Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and the principle elements in defining the character, are the river itself, the riverbank and the views along and across the Thames. Many of the historic buildings within the conservation area of architectural merit have an industrial character which represents the history of the area. 5.8 The Heritage Statement that accompanied the planning application considered the relevant heritage assets which contribute to the conservation area. Officers agree with the Report's assessment that the buildings at Watermeadow Court are of no architectural or historic interest and are located some distance from those elements which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Accordingly the report states that the application site does not make a positive contribution to the significance of this part of the conservation area. Furthermore, the existing buildings on site do not engage with the street edge in a coherent or appropriate manner and therefore have a poor relationship with the street scene, with limited hard and soft landscaping. In line with paragraphs 138 and 129 of the NPPF the existing buildings have therefore been assessed for their significance and it is recognised that no harm to the conservation area would occur as a result of the proposed demolition. English Heritage has been consulted on the proposals and has raised no objection to the proposed demolition. The Fulham Society also made representations on the application and confirmed that replacing the existing poorly designed buildings would be a positive step. 5.9 Council officers are also of the opinion that the building design has a lack of architectural detailing and interest, using poor quality materials. Officers consider the existing architectural style to be poor and out of character with the wider conservation area. Furthermore, in order to prevent squatting and vandalism within the existing buildings, the windows have been bricked up. This is considered to add to the detrimental visual impact of the existing buildings on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Removal of all buildings on Site would therefore improve the current situation and would also provide the opportunity to visually enhance the area in the short term by way of landscaping and in the long term when the redevelopment proposals come forward in early 2014. The proposals are therefore considered to be in line with Paragraph 137 of the NPPF as set out above. 5.10 Whilst security measures have been put in place at the Site, the Site has been subject to significant fly tipping over recent years giving the general perception of a deprived and deteriorating area. This has had a negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and on this part of the Borough in general. The Site has also been subject to squatting in the past which has had an overall detrimental impact on the locality and the conservation area. The development proposals are specifically designed to improve security at the Site with a view to minimising the negative impact fly tipping and squatting has on the visual appearance of the area. The proposed landscaping and fencing will therefore provide a much improved situation to what is currently on Site. 5.11 In addition, demolition of the existing buildings would enable below ground investigative survey work to be undertaken in order to establish the extent of any ground contamination. Although the level of ground contamination is currently unknown, the Site's history indicates the potential for significant ground contamination. Demolition of the existing buildings would assist this survey work, thereby minimising delay to the construction programme, ensuring the comprehensive redevelopment of the Site at the earliest opportunity and in line with the JV timetable.
5.12 Although most applications for demolition in a conservation area would normally be accompanied by an application for a replacement scheme, the circumstances in this particular case, are considered unique in that LBHF are the landowners and Officers are therefore confident that a subsequent redevelopment proposal will come forward during 2014 as part of the JV. Allowing early demolition of the buildings in this case is considered acceptable because it would assist in the below ground investigative work required on site. Furthermore, the existing buildings are unsightly and not fit for purpose and allowing early demolition of the buildings would accelerate the construction programme, thereby ensuring that a replacement scheme is completed at the earliest possible date. Preventing squatting and fly tipping and associated problems by securing the Site and the proposed high quality landscaping scheme would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area in the short term. 5.13 In summary, the existing buildings are unsightly and prone to squatting and fly tipping. Their demolition and replacement with (largely boundary) landscaping is considered to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Enabling early demolition would accelerate the construction programme allowing for below ground investigative works to take place prior a subsequent planning approval. As Officers are confident that a subsequent housing proposal will come forward during 2014 as part of the JV, allowing early demolition of the buildings in advance of a replacement scheme is therefore deemed acceptable in this case. Temporary loss of housing (including affordable housing) 5.14 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 5.15 London Plan Policy 3.3 sets out the Boroughs housing target and Core Strategy Policy H1 and Development Management Local Plan Policy DM A1 aim to exceed the London Plan housing targets. London Plan Policy 3.14 and Core Strategy Policy H1 seek to prevent the loss of existing housing, including affordable housing, except where replacement housing is being proposed at the same or higher densities. 5.16 Core Strategy Policy SFR sets out the vision for the regeneration of the South Fulham Riverside area and seeks to deliver 2, 200 additional dwellings by 2032 and 300 to 500 jobs in this part of the borough. 5.17 The LBHF Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identifies the potential of the Site to accommodate at least 120 units. This is an increase of 40 units compared with the existing development which represents a 50% increase in residential units. The Site is also identified in the South Fulham Riverside SPD. This provides a robust planning policy context for future residential development of the Site. 5.18 Watermeadow Court is recognised by the Council as providing substandard housing accommodation, particularly in relation to the size of the units and the internal circulation space. For these reasons Watermeadow Court has been identified as surplus to requirements and has been subsequently decanted with only one leaseholder remaining on the Site. 5.19 Although demolition of the existing buildings would constitute a loss of housing, Watermeadow Court is not fit for purpose and requires replacement. Therefore, its demolition would facilitate and assist a replacement housing scheme. Any new housing
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: • Raised a number of queries rela
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 and 118:
unacceptable noise and disturbance
Page 119 and 120:
2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1
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?