planning report D&P/3209/02 3 December 2013 1-9 plus an additional strip of undeveloped land to the east and south-east in the Borough of Hammersmith & planning application no. 2013/02620/FUL

Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 65 residential units (C3) and 864 sq.m. of A1/A3/D1/D2 floor space within two new buildings ranging in height from six to twelve storeys; together with plant, parking at basement level, servicing, new access arrangements and new publicly accessible public realm and open space. The applicant The applicant is Lillie Square GP Ltd, the agent is DP9 and the architect is Paul Davis & Partners.

Strategic issues The strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding housing, affordable housing, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport have been satisfactorily addressed.

The Council’s decision In this instance, Hammersmith & Fulham Council has resolved that the Council’s Executive Director of Transport and Technical Services be authorised to grant permission subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement. Recommendation That Hammersmith & Fulham Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 15 July 2013, the Mayor of London received documents from Hammersmith & Fulham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the

page 1 above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1C(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

2 On 21 August 2013, the Mayor considered planning report D&P/3209/01, and subsequently advised Hammersmith & Fulham Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 12 November 2013, Hammersmith & Fulham Council resolved that the Council’s Executive Director of Transport and Technical Services be authorised to grant permission subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement, and on 26 November 2013 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Hammersmith & Fulham Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Hammersmith & Fulham Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 9 December 2013 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

5 At the consultation stage, Hammersmith & Fulham Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of the above- mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies:

 Housing: Further information is required on the re-provision of off-site social rented and supported housing and the financial viability of the scheme should be fully assessed at the local level to ensure accordance with London Plan Policy 3.12.  Urban design: The proposal is generally well designed, however reconsideration of the layout of the Block N commercial unit is required.  Historic environment: The relationship of the proposal to neighbouring heritage assets has been carefully considered, with the result that it would not cause harm to their setting and character.  Biodiversity: Taking into account the current neglected state of the strip of land beside the railway line, the creation of a more ecologically diverse open space would be beneficial to biodiversity.  Inclusive access: Further consideration should be given to the location of blue badge parking bays; the layout of wheelchair accessible units in order to ensure that they are wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable from the outset; provision for lift access in the Block N commercial unit; access to the level change in the Block M commercial unit; and the design response to the level change between Lillie Road and the proposed development.

page 2  Sustainable development: The energy strategy exceeds the targets in Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. Further information is required on the Seagrave Road energy centre, the site heat network, and the proposed PV installation.  Transport: The transport assessment is acceptable and the predicted impact generated by the development will not result in any unacceptable impacts on the strategic transport network. A travel plan, construction management plan (CMP) and delivery and servicing plan (DSP) should be secured and subject to this the application is considered to comply with London Plan transport policies.

6 Since the Mayor made these initial representations, additional information has been provided. An updated assessment against the issues raised previously is provided under the corresponding headings below.

Housing

Reprovision of existing affordable/supported housing

7 London Plan Policy 3.14 and the Mayor’s Housing SPG resists the loss of housing, including affordable housing and supported housing such as hostels, without its planned replacement at existing or higher densities, with at least equivalent floorspace.

8 At Stage 1, the applicant indicated that the existing ten supported housing units and fourteen social rented units on the site would be re-provided elsewhere within the Borough by Places for People Homes Limited. The applicant has provided further information that confirms the space will be re-provided at a new Places for People site at Munden Street, within the Borough. Furthermore, the draft Section 106 confirms that the Lillie Road development cannot commence until the replacement floorspace has been provided and all existing tenants have been satisfactorily rehoused. This is acceptable and in accordance with Policy 3.14.

Affordable housing

9 At Stage 1, it was noted that the applicant had submitted a financial viability assessment in support of the on-site affordable housing provision of nine intermediate affordable units, together with the reprovision of affordable units off-site, as discussed above. This has been independently assessed on behalf of the Council and confirms that the proposal would provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.12.

Housing choice

10 London Plan Policy 3.8 and the associated supplementary planning guidance promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. The Council has confirmed that the proposed mix of units meets local housing need.

Urban design

11 At Stage 1, concern was raised that the courtyard level commercial unit facing both Lost River Park and the courtyard would result in occupiers locating storage and back of house uses on one side, undermining the quality of the frontage and the space that it looks onto. In response the applicant has confirmed that this unit will incorporate a basement level, which is where storage and back of house uses will be located. This is considered acceptable.

page 3 Inclusive access

12 At Stage 1, the applicant was requested to reconfigure the proposed parking arrangements in order to allow the blue badge parking bays to be located as close as possible to the relevant entrances/ cores. The applicant has now supplied revised drawings, which confirm that the reconfigured parking layout complies with London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’.

13 At Stage 1, it was noted that all of the wheelchair accessible units would be located in Block N, which will have two lifts; as opposed to Block M, where the intermediate units are located, as this block only has one lift. Although this does not provide a choice of tenure for wheelchair users, this was considered acceptable as only seven wheelchair accessible units were required, and the Council has confirmed that this does not raise any concerns in respect to needs in the Borough.

14 The Design and Access Statement submitted at Stage 1 indicated that wheelchair accessible units would be created by the conversion of standard units by removing walls, which does not meet the ‘easily adaptable’ requirement of Policy 3.8. The applicant has now provided revised drawings that confirm that the units are wheelchair accessible from the outset, which complies with Policy 3.8.

15 At Stage 1, it was requested that the commercial unit in Block N should make provision for lift access between the basement level and courtyard level, and the level change within the retail unit in Block M should also be accessible. The applicant has supplied revised drawings that confirm these changes have been made.

16 The Design and Access Statement submitted at Stage 1 provided limited information on the different options that were considered to achieve an inclusive environment at the entrance to the scheme from Lillie Road. The applicant was therefore invited to consult with the Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum and a record of those discussions has now been provided. This Forum made suggestions, which have largely been accepted by the applicant, in relation to the inclusion of a lift maintenance contract, use of handrails, the treatment of steps, the design of public seating, the accessibility and location of playspace, vehicle drop-off points, the location and design of blue badge parking, the design of the metal sculptural screens, the operation of the building concierge, and the marketing of the wheelchair accessible housing. The Council has confirmed that the Forum is satisfied with the design proposals.

17 At Stage 1, the applicant was requested to consider the inclusion of two lifts to the lower courtyard level. The Forum accepted the inclusion of a single lift; however it requested an enhanced maintenance contract, which has been secured by condition.

18 In summary, as a result of the changes made, the proposals now comply with London Plan Policies 3.8 and 7.2.

Sustainable development

Energy

19 As requested at Stage 1, the applicant has confirmed that the Seagrave Road development, where the energy centre will be located, is currently being developed by the same applicant. The applicant has also provided further information confirming that the energy centre housing the CHP does not have enough capacity to meet the demand of both sites. Load profiles have been provided confirming the need for the additional thermal store and boiler capacity.

page 4

20 As requested at Stage 1, the applicant has provided a layout of the site heat network. The information confirms that both domestic and non-domestic uses will be connected.

21 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. As requested at Stage 1, a layout has been provided showing the size and location of the energy centre on the nearby site and the route of connecting pipes arriving into the 1-9 Lillie Road site.

22 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 37sq.m. of solar PV on the roof of the buildings. As requested at Stage 1, a roof plan has been provided showing that the proposed PV is located in a suitable position on the roof.

23 All issues relating to energy have been resolved and the proposal complies with Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

Climate change adaptation

24 The applicant has set out the proposed climate change adaptation measures within the Design and Access Statement, Sustainability Statement and Landscape Strategy. These documents confirm that green and brown roof areas are proposed, permeable paving, and below ground attenuation, and that this, coupled with other soft landscaping components and associated sustainable urban drainage techniques, will reduce surface water runoff at the site. These proposals are supported in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.10 to 5.13 and 7.19, and have been secured by way of planning condition. Transport

25 At Stage 1, TfL requested a Construction Logistics Plan, Delivery & Servicing Plan, and for the Seagrave Road Travel Plan to be extended and secured through the Section 106 agreement. These documents have all been secured by condition and Section 106 agreement, alongside car club membership for occupiers of the development; these sustainable travel measures are welcomed by TfL.

26 It was also noted that the site is within the Earl’s Court Opportunity Area but the application did not form part of the main Earl’s Court application. The site will however benefit from transport improvements delivered as part of the main application.

27 To conclude, TfL considers the application to be acceptable in transport terms and comply with the relevant London Plan transport policies.

Earls Court and West Opportunity Area Revised Draft Joint SPD (draft ECWKOA SPD)

28 At Stage 1, the application was assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan and regard had to any other material considerations apart from the draft ECWKOA SPD and emerging OAPF. The recommendations of the report were made on that basis.

29 The Mayor and the Council were required to have regard to all material considerations, which included the draft ECWKOA SPD and emerging OAPF. This document provided supplementary detail to the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

30 When the Stage 1 report was considered, an application for judicial review of the Councils’ decision to adopt the ECWKOA SPD had not been determined. Therefore, GLA officers considered whether the recommendations in the Stage 1 report would be different if the ECWKOA SPD were

page 5 to be quashed by the Courts. GLA officers concluded that the comments contained in the Stage 1 report in relation to the Development Plan were consistent with the draft ECWKOA SPD and therefore, not taking the ECWKOA SPD into account, made no difference to the recommendations.

31 Subsequently, on 9 October 2013, the Court issued its decision in relation to the application for judicial review. The application was unsuccessful in all material respects, with the Court finding that there was no justification to quash the SPD. Response to consultation

32 The application was advertised by means of site notices and a press advert and individual notification letters were sent to 626 occupiers of surrounding properties in Hammersmith and Fulham. In addition, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea sent a further 910 individual notification letters to residents in their own borough.

33 Five representations were received and comments are summarised as below:

 Block N is too tall, will ruin the atmosphere and obstruct views, and should be reduced to the same height as Block M.  A gateway effect is missing from the scheme due to the over dominance of Block N.  Block N would overshadow the Lost River Park.  Proposals fail to address congestion and circulation issues with station. An additional access/egress to Lillie Road adjacent to Platforms 3 and 4 should be provided.  Concern over the narrow pavement on the south side of Lillie Road.  Concern that the new units on Lillie Road will be built to rehouse existing tenants on surrounding estates thus overcrowding the area resulting in employment, crime and nuisance issues.  Noise will cause undue harm to residents. Restrict working hours.  Support the private management and night time closure of Lost River Park.

34 English Heritage stated that the scheme should be determined in line with planning policy.

35 The Environment Agency, Natural England and Thames Water responded to state that they have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions and informatives.

36 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea raised an objection stating that the scale, massing and detailed design of the development, would result in harm to the character and appearance and views from within the Philbeach Conservation Area and would harm the setting of the Grade II listed West Brompton Station as a building of special historical and architectural interest and impact on its significance. The Royal Borough also considers the information provided in the Environment Statement Air Quality chapter is inadequate and is impossible to determine the environmental effects on its residents, as the mitigation measures identified are best practice and not site specific.

37 The Metropolitan Police Crime Design Advisor objected on the following grounds. The proposals have been revised to respond to these objections and planning conditions imposed.

 Residential access: Building entrances should relate to the building frontage. The proposal has residential access to the rear of the site down a retail height storey in a basement area so has very little natural surveillance and the first residential apartment is two retail storeys above the communal entrance at first floor level.  Blast mitigation: The applicant should consult with a blast engineer as the building will require blast mitigation for glazing due to its proximity to Earl’s Court and the Empress State Building.

page 6  Utility access: The proposals set out that utilities will be accessed via Seagrave Road, whereas they have always been accessed via Lillie Road. Estate security should not be compromised for utilities access.  Either an appropriate fencing system is required or lighting or CCTV for the whole park.  Disabled persons lift: The current route should be removed with both the disabled lift and access to it being included within the entrance lobby of Block N and to remove the alleyway underneath the bridge link, which could be a crime generator.  Second block: concern over the lack of defendable space between the park and the adjacent residential in the Seagrave Road development.  Rear courtyard space: the existing entrance from Langtry Place should be secured.

38 The Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum (HAFAD) responded as detailed under ‘Inclusive access’ above.

39 The Fulham Society objected due to concerns on over-development of the site; unimaginative design and layout; height and bulk of new building would produce a cavernous effect over narrow road; effect on views across and out of the listed ; loss of existing affordable housing and nothing to replace; and open space layout messy and unattractive, hazardous in snow and heavy rain.

40 Strategic issues raised by objectors have been considered in this report and the Stage 1 report, and local issues have been considered in the Council’s committee report.

Section 106 Head of Terms

41 The proposed heads of terms include the following contributions:

 £40,000 towards education facilities in the Borough to meet the education needs of the development.  £14,690 to address the impact of the proposed development on primary health care facilities in the surrounding area.  £6,120 towards subsidised access provision to the proposed gymnasium/swimming pool facilities either in the consented Seagrave Road development or other facilities to be agreed, to be provided to the occupiers of the 9 affordable housing units.  £3,720 towards mitigation of any air quality impacts associated with the proposed development.  Provision of the highway works on Lillie Road and Seagrave Road (provision of loading bay/pad, widening of footway and reinstatement of footway).  Provision of free car club membership for a minimum of 3 years to the occupiers of all the residential units.  Agreement of a wider joint local employment and training strategy with the consented Seagrave Road development.

Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

42 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at Stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

43 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority

page 7 to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

44 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

45 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

46 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

47 Further information and clarification has been provided in relation to housing, affordable housing, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development, and transport, which together with conditions and planning obligations imposed by Hammersmith & Fulham Council, address the outstanding issues that were raised at Stage 1. On this basis there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case.

48 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in Hammersmith & Fulham’s committee report and its draft decision notice, this scheme is acceptable in strategic planning terms.

page 8

for further information, contact Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Martin Jones, Case Officer 020 7983 6567 email [email protected]

page 9

planning report D&P/3209/01 21 August 2013 1-9 Lillie Road plus an additional strip of undeveloped land to the east and south-east in the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham planning application no. 2013/02620/FUL

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 65 residential units (C3) and 864 sq.m. of A1/A3/D1/D2 floor space within two new buildings ranging in height from six to twelve storeys; together with plant, parking at basement level, servicing, new access arrangements and new publicly accessible public realm and open space.

The applicant The applicant is Lillie Square GP Limited, the agent is DP9 and the architect is Paul Davis & Partners.

Strategic issues The proposed development is supported in strategic planning terms, however issues with respect to housing, affordable housing, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport should be resolved before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

Recommendation That Hammersmith & Fulham Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, the application does not yet comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 85 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 15 July 2013 the Mayor of London received documents from Hammersmith & Fulham Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 26 August 2013 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

page 10 2 The application is referable under Category 1C(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008:  Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London. 3 Once Hammersmith & Fulham Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is 0.69 hectares and lies to the south of Lillie Road, next to West Brompton station across the four track railway lines to the east, which also forms the boundary with the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The streets surrounding the site are largely made up of three storey Georgian, Victorian and later residential terraces with some commercial uses at ground floor. Further afield, the Earls Court Exhibition Centres lie just north of the site and Brompton Cemetery is to the east beyond the railway line. To the south is a large car park, site of the approved Seagrave Road development, made up of 808 residential units in eight blocks ranging from four to sixteen storeys plus townhouses.

6 The existing buildings on the site front onto Lillie Road and return along the boundary with the railway line to the east creating an L-shaped block. To the rear, a courtyard car park with planted areas, known as Langtry Place, provides fourteen spaces for residents, accessed to the south from Seagrave Road. The buildings are mainly residential but also include 236 sq.m. of office accommodation. The schedule of existing residential accommodation is as follows:

One-bed Two-bed Four-bed Total Supported housing units 10 0 0 10 Social housing 3 9 2 14 Total 13 9 2 24

7 The site also includes a 300 metre long strip of undeveloped and inaccessible land alongside the railway line to the east of the current buildings and running towards the south- east along the boundary with the consented Seagrave Road development (2011/02000/FUL).

8 The nearest Road Network is Warwick Road (part of the Earls Court One Way System), approximately 300 metres away. The nearest Strategic Road Network to the site is Fulham Road, approximately 850 metres to the south.

9 The site is well served by a variety of public transport options and has a public transport accessibility level of 6a, on a scale where 6 is excellent and 1 is poor. West Brompton Station is less than 100 metres from the site and is served by the Wimbledon branch of the and services. Earl’s Court station is located approximately 600 metres from the site, where all branches of the District line and the Piccadilly line can be accessed, offering services to destinations across London. Bus routes 430 and 74 directly serve the site and a number of other routes are available within a short walk of the site.

page 11

Details of the proposal

10 The applicant is seeking full planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 65 residential units, made up of 56 market and 9 intermediate affordable units; and 864 sq.m. of retail (A1/A3) and/or creche (D1) or cinema (D2) space in two new buildings ranging in height from six to twelve storeys. The proposal includes 20 basement car parking spaces, 116 cycle parking spaces, and 4 motorcycle spaces. The residential units are made up as follows:

1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom Total

Block M 8 (5 intermediate) 6 (3 intermediate) 4 (1 intermediate) 18

Block N 34 2 11 47

Total 42 8 15 65

% 65% 12% 23% 100%

11 A network of public open spaces are also proposed, including two courtyards providing through access from Lillie Road to the neighbouring approved Seagrave Road development. Lillie Plaza, fronting onto Lillie Road, will form the entrance to the site, linking to a more enclosed lower level courtyard, and also to the new Lost River Park. This 4,358 sq.m. public open space will be created along the strip of land beside the railway line on the route of the former Counter’s Creek. One access point will be included from the proposal site on Lillie Road, and two further access points will be from the Seagrave Road development. Case history

12 There is no case history for this site. The neighbouring Seagrave Road development, including 808 residential units, was granted planning permission in March 2012. A number of minor amendments to that permission, including the provision of access to the site of this proposal, are currently being considered by the Council. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

13 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG; Housing SPG; London Housing Design Guide; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

page 12  London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; draft Tree and Woodland Strategies  Access London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Tall buildings/views London Plan  Historic Environment London Plan  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy

14 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2011 Hammersmith & Fulham Core Strategy, the 2013 Hammersmith & Fulham Development Management Local Plan and the 2011 London Plan.

15 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework.  The 2011 Earl’s Court and Opportunity Area Revised Draft Joint Supplementary Planning Document (draft ECWKOA SPD).  The draft Revised Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan.

Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Revised Draft Joint SPD (draft ECWKOA SPD)

16 The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC), and the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF), together with the Greater London Authority (GLA), prepared a Joint Supplementary Planning Document in order to provide detailed planning guidance for any development proposals coming forward in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area and to supplement the overarching adopted policies contained in the London Plan and the RBKC and LBHF Core Strategies. The draft ECWKOA SPD was adopted as such by LBHF and RBKC in March 2012.

17 The decisions to adopt the draft ECWKOA SPD have since been the subject of a legal challenge by the West Kensington Estate Tenants and Residents Association and the Gibbs Green and Dieppe Close Tenants and Residents Association (the ‘Claimants’). The High Court granted the Claimants permission to proceed with a judicial review of the Councils’ decisions. The Councils are defending the challenge. The GLA, TfL and the applicant are interested parties to the proceedings and the GLA has submitted evidence on behalf of the Mayor opposing the claim.

18 GLA officers intend, subject to the outcome of the judicial review claim, to seek the Mayor’s endorsement of the draft ECWKOA SPD as the Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for the Opportunity Area to be published as an SPG to the London Plan. At present, however, it remains an emerging SPG, for this purpose.

19 In its current form, the draft ECWKOA SPD, is a material consideration in the determination of any planning application submitted in the Opportunity Area, however, in light of the legal challenge, its emerging status as an SPG to the London Plan and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (which provides that the Application should be determined in

page 13 accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise), this report has been prepared on the following basis:

 The Proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan, as described in the preceding section, and regard had to any other material considerations apart from the draft ECWKOA SPD and emerging OAPF; and

 A separate assessment of the Proposal against the draft ECWKOA SPD is then made in the relevant section of this report (paragraphs 74 to 81). Principle of development

20 The London Plan identifies that the site lies in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area (Policy 2.13). Annex One of the London Plan sets out a minimum guideline for new housing of 4,000 homes and an indicative estimate of employment capacity of 7,000 jobs over the plan period 2011 – 2031. The strategic policy direction in the London Plan for the Earl’s Court & West Kensington Opportunity Area states that: “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 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. Earls Court has good public transport facilities and these should be further enhanced, together with comprehensive highway and streetscape improvements. Earls 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.”

21 The site is also within the North Fulham Regeneration Area, as identified in the Hammersmith and Fulham Core Strategy, with an indicative requirement for 3,400 additional homes. This encompasses that part of the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area falling in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The impact of major regeneration sites in the area is expected to bring significant regenerative benefits to the rest of the regeneration area, with a particular opportunity to consider regeneration of part of the North End Road and Lillie Road shopping frontages. The Core Strategy also seeks direct access from the neighbouring Seagrave Road development to West Brompton station.

22 London Plan Policy 3.3 ‘Increasing Housing Supply’ provides explicit strategic support for the provision of housing within London. With specific regard to existing stock, Policy 3.14 ‘Existing Housing’, in addition to the London Plan supplementary planning guidance ‘Housing’, makes clear that whilst existing housing should be retained where possible, renewal of stock can be necessary where it is required to deliver improvements to housing quality and to better address housing need.

23 In respect to the proposed Lost River Park, London Plan Policy 7.18 ‘Protecting Local Open Space and Addressing Local Deficiency’ calls for the creation of new open space to address areas of efficiency. The site lies in an area of open space deficiency as identified in Hammersmith and Fulham’s Core Strategy. The North Fulham Regeneration Area strategy also calls for public open space in the redevelopment of the Seagrave Road area.

page 14 24 In summary, the proposed land uses of residential, retail, leisure and public open space would be consistent with London Plan policies.

Housing

Reprovision of existing affordable/supported housing

25 London Plan Policy 3.14 and the Mayor’s Housing SPG resists the loss of housing, including affordable housing and supported housing such as hostels, without its planned replacement at existing or higher densities, with at least equivalent floorspace. The applicant’s Design & Access Statement indicates that the existing ten supported housing units and fourteen social rented units on site are due to be re-provided elsewhere within the Borough by Places for People Homes Limited. This must be additional space, rather than existing space, in order for the proposal to comply with Policy 3.14 and the applicant should supply evidence of this before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

Affordable housing

26 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The Mayor has published a revised early minor alteration to the London Plan to address the introduction of affordable rent. With regard to tenure split, the Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.

27 Hammersmith & Fulham’s Core Strategy contains a Borough wide target for affordable housing of 40% of all additional dwellings. The Council would prefer all additional affordable housing to be intermediate and affordable rented housing. The applicant is proposing to include intermediate affordable housing as part of the development in line with this requirement.

28 Nine of the additional 41 units are proposed as intermediate affordable, which equates to only 22% of the additional units. However, the applicant has submitted a financial viability assessment in support of the affordable housing provision, which is currently being independently assessed on behalf of the Council. Consequently it is not possible at this stage to confirm whether the proposal would provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.12. GLA officers will update the Mayor of the findings of the assessment, and of any further negotiations, at the Stage 2 decision making stage.

29 The intermediate affordable housing is located on the lower floors of Block M. The design is tenure blind, which is welcomed.

Housing choice

30 London Plan Policy 3.8 and the associated supplementary planning guidance promote housing choice and seek a balanced mix of unit sizes in new developments. The table below shows the mix of units in the existing Seagrave Road development, this proposal, and the two combined. The Council should confirm that this mix meets local housing need.

page 15 Seagrave Road (approved) Lillie Road (this application) Total

1 bedroom 301 (36%) 42 (65%) 343 (39%)

2 bedroom 338 (43%) 8 (12%) 346 (40%)

3 bedroom 131 (16%) 15 (23%) 146 (17%)

4 bedroom 30 (4%) 0 30 (3%)

Penthouse 8 (1%) 0 8 (1%)

Total 808 65 873

Housing quality

31 London Plan Policy 3.5 promotes quality in new housing provision and sets out minimum space standards in Table 3.3. The applicant has stated that all dwellings comply with these minimum space standards and the submitted information supports this. The scheme generally responds well to guidance in the Housing SPG and the best practice principles of the London Housing Design Guide (2010).

Density

32 Given the characteristics of the site, the London Plan density matrix (Table 3.2 in support of London Plan Policy 3.4) would suggest a residential density of between 200 and 700 habitable rooms per hectare for this development. The scheme provides 246 habitable rooms per hectare and taking into account site constraints including townscape and visual impact, daylight and sunlight, air quality and noise, this is appropriate.

Children’s play space

33 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out that “development proposals that include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs”. Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 5 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 50 sq.m. of playspace.

34 This development includes a variety of natural and interpretative play within Lost River Park for under 5’s, 5-11’s and 12+ years, totalling approximately 54 sq.m. The consented Seagrave Road development also provides equipped play space. Consequently, the proposal conforms to Policy 3.6.

Urban design

35 The layout of buildings on the site completes a perimeter block with existing buildings to the west, which is welcomed. This creates a strong street edge to Lillie Road and to Lost River Park. Both of these edges are well inhabited with retail or residential frontage, ensuring the spaces adjacent to them feel safe, active and well used, which is welcomed.

page 16 36 However, consideration should be given to ensuring that the commercial unit on the courtyard level of Block N will provide good frontage on to both Lost River Park and the courtyard. There is a concern that a commercial unit facing both sides will result in occupiers locating storage and back of house uses on one side, undermining the quality of the frontage and the space that it looks onto. A possible solution, also providing greater flexibility, would be to split this unit in two, so that one unit looks onto the courtyard and the other on to Lost River Park, although it is recognised that this would require an additional access from Lost River Park, and revised stair/lift circulation between the courtyard level and the basement level of the commercial unit.

37 A clear hierarchy between the more public spaces of Lost River Park and Lillie Road, and the internal courtyard, is established through a change in levels and by providing two distinct stepped entrances into the two spaces. Notwithstanding the comments under paragraphs 53 to 55, this creates a distinct threshold and allows the park to be secured at night, which is supported.

38 The residential quality of the scheme is generally high, with a low number of units per core ensuring that a limited number of households share the same landing, which is welcomed. The proposal includes some single aspect units, which can restrict ventilation and daylight. However, as those in Block N will have an open outlook across Brompton Cemetery, and both blocks will have generous floor to ceiling heights of 2.7 metres, this is considered acceptable.

39 The height of the scheme reflects the strategic location of the site and articulates an entrance into the new neighbourhood, including the Seagrave Road development, which is welcomed. The architecture has been designed so as to form part of the consented Seagrave Road development and is considered to be of an acceptable quality.

Historic environment

40 The site is not located in a conservation area, however the Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area lies beyond the railway line to the east, and the Philbeach Conservation Area lies across Lillie Road to the north-east. To the east of the railway is Brompton Cemetery. This is designated as Metropolitan Open Land, Grade I in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest and within the Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area. The Cemetery incorporates a number of listed buildings and structures. The main entrance to the Cemetery is through a Grade II* listed triumphal arch from at the northern end. The chapel and arcades are also Grade II* listed and the Cemetery contains a number of monuments, seven of which are listed Grade II. Grade II listed West Brompton Station lies adjacent to the site to the east.

41 London Plan Policy 7.8 sets out the strategic approach to heritage assets. The applicant has modelled views from different locations in surrounding areas as part of a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

42 The eastern elevations of the twelve storey Block N would be readily visible from some locations in Brompton Cemetery, forming part of the visible built form beyond the railway on the western boundary. The western setting of the northern end of Brompton Cemetery currently encompasses views to the Empress State building and more immediately the four-storey EDF substation building directly adjacent.

43 The proposal would affect this setting, introducing built form where previously there was none visible. However, the regularity in the form of Block N, the restrained palette of materials and predominance of stone are features that would accord with the character of the Cemetery. Block N would also terminate the approved building line of the Seagrave Road development. The

page 17 approved Seagrave Road scheme would have a significantly greater impact than the proposed Block N.

44 The proposal would also be visible in views from streets in the Philbeach Conservation Area. The proposal, particularly the top of Block N, would be visible above and behind rooftops in some street vistas looking south along Eardley Crescent, however it would not be obtrusive, where visible, from this Conservation Area and is not considered to harm the character and setting.

45 In summary the proposal would affect the setting of a range of heritage assets in the immediate and wider area as would be expected given the location and low rise built form on the site at present. The relationship of the proposal to these assets has been carefully considered in developing the design with the result that it would not cause harm to their setting and character.

Biodiversity

46 London Plan Policy 7.19 sets out policy in relation to biodiversity. The strip of undeveloped land where Lost River Park will be created is designated as a Nature Conservation Area of Grade I Borough wide importance in Hammersmith & Fulham’s Core Strategy. It currently has no public access and suffers from littering, rubble and waste building materials, and invasive species, including Japanese knotweed. The new Lost River Park will be designed to create a green buffer to the railway with more densely planted vegetation. It seeks to increase the ecological diversity of the space, with native species and sustainable drainage systems, such as swales. Natural play spaces and seating areas will also be included.

47 Taking into account the current neglected state of this land, and the aim to increase its ecological diversity, the proposals are welcomed and do not raise any strategic concerns with respect to biodiversity.

Inclusive access

48 The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum). Inclusive design principles should be embedded into the development and design process from the outset.

49 The applicant’s Design and Access Statement confirms that all residential units will meet the 16 Lifetime Homes standards. However, the provision and future management of the blue badge parking bays for residents requires that bays should be located as close as possible to the relevant entrances/cores. The applicant should reconfigure the proposed parking arrangements in order to comply with London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’.

50 The applicant’s Planning Statement confirms that 10% of residential units will be “designed for occupation by wheelchair users”. These will be located in Block N, which will have two lifts. The applicant is not proposing to include any wheelchair accessible units in Block M, where the intermediate units are located, as this block only has one lift. Although this does not provide a choice of tenure for wheelchair users, in view of the fact that only seven wheelchair accessible units are required in the development, this is considered acceptable. However, this is subject to further discussions between the applicant and the Council, who should be able to advise on the demand for wheelchair accessible intermediate units from their Accessible Housing Register work.

51 However, the Design and Access Statement indicates that wheelchair accessible units will be created by the conversion of standard units by removing walls. This does not meet the ‘easily adaptable’ requirement of Policy 3.8. Before the application is referred back to the Mayor, the

page 18 applicant is requested to provide revised plans to demonstrate that 10% of units, including a range of unit sizes, are wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable from the outset, in order to comply with Policy 3.8.

52 The commercial unit in Block N should make provision for lift access between the basement level and courtyard level, and the level change within the retail unit in Block M should also be accessible. The applicant should clarify this before the proposal is referred back to the Mayor.

53 The design of the landscaping and the public realm is crucial to how inclusive the development is. Unfortunately, there is no discussion in the applicants’ Design and Access Statement as to the different options that were considered to achieve an inclusive environment at the entrance to the scheme from Lillie Road. The applicant has therefore been invited to consult with the local access group and to discuss the scheme in more detail with the GLA's access officer.

54 The substantial change in level (approximately three metres) between Lillie Road and both the public courtyard and Lost River Park is dealt with by the construction of two flights of steps, each with seventeen steps. It is disappointing that the opportunity has not been taken to incorporate a slope as part of the park landscaping, in order to allow access to the park, as well as much of the Seagrave Road development via the two lower level entrances.

55 The proposed step free route is via a glass bridge leading to a single passenger lift, which at the lower level provides access to either the lower courtyard or the park. While lift access is welcomed, the lift is not immediately visible from the street and is designed as part of the building (Block N), rather than as part of the steps. It is also disappointing that the only access to these lower areas is via a single lift. Lifts are difficult to maintain in working order when in the public realm and if this lift is out of order the alternative route into both the park and the lower courtyard is a considerable distance via Seagrave Road. Two lifts would be preferable so that an alternative is always available if one breaks down, ideally with one providing direct access to the park and one to the lower courtyard. Further discussions are required with the applicant before it can be decided if the proposal conforms to Policy 7.2.

Sustainable development

Energy

56 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the CO2 emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and underfloor heating with zone controls. The demand for cooling will be minimised through low g value glazing and low energy lighting.

57 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 3 tonnes per annum (2.1%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, through energy efficiency measures (‘Be Lean’).

58 The applicant has identified that the Seagrave Road energy centre is within the vicinity of the development and is proposing to connect to this via a heat network. The applicant should provide further information on the location and stage of development of the Seagrave Road energy centre confirming that the timescales for development are suitable for connection

page 19 of the Lillie Road development. Connection to the network should continue to be prioritised and evidence of correspondence with the network operator should be provided.

59 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network. However, the applicant should confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided.

60 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. Further information on the floor area and location of the energy centre should be provided.

61 The capacity of the gas fired CHP in Seagrove Road development will be increased by

25kWe to act as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load.

62 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 32 tonnes per annum (23.4%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy (‘Be Clean’).

63 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 37m2 of solar PV on the roof of the buildings. A roof plan should be provided showing the proposed PV installation.

64 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 2 tonnes per annum (1.9%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy (‘Be Green’).

65 Based on the energy assessment submitted at stage 1, a reduction of 37 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 26.4%. The CO2 savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

Climate change adaptation

66 The applicant has set out the proposed climate change adaptation measures within the Design and Access Statement, Sustainability Statement and Landscape Strategy. These documents confirm that green and brown roof areas are proposed, permeable paving, and below ground attenuation, and that this, coupled with other soft landscaping components and associated sustainable urban drainage techniques, will reduce surface water runoff at the site. These proposals are supported in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.10 to 5.13 and 7.19, and the Council is encouraged to secure the detailed approval of these measures by way of planning condition. Transport

67 Twenty basement car parking spaces are proposed, accessed via the adjacent permitted Seagrave Road development. This equates to a ratio of 0.31 spaces per residential unit, which is acceptable and in line with London Plan standards. Notwithstanding the comments under paragraph 49 above, TfL welcomes the commitment to provide blue badge parking and electric vehicle charging points in accordance with London Plan standards.

68 Cycle parking (116 spaces) for all land uses is also proposed in accordance with London Plan standards and this is welcomed by TfL.

page 20 69 It is proposed that travel planning will be dealt with through extending the remit of the Seagrave Road Travel Plan; this is an acceptable approach on this occasion subject to it being secured through the section 106 agreement.

70 The Transport Assessment commits to the development of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, Construction Logistics Plan and Construction Travel Plan. These measures are welcomed by TfL and should be secured by condition.

Community Infrastructure Levy

71 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail

72 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for Hammersmith & Fulham is £50/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and the Council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised.

73 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Hammersmith & Fulham has yet to adopt a scheme but has consulted on a draft charging schedule. See the council’s website for more details. Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Revised Draft Joint SPD (draft ECWKOA SPD)

74 The proposal has, as set out above, been assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan and regard had to any other material considerations apart from the draft ECWKOA SPD and emerging OAPF. The recommendation of this report is made on this basis.

75 The Mayor and the Council are required to have regard to all material considerations, which in the case includes the draft ECWKOA SPD and emerging OAPF. This document provides supplementary detail to the relevant policies of the Development Plan. It articulates a vision for the Opportunity Area and a series of ‘Key Objectives’ and ‘Key Principles’ to achieve this. These form the basis of strategies covering the following topics: urban form; housing; employment; retail; culture; social and community facilities; transport and accessibility; energy; environmental; and phasing and section 106 obligations.

76 The proposal has been considered against this document, including the vision, ‘Key Objectives’ and ‘Key Principles’ and associated strategies and found to be broadly consistent with the comments included above in relation to the Development Plan. Two points in relation to the principle of development and housing reinforce the points made above:

 Principle of development: The draft ECWKOA SPD reflects the land use policies of the London Plan and the Hammersmith & Fulham Core Strategy and identifies the site as within a mixed use retail cluster with some scope for small offices and social/community facilities, and upper floors predominantly residential. The public open space also meets the requirement for a series of contiguous public, green open spaces that are intended to combine to form a linear two hectare park. The proposed land uses would be consistent with the draft ECWKOA SPD and will contribute to achieving the targets for the Opportunity Area.

page 21  Housing: Key Principle HO14 of the draft ECWKOA SPD expects proposals to provide a range of market housing unit sizes, especially the provision of larger family sized units (3 bedrooms or more). This supports the comments made under paragraph 30.

Transport

77 The transport chapter of the draft ECWKOA SPD sets out a number of requirements in relation to transport in the Opportunity Area (OA). These include the need for all transport impact associated with development in the OA to be fully mitigated, including public transport capacity and accessibility improvements, walking and cycling measures, improvements to connectivity and permeability, and measures to reduce the impact of freight vehicles during construction and occupation.

78 The adjacent Seagrave Road development (2011/02000/FUL), directly to the south of site has planning permission (granted March 2012) for 808 residential units with ancillary uses. The permission incorporates a number of transport mitigation measures, including contributions towards improvements at West Brompton station, local highway and access arrangements, public realm and cycling improvements.

79 The main Earls Court applications have achieved a resolution to grant planning permission by LBHF (2011/02001/OUT) and RBKC (PP/11/01937), subject to a section 106 agreement. Again this includes a comprehensive set of transport measures necessary to mitigate the transport impact of the proposals which cover the majority of the draft ECWKOA SPD.

80 Considering the above and the scale of this application, TfL does not consider that any specific mitigation, in addition to that set out in paragraphs 69 and 70, is needed to support this proposal in order to comply with London Plan policies. However, the Council may wish to consider the need for certain local mitigation measures, such as public realm improvements to be secured, in the event that the Seagrave Road development does not come forward.

Summary

81 In light of the current challenge to the Councils’ decision to adopt the ECWKOA SPD, officers have considered whether the recommendations in this report would be otherwise were the ECWKOA SPD to be quashed by the Courts. As noted above, GLA officers conclude that the comments contained in this report in relation to the Development Plan are consistent with the draft ECWKOA SPD and therefore, not taking the ECWKOA SPD into account, makes no difference to the recommendations. Local planning authority’s position

82 Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s position is not currently known.

page 22 Legal considerations

83 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

84 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

85 London Plan policies on housing, urban design, historic environment, biodiversity, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Housing: Further information is required on the re-provision of off-site social rented and supported housing and the financial viability of the scheme should be fully assessed at the local level to ensure accordance with London Plan Policy 3.12.  Urban design: The proposal is generally well designed, however reconsideration of the layout of the Block N commercial unit is required.  Historic environment: The relationship of the proposal to neighbouring heritage assets has been carefully considered, with the result that it would not cause harm to their setting and character.  Biodiversity: Taking into account the current neglected state of the strip of land beside the railway line, the creation of a more ecologically diverse open space would be beneficial to biodiversity.  Inclusive access: Further consideration should be given to the location of blue badge parking bays; the layout of wheelchair accessible units in order to ensure that they are wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable from the outset; provision for lift access in the Block N commercial unit; access to the level change in the Block M commercial unit; and the design response to the level change between Lillie Road and the proposed development.  Sustainable development: The energy strategy exceeds the targets in Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. Further information is required on the Seagrave Road energy centre, the site heat network, and the proposed PV installation.  Transport: The transport assessment is acceptable and the predicted impact generated by the development will not result in any unacceptable impacts on the strategic transport network. A travel plan, construction management plan (CMP) and delivery and servicing plan (DSP) should be secured and subject to this the application is considered to comply with London Plan transport policies.

page 23 86 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not yet comply with the London Plan. However, the resolution of the above issues could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan.

for further information, contact Development & Projects: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Martin Jones, Case Officer 020 7983 6567 email [email protected]

page 24