Having waded through all the documents (at least those that looked relevant), objection has now gone in. See below. Hard to believe they'll recommend passing it, but anything is possible with the planning department.I wish to object to the planning application on the following grounds:1. Over-development. The developer quote density figures of c360 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) and c126 habitable units per hectare (u/ha), with a plot ratio of 2.7:1. These numbers are based on a dishonest presentation of the site area to be developed (1.15 hectares), which includes the majority of the site on which no development is to take place. The developer’s Demolition Plan shows that the area to be developed totals 0.55 hectares, under half the site. With 414 habitable rooms, the development represents 753 hr/ha and 266 u/ha. The plot ratio is 5.6:1.The London Plan assumes that site will be developed up to 250-350 hr/ha with some sites being able to have up to 700 hr/ha. The proposal is in excess of the maximum allowable limit. The maximum allowable habitable units per hectare is 80-120 u/ha. The maximum permissible plot ratio for this site is 3:1, so the application is in excess of this. In this context it should be noted that the proposal to build 72 flats on a very similar configuration of land at this site (see P/2006/3690, referred to below as the ‘2006 proposal’) had a proposed density of 751 hr/ha. This application was refused by the planning committee: “The proposal by reason of its height, bulk, scale, density and insufficient external amenity space is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site resulting in a cramped and excessive form of development which would provide a poor living environment for future residents and be detrimental to the existing residential environment and street scene contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 4.1, 4.5, 5.1 and 5.5.” (minutes of planning committee, 10 January 2007)2. Loss of light and privacy. The developer’s own sunlight and daylight report shows that losses of light to properties in Hooper’s Mews and to a number of flats at 124-138 Churchfield Rd are at levels greater than accepted benchmarks. The 3rd reason for refusing the 2006 proposal is relevant, particularly as that proposal was for a slightly lower 5 storey frontage to Churchfield Rd without an 11 storey tower: ‘The proposal would result in unacceptable scope for overlooking adjoining dwellings, in particular flats within Derwentwater Mansions from the balconies on the front elevation of the building, contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 4.1 and 5.5.’3. Inappropriate design. The proposal is tremendously intrusive onto the Churchfield Rd streetscape. At 5 storey level it is c17 metres high. By contrast, the property on the south side of Churchfield Rd and to the west of the proposed development is some 10 metres high and Derwentwater Mansions (on the north side of Churchfield Rd) are about 13.5 metres high at the top of the gables. By offering no break in the line along the top of the development, the design is dull, unimaginative and intrusive; it will dominate the sky line in a way other buildings in the area do not.The proposed 11 storey tower is particularly egregious. The visualisation on page 57 of the Design Statement illustrates this perfectly, showing the view looking south down Derwentwater Rd. The tower dominates its surroundings and has absolutely and no relationship or reference to them. It has no design merit, being nothing but a large, square brick box.The proposed frontage to Churchfield Rd, being a forest of ersatz trees, has no relevance to the area and is completely out of character. Unlike the Victorian design features of this neighbourhood it has no discernable pattern or rhythm; its only consistency is its randomness. It has the visual resonance and attractiveness of scaffolding but without any of the functionality.The objections to the design are similar to those given for refusing permission for the 2006 proposal: ‘The design of the proposed development is considered to be inappropriate for the site and location, in particular arising from the height of the building and the expanse of glazing proposed, thereby harming the character and appearance of the locality contrary to the adopted Unitary Development Plan, ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004), policies 4.1 and 5.5.’4. Failure to take account of Acton Town Centre conservation area. The proposed development site is bordered on three sides by a conservation area. The appraisal report for the conservation area states “an important part of the character of Acton town centre is the group value of its buildings and the way these buildings relate to each other. Many of the buildings have considerable architectural quality in their own right. This applies not only to those buildings listed as being of architectural or historic importance, but to a number of others which are strategically located in key positions and which make an important contribution to the area’s special character, including locally listed buildings and other buildings in Market Place, Churchfield Rd….” The proposed development takes no account of the neighbouring conservation area, dominating its surroundings in a way that no other building or group of buildings does and, architecturally, providing not even a nod to its Victorian surroundings.The 2009 Conservation Area appraisal notes current buildings exist “in a fragmented townscape where fine Victorian and Edwardian remains have, in places, lost their original context and are set between gaps or later developments that are completely alien to their quality, architectural expression, scale, massing, façade rhythm and proportions. (Conservation area assessment page 33). The proposed development would be another, though larger, alien development completely out of sympathy with its surroundings.The importance of the buildings outside a conservation area to those within it should be noted, particularly in light of the decision in 2009 to refuse permission for the Arcadia development in central Ealing, where the Communities secretary agreed with the planning inspector’s view that the bulk, massing and certain aspects of the design of the scheme would be inappropriate in its surroundings and that those proposals failed to “preserve and enhance the character and setting” of the two conservation areas affected and a Grade ll-listed church. The parallels with this proposal are obvious.5. Impact on schools. The economic impact report produce by Regeneris for the developer recognises that schools within the catchment area children living in the proposed development are already over subscribed. The developer claims that the development will only result in demand for 6 more primary school places and 4 more secondary schools places. However, this is contradicted in their own design statement in which they forecast that the development would have 28 children between 3-11 years (page 78). The space provided for child play on the development site (250 sqm) is consistent with this latter number. 6. Impact on traffic. The proposal would create more traffic on Churchfield Rd and in particular increase the number of turning manoeuvres into and out of the Oaks site. The developer has taken no account of the extra traffic that a supermarket would be likely to attract. The developer’s own transport assessment has noted the strain the development will place through extra traffic movements at the Horn Lane/Steyne Rd junction, but offers no remedial action.
Vlod Barchuk ● 5115d
