London Borough Of Hammersmith & Fulham --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Applications Committee Agenda for 7th November 2017 Index of Applications, Enforcement Actions, Advertisements etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARD: SITE ADDRESS: PAGE: REG NO: Hammersmith The Triangle (5-17 Hammersmith Grove) And 17 Broadway Britannia House (1-11 Glenthorne Road), 3 And 3A 2017/02717/FUL Hammersmith Grove And 12-18 Beadon Road, Hammersmith, London W6 0LH College Park And Old The Gateway Site White City Place 201 Wood 84 Oak Lane London W12 2016/04452/COMB Shepherd's Bush Green Former Laundry Site Rear Of Nos. 9 - 61 Pennard 165 2017/03851/FUL Road London W12 Ravenscourt Park 12 And 14 Wellesley Avenue London W6 0UP 197 2017/02065/FUL Avonmore And Brook Cumberland Lodge 21 Cumberland Crescent 233 Green London W14 8XB 2017/02684/FUL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ward: Hammersmith Broadway Site Address: The Triangle (5-17 Hammersmith Grove) And Britannia House (1- 11 Glenthorne Road), 3 And 3A Hammersmith Grove And 12-18 Beadon Road, Hammersmith, London W6 0LH © Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham LA100019223 (2013). For identification purposes only - do not scale. Reg. No: Case Officer: 2017/02717/FUL Matthew Lawton Date Valid: Conservation Area: 17.07.2017 Committee Date: 07.11.2017 Applicant: Romulus Construction Limited C/o Agent Description: Demolition of all existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide a building of between 8 and 14 storeys in height plus two basement levels, comprising of 466 sqm GEA retail/commercial space (Class A1, A2 or A3) at ground floor level to the south and west of the building; office entrance, reception and ancillary office/gallery space to the east and north of the building at ground floor level fronting Hammersmith Grove and Glenthorne Road; service area to west accessed from Beadon Road including 1 accessible parking space; Class B1 office space from first to thirteenth floors (23,878 sqm GEA); plant enclosure at roof level; 15 car parking spaces, gym, plant, cycle storage and ancillary retail/office space in the two basement levels. Drg Nos: 699_02_07_098 Rev.P4, 099 Rev.P4, 100 Rev.P5; 699_07_101 Rev.P3, 102 Rev.P3, 103 Rev.P3, 104 Rev.P3, 105 Rev.P3; 699_02_07_106 Rev.P3, 107 Rev.P3, 108 Rev.P3, 109 Rev.P5, 120 Rev.P1; 699_07_210 Rev.P3; 699_02_07_211 Rev.P3, 212 Rev.P3; 699_07_213 Rev.P3, 300 Rev.P3, 301 Rev.P3; 699_02_07_501 Rev.P2, 503 Rev.P2. Application Type: Full Detailed Planning Application --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDENDUM 1.0 Introduction 1.1 At the Committee’s last meeting (10/10/17) the current application to provide a building containing commercial space, a gallery at ground floor level and Class B1 office space was considered. 1.2 This is the fourth planning application submitted by the developer since December 2014 with only one application determined (02/09/15). That application was refused and is subject to a planning appeal due to be considered by a public inquiry (09/05/18). 2.0 Current application 2.1 At the last meeting Committee resolved to refuse, subject to no contrary direction from the London Mayor, due to: 1. Height and massing of the proposed building. 2. Impact on views into and out of nearby conservation areas. 3. Loss of a locally listed Building of Merit. 2.2 Due to the scale of the application the determination will be referred to the Mayor of London, and is subject to any direction he may make. The current application is yet to be referred to the Mayor 2.3 The Council has a duty to ensure consideration of all material matters in determining applications and can consider applications further at a subsequent meeting until a decision notice is issued. 3.0 For consideration 3.1 Officers need to ensure the committee is fully advised of all the matters prior to issuing a decision notice. As such it is appropriate for the committee to ensure consideration of all material issues presented by officers. 3.2 The committee needs to be clear of the significant risk in relation to the appeal scheme and its decision in relation to the current application. This is a material consideration that Committee is required to fully assess in determining the current application. 3.3 The Council’s stated position on the appeal application is: it is not opposed to the principle of the redevelopment of the site. Permission was refused on the appeal scheme due to the specific detail of the proposals. 3.4 As set out in the report, the current application addresses the specific reasons for refusal of the appeal scheme. This is the reason why officers recommend approval of the current application. 3.5 The three areas of concern identified by committee are addressed in detail in the current application report. Committee’s attention is drawn to paragraphs: ▪ 3.10–3.50 set out the design of the building (including massing), its relationship to conservation areas, setting back of the building line and how this addresses the reasons for refusal of the appeal scheme. ▪ 3.38–3.44 address the public benefits of new areas of open space weighed against the loss of the Building of Merit, again addressing the reason for refusal of the appeal scheme. 3.6 Committee needs to ensure consistency of approach in determining the application, given that the principle of the redevelopment of the site is accepted, and having considered the view of officers that the current application addresses the specific reasons for refusal of the appeal scheme. 3.7 Sufficient weight also needs to be given to other elements of the current scheme, that are different, or of greater benefit than the appeal scheme. In particular, paragraphs 4.1–4.7 of the report give a summary of officers’ conclusions on the current application. 3.8 Should the developer lodge an appeal against a refusal of the current scheme the Council would be required to defend the reasons and provide robust evidence. At such an appeal, the absence of robust evidence to support a reason for refusal would be viewed as unreasonable. This would pose a significant risk
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.