Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Neighbour Comments: Letters from: Dated: 1 Theresa Road Ravenscourt Park London W6 9AQ 09.06.13 44 Ravenscourt Gardens 44 Ravenscourt Gardens W6 0TU 10.07.13 24 St Peter's Road London W6 9BD 18.06.13 6 Beavor Lane London W6 9UL 04.07.13 6 Beavor Lane London W6 9UL 05.07.13 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The site comprises a two and a half storey high building on the eastern side of Beavor Lane, opposite the junction with Theresa Road. The building is occupied by a storage warehouse (Class B8) on the ground floor and offices (Class B1) on the upper floor. 1.2 The site is not within a conservation area, although it is directly opposite the St Peter's Square Conservation Area which starts on the junction of Beavor Lane and the southern side of Theresa Road. The site is within the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3. The public transport accessibility level of the site (PTAL) is 4 which is considered to be very good. 1.3 The site is bounded to the west by the two storey residential building on the corner of Beavor Lane and Theresa Road (nos.23-34 Beavor Lane) and also 12 and 14 Beavor Lane, and, on the opposite side of the road, the playground to St Peter's Primary School. To the south the premises are adjoined by a three storey office building at 23-31 Beavor Lane. To the east, the majority of the site directly abuts the rear wall of a Royal Mail depot building on Vencourt Place, but the northern part of the site adjoins the rear boundary with 7-12 Court Mansions - a four storey block of flats. 1.4 To the north, the site is adjoined by the commercial development at 281 King Street which extends south along Beavor Lane (the three storey rear wing of this building is separated from the site by a car park and a part one, part two storey building). A planning application has recently been submitted for the redevelopment of this site, including the erection of townhouses along Beavor Lane to the north of this application site. 1.5 The proposal is to demolish the existing building and to redevelop the site to provide eight 4-storey four-bedroom townhouses and a 4-storey Class B1 office building (772sqm); along with nine car parking spaces in a new basement storey, and associated storage areas, plant, cycle parking and landscaping. 1.6 Planning permission was granted in 2005 (2005/02827/FUL) for the change of use of ground floor from storage and distribution (Class B8) to office (Class B1) and replacement of existing roller shutters with windows on the front elevation. This permission was renewed in 2008 (2008/03312/FUL) and 2011 (2011/03108/FUL) but has never been implemented and a warehouse use remains on the ground floor.
2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 Notification letters were sent to 350 surrounding properties, as well as residents' associations and amenity groups including the Hammersmith Society, Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group, St Peter's Residents' Association and the Ravenscourt Society, and a site and press notice were posted. Responses have been received from five individual neighbours. 2.2 Two responses are in support or part-support of the proposal, with the following comments: - development will be an improvement to the area, as housing is preferable to warehouses - as development provides parking for the houses and office, assuming the impact on existing residential parking will be minimal - development has much to recommend it - traditional architecture fits well with nearby buildings in St Peter's Square and on King Street 2.3 Three responses are in objection to the proposal, and one letter raises concerns as well as support, with the following comments in summary: - 4 storey townhouses not in keeping with the character of the area; three storeys would be better and would give the street a more unified height. - development would be overbearing on properties opposite - loss of light - detailed design is not in keeping with character of surrounding buildings - detailing could be better - e.g. front doors look out of proportion, portico columns need resolving. - concerns about impact on traffic, use of car lift leading to traffic queuing on Beavor Lane and noise - office building should be pushed back to be on the same building line as the proposed houses and should be on the opposite side of development to avoid conflict with residential properties opposite - concern about effects of excavating the basement/heavy machinery close to existing old houses - noise and disturbance from building works - potential for loss of privacy - lack of developer consultation 2.4 The Hammersmith Society, the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group, St Peter's Residents' Association and the Ravenscourt Society have not commented on the proposal. 2.5 Officer's note: matters relating to the noise and disturbance from building works cannot be taken into account in assessing the planning proposal; this is controlled under relevant environmental health legislation. With regard to developer consultation, the developers held a meeting on 8th April 2013 to discuss the proposals, to which representatives of amenity groups and local residents were invited (and attended). A meeting was also held with St Peter's primary school on 26th February 2013. The other planning issues raised will be considered in the report below. 2.6 The Environment Agency has responded to consultation on the application, raising no objection.
Page 1 and 2:
London Borough Of Hammersmith & Ful
Page 3 and 4:
Applicant: LBHF Mr Neil Kirby 3rd F
Page 5 and 6:
with Borough Wide Strategic Policy
Page 7 and 8:
14) To submit details of a permanen
Page 9 and 10:
minutes walk to Fulham Town Centre.
Page 11 and 12:
• Raised a number of queries rela
Page 13 and 14:
5.12 Although most applications for
Page 15 and 16:
western boundary will be retained a
Page 17 and 18:
Applicant: LBHF Mr Neil Kirby 3rd F
Page 19 and 20:
Consultation Comments: Comments fro
Page 21 and 22:
Applicant: Westfield Shoppingtowns
Page 23 and 24:
Policies DM G1, DM G3 and DM H10 of
Page 25 and 26:
egeneration of the White City area
Page 27 and 28:
1.3 Ariel Way and the White City In
Page 29 and 30:
2.3 The proposed extension will mir
Page 31 and 32:
Sustainability and Energy Access No
Page 33 and 34:
viability. The expansion of Net-a-P
Page 35 and 36:
4.28 The appearance of the scheme h
Page 37 and 38:
combined with the retail and leisur
Page 39 and 40:
Car Parking 4.57 A total of 4,500 c
Page 41 and 42:
that developments which are located
Page 43 and 44:
contribute to the wider Opportunity
Page 45 and 46:
Applicant: The Governing Body Pope
Page 47 and 48:
In order that the Council may be sa
Page 49 and 50:
hours of use; the number and times
Page 51 and 52:
To ensure that the amenity of occup
Page 53 and 54:
Management of Land Contamination (D
Page 55 and 56:
39) The use of the replacement Fati
Page 57 and 58:
6. Access and Crime Prevention: Sub
Page 59 and 60:
part of an informal consultation pr
Page 61 and 62:
ii) The design and impact of the pr
Page 63 and 64:
dioceses to discourage free use of
Page 65 and 66:
structures that make a positive con
Page 67 and 68: at first floor level, with the majo
Page 69 and 70: HIGHWAYS and PARKING 3.33 The NPPF
Page 71 and 72: document that should be annually re
Page 73 and 74: levy is set at £0 per square metre
Page 75 and 76: Applicant: Mr S Bennett C/o The Spo
Page 77 and 78: of any proposed storage enclosure,
Page 79 and 80: 17) Prior to commencement of the de
Page 81 and 82: 25) No development shall commence u
Page 83 and 84: 30) The sports pitches/courts hereb
Page 85 and 86: Consultation Comments: Comments fro
Page 87 and 88: 2.3 The Football Association (FA) h
Page 89 and 90: - Large facility surrounded by 3m f
Page 91 and 92: applicants state that small-sided f
Page 93 and 94: 3.12 It is noted that the existing
Page 95 and 96: it is appropriate for the intended
Page 97 and 98: was proposed by the applicant that
Page 99 and 100: collection arrangements, including
Page 101 and 102: 4.0 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION
Page 103 and 104: Applicant: Mr S Bennett C/o The Spo
Page 105 and 106: 4 Wolfe House Australia Road White
Page 107 and 108: Applicant: Fruition Properties C/O
Page 109 and 110: to occupation of the development he
Page 111 and 112: 17) Prior to commencement of the de
Page 113 and 114: Contamination (Defra 2004) or the c
Page 115 and 116: At least one of the proposed spaces
Page 117: unacceptable noise and disturbance
Page 121 and 122: 3.5 In this instance, the Class B8
Page 123 and 124: ack from the frontage. In relation
Page 125 and 126: additional loss of privacy to Court
Page 127 and 128: which is in accordance with the Cou
Page 129 and 130: on its merits and reach a decision
Page 131 and 132: Applicant: Mr Eric Holroyd Housing
Page 133 and 134: 8) The development shall not commen
Page 135 and 136: To ensure a satisfactory external a
Page 137 and 138: are caused to humans, controlled wa
Page 139 and 140: the council. The approved details s
Page 141 and 142: Neighbour Comments: Letters from: D
Page 143 and 144: 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The
Page 145 and 146: 3.10 and 3.11; b) affordable housin
Page 147 and 148: of the desirability of sustaining a
Page 149 and 150: 3.33 All units would be built to Li
Page 151 and 152: HIGHWAYS MATTERS Car parking and tr
Page 153 and 154: including the incorporation of sust
Page 155 and 156: 3.70 The scheme has been assessed f
Page 157 and 158: Applicant: Mr Eric Holroyd Housing
show all

Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?