Richard Leigh, Committee Co-Ordinator, Committee Team, Room 203,HTH, Tel: 8753 2076 Fax: 8753 2138 E-Mail: [email protected]

Richard Leigh, Committee Co-Ordinator, Committee Team, Room 203,HTH, Tel: 8753 2076 Fax: 8753 2138 E-Mail: Richard.Leigh@Lbhf.Gov.Uk

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2004 AT 7.00PM

HAMMERSMITH TOWN HALL, KING STREET, HAMMERSMITH, LONDON W6 9JU.

MEMBERSHIP:

Administration: Opposition: Cllr Wesley Harcourt (Chair) Cllr Frances Stainton Cllr Charlie Treloggan (Vice Chair) Cllr Will Bethell Cllr Colin Aherne Cllr Caroline Donald Cllr Michael Cartwright Cllr Greg Hands Cllr Jafar Khaled Cllr Dame Sally Powell

OTHER COUNCILLORS' REQUESTS

Councillors Chris Allen, Brendan Bird, Huw Davies, Ivan Gibbons Alex Karmel, Antony Lillis, Emile Al-Uzaizi CONTACT OFFICER: Richard Leigh, Committee Co-ordinator, Committee Team, Room 203,HTH, Tel: 8753 2076 Fax: 8753 2138 e-mail: [email protected]

Members of the public are welcome to attend. A loop system for hearing impairment is provided, along with disabled access to the building. For queries concerning a specific planning application, please call the case officer.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

ITEM PAGE

1. MINUTES OF THE PAC MEETING ON 16 DECEMBER 2003 Circulated separately To agree and sign the above minutes as accurate.

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

If a councillor has any prejudicial or personal interest in a particular report they should declare an interest.

A councillor should not take part in the discussion or vote on a matter in which they have a prejudicial interest. They should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration unless the disability to participate has been removed by the Standards Committee or unless a relevant exemption applies under the Council’s Code of Conduct.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 1

5. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 79

******************************

London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham

------Planning Applications Committee

Agenda for 27th January 2004

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

Avonmore And 120 Edith Road London W14 9AP 2 Brook Green 2003/03001/FUL

Fulham Reach Brandenburgh House 116 Fulham Palace 8 2003/02071/FUL Road London W6 9HH

Fulham Reach Brandenburgh House 116 Fulham Palace 17 2003/02108/LBC Road London W6 9HH

Addison 45 Batoum Gardens London W6 7QB 20 2003/02940/FUL

College Park And 9-127 Heathstan Road London W12 0RB 25 Old Oak 2003/03176/FUL

College Park And 9-127 Heathstan Road London W12 0RB 42 Old Oak 2003/03180/CAC

Ravenscourt Park 15 Ravenscourt Square London W6 0TW 45 2003/02481/FUL

Shepherds Bush Mecca Bingo Hall 58 Shepherd's Bush Green 52 Green London W12 8QE 2002/02875/FUL

Shepherds Bush Mecca Bingo Hall 58 Shepherd's Bush Green 71 Green London W12 8QE 2002/02959/LBC

Palace Riverside 58 Inglethorpe Street London SW6 6NX 74 2003/02192/FUL

Page 1

------Ward: Avonmore And Brook Green

Site Address: 120 Edith Road London W14 9AP

Reg. No: Case Officer; 2003/03001/FUL Mr Laurence O'Keeffe Date valid: 10.11.2003 Conservation Area: Gunter Estate Committee Date: 27.01.2004

Page 2

Applicant: Zylann Properties Ltd C/o Fenchurch Trust PO Box 61 19 Seaton Place St Helier Jersey JE4 8PZ

Description: Continued use of property as two self contained two bedroom flats and one self contained four bedroomed maisonette; erection of two glass screens and a railing to the flat roof at rear, first floor level in connection with the formation of a roof terrace ; retention of a door providing access to the flat roof. Drg Nos: ER.TP5 202; ER.TP5 203

Application type Full Detailed Planning Application

Officer’s Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below

1 The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date of this planning permission.

Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The building development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with the detailed drawings which have been approved unless any material alteration to these approved details has first been submitted and approved in writing by the Council.

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 EN2 and EN8 of the Unitary Development Plan. ------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Nada Jocic (Ext.3340).

Application form received: 10th November 2003 Drawing Nos: see above

Page 3 Policy documents: Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2003.

Consultation Comments

Comments from: Dated:

Neighbour Comments:

Letters from: Dated:

Flat A Basement 122 Edith Road London W14 9AP 09.12.03 Flat 1 124 Edith Road London W14 9AP 03.12.03

LETTERS FROM APPLICANT/AGENT

03.11.03, 23.12.03, 29.12.03

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS

OFFICER'S REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 The application relates to a site on the northern side of Heathstan Road, located between the Westway (A40) and the Central Line to the rear. The site is within the Wormholt and Old Oak Conservation Area. The site is bounded to the west by a two storey sheltered housing scheme for the elderly, and directly to the south and east by 2 storey terrace housing.

1.2 The site currently comprises three long terraces of Council owned residential flats, which runs along the frontage length of Heathstan Road, with gardens to the rear. The existing buildings are three storeys in height with a steep double-pitched roof containing the upper storey. The current residential accommodation comprises 60 flats (40x2 bed units and 20x3 bed units). The current units are small, poorly laid out and fall short of the current building

Page 31 regulations set out in Section B "Means of Escape" and thermal insulation requirements. The residents are currently being decanted.

1.3 Both the two bedroom and three bedroom flats are entered directly into the living room, with the bedrooms and kitchens being accessed from it. This layout offers no privacy within the dwellings. The bathroom and WC are accessed directly from the kitchen, contrary to current building regulations and are considered unhygienic. The kitchens do not provide a safe environment for the preparation and cooking of food, as set out in the Government's Decent Home Standard. Each flat had an open coal store to provide heating. In some cases these have been fitted with a boiler, although the store still remains semi-open. The heating systems are inefficient. Conversion of the flats to separate the kitchens and bathrooms, as well as introducing a corridor to give individual access to all the rooms, while technically possible, would reduce the size of the living room, kitchen and bathroom to the extent that they are still substandard.

1.4 Planning Permission (2003/03176/FUL) and Conservation Area Consent (2003/03180/CAC) are sought for the redevelopment of the site by the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 4no. 3 to 6 storey blocks of flats, and a terrace of 6no. 3 storey houses, providing a total of 95 residential units for rent and shared ownership (29x1 bed units, 52x2 bed units, 10x3 bed units, 2x4 bed units and 2x5 bed units), together with 52 associated off-street car parking spaces and landscaping. This report deals with both applications.

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS

2.1 Application has been publicised by way of press advertisement and site notice. English Heritage, Environment Agency, Thames Water and the Crime Prevention Design Advisor have been consulted, and individual letters of notification have been sent to the Health Authority, London Underground Limited, Hammersmith and Fulham Tenants and Residents Association (HAFTRA), the College Park Residents Association and the Old Oak Community Association. In addition, individual letters of notification have been sent to the occupiers of surrounding properties.

2.2 English Heritage raise concerns about the principle of demolition and the impact of the proposed new buildings on the character and appearance of Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area. Their concerns are addressed in the report.

2.3 Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposed development, and requests that three informatives are attached if planning permission is granted.

2.4 The Metropolitan Police Service Crime Prevention Design Advisor has made suggestions to ensure that the development would meet the 'Secured

Page 32 by Design' standards. The applicant's have amended the proposal in line with his requirements.

2.5 Thames Water raises no objections to the proposal. Informatives would address the matters they have raised.

2.6 2 letters of objection have been received from residents. The planning related issues raised are listed below: - Erection of 3 to 6 storey blocks of flats will block the light to Rosewood Square occupiers. - The site will be overcrowded with buildings of 6 storeys. - Proposed development is not in keeping with the conservation area. - Insufficient off-street parking, which would result in an increase in on-street parking stress on Heathstan Road.

2.7 In addition to the above publicity and consultations as part of the processing of the current planning application, the Housing Department have undertaken their own separate consultation with residents at all stages of the process. The applicant/developer held a public presentation and exhibition of the proposed scheme for the local residents on the 11th June 2003, to obtain their comments on the re-development of the site prior to the lodging of the planning application. Every household in Heathstan Road was invited to attend, as were residents of Rosewood Square and Local Ward Councillors. The event was well attended and the proposals were generally well received and welcomed. The general opinion was positive and in favour of the demolition of the existing buildings and their replacement by the new scheme.

3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 The main issues are whether the proposed scheme is acceptable in the context of the Council's Unitary Development Plan, with particular regard to the likely impact of the development on the character and appearance of the streetscene and the conservation area, its impact on the existing amenities of neighbouring properties and on traffic generation and car parking.

Land Use

3.2 The redevelopment of the site to provide affordable housing is considered to be acceptable in principle in land use terms. It accords with UDP housing policies. The proposal seeks to provide a mix of Registered Social Landlord (RSL) rented and shared ownership units that meet the definition of affordable housing set out in policy HO5. The development would result in the provision of 95 new affordable housing units (in lieu of the 60 existing residential units that would be lost). The mix of unit sizes - 6 houses (ranging from 3-bed to 5-bed houses) and 89 flats (29x1 bed flats, 52x2 bed flats, 10x3 bed flats, 2x4 bed flats and 2x5 bed flats) - is the result of discussion between the Housing Department and Family Housing Association and would help meet an identified need within the Borough. The new residential units would comprise 51 units of RSL rent, 10 units of key Worker

Page 33 rent, and 34 units of shared ownership housing, and the applicants have undertaken to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that the accommodation provided remains permanently as affordable housing.

Density

3.3 The application site currently comprises 60 residential units at a density of some 277 habitable rooms per hectare (approximately 111 habitable rooms per acre). The proposed development would result in 95 residential units, at a density of approximately 378 habitable rooms per hectare (153 habitable rooms per acre. Both the existing and proposed densities are in excess of the normal maximum density guidelines identified in the UDP.

3.4 Density standards are important to ensure the efficient use of land, and that environmental standards, existing levels of services and facilities are not compromised. However, in order to meet the borough's need for more housing, in particular affordable housing, it is important that the best use should be made of the scarce sites suitable for housing development and where possible residential densities should be increased in appropriate locations. This is in line with national and regional guidance and is reflected in Policy HO7 of the UDP which is designed to permit developments at density levels greater than those within standard S2, and identifies the following specific criteria: -

(a) Design and layout of the scheme is such that it can make more efficient use of land without comprising environmental quality; and (b) Scheme would not be deficient in open space provision to meet the needs of residents and would not lead to a deficiency in open space provision for the area as a whole; and (c) Existing services and facilities would have sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the increased demands that higher density development would place upon them; and (d) There would be no increase in on-street parking demand; and (e) In relation to the scale of the proposed development, there would be convenient existing or proposed access to and from the site.

3.5 It is therefore necessary to assess the overall quality of the proposed residential development against relevant UDP Policies and Standards to see if the excess in density can be justified.

Conservation Issues

3.6 The application site is within the Wormholt and Old Oak Conservation Area. In determining planning applications in a Conservation Area, the Council has a statutory duty to consider whether development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This is reiterated in policy EN2 of the UDP, and requires that particular regard is given to details such as scale, massing, bulk, height, materials, vertical and horizontal emphasis and the relationship to adjoining buildings, to street building lines and open spaces. The policy also states that new

Page 34 developments in conservation areas must where possible, respect the historic context, volume, scale, form, materials and quality. These will be particularly important in the historic context.

3.7 The character of the Wormholt and Old Oak Conservation Area is predominantly made up of cottage-style buildings in groups, pairs and short terraces around private gardens and semi-public squares. It demonstrates for the most part, all the characteristics of the garden suburb movement.

3.8 The properties on the north side of Heathstan Road site differ significantly from the overall character of the conservation area. They are three storey apartment buildings in three long terraces, built in common bricks covered in rough cast render, and having traditional mansard roofs with dormers to light the top floor. There is little detail or ornament. All the windows have been replaced with UPVC. These buildings, unlike the substantial part of the conservation area, were cheaply and quickly built in order to meet the significant housing need of the time. It is the officers' view that, while the buildings have some historic worth (Homes fit for Heroes), they do not have the visual richness and architectural appeal of the rest of the conservation area. Only the entrance/staircase towers and the prominent chimneys give any rhythm and interest. This analysis, together with the substandard accommodation the buildings provide, leads officers to accept the demolition proposal.

English Heritage view on demolition. 3.9 English Heritage, having been consulted on the proposals for demolition within the conservation area. There role in this case is purely advisory, they have no power to direct the Council's decision. Nevertheless, as a highly regarded national organisation their concerns must be addressed. English Heritage consider that the Heathstan Road buildings, " as examples of the later phase of the planned inter-war LCC estate, make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. As such, English Heritage are of the view that there is a presumption against demolition, due to their importance (as required by paragraph 4.27 of PPG 15).

3.10 Officers accept that the buildings have a historical value, but do not agree with English Heritage's opinion as to their positive contribution to the appearance of the conservation area. At worst, in the officers' opinion, these buildings are poorly designed and built, and not of the quality of the surrounding estate. At best, if they were properly maintained they could only be said to make a neutral contribution. Taken on balance with the substandard accommodation they provide, officers believe that demolition in justified in this case.

Design Issues

3.11 The Council in accordance with Government Guidance aims to support good and appropriate design, which is sustainable, improves the quality of the existing environment, reinforces a sense of place and promotes civic pride.

Page 35 The Council's policies are not to stifle responsible innovation, originality or initiative, provided that any proposals can demonstrate that proper account has been taken of urban design issues, and that any proposed development re-enforces local character and distinctiveness (paragraph 4.46 UDP). Furthermore, the Council believes that an urban renaissance and the regeneration of the borough requires that good design should be the aim of everyone in the development process. EN8 states that "the Council will require a high standard of design in new buildings compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its' setting. The Council wishes to encourage where appropriate the use of innovative and contemporary materials. However these must be sensitively integrated into the existing built form and landscape."

3.12 The Council is committed to excellence in urban design in all new development within the borough. This includes consideration of both buildings and open spaces and the relationship between the two; a balance between the need for neighbourliness and the scope for design freedom. New development should embrace sustainable principles and contribute positively to the public domain at all levels; improving legibility and permeability, respecting the overall height and form of neighbouring development, its' massing as well as its rhythm and articulation of facades.

3.13 The London Mayor in his draft London Plan puts great emphasis on the importance of good design and in drawing up his principles of design for a compact city (4B.1) asks the Boroughs to encourage, support and require development to "be inspiring, exciting, delighting, practical and legible".

3.14 The existing buildings are located along the entire rear length of Heathstan Road and forms an imposing physical barrier opposite the 2 storey residential houses on the opposite side of Heathstan Road. They are separated from the back edge of pavement by a narrow grass strip bounded by hairpin railings. To the rear is a large open area divided into separate gardens, each one allocated to a flat. Many of these gardens are overgrown an unused.

3.15 The scheme proposed for this site is unlike the surrounding cottage style development in its overall design, nor does it imitate the existing block of flats. The building form is created by four blocks, three storeys in height at the Heathstan Road frontage. The three middle blocks step up in height to six storeys at the rear of the site, adjacent to the raised railway line. The block at the western boundary is two storeys, rising to three storeys to the rear, while the housing on the eastern boundary is three storeys in height. The blocks are arranged at right angles to Heathstan Road and have amenity space and landscaped parking areas between them. Echoing the short terraces and green spaces within the conservation area.

3.16 The scale of the development on the Heathstan Road frontage and on the boundaries is considered to be sympathetic to the existing street scene, and to the height of buildings around the site, and in the conservation area generally. The larger gaps with landscaping on the street frontage would

Page 36 create a less overbearing aspect for the cottages on the other side of Heathstan Road than the existing buildings on the site. The six storey elements of the scheme, although considerably larger than the height of development within the conservation area, are at the rear of the site, and away from its boundaries. They would only be seen in oblique views from within the conservation area, and then against the backdrop of the raised railway line and the much larger buildings beyond (in particular the New Queen Charlotte's and Westminster Hospital and the buildings of the Hammersmith Hospital). Being within the body of the site, it is considered that the extra height, in this instance does not harm the character of the conservation area.

3.17 The architectural style does not seek to create a replica of the surroundings, nor to provide a pastiche of a 1920's apartment building. Rather in accepting that the existing buildings on the site are already in contrast, a style relevant to the present era is being proposed. The design is modern and contrasting. However, traditional building materials, in particular red and yellow stock bricks, and some render, are proposed; while the non-vernacular materials are metal roofs and balcony details. Officers believe this to be correct approach for this site.

3.18 In overall urban design terms, officers consider the layout and disposition of the buildings on the site creates a more open aspect and encourages permeability through the site. The relationship of building to open space is successful and echoes that found in the surrounding area. The scale on the whole respects its neighbours, and, despite being high in parts, is less overbearing than the existing buildings. The design of the built form is articulated and has a rhythm and symmetry. The buildings will be of high quality materials and will provide dwellings of a good standard. Overall a good balance has been struck between the need for neighbourliness, and the scope for design freedom. Officers' believe that the proposals are acceptable in the terms set out in Policy EN8 and its supporting paragraphs.

English Heritage view on the design 3.19 English Heritage object to the proposed new buildings, considering them unimaginative, and raising issues about scale, height, texture and urban grain. While recognising that a more vernacular scheme would be equally valid in design terms, officers, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, consider that proposals are acceptable.

Amenities of Future Occupiers

3.20 Officers consider that the proposed residential units have a satisfactory internal layout and the distance between all the respective buildings is such that would receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight. In this respect the proposal complies with UDP Standards. All the units comply with the internal space standards set out in UDP standard S7A. None of the units are single aspect, in accordance with Standard S13.3.

Amenity Space

Page 37

3.21 All the proposed units would have access to private and/or communal amenity space in the form of balconies, ground floor gardens and a children's play area, in accordance with UDP Policy H012.

3.22 UDP standard S5A would require that a minimum of 2854 sq. metres of amenity space would be provided for the proposed number of units. The proposal makes provision for a total of 3177 sq. metres of amenity space, in accordance with the standard.

3.23 The family houses all have private amenity spaces of 36 square metres or more, and all the flats in the development all have amenity space provided communally and in the form of balconies, or private ground floor amenity space.

3.24 A landscaped children's play area would also be provided as part of this open space, in accordance with UDP standard S7. This area is overlooked by the residential accommodation for maximum security.

Impact on neighbouring properties

3.25 The proposed buildings range from 2 storeys in height adjacent to the 2 storey sheltered housing, up to 6 storeys at the rear of the site adjacent to the tube line. It is considered that the existing buildings that run along the length of Heathstan Road form an imposing physical barrier opposite the two storey residential houses on the opposite side of Heathstan Road. Spaces are proposed between the proposed buildings, which will provide improved views through the site. Officers consider that this will result in improved conditions for some of the properties in Heathstan Road. With regard to the other Heathstan Road properties, the proposed building heights at the front of the site are no higher than the existing buildings to be demolished, and the buildings step up gradually towards the rear of the site.

3.26 A resident in Rosewood Square has expressed concerns about the height of the proposed buildings and its impact on the existing properties in Rosewood Square (2 storey sheltered housing that lies to the west of the site). The building closest to Rosewood Square will be two storey at the front of the site rising to three storeys towards the rear. The buildings will be set some 13.3 metres away from the boundary shared with Rosewood Square. All of the proposed buildings satisfy the 2m 45-degree outlook test set out in UDP standard S13.1. Officers consider that there will be no loss of outlook from existing residential properties as a result of the proposed development.

Daylight and Sunlight 3.27 In considering the protection of adequate daylight and sunlight to existing buildings, the Council will have regard to the guidance set out in the Building Research Establishments' (BRE) Report. The proposed development complies with the BRE guidelines for daylight and sunlight, and UDP standard S3.1.

Page 38 Privacy 3.28 The proximity of new development can sometimes result in the possible overlooking of existing residential properties. New windows should therefore normally be positioned so that the distance to any residential window is not less than 18 metres as measured by in arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed window (standard S13.2). All the proposed windows comply with this requirement. It is considered that the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for surrounding occupiers.

Car Parking

3.29 The full requirement for the 95 residential units according to UDP parking standards would be 111.8 spaces. 52 off-street car parking spaces are proposed to provide a 1:1 parking ratio for the shared ownership element of the scheme (34 spaces) and 18 spaces for the remainder of the scheme. The parking provision includes 11 designated disabled spaces. This provision is considered to be acceptable and is in accordance with UDP parking standards which allows a reduction of up to 75% in the case of permanently available affordable housing, subject to a legal agreement excluding future tenants/owners from obtaining parking permits, and sale only to a housing association which is prepared to be legally bound by the agreement.

3.30 The proposal would provide two additional vehicular accesses to Heathstan Road, which would result in the loss of approximately 7 on-street parking spaces. This is considered to be acceptable in the context of the scheme, on the basis that there are no off-street parking spaces for the existing 60 residential units on the site. Currently all parking has to take place on Heathstan Road, whereas the proposed development would provide on- site parking spaces.

3.31 Accordingly officers consider that the number of car parking spaces proposed is satisfactory and that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street car parking, subject to a legal agreement restricting the occupiers of the new residential units from obtaining resident parking permits, in accordance with standard S18.1 of the UDP.

Cycle Parking 3.32 UDP Standard S20 requires the provision of cycle parking on a basis of 1 per residential unit. The full requirement would therefore be 95 cycle parks. For the units above ground level communal cycle parking for 66 cycles is provided. The 29 ground floor units have space either within their properties or private gardens to store cycles.

Impact on Existing Services

3.33 Officers consider that the scale and nature of the development is unlikely to result in a significant increase in demand on existing services, as all but 35 of the new residential units proposed would replace the existing residential accommodation currently on the site.

Page 39 3.34 The main areas of demand upon the borough's services/facilities from the proposed development would fall upon the education and health services. The Director of Education has raised no objections to the proposed development, and it is considered that the education service would be able to accommodate the likely demand generated by the additional residential units.

Disabled accommodation and facilities

3.35 Six ground floor flats would be provided to full disability standards and all other flats accessible by lifts or at ground level would be to mobility standards. 11-covered disabled parking space would be provided (21% of the total spaces provided), which is in excess of the minimum level of 4% required by UDP standard S4.2. The proposal complies with all the relevant UDP policies and standards relating to disabled users' facilities. The proposal is in accordance with the Housing Corporations' requirements.

Noise

3.36 An independent acoustic and vibration report was carried out on the basis of PPG24 methodology. This found that the development would mainly fall into Noise Exposure Category (NEC) B, with the eastern and western extremes of the Heathstan Road elevation falling within NEC C. The conclusions are that the site is suitable for residential accommodation in terms of both sound and vibration, subject to adequate mitigation measures being in place, which will be secured by condition. The Council are satisfied with the findings of this report. The proposal is therefore in accordance with UDP policy EN20B.

Refuse

3.37 The proposal makes adequate provision for refuse storage in accordance with UDP policy EN17 and Standard S5. The refuse facilities will be located at the street frontage, which is the main entrance of the site, for ease of collection.

Land Contamination

3.38 Potentially contaminative land uses (past or present) are understood to occur at, or near to the site. Conditions are recommended, in order to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused during or following the development works, and in accordance with Policy EN21A.

Legal Agreement

3.39 A condition is recommended to secure a legal agreement, which would include clauses to the following effect: - To secure the permanent retention of the affordable housing under the ownership and management of a registered social landlord. - To ensure that there are no more than 34 Shared Ownership units and no more than 10 Key Worker rented units.

Page 40 - Relating to the average equity percentage for sale in the shared ownership units. - To exclude the occupiers of the new residential units from obtaining residents' parking permits. - To ensure that the owner pays the full cost for associated highways works.

4.0 RECOMMENDATION

4.1 The proposed scheme satisfies all the relevant UDP policies and standards and is considered to provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers. This is an improvement on the current accommodation on the site. The scheme is considered to meet the criteria in Policy HO7 which allows above density schemes. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

Page 41 ------Ward: College Park And Old Oak

Site Address: 9-127 Heathstan Road London W12 0RB

Reg. No: Case Officer; 2003/03180/CAC Ms Sara Dawes Date valid: 04.12.2003 Conservation Area: Old Oak And Wormholt Committee Date: 27.01.2004

Page 42

Applicant: Family Housing Association Albion House 20 Queen Elizabeth Street London SE1 2RJ

Description: Demolition of existing buildings. Drg Nos: M7113/APL01A; 002H; 003E; 004E; 005E; 006E; 007D; 008E;009D; 010F; AEL001E; 002D; 003D; 004D; 005D; 006E.Revised M7113/APL002/H; Design Statement

Application type Conservation Area Consent

Officer’s Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below

1 The works hereby granted consent shall not commence later than the expiration of 5 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.

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 2003/03176/FUL dated 27.01.03 has been entered into; and (ii) notice of demolition in writing and a copy of the building contract has been submitted to 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. ------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Nada Jocic (Ext.3340).

Application form received: 27th November 2003 Drawing Nos: see above

Page 43 Policy documents: Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2003.

Consultation Comments

Comments from: Dated:

Neighbour Comments:

Letters from: Dated:

For joint report see 2003/03176/FUL

Page 44 ------Ward: Ravenscourt Park

Site Address: 15 Ravenscourt Square London W6 0TW

Reg. No: Case Officer; 2003/02481/FUL Ms Catherine Smyth Date valid: 18.09.2003 Conservation Area: Ravenscourt And Starch Green Committee Date: 27.01.2004

Page 45

Applicant: Mr And Mrs Davies 15 Ravenscourt Square London W6 0TW

Description: Erection of a single storey rear extension at lower ground floor level. Drg Nos: 6/01; 02; 03A; 04A.

Application type Full Detailed Planning Application

Officer’s Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below

1 The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date of this planning permission.

Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby approved shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with the detailed drawings which have been approved unless any material alteration to these approved details has first been submitted and approved in writing by the Council.

3 The extension and any alterations to the elevations of the existing building shall be constructed in second hand yellow London Stock brickwork to match the original building. The bricks should be laid in Flemish bond with a lime-based mortar and flush pointing.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policies EN2, EN6, EN8 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 Drawings of the roof and window details, drawn at a scale of 1:20 showing materials and forms of construction, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted.

Page 46

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with policies EN2, EN6, EN8 and EN8B in the Unitary Development Plan.

5 No openings of any kind shall be formed in the side elevations of the extension hereby permitted.

To avoid unduly affecting amenities of the neighbouring premises by reason of overlooking or loss of privacy, in accordance with Standard S13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6 Door/window openings to the extension hereby permitted shall be timber framed.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policies EN2, EN6, EN8 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan. ------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Nada Jocic (Ext.3340).

Application form received: 2nd September 2003 Drawing Nos: see above

Policy documents: Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2003.

Consultation Comments

Comments from: Dated:

Neighbour Comments:

Letters from: Dated:

11 Ravenscourt Square London W6 0TW 01.10.03 17 Ravenscourt Square London W6 0TW 08.10.03 Willingale Associates Architects And Development Consultants 56 Clerkenwell Road London EC1M 5PX 01.10.03 The Ravenscourt Society 221 Goldhawk Road London W12 8ER 20.10.03

LETTERS FROM APPLICANT/AGENT

Page 47 26.11.03

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area Character Profile

Other Relevant Documents

OFFICER'S REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 This application relates to 58, Shepherd's Bush Green, a site of 3,000 sq. metres in size located on the western side of the common, to the north of The Walkabout public house, south of Threshold House (BBC) and east of the rear of residential properties at nos. 24-46 (evens only) Pennard Road. Construction of the building on site, which is a detached currently vacant grade II listed building designed by Frank Verity, was completed in 1923 for use as a cinema. The building, which has latterly been used as a Mecca

Page 60 Bingo hall, is sited within the boundaries of both within the Shepherd's Bush Conservation Area and the Shepherd's Bush Town Centre.

1.2 The proposal under consideration is for the redevelopment of the property to provide a 182 bedroom hotel; with retail space of 719 sq.m. on the ground floor and an additional 176 sq. metres in a potential new mezzanine level; leisure facilities comprising conference, gallery and exhibition space in the basement and a new sub-basement level and a health club/gym/swimming pool in the basement totalling 1717 sq. metres. The development would also involve replacing the existing curved main roof, erecting a roof top pavilion extension and canopy with a roof terrace to the front of the building; erecting a new entrance canopy to the front façade at Shepherd's Bush Green at ground floor level and installing flagpoles over the new front entrance. There would be a single vehicular gated access point into the site from Shepherds Bush Green at the northern side of the property, where there would be a hotel/retail loading dock for servicing, taxi drop-off and coach parking. There would be no general car parking to serve the redevelopment, though there would be two parking spaces for disabled persons. There would be space set aside within the building for the parking of 20 bicycles and 40 covered cycle spaces would be provided at the western property boundary.

1.3 It is anticipated by the applicants that there would be 180-200 permanent and 50-60 temporary staff employed by the hotel. It is the applicant's intention that the retail space be let by a single commercial occupier and they anticipate that there would be between 35 and 55 retail staff. The health club would be open for use by guests of the hotel and via a membership scheme for members of the public, with opening hours of 6.00 a.m.-11.00 p.m.

1.4 The rear elevation facing west onto Pennard Road and parts of the side elevations of the property would be demolished and replaced, involving alterations to the existing footprint of the building to the north, south and west.

1.5 An application for listed building consent for works to this property to facilitate the redevelopment scheme is also under consideration on this agenda, under ref: 2002/02959/LBC. This is a joint report that addresses the issues raised by both the planning and listed building applications.

1.6 There are no relevant planning records relating to this property.

1.7 The application has been revised since receipt. An originally proposed taxi drop-off point to the south of the building to be served by a new vehicular entrance has been omitted from the scheme as it would have been unacceptable on highway safety grounds. The design of the pavilion extension has been modified, in the interest of visual amenity.

1.8 The redevelopment of this property has been the subject of a financial appraisal, examined by external consultants. This has been used to assess the appropriate level of financial contribution.

Page 61

1.9 This application was referred to the Mayor as it would have been a departure to the 1994 Unitary Development Plan and also as the proposed redevelopment constitutes the erection of a building outside Central London with a total floorspace in excess of 15,000 sq.m.

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS

2.1 The proposal was publicised as a major application by way of a press notice and site notice. Residential owners/occupiers and commercial operators and residents groups in the neighbourhood were notified. In addition English Heritage and other amenity and heritage groups were also notified.

2.2 Seven responses were received to the original submission, objecting to certain aspects of the development. Four of these letters state, however, that there is no objection to the redevelopment of the site in principle for use as a hotel with retail, conference/gallery and leisure facilities.

2.3 The planning issues raised in the objection letters are in summary:

- Impact on local on-street parking, which is already under stress - Proposal should ensure privacy of existing residents is not prejudiced - Lighting should not intrude on existing residential properties - Smells from restaurant and kitchen may impact on residents at Pennard Road - Impact of noise arising from plant and air ducts on existing residents at Pennard Road - Café/bars/pub use would not be acceptable - Petrol fumes from vehicles would leak into gardens on Pennard Road - impact on health - Increase in populace in an over-populated area - Existing public transport systems wont be able to cope with increased demand - Increase in vehicles would slow down existing cars - Shop prices will increase due to number of tourists - Simultaneous construction on the Uxbridge Road tram would cause chaos in the local area - Vehicle entry/exit point next to Walkabout P.H. would cause safety problems (omitted from the revised scheme) - Impact of proposed alterations to the highway layout on the movement of traffic, specifically the taxi rank (omitted from the revised scheme) - Southern entrance is unacceptable (omitted from the revised scheme)

One objection letter raises objection to the alterations to the listed building.

2.4 The Greenside Residents Association generally welcomes the redevelopment; stating that a mid-range hotel would add welcome diversity to the area and impetus to local shopping facilities and favours the basement being used for health/recreation uses. Concern was expressed about timing of

Page 62 vehicles on site, lack of parking and impact on local on-street parking, noise, location of venting, hours of building work and use of the retail space.

2.5 There have been 3 responses to the neighbour consultations/site and press notices on the most recently received revised submission. One letter from residents of Pennard Road who have not previously commented on the scheme object to the design of the roof, overlooking arising from the proposal and lack of car parking. Two other letters received from persons who have previously objected repeat concerns relating to noise and smells and overlooking arising from the development.

2.6 In response to some of the matters raised in the objections officers comment as follows. Hours of building work and demolition is governed under legislation separate to planning. Shop prices are not a planning issue. General café/bars/pub i.e. A3 use are not proposed in this application and would require a separate planning permission. It is unlikely that construction on the Uxbridge Road Tram, the planning of which is at an embryonic stage, would happen simultaneously with this development were it to be approved. Although this is admittedly a busy town centre location the proposal would not involve a permanent increase in population and the assessment of this case would not, therefore, necessitate a review of density in the area. The remaining planning issues raised in the correspondence received shall be discussed in the body of the report.

2.7 English Heritage raised objection to the original scheme, but supports the proposal as revised.

2.8 The Twentieth Century Society reports that they are very pleased that a long-term use has been found for the former cinema and fully supports the plans. The Cinema Theatre Association objection to the proposal to glaze the roofline and the pavilion extension. The Theatres Trust generally supports the redevelopment scheme and recommends that the former cinema be properly recorded.

2.9 A stage 1 report from the GLA states that the Mayor has observed that the proposal would make efficient use of a presently under-used prominently located site, accessible to and heavily relying on public transport, which would produce strategic benefits; and that the scheme represents a high quality urban design and architectural solution for this listed building. The Mayor also advises that the development would enhance the balance of uses in this town centre, facilitate tourism, create new job opportunities and assist the on-going regeneration of the Shepherds Bush/White City area. Transport for London does not object to the revised proposal.

3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 The main planning issues arising out of this proposal relate to the loss of the established entertainment use; the acceptability, or otherwise, of the proposed hotel, retail and leisure uses; the scheme's potential for traffic generation and its impact on the highway network; the impact of the proposal

Page 63 on the amenities of neighbours at Pennard Road in terms of light, outlook, noise and disturbance and the impact of the demolition work and external alterations to the building vis-à-vis its listed status and on the appearance of the conservation area within which the property is located.

Land use 3.2 The subject property was constructed as a cinema, for public entertainment use; and has been used for a variety of similar uses since then, including more recently as a bingo hall and entertainment venue. The lawful use of the property therefore falls within Class D2 'Assembly and Leisure'.

3.3 The appropriate principle land use policies are therefore CS1, TC1 and E11. Policy CS1 states that the Council will seek to retain arts, cultural or entertainment (ACE) use of buildings and will not normally allow change of use to other purposes, and that in redevelopment schemes replacement ACE accommodation should be provided; but in the event that the continuation of the ACE facility is not appropriate or viable the preferred alternative use would be for recreation. Policy further allows, in the absence of any viable or appropriate recreation uses, that alternatives will be considered in accordance with other policies in the UDP. Policy TC1 states that the preferred location for major schemes, including shopping and recreation and leisure facilities, is within the borough's town centres, in order to deliver sustainable development and to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of such areas. Policy E11 states that hotel development will only be permitted provided that the site is in a town centre or, in terms of its scale and location, is well served by public transport and tourist facilities; and provided that the site is not within or close to a residential area.

3.4 The property has not been used as a cinema since 1983 when it closed due to dwindling audiences. Though the UDP prefers owners of listed buildings to use them for the purposes for which they originally built, policy EN4 does allow, as would be the case here, that where all efforts to continue the original use have failed, the Council may consider other uses which are appropriate to their appearance, character and associations.

3.5 The applicants have considered the continued use of the property for arts, culture and entertainment uses in the context of the current market, existing uses in the vicinity, emerging proposals such as the White City development and impact on residential neighbours. These activities have been dismissed for various valid reasons such as - noise arising from a late night music or dance venue affecting amenities of surrounding occupiers; - a multiplex cinema would not be financially viable given existing uses and planning permissions in the Shepherds Bush area; - there would be insufficient demand for a bingo hall (this use is also prevented under the contract of sale from Rank); - a casino would only require part of the building, would have late hours and be generally 'inactive' during the day resulting in 'dead frontage';

Page 64 - and the substantial air handling/plant requirements and early mornings/late evenings required for an indoor sports venue/skating/ten pin bowling/swimming pool/gym. The search for alternative entertainment uses has, therefore, been unproductive. Notwithstanding that the primary use of the proposed complex would be hotel, there would be elements of leisure and recreation uses in the form of a health club, swimming pool, conference/gallery and exhibition space.

3.6 This is an accessible town centre location. The property is particularly well served by public transport systems (PTAL 5), being within close proximity of both the Central and Hammersmith and City underground lines, and served by numerous bus routes (the highway outside the site is part of the London Bus Priority Network). This is a major scheme of compatible land uses, appropriate to this location, which has a sizeable employment generating capacity and also considerable potential to positively influence the vitality and viability of the town centre, through the development itself and also by bringing local spin-off benefits.

3.7 The UDP outlines a general positive approach to the provision of new shopping facilities in town centre redevelopment. This stretch of town centre frontage is significantly deficient in retail uses. The introduction of shopping at this location is considered to be acceptable, as it would improve the vivacity and economic well being of the western side of Shepherds Bush Green and its locale.

3.8 Though the property backs on to a residential street; the proposal would not materially harm the amenities of neighbours, as discussed below.

3.9 On balance, therefore, the principle of the loss and replacement of land uses in this development is considered to be acceptable.

Parking / traffic / highways issues 3.10 This scheme does not provide for any general parking, though there are two spaces provided for disabled persons. Servicing and a coach parking space and a taxi-drop off facility have been provided. The UDP allows for flexibility in the supply of parking spaces in exceptional circumstances and where the Council is satisfied that any lesser provision will not contribute to additional on-street parking stress or other problems for traffic management. This is a highly accessible town centre site, with a range of public transport facilities available close by. The property is also a listed building, the sensitive refurbishment and re-use of which would be achieved in this scheme; and the footprint of which covers a significant proportion of the site area leaving extremely limited potential to provide car parking.

3.11 As there would be no general parking on-site the development would tend not to attract vehicles to it seeking a parking space. A section 106 agreement would require a green travel plan, which would include how the developer's commitment to encouraging clientele to use public transport systems would be implemented. A taxi drop-off area would be provided, allowing for the arrival/departure of some hotel guests by car, but hours of use

Page 65 of this facility would be limited. There is also a taxi rank close to the hotel entrance on Shepherd's Bush Green. These arrangements would minimise impact on the existing parking on local residential streets, which, it is noted, is a CPZ.

3.12 The proposal makes acceptable provision for secure and covered bicycle parking facilities, which is sustainable and could reduce car dependency and encourage a more balanced modal split. The proposed vehicular and cycle parking layout is considered to be satisfactory. Overall in terms of parking the proposal would be in accordance with the requirements of policies TN4, TN6 and TN15 and standards S17, S19 and S20.

3.13 The proposed vehicular access is acceptable in all respects, including vehicular-pedestrian segregation. The access arrangements would not impact on the existing highway layout, including public transport and taxi facilities on Shepherd's Bush Green. In this respect the proposal would satisfy the requirements of standards S22 and S23 and policy TN15.

3.14 Vehicle path geometry has been submitted which demonstrates that vehicles visiting this development can enter, turn within, and leave the site in forward gear satisfactorily.

3.15 The proposed development would be significantly restricted in respect of its traffic generation and demand for on-street parking. A green travel plan would include mechanisms to effectively manage the working of the coach parking and servicing. The impact on the capacity of the highway network and local parking conditions would, therefore, be minimal. In the circumstances it is considered that the parking and servicing arrangements as proposed are acceptable.

Residential amenity 3.16 The location, orientation and scale of the development is such that there would be no significant change in daylighting and sunlighting to neighbouring properties at Pennard Road. The proposal is therefore in accordance with standard S3.

3.17 The redevelopment would result in a taller building closer to the boundaries with some of the properties on Pennard Road. Based on a on-site judgement it is considered that because of the distance between the application building and the rear of these dwellings the proposal would not materially adversely affect outlook to neighbours. In this regard the proposal would accord with standard S13. In terms of views of the site officers consider that the appearance of the rear of the building will be improved in comparison to the visual environment offered by the existing building ..

3.18 Openings to bedrooms on the main section of the rear elevation of the building have been designed so that although they would be within 18 metres of windows at existing residential properties at Pennard Road they would not fall within an arc of 60 degrees. The few windows that face directly towards properties at Pennard Road located to the northwest of the site, would be

Page 66 obscurely glazed with translucent panels. Additionally the majority of windows to the rear elevation would have a brise soleil screen which only allows a view upwards towards the sky, and would prevent overlooking of neighbours.

3.19 There would be no public access to open areas at 7th floor level, which shall only be used for maintenance purposes and which shall be secured by condition. Accordingly, this would not result in overlooking or noise and disturbance to existing neighbours at Pennard Road.

3.20 Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in existing residents suffering undue overlooking or loss of privacy, in accordance with standard S13.2.

3.21 Controls over hours of use, design of entrance doors (including roller shutters) and the use of air conditioning/ventilation and extraction units would prevent adverse impact on the amenities of residential neighbours at Pennard Road, in accordance with policy EN21.

3.22 Additionally, this proposal would remove potential to use the property for large scale late night entertainment activity, which is currently uncontrolled and has resulted in a number of complaints from neighbours, which would improve the quality of life of local residents.

Design 3.23 The Council has a statutory duty when assessing applications in conservation areas to ensure that the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. Relevant policies for assessing the acceptability of the design of this proposal are EN2, EN2B, EN3 and EN8. Policy EN3 states the Council's position of presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings, by not permitting their demolition. Policies EN2, EN2B and EN8 require that a high standard of design be achieved compatible with the scale and character of existing development and the site's setting and that particular care be taken for developments in conservation areas to ensure that a proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of such areas and views into or out of them.

3.24 Externally today the building retains much of the original features in only its front elevation and short returns. The remainder of the elevations have been altered over time. The current proposal recognises and preserves the building's external civic character, with the front elevation and short returns being restored, with relatively minor external alterations, and the form of the main barrel vaulted roof being retained (although new materials would be used). The complex has been designed around an open internal courtyard with many hotel rooms having windows looking into this area, thereby minimising external alterations to the front elevation of the building. An open colonnade would be provided at ground floor to the street along the Shepherds Bush elevation, which would be secured by the use of lighting, CCTV and the hotel concierge. The only significant enlargement to the property would be the pavilion extension, which in terms of its proportion and scale would be subsidiary to its host building and would be a comfortable

Page 67 addition. The eastern, western and southern elevations of the building would be redesigned and remodelled. These currently have a non-compositional and utilitarian arrangement of windows and doors and are extremely limited in their visual quality. Part and full brick arches on these elevations would be retained.

3.25 Little of the building's original interior now exists because of post-war alterations. It was also radically altered in 1969 to divide the original auditorium into two smaller spaces. All of the original decoration was removed at this time to achieve a new, much less detailed interior. Only fragments of the previous interior design remain confined to the east wall of the foyer at first floor level and these have no relationship with the later work and have no coherent quality of their own. None of the spaces within the building are original in form or special. There is therefore effectively very little within the building worth preserving. A condition would require that a photographic record of the property (both internally and externally) take place prior to development and that all of the remaining internal original architectural elements (including plasterwork) be carefully removed intact from the property and offered to the Cinema Theatre Association.

3.26 The proposed building offers a number of opportunities for signage addressing the various functions of the complex. An indicative scheme has been received indicating the applicant's intention to provide an integrated but subtle and sympathetic signage system on the building. Specific details would be dealt with in a subsequent advert consent application.

3.27 This is a distinctive building, the re-use and subservient extension of which would fully respect the local architectural and townscape importance and qualities of this building and which would improve the visual amenities of the area through improved aesthetics. The proposal allows for the use of appropriate innovative design and contemporary materials, that would sensitively integrate into the conservation area.

3.28 The views and setting of The Green would be significantly improved by the redevelopment of this physically dominant building; and the character and appearance of the conservation area would be enhanced. A detailed landscaping plan including planting and boundary treatment would be secured by condition. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies EN2, EN2B, EN3 and EN8

Disabled accommodation and facilities 3.29 Lifts within the proposed building would provide satisfactory access to all public areas. Two parking spaces would be for people with disabilities. Disabled persons or those with mobility problems using these spaces have an option to gain convenient entry to the development from the west via a buzzer system. The proposal would meet all the relevant policy and standard provisions in the UDP relating to disabled users' facilities.

Refuse

Page 68 3.30 The proposal makes adequate provision for refuse storage and collection, including facilities for recycling in accordance with policy EN17 and standard S5.

Other environmental considerations 3.31 The key sustainability principle of this development lies in the re-use of an existing under-utilised building, with no general on-site parking and cycle parking provision. It is also the applicant's intention to incorporate other sustainability principles within the design and development of the scheme, where appropriate, in the following ways:

- Materials would be sourced locally, which would help reduce pollution from the transport of supplies. - Brickwork from the existing building would be recycled and re-used if they are of sufficient quality. - Recycled materials would be used in the development

- Energy efficient measures would be used in the design, running and long term maintenance of the development. It is intended to exceed the standards of Part L of the building regulations in some areas. - Energy efficient mechanical and electrical systems and sources of renewable energy would be investigated and incorporated into the scheme. -The use of grey water would be investigated and encouraged. -A green travel plan would be prepared, to encourage non-car modes of transport. The development is thereby considered to comply with policy EN16.

Legal Agreement 3.32 The applicants have agreed to enter into a legal agreement in respect of: i) committing to employing local persons in the construction phase and in the hotel/retail/leisure development itself ii) committing to working with the town centre manager and visitor development manager iii) training of local persons in the workplace iv) ensuring that the health facilities within the development can be used by local people. v) ensuring the provision of 60 secured bicycle parking spaces vi) providing a green travel plan detailing how it is proposed to promote use of public transport and cycling as modes of transport and how it is proposed to discourage use of car vehicle trips vii) management of the shared access arrangements for the service delivery vehicles and coach parking within the site viii) a financial contribution of £100,000 towards the cost of upgrading Shepherd's Bush Green ix) paying the Council's reasonable legal costs in preparation of the agreement. x) paying the cost of any necessary highway works arising as a result of the development, including alterations to the Traffic Order.

Page 69 4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1 In conclusion it is considered that the loss of the existing land use is acceptable as the continuation of an arts, culture or entertainment use would either be non-viable or inappropriate. The proposal would secure the retention and re-use of this vacant listed building through sensitive refurbishment and extension; and it would deliver sustainable non-car based compatible development appropriate to the site's location, which would enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre. Additionally, the proposal would have notable direct and indirect regeneration benefits. The external appearance of the development would complement the existing building and would enhance the appearance, character and views of the conservation area. The proposal would not materially harm the amenities of existing residents. The impact of the proposal on the highway network and local parking conditions would be minimal.

4.2 In view of the above it is therefore recommended that members resolve to grant planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement and listed building consent.

Page 70 ------Ward: Shepherds Bush Green

Site Address: Mecca Bingo Hall 58 Shepherd's Bush Green London W12 8QE

Reg. No: Case Officer; 2002/02959/LBC Ms Catherine Smyth Date valid: 03.12.2002 Conservation Area:

Committee Date: 27.01.2004

Page 71

Applicant: Brydex Limited C/O 3 Belsize Place London W3 5AL

Description: Alterations to the building, including installation of new entrance canopy, and opening up blocked up and blind windows on the main façade facing east onto Shepherd's Bush Green; replacement of existing curved roof, erection of a roof top pavilion extension and canopy; demolition of rear elevation facing west onto Pennard Road and parts of the side elevations and replacement with new elevations. Drg Nos: P16 - P29; P30 Rev.C; P31 Rev. A; P32 Rev.A; P33 Rev.D;P34 Rev.C; P35 Rev.A--P39 Rev.A; P40 Rev.D; P41 Rev.B;P42 Rev.D; P43 Rev.B; P44 Rev.C; P45 Rev.A; P46; P47 Rev.B;P48 Rev.B

Application type Listed Building Consent

Officer’s Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below

1 The works hereby granted consent shall not commence later than the expiration of 5 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.

2 The works hereby approved are only those specifically stated in the written description and indicated on the approved drawing numbers outlined above.

In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Unitary Development Plan. ------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Nada Jocic (Ext.3340).

Application form received: 28th November 2002 Drawing Nos: see above

Page 72 Policy documents: Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2003.

Consultation Comments

Comments from: Dated:

Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings 03.04.03 Group

Neighbour Comments:

Letters from: Dated:

12.06.03

See 2002/02875/FUL for joint report, elsewhere on this agenda.

Page 73 ------Ward: Palace Riverside

Site Address: 58 Inglethorpe Street London SW6 6NX

Reg. No: Case Officer; 2003/02192/FUL Ms Dominique Chambers Date valid: 04.08.2003 Conservation Area: Crabtree Committee Date: 27.01.2004

Page 74

Applicant: Mr And Mrs Cowan 58 Inglethorpe Street London SW6 6NX

Description: Erection of a single storey rear extension, to the side and rear of the excising back addition Drg Nos: 23087/02.

Application type Full Detailed Planning Application

Officer’s Recommendation

That the application be approved subject to the condition(s) set out below

1 The development hereby permitted shall not commence later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date of this planning permission.

Condition required to be imposed by section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development shall not be erected otherwise than in accordance with the detailed drawings which have been approved unless any material alteration to these approved details has first been submitted and approved in writing by the Council.

3 The extension shall be constructed in bricks to match the existing facing brickwork of the property.

To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 Any alterations to the elevations of the existing building shall be carried out in the same materials as the existing elevation to which the alterations relate.

Page 75 To ensure a satisfactory external appearance, in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN8B of the Unitary Development Plan.

5 The extension hereby approved shall not exceed a height of two metres on the party boundary with 56 and 60 Inglethorpe Street, as measured from the existing ground level at 56 and 60 Inglethorpe Street immediately adjoining the extension.

To ensure that the development is built in accordance with the approved plans and does not result in a sense of enclosure to the adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Standard 12.4 and 13.1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

------

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

All Background Papers held by Nada Jocic (Ext.3340).

Application form received: 1st August 2003 Drawing Nos: see above

Policy documents: Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2003.

Consultation Comments

Comments from: Dated:

Neighbour Comments:

Letters from: Dated:

56 Inglethorpe Street London SW6 6NX 29.08.03

OFFICER'S REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 The application relates to a two-storey terraced property within the Crabtree conservation area.

1.2 October 1993 - Planning permission was granted for the erection of a rear roof extension. This development has since been completed.

Page 76 1.3 The current application is for the erection of a ground floor rear extension. The extension would be situated to the rear and side of the original two-storey back addition of the property. It would project 2.15 metres beyond the existing rear building line of the back addition, and would return along the side of the back addition (on the party boundary with 56 Inglethorpe Street).

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS

2.1 The application has been advertised by means of a press advert and a site notice. In addition, individual notification letters have been sent to the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

2.2 One letter has been received in response (56 Inglethorpe Street), which confirms that the occupiers of that property have seen the submitted drawings and states that "provided the height (of the extension on their boundary) does not exceed 2 metres as stated, and that the subsequent building does not exclude any light from our living room and kitchen, we have no objection."

3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed development is acceptable in the context of the policies and standards of the UDP, with particular regard to its impact on visual amenity and the character and appearance of the conservation area and its impact on the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

3.2 The proposed extension would be confined to ground floor level at the rear of the application property and would be of brick construction, to match the existing facing brickwork of the house. That part of the extension to the side of the existing back addition would have a mono pitch roof that would fall to a height of 2 metres on the party boundary with 56 Inglethorpe Street. The part of the extension beyond the rear building line of the existing back addition (which is 2.15 metres in length) has also been designed such that it does not exceed a height of 2 metres on the party boundary with both 56 and 60 Inglethorpe Street. This section of the extension would have a dual pitch roof, the highest point of which (the ridge - at 3.6 metres) would be 2.7 metres away from the party boundary with the next-door properties.

3.3 In terms of its scale and design the proposed extension is considered to be in keeping with the application property and it is not considered that it would be harmful to visual amenity or to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Accordingly, the development accords with policy EN2 and EN8B of the UDP.

3.4 On the party boundary with 60 Inglethorpe Street the extension is 2.15 metres long and 2 metres in height. In this form it would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing amenities of the occupiers of this property and would not conflict with any UDP standards in terms of daylight/sunlight, privacy or loss of outlook.

Page 77

3.5 In the case of 56 Inglethorpe Street, that part of the extension to the side of the existing back addition has been designed to comply with the requirements of standard 12.4 of the UDP (maximum 2 metres in height on the party boundary, with a mono pitch roof sloping up towards the flank wall of the back addition at an angle of less than 45 degrees). The mono pitch roof of the extension would be seen in the context of the existing much higher flank wall of the original back addition. Whilst the extension does extend 2.15 metres beyond the rear building line of the existing back addition, this section has also been designed such that it does not exceed a height of 2 metres on the party boundary (which is the height to which the existing boundary wall could be raised without the need for planning permission). It is not considered that the proposed extension would have a significant impact on the existing amenities of the occupiers of 56 Inglethorpe Street in terms of loss of light or outlook, and the extension would comply with the Council's standards in this respect.

3.6 The proposed extension projects 2.15 metres further into the rear garden than the original back addition. However, this would still leave some 12 metres to the rear boundary of the site. The extension would comply with standard 6.3 of the UDP and it is therefore not considered that it would result in a significant loss of existing amenity space or have an unacceptable impact on the existing sense of openness to the rear of the application property/terrace.

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 It is considered that the proposed extension would have an acceptable visual appearance and would not have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area or the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted

Page 78 DATE: 5 JANUARY 2004

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

MINOR OPERATIONAL ------SUBJECT

CONFIRMATION OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER TPO/308/6/03

------WARD/S

ADDISON

------CONTRIBUTORS

Env.D

------RECOMMENDATION

The Committee resolve that the Tree Preservation Order T308/6/03 be confirmed.

Page 79 CONFIRMATION OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDER T/308/6/03 LAND TO THE REAR OF 96-98 SINCLAIR ROAD

------

1 DOCUMENTATION

1.1 Location plan

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 On 13th June 2003 delegated authority was given to make a Tree Preservation Order covering 1 Sycamore tree on the land at the rear of 96 – 98 Sinclair Road, W14. This Order was made under Section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and became effective for a period of six months from the 7th August 2003.

2.2 Under Section 201, the Council is obliged to consider any objections to the Order, made within 28 days of its service. Objections have been submitted by the owners of the Olympia car park and by St. George Central London Ltd. Six letters of support have been received, including one from the Sinclair Road Residents Association.

2.3 The tree is at the rear of Nos. 96 & 98 Sinclair Road, W14, within the former Motorail site, known as Olympia car park. The long and narrow site extends along the rear of Nos. 92-148 Sinclair Road, adjoining the West London Line. The Borough boundary divides the site into two portions, the larger eastern portion being within the RBK&C and the smaller western one within the LBH&F. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO/306/2/03) for the group of trees on the site within LBHF to the rear of 118-148 Sinclair Road was confirmed on 24th September 2003. The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has also made a relevant Tree Preservation Order.

2.4 The Order was made in response to the submission of planning applications to both LBH&F and RBK&C, which would result in the loss of the tree. The Council's Arboricultural Officer supports the making of a Tree Preservation Order on the tree.

2.5 The tree adds to the overall group impact and quality of the adjoining group of trees in the adjoining Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and so merits protection. The tree has amenity value for the residents of Nos. 96 & 98 Sinclair Road whose back gardens adjoin it and, to a lesser extent, for the RBK&C residents on the other side of the railway tracks. The tree adds to the amenity value of the adjoining trees, which are visible to the general public when viewed from the road bridge at Addison Gardens, the play area at Russell Gardens Mews and the railway (West London Line).

Page 80 3 OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER

3.1 The following objections were received from Eurostar (UK) Ltd, the freehold owners of the Olympia car park site.

Objection 1.

"the enclosed nature of the site means that the extent of public views towards the site is very restricted;"

Officer's comment

Objection 2.

"The tree subject to this TPO, which we consider to be a re-growing coppice stool, is only 9 metres in height and is smaller than the majority of the neighbouring trees. It is of poor structure and has very limited potential. Subsequently, its contribution to the overall group impact is de minimis. It is not a rare species, is not characterised by a unique size or form and does not benefit from any form of management. Fundamentally, it can be described as commonplace vegetation that is not exclusive to this locality. "

Officer's comment

The tree has a high amenity value for the Sinclair Road residents whose back gardens adjoin it and for the RBK&C residents on the other side of the railway tracks. The tree adds to the overall group impact and quality of the adjoining group of trees in the adjoining Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The Council's Arboricultural Officer has inspected the tree and supports the making of a Tree Preservation Order on the tree.

Objection 3.

"there are a large number of mature and semi-mature trees in the immediate vicinity of the site along the cuttings and embankment to the adjoining railway and within the gardens to the rear of properties fronting Sinclair Road. In this way, it must be questioned whether the subject trees form a ‘scarce habitat’,"

Officer's comment

With the exception of this site, trees within the Sinclair Road area are restricted to street trees and trees in rear gardens, which provide a relatively sparse cover. The tree is not protected and could be removed, in these circumstances it is appropriate to protect the tree.

Page 81 Objection 4.

"It is our view that the tree subject to this TPO has no significant impact on amenity and is of no particular merit to the local environment and landscape."

Officer's comment

The tree has significant amenity value and is of merit to the local environment.

3.2 The following objections have been received from St. George Central London Ltd who have submitted planning applications to redevelop the site.

Objection 1.

"The Order covers a single Sycamore tree, which it is considered is a re-growing coppice stool and consequently is of poor structure and reduced potential."

Officer's comment

The Council's Arboricultural Officer has inspected the tree and supports the making of a Tree Preservation Order on the tree. A Tree Preservation Order is appropriate to protect the amenity value of the tree.

Objection 2.

"At 9m in height, the tree is smaller than most of the surrounding specimens, which screen it almost entirely from view from any public area. The only place from which it can be seen by the general public is the play area adjacent to Russell Gardens Mews in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and from this location it is dominated by other trees to the extent that the skyline would not change if the tree was removed. From all other aspects it is screened by other trees and therefore its visibility cannot be said to be widespread."

Officer's comment

The site is clearly visible to the general public when viewed from the road bridge at Addison Gardens, from the play area next to Russell Garden Mews and from the railway (West London Line). The tree has a high amenity value for the Sinclair Road residents whose back gardens adjoin it and for the RBK&C residents on the other side of the railway tracks, which would be lost if the tree were allowed to be removed. The tree also adds to the overall group impact and quality of the adjoining group of trees in the adjoining Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Page 82 Objection 3.

"In terms of individual impact, the contribution made by this tree is low and its size, form and future potential are insufficient to merit the imposition of a TPO. The statement that the tree ‘adds to the overall group impact and quality of the adjoining trees’ cannot be substantiated. Its relative size means that its contribution to the group as a whole is small."

Officer's comment

In the Secretary of State’s view, TPOs should be used to protect selected woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. LPAs should be able to show that a reasonable degree of public benefit would accrue before TPOs are made or confirmed. The benefit may be present or future; trees may be worthy of preservation for their intrinsic beauty or for their contribution to the landscape or because they serve to screen an eyesore or future development. In this case a TPO is justified since the removal of the tree included in the TPO would expose the rear of the properties in Sinclair Road to the railway, the car park and a potential future development site. The tree also adds to the overall group impact and quality of the adjoining group of trees in the adjoining Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

4 OPTIONS

4.1 The Council could allow the Tree Preservation Order to lapse.

4.2 Alternatively, the Council is empowered to confirm the Tree Preservation Order, in order to protect the tree. Officers recommend this option.

5 ARGUMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION

5.1 The Provisional Tree Preservation Order was stimulated by the submission of planning applications to both LBH&F and RBKC for the redevelopment of the Olympia car park site, which would result in the loss of the tree.

5.2 The site covered by the Tree Preservation Order forms part of a very scarce habitat in both LBH&F and RBK&C. The site is also identified as part of a Green Corridor in the LBH&F UDP and as an Area of Grade I Nature Conservation Importance in the RBK&C UDP. Green Corridors provide important wildlife and amenity benefits within urban areas and help facilitate the movement of animals, birds and insects within the urban fabric.

5.3 The tree has a high amenity value for all of the Sinclair Road residents whose back gardens adjoin it and for the RBK&C residents on the other side of the railway tracks. The trees are clearly visible to the general public when viewed from the road bridge at Addison Gardens, the play area next to Russell Garden Mews, the railway (West London Line) and from the rear gardens of the properties on the east side of Sinclair Road. As the tree is not within a conservation area confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order is now required to safeguard it and its amenity value.

Page 83 6 IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There are no major financial, legal or staffing implications relating to the making of a Tree Preservation Order. The Order will ensure that the amenity value of the tree is retained and as such will prevent an unnecessary reduction in the quality of the environment in this part of the Borough.

7 CONCLUSION

7.1 The Tree Preservation Order is justified, as it will contribute to protecting the quality of the environment within the local area.

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Confirm the Tree Preservation Order.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 BACKGROUND PAPERS

No. Brief Description of Background Paper Name/Ext. of holder Department/ of file/copy Location

1 Tree Preservation Order A.O’Neill Env. D / HTHX 308/6/03 Ext. 3318 3rd Floor

Page 84