Here is the letter that the Brackenbury Residents Association sent to the Council today. If you want to object you can do so until 14 October. Given the postal strike it might be best to email, rather than send a letter. Email to ruth.craig@lbhf.gov.uk. Thank you.Ruth CraigEnvironment and Planning DepartmentLondon Borough of Hammersmith and FulhamTown Hall King Street London W6October 4 2007Dear Ms CraigPlanning Application ref 2007/02005Development of NCP Car Park site adjacent to Hammersmith and City Line Station HammersmithWe refer to the application for planning permission for the development of the car park site beside Hammersmith and City Station, on the corner of Hammersmith Grove and Beadon Road. The site is well known to the Brackenbury Residents Association, and forms a significant element of the urban fabric where the Association membership resides. The BRA has carefully reviewed the application design and visited the site to consider the impact of the proposed development. We have discussed the proposals with the membership and we have reviewed the Council policy for the area.On the basis of this investigation, we object to the application, and request that the Council refuses planning permission. The development is too large: the single unrelieved mass of building is out of scale with the site surroundings, and would create an overbearing presence which would dominate and spoil the views in the area. The area of office and commercial space within the building would generate levels of vehicular and pedestrian activities which would disrupt and intrude on the residential areas alongside. The excessive size of the building brings no benefit to the Hammersmith community.We would note in particular the following:Urban context in Hammersmith Grove: Hammersmith Grove is a fine avenue of Victorian and Edwardian villas and terraces, acknowledging the borders of the town centre with the larger scale buildings of the former Wimpey campus. The application site stands at the end of this street, and its development will impact on both residential and city centre activities, and the different priorities of residential and city centre zones must be taken into account in any development proposal. However, contrary to the reports and descriptions provided with the application, the appearance of the application design pays no heed whatsoever to its urban context: it is a featureless mass of commercial accommodation, creating a huge overbearing presence unrelated to its surroundings. Consent should be refused because it is wholly unsuitable for the sensitivities of this site. Urban context in Lyric Square: the community has endured both the substantial cost and the lengthy construction time which created Lyric Square, and we treasure the new open space that has emerged. The application site effectively forms the top corner of the square, and any building on the site should respect the scale of the eclectic mix of contemporary and historic buildings which surround Lyric Square. The ten-storey singular mass of building proposed for the site has no respect for its neighbours, and will create an overbearing presence which will dominate the square. The profile of the new building will fill every northerly view from the square and will destroy the urban pattern which forms the square. The building will dwarf the Lyric Theatre – we will have not Lyric Square, more Blob Square. The success of Lyric Square will be wasted by the proposed design. The application design proposes to continue the Lyric Square paving across Beadon Road to form a link with the proposed building; this link would be totally ineffectual due to the heavy traffic on Beadon Road which forms a barrier between the site and the square. This traffic would increase significantly if the building were to proceed. Planning context: the Council UDP singles out the application site and lists those specific policies with which an application should comply, including:EN2 Development in Conservation areas: this policy requires that development “will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced….particular regard will be given to details such as scale, massing, bulk, height…relationship to adjoining buildings…open spaces. New developments must where possible respect the historic context, volume scale, form, materials and quality…” The application building fails on every one of these criteria: it does not enhance the character of the area, its scale is excessive, its bulk is overbearing and massive, it is higher than any building in the vicinity, it pays no respect whatsoever to historic context.Consent should be refused because the application does not meet the Council UDP policy requirements which are specifically referred to the application site.EN2B: Effect of development on the setting of conservation areas…: “…development will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the conservation areas in terms of their setting and views into or out of them is preserved or enhanced”.The proposed building is so big that it dominates and overpowers the conservation area views: it is not a new neighbour, it is a dictator.Planning pressure: town centres are designed to support the density of pedestrian, vehicular and service demands associated with large commercial buildings. The development proposal, with over 420,000 square feet of offices and over 15,000 square feet of restaurants, will generate a huge pressure on surrounding facilities, not only in the town centre, but also in Hammersmith Grove and environs. The site is on the border of a large residential area, and the development proposal will create an unacceptable level of disturbance in the nearby residential streets. A significant proportion of the up to 4,000 office users leaving at the end of each working day, and the restaurant and cinema users leaving late into the night, will fill Hammersmith Grove and disperse into the surrounding residential areas. 4,000 office workers and 15,000 sq ft of restaurant require substantial goods delivery, courier service and refuse disposal, for which every service vehicle has to enter and leave the site via Hammersmith Grove. This volume of accommodation is totally inappropriate for a site bordering a large residential area and on the edge of a town centre of relatively small urban scale.Development benefits: the application site forms the backdrop to Lyric Square and is located on a prominent corner of the borough; it is an important Hammersmith location and appropriate development is long overdue. New cinema facilities would be welcome but would be preferred at the existing cinema location in King Street; further restaurant space is not needed but would provide appropriate life and activity at street level if it were properly managed. However 420,000 square feet of office space and a ten storey building provide no benefit to the community, and are an unacceptable price for the borough to pay for the feasibility of the development. Planning permission should not be granted for this application. The development is too big, the building is too dominant, the benefit to Hammersmith is too small. The application should be refused.Yours sincerelyRichard Winterton on behalf ofBrackenbury Residents AssociationThis letter has been issued following our telephone call to Ruth Craig when it was confirmed that whilst the formal public consultation period has passed, public comments received prior to October 14 will be fully taken into account in the planning report due to be prepared for the planning committee
Rosemary Pettit ● 6522d