD identifies and suggests should be considered as precedents for new garden squares. For example, the SPD suggests that predominantly residential buildings should frame garden squares and mandatory clause 4.11.23 in the design guidelines states that they should be set within an enclosure of residential buildings . Similarly, the SPD states that the boundary treatments used should be visually permeable in order to add to the greenery of the rest of the public realm and mandatory clause 4.11.23 states that a consistent street language of railings and hedges should define the perimeters of residential squares. The SPD also encourages a grand sense of scale for garden squares, which is addressed within mandatory clause 4.11.22 of the Design Guidelines, which seeks to establish a sense of scale with trees and feature trees. The SPD’s requirements for active streets to define all four edges of garden squares and for the inclusion of games courts are also addressed in the Design Guidelines but. Mandatory clause 4.11.23 is for the squares to adjoin at least two streets that serve vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists . Whilst this does not preclude active streets on all four sides, it does allow designs to come forward that may not achieve this. However, any detailed design proposals that are submitted at reserved matters stage that do not have active streets on all four sides will be expected to demonstrate how they will ensure sufficient levels of activity and overlooking at all times of day. In terms of the games courts, mandatory clause 4.11.22 of the Design Guidelines states that appropriate play provision areas should be incorporated .

4.336 Accordingly, officers consider the application is in accordance with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Child and young people’s play space: 4.337 Policy OS1 of the LBHF Core strategy sets a requirement to protect and enhance parks, open spaces and biodiversity in the borough by: ensuring provision of quality accessible and inclusive open space, including areas of nature conservation interest, and children’s play provision in new developments, including in the identified areas; and improving provision and access to parks and open spaces, play space and areas of nature conservation interest.

4.338 The submitted proposals are for 21,750 m2 of children’s and young people’s play space – a significant increase over the June 2011 ES proposals of 14,900 m2. The play space provision has been planned both in terms of location across the overall Site, by phase, and in relation to demand by age cohort, so that its distribution meets Greater London Authority (GLA) requirements. The conclusions of

the June 2011 ES therefore remain valid therefore that there would be a minor beneficial impact based on the provision of new Local and Neighborhood Playable Spaces that will be accessible to the surrounding community

4.339 Officers consider that the provision of the playspace described above accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.340 Officers have gone on to consider the relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle UF15 requires that a minimum of 10 square metres of dedicated play space per child. The proposed space accords with this and therefore officers consider that there are no relevant reasons why permission should be withheld.

Phasing and Resident’s Amenities During Development 4.341 It is proposed that the development takes place in phases over an anticipated 20 year period. The applicant has submitted for approval a phasing plan which identifies how the development will come forward. Compliance with this phasing plan will be secured by way of condition. The amenities of residents living both within the application site and adjoining the application site need to be considered.

4.342 Policy 7.6 of the London Plan requires that buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate . Policy 7.7 states that tall buildings should not affect their surroundings adversely in terms of microclimate, wind turbulence, overshadowing, noise, reflected glare, aviation, navigation and telecommunication interference.

4.343 Policy EN8 of the LBHF UDP regarding the design of new development refers to impact generally and the principles of good neighbourliness and Policy EN21 relates to environmental nuisance. Policy CL5 of the RBKC Core Strategy seeks to ensure there is no significant impact on the use of buildings and spaces due to increases in traffic, parking, noise, odours or vibration or local micro climate effects.

4.344 Deconstruction and demolition is anticipated to start following the closure and vacation of the existing EC1 building post the 2012 Olympic Games. In the ES the deconstruction / demolition and construction programme has been divided into 6 key phases, which reflects the Phasing Plan submitted separately by the Applicant.

4.345 The anticipated timing of each of the 6 key Phases set out in the ES is • Phase 1 – Year 1 to Year 8 inclusive (RBKC); • Phase 2 – Year 3 to Year 10 inclusive; • Phase 3 – Year 3 to Year 10 inclusive; • Phase 4 – Year 7 to Year 11 inclusive; • Phase 5 – Year 9 to Year 15 inclusive; • Phase 6 – Year 13 to Year 19 inclusive; • End Year – Year 20.

4.346 It is expected there will be overlap between phases and that deconstruction/demolition and construction activities will occur across several of the phases at any point in time. .

4.347 To allow for an assessment in the ES of the impacts of deconstruction/ demolition and construction activities, the 6 development phases have been further sub divided into one year time slices. These time slices have then been grouped into logical deconstruction/demolition and construction sequences as follows: • Sequence 1 - Phases 1, 2 and 3, which equates to a 6 year time period; • Sequence 2 - The remainder of Phases 1, 2 and 3 plus Phases 4 and 5, which, equates to a 6 year time period; and • Sequence 3 - The remainder Phase 5 and Phase 6, which equates to a 7 year time period.

4.348 To enable the presentation in the ES of a realistic, worst-case sequence of deconstruction/demolition and construction activities and to allow a reasonable assessment of potential impacts arising, reference is made, throughout the ES to the series of yearly construction time slices. The yearly construction time slices have been developed based on the anticipated phasing of the development and the individual development plots sought for approval.

4.349 Further in order to help understand potential impacts, details from the Illustrative masterplan have been used to facilitate the identification of potentially sensitive receptors, both existing and those introduced as part of proposed development options. The details presented within the yearly construction time slices in relation to the Illustrative masterplan, specifically in terms of the location of actual buildings within the development plots are therefore indicative. The Illustrative masterplan, which is representative of the end development, coupled with the phasing strategy, nevertheless does allow for a comprehensive analysis in the ES of the sequence of deconstruction/demolition and construction activities and the impacts likely to arise at each phase of the programme.

4.350 The yearly construction time slices allow for a comprehensive analysis within the ES of the sequence of deconstruction/demolition and construction activities and the impacts likely to arise at each phase of the overall development programme. The time slices illustrate construction works for multiple buildings within a defined development plot occurring in proximity to a sensitive receptor both on and off-site, with various construction works for each building overlapping (e.g. ground works for a building occurring at the same time as superstructure works for another building). It is stated within the ES that the phasing and yearly construction times slices are representative of a programme considered to be reasonable and achievable. Officers accept this justification and require a condition that the development be carried out in accordance with the submitted Phasing Plan.

4.351 The technical information presented in Chapter 5: Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction of the ES which forms the basis of the impact assessments is based where relevant, on a schedule of areas comparable to the maximum amount of development sought for approval. The technical information presented does therefore present the worst case scenario, particularly in relation to aspects such as demolition and construction waste volumes and Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements.

4.352 Issues regarding resident’s amenities during the period of the development are considered to fall into two areas. There are amenity issues resulting from specifically the demolition and construction activity. There are also issues resulting from the phased nature of the development whereby the relationship of completed buildings and existing buildings waiting to be redeveloped needs to be considered.

4.353 Demolition and construction activity can result in impacts on local amenities. These may take the form of additional noise, vibration, grit, dust, fumes odours, intense or obtrusive lighting, increased vehicular traffic particularly HGV movements. The impacts are often the subject of Environmental Health legislation. However, some of these elements will be controlled through the submission of CTLPs and Construction Environmental Management Plans at each phase of the development

4.354 The ES considers deconstruction, demolition and construction impacts. A 20 year deconstruction, demolition and construction period is anticipated. Potential impacts identified relate to employment generation, traffic and access, pedestrian access, artificial light, archaeology, asbestos and contamination, ground movements, unexploded ordnance and ground gas, water, waste, air quality, energy use noise, vibration and ecology. The earlier ES section of this report sets out the findings and mitigation measures in detail.

4.355 The Applicant recognises that a key aspect of the successful management of the project is the maintenance of good relations with neighbours and implementation of a programme of ongoing liaison and respect with regards to the local environment and residences. In this regard a dedicated Community Liaison Manager will be appointed as part of management team. The Community Liaison Manager will be focused on engaging with the community to provide the appropriate information and to be the first line of response to resolve issues of concern. The general public and local community will also input into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and contact will be established with residential neighbours and those who could potentially be affected by demolition of the existing buildings and the construction / build out of the development plots;

4.356 In advance of the CEMP and alongside the National Considerate Contractors scheme, a Code of Construction Practice will also be developed and agreed with the LBHF and the RBKC prior to commencing demolition and construction works. One of the aims of this code will be to assure residents and other affected parties that impacts to the environment are being taken into account according to current best practice.

4.357 Environmental protection measures including construction screens, maintenance of utilities and drainage etc will be put in place The environmental protection measures will maintain acceptable conditions for existing residents who have not yet been relocated.

4.358 As part of the programme of works the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Housing Estates will be demolished. Prior to demolition the relocation of residents currently residing within properties across the two estates to new properties will take place. The relocation strategy will be phased, commencing in year 3 of the development programme and continuing throughout years 4, 5, 9, and 11/12. Each phase of demolition will be undertaken following the relocation of the affected properties.

4.359 Environmental protection measures including construction screens, maintenance of utilities and drainage etc will be put in place The environmental protection measures will maintain acceptable conditions for existing residents who have not yet been relocated.

4.360 The potential interim impact of newly constructed buildings on existing estate homes which are to be retained on site in accordance with the indicative phasing plan needs to be considered. The yearly time slices indicate that parts of the new development could have an impact for a temporary period of potentially greater duration than a typical building development (two years). The impact of the development on retained dwellings within the application site in relation to daylight/sunlight and overshadowing is an effect which requires consideration and it is addressed in the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing section of the report.

4.361 On balance, officers consider that the impacts on residential amenities during the phased development accords with relevant development plan provisions and that there are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.362 Officers have gone on to consider the relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle UF28 says that the privacy, daylight and sunlight of existing and future buildings must be respected. As above, this has been addressed in the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing section of the report. Key Principle ENV4 requires measures to control and minimise the impacts of construction demolition and excavation. Such measures have been secured through a number of conditions and planning obligations. Key Principle ENV17 requires development to be constructed to mitigate and adequately control noise and vibration. Such measures have been secured through a number of conditions and planning obligations. In light of the above controls, officers consider the application is in accordance with the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing: 4.363 The application is supported by a daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment in the Environmental Statement (ES). Since the original submission of the June 2011 ES, additional daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessments have been submitted in the form of the December 2011 ES Addendum and June 2012 Addendum Report. These assessments consider the potential impacts of the scale and layout of the proposed development plots, upon the daylight and sunlight amenity on the surrounding residential properties outside the site likely to experience impacts from the development and on the overshadowing of amenity areas and open space. The applicant has submitted an additional report concerning the impact of the development on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates during the phased development based on the indicative phasing set out in the ES. A number of objections have been received raising concerns about loss of daylight and sunlight.

4.364 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect after the submission of the December 2011 ES Addendum. Paragraph 17 makes specific reference to securing a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy 7.6 of the London Plan states that buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing and wind and microclimate. Policy 7.7 adds that ‘tall buildings should not affect their surroundings adversely in terms of microclimate, wind turbulence, overshadowing, noise, reflected glare, aviation, navigation and telecommunication interference’. There are no specific policies with regard to the impact of development on daylight, sunlight or overshadowing either within the saved UDP or the Core

Strategy. UDP policy EN8 does however refer to impact generally and the principles of `good neighbourliness'.

4.365 Recommended standards for daylight and sunlight for residential accommodation are set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) publication ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight – a guide to good practice’ (October 2011). A detailed assessment of the site wide proposals on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing to the neighbouring properties within the borough has been carried out by the applicant using these (BRE) guidelines.

4.366 The BRE guide (first published in 1991) was revised in October 2011. The applicant’s initial assessment presented in Chapter 9 of the June 2011 ES and modified in Chapter A9 of the December 2011 ES Addendum were undertaken in line with the 1991 BRE guide. The updated 2011 guidance was available prior to the submission of the December 2011 revisions, but officers understand that the modelling software incorporating the updated guidance was not commercially available at the time. Since the publication of the 2011 BRE Report an Addendum Report (June 2012) has been submitted which updates the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment in line with the current 2011 BRE guide. The report includes a comparison of the assessment and conclusions tested in December 2011 ES Addendum using the former 1991 BRE. The appraisal undertaken in the June 2012 also incorporates an assessment of amendments to the planning application involving a reduction to the proposed maximum and minimum heights in the Parameter Plans for Block E of Plot BW07, in relation to the impact on occupiers of 2-14 Empress Place following objections by residents.

4.367 As with the former 1991 BRE guidance, the updated 2011 guide should be applied flexibly, is intended to be advisory and does not contain mandatory standards. It advises it should not be used as an instrument of planning policy. Furthermore in considering development potential, it is inevitable that in urban environments there will be some adverse impacts from development and there are circumstances that will exist where a greater degree of obstruction to light can on occasion be acceptable. Nevertheless the BRE guidelines applied together with on- site judgement are useful tools in assessing the potential impact of a development on daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties.

4.368 In summary, there is little difference between the 1991 and 2011 BRE guidelines. Revisions in the 2011 BRE do not materially alter the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and No Sky Line (NSL) assessment methodologies, as described in Chapter 9: Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing of the June 2011 ES or ES Addendum. The 2011 BRE handbook has however, altered the technical formula for assessing the Average Daylight Factor (ADF), the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) and permanent shadow impacts. These results have been updated in the June 2012 Addendum Report.

4.369 The daylight and sunlight assessment carried out deals primarily with the potential impact on existing properties outside the application site. As this is an outline application, the assessment has modelled each of the proposed development plots to their maximum building size and thus reports on the worst case scenario. Officers expect the impacts would improve at Reserved Matters stages against the results presented in the report. The proposals have been considered against an ‘Existing Baseline’ (current situation) as well as a ‘Mirrored Baseline’ which the applicant considers to be a more ‘realistic comparison’. Officers consider this a reasonable approach as despite being located in a built up urban area, surrounded by buildings of both commercial and residential uses, there are also large proportions

of the site adjacent to existing properties that are relatively open. However, and for the avoidance of any doubt, officers have formed their view as to the acceptability of the proposals in terms of impacts on daylight and sunlight on the existing baseline.

Daylight: 4.370 The BRE guidelines provide three principle methods of calculating daylight to or within a room. The first is the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) method, followed by the No-Sky Line method (NSL) or Daylight Distribution method and finally the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) method.

4.371 The VSC is the most common method used for calculating daylight levels. It is a measure of the amount of skylight visible from the centre of an existing window serving residential buildings which look towards the site. It measures the sky visibility from the outside face of a window and compares the amount of sky that would still be capable of being seen from that same position following the erection of the development. The VSC does not rely on internal calculations and assesses the amount of sky that can be seen by converting it into a percentage. An unobstructed window will achieve a maximum level of 40%. The BRE guide advises that a good level of daylight is considered to be 27%. The BRE guide state that daylight will be noticeably reduced if after the development the VSC at the centre of a window is less than 27% and would be reduced by 20% or less than 0.8 times its former value.

4.372 The NSL is a measure of the distribution of daylight in an existing building within each of the main rooms. This includes living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens. Bedrooms are also analysed, although they are considered less significant in terms of receiving direct sky light. The NSL maps out the region within a room where light can penetrate directly from the sky, taking into account the size of and number of windows. The BRE suggest the area of the working plane within a room that can receive direct daylight should not be less than 80% of its former value. In houses, the 'working plane' means a horizontal 'desktop' plane 0.85 metres above floor level. This is approximately the height of a kitchen work surface. The criteria for achieving compliance with the VSC and NSL tests have not altered since the republication of the 2011 BRE.

4.373 The ADF method is a more detailed analysis. It measures the daylight inside a room taking into account the size and number of windows and size of room and room use taking into account the size and glazed area of the window. The BRE test recommends an ADF of 5% or more if there is no supplementary lighting or 2% more if lighting is provided. There are additional minimum recommendations for dwellings of 2% for kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms. The target values and criteria for a particular room type have remained unchanged between the BRE 1991 and 2011 versions, although the technique for calculating the ADF is subtly different. The 2011 BRE Handbook makes allowances for maintenance factors of the glass within a window opening and in relation to full height glazing/patio windows. The new ADF calculation has an extra factor which accounts for the reduced effectiveness of any glazing below the working plane. The above have the effect of making the assessment criteria for ADF more stringent.

4.374 The 2011 BRE Handbook suggests the use of ADF is not the best method for assessing the impacts to existing buildings. It is however widely used by planning authorities in urban locations to provide a representation of the impacts upon daylight amenity of existing occupiers. The June 2012 Addendum Report states that if the ADF method is appropriate for establishing suitable daylight conditions for new accommodation then the same standard could reasonably used to understand the quality of light retained within an adjacent existing building. Officers concur with this

view. The ADF method has therefore been adopted within this assessment in a similar manner to the December 2011 ES Addendum and is used to provide an understanding of the daylight conditions within a room which is unable to satisfy either the VSC or NSL criteria.

4.375 When reviewing the daylight results for each property, the VSC, NSL and then ADF have been considered sequentially. In the first instance the VSC results have been considered. If all the windows in a building meet the VSC criteria, it is concluded that there will be adequate daylight. If the windows in a building do not meet the VSC criteria, the NSL analysis for the room served by that window has been considered. If the NSL criteria for the room in question are met, then there will be adequate daylight to that room. Finally, if neither the VSC nor NSL criteria are met, the ADF results are considered. The ADF results have been recalculated to take account the changes to the assessment methodology in the 2011 BRE handbook.

4.376 In light of the changes to the proposals it should also be noted that the proposals assessed in the original scheme in June 2011, differ from those now being considered and tested under the 2011 BRE guidelines. Changes made have resulted in individual blocks in development plots being either collectively reduced in height; or set further back from proximate residential properties and gardens; and/or given greater articulation to the effect that there is an increased number of gaps between the individual blocks to allow the passage of daylight and sunlight have resulted in a modification to the figures produced. In general the conclusions as a result of these changes have improved the level of compliance with the BRE guidelines and reduced the extent of adverse impacts highlighted in the original June 2011 ES.

Daylight Results: 4.377 The overall baseline results for VSC and NSL have remained unchanged since the December 2011 ES Addendum. As explained, the ADF results have been recalculated based on the changes set out in the 2011 BRE guidance.

4.378 In summary, the results produced are based on the testing of 6258 windows which serve 3859 rooms, within 292 residential properties, identified around the redline of the site wide application (Application 1 and 2). All the windows were tested against both the existing and mirrored baseline scenarios.

4.379 The assessment shows that one or more of the windows serving 700 of the surrounding rooms would result in VSC alterations below those recommended in the BRE guidelines. This means that 3159 rooms (81.9%) adhere to the VSC guidelines.

4.380 The 700 rooms were subsequently tested to determine if they satisfy the NSL criteria. 414 pass the NSL criteria. Results consequently show that 3573 rooms (92.6%) do not experience alterations in VSC and/or NSL which fall below the BRE guidance. The remaining 286 (7.4%) of the 3859 surrounding rooms were examined further.

4.381 Additional testing undertaken contained in the December 2011 and June 2012 ES Addendum has revealed 14 rooms are not principal habitable rooms which require further assessment, which means there are 272 rooms that have been considered in further detail in the assessment. The December 2011 ES Addendum report also states all these remaining rooms were assessed on the assumption they are used as habitable rooms. However some might be non-habitable or bedrooms where there is a lower requirement for daylight. Therefore the testing undertaken has assumed the worst case scenario. A further 70 rooms were found to retain an ADF

level greater than 1.5% set out in the BRE guidelines. As a result 202 rooms were found to experience alterations in VSC, NSL and ADF which fall below the levels recommended in the BRE Guidance.

4.382 Of the 202 rooms so identified, 183 are to be found within the borough boundary. It is worth noting that when examining the results 124 of these rooms already have existing ADF values below the 1.5% living room criteria in the existing condition. Many of these rooms are positioned at lower levels of the property or have inherent architectural features such as recessed areas or overhanging balconies that result in the existing room not meeting the minimum requirements. In many instances these are low level rooms at basement or ground levels and due to their lower-level location already have daylight conditions that do not meet the BRE Guidance.

4.383 The EIA offers an impact significance examination to each of the rooms within the surrounding buildings. The criteria against which the results of the technical analysis are assessed are set out in the BRE Document. Where the results show compliance with the BRE Guidance criteria the impact is described as negligible. The BRE Guidance does not provide mandatory rules on applying impact significance to alteration in daylight and sunlight which exceed guidance. The interpretation of the results must be viewed in terms of the quantum of daylight and/or sunlight lost or gained, not purely upon the percentage of change. The percentage value can therefore be misleading, particularly where the baseline values are small. In these situations, a small change in the quantum of light could represent a high percentage change in the overall figure, implying that there was a significant change in daylight where as in reality the difference is negligible.

4.384 The assessment criteria specified within the BRE Guidance only suggests where a change in daylight will be noticeable to the occupants, it does not further define absolute impacts beyond this. Impacts beyond the levels suggested by the BRE Guidance have been defined as adverse or beneficial; and minor, moderate or major using professional judgement of the applicant’s consultant, and by reference to the criteria set down within the BRE Guidance for each methodology described above. Officers consider this to be a sensible approach.

4.385 The overall assessment of the daylight impact to neighbouring residential properties for the existing baseline shows that: - 92.9% (3587) of surrounding residential rooms will experience a negligible impact to their daylight amenity; - 6.2% (238) will experience a minor adverse impact, which includes all of the rooms which retain at least 1.5% ADF; - 0.7% (27) will experience a moderate adverse impact (24 in LBHF and 3 in RBKC) and; - 0.2% (7) will experience a major adverse impact.

4.386 In the case of the mirrored scenario also carried out by the applicant the results show a slight improvement: - 95.6% of surrounding residential rooms will experience a negligible impact to their daylight amenity; - 3.9% will experience a minor adverse impact; - 0.4% will experience a moderate adverse impact and; - 1 room (0.03%) will experience a major adverse impact.

4.387 Officers have looked specifically at the above results of the rooms that could be impacted in this borough. The results show that BRE breaches are identified

primarily in specific locations, either to existing flats at West Kensington Court or to those in 46-55 Kensington Hall Gardens.

West Kensington Court. 4.388 Located on the north side of the site and A4 West Cromwell Road. This building faces a portion of the site which is completely undeveloped and therefore the vast majority of windows have existing daylight values which are uncharacteristic of an urban environment. As such, it is inevitable that there will be some impact to this building.

4.389 183 out of 234 rooms are able to satisfy the VSC, NSL or ADF criteria which equates to 78% of the rooms in the building. Where the retained values are below guidance, the majority (44 of the 56) of the impacts have been considered to be minor adverse. If one were to consider the impact to the building as a whole, in accordance with the guidance offered by the new BRE Guidance, the overall impact would have been considered minor-moderate adverse as only a small number of rooms are found to be effected. In order to provide a balanced representation of the impacts to the neighbouring buildings which have views over the undeveloped portions of the site, the applicant has assessed the impact of the scheme against the mirrored baseline scenario to provide a more realistic comparison of the impacts to the neighbouring buildings on the basis of a hypothetical massing assuming a typical London street scene exist. The technical analysis shows that 86% of the rooms would satisfy guidance and importantly, when impacts are recorded, the degree to which the reductions breach guidance is considerably reduced.

46-55 Kensington Hall Gardens 4.390 The north facing elevation of this block also looks over a largely undeveloped portion of the site. If the site is to be redeveloped to equal proportions to the neighbouring buildings, it is again inevitable that some impacts will be recorded. 43 of the 50 rooms in this block are able to satisfy VSC, NSL or ADF criteria. The remaining seven rooms which exceed guidance are located at basement and ground floors and the impacts to them have been considered moderate. When assessed against the Mirrored Baseline, the technical results show the impacts would be considered negligible which suggest that the scale and massing of the proposed building is equal to the proportions to 46-55 Kensington Hall Gardens, i.e. the proposal would have no material effect beyond what may be considered a typical London streetscape.

4.391 Overall, officers have concluded that there are 7 rooms out of the 3859 rooms tested (0.2%) which would experience a more significant effect as a result of this development. Again, officers have analysed the impact on each of these rooms for both the existing and mirrored baseline against the development proposal in the tabled below.

Summary of Most Significant Daylight Impacts

Summary of Summary of Impacts Impacts for Room for Existing Baseline Mirrored Property Level References ‘V’ Development Baseline ‘V’ Proposals Development Proposals 11-20 R20/1800 Ground The windows serving When compared Kensington R20/1801 First these rooms are against the

Summary of Summary of Impacts Impacts for Room for Existing Baseline Mirrored Property Level References ‘V’ Development Baseline ‘V’ Proposals Development Proposals Hall located in the flank Mirrored Baseline, Gardens wall of a tight light the percentage well. Both windows alterations are are reliant upon much lower than oblique light passing the Existing over the site and Baseline although consequently, they they still both have low existing technically breach VSC values which BRE Guidance. dictate that they are very sensitive to any increase in massing on site. In both cases, the existing ADF values are also below the 1.5% living room criteria and therefore ADF provides limited insight into the impact to the rooms.

Whilst a clear impact is recorded, setbacks to block NE01-C would limit this impact as far as possible. Both windows are understood to serve the ancillary accommodation to the public house. They are located within a Not Applicable for light well to the rear of Famous 3 this property as R2/1301 First the building and Kings (PH) the windows R1/1302 Second appear to serve a appear to serve a staircase. If this is staircase. assumption is correct, the BRE Guidelines suggest that these rooms need not be considered for daylight and sunlight. The window serving When compared West this room is located in against the Kensington R11/1271 the corner of the Mirrored Baseline, First Court building which is the VSC results flanked by its own show the impacts side return. As such, would only

Summary of Summary of Impacts Impacts for Room for Existing Baseline Mirrored Property Level References ‘V’ Development Baseline ‘V’ Proposals Development Proposals the room is reliant marginally breach upon natural light the BRE reaching the window Guidance. over the undeveloped portion of the site. The constrained location of the window dictates that it has existing VSC levels below guidance and the room is below the 1.5% ADF living room criteria. This window is heavily overhung by a canopy and therefore has a very low existing VSC and ADF value. All of the remaining rooms 28 Lillie in the building are Bridge Not Applicable for R1/4610 Basement able to satisfy the Road this property. daylight criteria which

show that is the architectural feature which is creating the adverse impact rather than the height of the proposed building. The window serving this room is overhung by an access deck at the floor above. The window has an existing VSC value of 36 Lillie just 1% (against a

Bridge target of 27%) and the Not Applicable for R1/4680 Basement Road room has an ADF this property.

value of 0.2% therefore even a small absolute change is presented as a large and somewhat misleading percentage alteration.

Conclusion on daylight: 4.392 Overall having regard to the scale of the development and number of properties tested, this level of compliance is considered by officers to be reasonable

for a high density urban location such as this site. The rooms identified as being subject to a major adverse impact are often as a result of the specific architectural design of the neighbouring building. Therefore whilst there could be some minor breaches of the BRE guidelines, officers consider these would be localised and small in number and magnitude. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policy EN8 of the UDP in this respect.

Sunlight: 4.393 In terms of sunlight, the BRE guidance recommends calculating the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH). It recommends testing any given window during the summer and winter months, serving a habitable room facing 90 degrees due south. Windows facing 90 degrees due north need not be tested as they have no expectation of sunlight. The BRE states a window should receive at least 25% of the total available sunlight, including at least 5% in the winter months (21 September to 21 March). The BRE guide suggests that any reduction in sunlight below this level should be kept to a minimum. If the proposed values fall short of these, then the proposed values should not be less than 0.8 times their previous value in each period.

4.394 The main difference on how sunlight is assessed in the 2011 BRE guidelines is at which point the measurement is performed, which has been moved from testing the inner face of the window to the outer face. Also tested is a reduction in sunlight received over the whole year greater than 4% of the annual probable sunlight hours.

4.395 There are 3815 windows serving 197 properties tested in the June 2012 Addendum compared to 2397 windows tested in the December 2011 ES. The analysis shows that 544 (14.26%) of windows will, following the construction of the Earls Court Development Proposals, experience an increase in their levels of total sunlight. 357 (9.4%) will experience an increase in their levels of winter sunlight.

4.396 3499 (91.7%) of all windows, compared to 2674 (81.1%) as set out in the December 2011 ES Addendum, would experience either a gain, no change or loss in both total and winter sunlight that is fully compliant with BRE Guidance. For the remaining 316 windows, they have been assessed against both the total and winter sunlight requirement to understand the compliance rates against both aspects of the sunlight criteria.

4.397 The overall assessment of the impacts on total sunlight in the June 2012 Addendum Report shows that: 95.8% of their windows will experience a negligible impact; 2.5% will experience a minor adverse impact; 1.1% will experience a moderate adverse impact and; 0.6% will experience a major adverse impact

4.398 22 windows have been considered to experience the most significant impact of which 17 are located properties within the borough boundary. Further analysis of these windows has been performed which shows that 8 serve the main entrance to Falkland House which have no specific requirement for sunlight. A further 7 windows are also located beneath overhanging balconies in West Kensington Court and Falkland House. In such situations, the balcony has the effect of blocking out a significant portion of the sky dome and thus the amount of the available sunlight which inhibits the ability of the window to achieve the BRE criteria following the construction of the proposed development. Finally, there is just a single window

within 39-46 Beaumont Crescent and 11-12-20 Kensington Hall Gardens which experience a more significant impact upon total sunlight.

4.399 In terms of winter sunlight impacts, the construction of the amended Earls Court Development Proposals will result in: 93.4% of windows experiencing a negligible impact; 2% experiencing a minor adverse impact; 1.7% experiencing a moderate adverse impact and; 2.9% experiencing a major adverse impact

4.400 The overall level of compliance in terms of the sunlight availability is considered reasonable in the context of the BRE guidelines for a high density level in an urban location. Taking the above into consideration, on balance officers are of the view that the results of the sunlight impacts are in accordance with UDP policy EN8.

4.401 In conclusion, officers consider that the proposal would result in only a minimal number of neighbouring properties experiencing an impact in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight. However, given that the BRE guidance recognises that in urban areas taller buildings can be expected. It is considered that this impact in terms of daylight and sunlight is negligible and acceptable particularly given the urban context within which the site is located. It is certainly the case that in denser urban environments there will inevitably be some adverse impacts from a development of this scale. Furthermore, within these built up environments the guidelines need to be applied more flexibly. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policy requirements set out in policy EN8 in this respect. Officers have also considered the proposal against the relevant Key Principles of the SPD, subject to challenge, UF28. In terms of daylight and sunlight the new blocks proposed on the edges of the development have been designed to respect the daylight/sunlight of existing neighbouring buildings outside the application site and thus considered to accord with this key principle. Accordingly, officers consider the application is consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

4.402 Overshadowing: New and more stringent methods of assessing permanent sun to ground analysis have been introduced to the 2011 BRE guidelines. There is now a requirement that at least half of any garden or open space should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. If following the completion of a development an existing garden/amenity area does not meet the suggested criteria and the area which can receive some sun is less than 80% of its former value, the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable. The assessment shows that 60% of the assessed gardens or areas of amenity space comply with the 2011 BRE guidelines in the existing baseline. In considering overshadowing assessments, the impact are likely to be worse in winter months when the sun is lower and shadows longer but better in summer months when the sun is in a higher position and therefore shadows are shorter.

4.403 In total 130 areas of amenity space were tested. Some 83.9 % of the gardens were found to have a negligible effect with 6 (4.6%) gardens experiencing a moderate adverse effect and 3 (2.3%) a major adverse effect. These 3 properties are located on the western side of Empress Place (4, 6 and 8). Amendments to the maximum parameters on part of adjacent plot (BW07) have sought to reduce these overshadowing impacts. In conclusion, officers consider there is a high level of compliance with the BRE guidelines and on balance, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policy requirements set out in policy EN8 in this respect.

Empress Place: 4.404 The next three paragraphs relate to Empress Place (2-14) due to specific objections being raised from these premises. Following receipt of these objections, revisions have been made to the proposals involving a reduction in height of the parameter plans to Block E contained in Plot BW07. The existing neighbouring properties have subsequently been tested in the June 2012 Addendum. In summary an improvement in compliance with both daylight and sunlight criteria has been identified. In terms of daylight, all of the windows within 89% (83 out of 93 rooms in 2- 14 Empress Place) of the rooms have satisfied the VSC criteria with a further 4 rooms meeting the NSL requirements. The remaining 6 rooms (4, 6, 8 and 12 Empress Place) were found to only a minor impact as in all cases, the VSC alterations ranged between 21-28% against a BRE criteria of a 20% reduction and all relate to windows at the lowest level of the impacted buildings where slightly greater impacts are to be expected.

4.405 In terms of sunlight 88% (61 out of 69) of the windows with 2-14 Empress Place will meet both the total and winter APSH criteria which represents a material improvement on the December 2011 planning application where 57% for the windows satisfied the sunlight criteria. In relation to total sunlight, 95.7% of the windows will experience a negligible impact and there are no windows experiencing major impacts on total sunlight. In relation to winter sunlight, 88.4% of windows experience a negligible impact. There is also a significant reduction in the number of windows experiencing moderate impacts from 26 to just 4.4%.

4.406 It is clear that the reduced height of Block E has improved the daylight and sunlight impacts to 2-14 Empress Place. The levels of trained total sunlight remain very good and in the majority of cases, comply with the BRE Guidance. Some impacts on winter sunlight remain however this can partially be explained by the fact 2-14 Empress Place face almost due west and therefore, the windows only benefit from afternoon sun, which in the winter months is at a low trajectory in the late afternoon. In terms of overshadowing, the amendments demonstrate there would not be a significant impact on the amenity of these residents and those properties identified above are to some extent already constrained by the location of surrounding properties and the existing terrace fronting Lillie Road.

4.407 In conclusion, officers consider that the proposal would comply with policy requirements set out in policy EN8 in this respect.

Daylight/Sunlight impact on existing estate residents during the phased development 4.408 As set out above, the ES and successive supporting addendums contain consideration of the potential impact on daylight/sunlight and overshadowing of the completed development on the properties outside the site wide application (across both boroughs). The potential levels of impact on these existing properties would vary through the different construction phases. For this reason the testing carried out has been carried out for the worst case scenario based on the maximum parameter development plots which for design reason are unlikely to be built out in their entirety. Officers are satisfied that the impact on these properties has been tested fully using the up to date BRE guidelines, having regard to the cumulative and potential maximum possible quantum of development for the various proposed plots of the development. As stated these are likely to vary through the different anticipated construction phases. The assessment of the completed development concludes that an only a small proportion of the surrounding properties will have an adverse impact.

4.409 The ES has also considered the potential short to medium terms environmental impacts of the development proposals, including the impacts on existing residents of the Gibbs Green and West Kensington estates during the phased development. As part of an overall indicative construction phasing strategy, presented within Chapter 5: Deconstruction, Demolition and Construction of the June 2011 ES and December 2011 ES Addendum, a series of potential impacts (adverse and beneficial) arising as a result of deconstruction/demolition and construction activities have been identified. The potential impacts mentioned include road traffic, pedestrian access, artificial light/light spillage, dust/air quality, noise and vibration, with mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate them. The applicant has also submitted a Phasing Strategy for approval by the Council, which is consistent with the indicative timeframes in the ES.

4.410 The deconstruction/demolition and construction programme for the development site includes the proposed demolition of the Gibbs Green and West Kensington housing estates. As in the case of the rest of the development site this would be carried out over a phased programme and would be dependent upon a number of interrelated factors. The ES notes there could potentially be an overlap between different phases across the development site. The ES also sets out that the proposed relocation strategy of existing residents on the estates would also be phased and each phase of demolition would be undertaken following the relocation of the affected properties. A number of development scenarios could therefore arise which would produce a diverse number of potential impacts to the retained estate properties.

4.411 To assist with the assessment of the deconstruction/demolition and construction impacts, broad phases of development have been sub divided into indicative one year ‘time slices’, based on anticipated programme of works of the development plots sought for approval. These time slices identify in some detail the proposed mitigation measures, including potential areas of environmental protection for neighbouring properties (including construction screens, maintenance of utilities and drainage etc). The position of the construction screens would reflect the areas of relocation and then subsequent demolition in order to maintain acceptable conditions for existing residents who have not yet been relocated. All the properties inside the construction screens would have been vacated.

4.412 Testing of the potential impact on existing estate residents on daylight/sunlight through the different indicative phases has also been considered in a daylight/sunlight report submitted by the applicants. This report considers the interim effects of the development proposals over this indicative construction phasing on the amenities enjoyed by residents on the estates outside construction screens.

4.413 In discussion with officers, a series of interim assessments on the impact on existing residents have been carried out looking at specific time slices based on the indicative construction phasing. Those selected are considered to present the most significant impacts to the retained buildings. Construction years 4, 8 and 10 have been identified and a selection of properties identified retained outside the construction screens have been tested against the maximum development parameters of adjacent development plots or the worst case scenario. Officers consider that the timeslices selected and the individual properties assessed provides sufficient information to make an informed judgement of the likely impacts of daylight and sunlight on residents remaining in the estates during the phased development.

4.414 In relation to daylight, the assessment shows that the majority of the effects to the retained buildings would accord with the BRE guidelines. The most

noticeable alterations would occur in Year 4 to the properties in Marchbank Road and Churchward House. In the case of Marchbank Road properties the indicative phasing shows that this impact would be for just a single year as these buildings would be located within the construction screen by the following year. For Churchward House, the assessment concludes that this property would experience an impact for a longer period and therefore this impact could be reduced by extending the construction screens and vacating the properties therein.

4.415 In relation to sunlight the assessment concludes that the impacts relate primarily to winter sunlight levels rather than a reduction of sunlight throughout the year. Impacts to the rear of the Aisgill Avenue properties has been highlighted however the indicative phasing plan identifies that this would only be for a period of one year.

4.416 This is an outline application and the proposed development cannot proceed until approval of reserved matters. On submission of any application(s) for approval at reserved matter stage, a further daylight/sunlight assessment will be necessary and will be required through the s.106 agreement to assess the effects on retained residents within West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates at that particular point. Such assessment would need to confirm the nature of any effects and identify any associated mitigation, which would be secured through the s.106 agreement. Such mitigation measures might require the enlargement of ‘buffer zones’ between construction areas and existing residential units to ensure any possible adverse effects over any prolonged period are minimised. The s.106 agreement will ensure that in the event of finding impacts which are unacceptable, those properties which are unacceptably affected will have to be vacated prior to the commencement of development.

4.417 On this basis and in view of the s.106 controls, the impacts on the residents during the phased development is considered to be acceptable and accord with UDP policy EN8. Officers consider that there are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.418 Officers have also considered the proposal against the relevant Key Principles of the SPD, subject to challenge, UF28. It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated due regard to daylight and sunlight of the existing residents on the estates through the indicative interim testing carried out. It is also acknowledged that further daylight and sunlight testing will be necessary to ensure that new blocks located on the edges of the remaining properties on the estates have been designed to respect the daylight/sunlight required during any interim period. Key principle PS2 says that the phasing strategy should demonstrate that the proposed redevelopment together with the provision of the existing housing would be carried out with the minimum disruption to existing residents. Officers consider that subject to the above- mentioned s.106 provisions, the impacts on daylight and sunlight based on the phased development is acceptable and therefore accords with this part of the SPD. Therefore, officers are of the opinion that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issues whether the SPD is taken into account or not.

Impacts on future residential occupiers of the development 4.419 There has also been some assessment concerning the potential impact of the new build on future residential occupiers within the site boundary. This is an Outline application seeking approval for access and the amount and use of development with all other matters reserved. Testing at this stage can therefore only be carried out on the completed development, with each development plot built out to the maximum proposed parameters. Detailed daylight/sunlight testing where the

layout and design of buildings is still be finalised is therefore not possible at this stage. An illustrative daylight and sunlight design guide for the future residential occupiers of the proposed development were carried out as part of the December 2011 ES Addendum.

4.420 This internal daylight/sunlight report for the proposed development focuses primarily on two specific representative areas of the master plan, testing within the EC1 area and the Tall Buildings area in this borough (BW04 and NE06). The report is divided into two main sections. The first covers an approach to daylight and sunlight availability that could be applicable to the entire residential component of the site. The assessment is based on the maximum parameter plans and provides illustrative massing models through coloured façade maps, illustrative internal residential layouts and daylight matrix models. The matrix models have been undertaken to provide future designers with guidance of the varying levels of daylight with possible design solutions concerning daylight availability for residential accommodation. Viable design solutions are proposed to ensure rooms are adequately mitigated. Sunlight and overshadowing to 3 main public amenity spaces within the areas mentioned including the Lost River Park are also covered. On balance the scheme is considered acceptable in this regard and would be covered in more detail at a reserved matters stage.

4.421 Officers have also considered the proposal against the relevant Key Principles of the SPD, subject to challenge, UF28. The height/massing and location of development plots within the application site have been designed having due regard to the amenities of future residents with both design solutions proposed to ensure the amenities of future occupant can adequately be mitigated. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Outlook and Privacy 4.422 LBHF UDP Standards S13.1, S13.2 and S13.3 provide guidance on the loss of outlook and the loss of privacy of neighbouring properties arising from new development. Standard S13.1 of the UDP seeks to ensure that residential accommodation has sufficient and appropriate outlook. Standard S13.2 relates to loss of privacy and states that new windows should normally be positioned so that the distance to any residential windows is not less than 18 metres taken from the centre, as measured by in arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed window..

4.423 The final location of the buildings within the development is reserved for future consideration. However two Parameter Plans for approval at the outline stage do allow for an assessment of the issue of outlook and privacy to be made. The plans fix the areas of space between development plots and the amount of deviation for the building line within the development plot so as to ensure buildings at the edges of development plots facing existing properties achieve the minimum distance of 18 metres.

Retail 4.424 The site wide development option proposes up to 26,732.sqm of Class A1-A5 retail floorspace. Of this, the majority some 23,318sqm is proposed for the LBHF application site. All the development plots in LBHF include possible retail use.

4.425 The applicant’s retail concept is to provide a high quality mixed use centre to provide for the needs of workers and residents within the redevelopment; and to

provide a “heart” that encompasses retail and leisure facilities. The concept is not to provide for mainstream national multiples representation but to concentrate on high- end, boutique and independent comparison retailers who can help make the place special and animate the main “High Street”. The retail frontages would be mainly along the east-west High Street, with larger units envisaged in a new central core. There are no real comparables, but places such as Marylebone High Street and parts of Chiswick have been cited.

4.426 The applicant’s retail approach to the development is underpinned by the experience they have gained through managing Covent Garden. Capco have a curatorial approach to leasing which has been demonstrated through the transformation of Covent Garden over the past five years. The same approach to leasing is proposed for the “High Street”

4.427 When Capco acquired Covent Garden in 2006 they quickly defined a clear long term vision of the type of place they wished to create in order to change perceptions that Covent Garden was tired, full of mass market tourists, uninteresting high street chains and poor quality restaurants. The place was being left behind by more desirable alternatives such as Regent Street, Marylebone High Street and Westbourne Grove, which were benefitting from the unique opportunity to manipulate tenant mix that predominant or sole ownership provides.

4.428 As well as an eclectic range of shops, bars and restaurants, it is the applicant’s intention for the proposed High Street to be a lively and diverse focus for the community. An enterprise centre would have strong links to retail spaces to encourage local entrepreneurialism. A new primary school, a nursery and integrated health hub, will also sit alongside the commercial mix.

4.429 The applicant’s anticipate that the way people shop will change over the coming years and the intention is for the new High Street to have flexible spaces that can change as the nature of retail evolves. In a bid to move away from the usual line up of high street brands and chains, the applicant will actively encourage and develop a healthy mix of independents and brands from around the world which excel in innovative concepts, products, store design and great service. A mix that may encompass start ups businesses to prestige global brands with heritage will ensure that the High Street becomes a special place for the people who will live and work in Earls Court

4.430 In assessing the acceptability of the proposed retail regard is had to the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan, Core Strategy policies and, other relevant planning policies.

4.431 National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 24, 26 and 27 are considered relevant and state 24. Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.

26. When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the

development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).

27. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.

4 The London Plan policy 4.7 states that the scale of retail, commercial and leisure development should be related to the size, role and function of the centre and its catchment. Retail development should be focused on site within centres, or if no in centre sites are available, on sites on the edge of centres that are, or can be, well integrated within the existing centre and public transport . This policy also states that out of centre development should be resisted.

4.432 Policy 4.8 states the majority of comparison goods capacity should be directed to International, Metropolitan and Major Centres whilst convenience retail development should be encourages in smaller District and Neighbourhood Centres.

4.433 LBHF Core Strategy Strategic Policy C sets out the hierarchy of town and local centres. Fulham is designated a Major Centre and North End Road (West Kensington) is allocated as a Key Local Centre. The policy also states The priority for Fulham town centre is to regenerate the northern end of the centre which is run down and in need of significant new investment by the provision of more and improved shopping. The focus will be shopping and local services, and leisure activities that do not have adverse impacts on surrounding residential areas.

4.434 Policy FRA 1 states There should be a phased comprehensive mixed use residential led masterplan for the Opportunity Area that provides housing, employment, hotels, leisure, offices and associated facilities, including retail to cater for day to day needs. Of little weight is policy C1 of the draft DM DPD relating to promoting vibrant and attractive town centres.

4.435 RBKC Core Strategy relevant retail policies are: Policy CV1- Deficiency in local shopping will be addressed with new town centres at Kensal and Latimer and the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area in particular.

Earls Court - Policy CP10 and associated vision –The Council will ensure an attractive ‘urban-village’ environment and will resist development proposals that will prejudice the opportunities for the wider regeneration of the area. .

Earls Court Exhibition Centre - Policy CA7 – The Earls Court Exhibition Centre site within RBKC should provide the following: • Retail and other uses within the A Class to serve the day-to-day needs of the new development;

Location of New Shop Uses - Policy CF1 - The Council will ensure vital and viable town centres through a town centre first approach to new retail floorspace. In order to deliver this the Council will support the creation of new floorspace within centres, require new retail development with a floor area of 400 sq m GEA or more to be located in higher order centres or within sites adjoining such centres.

Retail Development within Town Centres - PolicyCF2 – The Council will promote vital and viable town centres to ensure the character and diversity of the Borough’s centres are maintained. In order to achieve this, the Council will require the scale and nature of town centre development to reflect the role and function of the centre .... A range of shop unit sizes in new major retail development (resisting the amalgamation of units) and also the provision of affordable shops in new large scale retail development

4.436 The RBKC UDP s eeks to : • the provision of shop units as part of appropriate development schemes (Policy S4). • a range of shop unit sizes in shopping developments” (Policy S5). • “large new retail development located on sites at the edge of existing shopping centres will only be acceptable where there are no suitable, viable and available in-centre sites. (Policy S25).

4.437 Taking the retail components as a whole, officers consider that the quantum and type of retail proposed effectively comprises the creation of a new district centre, with the majority of this centre sitting within an out of centre location. Given the nature of the proposed retail, people from outside the area will visit the site for retail purposes and a centre such as that proposed would not serve the local population only.

4.438 The applicant’s Retail and Leisure Assessment seeks to demonstrate there is sufficient capacity to support the proposed level of retail, food/drink use without materially harming any existing shopping centres. In terms of the sequential approach the Assessment concludes that there are no sequentially preferable sites either within or on the edge of existing town centres. In respect of impact the Assessment concludes that the development will not adversely affect the planned investment in existing centres in either LBHF or RBKC.

4.439 Retail consultants Roger Tym and Partners have independently assessed the applicant’s Retail and Leisure Assessment against policy requirements. Issues raised relate to the amount of retail proposed which in their view is above the level normally associated with a local centre and the sequential approach.

4.440 The applicants have recognised that the level of retail proposed is above a purely local level and is more akin to a district centre. They however consider the scale of the proposed retail development to be acceptable for a number of reasons:

• The level of retail floorspace is necessary for place-making purposes to help deliver the vision for the site and create a successful and viable place for residents, workers and visitors. • The proposed level of comparison floorspace would account for less than 20% of the total capacity for comparison floorspace identified in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area study area by 2026 and as such, over 80% of the RTP identified comparison capacity is still available for future, appropriate retail developments in existing centres. • The worst case impact assessments assume no retained expenditure from residents/workers of the development and the impacts identified are entirely acceptable.

4.441 In terms of the sequential approach the applicants acknowledged it is difficult to argue there are no vacant units/small units in existing centres that could

accommodate a certain level of new retail floorspace. Based on the comprehensive nature and scale of development proposed and the Opportunity Area designation of the site, the applicants however consider a flexible approach to the sequential assessment is necessary and they further consider that the proposed quantum of retail is required for place making purposes to help create an active, vibrant and attractive place. To achieve this, the retail component of the development must be of a scale and quality to activate key primary routes within the development and support the large number of new residents, workers and visitors. It should also be noted that the development will be phased over an approximate 20 year period with an element of retail floorspace included in each phase as the resident and worker population increases. Small retail development located across the various existing centres in their view would not facilitate the place making objectives and the overall strategy to create a successful place at Earls Court.

4.442 The applicants consider that the type and quality of retail proposed at Earls Court particularly comparison retail will be different from that in existing centres such as Fulham, North End Road and Earl’s Court Road. The comparison retail is likely to be largely boutique, high end retail with many independents, which in the opinion of the applicants would not be in direct competition with the type and form of retail in neighbouring centres. The type of retail proposed would benefit and fit in with the applicant’s vision for the site and such retail would not be directed to the surrounding existing centres as the comparison offer is not compatible with the role, offer and management regime associated with the existing centres. Consequently, the applicants consider that the type of retail proposed at the site is not suitable for the suggested retail sites in existing centres and future retail investment in these centres is likely to be of a type and function that complements and enhances the existing offer in these centres.

4.443 The quantum of retail proposed within the application exceeds that envisaged in the London Plan and both borough’s Core Strategies. Officers have assessed the Retail Impact Assessment accompanying the application and consider that the level of retail proposed will not have an adverse impact on existing centres. Officers have also considered the applicant’s sequential test and believe the applicant’s assessment to fail it. Officers acknowledge the place-making benefits that retail in this location could create, particularly with regard to creating a successful, active and vibrant place. Regard has been had by officers to the advice of consultants Roger Tym and Partners, who raise concerns regarding the applicant’s approach to the sequential test and the applicant’s conclusions on capacity. Roger Tym and Partners state that although they have issues with the methodology, they do not regard the issues as being fatal to the scheme. They are considered to be deficiencies that can be rectified by negotiation, planning conditions and Sec 106 obligations and Roger Tym and Partners further recommend that a range of controls are put in place to ensure delivery of the retail concept proposed.

4.444 Accordingly, a Retail Management Strategy will be prepared and included within a S.106 Agreement covering the following topics: • Phasing (and triggers) • Limits on comparison floorspace • Quantum controls by block (including phasing) • Comparison/convenience split • Limits on unit sizes • Maximum quantum of non A1 uses (and in which blocks) • Prohibition of certain uses • Measures for supporting independent retailers

• Controlling mezzanines.:

4.445 Officers have had regard to the advice of consultants Roger Tym and Partners and are satisfied that any potential harm can be resolved by the use of these controls and as such it is considered there will be no harmful impact on the surrounding centres as a result of the proposal.

4.446 National planning policy focuses on economic growth and the regeneration of sites for high density mixed use development. Furthermore, significant emphasis is placed upon creating sustainable communities with easy access to places of work, shops and facilities. At a regional level, the London Plan identifies the potential and suitability of Opportunity Areas to accommodate new town centres as a result of high density mixed use development. At local level the objective to create a mixed use development with town centre uses is set out in both the LBHF and RBKC Core Strategies. The application is considered in accordance with these policies and officers do not consider that there are other material considerations which indicate that the permission should be withheld.

4.447 Officers have gone on to consider the relevant sections of the SPD. The key objectives for retail are: New comparison retail demand from the new residents should be met in existing town centres. In Fulham Town Centre there is an additional opportunity that should be taken to extend the town centre north along North End Road and Retail to meet the day to day needs of the new resident and worker population in addition to the extended Fulham Town Centre should be clustered around underground stations and in a new local centre within the OA which will also complement the new cultural and visitor facilities .

4.448 The key objectives are reiterated in key principles RS1, RS2 and RS3 of the SPD. Further Key principle RS4 states: ‘’The provision of retail floorspace should reflect the phasing of the development and be related to the day to day needs of those living and working in the OA at each phase.’; and Key principle RS5 states: ‘The authorities will control the nature of new retail proposed in the OA by securing a binding Retail Management Plan as part of any planning agreements.’ This approach is also consistent with Key Principle RS3 of the adopted SPD.

4.449 Officers consider that through the controls in the s.106 agreement mentioned above, the application is consistent with the SPD guidance. Officers are of the view that there are therefore no relevant reasons to refuse the application on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not.

Social Infrastructure 4.450 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 38 states: For large scale residential developments in particular, planning policies should promote a mix of uses in order to provide opportunities to undertake day-to – day activities including work on site. Where practical, particularly within large scale developments key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties.

4.451 London Plan policies 3.17 ,3.18 and 3.19 seek to • Ensure that the adequate provision of social infrastructure and community facilities are provided in major areas of new development and regeneration in light of local and strategic needs assessments. • Support the provision of high quality healthcare facilities in areas of identified need, particularly in places with accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking

• Support the provision of early years, primary and secondary school and further and higher education facilities adequate to meet the demands of a growing and changing population.

4.452 LBHF Core Strategy strategic site policy FRA1 states that new local educational, health and community facilities should be provided.

4.453 LBHF Core Strategy policy CF1 seeks to: Provide borough wide high quality accessible and inclusive facilities and services for the community by encouraging the co-location of community facilities and services where opportunities arise; supporting the retention of existing healthcare facilities and assisting in securing sites for future healthcare provision;… seeking the improvement of school provision including...requiring the building of new primary schools as appropriate and applicable to the need generated by development proposals in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area improving the range of leisure, recreation, sport, arts and cultural facilities…seeking new facilities in particular major new leisure and recreational facilities in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area protecting all existing community facilities and services throughout the borough where there is an identified need..

4.454 LBHF UDP seeks to: • Resist any loss of premises currently used by voluntary and community groups and will require their replacement in any redevelopment. It will also try to make available suitable local premises to such groups, including their provision as a community benefit in commercial developments, where this is appropriate ( Policy CS5). Of little weight is policy D1 of the draft DM DPD relating to the enhancement of community services.

4.455 The RBKC Core Strategy seeks to: • Protect or enhance social and community uses throughout the borough by permitting new, and the expansion of existing uses which predominantly serve or provide benefits to the Borough residents except where proposals would result in a shared residential/community and social entrance. Land and buildings currently in use or last used for social or community purposes will be protected Policy CK1.

4.456 The RBKC UDP seeks to: • Resist the loss of accommodation for social and community use (Policy SC2). • Negotiate planning obligations to replace or relocate accommodation for social and community uses lost in development schemes ( Policy SC3). • Encourage the provision of new social and community facilities which meet local needs (Policy SC4). • Negotiate planning obligations to provide social and/or community facilities in association with development schemes where appropriate (Policy SC6). • Negotiate the provision of workplace nurseries (Policy SC9). • Resist any proposal for education and training facilities unless intended to provide primarily for local needs, (Policy SC10).

4.457 When new developments result in an increase in the demand for social infrastructure appropriate provision needs to be made for new or improved facilities

to address the increased demand. A residential development of the scale proposed would inevitably place additional demands on existing services. The main areas of demand would fall upon education and health as the residential units would attract families with children leading to an increase in demand for these services.

Education 4.458 The demand for education provision arising from the development can be assessed. The site wide child yield calculations lead to the requirement for a new two Form of Entry (FoE) primary school. The total proposed provision is for 420 pupil places. 90 nursery spaces are also required.

4.459 The new primary school is likely to be located to the west of the site, along with 60 of the nursery places. The other 30 nursery places are likely to be located in the Brompton Village or West Kensington Village areas of the masterplan for the site. The provision of a primary school and nursery facilities is considered in accordance with national planning policy, London Plan policy and relevant core strategy and UDP policies. The s.106 agreement will have clauses relating to specification and securing delivery.

4.460 Officers consider that the secondary school place demand arising from the site wide development proposals do not necessitate the provision of an on-site facility. As there is no capacity in local schools, financial contributions would be provided to be spent on expanding existing secondary schools in the vicinity of the Opportunity Area to mitigate the impact of the development. The s.106 agreement will have clauses securing the contribution.

4.461 The provision of the primary and nursery schools and off-site contributions to secondary education are considered in accordance with national planning policy, London Plan policy and relevant core strategy and UDP policies and officers do not consider that there are other material considerations which indicate that the permission should be withheld.

4.462 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle SC1 requires planning applications to be assessed against borough child yield formulas in order to provide the relevant educational floorspace and associated fit out costs to cater for the population of the area. Officers have assessed the application against the borough child yield formulas and are satisfied that the facilities and contributions being secured through the section 106 agreement will be sufficient to cater for the demands on educational places generated by the development. Accordingly, officers consider the applicants offer to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Health 4.463 The site wide proposals generate the need for 6.6 General Practioners (GPs) and 6.0 dental practitioners. The applicants Section 106 offer includes a health facility, fit out and rent on reasonable terms. The Primary Care Trust (PCT) have identified that they do not consider this facility to be of a suitable size to cater for their needs. Officers have considered the applicant’s offer. Having compared the facility to the similar facilities in the borough, officers are satisfied that the size of the facility offered by the applicant will be sufficient for the purposes of the PCT (or future health provider) and is satisfactory in order to mitigate against the impacts of development. The Section 106 agreement will have clauses securing its delivery. The provision of the facility is considered in accordance with national planning policy, London Plan policy and relevant core strategy and UDP policies and officers do not consider that

there are other material considerations which indicate that the permission should be withheld.

4.464 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle SC2 requires the size of the health facility to be based on the population generated by the development. For a population of over 10,800, the methodology takes account of the need for the health centre to respond to future changes in the way that health centres are provided, recognising that health facilities should offer more than the services offered by GPs. The development generates a population of 11,944. Using the methodology in the SPD, a facility of 1,493sqm would be required. The applicant’s offer is for a facility of 1,095sqm. Officers consider that the size of facility offered by the developer is sufficient to mitigate against the impacts of development and that the generic calculation within the SPD overstates need. The requirement for a Primary Care Centre for a development creating a population of over 10,800, as set out in the SPD, is considered to go beyond pure mitigation and to be a step towards future-proofing in order to respond to changing patterns in healthcare usage and provision. Accordingly, officers consider the applicants offer to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account.

Community space: 4.465 The floorspace lost by the demolition of the two tenant halls currently on the site will be reprovided. There will also be new community space to meet the demand of the new community. The application proposes 2,000 sqm of community floorspace as part of the overall 25,760 m2 of education / health / community / culture and leisure floorspace proposed for the site. 200sqm of this is to replace existing facilities on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. The other 1,800sqm will constitute a community hub, which will include a library and has the potential to also include multi faith space, youth space, children’s centre, training and meeting space, adult learning and training space, police shop and halls for hire. The provision of this floorspace is considered in accordance with national planning policy, London Plan policy and relevant core strategy and UDP policies The type and nature of the community facilities will be dependent on further discussion with the local authorities and key stakeholders and controlled through appropriate planning obligations in the Sec 106 agreement.

4.466 In view of the above, officers consider that the proposal accords with the development plan and that there are no other material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.467 Officers have also considered the relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle SC7 requires redevelopment deliver a community hub which should include a library as well as multi-faith use space, children’s centre, affordable and flexible training and meeting space, adult learning and training space and halls for hire for use by the voluntary sector and residents. The s.106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub which is considered to satisfy this principle and therefore officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this basis whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Culture 4.468 The site of Earls Court has a long history of cultural, entertainment and leisure activities going back to the late 1800s. The Exhibition Centres are internationally recognised for hosting a wide range of cultural, entertainment and

sporting events. The applications propose the demolition of the Earls Court Exhibition Centres, totalling 143,129sqm of floorspace.

4.469 The Mayor’s London Plan (2011), LBHF Core Strategy (2011) and RBKC Core Strategy (2011) all set an expectation that the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres will be demolished and redeveloped as part of a phased comprehensive mixed use residential led masterplan for the area. The principle of the loss of the exhibition centres is therefore clearly set in these development plan documents.

4.470 The importance of London’s cultural and creative sectors is recognised in Policy 4.6 of the Mayor’s London Plan. Annex A of the London Plan, which sets out the policy direction for the Opportunity Area identifies the need for development to provide a strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction .

4.471 LBHF’s Core Strategy sets out an expectation that any phased mixed use masterplan for the Opportunity Area should include a major arts, leisure or entertainment activity. LBHF Core Strategy Policy CF1 likewise requires new culture facilities to be delivered in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. Further, RBKC’s Core Strategy in policy CA7 identifies the need for redevelopment to provide a cultural facility, noting the cultural importance of the Earl’s Court area which contributes to the distinctive Earl’s Court ‘brand’.

4.472 The applicants own the Olympia Exhibition complex and have sought to increase its capacity in order that many of the events held at the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres will be able to be relocated there. Nonetheless, the complex remains capable of operating successfully, as recently shown in its use during the Olympics. Officers consider that on balance the principle of the loss of the existing Exhibition Centres set out in strategic site policy FRA1 should be given greater weight than the general policies that support its retention as regeneration of the Opportunity Area as a whole is a council objective and priority. This is particularly so when the applicants propose to provide 25,760 sqm (GEA) of education, health, community, culture and leisure floorspace within the application site. The Section 106 agreement will also secure the provision of a ‘significant cultural facility’ within the site, in order to satisfy the requirements of the London Plan and borough Core Strategies. Separately, the applicants have compiled a Cultural Strategy which sets out the methods which the applicants will use both during and post construction in order to embed culture into the development. These mechanisms will be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

4.473 It is considered that given the principle on the loss of the existing Exhibition Centres in policy and the mechanisms put in place in the Section 106 agreement, to secure a significant cultural facility, the loss of the exhibition centres is considered acceptable.

4.474 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. It includes a Cultural Strategy chapter setting out a number of key principles on culture. This includes key principle CS1 which says that any redevelopment involves the loss of EC1 and EC2 exhibition centres should create a new strategic leisure, cultural and visitor destination and key principle CS2 requiring the provision of at least one large cultural facility to form an anchor, together with a number of other such facilities, to form a cultural destination. The outline proposal includes the provision of floorspace for such a use and the s.106 agreement will secure its provision. Key Principle CS3 requires redevelopment to provide affordable artists studios. The community space that is being secured through the Section 106 agreement will be capable of providing affordable incubator units, as required by Key Principle ES5 of the SPD, which would

be able to be used by artists. Key Principle CS4 requires redevelopment to use art and culture to engage residents through the phased construction of the development. This is committed to in the applicant’s Cultural Strategy, whose mechanisms will be secured through the Cultural Implementation Plan in the Section 106 agreement.

Sports and Leisure 4.475 London Plan Policy 3.20 of the Mayor’s London Plan (2011) promotes applications that improve access to sports and leisure provision. The Mayor’s London Plan recognises the importance of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. Policy 2.4Ch states that ‘ the Mayor will, and boroughs should take opportunities presented by the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and their legacy to increase participation in sport and physical activity’ . Policy CF1 of LBHF’s Core Strategy identifies the Opportunity Area as a place where it will seek major new leisure and recreation facilities. RBKC’s Core Strategy (2010) also recognises the importance of access to sports and leisure, stating in para 29.2.4 that planning obligations will be negotiated to ensure access to such facilities.

4.476 The applicants propose to provide 25,760 sqm (GEA) of education, health, community, culture and leisure floorspace. The Section 106 agreement will secure an affordable access sports centre of a minimum of 2,500sqm and the detailed drafting will ensure that the facility is capable of developing at least one sport to an elite standard, in order to continue the legacy of the use of the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres for volleyball during the Olympic and Paralympic games. This is considered to satisfy the policies in the London Plan and the boroughs’ Core Strategies. Officers also consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.477 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle SC4 states a range of indoor and outdoor sports and leisure facilities to cater for the needs of the future population should be provided as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Key Principle SC5 states that sports facilities must allow at least one sport to be developed to an elite standard. The Section 106 agreement will secure an affordable access sports centre of a minimum of 2,500sqm and the detailed drafting will ensure that the facility is capable of developing at least one sport to an elite standard. Accordingly, officers consider the application is to be consistent with the guidance in the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or is not taken into account

Employment and Business Use

Loss of existing uses

4.478 The application proposes the redevelopment of a number of existing employment generating uses. These include the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres Transport for London Lillie Bridge Depot, Ashfield House which is also used by Transport for London, Rootsteins mannequin makers on Beaumont Avenue, plus a number of smaller businesses/employers.

4.479 Policies 4.2 and 4.4 of the London Plan (2011), LBHF Core Strategy (2011) Strategic Policy B, strategic policies FRA and FRA 1 and borough wide policy LE1 are of relevance and comprise the appropriate provisions of the development plan in relation to employment uses and their loss from the application site. Although of little weight as a material consideration, policy B1 of the submission DM DPD seeks to support new employment uses and the intensification of existing

employment uses whereas Policy B3 seeks appropriate employment and training initiatives for local people.

4.480 In respect of employment uses, the Core Strategy policies follow on from those policies in the London Plan. The current policy framework in the development plan seeks to encourage the retention of valuable, appropriately located employment property, whilst releasing surplus, inappropriately located property to provide for housing or mixed use..

4.481 Strategic Policy B seeks to support the local economy by providing for inward investment in the preferred locations and by the protection of existing employment land where there is significant existing employment. However, unused or underused employment land may be permitted to change use to residential or mixed use if there is no clear benefit to the economy in continued employment use . More clarification on this is included in Borough wide policy LE1. It seeks to ensure that accommodation is available for all sizes of business including small and medium sized enterprises by • requiring flexible space suitable for small and medium sized enterprises in large new business developments; and • retaining premises capable of providing continued accommodation for local services of significant employment, unless (i) continued use would adversely impact on residential areas; (ii) an alternative use would give a demonstrably greater benefit that could not be provided on another site; (iii) it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the property is no longer required for employment purposes; and (iv) an alternative use would enable support for essential public services and is otherwise acceptable.

4.482 With regard to part (a) of Core Strategy Policy LE1, the development proposes the provision of up to 97,883sqm of office floorspace across both application sites. Of this, up to 84,701sqm (GEA) floorspace would be provided within the LBHF application site. Within this, an element of this office floorspace will be secured as ‘affordable’ small and medium sized office space through the Section 106 agreement, which will be targeted at start up businesses. The proposals are therefore considered to satisfy this part of the policy.

4.483 With regard to part (b) of Core Strategy Policy LE1, the premises within the Opportunity Area are still being used and are capable of continuing to be used. Policy FRA1 identifies the Opportunity Area as being appropriate for redevelopment. Policy FRA1 is considered by officers to outweigh any objection to the loss of existing uses, outlined in Policy LE1.

4.484 With regard to the Earls Court Exhibition Centres, para 8.42 welcomes the continued presence of the Earls Court and Olympia Group in the borough because of their contribution to the local economy and in providing jobs and opportunities to residents. The applicants own the Olympia Exhibition complex and have sought and received planning permission to increase its capacity in order that many of the events held at the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres will be able to be relocated there.

4.485 With regard to the other business uses in the application site, the Section 106 agreement will require that the developer uses reasonable endeavours to incorporate existing business premises (other than the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres) into their development proposals. Officers take the view that in all the circumstances, this is an appropriate and proportionate requirement. Separately the

applicants proposals incorporate the reprovision of the Transport for London Lillie Bridge Depot within the undercroft space created by the proposed deck over the West London Line. The delivery of the Depot will be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

4.486 The applicants have clarified that the proposal does not involve any redevelopment of change of use of the Empress State Buildings. Officers consider that the application documentation does not clearly set this out. Officers have therefore included a condition which prevents the material change of use of the Empress State Building.

4.487 As stated previously, policy FRA1 identifies the Opportunity Area as being appropriate for redevelopment. Policy FRA1 is considered by officers to outweigh any objection to the loss of existing businesses, outlined in Policy LE1. In conclusion, officers consider that the loss of the existing premises and the provision of new employment floorspace with the s.106 agreement accords with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.488 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle ES1 requires existing business floorspace within the Opportunity Area to be renewed and modernised or replaced through development proposals to maintain and intensify existing employment provision. The Section 106 agreement will require that the developer uses reasonable endeavours to incorporate existing business premises into their development proposals, which is considered to satisfy this Key Principle and therefore officers’ view is that there are no reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Quantum of employment provision

4.489 Core Strategy Policy FRA1 identifies the Opportunity Area as being capable of providing for approximately 5,000-6,000 new jobs in LBHF, whilst Annex A of the London Plan identifies the Opportunity Area as having an indicative employment capacity of 7,000 new jobs.

4.490 The development proposes the provision of up to 97,883sqm of office floorspace The applicant’s Retail and Leisure Assessment Addendum identifies that along with other employment generating uses (including retail, leisure, culture, etc, this would generate approximately 9,900 additional permanent jobs.

4.491 The amount of floorspace and number of jobs is consistent with both the London Plan and LBHF Core Strategy jobs figures and is therefore considered acceptable and officers also consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.492 Officers have also had regard to the Key Principle ES2 of the challenged Earls Court and West Kensington SPD which identifies that proposals in the Opportunity Area should incorporate additional employment floorspace totalling approximately 90,000sqm (GEA). The application is considered to accord with the SPD provision and therefore officers’ view is that there are no reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Location and phasing of employment provision

4.493 LBHF Core Strategy Strategic Policy B sets out the strategic policy for the location of employment uses. The policy identifies Hammersmith Town Centre as the preferred office location in the borough, with the White City Opportunity Area acting as a secondary office location. The policy also identifies the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area as being appropriate for offices, although of a quantity that does not adversely affect objectives for Hammersmith Town Centre and White City. LBHF Core Strategy Policy FRA1 identifies an indicative jobs target of 5,000- 6,000 jobs within the Opportunity Area. As outlined in the previous section, the quantum of office provision is considered to be acceptable; however, the location and phasing of this quantum of office space is equally important in terms of its likely impacts on the viability of Hammersmith Town Centre and White City as the borough’s primary and secondary office locations.

4.494 The applicant’s Office Assessment Addendum identifies that office floorspace will be delivered in predominantly three phases: • Approximately 2,148 sq m will be delivered in the early phase in years 5/6. • Approximately 47,269 sq m will be delivered around High Street/Broadway junction between years 10-12. • Approximately 48,415 sq m will be delivered in West Kensington village between years 15-19.

4.495 It is considered that the proposed phasing of the office floorspace should protect the viability of Hammersmith Town Centre and White City as the borough’s primary and secondary office locations, as set out within LBHF Core Strategy Strategic Policy B. The location of office floorspace is considered to be broadly appropriate. The phasing and location of office floorspace will be controlled through 106 agreement through the requirement for a land use plan. Therefore, officers consider that the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.496 Officers have also considered the proposal against the SPD. Key Principle ES3 requires new business floorspace to be phased so that up to half of the overall quantum is delivered in the early phases of redevelopment of the Opportunity Area, with the remainder being provided in the later phases. The Section 106 agreement will put in place triggers to control the delivery of business floorspace, which is considered to satisfy this Key Principle and therefore officers’ view is that there are no reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account

Construction Training and Employment

4.497 The applicant’s Environment Statement identifies that over the proposed 20 year build-out period for applications 1 and 2, the demolition and construction process will generate total net construction related employment of 35,867 person years, or an average of 1,793 construction works per year over the construction period.

4.498 Policy 4.12 of the London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy both require strategic development proposals to support local employment, skills development and training initiatives.

4.499 In order to ensure that local people are able to access employment during construction, the council is keen to set in place mechanisms that produce tangible benefits to local residents.

4.500 The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a Construction Training Centre (or a financial contribution to the same value). Construction Training Centres act as focal points in the development providing training facilities and qualification courses in order that local residents are able to ‘skill up’ in time to compete for available jobs.

4.501 The Section 106 agreement will also secure funding for Workplace Coordinators, who work closely with the development team, are visible on-site during the construction phase and whose role is to ensure that local people are aware of and secure job and training initiatives arising from the development phases. A key requirement will be for the provision of construction site apprenticeships and a contribution will be secured towards the training and development costs.

4.502 The Section 106 agreement will require the developer to notify the council of job vacancies 10 working days in advance of any public advertisement in order that local borough residents, with a focus on residents on and adjacent to the Earls Court West Kensington Opportunity Area. This will enable them to apply and potentially secure jobs ahead of wider public announcement and recruitment drives.

4.503 Pre-employment training is key to enabling residents to compete for jobs both throughout the construction phase and for jobs created in end user businesses. A contribution will therefore be required in the form of skills training particularly to give local resident latitude in defining their self employment and vocational learning and support needs.

4.504 The Section 106 agreement will require the developer to provide a Local Labour Skills and Employment Strategy and a Local Labour, Skills and Employment Delivery Plan. These would need to include predictions on labour demand, skills requirements, targeted recruitment drives, target-setting with contractors and subcontractors, mechanisms for monitoring employee and contractor employee residency data, jobs fairs, community and careers events and initiatives to increase employment sustainability for local people. In addition, it will include details of activity to support re-training of individuals affected by the closure of the exhibition centres, activity to provide professional input to career days, teacher training and work experience for young people from both boroughs.

4.505 It is considered that the above mechanisms will ensure that as much as possible is done to provide local residents with opportunities to gain training skills in order to access the numerous construction related jobs that would be created by the development, satisfying Policy 4.12 of the London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.506 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle ES8 of the challenged Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area SPD requires applications for comprehensive development of the Opportunity Area to deliver a Recruitment and Jobs Shop as well as a Construction Skills training Centre (or the £ value), along with support and funding for Workplace Coordinators, who work closely with the developer’s project team to ensure that local people are aware of employment opportunities and skilled up to compete for job through out the development, and Key Principle ES9, which requires any application for comprehensive development to provide a Local Labour Skills and Employment Strategy and a Local Labour, Skills and Employment Delivery Plan. As set out above, these will be secured through the s.106 agreement and thus officer consider that this part of the proposal is consistent

with the guidance and that there is no reason not to grant permission whether the SPD is taken into account or it is not taken into account..

Local Procurement

4.507 As well as providing opportunities for local residents, development on the scale envisaged will create opportunities for local businesses to compete for contracts both during and after construction. Policy 4.12 of the London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy both require strategic development proposals to support local employment, skills development and training initiatives.

4.508 The Section 106 agreement will require the developer to enter into a procurement initiative. The trigger for the establishment of this initiative would be early, in order to set up scheme across the boroughs and provide support for businesses to be contract ready, satisfying Policy 4.12 of the London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.509 Officers have had regard to Key Principle ES7 of the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area SPD (subject to judicial review) which requires developers to put in place procedures to ensure small and medium sized enterprises have access to tender opportunities for the procurement of goods and services generated by the development both during and after construction. The application with the benefit of the s.106 clause mentioned in the preceding paragraph is considered consistent with this guidance. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Business Resilience

4.510 The area surrounding the Opportunity Area offers a significant source of existing employment and economic activity. Many businesses have grown to support the needs of the Earls Court Exhibition Centres. After the closure of the Exhibition Centres, many of these businesses will no longer be viable and will need to adapt to the new offer being provided through the redevelopment of the Opportunity Area.

4.511 A financial contribution will be secured through the Section 106 agreement to be spent on providing advice to local businesses on how best to adapt to the new offer provided through any redevelopment of the Opportunity Area, satisfying Policy 4.12 of the London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.512 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle ES6 of the challenged SPD, which requires measures to be put in place, during and post construction, to protect business outside of the OA affected by development. The application with the benefit of the s.106 clause mentioned in the preceding paragraph is considered consistent with this guidance. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Post Construction Employment and Training

4.513 The applicant’s state that across all sectors, development of the Opportunity Area will deliver 9,900 net additional permanent jobs. Policy 4.12 of the

London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy both require strategic development proposals to support local employment, skills development and training initiatives.

4.514 The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub and a Recruitment and Job Shop, satisfying Policy 4.12 of the London Plan and Policy LE1 in LBHF’s Core Strategy. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.515 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle ES8 of the challenged SPD, which requires comprehensive development to deliver a post construction Recruitment and Jobs Shop. The application with the benefit of the s.106 clause mentioned in the preceding paragraph is considered consistent with this guidance. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Associated Uses

Hotel and Serviced Apartments

4.516 The application seeks permission for a maximum of 8,938 sqm (GEA) hotel and serviced apartment floorspace. This could be delivered in development plots WK01, WK02 and WK03. The Applicant envisages that this floorspace will deliver approximately a 275 bed hotel as well as serviced apartments.

4.517 Annex 1 of the Mayor’s London Plan requires development in Opportunity Areas to explore the provision of hotels. Policy 4.5A of the London Plan seeks to achieve 40,000 net additional bedrooms by 2031.

4.518 Policy FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy identifies hotels as an appropriate use as part of any comprehensive regeneration of the Opportunity Area. Policies CA7e and CF8b identify the Earl’s Court site as being an appropriate location for new hotels. The proposed hotel is therefore consistent with relevant policy and in view of its size and location no concerns are raised about its provision. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.519 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle CS6 of the challenged SPD, which requires any application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Opportunity Area to include an element of hotel provision and that 10% of hotel bedrooms should be wheelchair accessible. The proportion of wheelchair accessible hotel bedrooms would be dealt with at reserved matters stage. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Private Hospital 4.520 The application seeks permission for a maximum of 10,578 sqm (GEA) of private hospital floorspace delivered within development plot WK02 and/or WK03 facing the A4.

4.521 Policy 3.17 of the London Plan relates to health and social care facilities and states the provision of high quality health and social care appropriate for a growing and changing population will be supported. The provision of a private hospital is considered to be in accordance with this policy. Officers therefore consider

that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.522 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle CS6 of the challenged SPD and there are no key principles within it considered relevant to the provision of private hospitals. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Stabling Area 4.523 The application seeks permission for the replacement of London Underground’s existing depot structure at Lillie Bridge with a new, realigned stabling structure with a maximum floor area of 11,175 sqm (GEA). The area includes a dedicated London Underground vehicle parking facility. A new vehicular and pedestrian access to the stabling facility will be provided as part of the proposals.

4.524 Policy FRA1 of the LBHF Core Strategy states if the depot is to remain it should be decked over. Whilst Policy LE1 seeks to retain premises capable of providing accommodation for local services or significant employment. The reprovision of the depot on the site will retain employment and it is also proposed that the depot is decked over in accordance with policy LE1. The reprovision of the depot is therefore consistent with relevant policy and in view of its size and location no concerns are raised about its provision. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.525 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle CS6 of the challenged SPD and there are no key principles within it considered relevant to the provision of private hospitals. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Ancillary Uses 4.526 The total maximum area proposed for ancillary uses is 150,421 sqm (GEA). This comprises floorspace for incidental purposes linked to the land uses detailed above including, inter alia, parking, servicing, plant, storage, maintenance, machinery and circulation mainly at below ground and basement levels. There are no policies considered relevant to the provision of these uses in either the Mayor’s London Plan, LBHF Core Strategy or RBKC Core Strategy. Officers therefore consider that there are no material considerations which indicate why planning permission should be withheld.

4.527 Officers have also had regard to Key Principle CS6 of the challenged SPD and there are no key principles within it considered relevant to the provision of ancillary uses. Accordingly, officers consider that there are no reasons why planning permission should be withheld whether the SPD provision is taken into account or not taken into account.

Transport 4.528 Paragraphs 29-41 of the National Planning Policy Framework promote Sustainable Transport. Policy 6.1 of the London Plan sets out a strategic approach to integrating transport and development. Policy 6.3 requires the effects of development on transport capacity to be assessed and policies 6.11 and 6.12 relate to tackling congestion and improving road network capacity.

4.529 Policy T1 of the LBHF Core Strategy seeks to improve transport provision and . accessibility in the borough. The LBHF UDP also has a number of policies relating to transportation and accessibility, policies TN4, TN5, TN6, TN8, TN13, TN15 and TN28. Of little weight are policies DMJ1, DMJ2, DMJ4, DMJ5, of the submission DM DPD.

4.530 Relevant RBKC Core Strategy policies are CT1 and CT2.

4.531 The OA is served by three London Underground stations, Earls Court, West Brompton and West Kensington. These stations provide access to the District and Piccadilly Lines. West Brompton is also served by the Overground network and is a strategic interchange as designated by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy providing a key interchange between orbital and radial rail services.

4.532 The existing Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the Site Wide Development Area varies from a maximum of 6a at the edges of the OA to a rating of 2 in the centre of the site. The reduced PTAL relates to the lack of permeability from North End Road across the Earls Court site. The redevelopment of the site with the increased permeability and connections would increase the PTAL.

4.533 A Transport Assessment and additional supporting information has been submitted to accompany the Planning Application. The TA is provided in accordance with policy TN13 and Appendix 5.4 of the council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which requires the submission of an assessment. The assessment provides the basis against which the other development plan policies have been considered. It is an assessment based on the impacts of Applications 1 and 2 combined, which officers consider to be appropriate given that approval of access is being sought now and the cumulative effect of the combined development, given their inter-relationship, provides an overall picture of the comprehensive site wide development.

4.534 The development plan policies can be broken into five main areas which need to be assessed: impact on the existing road network; impact on public transport, layout (for pedestrians and cyclists) and access, parking standards and servicing.

Trip Generation 4.535 Trip generation has been assessed for the site wide development (i.e. full build out) which is anticipated to be completed by 2031. There are a number of existing uses on the site which are set out below: • Earl’s Court exhibition centre (120 jobs); • Clear Channel Business, Cluny Mews (100 jobs); • TfL Depot and Ashfield House (900 employees); • Mannequin Factory (150 employees); • 869 sqm Doctors Surgery; • West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estate (702 Residential Units)

4.536 These existing uses when taken together generate a significant number of trips and the existing trips are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Existing Trips Mode AM Peak PM Peak In Out Two- In Out Two- way way Underground 170 124 293 91 166 257

Train 64 14 78 12 56 68 Bus, Minibus, Coach 35 37 72 20 34 54 Taxi, Minicab 12 2 14 3 15 18 Driving a car or van 200 128 328 113 208 321 Passenger in a car or van 13 21 3 14 14 28 Motorcycle 6 4 11 3 6 9 Bicycle 13 18 30 7 11 18 On Foot 125 81 206 56 136 192 Other 5 2 7 1 5 6 Total 644 431 1072 320 651 971

4.537 The forecast trip rates the proposed development full built out development have been considered and these are summarised in Table 2 below.

4.538 The trip rates for these land uses are set out in the TA and have been derived from the TRAVL database. The trip rates are then disaggregated by journey purpose, which have been sourced from the London Travel Demand Survey. This survey is undertaken by TfL and provides an analysis on the journey purposes throughout the day in London that have a residential trip ends. Mode splits are then applied. The methodology used is considered to be robust and in accordance with best practice guidance. The peak hours are 08:00-09:00 and 17:30-18:30.

Table 2 – Total Forecast Trips for Proposed Development (full built out development) Mode AM Peak PM Peak In Out Two- In Out Two- way way Underground 1277 1195 2472 888 1297 2185 Train 467 155 622 129 427 556 Bus, Minibus, Coach 309 380 689 251 322 573 Taxi, Minicab 82 34 116 48 106 154 Driving a car or van 288 440 728 487 424 911 Passenger in a car or van 151 217 368 187 173 360 Motorcycle 49 42 90 34 50 84 Bicycle 119 172 292 77 93 170 On Foot 973 819 1792 658 1078 1736 Other 37 17 55 14 35 49 Total 3752 3471 7224 2772 4006 6778

4.539 The existing and proposed developments have been compared and the net additional trips generated by development are set out in the table 3 below:

Table 3 – Net Additional Trips for Proposed Development Mode AM Peak PM Peak In Out Two- In Out Two- way way Underground 1107 1071 2178 797 1131 1928 Train 404 140 544 118 371 489 Bus, Minibus, Coach 274 344 617 230 288 519 Taxi, Minicab 69 32 101 45 91 136 Driving a car or van 86 312 408 372 215 587 Passenger in a car or van 138 196 335 173 159 332 Motorcycle 41 37 79 31 44 74 Bicycle 107 155 261 69 82 151

On Foot 848 738 1586 602 942 1544 Other 32 15 48 13 30 43 Total 3108 3039 6159 2448 3354 5802

Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists Pedestrians 4.540 In addition to the pedestrian trips set out in the trip generation tables, forecast to pedestrian trips which include walking to and from bus stops and stations are set out below:

Pedestrian trips generated by development (including PT) Two In Out way AM peak hour 2696 2560 5256 PM peak hour 1922 2823 4745

4.541 The application parameter plan demonstrates the pedestrian access through the site. The plan is considered acceptable in principle and is in accordance with the Council’s UPD policy TN5 in terms of layout. However, the policy requirement to provide safe and secure facilities for pedestrians will be the subject of detailed design at the reserved matters stage.

4.542 These additional pedestrian trips have been distributed on to the network using TfL’s Railplan model, which assigns trips to local public transport modes based on origin and destination data and the proposals would increase footway flows on North End Road and along the Old Brompton Road / Lille Road corridor.

4.543 A PERS (pedestrian environmental review system) audit has been provided which assesses how the footways will function with the additional pedestrian demand. The PERS audit concluded that there are pinch points at North End Road and Lillie Road within the borough. It also discovered that there are damaged footways along the Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road and street furniture restricts movement in some locations along North End Road.

4.544 The transport assessment has identified the following mitigation measures: • a new toucan crossing and associated pedestrian and cyclist improvements on North End Road near Star Road and improved pedestrian crossing facilities at the North End Road/ Lillie Road Junction; • The proposals for the North End Road/Lillie Road junction involve its conversion from a double mini-roundabout into a four arm signal controlled junction with direct pedestrian crossings along the relevant pedestrian desire lines; • The application also proposes the widening of the eastern footway on North End Road south of the West Kensington station access and the widening of footways on both sides of Lillie Road west of Lillie Bridge; • Off-site pedestrian improvements, as part of a comprehensive public realm strategy are proposed this includes improvements along Lillie Road and North End Road in borough.

4.545 The actual design and implementation of these measures will be provided as part of the public realm proposals, which will be approved by the Council at the

reserved matters stage. The final improvements and contributions must be secured as part of the section 106 agreement for the proposals to be consistent with policy TN5 of the UDP and strategic policy FRA of the Core Strategy.

4.546 The applicant has also set out that a financial contribution towards the implementation of a wayfinding strategy in accordance with the Legible London guidelines is proposed. This is welcomed and should be secured via the section 106 agreement.

4.547 It should also be noted that the site is currently impermeable and the community around and west of North End Road is cut-off from the site and experiences severance to Earls Court station and town centre. Similarly, the District Line is bridged by Warwick Road and North End Road, but with no intermediate crossing in between, which causes severance between the Seagrave Road area and West Kensington north of the A4. The redevelopment of the opportunity area would create a network of new publicly accessible streets and give new routing options through the site. This is beneficial to both proposed and existing borough residents. The maintenance of these streets is not determined and will be subject of detailed design at the reserved matters stage but the streets must be built to an adoptable standard and ensure public access both of which will be secured by the section 106 agreement. Subject to the s.106 agreement, officers consider that the proposal in relation to this issue accords with the development plan and that there are no other material considerations which indicate that permission should not be granted. On this basis, there are no reasons to withhold permission on these grounds.

4.548 Officers take the view that for the following reasons, the proposal accords with the SPD. Key Principle TRN7 states “ New development should deliver new pedestrian crossings and improve existing crossings in order to meet the increased demand from development and significantly improve the pedestrian environment and access into and out of the OA” . Key Principle TRN6 states that “ New development should fund environmental improvements and deliver wider, clearer and higher quality footways on the existing streets surrounding the OA and contribute towards the A4 improvement scheme.” Whilst the design of streets and crossings will be a consideration at the reserved matters stage, the s.106 will improve pedestrian access to meet the demand around the perimeter of the site and enable environmental improvements generally. Providing a contribution to wayfinding is secured through the s.106 agreement and thus the proposal will adhere to Key Principle TRN5 which says that “Development should provide a coherent pedestrian wayfinding strategy in and around the OA”. Accordingly, officers are of the opinion that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD provisions are taken into account or are not taken into account,

Cycling 4.549 The application parameter plan has been provided demonstrating the cycle access through the site. The plan is acceptable in principle and is in accordance with the Council’s UPD policy TN6 in terms of layout. However, the detailed design of the cycle connectivity, convenient, safe and secure facilities, cycle parking and changing facilities necessary to ensure compliance with TN6 will be matters for the reserved matters stage.

4.550 There will be additional cycling trips within the borough and a cycling strategy has been prepared by the applicant to accompany the TA. The cycling strategy focuses on off-site cyclist improvements to the borough for existing routes and the delivery of new routes at locations such as Star Road.

4.551 The improvements would form part of a cycling link between Hammersmith and Earls Court town centres. This is welcomed by the Council. The appropriate measures should be secured by the section 106 agreement for the proposals to adhere to policy TN6 of the UDP and strategic policy FRA of the Core Strategy.

4.552 The development proposals also include the provision of five Barclays Cycle Hire Docking stations to be provided within the site. This should also be secured via the section 106 agreement and its provision will ensure that the proposal is in accordance with London Plan policy 6.9

4.553 Subject to the provisions in the s.106 agreement, officers consider the proposal to accord with the statutory development plan and that there are no other material considerations to indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.554 Officers have considered the relevant sections of the SPD. The s.106 works to improve the area surrounding the site is considered to meet Key Principle TRN8 which says “ New development should deliver improved onward connections for cyclists into the streets surrounding the OA.” The provision of the cycle hire stations are in accordance with Key Principle TRN9, which states “ New development should deliver increased levels of cycle parking to London Plan and Local Development Plan standards, particularly at key public transport interchanges, and the Mayor’s Cycle Hire Scheme should be extended into the OA.” . Therefore, officers are of the opinion that there is no reason to withhold the grant of permission whether or not the SPD has been taken into account.

Impacts on Public Transport 4.555 The London Underground lines serving the OA are some of the most congested in London, with crowded levels in excess of four people per square metre in some sections of both the District and Piccadilly Lines in the AM peak period. Significant increases in capacity are planned and funded for the District and Piccadilly Lines as part of the London Underground upgrades. The District Line upgrade is planned to be completed by 2018 and will increase capacity by 24%. There is no definite date for the upgrade of the Piccadilly Line which would provide a capacity increase of 24%, although it is expected to be complete prior to 2031. Crossrail is planned to open in 2018, which will release capacity on the Central Line, which in turn will draw passengers from the Piccadilly Line, thereby releasing some limited capacity.

4.556 The aggregate of all public trips was assigned to local public transport networks using TfL’s Central and North Regional Railplan Model (CNRRM) in accordance the associated public transport distribution derived from LTS. The forecast public transport trips are set out below:

Public Transport trips 2031 In Out Two way In Out Two way Forecast 2054 1729 3783 1268 2046 3314 Existing 269 175 443 123 256 379 Net 1785 1555 3339 1145 1790 2935

Impacts at West Kensington Station 4.557 The development will place additional demand on the underground and West London Lines and will have an impact on the West Kensington Station. As part of the TA, the impact at the individual stations has been assessed. At West

Kensington the growth from the existing levels to 2031 is 12.4% in the AM peak and 28% in the PM peak.

4.558 The additional impacts have been assessed using Legion Modelling. Legion is a pedestrian simulation model, which simulates the movements of pedestrians in a quantitatively verifiable manner and considers the environment where the pedestrians are located. Density measure outputs from Legion are based on Fruin’s Level of Service (LoS) which are calculated on a passenger by passenger basis.

4.559 The assessment demonstrates that the PM peak hour is the highest and existing levels of service are within category E (i.e. high) at the gateline. The additional demand generated by the development would increase further.

4.560 The applicant has considered mitigation measures and concluded that an additional gateline would bring the LoS to category C which is an acceptable level. However, the applicant wishes for the West Kensington Station to be a ‘gateway’ to the development and its therefore been deemed necessary to deliver improvements beyond the additional gateline.

4.561 The applicant’s preferred option would be to provide two additional gates by relocation the GLAP to the store room adjacent to the gateline, and relocating the existing retail tenancy to a recess in the station façade.

4.562 In addition to the capacity increases at the existing station entrance, it is proposed to create a second entrance on a structural deck spanning over the eastbound and westbound platforms. The overall width of the deck is such that it allows 6m of width on each platform, accommodating the width of a standard LU passenger lift with 3m remaining between the external face of the lift and the platform edge.

4.563 As part of the TA a review of the bus facilities within the vicinity of the was undertaken, which demonstrated that a number of improvements were required. The applicant has offered the following improvements: • improvements of bus stops on North End Road and Lillie Road; • new bus stops within the development; • new bus layover and driver facilities within the development to be provided and agreed with TfL; • a financial contribution by way of a net deficit funding agreement for the improvement of existing bus route or to establish new bus routes to be agreed with TfL

4.564 Again the agreed measures should be included as part of the section 106 agreement in order to accord with policies T1 and FRA of the Core Strategy. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the London Plan policy 6.2A(b) and (c), which requests that measures are to ensure the network now and in future is safe and secure and also that capacity is increased by securing funding and implementing schemes.

Impacts at Earls Court and West Brompton Stations 4.565 Earls Court and West Brompton stations are not located within this borough. Therefore, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have assessed the impacts of the development on these stations. At Earl’s Court station the forecast background passenger growth between existing levels and 2031 is 22% in the AM

peak, with development adding a further 13%. In the PM peak the background growth is 34%, with development adding a further 9%. The impact of these additional passengers has been assessed using a Legion model to simulate the dynamics of pedestrians moving through the station and to identify areas of congestion. The Legion model produces a ‘Level of Service’ (LoS) density measure that calculates the people per m 2. The LoS measure runs from A (low density) to F (high density).

4.566 In the AM peak the background increase in passengers to 2031 significantly worsens existing areas of congestion within the station. Areas where very high levels of congestion are experienced (LoS E/F) are focused on:

• the central stairs from the District line platform to the mezzanine level • the lifts to the Earl’s Court Road exit (the development does not add to congestion at this location and it is not therefore considered further for mitigation) • the eastbound District and Piccadilly line platforms • the head of the escalator down to the Piccadilly line.

4.567 Of particular concern is the level of congestion (LoS E and F) that is experienced across the full width of the eastbound District line platform, potentially causing safety issues at the edge of the platforms. This congestion is focused around the central staircase to the mezzanine level and is a result of the need for all passengers using the Piccadilly line to first travel along the District line platforms. The addition of development demand does not create any new areas of congestion but adds to the very high levels of congestion seen in the 2031 base year. In the PM peak there is significantly less congestion.

4.568 In order to mitigate these high levels of congestion a package of improvements have been negotiated. These include:

• A new entrance to the station from the site. This will be connected to the existing tunnel beneath Warwick Road, which will also be refurbished. This will provide direct access to the mezzanine level without passengers having to access the Piccadilly line escalators via the District line platforms. • Reopening of the currently closed staircase from the District line platform to the mezzanine level. This provides additional circulation space between the eastbound District line platforms.

4.569 An assessment was made of the proportion of passengers currently using the Warwick Road entrance that would switch to the new third entrance. This was based on passenger origin and destination surveys. In the AM peak, 78% of boarders and 55% of alighters would use the third entrance. In the PM peak the forecast is 82% and 60% respectively. With these passengers accessing the station from the mezzanine level, as well as the opening of the additional stair case, there is a reduction in the level of congestion on the District line platform, with significantly less LoS D to F experienced. This allows passengers to circulate more easily on the eastbound District line platform and improves safety. There is no increase in queuing at the bottom of the stairs.

4.570 There is however an increase in queuing at the head of the escalator to the Piccadilly line as passengers are no longer held up on the District line platform. An assessment has been made of the impact this has on clearance times. In the 2031 base around 98% of passengers accessing the escalator are able to do so within 10 seconds, with the remainder accessing it within 15 seconds. With the third entrance in place around 86% of passengers are able to access the escalator within 10 seconds, 97% within 15 seconds with around 3% taking longer than 15 seconds. Overall this increase in congestion is acceptable as the congestion across the station as a whole is less extensive and it is safer for congestion to take place away from the platforms.

4.571 With these mitigations in place Earl’s Court station is able to accommodate the additional demand placed on it by the development. Indeed the station operates with less congestion than it would otherwise do, based on the forecasted background growth in passengers. The mitigation measures will be secured within the S106.

Impacts at West Brompton station 4.572 At West Brompton station the background passenger growth between existing levels and 2031 is 83% in the AM peak, with development adding a further 39%. In the PM peak the background growth is 179%, with development adding a further 35%.

4.573 In the AM peak the background increase in passengers to 2031 significantly worsens existing areas of congestion within the station. Areas where very high levels of congestion are experienced (LoS E/F) are focused on:

• The West London Line northbound platform, across the full width of the platform • The staircase from the northbound West London Line platform to the cross passage above • The approach to the ticket lines.

4.574 Of particular concern is the level of congestion (LoS E-F) that is experienced on the northbound West London Line platform. This is caused by the narrow 1.4m staircase from the platform to the cross passages above, which creates a bottleneck. The addition of development demand does not create any new areas of congestion but adds to the very high levels of congestion seen in the 2031 base year. In the PM peak there is significantly less congestion.

4.575 In order to mitigate these high levels of congestion a package of improvements have been negotiated, which will be secured in the s.106 agreement. These include:

• increasing the capacity of the ticket hall by installing three additional gates on the gateline (from 3 to 6 gates including 2 wide aisle gates) and reopening the central brickwork arch • relocating a cross passage from above the westbound District line platform to above the eastbound District line platform • increasing the capacity of the West London Line NB stairs by widening the stair from 1.4 to 2.4 metres

• Lengthening the West London Line platforms from four car to eight car train capacity (this mitigation is secured in the Seagrave Road S106) .

4.576 The addition of the extra gates, the reopening of the central brickwork arch and the relocation of the cross passage removes the congestion from the approach on the paid side of the gateline and within the ticket hall (LOS E-F to B-C). The widened stairway reduces the extent of the queuing at the base of the stairway and on the stairs themselves and allows passengers to exit the platform significantly quicker. Without the mitigation only 57% of passengers can exit the platform within one minute. With the mitigation in place, 70% of passengers can exit within one minute and all passengers exit within three minutes. Without the mitigation the maximum amount of time taken to clear the platform is four minutes and 22 seconds. The lengthening of the West London Line platforms spreads the passengers over the full length of the platform, which reduces the pressure on the staircase and helps to reduce congestion overall. Although congestion remains on the northbound West London Line platform the occurrence of LoS F is removed from the majority of the platform and the extent of LoS E is significantly reduced. This improves safety in comparison to the 2031 base.

• The negotiations regarding the mitigation measures have been undertaken with Transport for London and London Underground Limited. With the mitigation package set out above secured through the S106 the impact of the development proposals on West Kensington, West Brompton and Earl’s Court stations are fully mitigated and therefore the proposal accords with the relevant statutory development plan provisions

4.577 In respect of the proposal’s impacts on public transport, officers consider that the proposal accords with the statutory development plan and that there are no material consideration which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.578 Officers have also considered the relevant sections of the SPD subject to challenge and conclude that the proposal accords with the SPD. The s.106 agreement will contain provisions to ensure that Key Principle TRN10 is met, which states that “ New development should deliver physical improvements to all three stations to accommodate the forecast increase in passenger numbers” “as well as Key Principle TRN13, which states that “ New development should deliver extra capacity at the gate lines, ticket halls and circulation space at West Brompton and West Kensington stations in order to accommodate the development related trips” . The works to Earls Court station, secured through the s.106 agreement, will ensure the proposal accords with Key Principle TRN12, which states “New development should provide capacity and environmental improvements to Earl’s Court Station, including the reopening of the existing pedestrian tunnel beneath Warwick Road, as part of ensuring the station can accommodate the forecast increase in passenger numbers. Similarly, the s.106 works will ensure adherence to Key Principle TRN15, which states “ New development should fund platform lengthening to accommodate eight car trains on the West London Line platforms at West Brompton.” Officers note that the provision of a new entrance at West Brompton station was secured in the Seagrave Road application. Overall, the measures will ensure compliance with Key Principle TRN11 “ Development in the OA should not result in excessive crowding or delay on the London Underground or National Rail and Overground networks, compared to predicted levels in 2031.”

4.579 Further measures secured in the s.106 agreement in respect of bus provision will ensure compliance with Key Principle TRN17 “ Additional bus services,

routes and stops funded by development will be necessary within and around the OA to accommodate new development trips.”

4.580 In light of the above, officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Access Arrangements 4.581 As part of the development proposals the applicant is seeking to provide works to the highway and new site access roads. It should be noted that these arrangements are to be determined and have been fully assessed as set out within the Road Traffic Impact section. The proposed works within this borough are proposed as follows: • access to and egress from the development via a new signalised junction located on the A4 West Cromwell Road between North End Road and Warwick Road; • improvements to Old Brompton Road and Lille Road between West Brompton Station and Ongar Road; • access to and egress from the development via a new priority junction at Lille Road opposite Ongar Road; • access to and egress from the development via a new priority junction at Lille Road located approximately 10m east of North End Road; • signalisation and association improvements to the Lille Road/North End Road junction; • improvements to the North End Road/Thaxton Road junction; • improvements to North End Road between Thaxton Road and May Street; • access to and egress from the development via a new priority junction at North End Road opposite Star Road; • access to and egress from the development via a new priority junction at North End Road opposite May Street; • improvements to the North End Road/Beaumont Avenue junction.

4.582 In accordance with Appendix 5.4 of the UDP, the proposed new access arrangements and junction improvements have undergone a Road Safety Audit 1 assessment, which considers the broad design issues. The original RSA was completed in May 2011. However, due to the progression of the application the applicant has provided an updated review of the designs and has also considered the junction in conjunction with the following additional information: • traffic modelling; • speed and journey time data; • existing and forecast pedestrian and cycle demand data; traffic signal staging information for signalised junctions in the Earls Court area.

4.583 The RSAs do not flag up any issues that cause concern at this stage. Some of the RSA assessors responses relate to reviewing certain aspects at RSA 2 level but this is not unusual given that the application is outline and the detail of the site will evolve. The provision of the junctions undergoing further Road Safety Audits as the scheme progresses should be secured via the 106 agreement or conditioned.

Accident Analysis 4.584 The TA included an accident analysis for the surrounding area. The area has been assessed for the three years to December (most recent data available). The table below demonstrates the number of accidents in the local area:

Access Car Motorcycle Bicycle Pedestrian Slight Seriou Slight Seriou Slight Seriou Slight Seriou s s s s Warwick Rd 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 West Brompton 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Lillie Road (east) 0 0 3 0 6 0 2 2 Thraxton Road 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 Star Road 1 0 8 0 2 0 2 0 May Street 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Beaumont 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Crescent Beaumont Avenue 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 Total 16 0 21 0 17 0 8 4

4.585 The accident data has also been broken down into accident type and compared with LBHF and RBKC as well as other Inner London Boroughs:

LBHF RBKC Inner London Earls Court Boroughs Area % of all accidents that are 16.6% 15.1% 15.1% 12.0% ‘Fatal and Serious’ % of all accidents that are 83.4% 84.9% 84.9% 88.0% ‘Slight’ All accidents reported 100% 100% 100% 100% % of all accidents that 23.9% 26% 25.1% 22.4% involve pedestrians % of all accidents that 19.3% 19.9% 17.4% 18.2% involve pedal cycle % of all accidents that 31.2% 30.2% 30% 34.7% occur in the dark

4.586 The accident data demonstrates that there is a pattern of accidents at the Star Road junction with North End Road and that a number of accidents in other locations occurred during the hours of darkness. These issues that have been raised will be addressed as part if the public realm improvements. Mitigation measures included will comprise improved street lighting, raised tables, single surface treatments and measures to prioritise pedestrian and cycling movements. These measures will need to be secured as part of the section 106 agreement.

Road Network Impacts 4.587 The analysis for the traffic generation in the years 2017, 2021, 2025 and 2031 has shown that the development phasing leads to a gradual change in traffic generation from the Earls Court site retuning to present day between 2017 and 2021. However, the number car and van drivers in the PM peak hour would increase in 2021 and 2025.

4.491 It was agreed with TfL, RBKC and Boroughs that the highway assessment should be conducted for an intermediate stage during the construction of the development. It was agreed that a 2021 assessment should be provided, as 2021 is a standard LTS forecast year. The 2021 year is also prior to the delivery of the new junction onto the A4 and is considered to be the worst case scenario whilst the 2031 development test considers the fully built out development.

4.588 The impact of the development on the local road network has been assessed during the weekday AM and PM peaks. Saturday and interpeak traffic flows were considered but were found to be lower in terms of existing and proposed traffic flows.

4.589 Background growth for all modes has been sourced from TfL’s LTS version 6.2.2 land use and transport model. This methodology is in keeping with approach adopted for the Earls Court Transport Study which informed the SPD.

4.590 LTS is a strategic model, which includes all public transport and all strategically important roads in London. LTS is used in the appraisal of all major transport schemes currently being considered by TfL. LTS is coded with land use and infrastructure changes over time.

4.591 The vehicle trips established through the Trip Generation Model and the distribution of car trips have been assigned to the highway network using TfL’s Central London Highway Assignment Model (CLoHAM).

4.592 The traffic impacts of development proposals for the site wide option has been assessed by using VISSIM and also assesses the impacts of the proposed junctions. The extent of the VISSIM model covers the area surrounded by the A4 West Cromwell Road to the north, the A3220 Earls Court Road to the east, the A3218 Old Brompton Road to the south and the B317 North End Road to the west.

4.593 The methodology is consistent with the approach applied at other Opportunity Areas across London and uses models provided by TfL. The applicant has liaised with TfL, LBHF and RBKC throughout the development of the models and they have also been independently audited by TfL’s consultants. The models have been agreed to be appropriate by TfL, LBHF and RBKC.

Road network impacts during development year 2021: 4.594 As set out above the interim year of 2021 has been assessed as it is considered to represent the worst case scenario as this scenario is before the implementation of the new A4 junction into the site. Within 2021 Phase, 1, 2 and Phase 3 will be completed this equates to: • 3,115 Residential Units; • 20,253 of commercial floorspace; • 3,019 education; • 12,727 community/culture/leisure; • 7381 or 148 hotel rooms; • 16,026 retail land use.

4.595 In 2021 the site will not be fully built out so some existing trips will still be on the network. The following will still be located on the site; 702 residential units; 120 jobs associated with exhibition centres 900 jobs associated with TfL Depot / Ashfield House;

4.596 The net increase in trips in the interim year of 2021 has been included and is set out below. The trip rates have been derived using the same methodology as the full build out which has previously set out. The overall net impact of the proposed development in 2021 is therefore set out below:

Mode AM Peak PM Peak

In Out 2-way In Out 2-way Underground 187 410 597 300 232 531 Train 51 50 101 40 54 94 Bus, minibus, coach 71 136 207 95 81 175 Taxi or Minicab 9 13 22 18 16 34 Driving a car or van -66 81 15 130 -13 117 Passenger in car or van 59 80 139 75 60 135 Motorcycle 7 14 21 12 9 21 Bicycle 37 62 99 28 21 50 On Foot 212 291 503 244 220 464 Other 4 6 10 5 5 10 Total 572 1142 1714 946 686 1632

4.597 The development year of 2021 will also include some servicing trips and also construction trip as some the phases of development will be complete. While, some will be being constructed. The forecast trip rates are set out in the tables below:

Servicing Trip 2021 AM Peak PM Peak In Out Two-way In Out Two-way LGV 12 11 23 4 5 6 HGV 5 4 9 2 2 4 Total 16 15 32 6 6 13

Construction Trip 2021 AM Peak PM Peak In Out Two-way In Out Two-way HGV 13 13 26 13 13 26 Total 13 13 26 13 13 26

4.598 The 2021 year was chosen to be assessed in order to model the impacts of the development on the highway network prior to the opening of the new A4 access. The 2021 trips have been assigned to the network and have been modelled using the VISSIM model and the whole network comparison with the existing scenario is set out below.

total number avg. peak avg % delay vehicles not vehicles of hour journey per vehicle accommodate in model complete time per d in modelled d peak vehicle (sec) peak hour hour trips AM existing base 12121 10047 371 40 347 AM 2021 base 12701 10669 366 41 400 AM do min 2021 12715 10268 354 39 366 AM do full 2021 12715 10365 353 39 443

total number avg. peak avg % delay vehicles not vehicles of hour journey per vehicle accommodate in model complete time per d in modelled d peak vehicle (sec) peak hour hour trips PM existing base 11801 9708 356 39 199 PM 2021 base 13069 9633 462 44 1022 PM do min 2021 13180 10638 327 38 355 PM do full 2021 13180 10732 299 36 280

4.599 The 2021 base model sees an increase in traffic volume which has a significant detrimental impact on the operation of the highway network. The PM peak is the worst of the peak hours which sees a journey time increase by 29% on average per vehicle and an average delay of 13% per vehicle. Furthermore, in the PM peak a large number of vehicles (1022) are not released into the model or not completing their journeys. This suggests there is congestion within the network which is not clearing during the peak hour.

4.600 Two mitigation scenarios have been assessed. The do minimum mitigation scenario includes only the signalisation of the North End Road / Lillie Road junction. The do something scenario includes the signalisation of North End Road / Lillie Road junction as well as including the signal staging mitigation measures and the following: • the signals at North End Road and the A4 now include a let turn filter from North End Road into the A4 westbound. This runs in conjunction with the right turn from the A4 into North End Road; • the staging has been altered at the A4/ Warwick Road junction so that the pedestrian crossings run each cycle, which removes a large intergreen between stages and allows more time to be given to other movements in the signal plan; • the left turn from North End Road into Lillie Road and the right turn from Lillie Road into North End Road at the proposed signalised junction are banned. These movements are accommodated on the new highway network within the Development. The cycle time in the PM peak has increased to 100 seconds; • the cycle time has been increased to 80 seconds at the Finborough Road/Old Brompton Road and Earl’s Court Road/Old Brompton Road junctions. The junctions have been better coordinated.

4.601 The do minimum and do something scenarios both improve the network performance compared to the base model as they are able to accommodate an increase in the number of vehicles completing trips. In the AM Peak the 2021 do something development model show the same delay and journey time statistics as the 2021 do minimum option, however the additional mitigation measures in this model provide additional capacity. This is demonstrated by the decreased number of unreleased vehicles compared to the 2021 do minimum model.

4.602 In the PM peak in the do minimum there is an increase of around 10% in the amount of completed trips during the peak hour. The PM do something development 2021 option sees an even greater improvement to the network performance.

4.603 It is clear that the measure included within the do minimum improve the network as a whole and that the do something models improvement the operation of the network further. Officers consider that the do something scenario is required to ensure that the additional forecast traffic from the development can be accommodated on the network and does not have a detrimental impact on the capacity, safety or operation.

Road Network – Site Accesses 4.604 Based on the applicants assessment and indicative build out plan there are three principal accesses in use by the development in 2021 and two of them are located within the borough. It should be noted that the site access arrangements are to be determined as part of this application. : • access 4 – Lillie Road; and • access 7 – North End Road at Star Road

4.605 Performance information for the above accesses is provided summarised against the criteria of the following: • Number of Vehicles – total volume of traffic passing through junction; • Average Queue Length – average queue length across all junction arms; • Delay – amount of time each vehicle is not travelling at its optimum speed.

4.606 It should also be noted that the parameters used to classify a vehicle as being in queuing traffic are as follows: “When vehicle speeds drop below 5mph it will begin being counted as being in a queue. The vehicle will remain to be classed as being in a queue until its speed increases above 10mph and/or there is a gap to the vehicle in front of over 12 metres.”

Lillie Road Access 4.607 The Lillie Road access to and from the development will comprise a new priority junction at Lillie Road opposite Ongar Road. The access junction has been assessed and demonstrates that there are benefits to delay and queue within the mitigation model. However, there are larger recorded queues for vehicles leaving the development in the do minimum scenario. This is due to the exit arm being blocked as a result of queuing on the Old Brompton Road/ Finborough Road junction. This queuing and delay is reduced in the do something model due to the removal of the exit arm blocking as a result in the change in signals at the Old Brompton Road/ FInborough Road junction.

4.608 The detail of these accesses and the public realm improvements of which they form part are subject to detail design which will be established at the reserved matters stage. Although, the access is acceptable in principle and will have no negative impacts on the road network within the borough.

North End Road Access at Star Road 4.609 The access to and from the development at North End Road with Star Road will comprise a new priority junction opposite Star Road. The access junction has been assessed and demonstrates that in the 2021 do something model there is a large maximum queue for the development arm compared to the do minimum option model. This is caused by the mitigation measures included within this option making the route more attractive as it becomes quicker route and also by southbound traffic preventing vehicles from pulling out of the junction. While there is a large queue on

the development arm within the mitigation model the delay is not significantly higher than the delay experienced elsewhere in the borough. The max queue is considered to be the worst case scenario. It occurs towards the end of the peak hour when North End Road is most congested and does not occur continuously throughout the hour. The delay is on the development arm so therefore does not have a detrimental impact on the north / south traffic flow of North End Road.

4.610 Overall, the measures included within the mitigation scenario have significant benefits to the operation of the network as a whole and therefore the junction is acceptable. This location is identified as an accident hot spot and the applicant is proposing public realm improvements which will be beneficial to cyclists and pedestrians and road safety.

4.611 The detail of these accesses and the public realm improvements of which they form part are subject to detail design which will be established during the design of the reserved matters. Although, the access is acceptable in principle and will have no negative impacts on the road network within the borough.

Road network impacts during development year 2031 4.612 As with the 2021 scenario the road network as a whole has been assessed. However, the 2031 scenario considers the full build out of the development. The results are as follows:

total number avg. peak avg % delay vehicles not vehicles of hour journey per vehicle accommodate in model complete time per d in modelled d peak vehicle (sec) peak hour hour trips AM existing base 12121 10047 371 40 347 AM 2031 base 12683 10489 409 43 578 AM do min 2031 13235 10667 394 42 472 AM do full 2031 13235 10843 392 42 533

total number avg. peak avg % delay vehicles not vehicles of hour journey per vehicle accommodate in model complete time per d in modelled d peak vehicle (sec) peak hour hour trips PM existing base 11801 9708 356 39 199 PM 2031 base 13091 9925 449 47 1147 PM do min 2031 13732 10922 360 41 483 PM do full 2031 13732 11150 375 42 322

4.613 As previously set out the road network already experiences congestion. By 2031, LTS forecasts that traffic levels will have grown by 4.6% (562 vehicles) in

the AM peak and 10.9% (1290 vehicles) in the PM peak. This increase in traffic means that delay per vehicle will increase to 43% in the AM peak and 47% in the PM peak. Similarly to the 2021 base model the 2031 base model also demonstrates that there a significant number of vehicles particularly in the PM peak that are again not either being released on the network or not completing their journeys. This suggests that there is significant congestion on the network and mitigation measures would be required.

4.614 The mitigation measures assessed are the same as set out in the 2021 development scenarios but the 2031 scenarios also assesses the development with the A4 junction open.

4.615 Like the 2021 scenarios the do minimum and do something scenarios both improve the network performance compared to the base model as they are able to accommodate an increase in the number of vehicles completing trips. In the 2031 AM peak for both mitigation scenarios 42% delay is experienced per vehicle and in the PM peak a delay of 41% is experienced is for do minimum and 42% for do something. The number if trips not completed during the peak hour is higher than current levels, particularly for the do something scenario, but is lower than the 2031 base, particularly in the PM peak.

4.616 It is clear that the measure included within the do minimum improve the network as a whole and that the do something models improvement the operation of the network further. Although, the introduction of the signalised junction at North End Road / Lillie Road will be necessary in order to accommodate the development forecast traffic and to ensure that the network operates efficiently.

4.617 The other mitigation measures also are required to ensure that the additional forecast traffic from the development can be accommodated on the network and does not have a detrimental impact on the capacity, safety or operation. These measures should be secured via the section 106 agreement.

4.618 The analysis demonstrates that with the appropriate measure the network capacity can accommodate the forecast traffic growth and development traffic. Although, these measure could localise areas of congestion and an assessment of key links and junction has been undertaken using the same mitigation scenarios.

Journey Time Analysis 4.619 Journey time data has been collected from the model across the following key transport corridors: • A4/ West Cromwell Road; • North End Road; • Old Brompton Road; • Warwick Road; • Earls Court Road

4.620 Data was collected for each vehicle in each direction using the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes are based upon completed vehicle trips along the entire corridor therefore, vehicles not entering and exiting the model along the same route are omitted. This approach is acceptable as the data will provide journey times through known congested junctions consistently.

4.621 The only corridor assessed within the borough is North End Road. TfL and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will provide comments on the acceptability of the other corridors.

North End Road – Corridor 4.622 The conversion of the double mini roundabout to a signalised junction at North End Road/ Lillie Road junction makes a significant difference to journey times along the North End Road corridor. Whilst journey times are less in the do minimum scenario the significant differences is demonstrated within the do something model. It is demonstrated that there is no exponential rise in journey times due to the signal mitigation at the junction with the A4. The journey times along this route are up to 50% quicker than for vehicles travelling the same route without mitigation measures. This is demonstrated in both the AM and PM peaks.

Junction Performance 4.623 At the North End Road / Lillie Road junction queuing and delay remains relatively stable across both peaks in both scenarios when compared to the 2031 base. There is overall reduction in average per vehicle which allows a greater volume of traffic through the junction. The delay on all approaches are reduced and the junction has a more balanced approach between the needs of all the users of the junctions.

4.624 At the A4/North End Road junction queuing and delay also remains stable across both peaks in both scenarios when compared to the 2031. Overall, there would be a reduced queue length on each arm and this reduces vehicle delay. The junction will also result in being able to accommodate higher average speeds which allows more vehicles to pass through the junction at the peak hour.

4.625 The impact of the background growth and development traffic on North End Road can be accommodated providing the mitigation measures are provided.

Road Network – Site Accesses 4.626 Based on the applicants assessment and indicative build out plan there are five principal accesses in use by the development in 2031 and three of them are located within the borough. It should be noted that the site access arrangements are to be determined as part of this application. : • access 4 – Lillie Road; and • access 7 – North End Road at Star Road; and • access 8 – North End Road at Beaumont Avenue

4.627 Performance information for the above accesses is provided summarised against the same criteria set out in the 2021 assessment. Number of vehicles, average queue lengths and delay.

Lillie Road Access 4.628 The access junction has been assessed and demonstrates that there are benefits to delay and queue within the mitigation model. The results are consistent between the do minimum and do something scenarios. In the AM do something peak there is a slight increase in average queue lengths for vehicles exiting the development. This is caused by the additional vehicles turning right into the development from Lillie Road when compared to the do minimum.

4.629 The detail of these accesses and the public realm improvements of which they form part are subject to detail design which will be established during the design of the reserved matters. Although, the access is acceptable in principle and will have no negative impacts on the road network within the borough.

North End Road Access at Star Road 4.630 The access junction has been assessed and demonstrates that in the AM Peak there are still large maximum queues on the North End Road Southbound and Northbound arms in the do minimum scenario. This is caused by the mitigation measures included within this option making the route more attractive as it becomes a quicker route and also by southbound traffic preventing vehicles from pulling out of the junction. As previously mentioned the max queue is considered to be the worst case scenario. It occurs towards the end of the peak hour when North End Road is most congested and does not occur continuously throughout the hour. It should also be noted that the queue is not as significant as in the 2021 development scenario and the overall delay is significantly less.

4.631 Overall, the same conclusion is drawn as part of the 2021 development scenarios that the measures included within the mitigation scenario have significant benefits to the operation of the network as a whole and therefore the junction is acceptable. This location is identified as an accident hot spot and the applicant is proposing public realm improvements which will be beneficial to cyclists and pedestrians and road safety.

Discussions are still ongoing regarding the detail design of these accesses and the public realm improvements of which they form part. Although, the access is acceptable in principle and will have no negative impacts on the road network within the borough

North End Road at Beaumont Avenue 4.632 The access junction has been assessed and demonstrates that queuing and delay are not significant in the do minimum and do something scenarios. There is only a small variance between the performance and traffic volumes of the two scenarios.

4.633 The junction is shown to operate efficiently and effectively and therefore is acceptable in principle. As with other access junctions, the detail of these accesses and the public realm improvements of which they form part are subject to detail design which will be established during the design of the reserved matters.

Road Network – Bus Journey Time Impacts 4.634 The changes to the bus journey times reflect the changes to the road network performance forecast as part of the assessment above. The majority of routes experience quicker journeys through the network ( up to 45% quicker) in comparison to the 2031 base. The do something scenario causes an increase in delay to the 74 eastbound. Negotiations on an appropriate mitigation measures have been undertaken with TfL. However, mitigation would be required to reduce the impact on service 74 if the do something scenario is secured.

4.635 There is also an impact on services C1 and C3 which are within the Royal Borough Kensington and Chelsea and RBKC have requested that additional mitigation be provided to reduce the impact on these services. Overall, the level of development and background growth will not have a detrimental impact to journey times to bus services within the borough.

Road Network –Servicing and Freight 4.636 Delivery and servicing will be accommodated on-site and the detailed arrangements will be agreed in later in detailed phases. The requirement for Delivery and Servicing Management Plan should be conditioned.

Overall Conclusion on Road Network Impacts 4.637 In conclusion the measures and improvements that have been identified allow background growth and development traffic to be accommodated in the network without unacceptable increases in congestion, journey times to buses or highway safety. As there is a long build out period it is not appropriate at present to set out when and which measures should be provided and implemented. Assessments have been undertaken to help inform when mitigation will be likely and this should form the basis of an obligations within the section 106 agreement. A key requirement in the section 106 agreement will be the formation of a Transport Working Group which will review conditions as the scheme progresses and they will advise on the delivery of the mitigation measures as the development is implemented. The working group will comprise the applicant, RBKC, TfL and LBHF.

4.638 With the provision of the Working Group and the necessary mitigation measures and improvements to the road network, the proposal will comply with policy T1 and FRA of the Core Strategy and TN8 of the UDP. There are two tiers of road network within the borough around the OA, the A4 which is a strategic road (tier 1) and the assessments demonstrate with mitigation the proposals would not have an adverse impact on the A4. However, as the A4 form part of the Transport for London Road Network comments will be provided separately by TfL. North End Road and Lille Road are Borough Distributor Roads (tier 3) and the applicant has demonstrated that with the mitigation the proposals would not prejudice the effectiveness of the these roads. The proposals also comply with London Plan policies 6.3A, B and 6.12 B as the proposal demonstrate that the impacts have been assessed including the cumulative impacts and it has been demonstrated that the disbenefits can be mitigated. In short, officers conclude that the proposal accords with this part of the development plan and that there are no material consideration which indicate that the application should be refused.

4.639 Officers have also assessed the application against the relevant principles of the SPD:

Key Principle TRN19 – Development traffic cannot be accommodated on the existing road network without significant capacity improvements, which should be clearly identified in development proposals along with appropriate funding mechanisms to ensure improvements are delivered before development demand is introduced.

Key Principle TRN20 – Development proposals should include deliverable and funded road network improvements that reduce delays on the A4 to 2012 levels, while not having unacceptable impacts on the surrounding road network.

Key Principle TRN21 – Development should not worsen traffic conditions to unacceptable levels on existing streets and a review of local traffic management arrangements should be undertaken to address this and provide funded mitigations where necessary.

Key Principle TRN23 – All junctions from the OA on to the existing road network and road links across the OA should be assessed to ensure they have no unacceptable impacts on the existing road network in terms of vehicle capacity, road safety and urban design.

4.640 Officers consider that providing the full mitigation measures are provided the proposals are compliant with the Key Principles set out above, as assessments have been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposals with the right mitigation would not have an adverse impact on the network and the assessments consider the A4 as a priority. The proposed junctions onto the existing OA network have been assessed via VISSIM and have been subjected to Road Safety Audits. These assessments demonstrate that these junctions work within capacity and are acceptable in principle. For these reasons, officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Travel Plan 4.641 A robust framework Travel Plan has been submitted that will ensure vehicle trips are minimised. The applicant has also confirmed that a per unit will be made to the Travel Plan measures such as free car club membership, free travel cards, bicycle purchase.

4.642 It is the responsibility of the developer and the Travel Plan Co-ordinator to consult and agree with the Councils and TfL appropriate remedial measures to ensure that future targets can be achieved. Monitoring of the travel plans should be conducted in line with the London Travel Plan Monitoring Protocol.

4.643 The Travel Plan should be secured by the section 106 agreement and funding for the council to monitor to the Travel Plan should also be secured. (i.e. £1,500 per annum). The provision of a travel plan is in accordance with London Plan policy 6.3C which says that they should be provided.

4.644 Officers have also considered any relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle TRN20 is set out above. The justification to this principle at paragraph 10.65 such measures could include a comprehensive travel plan. One is required through the s.106 agreement and therefore is in accordance with this SPD guidance. For this reason, officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Construction Logistics Plan 4.645 The construction programme is anticipated to last 19 years and be developed in six key phases. The applicant has provided a Construction Logistics Plan which sets out that construction vehicles will peak at an estimated 40 vehicles per hour, although they will be spread over seven gates. Primary will be via the Tesco basement on Fenelon Place and a new access from the A4 in later phases of construction. The CLP is considered to be a worst case scenario as the applicant has been in discussions to try and secure a rail transfer facility and these discussions remain on going. An obligation should be contained with the section 106 to ensure that the discussions continue and the applicant commits to using best reasonable endeavours to secure a rail facility if possible. If not possible the reasons why must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of TfL LBHF and RBKC.

4.646 The general principles of the CLP provided are acceptable. However, it will need to be revised as the detail of the site comes forward. Therefore, CLP at each phase of the development should be secured as part of the section 106 agreement as well as funding for the council to monitor the plan

4.647 The general principles in the strategy, including routing of vehicles, call up procedures, access proposals and time of working are acceptable. Robust

obligations on the developer to provide Construction Logistics Plans, including securing the cost of their assessment and monitoring, should be secured via the S106 in order to minimise the impact of construction.

4.648 The provision of a Construction Logistics Plan is in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.3C which requests that travel plans are provided.

4.649 Officers have also considered any relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle TRN26 says that development proposals should be supported by substantial measures to minimise the impact of freight, including during the construction period. The provision of such a plan will accord with the SPD. For this reason, officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Servicing Arrangements 4.650 The applicant has provided a forecast of likely servicing trips during the peak hours and these are set out below:

AM Peak PM Peak In Out Two-way In Out Two-way LGV 28 26 54 9 10 19 HGV 14 13 28 4 4 8 Total 42 39 81 13 14 26

4.651 These forecast trips have been considered as part of the site wide modelling and are not considered to have a material impact on the highway network. A management strategy has been developed to encourage the efficient and sustainable movement of goods and deliveries. The strategy is aimed to reduce the transport impacts associated with servicing. The management strategy should be secured either by the section 106 agreement or condition.

Parking Arrangements Car Parking 4.652 The proposed development should adhere to the parking standards, as listed in the UDP and the London Plan. London Plan policy 6.13 advises that its maximum parking standards in table 6.2 should be applied. It adds that the aim is to prevent excessive car parking provision which can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use. UDP policy TN15 sets specific standards. Officers have given more weight to the London Plan policy than the UDP policy given that it is more up to date and that the UDP policy is intended to be replaced in the near future with the Council’s emerging Development Management DPD which proposes to adopt the London Plan standards.

4.653 A total of 4311 spaces are proposed for the development proposals for Application 1 and 2 combined 3718 of those fall within Application 2 and 621 fall within Application 1.

4.654 For Application 1, 589 spaces are proposed for residential parking spaces. For Application 2, 3507 spaces are proposed for residential parking spaces. For the combined application and in isolation, the residential parking provision equates to 0.6 per residential unit, which falls within the in the standard. However, for residential parking, the note in table 6.2 of the London Plan says that all developments in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less that 1 space per unit.

4.655 Similarly, with regard to commercial, retail and all other non-residential uses, the proposal falls within the maximum standards.

4.656 The development is considered to be a major development and located in an area with a highway network which is close to capacity. The parking provision has been considered as part of the applicant’s extensive modelling work and demonstrates that the level of trips can be accommodated on the network if mitigation is provided. Even with the mitigation measures provided the network is still near capacity. The number of parking spaces will have an effect on trip ratios.

4.657 The parking ratio will be controlled by condition, which officers consider that provided they remain as proposed there will be no unacceptable impact on the network. In addition, as required by policy there will be a Travel Plan the implementation of which will be monitored throughout the lifetime of the development. Officers therefore consider that the level of trip generation associated with the car parking provision can be controlled to an acceptable level. This is considered be a reasonable practical approach. With the condition and Travel Plan, officers consider that the proposal is in accordance with the statutory development plan and that there are no other material considerations which indicate that permission should be withheld.

4.658 Officers have also considered the relevant provisions of the SPD. Key Principle TRN24 says that car parking levels should be minimised in order restrain car trips. The justification at paragraph 10.74 says that one way of minimising car use is to ensure that car parking limited and says that development should provide parking at well below 0.4 spaces per residential unit. The proposed provision exceeds the suggested 0.4 target but officers consider that the proposal, together with the condition and Travel Plan ensures that the parking levels will continue to be minimised and thus meet the objective of the Key Principle. For this reason, officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

4.659 The surrounding area is within RBKC and LBHF Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). The CPZ controlled hours are:

• RBKC: 0830 until 2200 Mondays to Fridays and to 1830 on Saturdays; • LBHF CPZ D (North End Road area) 0900 until 1700 Mondays to Fridays; • LBHF CPZ F (Lille Road area) 0900 until 2000 Mondays to Saturdays.

4.660 As the development is a major development all residential units should be subject to a section 106 agreement which prohibits residents of the houses from acquiring a car parking permit. The car free agreement will ensure that the development will not have any impact on the on-street parking stress. A parking strategy has also been provided as part of the application and will need to be updated as the development progresses. This should be secured by condition.

4.661 Officers have considered relevant sections of the SPD. The provision of a parking strategy is also in accordance with the Key Principle TRN25, which states “Development proposals should be supported by an on-street parking strategy.” For this reason, officers consider that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission whether or not the SPD is taken into account.

Electric Charging Points

4.662 Electric charging points will be provided at 20% of the car parking spaces, with a further 20% benefitting from ‘passive’ provision to allow for growth in the future. This is consistent with the London Plan and is appropriate. These will be secured through condition.

Disabled Parking 4.663 10% of spaces will be designed for, and dedicated to, use by Blue Badge holders in accordance with the BS8200:2009 standards.

Cycle Parking 4.664 9,418 cycle parking spaces will be provided as part of the development for residential and visitor cycle parking. Commercial use will be provided in accordance with the Council’s standards. The parking provision should be secured by condition. Additional cycle parking is proposed on-street as part of the public realm works. This work is currently on going.

Motorcycle Parking 4.665 Three hundred and forty motorcycle parking spaces are proposed with the possibility of additional parking being made available within the new streets. The borough has no policy regarding motorcycle parking therefore the provision is welcomed and should be secured by condition.

Car Club 4.666 The proposals include space for up to 20 car club bays and the potential for more spaces being made available in the future if demand requires. This should be secured by condition and the demand should be monitored via the Travel Plan.

4.667 Key Principle TRN24 of the SPD states that car parking levels should be minimised in order to restrain car trips, except for parking for car club vehicles, which are encouraged in order to provide an alternative to the private car. Regard has been had to the SPD and the application is considered consistent with the guidance.

Sustainability Issues and Energy 4.668 The concept of sustainable development is fully endorsed by the National Planning Policy Framework. There is the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

4.669 The development is located in an urban area where people can access services on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car. It is also a mixed-use development, which provides residential and commercial uses on site. Accordingly the development is considered to satisfy fundamental sustainable objectives of promoting the more efficient use of land, of reducing the need to travel and ensuring good access to services.

4.670 In terms of more specific sustainability and energy issues paragraph 96 of The National Planning Policy Framework requires new development to comply with local policy requirements for decentralised energy supply to minimise energy consumption.

4.671 The London Plan has a number of policies in relation to carbon reduction and energy. Policy 5.2-in accordance with the energy hierarchy, ensure all major development proposals meet the minimum targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in buildings on site.

Policy 5.3-ensure future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction. Policy 5.56-ensure developments evaluate CHP systems and where a new CHP system is appropriate examine opportunities to extend the scheme beyond the site boundary. Policy 5.7-reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the use of on site renewable energy generation.

4.672 The Mayor’s Energy Strategy provides a framework for energy policies within the London Plan. Delivery involves the combined approach of: • Reducing London’s contribution to climate change by minimising emissions of CO2 from all sectors through energy efficiency, CHP/CCHP, renewable energy and hydrogen. • Helping to eliminate fuel poverty by giving Londoners, particularly the most vulnerable groups access to affordable warmth. • Contributing to London’s economy by increasing job opportunities, delivering sustainable energy and improving London’s housing and other building stock

4.673 Sustainable Design and Construction – The London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (2006) provides detailed guidance and preferred standards for achieving sustainable design and construction

4.674 Policy CC1 of the LBHF Core Strategy sets out requirements to reduce carbon emissions and resource use and requires development to fully contribute to the mitigation of and adaption to climate change.

4.675 The LBHF SPD: Energy sets out guidance so that development proposals are designed to promote energy efficiency and will not cause harm in terms of visual impact, people’s health and safety, air quality and odour, dust, water protection, noise, access, traffic generation and nature conservation.

4.676 RBKC Core Strategy has a number of policies and strategically seeks to respect environmental limits through the mitigation and adaption to climate change. Policy CE1 sets out detailed requirements for new development -assessments to show how developments achieve Code for Sustainable Home/BREEAM standards -carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions reduced to meet Code for Sustainable Homes, Ecohomes, BREEAM standards -provision of CHP -all CHP plant or similar to be able to connect to other existing or planned CHP plants.

4.677 A Sustainability Strategy and separate Energy Strategy Statement have been submitted. They demonstrate how the applicant considers the development complies with policies and principles relating to sustainable development and energy efficiency.

4.678 The Sustainability Strategy outlines the how the development will integrate sustainable design and construction measures in addition to the sustainable energy measures described in the Energy Strategy Statement. Rather than use the London Plan sustainable design and construction policies or guidance, BREEAM or the Code for Sustainable Homes checklists, a bespoke sustainability protocol has been developed by the applicants for the proposed development. Information is

included on how the development is to be designed to promote healthy and sustainable living, how it will have a low carbon footprint, how it promotes sustainable travel and accessibility, how various green infrastructure enhancements will be included and how the development will conserve resources such as water and encourage sustainable waste behaviour.

4.679 A range of general sustainability measures are identified. These are described in detail in the Sustainability Statement and include: • Sustainable transport initiatives, including the public transport improvements as well as secure cycle parking and travel plans • Enhancement of biodiversity and open space • Adaption to, and mitigation, the effects of climate change • Sustainable, durable and adaptable design

4.680 The broad outline of the Sustainability Statement to be followed is considered to be acceptable for the outline application. However, more detailed Sustainability Statements will be required to be submitted with each phase to show compliance with the policies in place at that time. This will be conditioned. In order to help assess compliance it is considered that all future Sustainability Statements refer to existing policies and follow available guidance such as the Mayor of London’s SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction rather than the bespoke sustainability protocol in order to help assess compliance.

4.681 An Energy Strategy Statement has been submitted as required by London Plan 5.2. The strategy follows the Mayor of London’s energy hierarchy of reducing energy demand, using efficient energy generation systems and incorporating renewable energy generation on-site.

4.682 The overriding aim of the Energy Strategy at the outline planning submission stage is to provide a flexible, future proofed energy supply strategy to enable the development of each individual plot/building to meet the energy performance aspirations, targets and applicable regulatory requirements at the time they are designed and constructed on a phased basis. The report identifies the known and anticipated legislative and regulatory requirements as well as industry guidance which will be applicable throughout the construction of the masterplan. Given the duration of the proposed build of the development, the majority of the development will be constructed to standards and requirements which have not been formally confirmed and established.

4.683 The report sets out the approach adopted in the Energy Strategy for each development option and summarises the energy appraisal assessments which have informed the overall strategy. The energy appraisal summary provides guidance for the potential performance standards that could be achieved through the implementation of passive and energy efficiency measures. The appraisal also provides direction regarding the most applicable and viable low/zero carbon energy solutions for implementation within each development option. This has been appraised on a site wide and a building by building basis. On the basis of the energy appraisal the projected CO2 emissions savings are summarised to provide an indication of the level of carbon reduction that is achievable from tried and test commercially available technologies but also from potential next generation energy technologies

4.684 The Energy Strategy Statement is considered an appropriate sustainable energy strategy for the development. In terms of carbon reduction and energy the following key initiatives are proposed. • The primary energy for the buildings will be derived from two on site energy centres for the site wide option and one energy centre for the RBKC development option • The generation of low carbon electricity, heating and cooling from the energy centres, with expansion capacity to serve the latter phases of the development, i.e. the decentralised plant strategy allows the implementation of site wide district heating, cooling and power networks • The export of low carbon electricity to offset high carbon grid supplied electricity. • Each development option has been specifically designed to enable flexibility within the site wide energy strategy • The energy centre(s) have been specifically designed to accommodate alternative fuel supplies and energy sources.

4.685 Achieving energy efficiencies through good design is prioritised – i.e. maximising the use of natural daylighting/solar gain whilst limiting risks of overheating through appropriate alignment of building facades. High performing building materials will be used for the main components of buildings (walls/floors/roofs/windows) to help reduce heat loss. High levels of air tightness will also help reduce heat loss and therefore reduce energy used for space heating. Where mechanical ventilation is installed, this will be accompanied by a heat recovery system to keep heat loss to a minimum. Heating, ventilation and cooling systems will be energy efficient and have local controls, keeping energy use and associated CO2 emissions to a minimum. Energy efficient lighting will be installed and linked to controls such as daylight and occupancy sensors to help to keep lighting use to a minimum. The use of energy efficient plug-in appliances will be encouraged in the fit-out and user guides for each building. It is anticipated that passive design and energy efficiency measures could reduce CO2 emissions between 0-5% (depending on building type) from the baseline required by the Building Regulations.

4.686 The following additional energy initiatives are currently envisaged: • The district heating ring main serving the site has been designed with the ability to export or import from the proposed Opportunity Area district heating network. • The CHP installation will incorporate flexibility should other sources of fuel become available and viable for the latter phases of the development.

4.687 The biggest CO2 emissions savings are expected to come from the integration of a site wide District Energy Network (DEN). Rather than each building and residential unit having individual boilers to provide a significant proportion of heating and hot water requirements, energy will be generated in 2 energy centres (1 in H&F and 1 in K&C) and then transferred to office blocks, properties etc through a network of pipes. The heat will be generated by Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, which also generate electricity. A heat network in the Earls Court area could connect in the future to other similar networks in H&F and K&C, if these come forward.

4.688 Although the CHP will be fuelled by natural gas initially, this still offers substantial CO2 savings, estimated at 20% over Building Regulation requirements. Use of biomass fuel instead of gas has been considered as part of the strategy, but

issues such as potential air quality impacts have ruled out its use on a large scale. However, it is possible that a small contribution from a biofuel powered CHP/boiler may become viable in the future, helping to reduce CO2 emissions even further. The use of Anaerobic Digestion has also been considered, but given the size of plant and amount of organic waste required to provide an efficient installation, Anaerobic Digestion will not be pursued for the site. It is likely that a Energy Supply Company or Multi Utility Services Company will be brought in by the developer to deliver the District Energy Network.

4.689 In terms of renewable energy generation on-site, solar PV panels are deemed to be the most appropriate technology. The assessment considers that a total of 9,300m 2 of panels could be installed on roofs across the site, which would reduce annual CO2 emissions by around 10%. It is possible that more roof space would be available, however, in terms of absolute CO2 savings, PVs will only be able to make a relatively small contribution. Nevertheless, their integration into the scheme’s energy strategy is welcomed.

4.690 The applicant’s Energy Strategy recognises that it may not be possible to meet the ‘zero carbon’ requirements for residential units by 2016 and non-residential buildings by 2019 on site. It is likely that having achieved a cost effective reduction due to the building efficiency and locally generated energy a residual amount of regulated carbon emissions will remain. The Energy Strategy for each building within the Earls Court Site will consider the most appropriate strategies for off-setting the carbon emission as permitted by the regulations at the time of design and construction.

4.691 Overall, the broad outline of the Energy Strategy to be followed for the Earls Court project is considered to be acceptable. Detailed Energy Strategies will need to t be submitted with each phase to show compliance with the policies in place at that time..

4.692 Officers are satisfied with the proposed sustainability and energy measures. The development is considered to comply with relevant sustainability and energy policies at national, regional and local levels. Conditions are recommended to ensure to ensure carbon reduction targets are met and to ensure the development achieves a good sustainability standard. Officers take the view that for the reasons set out above, the proposal accords with the relevant statutory development plan provisions and that there are no other material considerations which indicate that permission should not be granted. On this basis, there would be no sustainable reason to withhold permission on this grounds.

4.693 Officers have also considered The Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area SPD. One key objective says that: All residential buildings from 2016 and all non–domestic buildings from 2019 must be zero carbon and all buildings must reduce carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the hierarchy of using less energy, supplying energy efficiently and using renewable energy.

4.694 Key principles are • Each phase of the development must meet the carbon reduction targets set out in the London Plan (ENE1) • Decentralised energy and associated heat network should be delivered by the development. The size and number of the energy centres should meet the needs of subsequent phases of development with the potential to meet the needs of the surrounding area in the future (ENE2).

• Renewable energy should be considered to address any shortfall in decentralised energy production The suitability of renewable energy measures will be assessed having regard to their viability, location and impacts such as noise, air quality, visual appearance and biodiversity (ENE4) A condition will require the development to meet the carbon reduction targets. On site energy centres will be secured through the s.106 agreement. Accordingly, officers do not consider that there is a reason to refuse permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or it is not.

Flood Risk and Water Use 4.695 LBHF and RBKC have carried out a joint Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and identified zones that are at risk of flooding. The application site is not in the ‘Functional Floodplain’ (regarded as the 1 in 20 year Floodplain). The majority of the Earls Court Site lies within Flood Risk Zone 3, which is identified as being an area with a high probability of flooding during a flood event with a greater than 0.5 percent chance of occurring annually (regarded as the 1 in 200 year event). A small part (south west corner) of the site is in Flood Zone 2, whilst the area around EC1 and EC2 lies within Flood Zone 1 (regarded as little or no risk).

4.696 Paragraphs 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires LPAs, to ensure development does not increase flood risk elsewhere and that development is informed by site-specific flood risk assessments in areas at risk of flooding . Paragraph 104 relates to sequential testing.

4.697 The following London Plan (2011) policies are applicable: - Policy 5.11 supports the provision of green roofs within development to assist in sustainable urban drainage systems ; - Policy 5.12 states that new development must comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements of PPS25 . - Policy 5.13 states that development should incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems where practicable and specifies a drainage hierarchy for new development; - Policy 5.14 states the requirement for development proposals to ensure the provision of adequate wastewater infrastructure to meet the related needs ; - Policy 5.15 seeks the conservation of water resources through, among other matters, minimising water use and promoting rainwater harvesting.

4.698 With regards to the LBHF Core Strategy, Policy CC1 requires that new development is designed to take account of increasing risks of flooding and Policy CC2 states that new development will be expected to minimise current and future flood risk and that sustainable urban drainage will be expected to be incorporated into new development to reduce the risk of flooding from surface water and foul water. Also whilst acknowledged to be of little weight as a material consideration Policy H3 of the draft DM DPD requires development to reduce the use of water and to minimise flood risk.

4.699 Policy CE2 of the RBKC Core Strategy sets out detailed requirements in respect of flooding and drainage. -development to adapt to fluvial flooding and mitigate effects of and adapt to surface water and sewer flooding -site specific flood risk assessment for all development sites in Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3 -Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) or other measures to reduce both volime and speed of water run off to the drainage system.

4.700 A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application contained in Volume III of the ES. In addition breach modelling has been undertaken following agreement of breach locations with the Environment Agency.

4.701 The application site is located approximately 1.5 km from the River Thames and the majority of the Earls Court site lies in the Environment Agency's (EA's) Flood Zone 3, although parts of the site are also in Zones 1 and 2. Most of the site is therefore rated as having a high probability of flooding. However this relates to an undefended site. The Thames barrier and river wall defences provide protection from flooding events with a 1000 year return period (0.1%). The site is protected by flood defences from fluvial and tidal flooding to a level of 5.41m AOD including the effects of climate change which corresponds to a 1 in 1000 year event.

4.702 The probability of flooding would result from a major failure of the River Thames defence wall due to breaching or failure of the Thames Barrier and overtopping. Breaches of the flood defences have been assessed, which show that a breach to the south of the site could lead to flood waters reaching the site in 4 hours. Flooding from a breach to the west of the site would not reach the site within the first tidal cycle. Therefore adequate time is available to provide warnings to residents, should the worst case scenario of a breach of the flood defences occur.

4.703 Flood risk from deep level groundwater is considered to be low risk as there is a layer of clay sitting on top of the principal aquifer which stops the movement of groundwater to the surface under natural conditions. However, there is the possibility of the water table in the gravel layers above the clay rising following heavy rainfall and causing shallow groundwater flooding. The highest risk of flooding at the site comes from surface water run-off and sewer flooding from the main public sewer that runs under the site - the Counters Creek combined sewer, which has a history of surcharging and flooding basement areas during heavy downpours.

4.704 Although there is a very low probability of flooding from the Thames impacting on this part of the borough, sleeping accommodation will not be located below ground level. The lowest level at which bedrooms will be located will be existing ground level. This is at a lower level than the 1 in 200 year flood levels, but higher than the levels shown in the assessment of flood defence breaches. This approach has been agreed with the EA and is considered acceptable.

4.705 An additional precaution of signing up properties lower than 5.13m AOD to the EA's flood warning system will be taken. Mitigation measures are to be considered for basement structures such as raising entrance thresholds to reduce likelihood of flooding, providing safe means of escape and protecting critical infrastructure located in basements. These types of flood mitigation measures have not yet been designed in detail, so further information on their implementation will need to be conditioned for submission and agreement.

4.706 Ground conditions and groundwater issues will be investigated further at the site investigation stage. This should allow the shallow water table to be assessed and consideration to be given to the need for mitigation measures to help minimise the risks of this type of flooding. This requirement can be conditioned.

4.707 The potential impacts of the redevelopment on water resources in the surrounding area have also been considered. Potential impacts to water resources during demolition, excavation and construction processes tend to be associated with the generation of sediments and their release into the drainage network; spillage and leakage of oils and fuels; disturbance of contaminated land; and increased pressure

on the foul drainage system. Measures to manage and control these impacts and reduce the magnitude and significance of any residual impacts are discussed in the ES and will be implemented throughout the demolition, excavation and construction phases of the development. The mitigation measures detailed are typical and are based on best practice / working methods for the control of impacts to water resources and the drainage network.

4.708 Water supply resources are considered to be stressed in the London area. The applicants contacted Thames Water to ascertain if the local water supply network can accommodate the increase in water demand attributed to the completed development. Water usage levels within the development are to be compliant with Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH), Code Level 4 standard, and Thames Water confirmed that they can accommodate the additional demand through the utilization of the trunk mains adjacent to the site. Further water saving fixtures and fittings will be adopted where possible within the development plots to meet the Code for Sustainable Home targets and reduce water demand for the site. Greywater use and Rainwater Harvesting will be also be introduced in order to reduce the impact on the water supply network of Thames Water. It is therefore considered the development will not have an harmful impact upon the water supply network.

4.709 A Drainage and Surface Water Management Strategy has also been prepared taking account of the increase in wastewater flows that redevelopment of the site will create and mitigating this increase by reducing the surface water run-off flows from the site. The strategy being followed is aiming to reduce flow rates to 5l/s. This is in line with the London Plan requirement for major developments to aim to reduce their run-off rates to ’greenfield’ rates.

4.710 Waste water and foul drainage will use the existing local Thames Water sewer network. A preliminary drainage scheme has been prepared. This divides the site up into a number of catchments determined by the proposed topography and the available points of connection to the existing Thames Water network. The waste water (foul drainage) proposals have been developed in line with the requirements of Thames Water and it is their responsibility to accept flows from developments, in accordance with the Water Industry Act 1991

4.711 Although the waste water aspect of the development is important due to the increase in residential occupancy resulting from the development, the most significant potential impact in drainage terms is the effect of increased storm water run-off and increase in flood risk. A drainage strategy has been developed that meets sustainability targets, whilst at the same time provides a robust, practicable scheme that can be delivered in a logical, phased sequence.

4.712 A site wide Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is being pursued where possible as a way of integrating measures that can offer additional benefits beyond reducing surface water drainage particularly in terms of ecology enhancing green space measures such as open water features. This approach is supported.

4.713 Provision of SUDS as part of the enabling infrastructure works and as part of each plot development, would reduce the potential for site-wide run-off in terms of volume reduction. Ecology enhancing SUDS opportunities can be incorporated at source within the development plots as well as in the public spaces and streets - this approach also dovetails well with the requirement for individual plot developers to meet relevant BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes targets in terms of run-off reduction and SUDS provision as each phase of the development comes on stream.

A range of other SUDS measures have been broadly assessed for their suitability both across the site and on individual plots. Measures such as storage of rainwater for later use, infiltration techniques, storage in tanks for gradual release are considered to be feasible, although further site investigations will be needed.

4.714 Thames Water are continuing to work on their own drainage and surface water modelling for the area, so there may be a requirement for the DSWMS to be revised following the finalisation of this modelling work. Although the broad outline of measures included in the DSWMS is considered acceptable in terms of sustainable drainage, further quantification of surface water volumes and run-off rates, and the expected quantified benefits that the various SUDS schemes will have, will be required as the scheme progresses through the detailed design stage.

4.715 The Environment Agency have advised that they have no objection to the application, subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions including one requiring the mitigation measures detailed within the FRA to be followed. No concerns were raised with regard to the proposed drainage proposals.

4.716 The development is considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and it complies with relevant London Plan Policies and relevant Borough local policies. Furthermore, officers consider that there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted. On this basis, there would be no sustainable reason to withhold permission on these grounds

4.717 Officers have gone on to consider the proposal against the SPD, which sets out: • Development on the OA will need to ensure that the peak flows entering any combined sewer will either be matched or reduced in comparison to existing peak flows (Key Principle ENV5) • An FRA must be submitted with any planning application for the Opportunity Area (Key Principle ENV6). The FRA has been submitted. • Self contained basements will not be permitted in Flood Risk Zone 3 and all habitable basement rooms should be equipped with pumps and no-return valves, and have suitable alternative means of escape (Key Principle ENV7). The proposal does not include any bedrooms at basement level, the lowest being at proposed ground floor level – • Residential development should be designed to limit mains water consumption to 105 litres per person per day or less Key principle ENV8). • Surface water flows should where possible aim to achieve Greenfield run off rates or better. Where possible development should aim to achieve 100% attenuation or at the very least 50% attenuation on site. (Key Principle ENV9). The proposal aims to meet Greenfield rates and thus accords with this key principle. • SUDs should be incorporated into the design of buildings and public realm (Key Principle ENV9). Officers consider that the proposal in their outline form should be supported but that this is a matter for reserved matters stage.

4.718 For the abovementioned reasons, officers consider that the proposal accords with the SPD guidance where relevant at this outline stage and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account

Recycling and Waste

4.719 As this is an outline application detailed issues relating to recycling and waste will be considered at the later reserved matters stage. For this report the assessment will look at the overarching measures proposed by the applicant.

4.720 The National Planning Policy Framework does not contain specific waste policies since national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. Until this plan is published The waste Planning Policy Statement, PPS 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management remains in place.

4.721 Both PPS 10 and The National Strategy for Waste sets out national policy on waste management in England and sets national targets for the reduction of household waste through recycling and composting.

4.722 London Plan Policy 5.16 sets out the approach to waste management. a - manage as much of London’s waste within London as practicable, working towards managing the equivalent of 100 per cent of London’s waste within London by 2031 b - create positive environmental and economic impacts from waste processing c - work towards zero biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031.

4.723 The Waste Management Strategy for London sets the following targets: • achieve zero municipal waste direct to landfill by 2025. • reduce the amount of household waste by 20 per cent by 2031 • recycle or compost at least 45 per cent of municipal waste by 2015,50 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2031 • reuse and recycle 95 per cent of construction, excavation and demolition waste by 2020.

4.724 Policy CC3 of the LBHF Core Strategy advises that the Council would pursue sustainable water management. Policies EN17 and HO14 of the LBHD UDP require development to incorporate suitable facilities for the storage and collection of segregated waste. Further Policy EN19A encourages the re-use and recycling of demolition waste: Of little weight policy H5 of the submission DM DPD requires developments to include suitable facilities for waste management

4.725 Relevant RBKC Core Strategy policies are CA 7 and CE3 which seek on- site waste management facilities and the management of waste in accordance with the London Plan targets. RBKC UDP policies PU11 and PU 13 seek adequate storage space and promote suitable recycling collection points.

4.726 The applicant’s waste strategy for the development identifies two collection strategies for the operational development: • Traditional bin collection – this includes basement bin stores for high density units with some potential kerbside collection for the townhouse units. Residents will be situated less that 30m from these facilities and will either have direct access to waste storage, or alternative management procedures will be adopted to transfer waste from units to storage. Waste store sizes will be in compliance with BS 5906:2005 • Vacuum waste collection – this envisages the installation of a modern waste collection infrastructure serving the residential and commercial unites within the development. This system collects waste from where it is deposited in special inlets

provided for building users and transports it using a network of ducts and a vacuum to a centralised collection station, where it is sorted and compacted.

4.727 The waste reduction hierarchy has been applied to the construction waste strategy extensively, including the following measures. • Elimination of demolition waste – it is proposed not to demolish part of the existing structural slab of Earls Court Hall 2 and to use this to form the ‘lost river park’ construction. This strategy will therefore ‘eliminate’ generating some demolition waste and avoids having to re-provide a structure • Reduction of construction waste – A mortar batching plant is currently being considered in the construction proposals and will move location to suit the site phasing strategy. Should this prove commercially feasible and technically practical, this would significantly reduce waste from mortar manufacturing, providing an efficient source of pre-mix mortar on demand for construction • Re-use of demolition and excavation material - where feasible, demolition and excavation waste will be reused on-site to make up levels and fill voids

4.728 Recycling waste – it is proposed that all plots in the development proposals will segregate and sort waste on-site for recycling in accordance with the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) colour coding scheme. Where on-site segregation is not feasible due to site constraints it is proposed that off-site recycling will be maximised by a licensed waste contractor.

4.729 The construction strategy requires volumes of waste arising from demolition, excavation and construction activity to be estimated prior to the start of work on a development plot and targets to be set for diverting waste from landfill for each anticipated waste stream. Waste generated will be recorded and monitored using Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP) for each phase of the works.

4.730 The objective of the waste strategy is to promote the efficient use of natural resources and minimise the disposal of material to landfill. The aim has been to approach the strategy for construction waste management and operational waste management using the following construction waste hierarchy - Eliminate, Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, Energy Recovery; and Disposal. The aim being to minimise the disposal of material to landfill.

4.731 With regard to construction waste, a condition would require the submission and implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan which would encourage the reuse and recycling of waste to reduce any unnecessary land-filling of waste. The proposed waste strategy is considered to comply with national, London Plan policy and local planning policy in terms of the waste minimisation and associated environmental impacts

4.732 Officers have gone on to consider the proposal against the SPD, which requires • Redevelopment of the OA must deliver sustainable waste collection and management systems taking into account industry best practice.(Key Principle ENV10). The Waste strategy identifies appropriate and sustainable collection and management methods. • At least one centralised waste management facility must be provided in the OA (Key Principle ENV11). The Waste strategy identifies that a centralised collection station forms part of the proposals for the vacuum waste collection system.

• In addition to regulatory approaches redevelopment in the OA should contribute towards reducing , reusing and recycling waste through non regulatory and education based approaches (Key Principle ENV12). The Waste Strategy adequately demonstrates how improvements to reducing, reusing and recycling waste will be achieved. • Redevelopment of the OA should provide green waste collection to support a community led composting scheme (Key Principle ENV13). This is met in the strategy.

4.733 For the abovementioned reasons, officers consider that the proposal accords with the SPD guidance where relevant at this outline stage and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account

Biodiversity 4.734 The National Planning Policy Framework has a number of paragraphs relevant to biodiversity, paragraphs 109- 120. In particular when determining planning applications LPAs should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity ..

4.735 Policy 5.11 of the London Plan supports the provision of green roofs within new development as a way of enhancing habitat diversity within London. Policy 7.19 seeks the enhancement of London wide biodiversity and states that development proposals, where possible, should make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity.

4.736 LBHF Core Strategy Policy OS1 states that the Council's objective to protect and enhance biodiversity in the Borough . LBHF UDP Policy EN28A states that the Council will not approve development that would have a demonstrably harmful effect on protected species or their habitat. Policy EN29 states that development should protect any significant nature conservation interest of a development site and provides guidance for new development to follow to enhance nature conservation. Of little weight policy E3 of the draft DM DPD which requires developments to enhance the nature conservation interests.

4.737 RBKC Core Strategy policy CR6 seeks to create new high quality green areas to deliver amenity and biodiversity benefits and requires landscape design to optimise the benefit to wildlife habitat benefit.

4.738 The application includes an ecological appraisal contained in Chapter 17 of the Environment Statement and includes a habitat survey and protected species assessment carried out by an ecology consultancy. None of the habitats within the application site are recorded as being of high botanical or habitat value and no native plant species of national importance have been identified as being present.

4.739 The application site does not fall within any ecological statutory site designations. The District Line and The West London Line are both sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and have also been classified as Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC). Brompton Cemetery is also designated a SBINC.

4.740 As part of the proposals new habitats are to be created. In addition to this the public realm and the proposed ‘Lost River Park’ will act as a strong green space at the south of the site providing a habitat for foraging bats, birds and invertebrates.

Key to the public realm and landscape strategy are ecology and biodiversity measures. Habitats to be created across the site include: • Deciduous woodland • Orchards • Species rich acid grasslands at both ground level and on green roofs • Species rich amenity grassland at both ground level and on green roofs • Standing and running water • Reedbeds and ditches planted with other emergent plants • Biodiverse hedges • Brown roofs • Green walls; and • Dead wood habitats and the incorporation of artificial habitats such as bird boxes and bat boxes installed on mature trees and incorporated into buildings, insect houses and hedgehog houses

4.741 From an ecology perspective it is considered the development complies with relevant national, regional and local ecology legislation and policy as the proposals • Respect the natural environment, and seeks to enhance biodiversity and open space • Incorporate ecological measures into the site • The proposed landscaping strategy as set out in the Design and Access Statement seeks to take account of the UK and London BAP objectives by recognising that there is a need to create a functional and healthy ecosystem • Maximise green open space through the creation of the significant new green infrastructure • Integrate biodiversity into the landscaping strategy so creating a public realm that can be used by wildlife and people ( • Provides foraging and roosting habitat for black redstarts and other birds and bats.

4.742 Natural England have commented favourably on the application. In summary, officers consider that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the ecology, biodiversity and the natural environment in the area. The scheme would provide additional natural habitat for the local ecology and as such would be in accordance with national, regional and local planning policy.

4.743 Key Principle ENV18 of the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area SPD seeks to protect and enhance ecology and biodiversity and expects development to protect and enhance ecology and biodiversity within and adjacent to the OA with no net loss of species or habitat. Regard has been had to the SPD and the application is considered consistent with the guidance.

Contamination 4.744 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 121 states planning decisions should ensure that the sites is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and after remediation the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land .

4.745 Policy 5.21 of the London Plan states the support for the remediation of contaminated sites and that appropriate measures should be taken to control the impact of contamination with new development .

4.746 Policy CC4 of the LBHF Core Strategy states that the Council will support the remediation of contaminated land and that it will take measures to

minimise the potential harm of contaminated sites and ensure that mitigation measures are put in place .

4.747 LBHF UDP policy EN20A (Control of Potentially Polluting Uses) advises that development which may cause pollution will only be permitted if it would not release pollutants into the water, soil or air, whether on site or in other areas, which would cause unacceptable harm to people's health and safety, the natural environment or the landscape. Policy H7 of the draft DM DPD requires effective measures to treat, contain or control contamination and policy H11 builds on UDP policy EN20A (i).

4.748 In view of the commercial uses currently on the site and the proposed residential use, the issue of contamination needs to be examined. Chapter 12 of the ES and ES Addendum includes a ground condition assessment. The assessment identifies the history of the site and it sets out the intrusive ground investigations (analysis of soil samples that have been undertaken. These investigations revealed that the contaminant concentrations in soils and groundwater are generally low.

4.749 While the background work submitted with the application indicates that the proposed mitigation measures would be sufficient, further investigation will be carried out in areas of the site which have been inaccessible. A more detailed risk assessment will also be undertaken to explore potential contamination sources and potential pathways to all receptors during the construction and operational phases and off site impacts to support a remediation strategy. Mitigation measures are identified for both the construction and operational phases of the development and these could be controlled by condition. In order to protect humans, controlled waters or the wider environment from the adverse effects of contaminated land, conditions are therefore considered necessary to require a preliminary risk assessment report, a site investigation scheme , a quantitative risk assessment report and a remediation strategy to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of the development. These conditions would ensure compliance with best practice measures and the protection of health and safety for all potential receptors and meet the above mentioned development plan policies. Conditions are also considered necessary to verify that agreed remedial measures have been implemented, validated and monitored.

4.750 Once the development is complete impacts in relation to ground contamination can be mitigated to a negligible significance through the mitigation measures outlined within the ES for example: • Screening for unexploded ordnance • Selection of appropriate methods to dewater excavations • Ground investigations will be undertaken prior to the commencement of works on site and will inform the Foundation / Piling Works Risk Assessment • Implementation of a monitoring strategy to verify levels of heave are within the predicted range • Decommissioning and removal of underground fuel tanks to remove leaks and spillage risk • A licensed contractor will remove asbestos and other materials and structures contaminated with asbestos fibres • Dust suppression techniques will be implemented • Ground investigations will be undertaken across the site; and the results of the geotechnical analysis and further ground / site investigation will be used to fully assess the risks to materials and services

4.751 The development is considered to be in accordance with relevant national, regional and local contaminated land policies which seek to manage the development of land to minimise the potential harm of contaminated sites and where appropriate, ensuring that mitigation measures are put in place. Furthermore, officers consider that there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted. On this basis, there would be no sustainable reason to withhold permission on these grounds.

4.752 Officers have gone on to consider the proposal against Key principles ENV14 and ENV15 of the SPD in terms of identifying, assessing and remediating potential land contamination. The proposed conditions will ensure that the proposal meets the requirement of the SPD. Therefore, officers consider that the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Wind 4.753 London Plan Policy 7.6 requires that new development does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, including through microclimate impacts and policy 7.7 requires that the area surrounding tall buildings is not detrimentally affected in terms of microclimate and wind turbulence.

4.754 The local microclimate surrounding the existing and proposed buildings has been assessed. The ES includes a Wind Assessment in relation to the development undertaken by RWDI, a specialist wind engineering consultancy. The Wind Assessment involved wind tunnel testing of the likely pedestrian wind conditions resulting during construction and upon completion of the proposed development. Particular consideration was given to the potential effects of wind on pedestrian comfort and safety at the site.

4.755 The assessment has considered both the existing situation and the likely building induced effects arising from the proposed development. The wind tunnel assessment considers the existing and resulting wind microclimate for both summer and winter months, based on the guidance offered by the Beaufort Scale for Wind on Land and the Lawson Comfort Criteria. The Lawson Comfort Criteria categorises appropriate wind speeds for roadways and car parks, business walking, leisure walking, entrance doors, standing and sitting based on the Beaufort Scale. Testing was carried out using modelling on the basis of different scenarios, including existing conditions, construction building works and cumulative scenarios..

4.756 The testing demonstrated that the development with the inclusion of a small amount of mitigation, creates acceptable wind conditions having regard to the proposed uses The study concludes that during the windiest season (typically winter), most on-site locations, with the exception of one location situated on the north side of the High Street near the junction with West Kensington Road, are suitable for leisure walking or better throughout the year. The predicted wind conditions within and around the layout of the proposed development are generally suitable for pedestrians. Predicted wind speeds for leisure walking, standing and sitting conditions along Lost River Park are considered acceptable. Where outdoor sitting areas are proposed in these designated park areas and the wind conditions are suitable for leisure walking or standing, localised shelter in the form of tree planting and landscaping will be incorporated into the detailed design to mitigate the windier than desired conditions.

4.757 The development will achieve wind speeds within acceptable standards provided appropriate mitigation is put in place, as stipulated in the Environmental Statement. The incorporation of mitigating features as part of the detailed design of the buildings will include façade design, fins, louvers or ground level details such as vertical screening, along with landscape planting. The proposal is therefore in accordance with regional policy and policy at the local level.

Air Quality 4.758 The two boroughs within which the application site is located are designated Air Quality Management Areas. LBHF was designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in 2000 for two pollutants - Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) and Particulate Matter (PM10). The main local sources of these pollutants are road traffic and buildings (gas boiler emissions).

4.759 Paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework relates to air quality and it states planning decisions should ensure that any new development in air Quality management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

4.760 Policy 7.14 of the London Plan seeks that development proposals minimise pollutant emissions and promote sustainable design and construction to reduce emissions from the demolition and construction of the buildings. Further the Mayor of London’s Air Quality Strategy provides a framework of policy which aims to improve air quality in London.

4.761 Policy CC4 of the LBHF Core Strategy explains that the Council will reduce levels of local air pollution and improve air quality in line with the national air quality objectives.

4.762 Policy EN20A of the LBHF UDP seeks that development does not release pollutants into water, soil or air, which would cause unacceptable harm to people's health and safety, the natural environment or the landscape. Of little weight policy H8 of the draft DM DPD requires an air quality assessment and mitigation measures where appropriate.

4.763 The RBKC Core Strategy policy CE5 relates to air quality. Additionally the RBKC SPD Air Quality 2009 highlights the existing policy framework and sets out the importance of air quality as a material planning consideration and it identifies the circumstances where emissions assessments and /or low emission strategies will be required for new developments.

4.764 Both LBHF and RBKC have air quality action plans setting out measures to reduce emissions, improve local air quality and work towards meeting national objectives. In determining planning applications it is important to consider the impact of the development in terms of air quality, caused by both the operational characteristics of the development and the traffic generated by it.

4.765 An Air Quality assessment has been carried out by the applicant which examines the levels of pollutants such as NO2 and PM10. The assessment is contained in Chapter 14 of the Environment Statement. and it examines the potential air quality impacts of the site during demolition, construction and when operational. The assessment also considers the potential for exposure to poor air quality for future residents of the development.

4.766 The analysis identifies that due to construction traffic associated with the development there will be a small magnitude of change in NO2 and an imperceptible change in PM10 for the construction traffic. This gives rise to a minor adverse impact on air quality that will be temporary in nature.

4.767 In terms of the completed development two scenarios have been assessed for 2031. • A worst case scenario which assumes the composition of motor vehicles will be the same as it is now with no improvement in background air quality or vehicle emissions • A realistic scenario which assumes vehicle emissions will continue to improve and targets for realistic vehicle use are met. In 2031 under the realistic scenario a medium magnitude of change in NO2 and a small change in PM10 concentrations respectively giving rise to, at worst, at a few locations only a moderate adverse impact and, an imperceptible/negligible impact;

4.768 For the energy centre(s) associated with the development, a small impact of minor adverse significance is anticipated.

4.769 The Air Quality Assessment identifies a number of mitigation measures – specific design development; the incorporation of low – NOx optimisation of the CHP engines and gas boilers; promotion of the use of electric charged vehicles etc. The overall residual impact on air quality arising from the proposals in the case of the development is predicted in the Environmental Statement to be of minor significance.

4.770 A Construction Environmental Management Plan and Dust Management Plan would be prepared and implemented during demolition/construction stages to minimise the potential effects of dust generated during these phases. Submission of full details of the planned construction and demolition mitigation measures would be secured by condition Post completion a number of sustainable travel measures are planned, which will help reduce traffic emissions from the new development and the design of the energy centres would help disperse emissions from the CHP units and boilers at adequate heights to minimise their potential impacts at ground level.

4.771 However, although the assessment shows that the relative impacts of the development are not significant. Further details are required on the pollution reduction benefits of the planned mitigation measures, including consideration of the need for exposure reduction measures for residents in the new development. The submission of a Low Emission Strategy will be required by condition to ensure that adequate measures are implemented. Overall in terms of air quality, officers consider that subject to the conditions mentioned above the development meets with policy requirements. Furthermore, officers consider that there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted. On this basis, there would be no sustainable reason to withhold permission on these grounds.

4.772 Officers have also considered the proposal against Key Principle ENV16 of the SPD, which relates to improving air quality and states redevelopment in the OA must be air quality neutral against existing levels and should include mitigation measures to improve air quality. The ES anticipates on a realistic scenario basis that the completed development will give rise to a medium magnitude change in N02 and a small change in PM10 concentrations. However, officers consider that subject to the condition requiring the submission of a low emission strategy and its implementation, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the SPD and

that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Noise and Vibration 4.773 Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework states planning decisions should aim to avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development .

4.774 London Plan Policy 7.15 states that development proposals should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise, separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources through the use of distance screening, or internal layout and promoting new technologies and improved practices to prevent noise .

4.775 Policy CC4 of the LBHF Core Strategy advises that the Council would seek to minimise the impact of noise, by managing the development and distribution of noise sensitive development in the borough.

4.776 LBHF UDP Policy EN20B states that housing and other noise- sensitive development will not normally be permitted where the occupants /users would be affected adversely by noise from existing or proposed noise generating uses except if it can be demonstrated that adequate mitigation measures will be taken. Policy EN21 deals with environmental nuisance and states that all developments shall ensure that there is no undue detriment to the general amenities at present enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers of their properties particularly where commercial and service activities are close to residential properties. Of little weight policy H9 of the submission DM DPD requires development to implement noise mitigation measures when necessary.

4.777 Policy CE60 of the RBKC Core Strategy relates to noise and vibration and the RBKC SPD Noise sets out the criteria to protect occupiers of new or existing sensitive buildings from existing or induced noise sources.

4.778 An assessment of the expected levels of noise and vibration from the development both during construction and after completion is in Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement. The assessment has looked at the existing levels of noise and vibration associated with the site and the likely impacts arising from the proposed development to ensure that any detrimental impacts identified can be managed and mitigated

4.779 The assessment further concludes that there is likely to be an increase in noise on roads surrounding the site due to construction traffic which should, in the main, be of eligible impact. Where a greater impact is predicated e.g. Lillie Road, this is short term.

4.780 Following completion he assessment identifies that for the development the existing noise environment within the site is appropriate for its intended uses(s. In considering the proposed development itself future detailed designs will take into account the effects from noise from the surrounding roads, aircraft traffic and the adjoining railway network through the use of robust glazing, whole building ventilation systems, location of the public open space and outdoor living areas within internalised courtyards and private amenity areas Appropriately worded conditions are recommended to be attached to any grant of planning permission in this respect.

4.781 Noise and vibration levels generated by demolition and construction activities have the greatest potential to impact upon near-by noise sensitive receptors such as residential premises. Therefore, in order to minimise noise and nuisance during the construction period, mitigation measures will be adopted and noise and vibration monitoring will be carried out during the demolition and construction phase. The applicant has indicated that particular care would be taken when piling is likely to occur close to neighbouring dwellings. It should be noted site hoardings would be constructed around the site which would provide some acoustic screening.

4.782 The mitigation measures such as the permitted hours for building works will be addressed within Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will also be secured via a condition with the S106 agreement dealing with funding provided for monitoring purposes. Noise arising from the commercial elements of the scheme is considered to be minimal. Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal is considered by officers to be in accordance with national, regional and local planning policies.

4.783 Officers have also considered the proposal against Key Principle ENV17 of the SPD, which relates to mitigating noise and vibration requiring development to be designed to mitigate and adequately control noise and vibration. Officers consider that subject to the conditions mentioned in the above paragrpahs, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the SPD and that there are no relevant reasons to withhold permission on this issue whether the SPD is taken into account or not taken into account.

Light Pollution/Solar Glare 4.784 The National Planning Policy Framework states in paragraph 125 that by encouraging good design, planning decisions should limit the impact of light pollution on local amenity .

4.785 LBHF Core Strategy Policy CC4 seeks to protect and enhance environmental quality advising that proposals should seek to minimise light pollution which can have a serious damaging effect on the amenity of the area and cause disturbance to adjoining uses, particularly residential. Regard should also be had to the potential harm to wildlife. LBHF UDP policy EN20C requires developments to minimise amount of light necessary to achieve its purpose and avoid glare and light spillage from the site. Of little weight policy H10 of the submission DM DPD requires the submission of details to address light pollution.

4.786 Policy CL5 of the RBKC Core Strategy relates to amenity. It requires new buildings to achieve high standards of amenity and that there is no significant impact on the use of existing buildings due to local microclimate effects.

4.787 The outline nature of the application means both the internal layouts of the buildings and their external appearance is to be determined at a later stage. In order to ensure lighting is designed to avoid glare, light spillage from the site and to conserve energy, a condition is recommended requiring the submission and approval of details of external lighting proposals so that the type, location and intensity of external lighting can be controlled. This would ensure that good lighting levels are achieved for areas on the site such as the new public spaces but also ensure the amenity and environment of the surrounding area would not be adversely affected and ensure that nuisance is not caused to occupiers of neighbouring properties. Subject to the conditions, officers consider the development to satisfy policy requirements.

Archaeology: 4.788 Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework relates to archaeology and requires developers to submit appropriate desk based assessments where a development site has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological value.

4.789 Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2011) advises that development should incorporate measures that appropriately address the site's archaeology.

4.790 LBHF Core Strategy Policy BE1 advises that new development should respect and enhance the historic environment of the Borough, including archaeological assets. LBHF UDP Policy EN7 states a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration of, or cause damage to, Archaeological Remains of National Importance and advises that the loss of archaeological value must be outweighed by the need for the development. The policy advises that archaeological study of application sites will be required before approval.

4.791 Policy CL 4 of the RBKC Core Strategy is relevant. In relation to archaeology the policy requires desk based assessments where necessary and resists development which would threaten the setting of archaeological remains.

4.792 A full consideration of the archaeology issues is included in Chapter 11 of the Environment Statement. A desk based assessment has been undertaken in order to determine the archaeology potential of the development site. The information presented in the ES has been researched and prepared by Museum of London Archealogy. The assessment suggests that no buried heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit permanent preservation in situ. The report concludes that any impact of the development on any buried heritage assets could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation. English Heritage (Archaeology) has been consulted and does not raise an objection to the proposal. Suitable safeguarding conditions are recommended to secure the evaluation and any subsequent necessary mitigation works proposed as a result of the development, particularly in relation to the formation of the basement level.

Electronic Interference: 4.793 An assessment on the potential impact s of the development on digital and satellite television reception has been undertaken. This is in chapter 10 of the Environment Statement. This assessment seeks to ascertain if the proposal would have any adverse impact on available broadcast service signals in the area surrounding the application site (analogue, digital and satellite (TV) reception), together with effects on other communication systems, including mobile and emergency services. As analogue television signals were switched off in London in April 2012 the shadowing of digital, terrestrial and satellite signals require the main consideration.

4.794 It is recognised that tall buildings can potentially affect the reception of telecommunications. The areas where digital terrestrial and satellite reception has the potential to be affected are to the north west of the proposed site. The assessment concludes there are properties in a shadow area that might be potentially affected, but the proposed development would not unduly undermine services with mitigation measures which include upgrading existing aerials or through the provision of non-subscription satellite services. A condition is therefore

recommended to ensure that interference caused by the development is fully remediated.

Management Strategy 4.795 Rendall & Rittner has produced an Estate Management Strategy on behalf of the applicants to support their planning applications for the redevelopment of the application site. The report provides an overview of the approach to management of the site through both the phased construction and the management of the completed development.

4.796 The report looks at a holistic approach covering both the development options. It covers all key aspects of Estate Management and considers some specific issues relating to the site such as phasing, sustainability objectives, infrastructure management and interaction with land under separate ownership.

4.797 It is currently anticipated that the legal structure may include the following: • Freehold retained by the developer • Potential use of an Estate Management Company • Headlease arrangements for some individual buildings / parcels • Either direct lease or Resident Management Companies for some of the individual residential buildings • Some Residential underleases • Potential commercial headleases • Commercial underleases

4.798 In order to develop long term governance it is anticipated that an Estate Management Company or Association could be formed to potentially comprise elected representatives from the Affordable Housing Provider (or nominated residents or a combination of the two), Private Residential and Commercial Occupiers. It is anticipated that other interested parties in the development may also be represented. This kind of approach would enable the Earls Court community to have an active involvement in shaping the future management

4.799 A reputable and competent Managing Agent with a proven track record in the management of substantial mixed use and tenure regeneration schemes, will be appointed both in the construction phase and for management of completed elements of the project, for the redevelopment of the Earls Court Site

4.800 Each of the six main construction phases lasts a number of years and therefore there will be elements of each phase completed whilst other areas of the same phase remain under construction. The Managing Agent will implement a phased approach to the overall Estate Management Strategy and will demonstrate flexibility and adaptability in terms of the phasing in of services and contracts, as appropriate. The Managing Agent and their appointed Estate Management Team will ensure that the development is presented to a high standard, notwithstanding ongoing adjacent construction work. This will be achieved through close communication and interaction between the Estate Management and construction teams.

4.801 The Managing Agent will produce a fully considered services phasing strategy, based on the developer’s construction programme. This will incorporate various options in order that informed decisions can be taken, particularly in relation to the phasing in of services. The Managing Agent will work with the marketing agent and the affordable housing providers in order to promote an awareness of the agreed

phasing strategy and the services that will be delivered at commencement of each phase and how they are to be expanded.

4.802 A priority will be placed on health and safety and consequently a specialist health and safety consultant will be retained who would prepare annual health and safety and fire risk assessments, undertake quarterly inspections and work closely with the Managing Agent to review the implementation of identified items. Contractors appointed to work on the development by the Managing Agent will be closely managed and monitored. The Managing Agent will operate an Approved Contractor Scheme which will require the contractor to comply and meet set criteria e.g. Health and Safety and code of conduct.

4.803 The Managing Agent will be responsible for the health and safety management of the public realm, private estate areas and buildings within its direct management control. Other parties, agents and head lessors will be responsible for areas within their demise and direct management control, however the Managing Agent for the overall scheme will be responsible for liaising with the respective parties where their activities or building design and / or strategies overlap, to not only ensure compliance, but also ensure a holistic approach to the prioritisation of health and safety across the development in its entirety is undertaken.

4.804 There will need to be particular interaction with the commercial operators, Transport for London, Network Rail and London Underground Ltd

4.805 A number of detailed of a detailed management strategies will be prepared y setting out clearly and concisely how the development will be operated based on the design, strategies, legal structure and service charge structure developed in detail over time. These strategies will cover: • Public Realm & Adopted Areas • Staffing & Security • Service Charge • Customer Service / Quality Management • Design for Management • Maintenance, Procurement, Contracts and Warranties • Infrastructure Requirements • Refuse Strategy • Utilities / Energy / Billing / Metering • Commercial, Leisure and Community Use Management • Servicing and Deliveries • Traffic Management and Car Parking

4.806 The sec 106 agreement will require an Estate Management Plan to be submitted at relevant phases of the development.

5.0 EQUALTIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS

5.1 The council’s statutory duty under the Equality Act 2010 applies to planning decision-making. The protected characteristics to which the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) applies now include age as well as the characteristics covered by the previous equalities legislation applicable to public bodies (i.e. disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, sexual orientation, religion or belief and sex).

5.2 The PSED is set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) provides (so far as relevant) as follows:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

(3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

5.3 Case law has established the following principles relevant to compliance with the PSED which Council will need to consider:

(i) Compliance with the general equality duties is a matter of substance not form. (ii) The duty to have "due regard" to the various identified "needs" in the relevant sections does not impose a duty to achieve results. It is a duty to have "due regard" to the "need" to achieve the identified goals. (iii) Due regard is regard that is appropriate in all the circumstances, including the importance of the area of life of people affected by the decision and such countervailing factors as are relevant to the function that the decision maker is performing. (iv) The weight to be given to the countervailing factors is in principle a matter for the authority. However in the event of a legal challenge it is for the court to determine whether an authority has given “due regard” to the “needs” listed in s149. This will include the court assessing for itself whether in the circumstances appropriate weight has been given by the authority to those “needs” and not simply deciding whether the authority’s decision is a rational or reasonable one. (v) The duty to have “due regard” to disability equality is particularly important where the decision will have a direct impact on disabled people. The same goes for other protected groups where they will be particularly and directly affected by a decision. (v) The PSED does not impose a duty on public authorities to carry out a formal equalities impact assessment in all cases when carrying out their functions, but where a significant part of the lives of any protected group will be directly affected by a decision, a formal equalities impact assessment ("EQIA") is likely to be required by the courts as part of the duty to have 'due regard'. The EQIA is attached and will need to be read and taken into account in reaching a decision on the recommendations in the report. Additionally, the equality implications are summarised at paragraph 7 of the report. (vii) The duty to have “due regard” will normally involve considering whether taking the particular decision would itself be compatible with the equality duty i.e. whether it will eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and foster good relations. Consideration must also be given to whether, if the decision is made to go ahead, it will be possible to mitigate any adverse impact on any particular protected

group, or to take steps to promote equality of opportunity by, for example, treating a particular affected group more favourably

5.4 A full equalities impact assessment (“EQIA” in planning terms, to distinguish it from “EIA” which deals with environmental impacts) is attached to this report as an appendix. Here, officers have summarised the positive and negative impacts which have been identified in the analysis and the proposed mitigation measures by way of condition and planning obligations.

5.5 The analysis of equality impacts of the planning application on protected groups as defined by the Act shows that:

1. There are positive impacts on age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, sex, race, religion and belief including non belief and children in relation to the applicant’s proposals to provide new employment, retail, open space and play space, transport improvements, culture and social infrastructure. There will also be positive impacts in relation to the mix of housing proposed, with a significant proportion being provided for families, 100% of the units being built to lifetime homes standards and 10% of the units being designed to be wheelchair accessible.

2. There will be negative impacts on age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, and children from the proposed redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Those with the protected characteristics of race, religion belief (including non belief), will also be negatively impacted as above, in proportion with their presence on the estates (this is given in section 02 of the EQIA). The proposed housing tenure may also mean that the poorest in society are not able to access new intermediate or market housing.

3. The loss of the employment created by the exhibition centres is likely to have a negative impact on age.

4. The provision of new health, education and community hub, combined with the proposed redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, may result in residents of the estates having to travel further to their new community facilities. This is anticipated to have a negative impact on age, disability, maternity and pregnancy and sex.

5. The impacts of construction and expected to have varying degrees of negative impacts on age, disability, pregnancy and maternity and children, depending on the measures that are set out in the Construction Management Plan.

6. The provision of a cultural facility is considered to have both positive and negative impacts on age, disability, race, religion, sec and sexual orientation, depending on the end occupier.

5.6 Generally, the impacts of the development proposals are considered to be positive, offering new opportunities to access housing, employment, providing new transport and social infrastructure, retail and cultural space and new public open space and play space. Negative impacts are identified in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the housing estates (age, disability, maternity and pregnancy, race and religion/belief (including non belief), the loss of the employment generated by the exhibition centres (age), the relocation of community facilities (age, disability,

maternity and pregnancy and sex), the impacts of construction (age, disability and pregnancy and maternity) and cultural provision (religion/belief (including non belief) and sexual orientation). Officers consider that the proposed conditions and section 106 agreement should go towards minimise any negative impacts as a result of the development proposals though they will not fully eliminate them due to the scale of the redevelopment and the impacts on some protected groups as indentified in the EQIA and summarised in this section of the PAC Report. The measures that will be employed are set out in Section 02 of the EQIA and in the body of the report. Also, members should note that the mitigation measures proposed are not intended to give favourable treatment to any particularly affected group (see the duty in vii above) as officers consider that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and will apply to all affected people currently residing on the site and future occupiers.

Human Rights 5.7 The council has a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with Convention rights in determining the application. As noted elsewhere, the application includes the demolition of a number of properties including the homes of residents in the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Article 8 of the Convention enshrines the right to respect for everyone’s private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Any interference with that right can only be justified if it is in accordance with the law and proportionate having regard to a legitimate aim including the interests of the economic well-being of the country. Article 1 of the First Protocol provides that every person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one may be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law.

5.8 The grant of planning permission alone does not authorise the interference with the homes and possessions of those tenants and leaseholders of the properties concerned. It will be necessary for the council to take possession of those homes either under the terms of the relevant tenancies and long leases or through a separately authorised compulsory acquisition. However, the rights of those living and owning property within the area need to be taken into account and planning permission should only be granted if the Committee is satisfied that the interference with the rights of individuals and families in respect of their homes and the rights of owners of properties affected is proportionate and in the public interest.

5.9 Officers have carefully considered the balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public interest in in the context of seeking to secure the regeneration of the Earls Court area and are satisfied that an appropriate balance has been struck and that any interference is proportionate, will be mitigated so far as is possible (for example, under the terms of the s 106 agreement providing for alternative homes within the scheme) and is in the public interest. Accordingly officers advise that notwithstanding the interference with the rights of residents and landowners which may follow if the scheme were to be implemented, planning permission should still be granted.

6.0 TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

6.1 As explained in paragraphs 1.8 to 1.13 of this report, small slices of four development plots (BW03, BW05, BW07 and WK03) which form part of Application 2 lie within both LBHF and RBKC administrative areas.

6.2 Officers from RBKC and LBHF considered that it would be expedient and appropriate given the circumstances of the case that Application 2 be determined by LBHF. Accordingly, under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, RBKC delegated and LBHF accepted this function insofar as Application 2 site falls on RBKC land.

6.3 The consequence of this is that the composition of the statutory development plan changes in respect of that part of the proposal which falls on RBKC land. In such instances, the development plan will comprise the London Plan, RBKC Core Strategy and the remaining extant policies of its Unitary Development Plan.

6.4 Similarly, the material considerations to which officers have had regard will also change. The main change will be the consideration of any relevant RBKC supplementary planning guidance or documents as opposed to LBHF guidance.

6.5 In section 4 of the report and where relevant to these four development plots (see paragraph 1.13 in respect of their proposed uses), officers have considered them insofar as they fall within RBKC land against the development plan for that area and have had regard to any material considerations as set out above. RBKC planning policy and guidance has been set out in the report and in reaching their conclusions in respect of these development plots, officers have had regard to the relevant development plan and any material considerations.

7.0 CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EARLS COURT AND WEST KENSINGTON SPD JUDICIAL REVIEW CHALLENGE

7.1 As set out above in Sections 4 of the report the planning application has been assessed against the relevant policies of the development plan (ie the London Plan, the Core Strategies and saved policies in the UDPs). Officers conclude that the proposal is in accordance with the development plan. It is on this basis that the recommendation is in support of the application.

7.2 As well as the development plan the Council is required to have regard to other material considerations which in the case of this application includes the Earls Court and West Kensington SPD. As mentioned in various parts of the report, the application is also considered to be in accordance with the policies in the SPD as they themselves are in conformity with the London Plan and Core Strategies. There are no other material considerations which indicate that planning permission should not be granted for a proposal which is considered to be in accordance with the development plan.

7.3 The decision to adopt the SPD is presently the subject of a judicial challenge. Unless and until the SPD is quashed by the court it is a valid document. However in the event the SPD is quashed by the courts, officers have also assessed the application without taking the SPD into account and considered what change, if any, they would make to their recommendation. Because officers consider the application to be in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and thus the recommendation is to approve the proposal (pursuant to the recommendation to committee), officers conclude that not taking the SPD into account, makes no difference to their overall conclusion and recommendation.

8.0 SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

8.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations state that planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.2 The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance for local planning authorities in considering the use of planning obligations. It states that authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations and that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. It adds that where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development from being stalled.

8.3 Policy 8.2 of the London Plan states that: “When considering planning applications of strategic importance, the Mayor will take into account, among other issues including economic viability of each development concerned, the existence and content of planning obligations. Development proposals should address strategic as well as local priorities in planning obligations. Affordable housing…and other public transport improvements should be given the highest importance”. It goes onto state: “Importance should also be given to tackling climate change, learning and skills, health facilities and services, childcare provisions and the provision of small shops.”

8.4 In the context of the above, Chapter 9 of the Core Strategy states that the council will implement the policies and proposals of the Core Strategy and seek to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is secured to support regeneration by, inter alia, negotiating s.106 obligations.

8.5 A Section 106 Agreement is proposed in order to secure the necessary infrastructure to mitigate the needs of the proposed development and ensure the proposal is in accordance with the statutory development plan.

8.6 The application site is in the ownership of several parties. The major landholders comprise the applicant, London Underground Ltd (LUL) and the Council. The applicant will be a party to the agreement and the applicant's land bound, and the land on which any obligations affecting LUL’s land interests in the application site will be required to be bound by the s.106 agreement before LUL's land is developed. To ensure that the s.106 agreement binds that part of the site currently under council ownership (or other private non-party ownership) that will need to be acquired to develop the site, officers recommend that a condition be imposed to ensure that development shall not commence in respect of a phase of the development until the land within such phase which is necessary to secure the obligations in respect of such phase is bound by the agreement. Circular 11/95 advises that such a condition can in principle be imposed and the DCLG's consultation paper on planning conditions in 2009 confirmed this view. The particular circumstances of this application are such that a condition of this nature is considered to be consistent with the tests set out in the circular. Officers note that such a condition has been applied in practice by other boroughs and its use has been accepted in the courts. To ensure

that the condition is appropriately worded, officers recommend that Committee delegate the drafting of the wording to the Executive Director of Transport and Technical Services.

8.7 The Section 106 Agreement will secure a combination of in kind on-site delivery of infrastructure by the Applicant as well as financial contributions. Overall, the Section 106 Agreement is proposed to secure, summary:

• Regeneration of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates. • New affordable housing. • Improvements to local highways. • Improvements to public transport. • Improvements to cycle facilities. • New education, health, community, leisure and cultural facilities. • Improvements to local streetscape / public realm. • Employment and training initiatives.

8.8 The Section 106 agreement will include triggers requiring the delivery of/contributions towards necessary infrastructure to coincide with development/occupation, in order that infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion such that it mitigates against the impacts arising from the development. In order to achieve this, the Section 106 agreement will set in place mechanisms such that each phase of development makes an adequate and appropriate contribution towards environmental and other relevant improvements, infrastructure and land uses.

8.9 The Heads of Terms agreed with the Applicant specific to Application 2 are detailed below and will form the basis of progressing with the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement. The Heads of Terms relating to Application 1 are currently being negotiated between RBKC and the Applicant.

8.10 In considering Application 2 Heads of Terms, it is important to understand the draft Heads of Terms currently proposed in relation to Application 1. A summary of the current draft Application 1 Heads of Terms, for information, is as follows:

• Delivery of on-site public open space and off-site public realm improvements. • Delivery of space for community purposes. • Delivery of a day nursery facility. • Delivery of space for cultural purposes as well as an associated cultural fund. • Delivery of improvements to Earls Court Station, including repair, alteration and re-use of existing entrance within the site. • Various sustainable transport measures including: travel plans; improvements to local cycle routes; provision of Mayor of London cycle hire hubs; funds for off-site bus infrastructure improvements. • Financial contributions towards improvements to the A4 (West Cromwell Road) and Earls Court Road. • Financial contributions towards social infrastructure, including: health; education; and leisure. • Provision of fund for local employment and training, which along with the contribution to Application 2 will total £8m. • Financial contribution for improvements to Brompton Cemetery • Provision of funds associated with Strategic Transport Review Group. • Provision of funds for monitoring.

8.12 Some of the Heads of Terms in relation to Application 1 noted above relate to site-wide (Applications 1 and 2) items: Strategic Transport Review Group and local employment and training. See items 33 and 46 and 47 of the Application 2 Heads of Terms below.

8.13 Where the development plots in Application 2 fall within RBKC, officers have had regard to the RBKC Core Strategy (2010, remaining policies of RBKC’s UDP) and the Planning Obligations SPD (2010). Officers are satisfied that the Section 106 Heads of Terms for Application 2 address the policy requirements set out in RBKC’s Core Strategy, the principles set out in the Planning Obligations SPD and the remaining policies of RBKC’s UDP.

8.14 In view of the fact that the agreement will be the subject of extended negotiations, officers consider that circumstances may arise which may result in the need to make minor modifications to the conditions and obligations (which may include the variation, addition or deletion). Accordingly, the second recommendation has been drafted to authorise the Director of Transport and Technical Services in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, to authorise the changes he/she considers necessary and appropriate, within the scope of such delegated authority.

APPLICATION 2 HEADS OF TERMS

Delivery

(1) A clause restricting the commencement of this application (Application 2) until after the commencement of the application in RBKC (Application 1).

(2) A clause restricting development in Application 1 until certain milestones have been met in the delivery of Application 2.

(3) Requirement for a Land Use Plan to ensure residential led mixed use development.

Affordable Housing and Estate Regeneration

(4) The reprovision of existing housing to be secured in the form of up to 67,910 sqm GIA or up to 760 units to be provided in Application 2 site, Seagrave Road and 11 Farm Lane, for use as replacement housing units for re-housing residents from West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in accordance with Housing Needs Assessments for the social rented properties and the Accommodation Assessments for the privately owned properties. The reprovision will ensure no loss of LBHF social for rent existing floorspace (sqm GIA).

(5) Reciprocal obligation on the Council (or its nominee who acquires the 760 replacement homes): requirement to re-house the existing estate social rented tenants; requirement to offer on affordable terms new properties to existing estate owner-occupiers of privately owned properties; requirement to offer tenants appropriate re-housing packages to provide an opportunity to be re-housed in the Opportunity Area or the vicinity

(6) Provision for daylight and sunlight assessment at reserved matters stage for development of land within West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates.

(7) The delivery of additional affordable housing units to be secured in the form of 740 housing units (up to 57,000 sqm GIA) of an appropriate mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed units, constructed and made available for use as intermediate affordable housing within the Application 2 boundary, subject to nomination and apportionment agreements between the Council and RBKC.

(8) The delivery of the additional affordable housing units (referred to in (7)) to be made available at a range of levels of affordability to the intermediate affordable housing units.

(9) Provisions to cater for the possibility of grant funding becoming available in the future, in order to potentially enhance the affordability of the additional 740 affordable housing units.

(10) The occupants of the replacement housing units and the additional affordable housing units will be liable to pay a fair reasonable and proportionate contribution to the level of service charge. The LBHF social for rent tenants and Registered Provider tenants will pay up to an agreed maximum cap.

(11) Provisions for the submission of an Affordable Housing Plan in order to monitor the delivery of replacement housing units and the additional affordable housing units.

Highway Works

(12) Provision of new site accesses in accordance with approved drawings and agreed scope and specification, designed and delivered to an adoptable standard. Each scope of work will be subject to a Section 278 Agreement under the Highways Act. The parties will, prior to completion of the Section 106 Agreement, define and agree responsibility for carrying out the works.

(13) Provision of improvements to North End Road / Lillie Road highway junction in accordance with approved drawings and agreed scope and specification, designed and delivered to an adoptable standard. The scope of work will be subject to a Section 278 Agreement under the Highways Act. The parties will, prior to completion of the Section 106 Agreement, define and agree responsibility for carrying out the works.

(14) All the future occupiers (apart from blue badge holders) of the residential units to be provided within the Application 2 boundary to be prohibited from applying for or holding on street residential car parking permits in existing / proposed CPZs outwith the site.

(15) Provision of off-site public realm and streetscape improvements to West Cromwell Road, Lillie Road and North End Road in accordance with agreed drawings, scope and specification and subject to a Section 278 Agreement.

(16) On-site roads / streets to be designed and built to an acceptable standard and specification approved by the Council.

(17) A financial contribution of £36,000 to implement signage at the perimeter of the Site in accordance with principles of ‘Legible London’. Details of signage to be agreed with the Council.

Public Transport and Sustainable Transport Measures

(18) Delivery of gateline capacity improvements at the existing North End Road entrance to West Kensington Station in accordance with an agreed scope and specification, or, alternatively, a financial contribution of £1,114,022 for Transport for London to undertake the works.

(19) Delivery of a new entrance to the eastern end of West Kensington Station, including step-free access in accordance with an agreed scope and specification.

(20) A financial contribution of £701,596 to meet initial London Underground Limited staffing start-up costs associated with the new entrance to the eastern end of West Kensington Station (referred to in (19)).

(21) A financial contribution of £4,096,925 to Transport for London towards the delivery of a new DDA-compliant lift at West Brompton Station.

(22) A financial contribution of £216,000 to Transport for London for the refurbishment and/or improvement of 6 existing off-site bus stops in the vicinity of the site.

(23) A contribution of up to £4,000,000 to Transport for London for the improvement of existing local bus services or the provision of new local bus services within, or within the vicinity of, the site.

(24) A contribution of up to £84,000 to Transport for London for the delivery of up to 4 on-site bus stops.

(25) Delivery of an on-site bus layover and associated driver facility to an agreed specification.

(26) Travel Plan to be submitted for approval in relation to each phase of the development and a requirement to comply with the approved Framework Travel Plan. The Travel Plan shall identify Sustainable Travel Plan Measures to be made available to occupiers of the residential units of the development which may include:

• targets for the monitoring of vehicle trips generated by the development to ensure they do not exceed the modelled levels; • financial incentives to encourage cycling, for example, through bike loans and cycle vouchers; • the provision of a Travel Pack to ensure all prospective occupiers are fully aware of their sustainable transport choices; and • the nomination of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator.

(27) Provision of a Parking Management Plan(s), including details of parking charges and associated enforcement.

(28) A financial contribution of £140,000 to the Council towards the delivery of improvements to existing, and the provision of new, cycle routes in the vicinity of the site (in accordance with agreed drawings and specification).

(29) A requirement to safeguard land on-site together with a financial contribution of £400,000 to Transport for London, for the delivery of 2 Mayor of London

cycle hire docking stations (each providing capacity for 25 cycles) within the Application 2 boundary.

(30) Use of reasonable endeavours to provide a rail freight facility for the construction stage of the development, following a detailed feasibility study.

(31) A Construction Logistics Plan to be submitted for approval in relation to each phase of the development. Costs associated with the monitoring of the Construction Logistics Plan covered in (33) below.

(32) A Servicing Management Plan to be submitted for approval in relation to each phase of the development.

(33) Establishment of Strategic Transport Review Group for the purpose of regularly monitoring the development and implementation of transport obligations contained within the Section 106 Agreement. Including a commitment to a contingency fund of up to £1,275,000 for the Earls Court Site (both application 1 and application 2) (application 2 share of up to £1,000,000) as well as to meet the Council’s (plus RBKC and TfL) officer resource up to a capped amount of £750,000 (the Council’s share anticipated to be £250,000).

Open Space

(34) Phased provision of on-site public open space in accordance with agreed drawings and specification. The on-site public open space includes: the Lost River Park (within Application 2); green space; and civic spaces.

(35) Provision of children’s and young people’s play and recreation space in accordance with agreed standards to be set out in the Section 106 Agreement.

(36) General public to be granted access to the public open space in accordance with agreed terms to be set out in the Section 106 Agreement.

Education

(37) Delivery of a combined:

(i) two-form entry primary school; and (ii) day nursery facility, with a total registered capacity for 60 children

(38) Delivery of a further day nursery facility, with a total registered capacity for a for 30 children.

(39) A financial contribution of up to £3,280,000 to the Council required to increase capacity of existing or provide new facilities to meet the secondary education needs of the development.

Community

(40) The replacement of the existing community meeting halls of up to 200 sqm GIA to an agreed timetable and specification for use as a community facility. To be delivered and made available for use prior to loss of the existing halls

located on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates or any temporary replacement provision provided by the developer.

(41) Provision of a minimum of 1,800 sqm GIA floorspace for community use purposes, anticipated at this stage to include a library and with the potential to include one or more of the following:

• job shop; • multi-faith space; • youth space; • children’s centre; • training and meeting space; • community police office space; • adult learning and training space; and/or • halls for hire.

To be made available to the Council or suitable operator(s) on reasonable terms.

Health

(42) Delivery of health facility floorspace, including GP and dental provision, of up to 1,095 sqm GIA, including fit out. Use of reasonable endeavours to lease the health facility floorspace to a relevant provider(s) on reasonable terms.

Culture

(43) Delivery of up to 2,000 sqm GIA of floorspace (to shell and core) for cultural use purposes. A Marketing Strategy for the cultural floorspace shall be submitted to the Council for approval.

(44) A Cultural Use Implementation Plan to be submitted to the Council for approval, in consultation with the Greater London Authority, prior to implementation.

Leisure

(45) Delivery of leisure facility floorspace of up to 2,500 sqm GIA, including a minimum of 1 x sports hall plus space for gym and studios. A requirement to enter into an affordable pricing strategy with the Council relating to the use of the facility floorspace to ensure the provision of a range of membership options reflecting the requirements of the development (including memberships at prices comparable to those at similar local authority run facilities within the Borough).

Employment and Training

(46) The agreement of a joint Local Employment and Training Strategy (site wide to cover applications 1 and 2), reflecting the following key principles:

• funding for the initial appointment of and operation of a workplace coordinator; • establishment of a training and skills budget for the purposes of providing pre-employment advice, skills and vocational training;

• funding for a construction training and skills centre; • recruitment support and funding of the establishment and ongoing operation of a ‘job shop’ facility (on-site or within close proximity of the site); • funding of a business sector engagement programme; • funding of initiatives to develop supply chains to enable local businesses to access supply chains serving the development during the construction phase and its ongoing operation; and • affordable business space

(47) The establishment of an Employment and Training Strategy fund, at the developer’s cost to the value of £8,000,000 for the purposes of the funding of the initial implementation and ongoing operation of the detailed Local Employment and Training Strategy agreed under (46) above.

(48) Reasonable endeavours to offer replacement floorspace for businesses located within the application site (with the exception of the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centres).

Retail

(49) A Retail Management Plan to be submitted to the Council for approval at relevant periods of the development and for the purpose of controlling the nature and type of retail use. The scope of the Plan to be agreed with the Council.

Energy

(50) Provision of a Decentralised Energy Network.

(51) Provision of Energy Centre to a specification agreed with the Council, in consultation with the Greater London Authority.

(52) Timing of delivery and operation of the Energy Centre to be agreed with the Council

Inclusive Access

(53) Provision for a Consultative Access Group to review reserved matters applications and advise officers on inclusive access matters. Associated costs to be covered by the monitoring sum committed to by the developer at item (54).

Monitoring

(54) A contribution of up to £1,200,000 to the Council towards:

• monitoring obligations contained in the Section 106 Agreement; • monitoring environmental impacts; and • monitoring of other development impacts.

Appendix 1

Equalities Impact Assessment for Application Number 2011/02001/OUT

Overall Information Details of Full Equality Impact Analysis Financial Year and Quarter 2012 – 2013

Name and details of policy, strategy, function, project, This is the Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) for Application Number 2011/02001/OUT. It should be given due activity, or programme consideration in determining the planning application in light of the Council’s equality duties. A summary of this EQIA is included within the main body of the committee report.

This EQIA has been undertaken on an ‘outline’ planning application submitted by Capital and Counties (Capco) for 23.16 hectares of land bounded by the A4 to the north, North End Road to the west, Lillie Road to the south and the borough boundary with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to the east. The application site includes the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre 2, the Transport for London Lillie Bridge Depot, land around the Empress State Building, the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates and a number of other smaller land parcels.

The application seeks outline consent for a maximum total floorspace of 890,968 sqm (GIA) and 932,831 sqm (GEA).

Land Use Use Class Maximum Floorspace GIA (sqm) GEA (sqm) Residential C3 587,043 617,940 Business B1 81,736 84,701 Retail A1-A5 22,502 23,318 Hotel and Serviced C1 8,625 8,938 Apartments Education/ Health/ D1/D2 24,858 25,760 Community/ Culture/ Leisure Private Hospital C2 10,208 10,578 SUBTOTAL 734,972 771,235 Ancillary - 145,156 150,421 Stabling Sui Generis 10,840 11,175 TOTAL 890,968 932,831

Both applications seek approval of details given at this stage, for: • Access – detail on the accessibility to the Site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of positioning and treatment of access and how these fit into the surrounding existing access network. • Amount, and use, of development – the amount of development proposed for each land use.

The application subdivides the site into a number of development plots. The application reserves for subsequent approval scale, layout, appearance and landscaping. However, the application sets out and seeks approval for the maximum and minimum height, width and length of development plots by way of Parameter Plans. The Parameter Plans, for which approval is sought, also set out the location of principal open space areas, the hierarchy of primary and secondary routes and the maximum area of below ground/basement space. Further, the application includes and seeks approval of mandatory Design Guidelines, by which future reserved matters applications relating to scale, layout as well as appearance and landscaping will come forward. The Design Guidelines provide additional detail to the Parameter Plans in relation to the layout of development plots. The Design Guidelines also provide rules which control aspects of appearance and landscaping.

This EQIA analyses the impact of the applicant’s proposals on protected groups.

Lead Officer Name: Thomas Cardis Position: Policy and Projects Officer Email: [email protected] Telephone No: 020 8753 3317

Date of completion of final 29 th August 2012 EIA

Section 02 Scoping of Full EIA Plan for completion Timing: September 2012 Resources: Officer time, data and information as given at Section 03 of this EQIA Lead Officer: Thomas Cardis

What is the policy, Information: Protected characteristics and PSED strategy, function, project, The public sector equality duty (PSED) states that in the exercise of our functions, we must have due regard to the need to: activity, or programme looking to achieve? Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited under the Act; Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

Having due regard for advancing equality involves:

Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people; and Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low

The Act states that meeting different needs involves amongst other things, taking steps to take account of disabled people’s disabilities. It describes fostering good relations as tackling prejudice and promoting understanding between people from different groups. It states that compliance with the duty may involve treating some people more favourably than others.

EQIA of Planning Application: 2011/02001/OUT

As given in the overall information above, this is an ‘outline’ planning application submitted by Capco for 23.16 hectares of land in North End ward. This EQIA analyses the impact of the applicant’s proposals on protected groups.

The site is currently occupied by the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre 2, the Transport for London Lillie Bridge Depot, land around the Empress State Building, the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates, Gibbs Green school and a number of other smaller land parcels.

The Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre 2 forms part of the wider Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre Complex which includes Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre 1 in RBKC. The Exhibition Centre Complex has an associated car park as Seagrave Road for which planning permission was approved in March 2012 to redevelop the site to provide 808 residential units and supporting uses. After the 2012 Olympics the current owners of the Exhibition Centres plan to run down operations there and relocate some of the events to their sister exhibition venue at Olympia.

The Transport for London Lillie Bridge Depot provides depot space with access provided off the West London Line. The Depot is currently in operation. The applicant’s proposals include the reprovision of the depot within the undercroft space resulting from the decking over of the West London Line.

The West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, along with a number of Registered Provider properties provide homes for 760 households. The application proposes the redevelopment of these properties and their reprovision within this application, as part of the Seagrave Road application (approved in March 2012) and at 11 Farm Lane.

There are a number of smaller parcels of land around these three major parcels within the applicant’s development proposals. These include Gibbs Green school, two community facilities on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates and a mannequin makers on Beaumont Avenue.

The applicant has submitted two applications, one to LBHF and one to RBKC. The application in LBHF, referred to as application 2, seeks outline consent for a maximum total floorspace of 890,968 sqm (GIA) and 932,831 sqm (GEA).

The application seeks approval of details given at this stage, for: • Access – detail on the accessibility to the Site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of positioning and treatment of access and how these fit into the surrounding existing access network. • Amount, and use, of development – the amount of development proposed for each land use.

Age Analysis of impact on age including due regard to PSED (above).

Housing

The application involves the redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. It is known from the profile of the estates and surrounding North End ward that there are substantial numbers of elderly residents who would be particularly impacted on by a comprehensive approach being taken to redevelopment of the OA that includes the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. The affordable housing, which will be controlled through the Section 106 agreement, requires all the housing currently on the H - estates to be replaced either within the boundary of this application or within the Seagrave Road site, in respect of which planning permission was approved in March 2012. The Section 106 agreement will look to protect the amenity of residents whose rights to daylight or sunlight are compromised as the result of a phased approach to the development of the site. Any subsequent detailed application would need to be accompanied by an assessment of need demonstrating that the type and size of affordable housing is sufficient to cater for the needs of relocated residents.

Employment

The application proposes to create an additional 9,900 jobs within both this application and that submitted in RBKC, through the provision of a variety of employment generating uses. This will be of particular benefit to young people wishing to access H +

work.

The application involves the demolition of a number of existing employment premises within the Opportunity Area, including but not limited to Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre 2, the TfL Lillie Bridge Depot, Ashfield House and the Rootstein mannequin makers. The Exhibition Centres tend to employ young people on short term contracts, who are likely to be particularly impacted on by the loss of the exhibition centres. The actual number L-H - varies on the type of event and therefore exact figures are unknown and the exact impact is difficult to quantify. Mechanisms set out in the Section 106 agreement to secure the reprovision of all other employment generating premises located in the Opportunity Area.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of affordable business space, which is likely to have a positive impact on young people looking to start up a business. M +

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a Construction Training Centre and post construction Recruitment and Job Shop. These facilities offer training and apprenticeship schemes as well as information on access to employment. This is likely H + to be particularly beneficial for young people wishing to gain access to employment.

The planning obligations in the Section 106 agreement will assist in the ability for local residents to access employment created by the development and this is likely to have a M + beneficial impact on young people in this protected characteristic.

Retail

The application proposes the creation of a high street running east-west through the development, along with other retail clusters around transport nodes, which will provide convenience retail to cater for day to day needs which will be secured through the M + Retail Management Plan in the Section 106 agreement. This will benefit new residents who may become disabled or have an age-related mobility impairment later on in their lives.

Urban Form and Open Space

The proposals would reconnect a severed part of London back into the urban fabric, increasing accessibility within this part of West London. This will benefit new residents

who may become disabled or have an age-related mobility impairment later on in their M + lives,

The application provides a linear park of a minimum of 2 hectares, which straddles the boundary between RBKC and LBHF. The application also provides three publicly accessible garden squares. The provision of these four spaces ensure that the majority H + of residents living within the application site will be within 100 metres walking distance of a public green open space. This will benefit all age groups who will be within easy walking distance of public green open space.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of play space, which will be provided as part of reserved matters applications. This will be of benefit to younger age H + groups.

Social Infrastructure

The Section 106 agreement will secure a new two form entry primary school to be provided on site. This will have positive impacts for young people living in the H + development, who will be within walking distance of the primary school.

The phased relocation of the estates may result in residents having to move further away from their children’s existing school. This would be likely to cause disruption for H - younger people as well as for their parents who may be indirectly impacted by the inconvenience of extra travel.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a health centre, with an address onto the ‘High Street’ which runs east-west through the development. This will be of benefit to young people with children and the elderly, who may have an age-related H + mobility impairment later on in their lives.

The phased relocation of the estates may result in residents having to move further away from their current GP or change GPs. This would be likely to cause disruption, particularly for older people and those with babies, toddlers, and very young children. H - The Section 106 agreement will ensure the new facility is located in the most appropriate location to ensure access for all.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, which will

include a library and has the potential to also include a police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This is likely L/M/H + to have benefits for all age groups. The Section 106 agreement will ensure the facility is located in the most appropriate location to ensure access for all. The facilities within the community centre will not be known at outline stage and it is therefore difficult to predict the level of relevance to this protected characteristic.

There are two existing community centre facilities on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, which are proposed to be demolished. The Section 106 agreements sets out mechanisms to ensure the replacement of these facilities in advance of their M - loss. However, any relocation may cause disruption for elderly residents, who are more likely to use the facilities.

Currently there are no on site leisure centres. The application proposes the provision of 25,760sqm of D1/D2 floorspace. The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision M + of a leisure centre, for which affordable access for all will be secured. This is likely to have benefits for all age groups.

Culture

The Section 106 agreement will secure a facility of a minimum of 2,000sqm for cultural use purposes. Separately, the applicant has submitted a cultural strategy accompanying their application, which will be made binding through the Section 106 agreement. The impact of cultural facilities on age will not be known until an end M + & - occupier for the facility has been identified. The Section 106 agreement will set out mechanisms whereby the council will be involved in discussions with potential occupiers, in order that an informed decision can be made on the end occupier so that any potential impact on particular age groups is minimised.

Transport

The Section 106 agreement will deliver upgrades to West Kensington station, including improved gateline capacity and step free access through the provision of a new H + entrance. This will have positive impacts, particularly on the elderly and those with children and who use buggies or prams.

The Section 106 agreement will deliver upgrades to local bus stops, bus services and

the provision of new bus stops within the development. This will have benefits for all H + age groups but particularly the young and the elderly who are more likely to use buses.

The application proposes that approximately 10% of all car parking spaces include wheelchair access. This will benefit new residents who may become disabled or have H + an age-related mobility impairment later on in their lives, which means that they require accessible housing.

The application seeks to improve walking and cycling opportunities for new residents and for others. This is likely to be of benefit to all age groups, and also to those who at present find the legibility less easy than others, for example, older people and those moving about the area with small children. Health within the North End ward is better than the borough average, but with almost 8% of the population having ‘not good’ health, there is room for improvement: H + Ward LBHF Good Health 73.74% 72.99% Fairly Good Health 18.47% 18.80% Not Good Health 7.79% 8.22%

The increased opportunity for cycling may have positive health benefits for people of all ages who use this.

Other

The application proposes 8,625sqm (GIA) of hotel provision. The application will be conditioned so that 10% of the hotel bedrooms will be wheelchair accessible, which will H + have a positive impact on disabled residents.

The application proposes the provision of a private hospital of 10,208sqm (GIA). This would have a positive impact for new residents who may become disabled or have an L + age-related mobility impairment later on in their lives and who are able to afford private health care.

condition, which will require the developer to set in place measures to minimise any disturbance caused through construction.

Disability Analysis of impact on disability including due regard to PSED (above).

Housing

The application involves the redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Any phased redevelopment of the estates is likely to have a more substantial impact on residents with a disability. The affordable housing offer, which will be controlled through the Section 106 agreement, requires all the housing currently on the estates to be replaced either within the boundary of this application or within the H - Seagrave Road site, which was approved planning permission in March 2012. Any subsequent detailed application would need to be accompanied by an assessment of need demonstrating that the type and size of affordable housing is sufficient to cater for the needs of relocated residents. The Section 106 agreement will look to protect the amenity of residents whose rights to daylight or sunlight are compromised as the result of a phased approach to the development of the site.

The application seeks permission for up to 5,845 residential units. Of this, 560 units will be provided to re-house existing estate residents, while another 700 units will be intermediate housing units (22% of the total housing offer therefore being affordable). The applicant has submitted a Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) which seeks to justify the level of affordable housing proposed in the application. The District Valuation Office (DVS) has been appointed by LBHF to undertake an evaluation of the FVA. The DVS H + have confirmed that they are satisfied that the applicant has adopted an appropriate methodology to evaluate the viability of their proposal to support the provision of 22% affordable housing. This would enable the Council to deliver the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing which is more likely to benefit disabled people. Because there is only 22% of affordable housing, the opportunity for disabled residents to access this may be reduced; however, it is worth noting that 10% of all units across all tenures will be wheelchair accessible (see below).

ensures that the affordable housing is available to a wide range of household incomes.

However, this may still mean that the residential units are less accessible to some disabled people such as the 4.93% of those in H&F who identify themselves as permanently sick/disabled (2001 Census). However, this does not directly correspond to a disability as is defined by the Equality Act 2010, as the question in the census did not ask respondents if they were registered disabled. Further, those who considered themselves to have a Limiting Long-Term Illness in the ward came to 13.87% of the ward population, which is lower than the figure for the borough as a whole, which is 14.66% of the borough population. Again, this does not necessarily correspond to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. With these limitations of data set out, it is likely to still be the case that disabled people who are not able to work would H - not be able to acquire the units as private dwellings. This would mean that this aspect of the proposal will not have a positive effect on some disabled people, and that this aspect of the proposal is of high relevance to disability as some disabled people could be differently affected by it. However, due to the nuances within disability and individuals circumstances, this conclusion is not capable of being rigidly applied to all disabled people and there may be some disabled people who can access the private units.

The planning application proposes that 100% of all new residential units are built to lifetime homes standards and 10% of dwellings are wheelchair accessible. This will benefit new residents who may become disabled or have an age-related mobility H + impairment later on in their lives, which means that they require accessible housing.

Employment

Employment within the application has not emerged as being of particular relevance to this protected characteristic, although the more general benefits in terms of more jobs and better access to training and apprenticeship schemes, may have a positive impact L + on this group. However, this is in general terms and so overall the application is of low relevance to, but may have a small indirect positive impact on, this protected characteristic

Retail

The application proposes the creation of a high street running east-west through the

development, along with other retail clusters around transport nodes, which will provide convenience retail to cater for day to day needs which will be secured through the H + Retail Management Plan in the Section 106 agreement. DDA compliancy of these units will be secured through condition. This will benefit disabled residents in their ability to access local services.

Urban Form and Open Space

The existing difference in above ordnance datum (AOD) levels is 7 metres. The proposals would reconnect a severed part of London back into the urban fabric. The current site has substantial level changes which the application will overcome through H + the provision of a deck. The application states that it is therefore possible to achieve the maximum 1:20 gradient required for DDA compliancy across the whole of the site. This is conditioned in the application. The increase in permeability across the site is considered to be a welcome part of the development for disabled residents.

The application provides a linear park of a minimum of 2 hectares, which straddles the boundary between RBKC and LBHF. The application also provides three publicly accessible garden squares. The provision of these four spaces ensure that the majority of residents living within the application site will be within 100 metres walking distance H + of a public green open space. This will benefit disabled residents.

The application proposes improvements to the built environment and specifically H + proposes accessible public squares and accessible public realm.

Social Infrastructure

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a health centre, with an address onto the ‘High Street’ which runs east-west through the development. The on-site H + provision of a health centre will benefit disabled residents in terms of their ability to access the facility. The Section 106 agreement will ensure the facility is located in the most appropriate location to ensure access for all.

The phased decant of the estates may result in residents having to move further away H - from their current GP or change GPs. This would be likely to cause disruption, particularly for disabled people.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, which will include a library and has the potential for it to include a police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This is likely L/M/H + to have benefits for disabled residents. The facilities within the community centre will not be known at outline stage and it is therefore difficult to predict the level of relevance to this protected characteristic. The Section 106 agreement will ensure the facility is located in the most appropriate location to ensure access for all.

There are two existing community centre facilities on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, which are proposed to be demolished. The Section 106 agreements M - sets out mechanisms to ensure the replacement of these facilities in advance of their loss. However, any relocation may cause disruption for disabled residents, who are more likely to use the facilities.

Currently there are no on site leisure centres. The application proposes the provision of 25,760sqm of D1/D2 floorspace. The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision M + of a leisure centre, for which affordable access for all will be secured, with disabled access. The on site provision of this facility is likely to benefit disabled residents.

Culture

The Section 106 agreement will secure a facility of a minimum of 2,000sqm for cultural use purposes. Separately, the applicant has submitted a cultural strategy accompanying their application, which will be made binding through the Section 106 agreement. The impact of cultural facilities on race groups will not be known until an end occupier for the facility has been identified. The Section 106 agreement will set out M + & - mechanisms whereby the council will be involved in discussions with potential occupiers, in order that an informed decision can be made on the end occupier so that any potential impact on particular race groups is minimised.

Transport

The Section 106 agreement will deliver new bus services and the provision of new bus stops within the development. This will have benefits for disabled residents, visitors, H + and workers.

The application proposes that approximately 10% of all car parking spaces include H + wheelchair access. This will benefit disabled residents.

The Section 106 agreement will secure improvements towards off site public realm and streetscape works to Lillie Road, North End Road and West Cromwell Road, which is M + likely to be of benefit to disabled residents in terms of access.

Other

The application proposes the provision of a private hospital of 10,208sqm (GIA). This would have a positive impact for new disabled residents, who are able to afford private L + health care.

The applicant envisages a 20 year construction period. It is anticipated that any disruption to access as a result of construction would impact negatively on disabled residents. The submission of a Construction Management Plan will be secured, through H - condition, which will require the developer to set in place measures to minimise any disturbance caused through construction. Gender Analysis of impact on gender reassignment including due regard to PSED (above). reassignment Through the consultation process, the application has not emerged as being of particular relevance to this protected characteristic, although the more general benefits in terms of better public realm and spaces, more opportunities for walking and cycling, may have a positive impact on this group. However, this is in general terms and so L + overall the application is of low relevance to, but may have a small indirect positive impact on, this protected characteristic

Marriage and Analysis of impact on marriage and civil partnership including due regard to PSED Civil (above). Partnership The application has not emerged as being of relevance to this protected characteristic N/A N/A because it is not seeking to provide a service to married people or civil partners.

Pregnancy and Analysis of impact on pregnancy and maternity including due regard to PSED (above). maternity Housing

The application involves the redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Any phased redevelopment of the estates is likely to have a more substantial impact on residents who are pregnant or who have just had a baby. The affordable housing, which will be controlled through the Section 106 agreement, requires all the H - housing currently on the estates to be replaced either within the boundary of this application or within the Seagrave Road site, which was approved planning permission in March 2012. The Section 106 agreement will look to protect the amenity of residents whose rights to daylight or sunlight are compromised as the result of a phased approach to the development of the site. Any subsequent detailed application would need to be accompanied by an assessment of need demonstrating that the type and size of affordable housing is sufficient to cater for the needs of relocated residents.

The planning application proposes that 100% of all new residential units are built to lifetime homes standards and 10% of dwellings are wheelchair accessible. This will be secured by condition. This will indirectly benefit women who may have reduced mobility H + due to their pregnancy or those with small infants, as the standard requires accessible approaches and entrance level living rooms, as examples.

The application proposes the following housing mix:

Unit Type Proportion Range 1 person apt 2-5% 1 bed 29-35% 2 bed 30-40% H + 3 bed 20-25% 4 bed+ 5-10%

Parents with small children will benefit from the proposed scheme because the development proposes a minimum of 55% family sized units (2 bed +), some of which will have four or more beds.

The application seeks permission for up to 5,845 residential units. Of this, 560 units will be provided to re-house existing estate residents, while another 700 units will be intermediate housing units (22% of the total housing offer therefore being affordable). The applicant has submitted a Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) which seeks to justify the level of affordable housing proposed in the application. The District Valuation Office (DVS) has been appointed by LBHF to undertake an evaluation of the FVA. The DVS have confirmed that they are satisfied that the applicant has adopted an appropriate methodology to evaluate the viability of their proposal to support the provision of 22% H + affordable housing. Of the 700 intermediate housing units, a third of the affordable housing will be targeted at households earning under £35,000, a third will be targeted at households earning between £35,000 and £45,000 and a third will be targeted at households earning over £45,000 and up to the intermediate income threshold set in the London Plan. This ensures that the affordable housing is available to a wide range of household incomes. A mix of unit sizes across the additional 700 intermediate units will be secured through condition. This would benefit parents with young children, who are more likely to have reduced earnings as a result of different maternity provisions and child care costs.

Employment

Employment within the application has not emerged through the public consultation process as being of particular relevance to this protected characteristic, although the more general benefits in terms of more jobs and better access to training and apprenticeship schemes, may have a positive impact on this group, particularly through L + opportunities for more flexible working. However, this is in general terms and so overall the application is of low relevance to, but may have a small indirect positive impact on, this protected characteristic.

The planning obligations in the Section 106 agreement will assist in the ability for local residents to access employment created by the development and this is likely to have a L + beneficial impact on this protected characteristic.

Retail

The application proposes the creation of a high street running east-west through the development, along with other retail clusters around transport nodes, which will provide convenience retail to cater for day to day needs which will be secured through the M + Retail Management Plan in the Section 106 agreement. This will benefit pregnant residents or residents with young children in terms of their ability to access local services.

Urban Form and Open Space

The proposals would reconnect a severed part of London back into the urban fabric. The current site has substantial level changes which the application will overcome through the provision of a deck. The application states that it is therefore possible to M + achieve the 1:20 gradient required for DDA compliancy across the whole of the site. This is conditioned in the application. Generally, the increase in permeability across the site would be welcomed by those that are pregnant or who have young children.

The application provides a linear park of a minimum of 2 hectares, which straddles the boundary between RBKC and LBHF. The application also provides three publicly accessible garden squares. The provision of these four spaces ensure that the majority H + of residents living within the application site will be within 100 metres walking distance of a public green open space. This will benefit those with small infants who will be within easy walking distance of public green open space.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of play space, which will be H + provided as part of reserved matters applications. This will be of indirect benefit to those with small infants.

Social Infrastructure

The proposal includes 25,760sqm of D1/D2 use and the Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of three day nursery facilities, with combined total registered H + capacity for a minimum of 90 children. This will of direct benefit to mothers seeking to return to work after maternity leave.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a health centre, with an address onto the ‘High Street’ which runs east-west through the development. This will be of M +

benefit to pregnant residents or parents of young children, who are likely to use the facility more regularly.

The phased redevelopment of the estates may result in residents having to move further away from their current GP or change GPs. This would be likely to cause M - disruption, particularly for those who are pregnant or with small infants.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, which will include a library and has the potential for it to include a police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This is likely L/M/H + to have benefits for pregnant residents or residents with young children. The facilities within the community centre will not be known at outline stage and it is therefore difficult to predict the level of relevance to this protected characteristic.

Transport

The Section 106 agreement will deliver upgrades to West Kensington station, including improved gateline capacity and step free access through the provision of a new H + entrance. This was have positive impacts for pregnant residents or residents with young children who are likely to use buggies or prams, who are likely to be less mobile.

The Section 106 agreement will deliver upgrades to local bus stops, bus services and the provision of new bus stops within the development. This will have benefits for H + pregnant residents or residents with young children who are likely to use buggies or prams.

The Section 106 agreement will secure financial contributions towards improvements to off site public realm and streetscape works to Lillie Road, North End Road and West M + Cromwell Road, which is likely to be of benefit to pregnant residents or residents with young children who are likely to use buggies or prams.

The application seeks to improve walking and cycling opportunities for new residents and for others. This is likely to be of benefit to those who at present find the legibility less easy than others, for example, those who are pregnant or moving about the area M + with small children. In terms of cycling, there is likely to be benefits to women in this group, albeit some women may cycle less and walk more in the latter stages of pregnancy.

Other

The application proposes the provision of a private hospital of 10,208sqm (GIA). This would have a positive impact for those who are pregnant or with young children and L + who are able to afford private health care.

The applicant envisages a 20 year construction period. It is anticipated that any disruption to access as a result of construction would impact negatively on those who H - are pregnant or with young children. The submission of a Construction Management Plan will be secured, through condition, which will require the developer to set in place measures to minimise any disturbance caused through construction.

Race Analysis of impact on race including due regard to PSED (above).

The predominant ethnicity of residents on West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates is White British, accounting for 42%, although this figure is considerably lower than the Borough (58%) and London (60%) averages, and particularly the national average (87%).

Residents from minority (non-white) backgrounds account for 43% of the resident population of the estates. This figure is considerably higher than the Borough (22%), London (29%) and national (9%) averages. Between 2001 and 2009, the proportion of residents from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds has remained relatively unchanged on the estates.

The proportion on residents of West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates who are from Black / Black British backgrounds (27%) greatly exceeds the Borough (11%), London (11%) and national (2%) averages. The predominant ethnic minority groups identified on the estates are Black African (13% of residents), particularly Somalian and Eritrean communities, and Black Caribbean (10%). These figures are considerably higher than those recorded across the Borough (both 5%), London (both 5%) and England (both 1%). A small proportion of residents on the estates are from Chinese backgrounds (3%).

Information about the ethnicity of current Council tenants on the estates is incomplete, but nevertheless indicates that 51% of tenants on the Gibbs Green estate are from

White Backgrounds, compared to 31% on the West Kensington estate. Almost equal proportions of tenants on each estate are from Black / Black British backgrounds, accounting for 23% of tenants on the Gibbs Green estate and 22% on the West Kensington estate.

Housing

The application involves the redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. It is known (see above) that a proportion of residents within the estates are from ethnic minorities. Any phased demolition of the estates is likely to have a substantial impact on residents of different race groups, in proportion with their presence on the estates. The affordable housing, which will be controlled through the Section 106 agreement, requires all the housing currently on the estates to be replaced H - either within the boundary of this application or within the Seagrave Road site, for which planning permission was approved in March 2012. The Section 106 agreement will look to protect the amenity of residents whose rights to daylight or sunlight are compromised as the result of a phased approach to the development of the site. Any subsequent detailed application would need to be accompanied by an assessment of need demonstrating that the type and size of affordable housing is sufficient to cater for the needs of relocated residents.

This table gives an overview of economic activity by ethnic group:

Total Total White Blac Asia Chinese Mixed Other

White Irish k n LBHF % % % % % % % Economically 69.4 72.1 56.5 59.9 53.9 62.0 60.7 59.0 active Economically 30.6 27.9 43.5 40.1 46.2 38.1 39.4 41.0 inactive (Table A10 of Appx 2 of Census 2001: Economic Activity of People Aged 16-74 by Ethnic Group) [sic]

This may give an indication of the groups which are less economically active than others and would be less likely to access private or intermediate housing as their expected levels of income are likely to be lower. Smaller numbers in some ethnic H + & - groups for ‘economically active’ does not equate to a zero or very small chance of accessing private housing, rather, this is more likely to mean that proportionately, some groups will be able to afford housing less than others and there is no unlawful discrimination in this regard. As such this is of high relevance to race and will be positive and negative.

Of the 700 intermediate housing units, a third of the affordable housing will be targeted at households earning under £35,000, a third will be targeted at households earning between £35,000 and £45,000 and a third will be targeted at households earning over L-H + & - £45,000 and up to the intermediate income threshold set in the London Plan. This ensures that the affordable housing is available to a wide range of household incomes, which is more likely to benefit people of different race groups, with the exception of those in families that are economically inactive or are low wage earners and that do not have access to significant savings.

Employment

This table gives an overview of economic activity by ethnic group, which may give an indication of the groups which are less economically active than others:

Total Total White Blac Asia Chinese Mixed Other White Irish k n LBHF % % % % % % % Economically 69.4 72.1 56.5 59.9 53.9 62.0 60.7 59.0

active Economically 30.6 27.9 43.5 40.1 46.2 38.1 39.4 41.0 inactive (Table A10 of Appendix 2 of Census 2001: Economic Activity of People Aged 16-74 by Ethnic Group)

The application proposes to create an additional 9,900 jobs within both this application H + and that submitted in RBKC, through the provision of a variety of employment generating uses. This will be of particular benefit to those of particular race groups that are economically inactive as well as those that are economically active.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a Construction Training Centre and post construction Recruitment and Job Shop. These facilities offer training and H + apprenticeship schemes as well as information on access to employment. This is likely to be particularly beneficial for those of particular race groups that are economically inactive as well as those that are economically active.

Public Realm and Open Space

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of play space, which will be provided as part of reserved matters applications. This will have an indirect positive L + benefit to parents of all races as they will have spaces to take their children to play.

Social Infrastructure

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, which will include a library and has the potential for it to a police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This is likely to have L/M/H + benefits for all race groups. The facilities within the community centre will not be known at outline stage and it is therefore difficult to predict the level of relevance to this protected characteristic.

Culture

The Section 106 agreement will secure a facility of a minimum of 2,000sqm for cultural use purposes. Separately, the applicant has submitted a cultural strategy accompanying their application, which will be made binding through the Section 106 agreement. The impact of cultural facilities on race groups will not be known until an end occupier for the facility has been identified. The Section 106 agreement will set out M + & - mechanisms whereby the council will be involved in discussions with potential occupiers, in order that an informed decision can be made on the end occupier so that any potential impact on particular race groups is minimised.

Religion/ Analysis of impact on religion including due regard to PSED (above). belief (including non- The predominant religion of residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates belief) is Christianity (60%), which is consistent with the LBHF average (64%). The proportion of Muslim residents on the estates (13%) exceeds the LBHF (7%), London (8%) and national (2%) averages, while other religions appear in very small proportions. Persons stating they have no religion account for 16% of residents on the estates, which is similar to the LBHF (18%), London (16%) and national (15%) averages.

Housing

The application involves the redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. As illustrated above, It is known that residents of the estates are from a variety of religious groups. Any phased demolition of the estates is therefore likely to have a substantial impact on residents of different religious groups in proportion with their presence on the estates. The affordable housing offer, which will be controlled through the Section 106 agreement, requires all the housing currently on the estates to be H - replaced either within the boundary of this application or within the Seagrave Road site, which was approved planning permission in March 2012. The Section 106 agreement will look to protect the amenity of residents whose rights to daylight or sunlight are compromised as the result of a phased approach to the development of the site. Any subsequent detailed application would need to be accompanied by an assessment of need demonstrating that the type and size of affordable housing is sufficient to cater for the needs of relocated residents.

Social Infrastructure

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, with the potential for it to include a library, police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult H + learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This is likely to have benefits for all religious groups, who would all be able to use the multi faith space.

Culture

The Section 106 agreement will secure a facility of a minimum of 2,000sqm for cultural use purposes. Separately, the applicant has submitted a cultural strategy accompanying their application, which will be made binding through the Section 106 agreement. The impact of cultural facilities on religious groups will not be known until M + & - an end occupier for the facility has been identified. The Section 106 agreement will set out mechanisms whereby the council will be involved in discussions with potential occupiers, in order that an informed decision can be made on the end occupier so that any potential impact on religious groups is minimised.

Sex Analysis of impact on sex including due regard to PSED (above)

Housing

The planning application proposes that 100% of all new residential units are built to lifetime homes standards and 10% of dwellings are wheelchair accessible, as required by the London Plan Policy 3.8 and H&F Core Strategy Policy H4. This will benefit new male and female residents who may become disabled or have an age-related mobility H + impairment later on in their lives, which means that they require accessible housing. Additionally, the standards required by lifetime homes may benefit parents with small children as step free access and so forth will make it easier to get about with buggies and prams.

affordable housing. Of the 700 intermediate housing units, a third of the affordable housing will be targeted at households earning under £35,000, a third will be targeted at households earning between £35,000 and £45,000 and a third will be targeted at households earning over £45,000 and up to the intermediate income threshold set in the London Plan. As given in the census 2001, men represent 49.76% of males aged 16 to 74 in full time employment and women represent 42.31% of females aged 16 to 74 in full time employment. As such, it is likely that, given that men tend to earn more than women, they may be more able to access the proposed housing. However, those with a dual income may have more potential to access the housing as well.

The application proposes the following housing mix:

Unit Type Proportion Range 1 person apt 2-5% 1 bed 29-35% 2 bed 30-40% 3 bed 20-25% 4 bed+ 5-10%

Parents with small children will benefit from the proposed scheme because the development proposes a minimum of 55% family sized units, some of which will have M + four or more beds.

Employment

As given in the census 2001, men represent 49.76% of males aged 16 to 74 in full time employment and women represent 42.31% of females aged 16 to 74 in full time employment. The application proposes to create an additional 9,900 jobs within both H + this application and that submitted in RBKC, through the provision of a variety of employment generating uses. This will be of benefit to both sexes.

Public Realm and Open Space

The application provides a linear park of a minimum of 2 hectares, which straddles the boundary between RBKC and LBHF. The application also provides three publicly accessible garden squares. The provision of these four spaces ensure that the majority H + of residents living within the application site will be within 100 metres walking distance of a public green open space. This will benefit both sexes. The proposals satisfy Key Principle UF14 of the SPD which requires a minimum of 10sqm of public green open space per child and be of indirect benefit to male and female parents.

The application also proposes improvements to the built environment, and specifically proposes accessible public squares and accessible public realm. This will also benefit male and female parents with small children when getting out and about with their M + children, as such improvements will facilitate ease of access for parents with pushchairs. It is more likely that this would benefit women than men, due to the higher likelihood of women being primary caregivers than men, making this of medium relevance to sex.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of play space, which will be provided as part of reserved matters applications. This will be of indirect benefit to both sexes but it is more likely that this would benefit women than men, due to the higher M + likelihood of women being primary caregivers than men, making this of medium relevance to sex.

Social Infrastructure

The Section 106 agreement will secure a new two form entry primary school to be provided on site. This will be of benefit to both sexes but it is more likely that this would M + benefit women than men, due to the higher likelihood of women being primary caregivers than men, making this of medium relevance to sex.

The phased decant of the estates may result in residents having to move further away from their children’s’ existing school. This would be likely to cause disruption for H - younger people as well as causing (indirectly) disruption to their parents as caregivers and this is more likely to be women than men as the primary caregiver.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of three day nursery facilities, with combined total registered capacity for a minimum of 90 children. This will be of benefit to both sexes but it is more likely that this would benefit women than men, due to the H +

higher likelihood of women being primary caregivers than men, making this of medium relevance to sex.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a health centre, with an address onto the ‘High Street’ which runs east-west through the development. This will be of benefit to both sexes but it is more likely that this would benefit women than men, due M + to the higher likelihood of women being primary caregivers than men, making this of medium relevance to sex.

The phased decant of the estates may result in residents having to move further away from their current GP or change GPs. This would be likely to cause disruption, H - particularly for women who may be more likely to take their children to the doctor.

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, which will include a library and has the potential for it to a police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This will be of benefit L/M/H + to both sexes but it is more likely that this would benefit women than men, due to the higher likelihood of women being primary caregivers than men, making this of high relevance to sex. The facilities within the community centre will not be known at outline stage and it is therefore difficult to predict the level of relevance to this protected characteristic.

Culture

The Section 106 agreement will secure a facility of a minimum of 2,000sqm for cultural use purposes. Separately, the applicant has submitted a cultural strategy accompanying their application, which will be made binding through the Section 106 agreement. The impact of cultural facilities on race groups will not be known until an end occupier for the facility has been identified. The Section 106 agreement will set out M + & - mechanisms whereby the council will be involved in discussions with potential occupiers, in order that an informed decision can be made on the end occupier so that any potential impact on particular race groups is minimised.

Transport

The Section 106 agreement will deliver upgrades to West Kensington station, including

improved gateline capacity and step free access through the provision of a new H + entrance. This will have positive impacts for both sexes but especially for women who may be pregnant or having a higher likelihood to be a primary caregiver, are more likely to use buggies or prams.

The Section 106 agreement will deliver upgrades to local bus stops, bus services and the provision of new bus stops within the development. This will have positive impacts H + for both sexes but especially for women who may be pregnant or having a higher likelihood to be a primary caregiver, are more likely to use buggies or prams.

The Section 106 agreement will secure financial contributions towards improvements to off site public realm and streetscape works to Lillie Road, North End Road and West Cromwell Road, which will have positive impacts for both sexes but especially for M + women who may be pregnant or having a higher likelihood to be a primary caregiver, are more likely to use buggies or prams.

The application seeks to improve walking and cycling for new residents and for others. This is likely to be of benefit parents moving about the area with small children. Census M + data for the Ward shows that health is better than for the borough as a whole:

Ward LBHF Good Health 73.74% 72.99% Fairly Good Health 18.47% 18.80% Not Good Health 7.79% 8.22%

Ward LBHF Good Health 73.74% 72.99% Fairly Good Health 18.47% 18.80% Not Good Health 7.79% 8.22% The increased opportunity for cycling may have positive health benefits for men and M + women who use this.

Sexual Analysis of impact on sexual orientation Orientation The proposals will not all be relevant to this protected characteristic, although those pertaining to increased community facilities and cultural offer may be relevant dependant on the resultant offer. Official statistics, such as census data are not

collected on LBG and heterosexual people and so are not available with regards to sexual orientation within London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. However, the ONS’s most recent research indicates that 1.5% of the adult population identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

The 2001 census recorded 568 people (or 1.1% of couples), aged 16 and over, living as same sex couples in Hammersmith and Fulham. In 2009 there were 49 civil partnerships in this borough, although this only captures those who are in relationships and who declare this information and is not a true representation of the figure. Data on heterosexuality as such is also not collated although given the estimated numbers of LBG people, it appears that the majority of the population is heterosexual.

Social Infrastructure

The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of a community hub, which will include a library and has the potential for it to include a police shop, multi-faith space, meeting halls, adult learning, children’s centre and voluntary sector space. This will be L/M/H + of benefit for all sexual orientations who will be able to use the meeting halls. The facilities within the community centre will not be known at outline stage and it is therefore difficult to predict the level of relevance to this protected characteristic.

Culture

The Section 106 agreement will secure a facility of a minimum of 2,000sqm for cultural use purposes. Separately, the applicant has submitted a cultural strategy L-H + & - accompanying their application, which will be made binding through the Section 106 agreement. The impact of cultural facilities on sexual orientation will not be known until an end occupier for the facility has been identified. The Section 106 agreement will set out mechanisms whereby the council will be involved in discussions with potential occupiers, in order that an informed decision can be made on the end occupier so that any potential impact on different sexual orientations is minimised.

Human Rights and Children’s Rights Will it affect Human Rights, as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998? Yes

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the peaceful enjoyment of ones

possessions, which includes property. Article 8 protects among other things a person’s home. The proposed redevelopment of the estates would therefore affect human rights. The proposal includes the phased demolition of the estate homes. The affordable housing offer, which will be controlled through the Section 106 agreement, requires all the housing currently on the estates to be replaced either within the boundary of this application or within the Seagrave Road site, which was approved planning permission in March 2012. The Section 106 agreement will require that any properties on the estates compromised by daylight or sunlight as a result of any phased redevelopment of the application site, should be vacated and provided with an alternative property in advance of the time at which the negative impacts arise. Separate to the planning application, the council is has agreed a Conditional Land Sale Agreement relating to the estates. This sets in place further mechanisms to protect the rights of residents, such as guarantees relating to the type of property people will be able to gain access to through any redevelopment and any compensation deals being offered where people’s human rights are being negatively impacted on. Accordingly the interference with rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol would be proportionate to the legitimate aim of promoting economic well being.

Will it affect Children’s Rights, as defined by the UNCRC (1992)? Yes.

The redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates would impact negatively on Children’s Rights as they would be likely to find the upheaval of any phased re-housing more difficult. The phased construction of the development may also have greater impacts on children.

The application seeks to provide a two hectare park and three garden squares with the opportunity for informal play space. Children’s play space will be secured through the Section 106 agreement. This will have a direct positive benefit to children as they will have spaces to play, thereby respecting their right to life, survival and development.

The application further seeks to provide three nurseries and a new primary school, which will have a direct positive benefit to children as they will have spaces to play and education facilities, thereby respecting their right to life, survival and development.

Finally, the proposed improvements to walking and cycling opportunities will be of benefit to all children, especially younger ones who may trip over bad paving, and older ones who may wish to cycle and improve their health. This will also be of benefit to disabled children who will find getting about easier. The proposed improvements to the environment within the development and outside in the form of accessible public squares (London Plan Policy 3.16) and accessible public realm (London Plan Policy 7.5 and TN4 & S23.1 of UDP).

Section 03 Analysis of relevant data and/or undertake research

Documents and data 2001 Census data reviewed Ward Profile 2010 Census Appendix 2: Detailed tables (Economic activity, Qualifications, Socio-economic, Car ownership, Health by Ward, Housing by Ward, Economic factors by Ward http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy/Plans_performance_and_statistics/Statistics_and_census_informatio n/Census_information/20261_2001_Census_Part2.asp North End Ward Profile (http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy/Plans_performance_and_statistics/Statistics_and_census_in formation/Ward_profiles/79382_Ward_profiles.asp ) Development Specification (16 December 2011) Valuation Office Viability of Earl’s Court Development Statement (July 2012) Greater London Authority’s (‘GLA’) London Plan, National Planning Policy (‘PP’ policies) and H&F’s Unitary Development Plan (‘UDP’) and Core Strategy Representations received on the application New research No new research necessary

Section 04 Undertake and analyse consultation Consultation Capco’s findings are set out in their Community Engagement Report – Addendum, which sets out the developer’s commitment to consultation with the public and its findings. It notes where the developer has taken on board feedback in relation to all aspects of their proposals. No issues relating to equality were raised during that consultation.

The Council has undertaken consultation in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. Further information is given in the accompanying PAC Report in the ’Publicity and Consultations’ section. A first round of consultation was undertaken in August-September 2011. In response to this consultation, the applicant made revisions to their application and submitted a revised application in 2012. Consultation was undertaken on this revised application in March-April 2012.

Analysis This analysis assesses comments received on the August – September 2011 consultation (1 st consultation), the March – April 2012 consultation (2 nd consultation), June – July 2012 consultation (3 rd consultation, limited to properties around the edge of the application boundary) and the August 2012 consultation (4 th consultation, limited to properties on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates and neighbouring Registered Provider properties).

504 representations on all four consultations were received in total (160 in support; 338 objections; 6 "others"). 371 of these coincide with the dates for 1st consultation (22/8/11 - 30/9/11); 117 relate to 2nd consultation (15/3/12 - 6/4/12); 11 date from the time of the 3rd (limited) consultation (22/6/12 - 13/7/12); and 5 date from the 5 th (limited) consultation (3/8/12 - 24/8/12).

People who objected to the application generally objected to the proposed redevelopment of the estates, impact on the transport network and the height and density of the proposed development.

A substantial number of consultees objected to the proposed redevelopment of the estates. A number of these objections came from estate residents. Generally objections were raised related residents feeling that redevelopment of the estates would impact negatively on their human rights and amenity and asking that a ballot should be taken on whether the estates should be managed by a residents and tenants group.

The Archdeacon of Middlesex noted that the number of marginalised who are served at the St. Andrew’s Community Facility (to the west of the Opportunity Area) is likely to increase. The community facility being secured through the Section 106 agreement will be capable of provided capacity to help marginalised groups in its meeting halls. The Archdeacon of Middlesex also noted the need for facilities for young people, particularly youths. The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs), and the community centre will be capable of running youth clubs in its meeting halls.

The West Kensington and Gibbs Green Tenants & Residents Association objected to the loss of the existing two community centres on the housing estates. The Section 106 agreement requires the replacement of the estate community centre floorspace in advance of any demolition of the estate facilities. The Association also objects to the scheme on the grounds that the redevelopment of the estates is prejudiced against disadvantaged people. This EQIA recognises that the protected characteristic groups of disability, age, and pregnancy maternity and may be more disadvantaged than others in general by the proposed redevelopment of the estates. Those with the protected characteristics of race, religion belief (including non belief), will also be negatively impacted as above, in proportion with their presence on the estates (see section 02)

More generally, consultees wished to see a greater proportion of affordable housing and open space and play space provided as part of the development proposals and the adequate infrastructure is put in place to cater for the needs of the rising population. As noted elsewhere in this report, the level of affordable housing has being established as being appropriate having regard to viability. The amount of proposed open space satisfies London Plan Policy 7.18 by addressing local open space deficiency through the provision of a 2 hectare park and through the provision of smaller spaces so that the majority of residents are within 100 metres walking distance of a public green open space. The Section 106 agreement will secure the provision of adequate social and transport infrastructure to cater for the need arising from development.

Section 05 Analysis of impact and outcomes Analysis The consultation has shown issues relating to equality and these are summarised and addressed in the accompanying PAC report.

This Equality Impact Analysis of the planning application 2011/02001/OUT shows that:

7. There are positive impacts on age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, sex, race, religion and belief including non belief and children in relation to the applicant’s proposals to provide new employment, retail, open space and play space, transport improvements, culture and social infrastructure. There will also be positive impacts in relation to the mix of housing proposed, with a significant proportion being provided for families, 100% of the units being built to lifetime homes standards and 10% of the units being designed to be wheelchair accessible.

8. There will be negative impacts on age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, and children from the proposed redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Those with the protected characteristics of race, religion belief (including non belief), will also be negatively impacted as above, in proportion with their presence on the estates (see section 02). The proposed housing tenure may also mean that the poorest in society are not able to access new intermediate or market housing.

9. The loss of the employment created by the exhibition centres is likely to have a negative impact on age.

10. The provision of new health, education and community hub, combined with the proposed redevelopment of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, may result in residents of the estates having to travel further to their new community facilities. This is anticipated to have a negative impact on age, disability, maternity and pregnancy and sex.

11. The impacts of construction and expected to have varying degrees of negative impacts on age, disability, pregnancy and maternity and children, depending on the measures that are set out in the Construction Management Plan.

12. The provision of a cultural facility is considered to have both positive and negative impacts on age, disability, race, religion, sec and sexual orientation, depending on the end occupier.

Section 06 Reducing any adverse impacts Outcome of Analysis Generally, the impacts of the development proposals are considered to be positive, offering new opportunities to access housing, employment, providing new transport and social infrastructure, retail and cultural space and new public open space and play space. Negative impacts are identified in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the housing estates (age, disability, maternity and pregnancy, race and religion/belief (including non belief), the loss of the employment generated by the

exhibition centres (age), the relocation of community facilities (age, disability, maternity and pregnancy and sex), the impacts of construction (age, disability and pregnancy and maternity) and cultural provision (religion/belief (including non belief) and sexual orientation). The council’s planning department considers that the conditions and Section 106 agreement should minimise any negative impacts as a result of the development proposals though they will not fully minimise them due to the scale of the redevelopment and the impacts on some protected groups as indentified in this EQIA. The measures that will be employed are set out in Section 02 above and in the officers’ report to Planning Applications Committee. It should noted that the mitigation measures proposed are not intended to give favourable treatment to any particularly affected group (see the duty in vii above)as officers consider that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and will apply to all affected people currently residing on the site and future occupiers.

Section 07 Action Plan Action Plan The council’s planning department considers that where necessary, planning conditions and the Section 106 agreement set out the necessary mitigations where negative impacts arise. The Section 106 agreement will secure monies for ongoing monitoring of the impacts of development, so that where necessary, revisions to the Section 106 agreement can be made in order to mitigate arising impacts so far as is possible.

Section 08 Agreement, publication and monitoring Chief Officer sign-off Name: Juliemma McLoughlin Position: Interim Head of Planning Regeneration Email: [email protected] Telephone No: 020 8753 3565

Key Decision Report Date of report to PAC: 12 / 09 / 2012 Confirmation that key equalities issues found here have been included: Yes

Opportunities Manager for Name: Carly Fry advice and guidance only Position: Opportunities Manager Date advice / guidance given: 31 August 2012 Email: [email protected] Telephone No: 020 8753 3430

------Ward : North End

Site Address : Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre, Lillie Bridge Rail Depot, West Kensington And Gibbs Green Housing Estates And Adjoining Land

Reg. No : Case Officer : 2011/02002/CAC John Finlayson

Date Valid : Conservation Area : 11.08.2011 Baron's Court Conservation Area - Number 27

Committee Date : 12.09.2012

Applicant : EC Properties C/o Agent

Description : Demolition of 175-177 North end road, 1-8 Gibbs Green and existing brick wall to north of the West Kensington Underground Station. Drg Nos: DP1 175-177 North End Road DP2 1-8 Gibbs Green DP3 Brick wall to the North of West Kensington Underground Station

Application Type: Conservation Area Consent

Officer Recommendation :

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1) The works hereby granted consent shall not commence later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date upon which this consent is granted.

Condition required to be imposed by Section 18(1)(a) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by section 91 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004).

2) The demolition of the building hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before:

(i) a building contract for the redevelopment of the site in accordance with planning permission reference 2011/02001/OUT; has been entered into; (ii) notice of demolition in writing and a copy of the building contract has been submitted to the Council, and; (iii) details of all matters which require prior approval pursuant to planning permission reference 2011/02001/OUT, before commencement of the development have been submitted to and approved by the Council.

To ensure that the demolition does not take place prematurely and to safeguard the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with policy EN2 of the Unitary Development Plan, as amended 2007 and 2011 and BE1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

Justification for Approving the Application :

1) It is considered that the proposed demolition of the buildings is acceptable as they are of little architectural merit, and the replacement of any buildings would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this respect the proposal complies with Policy EN2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2007 and 2011 and BE1 of the Core Strategy 2011.

------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Michael Merrington (Ext: 3453) :

Application form received: 28th June 2011 Drawing Nos: See above

Policy Documents: The London Plan 2011 Unitary Development Plan as amended 2007 and 2011 Core Strategy 2011