Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 The application has been advertised by way of site notices and a press advert. In addition, over 300 individual notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties in Elgar Court, Thackeray Court, Brangwyn Court, Calcott Court, Ceylon Road, Porten Road, Gratton Road and Milson Road. In addition, notifications were sent to the Springvale Tenants and Residents Association. English Heritage, the Environment Agency, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Metropolitan Police's Crime Prevention Officer and Thames Water were consulted. 2.2 Twenty two letters of objection have been received from residents. These objections (from: 35a, 35c, Flats 6 35-37 and Flat 6 39 Gratton Road; 19A Porten Road, Flat 3 20 Porten Road and 25 Porten Road; 10, 13, 16, 33 Ceylon Road (2 letters), 14 Burnand House (3 letters); 7 Elgar Court; 1 Calcott Court, 18 Margaret, 25 Thackeray Court; 79 Westwick Gardens, 3 Brangwyn Court and one with no address given) can be summarised as follows: - Insufficient consultation with residents - Loss of existing open space - Will block light to adjacent properties - Proposal is too high and not in keeping with area - Will result in loss of existing off-street car parking, and an increased demand for the spaces left - Increased demand for local services - Increased noise nuisance from the development - Will harm the character and appearance of the conservation area - Unsatisfactory landscaping - Refuse storage located adjacent to Porten Road, no consideration given to Porten Road side of scheme - Should be rented accommodation only - Loss of trees - Ceylon Road too narrow for additional vehicle movements and turning - Area should be landscaped as previously agreed 2.3 An objection has also been received from the local MP, Andrew Slaughter supporting the residents' grounds for objection. 2.4 English Heritage has responded to say the scheme should be determined in line with local policy. 2.5 The Environment Agency has responded to state that they have no objection to the proposed development 2.6 Thames Water has raised no objections, subject to conditions. 2.7 The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority have responded to state that they are satisfied with the proposals. 2.8 The Metropolitan Police Crime Design Advisor has looked at the proposed development and has suggested measures to meet the SBD criteria. This is discussed later in the report.
3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The main planning considerations to be considered in light of the London Plan and the Council's adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Local Plan 2013, policies and standards include; the principle of the residential use in land use terms including tenure; quantum and intensity of development in terms of the height, scale and massing; impact on surrounding uses particularly on the existing amenities of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of noise, outlook, light and privacy; quality of accommodation; environmental matters including sustainability and energy issues, flood risk matters, contaminated land; impact on services and potential for traffic generation, and the impact on the highway network. LAND USE 3.2 The development proposes the provision of ten residential units, located within an existing residential area. Therefore, there would be no conflict between the proposed use and the existing use in the area. 3.3 The NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. London Plan Policy 3.3 B states that an annual average of 32,210 net additional homes should be delivered. Table 3.1 sets an annual target of 615 net additional dwellings for Hammersmith and Fulham. Core Strategy Policy H1 reiterates the London Plan's annual target of 615 net additional dwellings for the borough. Policy DM A1 of the DM LP 2013 states the council will seek to exceed the London Plan housing target by seeking housing on both identified and windfall sites and as a result of change of use. The provision of ten units would contribute towards these targets. It is noted that there would be a loss of some garages within the estate, albeit that eight spaces would be provided adjacent to the development to replace these garages. There is no objection to that in land use terms. 3.4 Core Strategy Policy H4 and Policy DM A3 of the DM LP 2013 require a choice of high quality residential accommodation that meets the local residents needs and aspirations and market demand. In particular there should be a mix of housing types and sizes in development schemes, especially increasing the proportion of family accommodation. 3.5 The proposal would involve building on existing car parking spaces, the site of 4 garages (to be demolished) and would also involve the use of an underused grassed area to the east of the garage block. At present there is a total of some 336 sqm of grassed/landscaped area on the site. Following the redevelopment this grassed/landscaped area would increase to around 390 sqm (within the application site), with some further landscaping proposed adjacent to the site (which would add a further 100 sqm). Accordingly, officers consider that the development would result in an increase in open land provision in this part of the site. It is considered thereby that the development would comply with DM LP 2013 policy DM E1. 3.6 The proposed dwelling mix of 2 x 1 bed flats, 4 x 2 bed flats, 2 x 2 bed maisonettes and 2 x 3 bed houses) represents a range of unit sizes, including a provision of family sized units. The dwelling mix is considered to meet the policy requirement for the provision of a range of unit sizes within new development in accordance with Core Strategy Policy H4 and DM A3 of the DM LP 2013.
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 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: Neighbour Comments: Letters from: D
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?