Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.78 It is considered that the proposed development will have a negligible impact the footprint of the existing centre as the proposals involve extending the roof, vertically. The applicant has confirmed that the existing roof drainage outfall system will be extended to pick up rainwater outlets on the new roof. 4.79 The existing centre's drainage systems were designed to SUDS compliant principles and incorporate rain water harvesting systems and very large underground retention tanks to attenuate peak flows into the surrounding infrastructure. These features will be retained within the current proposals and no additional input capacity to the surrounding surface water drainage infrastructure is envisaged. However, if there are any existing outfall systems being removed, any new systems will require approval by way of planning condition. CIL/Planning Obligations 4.80 In dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities consider each on its merits and reach a decision based on whether the application accords with the relevant development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where applications do not meet these requirements, they may be refused. However, in some instances, it may be possible to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable, through the use of planning conditions or, where this is not possible, through planning obligations. 4.81 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations - CIL Regulations (2010) set out a number of tests including that: a planning obligation must be necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the proposed development, fairly related in scale and kind to it and reasonable in all other respects. Negotiations should seek a contribution towards the full cost of all such provision that is fairly and reasonably related in scale and in kind to the proposed development and its impact on the wider area. 4.82 The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance for local planning authorities in considering the use of planning obligations. It states that authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations and that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. It adds that where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development from being stalled. 4.83 Core Strategy policy CF1 requires that new development makes contributions towards or provides for the resulting increased demand for community facilities. The proposed site is located within the White City Opportunity Area, where major developments would normally require infrastructure contributions to mitigate their impacts. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development is for an extension to an existing office facility which is well established. Officers have considered the transport assessment and various other application documents when analysing the likely effects of the development and their demand for additional infrastructure. It is considered that there is no requirement for additional public transport provision or car or cycle parking, as the centre is well served by both. The development would also provide mitigation measures relating to the energy consumption and employment provision which will
contribute to the wider Opportunity Area and town centre. It is considered that there are no further impacts which require mitigation or infrastructure. Therefore, in light of the non-significant impacts of the proposed development it is considered that there would be no requirement for an infrastructure contribution. Mayoral CIL 4.84 The CIL regulations came into effect on 1 April 2012 and the proposed development would be liable for payment for Mayoral CIL. The current estimate for this application will be approximately £74,500.00. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.85 The proposals would provide additional office floorspace within the town centre, which would potentially contribute to the vitality of Shepherd's Bush Town Centre and the future viability of this location. The proposals would facilitate the growing operational requirements of Net-a-Porter and would contribute to the commercial offer and diversity of land uses at Westfield London. It is considered that the generation of approximately 122 new jobs (FTE), would contribute to the aims of the London Plan, LBHF Core Strategy and the WCOAPF with regards to increasing employment. 4.86 This report has provided an assessment of the proposals against the Development Plan for the Borough, as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 4.87 In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the relevant national and regional planning policy guidance, the Council's Core Strategy and Development Management Local Plan and is hereby recommended for approval.
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: that developments which are located
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?