Case Reference: 3277137

Stephenie Thourgood Our ref: APP/H5390/V/21/3277137
Gerald Eve LLP Your ref: 20/01283/FUL
72 Welbeck Street
London
W1G 0AY
4 July 2022
Dear Madam
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION MADE BY HFS DEVELOPMENTS 2 LIMITED
EDITH SUMMERSKILL HOUSE, CLEM ATTLEE COURT, LONDON, SW6 7TW
APPLICATION REF: 20/01283/FUL
This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing, Stuart Andrew MP, on behalf
of the Secretary of State
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC, who held a public local inquiry which
opened on 30 November 2021 and closed on 7 December 2021 into your client’s
application for planning permission for the erection of a 20 storey tower (plus plant) with
single storey basement and ground floor mezzanine, for residential use, ancillary
community use at ground floor level, hard and soft landscaping, and associated works, in
accordance with application Ref. 20/01283/FUL, dated 15 May 2020.
2. On 10 June 2021, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him
instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the application be approved and planning permission
granted subject to conditions and the Agreement under s.106.
4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided
to grant planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All
references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Procedural matters
5. At IR1.11 and IR12.48 the Inspector identifies that a High Court judgement relating to the
decision of the Minister of State for Housing to grant permission for the Holocaust
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Email: PCC@levellingup.gov.uk
Mike Hale, Decision Officer
Planning Casework Unit
Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank was being awaited.
The High Court judgment on that case has since been handed down, however, the
Secretary of State does not consider that the outcome of that judgment raises any
matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior
to reaching his decision on this application, and he is satisfied that no interests have
thereby been prejudiced.
Policy, statutory and other considerations
6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
7. In this case the development plan consists of the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan
adopted February 2018 and the London Plan adopted March 2021. The Secretary of
State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR5.2-
5.20.
8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning
guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as the guidance and publications detailed at IR5.23.
9. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or
their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may
possess.
Main issues
Townscape and the Character and Appearance of the Area
Design
10. For the reasons given at IR12.78-12.82, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the site is not in one of the areas deemed suitable for tall buildings in the Local Plan
and as a result is not in accordance with the locational requirements of Local Plan Policy
DC3, or Part B of London Plan Policy D9 (IR12.78). For the reasons given at IR12.11-
12.27, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that in design terms, there should
be no ‘in-principle difficulty with placing a tall building on the site (IR12.18); and that the
proposal would appear quite different to the rest of the estate but that is no bad thing
when the reason for that difference is that the building would be of a significantly higher
standard of detailed design (IR12.26). He further agrees that the high quality of the
design would mean that the building would act as a beacon, marking the southern
entrance to the estate, in a way that would enhance the townscape, and the character
and appearance of the area (IR12.26). He further agrees that the design of the proposal
is exemplary and it would be an addition to the skyline of outstanding quality that would
raise the bar for development in the area, and London generally, and would meet all the
criteria set out in Local Plan Policy DC3, and most of those in Part C of London Plan
Policy D9 (IR12.79). The Secretary of State affords the outstanding design quality and
excellent living conditions for the prospective residents (as set out below at paragraph
18) significant weight.
The Effect on the Setting and thereby the Significance of Heritage Assets
11. For the reasons given at IR12.28-12.30 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that in relation to the Presbytery (Grade II), the Harwarth Mausoleum (Grade II), a War
Memorial (Grade II), and a Tombstone to Warrington Taylor (Grade II) associated with
the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury (Grade II*), the proposal would have no harmful
impact on their setting, or their significance (IR12.30). For the reasons given at IR12.38-
12.45, he further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions that the proposal would not be
harmful to the setting or significance of the other heritage assets raised by the Rule 6(6)
party.
12. For the reasons given at IR12.31-12.37, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that notwithstanding the attractive design of the proposal, and the visibility of other tall
buildings from the churchyard, there would be visual tension, particularly where the
proposal would sit directly behind the spire and that would detract from, and have a
harmful impact on, the setting, and thereby significance of the Church of St Thomas of
Canterbury (IR12.34). The Secretary of State further agrees that the harmful impact on
the setting and thereby the significance of the church would, therefore, also result in a
harmful impact on the setting and thereby the significance of the Central Fulham
Conservation Area (IR12.35).
13. For the reasons given at IR12.46-12.54, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury does derive something of its significance
from its setting, but the overwhelming proportion is locked into its form and fabric
(IR12.51) and that the harm that would be caused to the setting and thereby the
significance of the church would be less than substantial, and very much at the lower end
of the scale (IR12.52). He further agrees that the harm that would be caused to the
setting and thereby the significance of the Central Fulham conservation area as a result
of the proposal would be very minor indeed and even further toward the bottom of the
scale of less than substantial harm than what would be caused to the significance of the
church (IR12.53). The Secretary of State attaches great weight to the harm to the Church
of St Thomas of Canterbury and the Central Fulham Conservation Area.
14. The Secretary of State has gone on to apply the heritage balance as set out in paragraph
202 of the Framework. For the reasons given at IR12.55-12.57 and IR12.76-12.77, he
agrees with the Inspector that even though the harm caused to the setting and thereby
significance of the church, and the setting and thereby the significance of the
conservation area are weighty matters, they are very clearly outweighed by the public
benefits that would flow from the provision of 133 units of affordable housing in such a
well-designed building (IR12.57). The heritage balance is therefore favourable to the
proposal. In reaching these conclusions the Secretary of State has taken into account
Historic England’s objection and the Inspector’s conclusion on it, as set out at IR12.58-
12.63, and also the views of the Rule 6(6) party, who considered that the harm should be
put near the middle of the less than substantial scale. For the reasons given at IR12.76-
12.77, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal is in clear
accordance with Local Plan Policy DC8 (IR12.76) but does not comply with London Plan
Policy HC1 (IR12.77).
15. For the reasons given above and at IR12.78- 12.84, the Secretary of State further agrees
with the Inspector that the stipulation in London Plan Policy DC9 that proposals should
take account of, and avoid harm, to the significance of London’s heritage assets and their
settings, is satisfied (IR12.80). He further agrees at IR12.82 that the criteria in Part C of
London Plan Policy D9 are met and that an alternative scheme would be very likely to
have much the same impacts on the setting and thereby the significance of the church,
and the conservation areas, while delivering a reduced number of housing units, and
correspondingly less public benefit as a result (IR12.83). The Secretary of State agrees
at IR12.84 that the proposal complies with Local Plan Policy DC2, and London Plan
Policies D2 and D3 and London Plan Policy GG2.
Living Conditions
16. For the reasons given at IR12.64-12.68 and IR12.88-12.90, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector that with respect to the living conditions there would be no significant
reduction in the levels of privacy enjoyed by existing residents (IR12.65), there would not
be any difficulties resulting from an increase in foot traffic (IR12.67) and that while the
proposal would lead to some reduction in levels of daylight and sunlight reaching nearby
dwellings and their gardens, and open spaces, the technical analyses carried out on
behalf of the applicant show these reductions would be well within reasonable bounds
(IR12.66). Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal
would have no unacceptable impact on the living conditions of existing residents of the
area (IR12.68) and that the proposal accords with London Plan Policy D6 and Local Plan
Policy DC2 with regard to living conditions (IR12.88).
17. For the reasons given at IR12.69-12.74 and IR12.88-12.90, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector that with respect to the living conditions for prospective residents, the
lack of balconies and/or winter gardens would be more than compensated by the
generosity of the internal space on offer (IR12.69). He notes that the proposal does not
provide the amount of on-site play-space that would be required by London Plan Policy
S4 but agrees with the Inspector that a financial contribution in the Agreement under
s.106 (IR12.70) would be an appropriate response to the balance required between the
provision of play-space and the need to make best use of the application site for housing
(IR12.71) and therefore satisfies paragraph 5.4.6 of the accompanying text to London
Plan Policy S4 (IR12.90). He further agrees that with respect to the microclimate around
the buildings in terms of wind, those using the spaces around the base of the building
would not be affected to an unacceptable extent (IR12.72). On fire safety, the Secretary
of State agrees with the Inspector that in light of the requirements as they stand, there is
no good reason to question the approach taken to fire safety by the applicants (IR12.73)
and there is accordance with London Plan Policy D12 in terms of fire safety (IR12.89).
18. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would provide
generally excellent living conditions for prospective residents and considers that the
proposal would have no unacceptable impact on existing residents of the area (IR12.74)
and that the proposal accords with London Plan Policy D6 and Local Plan Policy DC2 in
this regard, and the Council’s Planning Guidance SPD (Supplementary Planning
Document) (IR12.88). As set out at paragraph 11, the Secretary of State affords the
outstanding design and excellent living conditions for the prospective residents significant
weight.
Local Services/Infrastructure
19. For the reasons given at IR12.75, the Secretary of States agrees with the Inspector that
there are no issues in terms of drainage that weigh against the proposal.
Other matters
20. For the reasons given at IR12.4-12.7 and IR12.86-12.87, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector that the baseline for the consideration of the proposal in terms of its
impact is a cleared site but the fact that the site was occupied by a tall building for more
than 50 years is a material consideration. The Secretary of State also agrees that when
the Council took the decision to demolish Edith Summerskill House it was not a decision
taken in isolation and that there was always the intention that it would be replaced and as
such London Plan Policy H8 must have a bearing on the proposal (IR12.87). He also
agrees that in increasing the number of units on site from 68 to 133, the proposal clearly
accords with the requirement of London Plan Policy H8 to ensure any existing housing
lost is replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities (IR12.87).
21. The Secretary of State notes the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of
deliverable housing sites when measured against the target for the Borough set out in the
London Plan (IR12.8) and that in relation to affordable housing all parties agree that there
is a significant shortfall against what are pressing needs (IR12.10). For the reasons
given at IR12.85-12.87, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the delivery
of 133 affordable homes would contribute to meeting London and the Borough’s housing,
and affordable housing, targets as set out in London Plan Policies GG4, H1 and H4 and
Local Plan Policies HO1, HO3 and HO5 (IR12.85). The Secretary of State affords the
provision of affordable housing significant weight.
Development plan compliance
22. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR12.91 that the scheme does
not comply with London Plan Policy HC1 in terms of its harmful impact on the
significance of designated heritage assets, Local Plan Policy DC3, the locational
requirements for tall buildings in London Plan Policy D9, or London Plan Policy S4 in
relation to play-space. Nonetheless he agrees that in delivering 133 affordable housing
units in a building of outstanding design that makes efficient use of a well-located, small,
previously-developed site, while providing safe and mostly excellent living conditions for
its residents, without any unacceptable impact on the living conditions of existing
residents, the proposal accords with a number of London Plan and Local Plan policies
(IR12.92). Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is strong
accordance with the development plan read as a whole (IR12.93), and that the proposal
is also in accordance with the Framework (IR12.99). In reaching this conclusion, the
Secretary of State has taken into account the points underlined by the Inspector at
IR12.94-12.98.
Planning conditions
23. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR10.1-
10.16, the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for
them, and to national policy in paragraph 56 of the Framework and the relevant
Guidance. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with
the policy test set out at paragraph 56 of the Framework and that the conditions set out at
Annex A should form part of his decision.
Planning obligations
24. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR11.1-11.12, the planning obligation
dated 21 December 2021, paragraph 57 of the Framework, the Guidance and the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion for the reasons given in IR11.1-11.12 that the
obligation complies with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at
paragraph 57 of the Framework.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
25. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the application is not
in accordance with Policy DC3 of the Local Plan and Policies S4, HC1 and the locational
requirements for tall buildings in D9 of the London Plan but finds that it is in accordance
with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material
considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in
accordance with the development plan.
26. Weighing in favour of the proposal is the delivery of 133 affordable housing units in the
context of a significant shortfall against need which is afforded significant weight. The
proposal would deliver a building of outstanding design quality and excellent living
conditions for prospective residents which together are afforded significant weight.
27. Weighing against the proposal is the less than substantial harm to the setting and thereby
significance of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury and to the Central Fulham
Conservation Area. This harm is afforded great weight; however, the Secretary of State
has concluded that the balancing exercise under paragraph 202 of the Framework is
favourable to the proposal. He has also found that the proposal is in accordance with the
Framework as a whole.
28. Overall the Secretary of State considers that the accordance with the development plan
and the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be granted,
subject to the conditions set out at Annex A, and the Agreement under s.106.
Formal decision
29. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby grants planning permission subject to the
conditions set out in Annex A of this decision letter for the erection of a 20 storey tower
(plus plant) with single storey basement and ground floor mezzanine, for residential use,
ancillary community use at ground floor level, hard and soft landscaping, and associated
works, in accordance with application Ref. 20/01283/FUL, dated 15 May 2020.
30. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Right to challenge the decision
31. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
32. A copy of this letter has been sent to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
and Mr Turney, and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the
decision.
Yours faithfully
Mike Hale
Decision officer
This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing, Stuart Andrew MP, on behalf of
the Secretary of State, and signed on his behalf
Annex A List of conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following
approved plans:
9_1307_P_001_B: Site Location Plan;
9_1307_P_100_B: Proposed Site Location Plan;
9_1307_P_110_B: Proposed Site Layout Plan;
9_1307_P_120_A: Proposed Site South-East Elevation;
9_1307_P_121_A: Proposed Site South-West Elevation;
9_1307_P_122_A: Proposed Site North West Elevation;
9_1307_P_123_A: Proposed Site North East Elevation;
9_1307_P_200_B: Proposed Basement Plan;
9_1307_P_201_C: Proposed Ground Floor Plan;
9_1307_P_202_A: Proposed Mezzanine Plan;
9_1307_P_203_A: Proposed First to Third Floor Plans;
9_1307_P_204_A: Proposed Fourth Floor Plan;
9_1307_P_205_A: Proposed Fifth to Nineteenth Floor Plans;
9_1307_P_206_A: Proposed Roof Top Floor Plan;
9_1307_P_207_A: Proposed Roof Plan;
9_1307_P_300_A: Proposed Building South East Elevation;
9_1307_P_301_A: Proposed Building South West Elevation;
9_1307_P_302_A: Proposed Building North West Elevation;
9_1307_P_303_A: Proposed Building North East Elevation;
9_1307_P_400_A: Proposed Building Section AA;
9_1307_P_401_A: Proposed Building Section BB;
9_1307_P_402_A: Proposed Building Section CC;
9_1307_P_403_A: Proposed Building Section DD;
9_1307_P_404_A: Proposed Building Section EE;
9_1307_P_405_A: Proposed Building Section FF;
9_1307_P_500_A: Façade Details Typical Upper Floor Type A;
9_1307_P_501_A: Façade Details Typical Upper Floor Type B;
9_1307_P_502_A; Façade Details Typical Roof Level Type A
9_1307_P_510_A: Façade Details Ground Floor South East Facade;
9_1307_P_511_A: Façade Details Ground Floor South West Facade;
9_1307_P_512_A: Facade Details Ground Floor South West Facade;
9_1307_P_513_A: Façade Details Ground Floor North West Facade;
9_1307_P_514_A: Façade Details Ground Floor North West Facade;
9_1307_P_515_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_516_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_517_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_518_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_519_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor Arcade Section
3) No development shall commence until the establishment of a Community Liaison
Group, to be maintained for the duration of the construction works hereby approved,
having the purpose of (i) informing nearby residents and businesses of the building
programme and progress of demolition and construction works for the development; (ii)
informing nearby residents and businesses of appropriate mitigation measures being
undertaken as part of each phase of the development; (iii) informing nearby residents
and businesses of considerate methods of working such as working hours and site
traffic; (iv) providing advanced notice of exceptional hours of work, if and when
appropriate; (v) providing nearby residents and businesses with an initial contact for
information relating to the works and procedures for receiving/responding to comments
or complaints regarding the development with the view of resolving any concerns that
might arise; (vi) providing telephone contacts for nearby residents and businesses 24
hours daily throughout the works for the development; and (vii) producing a leaflet prior
to the commencement of the development for distribution to nearby residents and
businesses, identifying progress of the development and which shall include an
invitation to register an interest in the Liaison Group. The terms of reference for the
Community Liaison Group shall be submitted to the Council for approval prior to
commencement of any works on site and it shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved terms of reference. The Community Liaison Group shall meet at least
once every quarter until completion of the development.
4) The development shall not commence (save for below ground works) until particulars
and samples (where appropriate) of all the materials to be used in all external faces of
the building including details were relevant of the colour, composition and texture of the
concrete, metal and stone work; details of all surface windows including window
opening and glazing styles; roof top plant and general plant screening; and all external
hard surfaces including paving have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. These details will have reference to and include the mitigation
measures identified within the submitted Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate
Assessment RWDI #2002211 REV B 24 February 2020. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
5) The development shall not commence (save for below ground works) until detailed
drawings at a scale not less than 1:20 (in plan, section and elevation) of typical
sections/bays of the approved building have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. These shall include details of the proposed cladding,
fenestration (including framing and glazing details), balustrades, shop-front and
entrances and roof top plant and plant screening. The development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
6) Any changes proposed to the approved roof plant layout shall be prepared on detailed
plans, sections and elevations at a scale of 1:20 and submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
7) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Construction
Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The CMP shall include a detailed plan showing phasing; relevant
foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other structures below
ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent); contractors' method
statements; waste classification and disposal procedures and locations; location of site
offices, ancillary buildings, plant, wheel-washing facilities, stacking bays and car
parking; details of storage and any skips, oil and chemical storage; membership of the
Considerate Contractors Scheme; delivery locations; the proposed control measures
and monitoring for noise and vibration; lighting; restriction of hours of work and all
associated activities audible beyond the site boundary to 0800-1800 hours Mondays to
Fridays and 0800-1300 hours on Saturdays; and advance notification to neighbours
and other interested parties of proposed works and public display of contact details
including accessible phone contact to persons responsible for the site works for the
duration of the works. The details shall include for each phase of works the use of on-
road Ultra Low Emission Zone compliant vehicles for example Euro 6 and Euro VI; and
provisions within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction
works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto
the highway. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant approved
CMP.
8) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a Construction Logistics
Plan (CLP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The CLP shall include the details for all the relevant foundations, basement
and ground floor structures, or for any other structures below ground level, including
piling (temporary and permanent). The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the relevant approved Construction Logistics Plan. Each CLP shall cover the
following minimum requirements: site logistics and operations; construction vehicle
routing; contact details for site managers and details of management lines of reporting;
a detailed plan showing phasing; location of site offices, ancillary buildings, plant,
wheel-washing facilities, stacking bays and car parking; storage of skips, oil and
chemical storage; access and egress points; and details of membership of the
Considerate Contractors Scheme.
9) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used prior to the
provision of the cycle storage arrangements for not less than 244 long-stay spaces
(including 8 for larger cycles) inside the building and 4 short-stay, visitor spaces
externally, as indicated on the approved drawings, and set out within the submitted
Transport Assessment, have been fully provided and made available. Such facilities
shall be retained for their intended purpose thereafter.
10) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used until a Cycle
Parking Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The development shall not be operated other than in accordance
with the approved Cycle Parking Management Plan.
11) No part of the development shall be occupied prior to the provision of the refuse
storage enclosures, including provision for the storage of recyclable materials, have
been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. All the refuse/recycling
generated by the development hereby approved shall thereafter be stored within the
approved areas and these facilities shall be retained for their intended purpose
thereafter.
12) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied until a Waste
Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Details shall include how recycling will be maximised and be
incorporated into the facilities of the development. All approved storage arrangements
shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such
thereafter.
13) Prior to first occupation of the development, a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP)
including vehicle tracking where required, shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The DSP shall set out the management of deliveries,
emergency access, collection of waste and recyclables, times and frequencies of
deliveries and collections, silent reversing methods, location of loading bays, and
vehicle movement in respect of the community floorspace. The approved measures
shall be implemented for the lifetime of the development.
14) No development shall commence until a scheme for temporary fencing and/or
enclosure of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority, and the temporary fencing and/or enclosure has been erected in
accordance with the approved details. The temporary fencing and/or enclosure shall
thereafter be retained for the duration of the building works in accordance with the
approved details. No part of the temporary fencing and/or enclosure of the site shall be
used for the display of advertisements.
15) No development shall commence until a preliminary risk assessment report is
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This report shall
comprise: a desktop study which identifies all current and previous uses at the site and
surrounding area as well as the potential contaminants associated with those uses; a
site reconnaissance; and a conceptual model indicating potential pollutant linkages
between sources, pathways and receptors, including those in the surrounding area and
those planned at the site; and a qualitative risk assessment of any potentially
unacceptable risks arising from the identified pollutant linkages to human health,
controlled waters and the wider environment including ecological receptors and building
materials. All works shall be carried out in compliance with the approved details and by
a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management
of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and
testing.
16) No development shall commence until a site investigation scheme has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme shall be based
upon and target the risks identified in the approved preliminary risk assessment and
shall provide provisions for, where relevant, the sampling of soil, soil vapour, ground
gas, surface and groundwater. All works shall be carried out in compliance with the
approved details and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model
Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK
requirements for sampling and testing.
17) Unless the local planning authority agrees in writing that a set extent of development
must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall
commence until (following a site investigation undertaken in compliance with the
approved site investigation scheme) a quantitative risk assessment report is submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This report shall: assess the
degree and nature of any contamination identified on the site through the site
investigation; include a revised conceptual site model from the preliminary risk
assessment based on the information gathered through the site investigation to confirm
the existence of any remaining pollutant linkages; and determine the risks posed by
any contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. All
works shall be carried out in compliance with the approved details and by a competent
person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land
Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.
18) Unless the local planning authority agree in writing that a set extent of development
must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall
commence until a remediation method statement, if required, is submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. This statement shall detail any
required remediation works and shall be designed to mitigate any remaining risks
identified in the approved quantitative risk assessment. All works shall be carried out in
compliance with the approved details and by a competent person who conforms to CLR
11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the
current UK requirements for sampling and testing.
19) Unless the local planning authority agree in writing that a set extent of development
must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall
commence until the approved remediation method statement has been carried out in
full if required, and a verification report confirming these works has been submitted to,
and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. This report shall include: details
of the remediation works carried out; results of any verification sampling, testing or
monitoring including the analysis of any imported soil; all appropriate waste Duty of
Care documentation; and the validation of gas membrane placement. If, during
development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site,
the local planning authority is to be informed immediately and no further development
(unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority) shall be carried out
until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt with is
submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Any required
remediation shall be detailed in an amendment to the remediation method statement
and verification of these works included in the verification report. All works shall be
carried out in compliance with the approved details and by a competent person who
conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination
(Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.
20) Unless the local planning authority agree in writing that a set extent of development
must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no development shall
commence until an onward long-term monitoring methodology report, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority where further
monitoring is required past the completion of development works to verify the success
of the remediation undertaken. If required, a verification report of these monitoring
works shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
when it may be demonstrated that no residual adverse risks exist. All works shall be
carried out in compliance with the approved details and by a competent person who
conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination
(Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and testing.
21) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground works)
until a statement of how 'Secured by Design' requirements are to be adequately
achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Such details shall include, but not be limited to: site wide public realm CCTV and a
feasibility study relating to linking CCTV with the Council's borough wide CCTV system;
access controls; basement security measures; and means to secure the site throughout
construction in accordance with BS8300:2009. No part of the development shall be
used or occupied until these measures have been implemented in accordance with the
approved details, and the measures shall be retained thereafter.
22) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground works)
until details of the proposed soft and hard landscaping of all areas external to the
building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The details shall include: planting schedules and details of the species, height and
maturity of any trees and shrubs, including sections through the planting areas; depth
of tree pits, containers and shrub beds; and details relating to the access of each
building, including pedestrian surfaces, materials, kerb details, external steps and
seating that ensure a safe and convenient environment for blind and partially sighted
people. The details shall reference and include the mitigation measures as set out in
the submitted Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate Assessment RWDI #2002211 REV
B 24 February 2020. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and retained as such thereafter.
23) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground works)
until a Landscape Management Plan for all of the landscaped areas has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include
details of management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape
areas. The landscape management plan shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details.
24) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until all the trees in the
proximity of the development that are to be retained, have been protected from damage
in accordance with BS5837:2012. This protection shall endure throughout the
construction process.
25) The development shall not commence (save for below ground works) until details of
any proposed external artificial lighting, including security lights have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority and no occupation shall take
place until the lighting has been installed in full accordance with the approved details.
Such details shall include the number, exact location, height, design and appearance of
the lights, together with data concerning the levels of illumination and light spillage and
the specific measures, having regard to the recommendations of the Institution of
Lighting Engineers in the Guidance Notes for The Reduction of Light Pollution 2011 (or
other relevant guidance) to ensure that any lighting proposed does not harm the
existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. No part of the
development shall be used or occupied until any external lighting provided has been
installed in accordance with the approved details and it shall be retained as such
thereafter.
26) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground works)
until details of the external noise level emitted from plant/machinery/equipment and
mitigation measures as appropriate have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The measures shall ensure that the external sound level
emitted from plant/ machinery/equipment will be lower than the lowest existing
background sound level by at least 10dBA in order to prevent any adverse impact. The
assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:2014 at the nearest and/or most
affected noise sensitive premises, with all machinery operating together at maximum
capacity. A post-installation noise assessment shall be carried out where required to
confirm compliance with the sound criteria and additional steps to mitigate noise shall
be taken, as necessary. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of
the development and retained as such thereafter.
27) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied until details of
anti-vibration measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The measures shall ensure that machinery, plant/equipment,
extract/ventilation system, and ducting are mounted with proprietary anti-vibration
isolators and fan motors are vibration isolated from the casing and adequately silenced.
Implementation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
retained as such thereafter.
28) The noise level in rooms at the development hereby approved shall meet the noise
standard specified in BS8233:2014 for internal rooms and external amenity areas.
29) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground works)
until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority of an enhanced sound insulation value DnT,w and L’nT,w of at least 5dB
above the Building Regulations value, for the floor/ceiling/wall structures separating
different types of rooms/uses in adjoining dwellings, for all the residential floors.
Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and
retained as such thereafter.
30) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority of the sound insulation of the floor/ceiling/walls
separating the community floorspace from the dwellings. Details shall demonstrate that
the sound insulation value DnT,w is enhanced by at least 10dB above the Building
Regulations value and, where necessary, additional mitigation measures implemented
to contain noise within the community premises and to achieve the criteria LAmax,F of
BS8233:2014 within the dwellings/ noise sensitive premises. Approved details shall be
implemented prior to occupation of the development and retained as such thereafter.
31) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an Air Quality Dust
Management Plan (AQDMP) in order to mitigate air pollution shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The AQDMP must include an Air
Quality Dust Risk Assessment (AQDRA) that considers sensitive receptors off-site of
the development and is undertaken in compliance with the methodology contained
within Chapter 4 of the Mayor of London ‘The Control of Dust and Emissions during
Construction and Demolition’, SPG, July 2014 and the identified measures
recommended for inclusion into the AQDMP. The AQDMP submitted must comply with
the Mayor’s SPG and should include: Inventory and Timetable of dust generating
activities during construction; Site Specific Dust mitigation and Emission control
measures in the table format as contained within Appendix 7 of Mayor’s SPG including
for on-road and off-road construction traffic; Detailed list of Non-Road Mobile
Machinery (NRMM) used on the site. The NRMM should meet as minimum the Stage
IV emission criteria of Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent amendments. This will
apply to both variable and constant speed engines for both NOx and PM. An inventory
of all NRMM for the first phase of construction shall be registered on the NRMM
register https://nrmm.london/user-nrmm/register prior to commencement of construction
works and thereafter retained and maintained until occupation of the development; use
of on-road Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant vehicles in accordance with the
emission hierarchy (1) Electric (2) Hybrid (Electric-Petrol) (3) Petrol, (4) Hybrid
(Electric-Diesel) (5) Diesel (Euro 6 and Euro VI); Details of MCERTS compliant
monitoring of Particulates (PM10) used to prevent levels exceeding predetermined
PM10 threshold trigger levels. Developers must ensure that on-site contractors follow
best practicable means to minimise dust, particulates (PM10, PM2.5) and NOx
emissions at all times. Approved details shall be fully implemented and permanently
retained and maintained during the construction phases of the development.
32) Prior to occupation of the development, details of the installation of the Zero Emission
Air/Water Source Heat Pumps and Zero Emission Emergency generators to be
provided for space heating and hot water shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. Approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the
occupation/use of the development and retained as such thereafter.
33) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground works)
until detailed drawings at a scale not less than 1:20 (in plan, section and elevation) of
the rooftop plant enclosures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. No part of the development shall be used or occupied until the
enclosures have been constructed in accordance with the approved details, and the
enclosures shall be retained in their approved form thereafter.
34) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used until an
Inclusive Access Management Plan (IAMP) has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The IAMP shall set out a strategy for ongoing
consultation with specific interest groups with regard to accessibility of the relevant part
of the site. On-going consultation shall then be carried out in accordance with the
approved IAMP. The development shall not be operated other than in accordance with
the approved IAMP.
35) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied until details of
fire rated lifts in the building, including details of the loading lifts to the basement levels,
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All the
lifts shall have enhanced lift repair services, running 365 days/24-hour cover, to ensure
no wheelchair occupiers are trapped if a lift breaks down. The fire rated lifts shall be
installed as approved and maintained in full working order for the lifetime of the
development.
36) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed
basement waterproofing and flood proofing measures have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The basement waterproofing and
flood proofing measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
and retained as such thereafter.
37) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted details of the foul and
surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted
into the public system until the drainage works have been completed in accordance
with the approved details. They shall be retained in their approved form thereafter.
38) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used until details of the
proposed window cleaning equipment have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The details shall include the appearance, means of
operation and storage of the cleaning equipment. No part of the development shall be
used or occupied until the equipment has been installed in accordance with the
approved details. The equipment shall be retained in its approved form thereafter.
39) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (excluding below ground
works) until details of the methods proposed to identify any television interference
caused by the proposed works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The details shall include the measures proposed to ensure that
television interference which might be identified, is remediated in a satisfactory manner.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
40) The development shall not commence (excluding below ground works) until the
following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority: (i) the completion of a Base-Line Airwaves Interference Study (the Base-Line
Study) to assess airwave reception within/adjacent to the site; and (ii) the
implementation of a Scheme of Mitigation Works for the purpose of ensuring nil
detriment during the construction works identified by the Base-Line Study. Such a
scheme of mitigation works shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details.
41) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Council has been
notified in writing (and has acknowledged such notification) of the full postal addresses
of the residential units hereby approved. Such notification shall be to the Council's
Head of Development Management and shall quote the planning application number
specified in this decision letter.
42) The window glass at ground level in the development shall not be mirrored, painted or
otherwise obscured.
43) No roller shutters shall be installed on any entrance or display facade hereby approved.
44) No advertisements shall be displayed on or within any elevation of the building(s),
forecourt or public spaces of the development hereby approved.
45) All planting, seeding and turfing approved as part of the agreed soft landscaping
scheme shall be carried out in the first planting or seeding seasons following the
occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the
sooner; and any trees or shrubs which die, are removed or become seriously damaged
or diseased within 5 years of the date of the initial planting shall be replaced in the next
planting season with other similar size and species.
46) No alterations shall be carried out to the external appearance of the buildings, including
the installation of air-conditioning units, ventilation fans or extraction equipment not
shown on the approved drawings.
47) No external entrance doors in the building hereby approved shall open over the public
highway.
48) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that
principal Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae, satellite dishes or
related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on any part of the development
hereby permitted.
49) No music nor amplified sound (including voices) emitted from the development hereby
permitted shall be audible at any residential/noise sensitive premises.
50) The ground floor entrance doors to the buildings and integral lift/stair cores shall not be
less than 1 metre wide and the threshold shall be at the same level as the adjoining
ground level fronting the entrances to ensure level access.
51) No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of
piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out,
including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface
water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any piling shall be
undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
52) The development shall be completed in accordance with the Fire Statement Addendum
of 17 September 2020 prior to occupation and retained as such thereafter.
Report to the Secretary of State
by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date 4 April 2022
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Application by
HFS Developments 2 Limited
Inquiry Opened on 30 November 2021
Edith Summerskill House, Clem Attlee Court, London SW6 7TW
File Ref: APP/H5390/V/21/3277137
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Appeal Ref: APP/H5390/V/21/3277137
Edith Summerskill House, Clem Attlee Court, London SW6 7TW
• The application was called in for decision by the Secretary of State by a direction, made
under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 10 June 2021.
• The application is made by HFS Developments 2 Limited to the Council of the London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
• The application 20/1283/FUL is dated 15 May 2020.
• The development proposed is the erection of a 20 storey tower (plus plant) with single
storey basement and ground floor mezzanine, for residential use, ancillary community use
at ground floor level, hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.
• On the information available at the time of making the direction, the Secretary of State
particularly wished to be informed about the following matters for the purpose of his
consideration of the application: the extent to which the proposal is consistent with the
development plan; and any other matters the Inspector considers relevant.
Summary of Recommendation: The application be approved.
1. Procedural Matters
1.1 The Inquiry opened on 30 November 2021 and closed on 7 December 2021
after a total of five sitting days. Aside from the applicant and the Council, Mr
Richard Turney took a full part in proceedings as a Rule 6(6) party. Mr Turney
is a Barrister, specialising in planning, but appeared in a personal capacity, as
a local resident. Members of the public addressed the Inquiry too.
1.2 Owing to the ongoing pandemic, the Inquiry took place ‘virtually’ using the
Council’s ‘Zoom’ platform. I am very grateful for the assistance of Council
Officers in setting the system up for my own purposes, but also for ensuring
that others could participate effectively. Owing to other commitments, Mr
Turney was not able to be in attendance throughout the Inquiry but was able
to keep abreast of it using the Council’s YouTube channel, where recordings of
proceedings were made available.
1.3 Reflecting their shared position in support of the proposal, the applicant and
the Council agreed a Statement of Common Ground well in advance of the
Inquiry1. Helpfully, following the Case Management Conference that took place
on 10 September 2021, Mr Turney was able to agree a Statement of Common
Ground with the applicant and the Council2.
1.4 As agreed at the Case Management Conference, the parties put together a
series of Core Documents to assist the Inquiry. This series includes the
evidence submitted to the Inquiry by the parties. This information can be
accessed through the drop-box link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wkxgi4n6hcarq92/AABZpIY-
beJlGHOosOCJYuoma?dl=0
1.5 PINS will make available separately other material, including representations
from third parties, received in accordance with the usual timetable, and during
the Inquiry, and the various Inquiry Documents3.
1 CD4.4 – Referred to hereafter as SoCG
2 CD4.7 – Referred to hereafter as SoCG(2)
3 Listed in Annex C
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
1.6 In that regard, particular reference has been made to two documents prepared
on Mr Turney’s behalf. The first is a review of the applicant’s Townscape and
Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Claire Browne of HCUK Group (dated
16 September 2020) and the second is a review of the applicant’s Heritage
Statement prepared by Christopher Griffiths of HCUK Group (also dated 16
September 2020). These were submitted to the Council as part of the
consultation process on the original application alongside a covering letter
from Lorenzo Pandolfi of the HCUK Group. These documents have not been
made available as part of the Core Documents but are among the consultation
responses that are included as part of the Council’s Questionnaire. This is part
of the material that will be submitted separately.
1.7 As set out above, the Council is supportive of the proposal and was of a mind
to grant planning permission for it. However, the application was called in for
decision by the Secretary of State by a direction, made under section 77 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 10 June 2021. The Secretary of State
particularly wished to be informed about the extent to which the proposal is
consistent with the development plan; and any other matters the Inspector
considers relevant. With that in mind, I set out a series of issues I wanted to
explore at the Inquiry during the Case Management Conference. These have
informed the general approach of the parties to their evidence, and the
presentation of their cases to the Inquiry, but, of course, my identified issues
were not presented as a closed list. I refer to these below.
1.8 I made an unaccompanied visit to the site, and its surroundings, in advance of
the Inquiry. I made a further, accompanied, visit to the site and its
surroundings after the Inquiry closed4 following a walking route agreed
between the main parties5. After the accompanied element of the site visit, as
suggested, I travelled to East London to take in some completed projects by
the architects Henley Halebrown - Hackney New Primary School and 333
Kingsland Road, Taylor Court and Chatto Court on the Frampton Park Estate,
and Wilmott Court on Well Street.
1.9 A draft s.106 Agreement was discussed at the Inquiry6. I allowed time after
the Inquiry closed for this to be amended and completed. The final version was
received on 21 December 20217. I deal with its content below.
1.10 The Inquiry took place against the background of activity in the Planning Court
on two separate matters relevant to this case. The first8 related to the London
Plan Policy D9. Preliminary material was placed before the Inquiry9, but the
Judgment was handed down on 16 December 202110 and I was able to give
the parties the opportunity to comment on it in relation to their cases11. I have
reported on these additional submissions alongside the parties’ cases below.
4 On 21 December 2021
5 ID15
6 ID8
7 ID16
8 Referred to hereafter as the Hillingdon case
9 CD14.4, CD14.8, CD14.9 and CD14.10
10 R (London Borough of Hillingdon) v Mayor of London [2021] EWHC 3387 (Admin) – ID13
11 ID14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 2
1.11 The other matter relates to the challenge brought by the London Historic Parks
and Gardens Trust against the decision of the Minister of State for Housing to
grant permission for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria
Tower Gardens. While some of the background material to that challenge has
been made available12, and the case has been heard, at the time of writing,
the Judgment is not available. I will have to leave this matter with the
Secretary of State to approach the parties for their comments once it is
published.
1.12 It transpired during the proceedings that one of the images presented13
contained depiction errors. A corrected replacement was helpfully provided14.
2. The Site and Surroundings
2.1 This is all described fully in the SoCG15. In short, the site is currently vacant
but was formerly the location of Edith Summerskill House. The site lies on St
Thomas’s Way, within the Clem Attlee Estate. It is bounded by residential
properties to the east and west. To the north of the site lies the Clem Attlee
Estate Community Hall on Len Freeman Place, whilst St Thomas Way lies to
the south of the site.
2.2 The site lies at the southern end of the Clem Attlee Estate, a post-war
predominantly mid-rise estate punctuated by 18 storey high rise point blocks
and 11 storey tri-axial (or ‘Y’ blocks) To the south-east of the site across St
Thomas’ Way are a series of perpendicular Victorian residential roads with 2
storey terraced housing, including Hartismere Road and Fabian Road.
2.3 The site lies approximately half a mile from both Fulham Broadway and West
Brompton Underground Stations. Numerous bus routes serve North End Road,
Dawes Road, and Lillie Road to various destinations in west and south-west
London. The site has a PTAL rating of 4, indicating a good level of accessibility
to public transport.
2.4 The site does not lie within a conservation area but there are several in the
vicinity. The Central Fulham Conservation Area lies to the west, the
Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area lies to the east, and the Walham Green
Conservation Area is to the south.
3. Planning History
3.1 This is set out in full in the SoCG16 but there are some matters that are useful
to pick out. Edith Summerskill House was built in the 1960s as part of the
wider Clem Attlee Estate. That Estate replaced an area of predominantly
terraced housing that was extensively damaged by wartime bombing. The
building contained 68 residential units across 18 storeys (plus plant). It was
vacated in 2011 because the accommodation was considered sub-standard.
12 CD14.5, CD14.6, CD14.7 and CD14.15
13 CD4.12b and CD4.12c AVR10
14 ID5
15 CD4.4
16 CD4.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 3
3.2 The Council, as landowner, took the view that refurbishment was not viable. It
was therefore decided to relocate the tenants and demolish the building so
that it could be replaced by a new residential building designed to meet
modern standards.
3.3 A decision was made to submit a prior approval application for its demolition.
This was submitted on 7 October 2016. No notification of a determination was
received within 28 days so that development (or demolition) could commence
pursuant to paragraph B.2(b)(vii)(cc) of Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The
building was then demolished, and this was certified as complete on 16
November 2018.
3.4 In parallel with, but not linked to, that process, on 1 May 2017, an application
for planning permission was submitted to the Council for the erection of a 20-
storey residential tower on the site. This was reported to the Council’s Planning
and Development Control Committee with an Officer recommendation for
approval17. Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to
conditions, and the completion of an Agreement under s.106. This Agreement
was signed, and the decision notice was issued on 3 October 2019.
3.5 Shortly after, a claim for Judicial Review of the decision was brought by a local
resident18. The Council submitted to judgment and the grant of permission was
subsequently quashed by the High Court on 9 December 201919. The Council
accepted that the grant of planning permission was unlawful because the
Officer’s report failed to consider the acceptability of the proposed
development against the baseline of a cleared site, thereby leaving out of
account a material consideration.
3.6 Subsequently, the application at issue here was made to the Council. It is
dated 15 May 202020; it was validated by the Council on 7 July 2020 with the
reference: 20/01283/FUL21. The application was recommended for approval by
Council Officers to the Council’s Planning Committee on 28 September 2020.
The Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions
and an Agreement under s.10622. As set out above, the application was called
in for decision by the Secretary of State by a direction, made under section 77
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 10 June 2021
4. The Proposals
4.1 The scheme is described in the application as: the erection of a 20 storey
tower (plus plant) with single storey basement and ground floor mezzanine,
for residential use, ancillary community use at ground floor level, hard and soft
landscaping, and associated works.
17 The report is at CD14.2
18 Mr Turney
19 The Consent Order is at CD14.3
20 CD1.1-CD1.3
21 The accompanying material and drawings can be found at CD1.1 to 1.25 and CD1A_1 to
CD1A_43 and material relating to the application is at CD2.1 to CD2.20
22 CD3.1 to CD3.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 4
4.2 As set out in the SoCG23, it would comprise 133 residential units in a total
floor-space of 15,740 square metres (GEA) and a footprint of 718 square
metres (GEA). The residential units would all be affordable housing units, 105
(79%) of which would be social rented, 28 (21%) intermediate rent units.
4.3 The building would have a single-storey basement, an ancillary community
room and kitchen at ground floor level. There would be public realm,
landscaping, and highway improvements within and surrounding the site. It
would provide 224 long-term cycle parking spaces, including 8 large cycles, at
mezzanine level, and 4 visitor cycle spaces as part of the public realm.
5. Planning Policy
5.1 The development plan for the area includes the London Plan of March 202124
and the Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan of February 201825. A raft of
relevant policies from both documents has been documented in the SoCG26 but
I pick out those that bear most heavily on the proposals.
5.2 In relation to the London Plan, Policy GG2: Making the best use of land, sets
out that to create successful sustainable mixed-use places that make the best
use of land, those involved in planning and development must (amongst other
things): enable the development of brownfield land, particularly on surplus
public sector land, as well as using small sites; prioritise sites which are well-
connected by existing or planned public transport; promoting higher density
development, particularly in locations that are well-connected to jobs,
services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling;
applying a design-led approach to determine the optimum capacity of sites;
understand what is valued about existing places and use this a catalyst for
growth, renewal, and place-making, strengthening London’s district and varied
character.
5.3 Linked to that, London Plan Policy GG4: Delivering the homes Londoners need,
says that to create a housing market that works better for all Londoners, those
involved in planning and development must(amongst other things): ensure
that more homes are delivered; support the delivery of the strategic target of
50% of all new homes being genuinely affordable; and create mixed and
inclusive communities, with good quality homes that meet high standards of
design, and provide for identified needs, including for specialist housing.
5.4 London Plan Policy D3: Optimising site capacity through the design-led
approach, tells us that all development must make the best use of land by
following a design-led approach that optimises the capacity of sites. Optimising
site capacity means ensuring that development is of the most appropriate form
and land use for the site. Higher density developments should generally be
proposed in locations that are well-connected to jobs, services, infrastructure
and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling. Local context is to be
enhanced by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local
distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape,
23 CD4.4
24 CD6.1
25 CD5.1
26 CD4.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 5
with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types,
forms and proportions. London Plan Policy D4: Delivering good design, seeks
to underline all that.
5.5 London Plan Policy D6: Housing quality and standards, explains that housing
development should be of high-quality design and provide adequately sized
rooms with comfortable and functional layouts that are fit for purpose. Dual-
aspect dwellings should be maximised, and the design of development should
provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and surrounding housing that is
appropriate for its context.
5.6 Given recent consideration by the High Court27 in the Hillingdon case, it is
worth setting out London Plan Policy D9: Tall buildings, in some detail. Part A
deals with definition and says that based on local context, development plans
should define what is considered a tall building for specific localities, the height
of which will vary within different parts of London but should not be less than 6
storeys or 18 metres measured from ground to the floor level of the
uppermost storey.
5.7 Part B covers locations. First, Boroughs should determine if there are locations
where tall buildings may be an appropriate form of development, subject to
meeting other requirements of the Plan. This process should include
engagement with neighbouring Boroughs that may be affected by tall building
developments in identified locations. Second, any such locations and
appropriate tall building heights should be identified on maps in development
plans. Third, tall buildings should only be developed in locations that are
identified as suitable in development plans.
5.8 Impacts are dealt with in Part C. Development proposals should address visual
impacts in long-, mid-, and immediate-views. Whether part of a group or
stand-alone, tall buildings should reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local
and wider context and aid legibility and wayfinding. Architectural quality and
materials should be of an exemplary standard to ensure that the appearance
and architectural integrity of the building is maintained through its lifespan.
Proposals should take account of, and avoid harm to, the significance of
London’s heritage assets and their settings. Proposals resulting in harm will
require clear and convincing justification, demonstrating that alternatives have
been explored and that there are clear public benefits that outweigh that
harm. The buildings should positively contribute to the character of the area.
5.9 In terms of housing generally, London Plan Policy H1: Increasing housing
supply, sets out the ten-year targets for net housing completions that each
local planning authority should plan for in Table 4.1. To ensure that these
targets are achieved, Boroughs should, amongst other things, optimise the
potential for housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites
through development plans, and planning decisions especially on, of relevance
here, surplus public-sector owned sites, and small sites.
5.10 As far as affordable housing is concerned, London Plan Policy H4: Delivering
affordable housing, sets the strategic target for 50% of all new homes
delivered across London to be genuinely affordable. Policy H8: Loss of existing
27 ID13 and ID14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 6
housing and estate redevelopment, says that the loss of existing housing
should be replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with at least
the equivalent level of overall floor-space.
5.11 London Plan Policy S4: Play and informal recreation, makes clear that
development proposals for schemes that are likely to be used by children and
young people should (amongst other things): increase opportunities for play
and informal recreation; and for residential developments, incorporate good-
quality, accessible play provision for all ages. At least 10 square metres of
play-space should be provided per child.
5.12 However, paragraph 5.4.6 of the accompanying text says that off-site
provision, secured by an appropriate financial contribution, may be acceptable
where it can be demonstrated that it addresses the needs of the development,
whilst continuing to meet the needs on existing residents.
5.13 London Plan Policy D12: Fire Safety, requires all development proposals to
achieve the highest standards of fire safety.
5.14 Heritage matters are the focus of London Plan Policy HC1: Heritage
conservation and growth. Part C tells us that development proposals affecting
heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve significance, by being
sympathetic to their significance within their surroundings.
5.15 In terms of the Local Plan, Policy HO1 says that by various means the Borough
will seek to exceed the London Plan (2016) minimum target of 1,031
additional dwellings a year up to 2025, and to seek at least 1,031 additional
dwellings a year up to 2035. These figures have been superseded by the latest
iteration of the London Plan. London Plan Policy H1 and Table 4.1 set the ten-
year target for the Borough at 16,090 dwellings.
5.16 Local Plan Policy HO3 makes plain that housing development should increase
the supply and improve the mix of affordable housing to help achieve more
sustainable communities in the Borough. Housing mix is dealt with in Local
Plan Policy HO5 and seeks to increase the supply and choice of high-quality
residential accommodation that meets local residents’ needs, aspirations, and
demand for housing.
5.17 The design of new buildings is covered by Local Plan Policy DC2. It is
permissive of new-build if it attains a high standard of design, compatible with
the scale and character of existing development and its setting. All proposals
are expected to respect (amongst others): the historical context and
townscape setting of the site, and its sense of place; the scale, mass, form and
grain of surrounding development and connections to it; the relationship of the
proposed development to the existing townscape, including the local street
pattern, local landmarks, and the skyline; the local design context, including
the prevailing rhythm and articulation of frontages, local building materials and
colour, and locally distinctive architectural detailing, and thereby promote and
reinforce local distinctiveness; and good neighbourliness and the principles of
residential amenity.
5.18 Local Plan Policy DC3 relates to tall buildings. As with London Plan Policy D9
covered above, it is important to rehearse this policy in some detail. It begins
by saying that tall buildings, which are significantly higher than the general
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 7
prevailing height of the surrounding townscape and which have a disruptive
and harmful impact on the skyline, will be resisted. However, tall buildings
may be appropriate in: the White City Regeneration Area; the Earls Court and
West Kensington Regeneration Area; the South Fulham Riverside Regeneration
Area; and Hammersmith Town Centre.
5.19 The policy then sets out a range of criteria against which proposals in the
areas identified above will be considered against. Any such proposal will need
to demonstrate that it (amongst other things): has a positive relationship to
the surrounding townscape in terms of scale, streetscape and built form; is of
the highest quality of architectural design and materials with an appropriate
form and silhouette which contributes positively to the built heritage and
image of the Borough; has an acceptable impact on the skyline, and views
from and to public spaces, the riverside and waterways and other locally
important views and prospects; and has had full regard to the significance of
heritage assets including the setting of, and views to and from, such assets,
has no unacceptable harmful impacts, and should comply with Historic England
guidance on tall buildings.
5.20 The purpose of Local Plan Policy DC8 is to conserve the significance of the
Borough’s historic environment by protecting, restoring and enhancing its
heritage assets. A series of principles is then set out which are to apply when
applications affecting heritage assets are to be determined. These include: the
presumption will be in favour of the conservation, restoration and
enhancement of heritage assets and the more significant the designated
heritage asset concerned the greater the presumption should be; applications
should conserve the setting of, make a positive contribution to, or reveal the
significance of the heritage asset – the presence of heritage assets should
inform high quality design with their setting; particular regard will be given to
matters of scale, height, massing, alignment, materials, and use; and
proposals which involve substantial harm, or less than substantial harm to the
significance of a heritage asset will be refused unless it can be demonstrated
that they meet the criteria in paragraphs 134 and 134 of the National Planning
Policy Framework28.
5.21 The latest (July 2021) version of the National Planning Policy Framework29 is of
course a significant material consideration.
5.22 There is no need for me to recite passages from it here but Chapters 4:
Decision-making; 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes; 11: Making
effective use of land; 12: Achieving well-designed places; and 16: Conserving
and enhancing the historic environment are of particular relevance. The
Framework is supplemented by Planning Practice Guidance30 and the National
Design Guide – Planning Practice Guidance for Beautiful, Enduring and
Successful Places (2021)31.
28 Those paragraph numbers refer to the version of the Framework operable when the Local
Plan was adopted
29 CD7.1 - Referred to hereafter as the Framework
30 Relevant passages at CD7.2 – Referred to hereafter as PPG
31 CD7.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 8
5.23 The Council has published planning guidance in an SPD32 and there are several
Historic England publications that have some bearing, notably their Advice
Note 3: the Setting of Heritage Assets33, Advice Note 3: Tall Buildings34 and
the second edition of the consultation draft on the replacement for Advice Note
4: Tall Buildings35.
5.24 Last, but by no means least, all accept that the proposal will affect the setting
of listed buildings. As such, s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended)36 needs to be taken into account.
This requires that in considering whether to grant planning permission for
development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning
authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special
regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any
features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
5.25 All accept too that the proposal would have an impact on the settings of
various conservation areas. However, s.72(1) of the Act does not protect the
settings of conservation areas so it has no application in this case.
6 The Case for the Applicant
6.1 This is set out in full in opening and closing statements to the Inquiry and in
evidence37. What follows is a summary of the case presented in closing,
supplemented by post-Inquiry submissions relating to the Hillingdon case38,
but it is imperative that the applicant’s evidence, and the application and
supplementary material is considered in full in order to gain a proper
appreciation of the case presented.
Introduction
6.2 A tall building has stood on this site for most of the last 60 years. Clem Attlee
Court opened in 1957. Pevsner described it as Fulham’s post-war showpiece39.
As has been explained, the estate heralded a shift in the character of this area
of Fulham toward housing for all as part of the new welfare state which had
been born under Clement Attlee40.
6.3 Edith Summerskill House - 68 affordable homes arranged across 18 storeys –
along with its companion building Herbert Morrison House, were added to the
estate in the early 1960s. They were then two of the Borough’s tallest
buildings. The vision for tall point block buildings on the estate was laudable,
and was influenced in particular by French, Swedish and Danish examples of
the early 1950s41. However, Edith Summerskill House was a poorly executed
32 CD8.1
33 CD7.5
34 CD7.6
35 CD7.7
36 Referred to hereafter as the Act
37 ID1 and ID12, CD4.1, CD4.10-CD4.13, CD4.17-CD4.22
38 ID13 and ID14
39 CD4.12 Paragraph 2.17
40 CD4.12 Paragraph 2.6
41 CD4.12 Pages 14-16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 9
building and the Council demolished it for health and safety reasons in 2018,
to make way for the scheme at issue.
6.4 The proposal is an urgently needed replacement for Edith Summerskill House.
It has the staunch support of both the Council and the GLA.
6.5 It is a building of exceptional quality. This scheme was one of only 17
projects worldwide to be shortlisted for the World Architecture Festival Future:
Residential Award in 2019. It will set a new benchmark not only locally, but
regionally and nationally for what is possible in the development of social
housing. It will be a beacon of the estate’s regeneration42.
6.6 But the building is not only a wonderful piece of architecture. It will address
the urgent needs of some of the Borough’s most vulnerable residents by
delivering 133 affordable homes – 105 social rent and 28 intermediate units.
These will be, in the language of the London Plan43 genuinely affordable
homes, and that was strongly supported by the GLA44. They will make the best
use of a sustainably located brownfield site, in a way which accords with a raft
of local, London-wide and national policies45. The needs are profound. And
local, London-wide and national policies tell us to meet them in sustainable,
brownfield locations exactly like this one.
6.7 The case for the applicant can be summed up under the following headings: (i)
There is an acute and chronic shortage of affordable housing in the Borough;
(ii) The development plan requires the site to be optimised; (iii) This is an
appropriate site for a tall building; (iv) This building’s design is exceptional; (v)
The scheme will make a positive contribution to the townscape; (vi) The
building’s impacts on the historic environment are decisively outweighed by
public benefits; (vii) The argument over ‘alternatives’ takes us nowhere; (viii)
There are no other considerations that weigh against the grant of permission;
and finally (ix) The planning balance.
(i) There is an acute and chronic shortage of affordable housing in the
Borough
6.8 The Council’s Local Plan46 was adopted in February 2018. It paints a portrait of
a borough of contrasts, and of wealth and deprivation47. On the one hand, we
find some of the highest house prices in the UK. On the other, 8 of the
Borough’s Lower Super Output Areas are in the top 10% of the most deprived
nationally48. Sadly, that includes the Clem Attlee Estate.
6.9 Along with high levels of deprivation, the Local Plan describes a Borough which
has become increasingly polarised49 - in particular that: the mix of social
housing tenants has come to include proportionally more people on lower
42 As Professor Tavernor put it
43 CD6.1 Policy H4
44 CD2.4 Paragraph 9
45 CD6.1 Policies GG2, H1 and D3 and the Framework (CD7.1) Paragraphs 119-120
46 CD5.1
47 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.3
48 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.7
49 CD5.1 Paragraphs 2.8-2.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 10
incomes, some experiencing multiple deprivation50. Deprivation and
polarisation have led to a range of social ills including high levels of child
poverty51 and lower life expectancy in less affluent parts of the Borough52 -
almost 8 years lower for men, and 5.5 for women. More housing and better-
quality housing is at the heart of the Council’s strategy to right these wrongs,
and to improve the health of the local community53.
6.10 That is why the lack of affordable homes for low- and middle-income
households is recognised as a key challenge for the Local Plan54. The Council’s
existing housing stock (which of course includes the Clem Attlee Estate) is said
to be old and increasingly expensive to maintain to a decent standard55. In
particular, the design of the Council’s social housing stock makes it difficult to
increase the number of wheelchair accessible homes56, and their lack of energy
efficiency exacerbates fuel poverty57. Recent stock has tended to comprise
smaller units which leads to overcrowding which, in turn, affects residents’
health and well-being58.
6.11 The consequences of the very high cost of private housing in the Borough are
spelled out in the Local Plan. In the end, many households have no choice but
to leave altogether59.
6.12 There were 1,950 households on the Council’s Housing Register, waiting for a
home, in 201760. That number already told a desperate story. As the Secretary
of State has said in many decisions, these are real people, in real need, now.
And their voices are not often heard in planning inquiries. It is disturbing then
to find that this number has now increased to around 3,00061. Getting off that
list and finding an appropriate home in this Borough can take a decade62.
There are many, many more households (1,374 in 2017) in temporary
accommodation and 17% of households in social rented housing in the
Borough are overcrowded63. The picture is bleak.
6.13 Which is why we find, at the heart of the Local Plan’s spatial vision64 and its
strategic objectives65 the aim to deliver 22,000 homes up to 2035, of which
50% will be affordable, in order to meet the needs of local people and
maintain and create more mixed and sustainable communities. That objective
50 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.9
51 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.10
52 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.11
53 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.12
54 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.20
55 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.23
56 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.24
57 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.26
58 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.25
59 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.20
60 CD5.1 Page 98
61 CD5.3
62 CD5.3
63 CD5.1 Paragraph 6.35
64 CD5.1 Page 27
65 CD5.1 Page 30
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 11
is expressed in the Local Plan’s policies HO166 and HO367. The plan seeks to
maximise affordable housing supply68.
6.14 The Borough’s challenge became even more acute earlier this year when its
housing target was increased through the new London Plan69. The heart of the
London Plan’s ambition is for good growth which is to say growth that is
socially and economically inclusive and environmentally sustainable70.
6.15 One of the six Good Growth Objectives is in London Plan Policy GG4:
Delivering the homes Londoners need71. That requires many more homes to be
delivered, with a strategic target of 50% of those being genuinely affordable.
Policy H1 A72 sets a new target for this Borough of 16,090 homes over 10
years. Policy H4 A sets the strategic target for 50% of those homes to be
affordable73.
6.16 Delivering more genuinely affordable housing is described as a key strategic
issue for London74. All schemes are required75 to maximise the delivery of
affordable housing and make the most efficient use of available resources (of
which more below).
6.17 What is remarkable is that even this bold strategic target will not actually meet
needs for affordable housing – the evidence showed that the true need was for
65% of London’s new homes to be affordable76.
6.18 Nonetheless, the position is clear; the development plan requires this Borough
to deliver over 8,000 affordable homes in the period up to 2031, or around
805 affordable homes annually. However, the average annual delivery of
affordable homes in the Borough since 2017/18 has been 153 homes. The
scale of under-delivery is enormous. The cumulative shortfall in the delivery of
affordable homes in just the last four years has been over 1,700.
6.19 Which is why the staggering need for more affordable homes in this Borough is
a point of common ground: The GLA records an identified local need for new
genuinely affordable homes, and accords substantial weight to this scheme’s
addressing of those needs77; the Council describes the need for more
affordable housing as pressing78 and the state of the Borough’s affordable
housing shortage as chronic79; the Rule 6(6) party called the need for
affordable housing overwhelming80; and the applicant describes the shortfall in
66 CD5.1 Page 90
67 CD5.1 Page 95
68 CD5.1 Page 97
69 CD6.1
70 CD6.1 Paragraph 1.01
71 CD6.1 Page 22
72 CD6.1 Page 157 and Table 4.1
73 CD6.1 Page 172.
74 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.4.1
75 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.4.1
76 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.4.5
77 CD 2.3 (GLA Stage 1 Report) Paragraphs 46 and 76
78 CD4.9 Paragraph 9.9
79 Mr Wilson in-c
80 Mr Turney’s oral evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 12
the Borough’s delivery of affordable homes as substantial and attributes very
substantial weight to the scheme’s contribution to addressing those needs81.
6.20 At the national level, the social objective at the heart of the Framework
requires us to ensure that: a sufficient number and range of homes can be
provided to meet the needs of present and future generations82. That objective
is not being met in the Borough.
(ii) The development plan requires this site to be ‘optimised’
6.21 The London Plan’s second Good Growth principle is in London Plan Policy GG2:
Making the best use of land. The need for this approach flows from the rapid
growth of London, which leads to increasing and competing pressures on the
use of space83. The London Plan explains that: this will mean creating places of
higher density in appropriate locations to get more out of limited land84.
6.22 This objective is set out in London Plan Policy GG285. We are, in particular,
required to: (i) Enable the development of brownfield land on surplus public
sector land, and sites on the edge of town centres, as well as utilising small
sites; (ii) Prioritise sites which are well connected by existing or planned
public transport; (iii) Proactively explore the potential to intensify the use of
land to support additional homes and workspaces, promoting higher density
development, particularly in locations that are well-connected to jobs,
services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling;
and (iv) Apply a design-led approach to determine the optimum
development capacity of sites.
6.23 The objective is taken further by London Plan Policy H1 B which requires us to
optimise the potential for housing deliverable on suitable and available
brownfield sites and especially sites with PTAL ratings of 3 to 6, public sector
sites, and small sites.
6.24 Higher density development is to be promoted in locations which are well
connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport,
walking and cycling86.
6.25 The application site is: brownfield; on public-sector owned land; and in a well-
connected location accessible to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by
public transport walking and cycling. The site has a PTAL of 4 which accounts
for a good level of access to public transport. There are three bus stops within
a 300m walk of the site with very frequent services, and Fulham Broadway
Underground Station on the District Line is around 850m to the south-east of
the site. Moreover, the site is only 120m from the Fulham Regeneration Area,
and the boundary of Fulham Town Centre.
6.26 For those reasons, the principle not only of this site’s re-development but of its
optimisation is right at the heart of the London Plan’s requirements. That
81 CD4.13 Paragraph 8.31
82 CD7.1 Paragraph 8(b)
83 CD6.1 Paragraph 1.2.1
84 CD6.1 Paragraph 1.2.2
85 CD6.1 Page 17
86 CD6.1 Policy D3 B Page 110
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13
optimisation is not some kind of mechanistic function, like, for example, a
density matrix87. Rather, the optimisation must follow a design led approach
which optimises the site’s capacity, which means ensuring that development is
of the most appropriate form and land use for the site88. The manner in which
the scheme’s design meets this test is dealt with below.
6.27 There is a further consequence of the policy requirement to optimise. In the
case of desperately needed affordable housing, when a redevelopment seeks
to replace homes, there can be no net loss in the number of new homes.
That is made clear in the Local Plan, which tells us that when social housing is
redeveloped to improve its quality: there should be no net loss of
social/affordable rented housing in terms of numbers of dwellings89.
6.28 That aim is also expressed through London Plan Policy H890. All the parties
agree that this policy is relevant to this application91. Its application must be
treated with care. Sub-paragraphs A and D state that: A Loss of existing
housing should be replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with
at least the equivalent level of overall floorspace; and D Demolition of
affordable housing, including where it is part of an estate redevelopment
programme, should not be permitted unless it is replaced by an equivalent
amount of affordable housing floorspace.
6.29 Read literally, the previous Edith Summerskill House is no longer existing
housing within A. Its demolition has already been permitted within D. So,
again read in a literal way, those provisions are not engaged. But policies
should not be read literally like a contract or a statute. Policies must be
interpreted with reference to their broad purpose and overall context92.
6.30 Here, that purpose is spelled out in the accompanying text to London Plan
Policy H8 which tells us (with emphasis in the original): Estate regeneration
that involves the loss and replacement of affordable housing should deliver an
uplift in affordable housing wherever possible93.
6.31 Which explains why one of the Mayor’s key requirements, as set out in the
GLA Stage 1 report in this case, is that proposals ensure no loss of affordable
housing94, and that the GLA found the application in accordance with London
Plan Policy H8.
6.32 It is also why the Council95 in its role as local planning authority would expect
a scheme on this site as an absolute minimum to re-provide the affordable
homes which were lost when Edith Summerskill House was demolished, and
that their delivery should not just be reproduced, but optimised.
87 So Mr Turney’s comparison to illustrative density parameters takes us nowhere
88 CD6.1 Policy D3 A Page 110
89 CD5.1 Paragraph 6.27
90 CD6.1 Page 185
91 CD4.7 Paragraph 9
92 SoS of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Homes Ltd [2017] 1 W.L.R.
1865 Paragraphs 74-75
93 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.8.5
94 CD2.3 Paragraphs 19-24
95 As set out by Mr Wilson
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 14
6.33 That part of the requirement to optimise has implications for the kind of
scheme which can come forward on this site. All parties – including the Rule
6(6) party – agree that the site should be re-developed urgently for affordable
housing. Its redevelopment will have been separated by a few years from the
demolition of the previous building. But this scheme’s purpose is simple: to
replace and upgrade Edith Summerskill House.
6.34 It would fly in the face of the approach to optimising site capacity for this
scheme to do anything other than re-provide, and then increase the
number and quality of affordable homes.
6.35 What is proposed is the replacement of a building of some 18 storeys which
provided 68 homes on a relatively small and constrained site. That is why,
applying modern floor-to-ceiling heights and the requirement to optimise this
site’s capacity, a policy-compliant approach to this inevitably results in a
building of greater height.
(iii) This is an appropriate site for a tall building
6.36 In 2016, well before the demolition of Edith Summerskill House, the Council
produced a background paper on Tall Buildings to inform its next Local Plan96.
The purpose of that document was to identify: broad areas where tall buildings
may be appropriate within the existing townscape setting97. The Clem Attlee
estate is noted as part of that existing townscape setting, and the paper
explains that the estate includes tall buildings98.
6.37 The paper did not suggest putting more tall buildings on this estate than were
already there. However, the function of the paper was to identify areas for
new tall buildings99. The paper did not look backwards – it did not evaluate
whether areas where tall buildings already exist, like the Clem Attlee Estate,
were appropriate or not either for the tall buildings they already contained, or
for new tall buildings. In particular, it was silent on the issue of re-providing
tall buildings on sites (like at the Clem Attlee Estate) where tall buildings
already existed.
6.38 That 2016 Study fed into Local Plan Policy DC3100 which says that: Tall
buildings, which are significantly higher than the general prevailing height of
the surrounding townscape and which have a disruptive and harmful impact on
the skyline, will be resisted by the Council. However, areas where tall buildings
may be appropriate are as follows: White City Regeneration Area; Earls Court
and West Kensington Opportunity Area; South Fulham Riverside Regeneration
Area; and Hammersmith Town Centre.
6.39 The applicant101 accepts that while the policy is not explicit in this regard, it
can reasonably be read as presuming against new tall buildings outside these
96 CD14.11
97 CD14.11 Paragraph 2.2
98 CD14.11 Paragraph 4.5
99 CD14.11 Paragraph 7.1 focuses on: any new tall building
100 CD5.1 Page 173
101 Through Mr Henderson
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 15
areas. For that reason, it is accepted that the proposal conflicts with Local Plan
Policy DC3, and by extension, with London Plan Policy D9 B 3)102.
6.40 However, care must be taken when weighing that conflict because when Local
Plan Policy DC3 was adopted, Edith Summerskill House was still in place. The
policy, like the evidence base it is predicated upon, is silent on the issue of
replacing tall buildings on sites where they already stand. On the contrary, the
work on which Local Plan Policy DC3 was based looked forward to where new
tall buildings could be located in the Borough. It did not consider the
acceptability of areas, like the Clem Attlee Estate, where tall buildings were
already in place.
6.41 What really matters of course is the purpose of the policy. That is spelled out
in the Plan103: The policy aims to ensure that tall buildings do not harm the
built heritage and townscape character, but are properly located, contribute in
a positive manner to enhance a sense of place and are an integral part of the
long-term spatial vision for the borough.
6.42 That is why we must also consider the extent of the scheme’s accordance with
detailed development management criteria at Local Plan Policy DC3 criteria (a)
to (j)104 and London Plan Policy D9 C105. The reason is that where the building
does, for example, contribute positively to the townscape (through an
exceptional design), the fundamental purposes behind these policies are not
infringed.
6.43 The design of the building is dealt with below but its very high quality, and the
positive contribution it would make to the local townscape and sense of place
mean the core objectives of Local Plan Policy DC3 and London Plan Policy D9
would be met. That does not obviate the conflict with the letter of those
policies. But it should reduce the weight that conflict attracts in the planning
balance.
6.44 The reason this policy issue is a point of dispute before the Inquiry is because
of the judicial review106 against the Council’s previous grant of permission for
the scheme. That grant was quashed by the High Court for the following
reason107: The Officer’s Report failed to consider the acceptability of the
proposed development against the baseline of a cleared site. The failure to do
so meant that the Defendant left out of account a material consideration.
6.45 Should permission be granted for this scheme, the demolition of Edith
Summerskill House will have preceded its redevelopment by a few years. That
means even though a tall building has been a characteristic of this townscape
for many decades, the Rule 6(6) party is right to say, technically at least, that
the baseline is that of a cleared site. That has meant that some of the
assessments have needed to be re-run (and, indeed, the relevant assessments
have been re-run). But this point about baseline: (i) does not negate the
102 CD6.1 Page 138
103 CD5.1 Paragraph 12.18 Page 174
104 CD5.1 Page 173
105 CD6.1 Page 138
106 Brought by Mr Turney
107 CD14.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 16
decades-long history of there being a tall building on the site as part of the
townscape and local character; (ii) does not obviate the requirement to
optimise the capacity of the site for the reprovision of affordable housing; (iii)
does not somehow render a site which has been appropriate for a tall building
for decades somehow inappropriate; and (iv) does not render a building that
was beautifully designed before the Judicial Review any less successful after
the Judicial Review.
6.46 It was suggested108 that there is not, and has never been, a successful tall
building on the Clem Attlee Estate. But as the applicant has made clear109, the
historic failure was not in the principle of a tall building on this site, it was in
the detail of its execution.
6.47 Viewed realistically, there has been a tall building on the application site for
most of the last 60 years. The idea that the site is, all of sudden, somehow
inappropriate for a replacement tall building is untenable.
6.48 Again, the clear direction of the London Plan is that when affordable homes are
to be replaced, their replacements should be at existing or higher densities
with at least equivalent floorspace110. That imperative runs through local,
London-wide and national policy. This scheme responds to it with elegance,
ingenuity and compassion. And it is to that design response that we now turn.
(iv) The building’s design is exceptional
6.49 This scheme is an outstanding piece of design. The Council111 called it a
game changer in the quality of affordable housing. They are right. In the
future, if permission is granted, this building will come to be just as celebrated
as Pugin’s nearby Church of St Thomas of Canterbury (more on which below).
It will raise the bar for built form in this part of London.
6.50 The real genius of this building lies in the overlapping square arrangement of
its footprint, its staggered volume, the classical proportions and elevational
rhythm of its arched façades, and its inner and outer skins. It will make a
slender and elegant contribution to the townscape. It will activate the
frontages at ground floor level. It will improve the public realm. Its internal
arrangements will create functional and sustainable homes of outstanding
quality for its residents.
6.51 As was explained112, there were three ambitions for this project: (i) to respond
to the heritage of the Clem Attlee estate and its poignant history in relation to
the Welfare State and the idea that housing might have a civic property, by
making a well-designed and beautiful building; (ii) to design very high quality,
well planned and well-lit homes in a way which optimises the site’s capacity;
and (iii) to ground the building in its context through active frontages which
shape the public realm using tactile materials and robust details which will age
well.
108 By Mr Turney
109 Through Professor Tavernor
110 CD6.1 Policy H8
111 Through Mr Jones
112 By Mr Henley in-c
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 17
6.52 Fulham suffered from bomb damage during the 2nd World War. The application
site and the area to the north, previously terraced houses, were razed to the
ground. As part of the extensive post-war reconstruction, the Clem Attlee
Estate was built, and the first buildings were opened by former Prime Minister
Clement Attlee in 1957.
6.53 Attlee was Prime Minister between 1945-51. His government reformed trade
union legislation, working practices and children’s services; it created the
National Parks system, passed the New Towns Act 1946, and established the
town and country planning system through the Town and Country Planning Act
1947113.
6.54 Each of the estate’s buildings is named for a member of Attlee’s cabinet.
Baroness Edith Summerskill (1901-1980) was a doctor and politician who
became a leading figure in Attlee’s government. She served as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1945–50) and as Minister of National
Insurance (1950–51).
6.55 Edith Summerskill House and its companion building, Herbert Morrison House,
were added to the estate in the early 1960s. At that time, they were the tallest
buildings in the area. The masterplan for the estate established an important
area of open space between the two buildings114.
6.56 Edith Summerskill House was a prominent building – 68 affordable homes
arranged across 18 storeys. It met important local needs in the provision of
affordable homes. But the quality of its design and accommodation was poor.
Its generic H plan presented blank gable ends to the rest of the estate and to
St Thomas’s way. It appeared to turn its back on the terraced housing to the
south115. It was made of a reinforced concrete frame, had substandard floor-
to-ceiling heights, and it contained asbestos.
6.57 As for the proposed replacement, the first moment of genius in its conception
was the overlapping square arrangement of its plan form116. That approach has
several advantages. It reduces the building’s perceived width, it increases the
building’s surface area, which maximises the potential for natural light and
good ventilation, and it allows for the building to be set back to create public
space along St Thomas’s Way.
6.58 The approach has allowed for more elegant proportions to be composed, along
with a generous and efficient floorplate. As was explained117, this is a building
with no corridors. It maximises the efficient use of space. Its residents would
enjoy an unusually generous amount of light (5 out of 7 homes on each floor
will have dual-aspect living areas), and internal living space.
6.59 From the entrance foyer to the community room, to the mezzanine, to the
cycle storage area, to the efficient but generous arrangements of apartments
113 CD4.12 Paragraph 2.7
114 CD4.10 Paragraph 2.6.4
115 CD4.12 Paragraph 2.20 and the aerial photograph at CD4.10 Page 10
116 See the illustration at CD4.10 Page 19
117 By Mr Henley in-c
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 18
across each floor, the approach to the building’s layout has been meticulous
and ingenious.
6.60 The double square floorplate leads to a staggering of the volume118. That
approach reduces the apparent mass of the building and generates more
elegantly proportioned primary elevations.
6.61 The building is characterised by a composition of 2 and 3 storey precast
concrete columns and arches which are composed to moderate the building’s
scale, to provide depth and shadow, and to enrich its façades. The top of the
building is crowned by a projecting open frame, an extension of the piers
below, softening its silhouette and framing the sky.
6.62 This building is designed to be appreciated at a number of different scales –
from the wider urban townscape to the more localised streetscape to the
human scale at street level119. This approach has resulted in a series of well-
proportioned relationships in the way the façades are designed120.
6.63 In particular, the height of the building has been tested in relation to the
Golden Ratio. The bays also arrange themselves into different square and
golden rectangle proportions. All of which leads to harmonic rhythms running
through the building121.
6.64 Then, the approach brings together two orders – the domestic and the civic.
One of the ways in which this is achieved is by giving the building 2 skins –
meticulously detailed windows overlain by the concrete arches122.
6.65 This approach is the opposite of the utilitarian or functionalist style which
characterises so much of England’s social housing – a style driven more by
procurement procedures than by aesthetic quality.
6.66 By contrast this proposal celebrates the role of this building and the lives of
the people who will live in it by giving it depth and richness with texture. The
aim is to create a building in which people have pride123. This building presents
so much more to the world than an assemblage of its functional elements. It
has an order, a completeness, not borne out of functional necessity but out of
the aim to dignify the lives of those who will live in it.
6.67 The carefully selected materials, including different textures of ivory-coloured
concrete and bronze anodised aluminium window frames, exploits the effect of
light and shade which accentuates the three-dimensional form of the building
and animates the façade. The façade will be precast which will ensure it can be
constructed efficiently and to a high standard, and in a way which weathers
well.
6.68 The wild-bond brick at ground-floor level will meet the ground with a tactile,
human scale. The archways will provide a welcoming entrance to the estate,
118 See the illustration at CD4.10 Page 24
119 See the illustration at CD4.10 Page 51
120 As explained by Mr Henley and Professor Tavernor in oral evidence
121 As Mr Henley put it
122 See the illustration at CD4.10 Page 57
123 As Mr Henley outlined in oral evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 19
improving permeability, and the community space will open the building up to
its neighbours in the estate, and activate the ground floor124.
6.69 This scheme took shape over many years of evolution in consultation with the
Council, the GLA, the applicant’s consultants125, as well as the general public.
There was no fixed brief. No minimum quantum to be delivered. What has
resulted is a wonderful response to a constrained site. But it has emerged in a
design-led way, always cognisant of the estate’s civic history, and the
requirement of the development plan to optimise the site’s potential.
6.70 It has been repeatedly suggested by the Rule 6(6) party that the building
should have been fundamentally redesigned as a result of the successful
Judicial Review. But why?
6.71 Following the Judicial Review, the relevant technical assessments were re-run
against a bare earth baseline, and there were new assessments on townscape
and on heritage126. The outcome of that work was positive. The work
confirmed, even measured against a bare earth baseline, that this scheme will
enhance the quality of the local townscape and only bring about low-level
harm to the significance of two heritage assets (more on these points below).
6.72 The updated work confirmed the obvious: this building is exceptional. Its
success does not depend on the point made in the Judicial Review. So, there is
no requirement to go back to the drawing board.
6.73 The Rule 6(6) party also suggested that the Design Team should have
produced a separate capacity study for the site. But again, why? The work of
the architect in evolving the design is so much more sophisticated, subtle, and
advanced. The design successfully optimises the site’s capacity. It delivers an
uplift in affordable housing without causing any unacceptable harm to
townscape, heritage, or anything else.
6.74 In the end, as was explained127, the scheme draws on the area’s rich
architectural heritage including: (i) Pugin’s concern for the honesty and use of
materials and structure; (ii) the concrete architecture of Clem Attlee Court;
and (iii) the brickwork and detailing of the terraced houses, in particular, that
lie to the south of the site.
6.75 This scheme will raise the bar for the quality of the built form in this part of
West London. The architects’ attention to detail on everything from materials
to textures, to internal layouts, to the proportions and layering of the
building’s façades, has been meticulous.
6.76 The scheme’s ambition128: is to create a grounded tower of affordable homes,
in fact a civic building of housing, that dignifies the lives of residents and
neighbours. This would set it apart from most welfare state council housing
built in British cities in the third quarter of the Twentieth Century and most
affordable housing being built today.
124 See the illustration at CD4.10 Page 69
125 Professor Tavernor and Mr Froneman
126 By Professor Tavernor and Mr Froneman respectively
127 By Mr Henley in oral evidence
128 CD4.10 Paragraph 5.11.1 Page 49
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 20
6.77 That ambition has been met. As it has been put129, this scheme: sets a new
standard for social housing in this country. The scheme has been endorsed by
a number of independent experts. It has the strong support of the
Hammersmith and Fulham Design Review Panel130 which praised its quality,
rigour and invention. It also has the support of the GLA131 who confirmed that
the building’s architecture is high quality, would enhance the local area, and
would form an attractive landmark. The Council132 praises its design as
sensitive and high quality, in particular picking out the elegant proportions of
its arched facades, the building’s strong expression in its base, middle and top,
and the framing of the crown which would make a particularly positive addition
to the skyline.
6.78 National policy is more concerned than ever with the design quality of new
buildings. This is the kind of high quality, beautiful, and sustainable building
which the Government tells us is fundamental to what the planning and
development process should achieve133.
6.79 This is an outstanding piece of work134. It is correct to say135: The application
scheme provides an opportunity to step out of the shadows of the past, to
raise the character and quality of architecture locally, by providing a
contemporary exemplar of civic, social housing of the highest order.
(v) The scheme will make a positive contribution in townscape terms
6.80 This building will enrich the experience of this urban area. In views from the
north, Herbert Morrison House is normally already in view, as is the Empress
State Building at Earls Court. Where this scheme is visible, it will be
understood positively as part of the Clem Attlee estate and will provide a
positive urban focus.
6.81 From the south, again Herbert Morrison House is often already visible. Where
it is seen, this scheme will provide a positive urban focus. Its interlocking
volumes will reduce the visual mass of the building by generating depth to the
composition and creating slender elevations. The projecting open frame at its
crown will capture the sky beyond, the light coloration of the cladding
softening its skyline silhouette. When visible, the scheme’s light coloration and
high-quality detailing will provide a vertical counterpoint to the long
horizontals of the terraces. From closer quarters, on St Thomas’s Way for
example, the rusticated brickwork at the base of the scheme will be visible, as
will the entry arcade. It will provide a colour and texture contrast with the
visually lighter and more slender piers and arches of the residential floors
above.
6.82 From the east, again, the character of the townscape will be enhanced. There
are already views of the Empress State Building, the Ibis Hotel, and the other
129 CD4.12 Paragraph 3.16 Page 33
130 CD4.8 Paragraph 3.33 Page 10
131 CD2.3 – GLA Stage 1 Report
132 CD4.8 Section 3
133 CD7.1 (The Framework) Paragraph 126
134 It is no coincidence that both Professor Tavernor for the applicants and Mr Jones the Council
describe the proposal as one of the finest buildings they have dealt with in their careers
135 CD4.12 Paragraph 3.19
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 21
buildings on the Clem Attlee estate. Where the scheme is seen, its elegant
architectural character and light coloration will complement the eclectic motifs
and verticality of the buildings in streets like North End Road. The scheme will
provide a positive (if sometimes distant) urban focus. The setting of these
streets will be enhanced.
6.83 From the Walham Green Conservation Area, again in those places where it
would be seen, the elegance of the building and its light colouration, will
enhance the character of the street vista, or in some places, have only a
neutral effect.
6.84 From the west, the Central Fulham Conservation Area, most views will be
neutral. However, there will be some adverse impacts on the townscape
because the scheme will be seen in views alongside the spire of the Church of
St Thomas of Canterbury.
6.85 The scheme will make positive contributions to longer-range views where it will
be seen. It does not form part of any designated local or strategic views –
when it is seen, any views will be incidental.
6.86 The Rule 6(6) party suggests that the application site’s context is
predominantly influenced by the 2-3 storey terraced housing to the south136.
That is wrong137. The application site is part of an estate which includes a
number of tall buildings, and on which a tall building sat for most of the last 60
years.
6.87 It is said by the Rule 6(6) party that the transition from the scheme to the
Victorian housing to the south would be too abrupt. But, you could go all over
London and find that kind of contrast 138. When it is well done, as it would be
here, such a contrast need not lead to harm.
6.88 The Rule 6(6) party rely on a TVIA ‘review’139. That evidence has not been
tested and for that reason, the weight to the attributed to it must be
considerably tempered. But in any event, much of the difference comes down
to the repeated assertion that when the building would be seen, its impacts
would be adverse in nature. But, of course, visibility is not the same as harm,
particularly for a building as well designed as this one. As was explained140,
you cannot divorce the building’s exceptional quality from how it will be read in
its context.
(vi) The building’s impacts on the historic environment would be
decisively outweighed by public benefits
6.89 Like Edith Summerskill House was before its demolition, the scheme would be
visible from certain points toward the west of the cemetery of Augustus
Pugin’s Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, and from various points in the
Central Fulham Conservation Area. That would lead to some low-level harm to
the significance of those heritage assets.
136 CD4.14 Paragraph 3.7
137 As Professor Tavernor explained in oral evidence
138 As Professor Tavernor explained in oral evidence
139 Prepared by Ms Claire Brown
140 By Professor Tavernor
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 22
6.90 In terms of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, this was designed by
Pugin, the renowned architect, designer, author, theorist, and leading figure in
the English Roman Catholic and Gothic revivals. It was built in the late 1840’s
to serve a growing population of Irish immigrants. The church is, then, an
example of a building which was intended to serve poorer communities. There
is a powerful resonance between the purposes of the church and the purpose
of the application scheme141.
6.91 The predominant source of the church’s significance lies in its physical form,
design, proportions and physical attributes, such as the fine detailing of its
interior and its plan form. Nonetheless, the setting of the church also
contributes to its significance. The church’s setting has evolved considerably.
It was originally in an open setting with no development either side. But today,
the church is set in a tight urban context.
6.92 That setting includes the cemetery, from which other tall buildings including
Herbert Morrison house can already be seen. Beyond the cemetery, it is
difficult to appreciate the building other than on the Rylston Road itself. There
are incidental views of the spire in the wider area, but as Historic England
explain142, views of spires are unlikely to make significant contributions to the
significance of historic assets unless the views are designed or associative.
6.93 In some views from the cemetery, the scheme will distract from and visually
compete with the spire143. On the other hand, that is not the case for
everywhere in the cemetery; one already appreciates the urban context of the
setting, including tall buildings, from within the cemetery; and this would also
be the case for a building on the appeal site of a substantially lower height.
6.94 In the end, the scheme affects some views in part of the Church’s setting, but
that setting is not the predominant source of the Church’s significance. The
previous Edith Summerskill House was in place when the Church was listed.
The qualities which led to it being listed will not be harmed by this scheme. So,
while there would be some harm to its significance as a result of the proposal,
that harm would be at a low level of less than substantial harm.
6.95 The Rule 6(6) party’s assessment144 of a high level of less than substantial
harm cannot be right. It suggests (on the basis of the metric set out in the
Appendix to the HIA) that most of the Church’s significance would be vitiated
by this scheme. And that is obviously wrong – not least because most of the
Church’s significance derive from features other than its setting; features that
would be wholly unaffected by this scheme. Of course, the Rule 6(6) party’s
HIA was not tested at the Inquiry and that substantially tempers the weight it
can be given.
6.96 As far as the Central Fulham Conservation Area is concerned, the area was
developed in the mid-late 19th century with a street pattern of grid-like
rectilinear roads, bisected by Filmer Road, and lined with Victorian terraced
houses, along with associated pubs, churches, shops and schools. There is a
141 As Mr Froneman explained in oral evidence
142 CD7.5 Page 7
143 As Mr Froneman explained and accepted
144 Arrived at by Mr Griffiths in his HIA Page 27
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 23
good deal of uniformity in the scale and form of the predominant Victorian
terraced houses.
6.97 The tight residential streets limit extensive visibility of areas outside the
conservation area, though there are longer views along the linear roads. There
are views of tall buildings from the area, for example Herbert Morrison House
from Filmer Road, and also Tom Williams House, and the Chelsea Waterfront.
6.98 The areas where the scheme would be most strongly juxtaposed with the
Victorian townscape of the Central Fulham Conservation Area are the areas
around the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury - Rylston Road, Estcourt Road,
and Sherbrooke Road.
6.99 In some views, a tall modern building would distract from the coherence and
uniformity of the townscape. However, only a small degree of harm can be
attributed to that – and well within the lower end of the less than substantial
spectrum in the Framework because the conservation area is relatively large
and many parts of it would not be affected at all. Even where effects would
occur in the streets above, these would not be in both directions of a particular
street, and the distant presence of the proposed development would not
obscure or obliterate the foreground/middle ground townscape of the
conservation area. Rather, it would in most cases be no more than a distant
presence that could provide some distraction.
6.100 In reaching conclusions, reliance is placed145 on the conclusions reached by the
Inspector in a recent case, endorsed by the Secretary of State146, where it was
said that: The first point is that the requirement is to consider the effect on the
significance of the asset as a whole and not just a part of it. The use of views
is a useful tool in the heritage analysis. However, it is not an end in itself and,
in my opinion, the Council made the mistake of being overly reliant on the
effect on views rather than considering the effect on significance of the asset
overall. This is particularly relevant in relation to the particular conservation
areas here because they are extensive and varied in character. This may mean
that findings of harm will be more difficult to substantiate. Nevertheless, that
is the approach that is required, and it must be followed.
6.101 The Rule 6(6) party suggests that the correct approach is more complicated
than that, but it is not. The simple point is that the Framework requires an
assessment of the significance of the affected designated heritage asset,
overall.
6.102 To the extent that the Rule 6(6) party has departed from that, they have
adopted the wrong approach147 to assessing the significance of (in particular)
conservation areas. That might go some way towards explaining why the Rule
6(6) party identifies harm to so many more assets than the applicant, the
Council, the GLA and Historic England. But the other point that flows from the
Rule 6(6) party HIA is the repeated assumption that where the building would
be visible, from a conservation area, that visibility would cause heritage harm.
It would not. Not only because of the building’s exceptional design, but also
145 By Mr Froneman
146 APP/G6100/V/19/3225884 IR Paragraph 399 SoS DL Paragraph 19
147 In Mr Griffiths’ HIA
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 24
because the more distant views have no bearing at all on the significance of
the conservation areas, or other assets, affected. Again, that is the point the
Framework requires us to consider. Visibility is not the same as harm.
6.103 Unfortunately, Historic England’s response to the application148 was similarly
unhelpful. Albeit there is an allegation of harm to the Church of St Thomas of
Canterbury, the extent of that harm is not calibrated, and the basis for the
objection is that (in their view) the harm is not supported by a clear and
convincing justification. But that very considerably steps outside their brief.
6.104 The clear and convincing justification in this case comes through the
Framework paragraph 202 balance – that is the weighing of the scheme’s
public benefits, and in particular the delivery of 133 affordable homes, against
the extent of less than substantial harm. It is well beyond the remit of Historic
England to conduct that balancing exercise. It is telling that the bodies who
are best equipped to reach a proper view on the scheme, namely the Council
and the GLA, both support it.
6.105 The planning balance is considered further below but the position is clear. As
the GLA and the Council agree, the substantial public benefits this scheme will
deliver decisively outweigh the less than substantial harm it would cause to
the significance of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury and the Central
Fulham Conservation Area.
6.106 For completeness, while none of the parties allege that substantial harm (in
the language of the Framework) would be caused, the applicant has addressed
the issue149. It is a matter of planning judgement that should be informed by
the language of the PPG, and the Bedford and Bramshill decisions150, but in the
end it is a matter for the decision-maker. That is also consistent with the very
latest word on this subject from the Minister of State for Housing151.
(vii) The argument over ‘alternatives’ takes us nowhere
6.107 The principles were summarised by the Planning Court in the Stonehenge and
Trusthouse Forte cases152. These include (i) the fact that other land exists
upon which the development proposed would be yet more acceptable for such
purposes would not justify the refusal of planning permission for that proposal;
(ii) alternatives will only be relevant in exceptional circumstances, and
normally only in situations where (among other things) (a) there is an
alternative site for the same project which would not have the same adverse
effects, or would not have them to the same extent, and (b) there could only
be one permission granted for a development, or at least only a very limited
number of permissions; (iii) that position is to be contrasted to cases where
permission is sought for dwellings; and (iv) in those exceptional circumstances
where alternatives might be relevant, vague or inchoate schemes, or which
have no real possibility of coming about, are either irrelevant, or where
relevant, should be given little or no weight.
148 CD2.19
149 CD4.11 Page 35
150 CD9.2 and CD9.1 respectively
151 CD14.15 Paragraphs 34-44
152 CD9.4 Paragraphs 268-276 and CD9.5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 25
6.108 In this case, there is no alternative scheme before the Inquiry and no
alternative site(s) for this scheme either. The exceptional circumstances in the
caselaw do not arise so – at least as far as the common law requirements are
concerned – there was no obligation to consider alternative sites. There is no
relevant policy requirement to consider alternatives in the Local Plan or the
Framework.
6.109 The Rule 6(6) party relies on one of the development management criteria of
London Plan Policy D9 C 1) d)153 which says in relation to tall buildings that:
proposals should take account of, and avoid harm to, the significance of
London’s heritage assets and their settings. Proposals resulting in harm will
require clear and convincing justification, demonstrating that alternatives have
been explored and that there are clear public benefits that outweigh that
harm. The buildings should positively contribute to the character of the area.
6.110 That policy was not part of the development plan when the application was
made. It also, more importantly, is not relevant to the Rule 6(6) party’s own
analysis of the case - because the application is said to fail at the earlier hurdle
of London Plan Policy D9 B 3) – a point addressed above.
6.111 However, the scheme accords with that policy. This Borough has a need not
for hundreds but for many thousands of new affordable homes. It is
inevitable that this need will not be met by one scheme or even a few
schemes. Many, many schemes will be required to meet it, all over the
Borough. The importance of that objective is set out in the Council’s Local
Plan, above. The London Plan emphasises the priority on meeting the need in
sustainable, well-connected brownfield sites just like this one.
6.112 So, unlike the other cases referred to, the need to be addressed by this
scheme could never be met by a single scheme, or even a handful or schemes.
The Borough will need many, many schemes to address its desperate need for
affordable housing.
6.113 That is why an alternative assessment in this case is unnecessary. Even if one
found another site in the Borough to deliver 133 affordable homes, that would
not obviate the need to provide several thousand more homes, and the need
to optimise this site’s capacity to re-provide affordable housing.
6.114 The only issue then is whether or not alternative formulations of the building
were adequately explored within the meaning of London Plan Policy D9 C 1)
d). To answer that we need to start with the agreed context – all agree that
this site should be urgently developed for affordable housing and that its
capacity must be optimised.
6.115 The Rule 6(6) party agrees154 that what previously existed on the site is
relevant to what it should now accommodate. It is proposed to replace a
building of some 18 storeys that provided 68 homes on a relatively small and
constrained site. That is why, applying modern floor to floor heights, and the
necessity to optimise capacity, a policy-compliant approach to this inevitably
results in a building of greater height.
153 CD6.1 Page 139
154 ID10 Paragraph 11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 26
6.116 What matters is how that building is designed and a number of options were
indeed explored155 and that means the relevant criterion of London Plan Policy
D9 has been met156. The alternatives were premised on a building which
increased the number of affordable homes over and above the previous Edith
Summerskill House, but that was an inevitable function of the development
plan. The alternatives were also premised on a taller building, but, given the
requirements to optimise the site, to maximise affordable housing and to make
effective use of a very constrained small site, that too was inevitable.
6.117 There is no alternative scheme put forward on this site, by the Rule 6(6) party,
or anyone else. The Rule 6(6) party does not tell us what optimising the site in
this case would look like. How tall a building? How many homes? Nonetheless,
suggestions were made that an appropriate height might be about 11 storeys,
that is simply replacing the units lost from Edith Summerskill House157. Such
an approach would not make any material difference to the building’s
impacts158. On the contrary, the building would lose its elegant and slender
proportions. The footprint would become more populated, and permeability
would be lost. The scheme would become denser, appearing like a slab, or a
stump. And it would still be visible, in particular from the cemetery. So,
nothing material would be gained from this type of reduction. But almost half
of the benefit provided by the scheme would be lost (68 rather than 133
affordable homes).
6.118 In any event, there is no worked alternative before the Inquiry showing 11
storeys. That is for good reason: the policy objective in both the local and
London Plans is not only to match the extent of housing which has gone
before. It is to optimise site capacity to meet ballooning needs, and to
address the policy objective of maximising the delivery of affordable housing.
6.119 Then, suggestions were made that an appropriate height for a proposal on the
site was somewhere below 7 storeys159. That would provide around 35
affordable homes – a considerable reduction even from the previous Edith
Summerskill House.
6.120 That position is revealing. The planning policy imperative is clear. The site’s
capacity must be optimised, and the provision of affordable housing must be
maximised. For 60 years, a tall building stood on this site and provided 68
affordable homes across 18 storeys. The Rule 6(6) party agrees160 that what
previously existed on the site is relevant to what might replace it. As set out
above, the objectives of the development plan are to increase that amount.
6.121 The Judicial Review established that the correct baseline for technical
assessments is bare earth. That is a clever point for lawyers. However, the
Rule 6(6) party tries to use that argument to prise open an enormous loophole
– because the demolition of Edith Summerskill House preceded the re-
provision of housing by a few years, it is said (rhetorically) that we must now
155 CD1.4 (DAS) Section 5
156 As Mr Henderson explained in re-e
157 Evident from Mr Turney’s questions
158 As Mr Froneman and Professor Tavernor made clear
159 Mr Turney in x-e based on the views of Ms Browne
160 ID10 Paragraphs 5 and 11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 27
re-evaluate whether the optimised re-provision of affordable homes should
happen at all161.
6.122 That argument stumbles when it meets common sense. The outcome of the
Judicial Review does not obviate the need to optimise this site and to meet
urgent needs. The planners, architects and consultants charged with delivering
this site cannot and should not ignore its history. The demolition of Edith
Summerskill House was not a free-standing project. It was always intended
that more affordable housing would be re-provided in its place. And of course,
there is no prospect that either the Council or the GLA would support a scheme
on this site which substantially reduced the amount of affordable housing
measured against the previous Edith Summerskill House. The idea that the site
should only accommodate something of around 7 storeys is not credible.
6.123 Turning back to the various limbs of London Plan Policy D9 C 1) d): the clear
and convincing justification in relation to the low-level heritage harm in this
case is provided by the very substantial weight of public benefits. Making good
a clear and convincing justification does not require a consideration of
alternatives162; the building would make an outstanding contribution to the
character and appearance of the area. Whether alternatives were adequately
explored within the meaning of this policy is not a question of law – it is a
question of judgment. And here, the SCI and the DAS163 demonstrate that the
design evolved through an extensive exploration of various alternative options.
The outcome was that the low-level negative impacts that the building would
cause have been mitigated and ameliorated as far as they can be by careful
and sensitive design choices. That work met the terms of London Plan Policy
D9 C 1) d).
6.124 Still, an important point, the London Plan does not require harm to heritage
assets to be eliminated altogether. The approach in D9 C 1) d) is comparable
to that at paragraph 202 of the Framework which is to say that any harms
must be weighed in the balance against public benefits. That exercise has been
undertaken here and the applicant, the Council and the GLA all agree that the
balance tilts decisively in favour of a grant of planning permission.
(viii) There are no other considerations that weigh against the grant of
permission
6.125 There are no other issues – technical or otherwise – which stand in the way of
the proposal. In particular, the Rule 6(6) party no longer pursues any point
about the adequacy of the scheme’s contribution towards local services and/or
infrastructure.
6.126 Moreover, the Rule 6(6) party no longer raises any issues in terms of fire
safety measured against the relevant policy of the London Plan164 and accepts
that there would be technical compliance with fire safety requirements165.
161 ID10 Paragraph 7
162 As set out on behalf of the Minister of State in CD14.15
163 CD1.20 and CD1.4 respectively
164 CD6.1 London Plan Policy D12
165 ID10 Paragraph 26
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 28
6.127 It is nevertheless suggested that after Grenfell the Secretary of State will wish
to consider whether buildings of this sort remain an appropriate response to
accommodate social housing. No evidence is adduced to support that
contention. In any event, a call-in application like this is obviously not the
correct forum to conduct that kind of consideration. We are here engaged in
the balance of the development plan and other planning considerations under
s.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.38(6) of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This is a decision-making procedure
rather than an opportunity to reconsider the wider merits of existing policy.
6.128 Further, the Rule 6(6) party no longer pursues any point in relation to flooding
or the capacity of the local sewer network.
6.129 The consultation on this scheme has been extensive166. There is no suggestion
that the procedures fell below the relevant legal requirements or those in the
Council’s SCI.
6.130 The scheme accords with the relevant local separation distances in relation to
overlooking167. GIA’s work168 shows that the scheme will not cause a noticeable
alteration to sunlight reaching any of the surrounding amenity spaces.
6.131 Given the site’s constrained urban context, it could never realistically
accommodate enough children’s play-space on site. However, the applicant
has agreed to make a ringfenced contribution of £50,000 toward local play-
space – an approach which satisfies the relevant policies, including London
Plan policy S4, to the satisfaction not only of the Council169 but also the GLA170.
6.132 In terms of daylight/sunlight, the site is at the moment cleared so changes are
inevitable. However, the position is well summarised by the GLA171: The
applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight assessment which assesses
the impact of the building on lighting conditions at surrounding properties. The
assessment shows that, due to a new building being introduced into a vacant
site, some windows to surrounding properties would experience lower levels of
daylight and sunlight than recommended under Building Research
Establishment (BRE) guidance. Overall, 63% of neighbouring windows
assessed would adhere to BRE guidance in terms of daylight, and 93% would
adhere in terms of sunlight. In most cases where breaches do occur, the
breaches are minor. Where more major breaches occur, the affected windows
would generally still receive more than 20% Vertical Sky Component (VSC), or
else the existing level of daylight is so low as to make the loss of daylight
negligible. Noting that this is a vacant site within an urban area, where there is
a reasonable expectation of development occurring, and also that a building
with similar impacts existed on the site for some 50 years before being
demolished in April 2018, the impacts on daylight and sunlight are considered
to be reasonable and acceptable.
166 See the SCI at CD1.20
167 CD8.1 Page 19 HS7 (iii)
168 CD1.24 deals with daylight/sunlight and CD4.23 overshadowing
169 CD4.9 Paragraphs 7.72-7.77
170 CD2.3 Paragraph 34
171 CD2.3 Paragraph 48
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 29
6.133 The Council takes the same view172 and although the Rule 6(6) party criticised
some aspects of the consultants’ work, no evidence was called to suggest that
its conclusions are wrong.
6.134 Wind conditions around the site would be acceptable with the proposed
landscaping and mitigation measures described in the wind microclimate
assessment173. Again, this is a topic on which the Rule 6(6) party has called no
evidence to suggest that the applicant’s expert assessments are wrong. The
applicant’s position, described in the technical reports, is accepted by the
Council174 and the GLA175.
6.135 The Rule 6(6) party originally suggested that the scheme was driven by a
requirement to replace social housing lost from another scheme in the Borough
called Watermeadow Court176. That idea was not supported by the evidence
before the Inquiry177 and it was explained that the suggestion is incorrect. The
driver for this building was providing much needed affordable homes in order
to optimise a sustainable brownfield site.
The Planning Balance
6.136 All parties, including the Rule 6(6) party, agree that the site must urgently be
developed for affordable housing and the scheme to achieve that
redevelopment must respond to the London Plan’s requirements for
optimisation.
6.137 A grant of planning permission would accord with the development plan, read
as a whole. It is also supported by a raft of other material considerations
including, and in particular, national policy in the Framework which sets out
the Government’s priority of significantly boosting housing land supply178 and
the requirement to make effective use of land in meeting the need for homes
in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed, or
brownfield, land179. To that end, the Framework requires decision-makers to
give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within
settlements for homes180.
6.138 Of course, the NPPF also puts great weight on achieving well-designed places,
and this is a scheme which – for all the reasons set out above – meet the
criteria at paragraph 130 of the Framework being visually attractive as a result
of good architecture and adding to the overall quality of the area.
6.139 Given the acute and chronic picture in this Borough explained above in relation
to the delivery of affordable homes, very substantial weight must be given to
their provision here – particularly at such high quality.
172 CD4.9 Paragraph 7.50
173 CD1.19
174 CD4.9 Paragraphs 7.56-7.61
175 CD2.3 Paragraph 47
176 CD4.14 Paragraphs 2.3 and 7.4.1
177 CD4.21 Page 6 refers
178 CD7.1 Paragraph 60
179 CD7.1 Paragraph 119
180 CD7.1 Paragraph 120 (c)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 30
6.140 In the end, this scheme speaks most eloquently to the social objective of
sustainable development at paragraph 8 b) of the Framework which is: to
support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient
number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and
future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places,
with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs
and support communities’ health, social and cultural wellbeing. It is hard to
conceive of a building which better meets that brief.
6.141 Finally, should permission be granted, the Secretary of State has the
assurance of the Peabody Trust, one of London’s leading Housing Associations,
with a 150 year track record, which builds around 1,500 affordable homes
annually, that this scheme will be delivered, and delivered soon181. The
scheme is costed, and it is in the Peabody Trust’s development programme.
Funding is in place. Subject to permission being granted, work could start on
site in June 2022.
6.142 The low-level less than substantial heritage harms are decisively outweighed
by the scheme’s public benefits – in particular, the timely provision of much
needed affordable homes in a building of exceptional quality – so the test at
paragraph 202 of the Framework is passed.
6.143 In the end, in the language of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004, granting the application accords with the statutory
development plan read as a whole, and other material considerations lend
further support to the grant of permission.
6.144 And even if the Secretary of State decides that there is some conflict with the
statutory development plan, other material considerations (in particular the
delivery of much-needed affordable homes on a sustainable brownfield site in
a building of exceptional quality) indicate that permission should be granted
in any event.
6.145 For the purposes of this inquiry, the applicant has accepted the Council’s
stated position that it has a 5 year housing land supply, at face value182. The
burden under paragraph 74 of the Framework is on the Council to demonstrate
a 5 year housing land supply against the up-to-date London Plan target. If the
Inspector or the Secretary of State were to find that burden not discharged,
the consequence would be that the tilted balance is engaged under paragraph
11(d)(ii) of the Framework and in that circumstance, the case for granting
permission would become even stronger than it is already (because the
Secretary of State would then grant permission unless any adverse impacts of
doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole).
6.146 For all those reasons, planning permission should be granted for the scheme.
Post-Inquiry Submissions in relation to Hillingdon
6.147 The judgment in this case has clarified three important points on the
interpretation of London Plan Policy D9. First of all, Parts A and B of the policy
181 CD4.13 Exhibit A
182 CD4.26
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 31
are not a gateway to Part C183. Second, in considering whether to grant
planning permission for a tall building which does not comply with Part B 3) of
the policy, because it is not identified in the development plan, it is sensible,
and in accordance with the objectives of London Plan Policy D9, for the
proposal to be assessed by reference to the potential impacts which are listed
in Part C184. Third, approached in that way, a scheme can accord with the
development plan read as a whole, even if it does not fully accord with London
Plan Policy D9, because it had not been identified as suitable in the
development plan under Part B185.
6.148 The approach taken by the Rule 6(6) party on this issue was that the
requirements in Part C of London Plan Policy D9 are only relevant if the
scheme’s location was identified in the development plan186. That was
considered the obvious ordinary meaning of the policy. As it turns out, that
was wrong – that contention has been rejected by the Planning Court.
6.149 The applicant’s planning evidence was predicated on the conservative
assumption that conflict with London Plan Policy D9 B leads to conflict with
London Plan Policy D9 as a whole187, and the criteria at D9 C are material to
weighing the extent of any conflict with the policy, the weight to be attributed
to any conflict, and whether the scheme accords with the development plan
read as a whole notwithstanding the conflict. This was reflected in the
applicant’s closing188.
6.150 As the Mayor’s position has been accepted the consequences are that: the
basis on which the Rule 6(6) party approached London Plan Policy is wrong;
the precautionary approach in the applicant’s evidence was too conservative –
if the applicant’s evidence is accepted, a finding that the scheme accords with
London Plan Policy D9 read as a whole is possible; in the language of s.38(6)
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the criteria at D9 C are
not only material considerations, they are capable of leading to accordance
with the policy read as a whole even if there is conflict with D9 B; and the
applicant’s essential position is unchanged – a grant of permission would
accord with the statutory development plan read as a whole and there is
support too from a raft of powerful material considerations. In short, the
outcome of the Hillingdon case has made the analysis in favour of a grant of
permission even stronger.
6.151 For the sake of completeness, the Rule 6(6) party has made further points
about Local Plan Policy DC3 but this is not part of the judgment. There is
nothing to add to the submissions already made on that policy.
7 The Case for the Council
183 ID13 Paragraph 82
184 ID13 Paragraph 85
185 ID13 Paragraph 87
186 CD4.3 Paragraph 8 and CD4.14 Paragraphs 6.3 and 6.6
187 CD4.13 Paragraph 5.86
188 ID12 Footnote 63
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 32
7.1 This is set out in opening and closing statements to the Inquiry and in
evidence189. What follows is a summary of the case as presented in closing190,
supplemented by post-Inquiry submissions relating to the Hillingdon case191. It
is, however, imperative that the entirety of the evidence presented by the
Council is considered carefully, in order to properly appreciate their case.
Introduction
7.2 The context for the consideration of this application is the pressing need for
more affordable housing in London, and the Borough, and the urgent need to
redevelop this vacant and highly accessible brownfield site in order to make a
substantial contribution to meeting that need. The housing need position, and
the policies seeking to address that need, and the public interest benefits of
the proposal, appear not to be controversial.
The Pressing Need for More Affordable Housing
7.3 All of the main parties are agreed that there is a pressing – indeed
overwhelming - need for social housing, that the site should be urgently
developed for social housing, and that the public interest benefits associated
with the delivery of such housing should be given very significant weight192.
7.4 That degree of consensus is helpful, and it should not come as a surprise. It
reflects a straightforward application of the policies in the development plan
and the Framework, and the housing need position in London, and in the
Borough.
7.5 The need for more housing in London, and in particular affordable housing, is
clear and stark. In the Mayor’s Foreword to the new London Plan it is explained
that London now faces a: wave of growth, the likes of which has not been seen
for a century. Its population is projected to increase by 70,000 every year,
reaching 10.8 million in 2041 – This means that just to meet demand there is
a need to build tens of thousands of new homes … every single year193.
7.6 The 2017 London Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has identified
a significant overall need for housing, and for affordable housing in particular.
London needs 66,000 new homes each year, for at least twenty years, and the
evidence suggests that 43,000 of them should be genuinely affordable194.
7.7 The targets set by the London Plan, however, will not meet that need and
cannot be increased because they reflect capacity constraints. The ten-year
housing targets set by Table 4.1 of the London Plan are based on the 2017
London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). This shows
that there is capacity across London for approximately 40,000 new homes a
year on large sites (0.25 ha and above), and capacity for development on
small sites (below 0.25ha) for 12,000 new homes a year195. That leaves a
189 ID2, ID11, CD4.2, CD4.8-CD4.9, and CD4.15-CD4.16
190 ID11
191 ID13 and ID14
192 CD4.14 at Paragraphs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5
193 CD6.1 Page XII
194 CD6.1 Paragraph 1.4.3
195 CD6.1 Paragraphs 4.1.7 - 4.1.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 33
significant gap between housing need and supply, even if the ambitious targets
set by the London Plan are met.
7.8 Whilst 65% of London’s housing need is for affordable homes196 (that is 43,500
per year)197, the London Plan’s strategic target is for 50% of the annual
52,287 net housing completions to be genuinely affordable198. In other words,
even if both targets are met it would fall well short of meeting the identified
need for more affordable homes. Delivering more genuinely affordable homes
has therefore rightly been identified as a key strategic issue for London, with
all schemes expected to maximise delivery of affordable housing and make the
most efficient use of available resources199.
7.9 The London Plan identifies a target of 16,090 net housing completions for
Hammersmith and Fulham during the plan period200, an annual target of
1,609. This is markedly higher than the previous annual target of 1,031201. At
present there is an accumulated shortfall against the previous and current
target of 1,688 homes202.
7.10 The SHMA undertaken for the Local Plan shows that to meet the need for
affordable housing, 100% of all new homes should be affordable. The Borough
is characterised by areas with high levels of deprivation. Eight of the Borough’s
Lower Super Output Areas are within the top 10% most deprived nationally,
including the Clem Attlee Estate203.
7.11 The Borough is also an area of contrasts, of wealth and deprivation204.
Notwithstanding the existence of areas of significant deprivation such as the
Clem Attlee Estate, the Borough has the 4th highest house prices in the
country205. As at March 2016 the average house price was £767,000206. This
has resulted in a disproportionately high need for affordable housing in the
Borough, and accordingly the lack of affordable homes to rent or buy for low-
and middle-income households is identified as: a key challenge for the Local
Plan207. Paragraph 6.35 of the Local Plan provides some sense of the scale of
the challenge: The need for more affordable housing in the Borough is
demonstrated by the number of households on the Housing Register – (as of
February 2017) there were 1,950 applicants on the housing register and
approximately 1,374 households in temporary accommodation. Also 17% of
households in social rented housing in the Borough are overcrowded.
Hammersmith and Fulham is ranked 12th in terms of Boroughs with the most
overcrowded properties.
196 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.4.5
197 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.4.1
198 CD6.1 Policy H4: Delivering Affordable Housing
199 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.4.1
200 CD6.1 Page 163 Table 4.1
201 CD5.1 Policy HO1
202 CD4.9 Appendix PW1
203 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.7
204 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.3
205 CD5.1 Paragraph 6.29
206 CD4.9 Appendix PW1 Page 67
207 CD5.1 Paragraph 2.20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 34
7.12 The current position is that there are around 3,000 people who qualify for
Council housing and are waiting to be offered a property in Hammersmith &
Fulham208. In other words, the position has worsened markedly since the
Local Plan was adopted in 2018. The document also paints a stark picture of
the waiting times for properties that are faced by those on the register,
commenting that: It’s difficult to estimate when you will receive an offer of
housing … This can be up to 10 years. We know how distressing it can be if
you’re waiting for social housing. We really appreciate that delays are likely to
make a bad situation worse for many people and we’ll always do everything
we can to help.
7.13 That key challenge is reflected in the Spatial Vision for the Local Plan209:
Genuinely affordable homes to buy and rent will have been delivered to meet
local needs; At least 22,000 additional homes will have been developed,
particularly family and affordable homes to buy or rent, that meet the needs of
local people and maintain and create more mixed and sustainable
communities. Fifty per cent of the new residential dwellings will be affordable.
The new housing will be fully integrated socially, economically and physically
with the rest of the borough. This is underlined further in its Strategic
Objectives210, and the key aim of the Local Plan211: to meet local housing need
by increasing housing supply, particularly the supply of affordable housing.
7.14 The public interest importance of this objective goes further than simply the
scale of the demand. Affordable housing is central to allowing Londoners of all
means and backgrounds to play their part in community life. Providing a range
of high quality, well-designed, accessible homes is important to delivering
what the London Plan has dubbed ‘Good Growth’, ensuring that London
remains a mixed and inclusive place in which people have a choice about
where to live212.
7.15 In these circumstances, it is essential to ensure that opportunities to deliver
more affordable housing in well-designed schemes such as this are seized, and
not unduly delayed.
7.16 That imperative is reflected in the housing policies of the London Plan. In
order to ensure that the ten-year housing targets are achieved, Policy H1:
Increasing Housing Supply213 requires Boroughs to optimise the potential for
housing delivery on all suitable and available brownfield sites, especially those
with good levels of accessibility by public transport, public sector sites, and
small sites.
7.17 As London Plan Policy H2: Small sites makes clear, Boroughs should
proactively support well-designed homes on small sites to significantly increase
the contribution of such sites to meeting London’s housing needs. Increasing
208 CD5.3
209 CD5.1 Page 27
210 CD5.1 Page 30 – see Delivering Affordable Homes for Local People
211 CD5.1 Paragraph 6.25
212 CD6.1 Paragraph 1.4.2
213 CD6.1 Policy H1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 35
the rate of housing delivery from small sites is a strategic priority requiring
positive and proactive planning decisions214.
7.18 London Plan Policy H8 seeks to ensure that when existing housing is lost, it is
replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with at least the
equivalent level of overall floorspace. Indeed, where demolition of affordable
housing is proposed, the policy provides that it should not be permitted unless
it is replaced by an equivalent amount of affordable housing floorspace215. For
the purposes of policy, existing affordable housing floorspace includes vacant
floorspace, regardless of condition216.
The Benefits of the Application Scheme in that Context
7.19 The application scheme provides a valuable opportunity to make a significant
contribution to delivering on that strategic priority, and to do so in short order.
If planning permission is granted, the applicant’s evidence is that
implementation would be likely to follow quickly with commencement on site
as early as June 2022217.
7.20 The application scheme would deliver 133 affordable residential units on a
highly accessible, publicly owned, vacant brownfield site. It would optimise the
development of that site, with a well-designed tall building of dramatically
better architectural quality than the other large and tall buildings on the Clem
Attlee Estate. The proposed new building would enhance the local townscape
and deliver a very high standard of accommodation. Those individuals and
families lucky enough to move from unsuitable accommodation into one of
these spacious and thoughtfully conceived dwellings would benefit from a
substantially improved quality of life as a result.
7.21 The former Edith Summerskill House provided 68 units of affordable housing.
It was vacated in 2011, due to the sub-standard accommodation it provided,
and the conclusion reached that refurbishment was not viable. It was therefore
decided to relocate the existing tenants, demolish the building and redevelop
the site by constructing a new residential building in its place that meets
modern standards. As has been explained218, as a result of the long period of
vacancy and the poor state of the building, concerns over public safety led to a
decision to submit a prior approval application to authorise demolition ahead of
the planning application for the redevelopment of the site. Following its
demolition in 2018 the site has remained empty and unused.
7.22 Although in this case there is no existing housing on site because demolition of
the former Edith Summerskill House preceded the decision on its replacement,
there is no dispute as to the relevance of London Plan Policy H8 in determining
this application for planning permission219. The objective of the policy is to
ensure that where affordable housing is lost through demolition, it is replaced
214 CD6.1 Policy H2 and Paragraph 4.2.1
215 CD6.1 Policy H8
216 CD6.1 Paragraph 4.8.5
217 CD4.13 Paragraph 3.22
218 By Mr Wilson x-in-c
219 CD 4.4 Paragraph 6.2 and CD4.7 Paragraph 9; in terms of the GLA, CD2.3 Paragraph 19
and CD 2.4 Paragraph 7; and for Mr Turney ID10 Paragraph 11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 36
by at least the same quantum of new affordable housing and where possible
more. That is the case regardless of the condition of the existing housing, and
thus the underlying policy objective is not based on there being a real prospect
of a continuation or resumption of the use of the existing housing as a form of
‘fallback’220. Instead, the objective reflects the strong policy and public
interest case for redeveloping sites such as this so as to provide at least
equivalent and preferably additional affordable housing compared to that
which has been lost. It is an approach that reflects the severity of the housing
(and in particular affordable housing) supply position in London, and hence the
importance of avoiding a net reduction where redevelopment takes place.
7.23 Against that backdrop, there is a powerful positive case for the grant of
planning permission for the proposed development. The Mayor of London’s
Stage 2 Report strongly supports the principle of the scheme and the delivery
of the proposed additional affordable housing221. The scheme would accord
with the clear strategic direction given by the London Plan and contribute to
meeting a strategic priority for London, and a strategic objective and key aim
of the Local Plan.
Good Design
7.24 The proposed development is an exceptionally good design. It would provide
an exemplar of what the planning and development process should strive to
achieve222, namely a high quality, beautiful and sustainable building enhancing
both the local and wider area.
7.25 The Council’s evidence223 has provided an independent assessment that
strongly supports the evidence given on behalf of the applicant as to the
quality of the design and how it would accord with the requirements of
planning policy.
7.26 This is undoubtedly a well-considered scheme, derived from a proper
understanding of, and intelligent response to, the site and its context. The
care and attention given to its design and how it will sit within its local and
wider context shines out from the DAS224 and from the applicant’s evidence225.
In turn it is reflected in the local planning authority’s own independent
assessment of what has emerged from that design process.
7.27 The overall effect is a building which celebrates its role in creating affordable
housing in a way that is both visually attractive and practical226. As it was
put227, the architect has made the most of the opportunity presented.
7.28 The scheme would make efficient use of the site, optimising its potential whilst
skilfully reducing its impacts through thoughtful configuration, articulation and
choice of materials. The device of creating two off-set, overlapping squares
220 As required by cases such as Mansell v. Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
221 CD2.4 Paragraphs 7-9
222 CD7.1 (the Framework) Paragraph 126
223 Through Mr Jones CD4.8
224 CD1.4
225 Delivered through Mr Henley (CD4.10-4.10b) and Professor Tavernor (CD4.12)
226 Mr Henley in-c
227 Professor Tavernor in-c
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 37
with distinct volumes results in a slender profile, similar to the former Edith
Summerskill House, and a regular grid. This makes for efficient use of the
available space but also translates into a characteristic and attractive
regularity of the external architecture. The façade of the building has been
designed to provide depth and visual interest, allowing the building to be read
both as a whole and at a variety of scales when viewed within the surrounding
context. This enables the building to respond to that context at different scales
and also serves to moderate its scale228.
7.29 The architectural quality and materials are of an exceptionally high standard.
Its appearance would greatly enhance the appearance of the Clem Attlee
Estate, improving its legibility, the definition of its urban spaces and its overall
townscape and identity. The building would form an attractive landmark,
substantially raising the bar in terms of the quality of design in a location that
already features several large and tall buildings229 but has nothing of this
quality. A landmark building is appropriate here, marking the location of – and
an important entrance to - a large and important estate of social housing and
community facilities, which already features large and tall buildings and has
done so for over 60 years. That is reflected in the fact that the masterplanning
of the Estate included a tall landmark building on this site.
7.30 The relationship between the building and the public realm would be
transformative. The proposal would not only provide public amenity spaces
and enhanced pedestrian routes from St Thomas’s Way to the Clem Attlee
Estate protected by the built form and landscaping, but it would also deliver a
ground floor community facility that would be accessed from the end of the
arcade along the eastern elevation. This would activate the frontage and
overlook the play space situated adjacent to it. It is a really intelligent piece of
design and placemaking.
7.31 The proposed building would be visually attractive, adding to the overall
quality of the area as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and
effective landscaping. It would also function exceptionally well. The evidence230
demonstrates the thought that has gone into the layout and functioning of the
communal areas, and the residential flats themselves. By way of example: (a)
the clever, generous and effective approach to cycle storage would encourage
and facilitate sustainable modal choice, avoiding the problems clearly
encountered elsewhere on the Estate where it can be seen that residents
frequently resort to parking their bikes on balconies (rendering them less
useful) because of the absence of secure storage elsewhere; (b) the communal
areas at ground floor would benefit from natural surveillance, and in turn
provide natural surveillance of the public realm beyond; (c) the flats would
exceed the internal space standards set by the London Plan and the Mayor of
London’s Housing SPG - they would benefit from efficient cores - the majority
would be dual aspect with generous living spaces occupying corners for cross-
ventilation, maximum daylight penetration and excellent outlook; and (d) the
incorporation of additional internal space in lieu of balconies produces an
228 CD4.8 Paragraphs 3.42 to 3.49
229 The 10 storey Jim Griffiths House and Tom Williams House, and the 18 storey Herbert
Morrison House.
230 Of Mr Henley, the architect
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 38
overall benefit in terms of safe and usable living space, given the downsides of
providing external balconies at height.
7.32 As explained below by reference to the first of the main issues, the
development would sit well within the surrounding built environment whilst
representing an appropriate (and beneficial) degree of innovation so as to
make optimal use of the site and to enhance an area that currently lacks
coherence and is clearly in need of improvement.
7.33 The sense of place that exists in the immediate area around the appeal site at
present is neither strong, coherent, attractive nor welcoming. In part, of
course, that is because the site is vacant, and creates a very poor impression
of the Clem Attlee Estate with nothing suitable to mark the location of such a
significant concentration of housing. In addition, the existing townscape on St
Thomas’s Road is very mixed231 and makes this a suitable opportunity for
innovation rather than emulation.
7.34 The proposed building would deliver a substantial positive change, creating a
strong sense of place, with attractive and welcoming public realm defined by
beautiful and distinctive architecture. The southern façade would be aligned
with the adjacent George Lingren and Nye Bevan Houses to create a legible
edge to the street, with attractive public realm beyond. The building would
optimise the site’s potential, creating a safe, inclusive and accessible
environment benefiting both future residents and those who already live on
the Estate.
7.35 The previous scheme, which was almost identical to the application scheme,
was subject to independent design review by the Hammersmith Design Review
Panel. Their response232 was summarised, inter alia, as follows: The panel
[were] most impressed by the quality, rigour and invention displayed in this
project. The panel supported the elevational strategy … They applauded the
rigorous assessment of the design, testing the building in distant and local
views and its impact on the interior.
7.36 Where suggestions were made for further consideration of individual aspects,
the design approach was further refined to respond to the panel’s
suggestions233.
7.37 The end result is said to be234: One of the best social housing schemes I have
seen. A step change from what you would expect and a really high quality and
well-designed development scheme.
7.38 The proposal more than satisfies the policy requirements for good design
generally, and for tall buildings in particular, both in the Framework235 and the
development plan236. It is a design of the highest quality and would deliver a
substantial benefit to the local and wider townscape.
231 As Mr Jones explained
232 As set out by Mr Jones CD4.8
233 CD4.8 Paragraph 3.34
234 By Mr Jones CD4.8 Paragraph 3.34
235 CD 7.1 Paragraphs 126-136
236 CD6.1 London Plan Policies D4, D8, D9 and CD5.1 Local Plan Policies DC1, DC2 and DC3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 39
Impact on the Townscape or the Character and Appearance of the Area
Introduction
7.39 The Council has undertaken its own independent assessment of this issue,
which is reflected in the reports to committee237, and its evidence to the
Inquiry238.
7.40 That evidence is fair, balanced, and independent and is to be commended. It
considers the application scheme on its merits, against the existing baseline of
a cleared site. It is not correct to suggest that this analysis: is infected by the
earlier consideration of the proposals against a radically different baseline239.
There is nothing whatsoever in the Council’s written or oral evidence which
could properly be said to support that criticism. A similar submission can be
made in respect of the applicant’s witnesses.
7.41 In contrast, the Rule 6(6) party chose not to make the author of his
assessment available to explain and answer questions. As was accepted240,
that must limit the weight that can be attached to the assessment.
The Existing Townscape and Character and Appearance
7.42 The townscape character of the area in which the site is located varies
significantly. The site itself is vacant, with the adjacent buildings (George
Lingren House and Nye Bevan House) significantly set back from St Thomas’s
Way. This produces a poorly defined edge to the street, and in its current
condition the site does not present an attractive pedestrian route to the
interior of the Estate, and to the important open spaces and community uses
adjacent to its northern boundary, which were evidently intended to provide a
focal point between the two tallest buildings within the Estate.
7.43 The northern part of the Estate features a cluster of taller buildings.
Elsewhere within the Estate the prevailing heights are mixed and of a generally
lower scale. The Estate suffers from limited provision of amenity space and
direct/permeable pedestrian routes, leaving it with poor legibility and
permeability overall.
7.44 Looking further afield the townscape varies significantly. Whilst the areas
south of the site are characterised by buildings of a lower scale, these terraces
are enclosed by mixed-use commercial developments of various periods with
larger buildings such as the Empress State Building and Ibis Hotel prominent
in longer-distance views. This is an area whose character has very clearly
evolved over time and continues to do so. When the area is considered as a
whole including the Clem Attlee Estate, it is fair to characterise it as mixed in
character with a number of tall buildings both nearby and further afield, yet
clearly visible as part of the wider townscape.
The Assessment of Impact
237 CD 3.2 Section 5.3 and CD3.3
238 CD4.8
239 ID10 Paragraph 6.
240 By Mr Turney in x-e in relation to Ms Browne’s and Mr Griffiths’ material
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 40
7.45 The proposed redevelopment of this site with such a high-quality scheme (as
summarised above) would enrich the townscape quality of the Estate,
improving its appearance, character and identity, and delivering a meaningful
and attractive landmark aiding wayfinding to and within the Estate. As was
explained241, the building deserves what was referred to as a ‘civic’ presence
as an exemplar and a gateway to the Estate - it would be positive, welcoming,
drawing people through and integrating the communities in which it is located.
It would provide a source of pride for those who live on this important and
populous estate; something that the planning system should aspire to achieve
when a prominent affordable housing development is created.
7.46 It would also create an attractive and high-quality addition to the wider
townscape, whose character already includes a mixture of taller buildings seen
from within lower rise terraced residential streets. The building would relate
well to its surroundings at ground level, intermediate level and in longer
distance views.
7.47 The Council has assessed the townscape impacts systematically, reviewing the
impact on grouped townscape views, appraising how the development would
be perceived within this townscape, and considering the issue of cumulative
change242. This assessment demonstrates that where the building is visible,
the impacts would either be beneficial – reflecting the quality of the design - or
negligible. There would be no disruptive and harmful impact of the skyline,
which is important when assessing the degree of conflict with Local Plan Policy
DC3. On the contrary, it would significantly improve the Clem Attlee Estate
and make a positive contribution to the local townscape and the skyline of
Fulham.
7.48 Nothing in the analysis and critique provided by the Rule 6(6) party243 alters
that position244. That is significant, because the analysis and critique provided
on behalf of the Rule 6(6) party was given careful and repeated consideration
in advising Council members in respect of the application, and in the
preparation of the Council’s evidence to the Inquiry. It is not possible to know
what the response would have been to the Council’s criticism that the
assessment prepared on behalf of the Rule 6(6) party was flawed because
there was no proper assessment of the quality of the design and the effect this
should have on the assessment of townscape impact245. There was no
opportunity to ask about this.
Policy Compliance
7.49 For all those reasons summarised and as set out in detail in the Council’s
written evidence, the proposed development would more than meet the
expectations of the Framework in terms of high-quality design, and comply
with the relevant development plan policies: London Plan Policies D4, D8 and
D9; and Local Plan Policies DC1, DC2 and the relevant criteria in DC3
241 By Professor Tavernor in x-e
242 CD4.8 Pages 18-23.
243 That of Ms Browne
244 Mr Jones in-c
245 Mr Jones in-c
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 41
Effect on the Setting and thereby the Significance of Designated
Heritage Assets
Approach
7.50 The Council has undertaken its own independent assessment of this issue246.
That evidence is to be commended as fair, balanced and independent. A
structured approach has been adopted, consistent with the guidance in the
Framework, PPG, and relevant development plan policies247. Furthermore, in
undertaking the assessment, an inherently cautious and conservative approach
to the calibration of harm has been taken. Pending further guidance from the
Courts as a result of the Holocaust Memorial decision248, the Council has
therefore: approached the task of identifying and articulating the extent of any
harm in this case on the basis that it is a matter of judgment, having regard to
the factors that contribute to the significance of the asset in question, and the
extent to which the proposed development would adversely affect that
significance. In order to ensure that my assessment is robust, I have not
assumed that in order for harm to be classed as 'substantial' most if not all of
the significance of the asset in question must be lost. I have recognised,
however, that in accordance with the advice in the PPG ‘substantial’ harm is a
high test, so it may not arise in many cases249.
7.51 The Council’s assessment of impact reaches essentially similar conclusions to
those reached by the applicant’s consultant250.
7.52 The Council recognises that Historic England has objected to the proposals,
and that generally significant weight should be attached to its views. In this
case, however, there are three main factors which must inevitably temper the
weight that is accorded to their representations. First, Historic England has
chosen not to appear at the Inquiry to explain and answer questions about its
position. Second, Historic England has not provided any proper explanation of
how it has sought to calibrate the level of less than substantial harm, or where
on the spectrum the harm would sit. The PPG requires such an exercise to be
carried out for the purposes of decision-making, and its absence is therefore
important. Third, as was explained251, the objection is based on an allegation
that the harm identified has not been ‘justified’, in other words that the
positive benefits associated with the scheme do not outweigh the harm. With
respect, that is a conclusion that is not supported by the substantive parts of
their representation because it requires account to be taken of those benefits,
and then a striking of the heritage balance. Historic England has not attempted
that exercise.
7.53 Likewise, the Rule 6(6) party has not made its expert252 available to answer
questions. That evidence should attract correspondingly reduced weight as a
246 CD3.2 Section 5.3, CD3.3, and CD4.8
247 CD4.8 Paragraph 4.39
248 CD14.5-CD14.7 and CD14.15
249 CD4.8 Paragraph 4.39
250 Mr Froneman
251 Mr Froneman in-c
252 Mr Griffiths
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 42
result. Moreover, the assessment of harm in that evidence is exaggerated,
and lacks balance253. It should therefore be treated with considerable caution.
Assessment of Impact
Conservation Areas
7.54 The Council has identified that there would be some less than substantial harm
to the setting and thereby the significance of the Central Fulham Conservation
Area, towards the lower end of the spectrum254.
7.55 That judgment as to where on the spectrum the harm would sit reflects a
number of points. First, there are already several other large/tall buildings
within the Clem Attlee Estate and thus within the setting of this conservation
area. As such, the introduction of a further tall building would involve only a
relatively limited change in the overall setting of the conservation area.
Second, the Victorian character, grain and appearance of the conservation
area would remain the pre-dominant and legible characteristic of the area and
its surroundings. As with the other existing tall buildings, the proposed
development would sit in the background in views of the terraces and would
not materially harm the ability to appreciate them either individually or
collectively. Third, visibility is not to be equated with harm. Furthermore,
where the proposed building would be visible, the high quality of the design
would serve to mitigate any harm.
7.56 There would not be any harm to the setting or significance of the Walham
Green Conservation Area255. Whilst there would be some degree of inter-
visibility that does not mean that there would be harm caused to significance.
The building would clearly be experienced as a background feature, allowing
the key historic buildings and terraces of mixed-use commercial buildings to
continue to be experienced and read as part of the established and
predominant character of the area.
7.57 The Council has also provided an assessment of potential impact on the other
nearby conservation areas256. For the reasons set out, there would be no harm
to the setting or the significance of any other conservation area in the vicinity.
Listed Buildings
7.58 In terms of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury and its associated buildings
and structures, the Council257 has explained why there would be less than
substantial harm to the significance of the church, and to the group of heritage
assets within its curtilage, as a result of the proposal. Having regard to what
gives the church its significance, and the limited extent to which the proposed
building would affect the ability to appreciate its architectural and historic
interest, the assessment is that the harm should be regarded as sitting
towards the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm.
253 As pointed out by Mr Jones and Mr Froneman in oral evidence
254 CD4.8 Paragraph 4.46
255 CD4.8 Paragraph 4.54
256 CD4.8 Appendix 1 and Mr Jones’ oral evidence
257 Through Mr Jones
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 43
7.59 The development would be situated some distance from the church and would
be behind the viewer in the main viewpoint from the public realm. The impact
on dynamic views of the church from the surrounding streets would be limited
and fleeting.
7.60 The main adverse impact would be on views from one corner of the churchyard
at the rear of the building. From this location it is acknowledged that there
would be some element of competition with and distraction from appreciation
of the church. Even from here, however, the impact would be limited as the
development would appear either to frame views of the church, or it would be
read as a background feature. It would not be the only tall building in the
background. Both Herbert Morrison House and Empress State Building are
clearly visible from the same viewpoints.
7.61 The scale, architectural detailing and composition of the church and its spire
would remain prominent in the foreground and the effect on the ability to
appreciate these features would be limited.
7.62 The church was designated as a Grade II* listed building at a time when the
former Edith Summerskill House was in situ as part of its background. There is
no suggestion – let alone real risk – that its designation would be affected by
the proposed development, which is of vastly superior architectural quality and
more sympathetic to the church in its style and detailing than its predecessor.
7.63 As far as the Church of St John, Walham Green is concerned, the proposal
would not cause any harm to the setting or the significance of this designated
heritage asset. Whilst there would be some visibility in mid-range or
background views of the church, the development would not be visible within
the localised setting of the church and its curtilage. Where the development
would be visible, it would have no material effect on the experience or
perception of the church.
7.64 The Council has also provided an assessment of potential impact on the other
listed buildings in the vicinity258. For the reasons set out, there would be no
harm to the setting of any other listed building in the vicinity.
Locally Listed (Buildings of Merit)
7.65 There would be no adverse impact on the setting of any relevant locally listed
buildings, for the reasons the Council sets out259.
Policy Compliance
7.66 The Council has undertaken an assessment that accords with the requirements
of paragraph 195 of the Framework, and in reaching its own view it has taken
account of the factors listed in paragraph 197. Where harm has been
identified, this is less than substantial and therefore falls to be weighed against
the public benefits of the proposal. For reasons summarised below, in this
case the public benefits clearly outweigh the limited degree of less than
substantial harm. Consequently, the heritage balance is in favour of granting
258 CD4.8 Appendix 1 and Mr Jones’ oral evidence
259 CD4.8 Paragraphs 4.69-4.75 and Appendix 1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 44
planning permission. In those circumstances there would be no conflict with
national planning policy.
7.67 For the same reasons, the proposed development would comply with Local
Plan Policy DC8 which incorporates the Framework balancing exercise in
criterion h.
7.68 London Plan Policy HC1 does not incorporate the Framework balancing
exercise, and hence conflict is generated by any harm no matter whether it is
outweighed by public benefit. Following the approach taken by the Secretary of
State in other recent decisions, the heritage balance must therefore be struck
in order to form a conclusion as to whether there is compliance with the
development plan when considered as a whole260. For the same reasons,
therefore, the development would comply with the plan as a whole,
notwithstanding conflict with Policy HC1.
London Plan Policy D9 C 1) d) and the Issue of Alternatives
7.69 The case advanced by the Rule (6) Party relies heavily on the issue of
alternatives to the proposed development, whether that be locating the
proposed affordable housing (or at least some of it) on alternative sites,
and/or alternative lower forms of development on the site which might reduce
the harm to heritage assets261. This aspect of the Rule 6(6) Party’s case is not
well-founded conceptually or in terms of this specific case.
7.70 First, this is not a case where either common law principles or the heritage
policies of the Framework make it necessary to consider alternative sites or
proposals as an obligatory material consideration.
7.71 The authorities on alternatives make clear that the circumstances in which
alternative sites would be an obligatory material consideration do not include
situations where the need is such that a great many sites and planning
permissions will be required to satisfy it. As Simon Brown J (as he then was)
put it in Trusthouse Forte262 the authorities establish that land may be
developed in any way that is acceptable for planning purposes. The fact that
other land exists upon which the development would be yet more acceptable
for planning purposes would not justify the refusal of planning permission upon
the application site. The same principle would also hold for alternative
schemes on the same site. If the scheme proposed is judged to be acceptable,
the fact that the decision-maker considers that an alternative scheme might be
even better would not justify the refusal of planning permission263.
7.72 The reason for drawing that contrast is exemplified by the present case and
the current state of need and supply for housing, and in particular affordable
housing, in London. In the circumstances summarised above, it is simply not
credible to suggest264 that the need here could be met by a limited number of
permissions and therefore addressed on alternative sites. The London Plan
260 See for example CD9.6 (APP/G6100/V/19/3226914) at IR 15.84-15.87 and DL 28-29
261 ID10 Paragraphs 7-11
262 Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd. v. SSE (1986) 53 P&CR 250 CD9.5
263 See R (on the application of Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster CC [2003] EWCA Civ 136
at paragraph 30
264 As Mr Turney attempted in x-e by Mr Simons
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 45
targets are capacity constrained – in other words even if development took
place at a scale that fully utilised available site capacity on all available sites
(reflecting current assessments) it would not be enough to meet the identified
need. In that situation any argument based on meeting the need on another
site or sites is plainly hopeless. All suitable sites are needed, and the housing
that would be delivered on all such sites must be optimised. If another site is
developed to its optimal level for housing and affordable housing, that does
not (indeed cannot) affect the policy requirement to do the same for this site.
7.73 Thus, the alternative sites argument is a non-starter. It must fail because it
could not as a matter of logic make any difference to the appropriate scale of
development that is acceptable on this site. That is the case whether one is
considering the position as a matter of application of common law, or pursuant
to London Plan Policy D9.
7.74 In applying the Framework’s heritage policies there is no need to consider
alternatives simply because harm has been identified to designated heritage
assets. The point is set out clearly and succinctly on behalf of the Minister of
State for Housing in the ongoing challenge to the Holocaust Memorial
decision265.
7.75 A further reason why alternatives would not be an obligatory material
consideration in this case applying common law principles springs from what
was said by Auld LJ in the Mount Cook266 case: even in exceptional
circumstances where alternative proposals might be relevant, inchoate or
vague schemes and/or those that are unlikely or have no real possibility of
coming about would not be relevant or, if they were, should be given little or
no weight.
7.76 There has been no specific alternative proposal for the site put forward by the
Rule 6(6) Party. The closest one can find is the suggestion of something of a
scale that is transitional between the 2 storey villas to the south and the 3-7
storey dwellings on the southern part of the estate267. The suggestion was
that the site should be developed at a scale below 7 storeys but that is the
only evidence adduced as to what scale would be suitable here as an
alternative to the application proposal268.
7.77 As a suggested alternative, that fails all of Auld LJ’s criteria. It is vague and
inchoate and – in light of the development plan policies requiring optimisation
and Policy H8 – there is no realistic possibility that a development of that sort
would be approved even if it was ever thought appropriate to promote a
scheme that under-utilised the site’s potential in that way. It would be a
wholly inefficient and wasteful use of a highly accessible piece of brownfield
housing land, something that would rightly be regarded as unacceptable in the
face of the need and the development control policies that have been put in
place to try and address it. In the absence of any detail, it is not possible to
know how many units would be delivered in a scheme of that height, but it
265 CD14.5 Paragraphs 43-44
266 R (Mount Cook Land Ltd.) v. Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 136 Paragraph 30
267 CD4.14 (Appendix) Response to Officer’s Report at Paragraph 14
268 Mr Turney x-e
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 46
would necessarily be significantly below what the site provided for over 60
years and flatly contrary to the clear objective of London Plan Policy H8269.
7.78 The second main point is that the reference to exploration of alternatives in
London Plan Policy D9 C 1) d) does not bear the weight that the Rule 6(6)
party seeks to place upon it.
7.79 Although the application was prepared, submitted and considered by the local
planning authority at a time when this policy was not part of the development
plan, and in circumstances where it was considered that Part C would not
apply here even when the new London Plan was adopted270, there is no dispute
that this part of the policy is a material consideration for the Secretary of
State. Depending on the outcome of Hillingdon, it may fall to be applied as
part of the process of determining the extent of compliance with the plan, but
in any event its requirements are relevant when considering the acceptability
of the proposal overall. In order to discern what that policy requires, and how
it applies to the facts of this case, there are some preliminary points to note.
7.80 The approach to the interpretation of policy is clear and well-established.
Policy statements are to be interpreted objectively in accordance with the
language used, read as always in its proper context. However, policy
statements should not be construed as if they are statutory or contractual
provisions. Many statements of policy are framed in language whose
application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgment271. The
importance of those caveats in avoiding the over-legalisation of development
control decision-making was emphasised by Lord Carnwath in the Hopkins
Homes case.
7.81 It is also important to recall that there is a distinction between the issue of
interpretation of policy and its application. The former is a matter of law, the
latter a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker.
7.82 It is right to draw attention to the fact that the reference to alternatives in Part
C 1) d) does not exist in a vacuum and must be understood and applied having
regard to the other elements of the sentence in which that reference
appears272. The words used are: Proposals resulting in harm will require clear
and convincing justification, demonstrating that alternatives have been
explored and that there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm
(emphasis added).
7.83 The policy does not therefore require heritage harm to be avoided, or for
schemes to be refused where the heritage balance shows that the harm is
outweighed by public benefits and thus acceptable in accordance with the
approach set by national policy273. It expressly contemplates the approval of
269 The likely opposition of the Mayor of London to any such proposal can be discerned from
what was said about these matters at Stage 1 (CD2.3 Paragraphs 22 and 52) and Stage 2
(CD2.4 Paragraph 7).
270 CD 3.2 Paragraph 7.14; CD 1.18 Paragraph 8.44; and CD4.14 Paragraph 6.6
271 Tesco Stores Ltd. v. Dundee City Council [2012] PTSR 983 per Lord Reed at Paragraphs 18
and 19
272 Mr Wilson x-e
273 Mr Turney is therefore wrong when he submits that the ‘point’ of the policy ‘is that tall
buildings, if appropriately located, might avoid heritage harm altogether’ ID10 Paragraph 28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 47
such schemes – as it must in order to be consistent with the Framework. The
requirement to demonstrate exploration of alternatives must be understood
and applied with those points clearly in mind.
7.84 Equally importantly, the policy does not mandate the nature and extent of the
exploration of alternatives that would be required in any individual case in
order for the policy expectation to be satisfied. That is left as a matter of
judgment for the decision-maker on a case-by-case basis. It does not, for
example, require consideration of alternative sites in circumstances such as
this where for the reasons set out above any such exercise would be futile and
provide no assistance in determining what level of development would be
acceptable on this site.
7.85 Nor does it oblige applicants to explore alternative forms of development which
would clearly fail to optimise the site’s potential and run contrary to key
objectives of the development plan. The Rule 6(6) Party’s evidence to the
Secretary of State is that an optimal development of the site would lead to a
scheme of at most 6 storeys274. In the absence of further detail, it is not
possible to discern with any confidence the likely number of affordable homes
that would be produced at that height, but it would plainly involve a
substantial net reduction in comparison with what has been provided on the
site for 60 years. Any such scheme would plainly fail to optimise the potential
of this site, contrary to policy, and would be a non-starter for that reason.
7.86 Any exploration of alternatives must therefore take place in the context set by
the other relevant policies of the development plan, the nature of the
development being proposed (in this case affordable housing) and having
regard to the particular circumstances of the individual site (which in this case
would include the fact that it has accommodated a tall building comprising
affordable housing for approximately 60 years).
7.87 The applicant’s evidence was clear that alternative forms of development were
explored275, and in a way that is consistent with the approach described, and
thus entirely appropriate. That is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the
policy.
7.88 Any suggestion that significantly lower alternative forms of development had
to be explored in order to satisfy the policy is therefore misconceived. In any
event, the evidence to this Inquiry has shown that any such exploration would
have yielded nothing that would alter the judgment about the acceptability of
the application scheme.
7.89 There is common ground amongst the expert witnesses that a reduction in the
height of the scheme to bring it down to the height of the former Edith
Summerskill House would yield only a limited reduction in the level of heritage
harm276. Of course, any such reduction would also involve a substantial
reduction in the number of new affordable dwellings on the site and thus in the
public interest benefits to be weighed in the heritage balance. Leaving aside
for one moment the need to satisfy other policies in the development plan, it
274 Turney x-e
275 Mr Henley and Mr Henderson in oral evidence
276 Mr Froneman in-c and Mr Jones in-c
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 48
should be obvious that consideration of any such alternative is of little use in
informing the decision about the application scheme. It is not an alternative
way of delivering the same project with fewer adverse effects. It is a different
project, yielding significantly reduced benefits.
7.90 The same would be true of a scheme that was lower than the height of the
former Edith Summerskill House. Whilst it may be possible to conceive of
myriad alternative lower forms of development where both benefits and harms
are reduced in a way that would pass the ‘heritage balance’ test, that would
not alter the fact that the application scheme also passes that test and is
therefore acceptable in heritage terms. The policy does not require such a
‘race to the bottom’ whereby the exploration of alternatives must result in the
elimination of harm or its reduction to the lowest level compatible with passing
the heritage balance test. That would be absurd.
7.91 If the application proposal is acceptable, applying the heritage balance, the
nature and extent of the exploration of alternatives that is required should
reflect that judgment and – crucially – the wider policy context and the
particular circumstances of the application site. That is what happened here,
and it was an entirely appropriate way of meeting the requirements of the
policy.
Other Issues
The Living Conditions of Existing Residents
7.92 The application is supported by a suite of technical assessments that
demonstrate the proposed development would not give rise to any
unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of existing residents.
7.93 No contrary expert evidence has been adduced by those opposed to the
development, and there has been no suggestion that the applicant’s technical
assessments are flawed or unreliable in any way. It must therefore be
common ground between the main parties that those assessments provide a
robust and reliable basis for the Secretary of State’s exercise of planning
judgment in this case.
7.94 Those assessments demonstrate that the impacts on the living conditions of
existing residents would be acceptable. It is inevitable that any substantial
new development on a cleared site in an urban environment will have some
adverse effects on the outlook, levels of light and so forth, that are currently
enjoyed by those living nearby. Policy therefore calls for an assessment of
whether the resulting living standards are appropriate277 or acceptable278, and
tells authorities that when considering applications for housing they should
apply a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight
and sunlight so as to avoid inhibiting the efficient use of sites279. A balanced
approach is required.
277 CD6.1 London Plan Policy D3 Part D 7) - see also Policy D6 Part D, which requires the design
of development to provide: sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and surrounding housing
that is appropriate for its context (emphasis added)
278 CD7.1 Paragraph 125c
279 CD7.1 Paragraph 125c
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 49
7.95 The Daylight and Sunlight Report submitted in support of the application
demonstrates that there is near full compliance with the BRE Guidance save
for a limited number of minor transgressions. Although there would be some
instances where the change would be noticeable, that is entirely unsurprising
and unexceptional where development is proposed on a cleared site in an
urban location such as this. Change on the limited scale that would be
experienced here is acceptable, and does not give rise to conflict with policy.
7.96 The Rule 6(6) Party’s evidence in this respect has been relatively limited. It
has been suggested that the existence of instances where the BRE guidelines
are not met is indicative of over-development, but that point has not at any
stage moved beyond simple assertion. There is nothing to show that the
resulting conditions would be uncharacteristic or unacceptable. Whilst criticism
is made of the comparator chosen in the assessment itself280, the Council has
been clear281 that the issue had been considered more broadly by reference to
the nature of the surrounding townscape. In any event, there is no evidence to
demonstrate that the resulting conditions would be unusual, uncharacteristic
or in any way unacceptable in an urban environment such as this.
7.97 There was also a complaint that the applicant’s assessment did not consider
impact on the amenity areas, but that has now been addressed by the
submission of a Supplementary Assessment282. That assessment shows that
none of the assessed amenity areas experience a reduction in sunlight of more
than 20% and are therefore BRE compliant. The majority of amenity spaces
assessed experience no change in sunlight received on 21st March as a result
of the proposed development. Where there are reductions in sunlight, these
are very small, and the amenity area continues to receive two hours or more
of direct sunlight to well above 50% of the amenity area. They remain,
therefore, BRE compliant.
7.98 Far from being indicative of over-development, the results show that the
proposal would give rise to a very limited impact. The proposed development
therefore accords with London Plan Policy D6 and Local Plan Policy HO11.
7.99 In terms of amenity and overlooking, any substantial development on a
cleared urban site such as this is bound to lead to some degree of overlooking.
That does not equate to an unacceptable impact, and in this case the scheme
has been carefully designed to limit overlooking and to ensure that no such
impacts arise.
7.100 Beyond the first five storeys, comparable to the height of the adjoining
properties, the angle of the residential windows and increasing height means
that future occupiers will not be able to look into the windows of their
neighbours and the scope for overlooking residential gardens will be reduced.
The resulting degree of overlooking would be typical of an urban location and
entirely acceptable.
7.101 Given that the site is currently vacant and located in an urban environment it
is inevitable that any efficient redevelopment would result in some increase in
280 ID10 Paragraph 25
281 Mr Wilson x-e
282 CD 14.12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 50
overlooking283. Furthermore, the proposed building is some 20m to the
boundary treatment of the nearest adjoining gardens of Hartismere Road and
Fabian Road, which is beyond the 18m of separation that is generally regarded
as acceptable in the Borough284.
7.102 The proposed development therefore accords with Local Plan Policy DC2 and
Local Plan Policy HO4 in this regard.
Microclimate
7.103 The applicant’s Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate Assessment285 shows that
the majority of thoroughfares, entrances, roadways and car parks in and
around the site would be suitable for their intended use during the windiest
season. Where the assessment identified exceptions, these have been
addressed through suitable landscaping features and (in the case of location
50) the addition of a planter to restrict pedestrian access. With these
measures in place, the resulting wind microclimate would be acceptable.
7.104 The concerns of the Rule 6(6) party in respect of this issue are limited in
scope. It is noted that there would be some increased level of windiness in the
amenity areas during the windiest season which would mean that at times the
conditions in the play-space would no longer be congenial for sitting. Play-
spaces are however, by their very nature, locations for activity and movement.
Any such impact would have only a limited effect on the amenity they provide.
During the windiest season there would also be an increase in windiness at
times in the public realm to be created on St Thomas’s Way. The precise
layout and design of that area is a matter for detailed design, and with suitable
mitigation measures incorporated into the landscaping treatment the effect
would be reduced to an acceptable level. A suitable obligation has been agreed
and included in the Agreement under s.106 to ensure that the
recommendations of the assessment are implemented.
7.105 In these terms, the proposal would therefore accord with London Plan Policy
GG1 and Local Plan Policies CC2 and DC3.
Car Parking
7.106 The site is located in an area with very good public transport links, as is
reflected in its strong PTAL rating. It has been explained286 that both London
Plan287 and Local Plan policy288 expect car free development as the starting
point for all developments in locations such as this. The maximum parking
standard within the London Plan for this site is zero. Accordingly, the
Obligation prohibits future residents from obtaining parking permits289. The
Rule 6(6) party raises no issue on this matter290.
283 As explained by Mr Wilson in oral evidence
284 CD8.1 Page 19 Policy HS7
285 CD1.19
286 By Mr Wilson in oral evidence
287 Policy T6
288 Policy T4
289 The basis for that is explained in the CIL Regulation 122 Compliance Table (ID7)
290 Confirmed by Mr Turney in oral evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 51
The Living Conditions of Prospective Residents
Quality of Accommodation
7.107 The standard of accommodation provided for prospective residents would be
very high. Most of the units would be dual aspect, with generous living spaces
occupying the corners allowing for maximisation of ventilation and sunlight.
All units would exceed London Plan space standards.
7.108 The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Statement demonstrates that all
habitable rooms within the proposed scheme would have the benefit of
excellent lighting provision291.
7.109 Those individuals and families lucky enough to move off the housing register
and from unsuitable accommodation into one of these spacious and
thoughtfully conceived dwellings would benefit from a substantially improved
quality of life as a result.
7.110 The proposal would therefore comply with London Plan Policy D6 and Local
Plan Policy HO4. More than that, however, it would deliver affordable housing
of an exemplary standard, which is what a planning system focused on
achieving good design and meeting the housing needs of present and future
generations should aspire to achieve.
Amenity and Play-Space
7.111 As summarised above, the private amenity spaces for each unit have been
internalised and the required floorspace added to the internal layout of the
property. This approach has been accepted by the GLA and the Council as
appropriate on a constrained site such as this.
7.112 There are a number of playgrounds and opens spaces available within a short
distance of the site, and these are judged both by the GLA and the Council to
be sufficient to cater for the needs of the new residents.
7.113 In a site located in a densely developed urban area such as this, it is unlikely
that a housing development of any scale will be able to deliver the quantum of
play-space identified by the GLA’s play space calculator on site. It is also
unlikely that there will be scope to deliver that quantum of additional play-
space on other land nearby. That does not serve as a barrier to development
and could not if the London Plan’s ambitious plans for housing growth are to
be met. The appropriate and pragmatic response must be to look for
opportunities to enhance the quality of existing play-space and to secure a
contribution of funds to be used for that purpose. That approach is reflected in
paragraph 5.4.6 of the supporting text to London Plan Policy S4 which says:
Off-site provision, including the creation of new facilities or improvements to
existing provision, secured by an appropriate financial contribution, may be
acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it addresses the needs of the
development whilst continuing to meet the needs of existing residents
(emphasis added).
291 CD1.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 52
7.114 The concerns of the Rule 6(6) party about the calculation of an appropriate
sum of money to be paid towards improvements to local play-space appear to
have been overcome by the additional information on comparables that the
Council has provided292. The s.106 has also been amended so as to ensure
that the funds are spent on play-space within 100m.
7.115 The amenity and play-space provision are therefore consistent with London
Plan Policies D6 and S4 and Local Plan Policies DC2, OS1, OS2 and OS3. If the
Inspector and Secretary of State were to conclude differently, and to find that
there was some conflict, it is one to which limited weight should attach for the
reasons set out above. Having regard to the existing accessible play-space in
the surrounding area, and the evident scope for it to be significantly improved
using the financial contribution that has been secured, any quantitative
shortfall against the GLA’s play-space calculator would not provide a proper
basis to turn this development away.
Fire Safety
7.116 There has been no attempt by objectors to engage with the contents of the
Fire Statement that was submitted by the applicant293, or the Fire Statement
Addendum submitted in order to address the requirements of the then draft
London Plan in response to the request made in the GLA’s Stage 1 Report294.
Nor are any specific points made about alleged shortcomings by reference to
the requirements of London Plan Policies D5 and D12. The Fire Statement and
the Fire Statement Addendum show that those requirements are met, and that
the proposed development will achieve the highest standards of fire safety.
7.117 A development control decision on an application for an individual tall building
is clearly not the forum to seek to anticipate what, if any, recommendations
may emerge from the Inquiry into the Grenfell fire295. The London Plan’s
policies contain detailed guidance on fire safety and are recently adopted.
Pursuant to section 38(6) those policies fall to be applied in assessing the issue
of fire safety unless and until any additional or different policy emerges
through the proper formal processes in due course. All that has been accepted
by the Rule 6(6) party296.
Whether any Impacts on Local Services and/or Infrastructure would
be Properly Mitigated
Local Services
7.118 The Council’s evidence297 has explained how the infrastructure required to
support the growth provided for in the Local Plan will be delivered. None of
that has been challenged and does not seem to be controversial.
292 ID2
293 CD1.16
294 CD1.16a
295 See ID10 at Paragraph 26
296 Mr Turney x-e
297 That of Mr Wilson
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 53
7.119 The Council has also summarised the findings of the Education and Primary
Healthcare Assessment298, which demonstrates that there would be no
material adverse impact on education or health provision as a result of the
proposed development. Again, none of that has been challenged, and does not
seem to be controversial.
7.120 The Borough has a Regulation 123 list that identifies the infrastructure for
which provision will be made using CIL receipts, and the infrastructure to be
provided by means of section 106 obligations or s.278 agreements. The
evidence299 has explained why it is not considered that any additional
infrastructure (or contributions thereto) are required to make this development
acceptable.
7.121 To set against that all that was said by the Rule 6(6) party in evidence was
that the absence of an obligation to make a contribution towards local
services, such as schools or healthcare is surprising given the scale of the
development300. There was no specific allegation of a likely impact on local
services or infrastructure which would be unacceptable, if not mitigated by the
payment of funds. Nor was any specific policy conflict alleged. In other words,
there was no attempt to show that any contribution would be necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. No further obligation could therefore properly be said to be
required in line with the Government’s policy in the Framework301.
7.122 This matter is no longer pursued by the Rule 6(6) party as a ground for
objection to the scheme302.
Drainage
7.123 Whilst the Rule 6(6) party’s Statement of Case included a suggestion that the
adverse impacts weighing against the grant of permission included impact on
the local sewer network303, it was subsequently confirmed304 that no objection
was maintained in relation to drainage, and this was reflected in the SoCG305.
7.124 The Council has addressed the issue of drainage in evidence306 and explaining
why the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its drainage and flood
risk impacts, and that appropriate mitigation has been identified and secured
by condition. There is no conflict with policy, or adverse effect to weigh in the
balance in this regard.
S.106 and Conditions
298 CD1.7
299 Of Mr Wilson
300 CD4.14 Paragraph 5.10
301 CD7.1 Paragraph 57
302 Mr Turney x-e
303 CD4.3 at Paragraph 20g – it was said to be unclear if the impact was acceptable.
304 Mr Turney x-e
305 CD4.7 at Paragraph 31h and CD4.4 at Paragraphs 7.107-7.108
306 Responding to CD4.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 54
7.125 The s.106 obligation is in agreed form307. For the reasons set out in the CIL
Obligations Schedule308, all of the obligations meet the tests set by Regulation
122 and within the Framework. They are therefore properly sought and
provided and may be taken into account as reasons for granting planning
permission.
7.126 There are no outstanding disputes as to appropriate conditions309, having
taken on board the changes discussed during the Inquiry.
The Heritage Balance
7.127 The substantial public interest benefits that this proposal would deliver are as
listed in the Council’s evidence310, and may be summarised as follows: delivery
of 133 much needed affordable housing units (79% social rented, 21%
intermediate); development of a highly accessible vacant brownfield site;
creation of a high-quality building of architectural excellence that would
become an integral part of Hammersmith’s townscape and a landmark to aid
wayfinding; an ancillary community hall for use by residents of the building
and wider estate, cleverly integrated with the new and existing public realm to
the benefit of both; improved engagement with the public realm, and an
improved pedestrian experience and connectivity into and through the Estate;
and improvements to off-site play-space.
7.128 Those benefits should attract very significant weight, clearly and
overwhelmingly outweighing the limited less than substantial harm to heritage
assets that has been identified, providing a clear and convincing justification
for that harm. Accordingly, there is no conflict with national planning policy on
the protection of heritage in the Framework, and a decision to grant planning
permission would be appropriate and consistent with the duty in s.66(1) of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990.
The Development Plan
7.129 Compliance with the development plan is to be considered by reference to the
plan as a whole rather than asking whether the proposed development is in
accordance with each and every policy in the plan. That approach recognises
the fact that individual policies may pull in different directions, and that it
would be difficult to find any project of significance that was wholly in accord
with every relevant policy in the plan. The Inspector and Secretary of State
will therefore have to make a planning judgment, bearing in mind such factors
as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the
extent of compliance or breach311.
7.130 It is the judgment of the local planning authority that when the development
plan is considered as a whole, the proposed development is in accordance with
the relevant policies. That was the judgment expressed in the officer’s report
to committee, and the Council’s evidence provides a full and detailed
307 CD4.27
308 CD4.27
309 ID6
310 CD4.9 Pages 51-52 Paragraph 9.55
311 R v. Rochdale MBC, ex p. Milne (No. 2) [2001] Env. L.R. 22
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 55
explanation as to why it remains their professional judgment now following the
adoption of the new London Plan312.
7.131 The assessment acknowledges the conflicts that have been identified with
relevant policies, most notably London Plan Policy D9 and elements of Local
Plan DC3 and attaches significant weight to that conflict313. Nevertheless,
having regard to the very considerable extent of policy compliance and the
strategic importance of the policies that are complied with having regard to the
objectives of the development plan, the proposed development complies with
the development plan when taken as a whole.
7.132 That assessment has been undertaken on the conservative assessment that no
account can be taken of how the proposed development performs against the
criteria for tall buildings in Part C of London Plan Policy D9. If in due course the
Planning Court finds in favour of the Mayor of London’s interpretation of Policy
D9, that assessment will turn out to have been too conservative. As was set
out314, the implications of such a finding would be significantly to increase the
degree to which the proposal complies with the development plan, because it
would satisfy all of those criteria to the extent that they are relevant315.
Other Material Considerations
7.133 There are three main other material considerations that should weigh heavily
in the balance in favour of the grant of planning permission.
7.134 The first is that the proposal would satisfy the criteria of both Local Plan Policy
DC3 and London Plan D9, the purpose of which is to assess the impact and
therefore establish the acceptability of a tall building. Should the Mayor of
London’s interpretation of Policy D9 be upheld, that element of this ‘other
material consideration’ would then move into the first part of the s.38(6)
assessment, but the assessment against the criteria in Local Plan Policy DC3
would remain within the second part.
7.135 The second is that the proposal would satisfy both the detail and the thrust of
national planning policy in the Framework.
7.136 The third is that the proposed development would make a substantial
contribution to meeting the clear identified need for affordable housing within
the Borough, in circumstances where there is already a significant shortfall
against the development plan target, that target has recently increased by a
significant amount, and even if met it would not be sufficient to meet the
established level of need.
The Overall Planning Balance
7.137 The proposed development accords with the development plan when
considered as a whole.
312 CD4.9 Section 8 Pages 40-53
313 That is the case notwithstanding his view that the plan-making process was primarily
concerned with identifying new areas in which tall buildings may be appropriate, rather than
assessing whether existing tall buildings might appropriately be replaced - Wilson in-c
314 By Mr Wilson in oral evidence
315 CD4.9 Pages 58-63 Paragraphs 10.40-10.89
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 56
7.138 Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development in
paragraph 11 of the Framework means that the proposed development should
be approved without delay.
7.139 The other important material considerations that exist in this case reinforce
that presumption. Indeed, they are of such significance and should attract
sufficient weight to justify the grant of planning permission even if a different
planning judgment was reached as to compliance with the plan overall316.
Conclusions
7.140 For the reasons summarised above and set out in more detail in the Council’s
written and oral evidence, planning permission should be granted for the
proposal.
Post-Inquiry Submissions in relation to Hillingdon
7.141 The Judge found that the Mayor of London’s interpretation of policy was
correct for the reasons summarised at paragraphs 80 to 87 of the judgment.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to assess a tall building against the criteria in
Part C of Policy D9 for the purposes of determining the extent of compliance
with that policy and the development plan as a whole, even where a proposal
is in conflict with Part B 3) of Policy D9 because it is not a location identified as
suitable in a Local Plan. That is now common ground between the main
parties317.
7.142 In closing318, the Council summarised the main implication of such an outcome
as: If in due course the Planning Court finds in favour of the Mayor of London’s
interpretation of Policy D9 [the assessment of overall compliance with the
development plan] will turn out to have been too conservative. As was set out,
the implications of such a finding would be significantly to increase the degree
to which the proposal complies with the development plan, because it would
satisfy all of those criteria to the extent that they are relevant319.
7.143 The Council’s assessment was that the proposal was in compliance with the
development plan, considered as a whole, even making that conservative
assumption and treating compliance with the criteria in Part C only as an ‘other
material consideration’. That position is necessarily strengthened now that
compliance with the criteria in Part C is to be considered when determining the
extent of compliance with Policy D9 and thus with the development plan as a
whole.
7.144 The reasons given by the Court for reaching that conclusion are also relevant.
The Court set out in greater detail the fundamental legal principles to which
reference has been made320 including that policies may pull in different
316 The Council has submitted a document demonstrating that it has a five year housing land
supply (CD4.26), reflecting the SoCG (CD4.7 Paragraph 15), and therefore the tilted balance
would not be engaged in those circumstances
317 See Mr Turney’s further submissions at Paragraph 2
318 ID11 Paragraph 140
319 CD4.9 Pages 58-63 Paragraphs 10.40-10.89
320 ID13 Paragraph 83 summarised in ID11 Paragraph 137
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 57
directions and many statements of policy in a plan may be mutually
irreconcilable, so that in a particular case, one must give way to another.
7.145 It was found that those drafting Policy D9 must have been aware of those
principles321 and it was held that: In considering whether to grant planning
permission for a tall building which did not comply with paragraph B 3),
because it was not identified in the development plan, it would surely be
sensible, and in accordance with the objectives of Policy D9, for the proposal
to be assessed by reference to the potential impacts which are listed in Part
C322.
7.146 In the particular case before the Court, notwithstanding the fact that the
proposed tall building did not comply with Part B 3) of Policy D9, the Mayor of
London had determined that the proposal accorded with the provisions of the
development plan when read as a whole. The Court concluded that was a
planning judgment the Mayor was entitled to make in the exercise of his
discretion323.
7.147 This reflects the planning judgment that the Council has reached on the
proposed tall building here and it is clear from the Court’s judgment that such
an outcome is: in line with what those drafting Policy D9 would have
contemplated at the time the policy was prepared; and in accordance with the
objectives of Policy D9.
7.148 A further consequence of the judgment324 is of course that compliance with the
criteria in Part C of Policy D9 ceases to be an ‘other material consideration’
because it forms part of the first element of the s.38(6) exercise and not the
second. The assessment against the criteria in Local Plan Policy DC3 would
remain within the second element325.
7.149 For these reasons, it is the Council’s position that the decision of the Court
materially strengthens the case for concluding that the proposed development
is in accordance with the development plan read as a whole, and consequently
the case for granting planning permission for this much needed and well-
designed scheme.
8 The Case for the Rule 6(6) Party (Mr Turney)
8.1 This is set out in full in evidence and the closing statement to the Inquiry326.
What follows is a summary of the case as presented in that closing statement,
supplemented by post-Inquiry comments in relation to the judgment in the
Hillingdon case. It imperative that Mr Turney’s material, including the review of
the applicant’s Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Claire
Browne of HCUK Group (dated 16 September 2020) and the review of the
applicant’s Heritage Statement prepared by Christopher Griffiths of HCUK
321 ID13 Paragraph 84
322 ID13 Paragraph 85
323 ID13 Paragraph 87
324 As explained in ID11 Paragraph 142
325 That reflects the Council’s consistent position – ID11 Paragraph 142 and so the points made
in Mr Turney’s submissions on this matter (ID14) do not take things further
326 ID10, CD4.3 and CD4.14, and ID14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 58
Group (also dated 16 September 2020), is read in full in order to gain a full
understanding of the case presented.
8.2 The issues can be addressed as follows: (i) the planning history, the need for
the development, and the failure to assess the capacity of the site and
alternatives to the form of development proposed; (ii) the impacts on the
character and appearance of the area and in particular, townscape matters;
(iii) the impact on heritage matters; (iv) play-space; (v) other adverse impacts
of the proposed development; and (vi) the development plan and overall
planning balance.
Planning history; need for development; and failure to assess capacity
and alternatives
8.3 These topics can be dealt with together because of the unique circumstances
of this case. In 2017, when planning permission was first sought for the
proposal, the former Edith Summerskill House still stood on the site. As all
agree, it was a detractor from the townscape, the setting of the Grade II*
listed St Thomas of Canterbury Church, and the setting of Central Fulham
Conservation Area. The proposed development was assessed in that context.
The conclusion reached at the time327 was that the proposed development
would have beneficial effects both in townscape and heritage terms.
8.4 The Inquiry has not been shown any scheme alternatives which were
considered, but it was told328 that all options were for tall buildings, between
110 and 150 units. The Inquiry has also been told little about the
arrangements that led to the creation of the applicant joint venture, but it was
explained329 that there is no contractual requirement for the site to deliver any
particular quantum of development. It is quite clear that both the applicant
and the Council proceeded on the basis that the proposed development was
acceptable in the context of the existing tall building.
8.5 However, it is now a matter of agreement that the context of the former Edith
Summerskill House is not the basis upon which to assess this proposal. Despite
this agreement, both the applicant and the Council have sought to pray in aid
the presence of the building throughout the Inquiry. It is correct to note that
the planning history of a site may be a relevant consideration, and it is not
suggested that it should be ignored. However, in circumstances where the
previous building is agreed to have been a detracting feature in townscape,
character and appearance, and heritage impact terms, it is unclear where the
point goes at all. The bottom line is that the impacts of the proposed
development must be assessed against a cleared site. There is nothing in law
or policy to suggest that such an assessment should be altered by the history
of harmful impacts caused by previous development on the site.
8.6 The reason that this in important is that much of the analysis presented by the
applicant and the Council is infected by the earlier consideration of the
proposals against a radically different baseline. Thus, having accepted the
error in the determination of the 2017 application, the applicant failed to
327 By Professor Tavernor
328 By Mr Henley in oral evidence
329 By Mr Henderson in oral evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 59
reconsider the capacity of the site to accommodate development of this scale.
It failed to revisit its earlier choices notwithstanding that the position had
fundamentally changed from one where the proposed development was
claimed to deliver townscape and heritage benefits, to one where harm in
these terms was acknowledged.
8.7 As a result of all that, there has never been any attempt to properly assess the
capacity of the site. Even in presenting the case to the Inquiry, the context
was shown330 as including the original Edith Summerskill House. The Council331
referred to the same images in their description of context. No-one has
stopped to question whether development at the scale proposed remains the
appropriate solution for the site. The Council was keen to emphasis in
questioning332 that the capacity of the site had been identified as between 2
and 7 storeys333. That is, in fact, the only expert assessment to grapple with
the capacity of the site, while putting the proposal at issue to one side.
8.8 The applicant confirmed, contrary to the terms of the Officer’s 2017 report,
that there is no viability reason for building at the scale proposed on the site.
Similarly, it is no longer suggested that development on this site is required to
meet social or affordable housing needs arising from the loss or development
of the Watermeadow Court site.
8.9 Remarkably for a scheme of this nature, the architect has provided very little
information about alternative designs, and there has been no consideration of
alternative sites. Some alternative floorplates and architectural treatments
were, it seems, considered334. But the scale of the development has not been
the subject of any consideration of alternatives. It was accepted however335
that alternatives to a tall building and alternative sites for accommodating
need had been considered.
8.10 That is a material and striking omission for several reasons. First, even on the
applicant’s assessment, this is a proposal which conflicts (at least in part) with
the locational policies for tall buildings in Local Plan Policy DC3 and London
Plan Policy D9. This creates a clear case for asking why a tall building needs to
be located in an area that is not designated for such a building. Second, even
on the applicant’s assessment, the proposal causes harm to the setting and
thereby the significance of a designated heritage asset of high value – the
Grade II* listed Church of St Thomas of Canterbury. Third, London Plan Policy
D9 expressly requires that proposals ‘resulting in harm (to heritage assets) will
require clear and convincing justification, demonstrating that alternatives
have been explored and that there are clear public benefits that outweigh
the harm’. Neither the applicant nor the Council336 could answer for the
apparent conflict with this element of tall buildings policy.
330 CD4.10 Paragraphs 2.1-2.5
331 Through Mr Jones
332 Mr Turney x-e
333 By Ms Browne
334 Mr Henderson re-e
335 By Mr Henderson in x-e
336 Through Mr Henderson or Mr Wilson
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 60
8.11 The law on alternatives is extensive. It has recently been summarised by the
High Court in Save Stonehenge337. Here, alternatives are an ‘obviously
material consideration’. To use the phrase in Jones338: such circumstances will
particularly arise where the proposed development, though desirable in itself,
involves on the site proposed such conspicuous adverse effects that the
possibility of an alternative site lacking such drawbacks necessarily itself
becomes, in the mind of a reasonable local authority, a relevant planning
consideration upon the application in question.
8.12 Alternatives are plainly a material consideration in light of the policy position
and the actual harm caused. In the absence of any attempt to show that
alternative forms of development or alternative sites have been considered at
all, the justification for the harm caused is substantially weakened and the
conflict with the tall buildings policies should be given greater weight.
8.13 Finally on this issue, reference has been made to London Plan Policy H8339.
However, this is not a proposal that involves the loss of existing housing. The
policy is not, therefore, engaged at all by the proposals. That must follow from
the agreement that the proposal falls to be considered against a cleared site.
Whilst the thrust of London Plan Policy H8 is to replace lost homes with at least
as many as have been lost, on the facts, this adds little to the general
requirement to optimise the output of sites. Put another way, what previously
existed on the site is one of the factors that needs to be weighed in the
balance in assessing what the site should now accommodate. Even on its
terms, London Plan Policy H8 does not require the quantum of housing on the
site to increase. It is important to recall in this context the agreement that the
delivery of a building on the same footprint as that which is proposed which
replaced the housing which once existed on the site would cause less harm to
the setting and thereby the significance of the Church of St Thomas of
Canterbury, and the Central Fulham Conservation Area.
Character and Appearance and Townscape
8.14 Standing back and looking at the site, it is simply ill-suited for a tall building. It
is physically constrained. To the south and west, there is a strong uniformity of
scale and type of buildings. These are predominantly, two-storey terraces of
the type recognised as being typical of large parts of the Borough340. Within
the Clem Attlee Estate, the western part is given over to housing at a scale
commensurate with the Victorian street pattern beyond. The south-east part of
the Estate is of a lesser scale than the northern part, with a relatively close-
knit street pattern.
8.15 Taking the Clement Attlee Estate as a whole, the southern part is far less
capable of accommodating a tall building. It was agreed that there is no
transition from this part of the site: the building proposed would lie just a few
metres from the terraced streets behind. Viewed from the north, the estate
will rise up to the proposed development (and thus appear to provide
transition) but then there would be a cliff edge on the southern boundary.
337 CD9.4 Paragraphs 268 to 276
338 See CD9.4 at paragraph 271
339 CD6.1
340 CD14.11 refers
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 61
8.16 The effect of a building of this scale would be clearly harmful to the character
and appearance of the area. It would be extremely overbearing in close views.
Much play was made of the ‘base’ of the building, but the site is so constrained
that this would barely be viewed. Certainly, when approaching from the south,
it would only be in the final approach to St Thomas’s Way that the base would
appear.
8.17 In a wider context, while some adverse effects were acknowledged341, the
analysis understates the impacts342. There would be wide reaching views, and
the building would jar with the townscape character, particularly when viewed
from the west, south, and south-east.
8.18 Whilst parts of the design are clearly of quality, the architectural treatment of
the building is fundamentally confused. It is suggested that this is a ‘civic’
building that could form a gateway343. Further, it is said that the building
would act as a symbol for the regeneration of the Clement Attlee Estate344.
However, while a ‘civic’ quality may be appropriate for some residential
buildings, this is simply not the place for it. It is a quiet corner of the Borough,
not a town centre, or a major thoroughfare. The building would not serve any
wayfinding purpose save for locating itself. It is not in a location where people
would wish to travel save to get to their homes. And as the Council345 was
keen to emphasise, there are no regeneration proposals at all for the wider
estate, and the building would therefore remain as a new addition, of a
different scale and form to the existing estate, doing nothing for what is
already there.
8.19 Finally on this issue, the ability of the Borough to accommodate tall buildings
has been the subject of assessment346. The clear conclusion of that
assessment – which included consideration of existing tall buildings, including
those in the Clement Attlee Estate – was that four areas were potentially
suitable for tall buildings. For the reasons given in the assessment, other areas
such as that where the application site sits, cannot readily accommodate tall
buildings without harm.
Heritage Matters
8.20 There is a danger of overcomplicating the analysis of heritage impacts. The
parties are agreed that less than substantial harm would be caused to two
designated heritage assets. There would be others that would be similarly
affected. There has been much judicial discussion about the assessment of the
scale of heritage impacts. Ultimately, a rounded planning judgment needs to
be made as to the extent of harm. What is clear is that particular impacts may
properly be regarded as ‘high up’ the scale of less than substantial harm even
if large parts of the significance of the asset concerned are unaffected.
341 By Professor Tavernor
342 Compare Ms Browne’s findings
343 By Mr Henley
344 By Professor Tavernor
345 Through Mr Wilson
346 CD14.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 62
8.21 That point is important in the context of the Church of St Thomas of
Canterbury where the applicant347 significantly underplays the level of harm.
The impact on the setting of the church when viewed from the cemetery, and
from surrounding streets, would lead to a high level of harm to its significance.
That is clearly what was in the mind of Historic England when describing the
harm as ‘serious’ (the suggestion that this simply means any level of heritage
harm is clearly misplaced). The fact that the setting of the church would be
preserved when the viewer’s back was turned to the proposed development is
not a proper basis for reaching a conclusion that the harm is low down the
scale. That is true of almost any impact on setting. Aspects of setting will be
preserved, but the profound and significant change to the setting of the church
in many views is enough to conclude that a high level of less than substantial
harm would be caused.
8.22 The same issue arises in relation to the Central Fulham Conservation Area. It
is true that as a large conservation area, much of its setting would be
unaffected because the building would not be seen when the viewer is facing
away from it, or on streets that do not align with views towards the site. But it
does not follow that the impacts are simply diluted by the scale of the
conservation area. In a rounded judgment, the impacts are materially
detrimental.
8.23 There are further heritage harms that should have been identified by the
applicant and the Council348. The impact on the setting of the Walham Green
Conservation Area, and of St John’s Church, would be clearly negative. The
building proposed would intrude into the historic core of the conservation area,
around the church. It would be an unwelcome intrusion that would cause harm
to the setting of the conservation area because it would interrupt the enclosed
view of historic buildings and the street pattern which has been preserved,
particularly around the church, and the approaches towards it.
8.24 Heritage harm obviously has to be weighed against public benefits of the
proposal. However, it is also important to recall the particular approach to be
taken to heritage harm in the application of tall buildings policies.
Play-Space
8.25 There would be a clear breach of London Plan Policy S4 and Local Plan Policy
OS3 as a result of the failure to provide sufficient play-space. The London Plan
contemplates that off-site provision can be made, particularly for older
children’s play. But that off-site provision must still meet the needs of the
development proposed. Here, 400 square metres of play-space would be
required within 100 metres of the development site simply to meet the needs
of under 5s from the development. Inexplicably the applicant has persisted
with an argument that these requirements are met349. There is 200 square
metres of existing children’s play-space within 100 metres of the site. That is
insufficient to meet the needs of the development even if it was not currently
used by existing residents.
347 Through Mr Froneman
348 As set out by Mr Griffiths
349 Neither Mr Henderson nor Mr Wilson could explain why
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 63
8.26 The proposal to commit funding, without any indication of how it will be spent,
or any requirement to do so, does not alter this basic fact. It is deeply
regrettable that such an important point has been given such little thought,
especially when this scheme would accommodate many families with young
children. It is a major drawback of the proposal.
Other Adverse Impacts
8.27 The forecast daylight and sunlight impacts depend wholly on a ‘contextual’
analysis which is based on streets around the Empress State Building, and the
Ibis Hotel. This is self-serving because the impact of a tall building should not
be judged acceptable because another tall building has similar impacts,
particularly when those buildings alluded to were not permitted under a
modern policy regime. The impacts would be serious and extensive.
8.28 Similarly, the proposed building will cause a deterioration in wind conditions
such that the play-space and amenity areas will not be suitable for sitting out
in windy seasons.
8.29 The play-space will also be overshadowed for much of the day, as confirmed
by the analysis put in during the Inquiry350.
8.30 Others have questioned the wisdom of permitting a single core tall building in
the light of the Grenfell disaster, notwithstanding technical compliance with
existing fire safety requirements. Whether such buildings remain an
appropriate response to identified social housing needs will need to be
considered.
Development Plan and Overall Planning Balance
8.31 For the reasons set out, the proposals are contrary to the development plan.
The detailed criteria for tall buildings are not met, as set out above. Even if
they were, the conflict with the locational policies in London Plan Policy D9 and
Local Plan Policy DC3 is profound. The Borough has carefully identified
locations for tall buildings and the application site is not one of them. That
analysis adds to the weight to be given to those policies, regardless of how the
Hillingdon litigation is resolved.
8.32 There is further conflict with London Plan Policy D9 through the failure to
assess alternatives which would avoid or reduce heritage harm. Local Plan
Policy DC3 incorporates similar advice by reference to the Historic England tall
buildings guidance351. The point of these policies is that tall buildings, if
appropriately located, might avoid heritage harm altogether. This is a logically
prior question to whether any heritage harm might be outweighed. It could be
avoided.
8.33 There is also conflict with London Plan Policy S4 and Local Plan Policy OS3 in
relation to play-space and with Local Plan Policy HO11 in terms of sunlight and
daylight. There is conflict with the heritage policies of the London Plan and the
Local Plan because the benefits of the scheme fail to outweigh the harm it
would cause.
350 CD4.24
351 CD7.6 (and CD7.7)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 64
8.34 The proposals do not optimise the use of the site, nor replace what was there
before. They result in clear overdevelopment, as expressed through these
planning impacts.
8.35 The heritage harm caused requires convincing justification. The benefits of
delivering social and affordable housing are significant. However, since this
form of development is fundamentally inappropriate, and since housing could
be delivered elsewhere, and in a different form that avoids such impacts, the
benefits do not outweigh the harm.
8.36 Drawing all these strands together, taken as a whole, the proposals conflict
with the development plan. In particular there is conflict with policies relating
to tall buildings, heritage, play-space, and residential amenity. There is
heritage harm which should be given significant weight, and which is not
outweighed. The development plan conflict is not outweighed by the benefits
applying (as agreed) the conventional balance.
8.37 For all those reasons, and for the reasons given in evidence, the application
should be refused.
Post-Inquiry Submissions in relation to Hillingdon
8.38 In Hillingdon the local planning authority agreed that on a proper
interpretation of London Plan Policy D9, Part C of the policy only applies to
development proposals in locations identified as suitable for tall buildings352.
The Hillingdon judgment confirms that the detailed criteria in Part C of London
Plan Policy D9 are relevant to the assessment of proposals for tall buildings
which, contrary to Part B 3), are not in locations identified as suitable for tall
buildings353. Assessment against those criteria may go to whether the
proposals are in accordance with the development plan, taken as a whole.
8.39 That approach is consistent with the stance taken at the Inquiry, and for the
reasons set out in evidence, the scheme remains contrary to the development
plan taken as a whole. The criteria in Part C of London Plan Policy D9 may be
relevant in an assessment of the extent of development plan compliance but
the conflict with the plan-led element of Policy D9 is significant, and in any
event, several of the criteria in Part C are not met.
8.40 The Hillingdon judgment also gives useful guidance on the interpretation of
Local Plan Policy DC3 which leads to a different approach to assessing
compliance with that policy. The judgment says354: There is no wording which
indicates that Part A and/or Part B are gateways, or pre-conditions, to Part C.
In order to give effect of [the Claimant’s] interpretation, it is necessary to read
the words underlined below into the first line of Part C to spell out its true
meaning: Development proposals in locations that have been identified in
development plans under Part B should address the following impacts’. But if
that had been the intention, then words to that effect would have been
included within the policy. It would have been a straightforward exercise in
drafting……
352 CD14.9 Paragraph 74
353 ID13 Paragraph 85
354 ID13 Paragraph 82
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 65
8.41 By contrast with London Plan Policy D9, such words are included in Local Plan
Policy DC3. The policy reads: In these areas identified as potentially
appropriate for tall buildings, any proposal will need to demonstrate that…..
‘These areas’ means, obviously, the four areas identified in the preceding
paragraph. Accordingly, on the analysis in Hillingdon, on a proper reading of
Local Plan Policy DC3, the criteria which follow apply only in the four areas
identified and the locational requirements do act as a gateway or pre-condition
to the application of the subsequent criteria.
8.42 It follows that on the analysis in Hillingdon, the proposals should be regarded
as straightforwardly contrary to Local Plan Policy DC3 regardless of whether
the criteria in the second part of that policy are met, strengthening the
conclusion that there is a breach of the development plan, taken as a whole.
In any event, those criteria are in large part not met for the reasons set out in
evidence and submissions.
9 Third Party Representations
9.1 A significant number of representations were made on the application when it
was with the Council, and more were made as part of the consultation process
leading up to the Inquiry. Given the unusual circumstances, and my concern
that a ‘virtual’ event might deter some people from appearing at the Inquiry to
speak, I allowed submissions to be taken in during the Inquiry that might
ordinarily have been returned as being out of time355. All these are part of the
package of material that will be passed on for consideration356.
9.2 Two people did however address the Inquiry.
9.3 Irene Chia, a local resident, raised objections to the proposal on two grounds.
The first is that the scheme would lead to a reduction in the levels of privacy
enjoyed by residents in the back gardens of properties on Hertismere Road
and Fabian Road. The scheme would make the situation worse than it was
when Edith Summerskill House was in place because it would be higher, and
there would be more facing windows. The second issue relates to traffic and
parking. While the proposal is said to be ‘car-free’, some residents are bound
to have vehicles which will lead to additional traffic and parking pressure in an
area that is already busy. There will be increased footfall too.
9.4 Paul Nichols, a local resident expressed support for the proposals357. In
summary, disappointment was expressed that Edith Summerskill House has
taken so long to be replaced when the Borough has a desperate need for social
housing. The principle of a tall building on the site should not be in doubt on
an existing high-density estate in a well-serviced part of Inner London. The
new building is well designed and planning permission should be granted so
that redevelopment can take place quickly.
9.5 Given the nature of the issues raised, one of the written submissions made
during the Inquiry warrants summarising here. That is the submission of Tony
355 There were of course circulated around the main parties so that any issues raised could be
addressed in evidence and/or submissions
356 Referred to in paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6 above
357 ID7
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 66
Bird FICH dated 3 December 2021, enclosing a letter from Ronnie King OBE
OStJ QFSM FIFireE, Adviser and Hon. Admin. Secretary to the All-Party
Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group, dated 7 August 2021. Put very
simply the point raised in the representations is that a new build residential
tower block of twenty storeys should have at least two staircases (rather than
a single staircase as proposed) so that, in accordance with good fire safety
practice, those escaping will be able to turn their back on any fire, in order to
reach an alternative safe exit from the building.
10 Conditions
10.1 Discussions between the Council and the appellant resulted in a
comprehensive list of conditions that was presented to the Inquiry. This was
discussed in a round-table session and after that a final list was presented358.
10.2 I have considered the suggested conditions in the light of advice in paragraph
56 of the Framework359. This states that planning conditions should be kept to
a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning
and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, and reasonable in all
other respects. Conditions that are required to be discharged before
development commences should be avoided, unless there is clear justification.
Footnote 25 to the Framework points out that Sections 100ZA(4-6) of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will require the applicant’s written
agreement to the terms of a pre-commencement, unless prescribed
circumstances apply. I have taken the presence of pre-commencement
conditions on a schedule agreed between the applicant and the Council as
conferring that agreement.
10.3 As one would expect, conditions are required to deal with commencement, and
to set out the approved plans360.
10.4 Given the location of the site, surrounded by residential development, and with
restricted access, conditions governing the manner in which construction takes
place are necessary to protect the living conditions of adjoining residents.
These include the need for a Community Liaison Group361, a Construction
Management Plan362, a Construction Logistics Plan, an Air Quality Dust
Management Plan363, a condition to deal with site hoardings364, another to deal
with the protection of existing trees365, and another to cover piling366.
10.5 Given the obvious potential for the site to have been contaminated, a whole
series of conditions are required to deal with this matter367.
358 ID6 (I have attached the final ‘clean’ version submitted on 7 December 2021)
359 CD7.1
360 Suggested Conditions 1 and 2 respectively
361 Suggested Condition 3
362 Suggested Conditions 7 and 8
363 Suggested Condition 31
364 Suggested Condition 14
365 Suggested Condition 24
366 Suggested Condition 51
367 Suggested Conditions 15-20 (inclusive)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 67
10.6 While the submitted drawings are relatively detailed, it is reasonable to apply
conditions to govern aspects of the design368, and require samples of
materials369. Linked to that, other conditions are necessary to ensure any
subsequent changes to the building can be managed by the Council370. To
ensure that it is provided in an appropriate manner, in appearance and
amenity terms, it is essential that details of external lighting are made subject
to condition371.
10.7 Conditions are necessary to deal with the landscaping scheme and its ongoing
maintenance372.
10.8 The cycle parking proposed needs to be secured by condition. I have modified
that suggested to properly reflect the number of spaces shown on the plans373.
To supplement that, a further condition is needed to ensure that once
provided, the cycle parking is properly managed374.
10.9 Conditions are necessary to address the provision of facilities for storage and
disposal of household refuse and recycling, and to secure a Waste
Management Strategy that encourages householders to recycle as much as
possible375. Linked to that, a condition is required to secure a Delivery and
Servicing Management Plan376 to ensure these operations can take place in
ways that are safe and protect residents’ living conditions.
10.10 A range of conditions are needed in order to address the need to protect
against noise. First, noise and vibration from plant need to be covered377.
Then, residential units need to be adequately protected against other external
sources of noise378. On top of that, the means to ensure adequate sound
insulation between flats, and between residential uses and the community
space, need to be secured by conditions379. A condition has been suggested to
ensure that no music or amplified sound from the premises is audible at
nearby residential or other noise sensitive locations380. Given the potential for
the community space to house events, this is a necessary imposition.
10.11 For environmental reasons, a condition381 is necessary to require details of air
and water source heat pumps and the emergency generators to be submitted
for the approval of the Council.
10.12 A series of conditions has been proffered to address various matters relating to
access. First of all, to ensure that all needs are properly catered for, it is
368 Suggested Conditions 5, 33 and 21
369 Suggested Condition 4
370 Suggested Condition 6, 42, 43, 44, 46 and 48
371 Suggested Condition 25
372 Suggested Conditions 22, 23 and 45
373 Suggested Condition 9
374 Suggested Condition 10
375 Suggested Conditions 11 and 12
376 Suggested Condition 13
377 Suggested Conditions 26 and 27
378 Suggested Condition 28
379 Suggested Conditions 29 and 30
380 Suggested Condition 49
381 Suggested Condition 32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 68
necessary to attach a condition requiring the submission and subsequent
approval of an Inclusive Access Management Plan382. Linked to that, a
condition is required to ensure level access at ground floor level and minimum
door widths at the main entrance and lifts383. On top of that, a condition is
needed to secure details of the lifts, and their ongoing operation384. A condition
is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with
the Fire Statement385.
10.13 A condition has been suggested that requires external entrance/exit doors not
to open over the public highway386. I can appreciate the intent but the
submitted ground floor plan387 suggests that this situation is unlikely to arise.
However, that might depend, in the longer term, on how the external spaces
around the building are dealt with in ownership and/or management terms. On
that basis, I have suggested that it be retained.
10.14 The proposed waterproofing and flood-proofing works in the basement of the
building are clearly required and need to be secured by condition388. Details of
foul and surface water drainage need to be submitted for the approval of the
Council and implemented in accordance with the approved details389.
10.15 There is the potential for a tall building such as this to cause interference with
television and airwave signals. Mitigation measures, should any such
interference occur, have to be secured by condition390. As with all tall
buildings, there is an issue around the means by which windows are cleaned.
This needs to be dealt with by condition391.
10.16 Finally, to ensure ease of co-ordination with the Obligation relating to
residents’ parking permits, details of the correct postal addresses of the new
dwelling units need to be lodged with the Council before occupation392.
11 The Obligation
11.1 As set out above, after discussions between the Council and the applicant, a
draft version of an Agreement under s.106 was available for discussion at the
Inquiry. This was helpfully supplemented by an analysis of the various
Obligations included therein, prepared by the Council, in the context of the CIL
Regulations 2010 (as amended)393. Like the discussion around conditions, this
took place on a ‘round table’ basis. I gave the parties time after the Inquiry
closed to complete and sign the document and a final version, dated 21
December 2021, was duly received394.
382 Suggested Condition 34
383 Suggested Condition 50
384 Suggested Condition 35
385 Suggested Condition 52
386 Suggested Condition 47
387 CD1A_14
388 Suggested Condition 36
389 Suggested Condition 37
390 Suggested Conditions 39 and 40
391 Suggested Condition 38
392 Suggested Condition 41
393 CD4.27 (repeated in ID8)
394 ID16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 69
11.2 Mirroring Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended), the
Framework explains in paragraph 57 that planning obligations must only be
sought where they are: necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably
related in scale and kind to the development.
11.3 The Agreement under s.106 contains a series of Obligations which I address in
turn. The first is the Carbon Offset Contribution of £171,841 which is subject
to any recalculation following the submission of a Revised Energy Strategy.
That figure has been arrived at using the Council’s formula for carbon offset
payments and is required because the required zero-carbon target cannot be
met on site. All this is in accord with the approach of London Plan Policy SI2
and Local Plan Policy CC1. In that context, this Obligation clearly meets the
tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.4 Second, there is the Play-Space Contribution of £50,000 which is to be used
for the purposes of improving play-space within 100 metres of the site. This is
intended to address the needs of children living in the development, and the
requirements of London Plan Policy S4 and Local Plan Policies DC2, OS1, OS2
and OS3. It has been agreed between the Council and the applicant as a
proportionate response having regard to those needs. I deal with this matter in
more detail in my conclusions below and it is sufficient to record here that the
Obligation meets the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and
Regulation 122(2).
11.5 After that, there is an Obligation to carry out and complete Wind Mitigation
Measures prior to the first occupation of the building. These measures have
been identified in the applicant’s Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate
Assessment which shows that mitigation measures are required to make the
proposal acceptable in microclimate terms. The Obligation is there to secure
those mitigation measures as required by London Plan Policy GG1 and Local
Plan Policies CC2 and DC3. As such, the Obligation meets the tests set out in
paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.6 There are then a series of Obligations relating to Highways and Transport
Infrastructure. These cover highway works, including surface treatments,
reconstruction of crossovers, replacement street trees, street furniture, and
the alteration of waiting and loading restrictions, that would be required to
mitigate impacts on the public highway, as required by Local Plan Policy T3
and associated SPD. These Obligations very clearly meet the tests set out in
paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.7 Linked to that, Obligations are included to deal with the submission and
subsequent monitoring of Travel Plans relating to residents of the
development, and construction workers. These are intended to encourage a
shift away from the use of the private car, amongst other things, and are
required by Local Plan Policy T2. In that light, the Obligations meet the tests
set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.8 Further to that, are limitations to prevent residents of the development
applying for parking permits relating to any Controlled Parking Zone in the
Borough. Given that the proposal is intended to be ‘car free’ and that this is
relied upon to ensure that there would be no impact on existing parking
demand in the area, this is clearly necessary to gain accordance with Local
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 70
Plan Policy T2. As such, the Obligation meets the tests set out in paragraph 57
of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.9 As set out, all the residential units in the scheme are ‘affordable’. On that
basis, Obligations are included to secure them, the tenure split, and a specified
unit mix, together with mechanisms for appointing a registered provider,
nominations arrangements, marketing, eligibility and liaison with the Council.
Given the basis of the proposal, these Obligations very clearly meet the tests
set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.10 On top of that, an Obligation is included to ensure that 10% of the units are
suitable for wheelchair users with 90% of those designed to meet Building
Regulations M4(2) and 10% M4(3). Given the requirements of Local Plan
Policies DC2 and HO6, this Obligation meets the tests set out in paragraph 57
of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.11 Finally, in accordance with Local Plan Policy E4, there is a need for a Jobs,
Employment and Training Strategy. This is intended to identify and promote
employment, training and business opportunities for local residents and
businesses in the course of the construction process. This meets the tests set
out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2).
11.12 In summary, it is my considered view that all the obligations in the various
Schedules that make up the Agreement under s.106 meet the tests of the
Framework and fully comply with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the
CIL Regulations 2010.
12 Inspector’s Conclusions
12.1 In this part of the report, I have used references thus [--] to cross-refer to
previous paragraphs in the report, and in particular, the relevant part of the
main parties’ cases.
Introduction
12.2 In the lead-up to, and in opening the inquiry, cognisant of what the Secretary
of State particularly wished to be informed about, I set out the main issues to
be considered as: the effect of the proposals on the townscape or character
and appearance of the area (and included in that the question of design and
any effect on the setting and thereby the significance of heritage assets); the
effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing residents of the area
(in terms of outlook, privacy, daylight/sunlight, overshadowing and the like)
and prospective residents (in terms of the provision of play- and/or open-
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 71
space, and building- and in particular fire-safety); the question of whether any
impacts on local services/infrastructure would be properly mitigated – included
in that is the operation of the Obligations and drainage; and the proper
context for decision-making and the influence of the Framework in the light of
any benefits the scheme might bring forward. [6.2-6.7, 7.2, 8.2]
12.3 All that remains relevant, but before embarking on that analysis, there are
some important points about the context for decision-making that feed into
the consideration required.
The Baseline
12.4 As set out above, the application site was formerly home to Edith Summerskill
House, one of two ‘point blocks’ on the Clem Attlee Estate, the other being
Herbert Morrison House, constructed in the 1960s. Edith Summerskill House
contained 68 residential units across 18 storeys (plus plant).
12.5 The demolition of Edith Summerskill House was certified as complete in
November 2018, following an application for prior approval lodged in October
2016. An application for planning permission for a proposal much the same as
that under consideration here was made in May 2017. Planning permission was
granted for that proposal in October 2019. The reasons why this previous
grant of permission was quashed by the High Court in December 2019 have
been set out, and I need not dwell on them here.
12.6 What is relevant and important to note is that when the application at issue
here was made (it was validated by the Council in July 2020), Edith
Summerskill House had gone. The baseline for the consideration of the
proposal in terms of its impacts is a cleared site, therefore. All accept that.
12.7 That said, the fact that the site was occupied by a tall building for more than
50 years is not something that can be completely ignored. It is a material
consideration, as I explain below.
Housing and Affordable Housing
12.8 Helpfully, the Council has produced material to show that it can demonstrate a
five-year supply of deliverable housing sites when measured against the target
for the Borough set out in the London Plan.
12.9 This means that decision-making must be approached in the general manner
set out in s.38(6) of the 2004 Act. I deal with this below.
12.10 However, the record of the Borough in relation to affordable housing is not so
positive. All agree that there is a significant shortfall against what are pressing
needs. The weight to be attached to the 133 affordable housing units the
scheme proposes must take account of that situation. [6.8-6.20, 7.3-7.23]
Townscape and the Character and Appearance of the Area
Context
12.11 The genesis of the Clem Attlee Estate has been ably set out in the evidence.
First, areas of largely terraced housing, destroyed or damaged by wartime
bombing, were removed, and the estate, made up of predominantly mid-rise
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 72
housing, punctuated by two tall 18 storey point blocks, and a series of 11
storey ‘Y’ or tri-axial blocks, was arranged around areas of open space.
12.12 When built, the estate must have appeared very different to the traditional
terraced housing on the surrounding streets. Notwithstanding changes made
since, notably the removal of some of the original ‘Y’ or tri-axial blocks on the
western side of the estate and their replacement with lower-rise housing, the
estate retains that powerful contrast with its surroundings. It is a contrast that
is in my view a pleasing one, reflecting as it does the changes the area has
undergone in the Twentieth Century.
12.13 The application site itself, which was home to Edith Summerskill House one of
the two point blocks on the estate, before its demolition, is on the south-
eastern edge of the estate. It is bounded on either side by the four-storey Nye
Bevan House and George Lindgren House. Notwithstanding the removal of
Edith Summerskill House, the cleared application site is seen as part of the
estate, rather than anything to do with the terraced housing to the south.
12.14 Moreover, the placement of a tall point block upon it was clearly a conscious
design decision. The dialogue between Edith Summerskill House and Herbert
Morrison House as point blocks, amid the lower housing and open spaces
around them, was a carefully designed and important part of the overall
composition of the estate.
12.15 I agree that the detailed resolution of the buildings that made up the estate
was poor (though in the context of post-war austerity I can understand why
that might be). However, that does not prevent an appreciation of the vision
and ambition behind it, or the quality of the composition. It is perfectly
reasonable for the architect to have used these qualities as the trigger for a
new building on the site of Edith Summerskill House.
Design
12.16 Further, in the light of the London Plan, and the Framework, it is absolutely
essential for the architect to have approached the design of the building from
the point of view that the best possible use must be made of the site.
12.17 The key is that the site must be optimised, and I take that to mean that the
correct balance must be struck between the amount of housing that can be
provided upon it, and the impacts that might result from so doing.
12.18 That, considered alongside the fact that the site was home to a tall building as
part of the composition of the original estate, suggests to me that, in design
terms at least, there should be no ‘in principle’ difficulty with placing a tall
building on the site. The success or otherwise of that depends to a large
extent, as always, on the quality of the design.
12.19 The use of two interlocking squares as the plan-form is most thoughtful. It has
the advantage of maximising the external face of the building, which in turn
allows for more penetration of sunlight and daylight into the various rooms,
and a high proportion of dual aspect units. Moreover, this device makes for a
very efficient core, in terms of the use of space.
12.20 The various units themselves are similarly well-planned; their arrangement is
logical and careful in the use made of space. Nevertheless, the units are,
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 73
relatively speaking, generous in terms of floor areas and room sizes. Part of
the reason why they exceed the Mayor’s space standards is because of the
conscious decision to avoid the provision of external balconies and/or winter
gardens. In view of the difficulties these can cause in buildings of the height
proposed, I see no great difficulty with that, in design terms. In any event, the
way in which the standardised window module functions would allow residents
to open full height windows, protected by railings, allowing for natural
ventilation, and ease of contact with the outside.
12.21 The way that the plan-form is translated into three dimensions is similarly
intelligent. The use of a standardised window module, overlain by a second
skin, with arches, gives the external form of the building, at its upper levels, a
logic and discipline that is to my mind, pleasing. The switch from two-storey to
three-storey arches in the second skin to reflect a grander scale as the height
of the building increases is rational. The top of the building is well-handled too;
it makes a distinct statement in moving away from the arch in the outer skin
that makes for a plain upward conclusion. Taking the outer skin beyond the
top-most storey of accommodation works well too, masking the plant, but also
‘capturing’ the sky.
12.22 That conclusion to the top of the building is underlined too by the proportional
system adopted and in particular the application of the Golden Ratio to it. This
would give the viewer the sense that the building is the height it is for good
reason. This is not, like some, a tall building that has the appearance of having
been ‘extruded’; that it could continue upward indefinitely. It has a top that is
set where it is by reason of design and proportion.
12.23 The way in which the proposal would meet the ground is also attractive.
Cutting away a section of the plan-form to allow for an arcade provides for a
legible way in not only to the building, but also to the estate. That new
entrance to the estate would be announced by the building. The community
room, and the attendant kitchenette, would provide an active frontage on to
the play-space to the north.
12.24 The way in which the entrance to the building works is most adept. Access to
the cycle storage at mezzanine level is by a stair with facility for bicycles to be
wheeled up it. The landing opens out into the arcade, and the stair emerges on
to a landing that looks down into the building’s double-height entrance lobby.
It is a small feature, but it speaks to the level of thought that has gone into
the overall design.
12.25 The base of the building, formed in brickwork, would provide active frontages
and assimilate the building into its surroundings. It would provide an obvious
entrance to the southern part of the estate; something that it currently lacks.
The hard landscaping, and associated planting, would augment that. At ground
level, the building would work very effectively, and act, very clearly, as part of
the Clem Attlee Estate395.
12.26 From further afield, it would appear quite different to the rest of the estate but
in my view that is no bad thing when the reason for that difference is that the
395 See CD4.12c – AVR27 and AVR28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 74
building would be of a significantly higher standard of detailed design396. The
building would have a very well-composed base, middle, and top and in
general terms, the high quality of the design would mean that the building
would act as a beacon, marking the southern entrance to the estate, in a way
that would enhance the townscape, and the character and appearance of the
area. Having looked at some of the architect’s other built work, it seems to me
that this proposal will age well too, so that quality will endure. The other
buildings I saw showed a care and attention in the choice of materials, and
their detailing that is laudable.
12.27 Having said all that, I do not subscribe to the view that good design can
excuse all impacts; even the best designed buildings can have those that
grate. That is especially so when one is considering designated heritage assets
that the building would have a relationship with. [6.36-6.88, 7.24-7.49, 8.14-
8.19]
The Effect on the Setting and thereby the Significance of Heritage Assets
12.28 The applicant and the Council acknowledge that there would be harmful
impacts on the setting and thereby the significance of two designated heritage
assets – the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, a Grade II* listed building,
designed by Pugin, and dating from the mid-19th Century, and the Central
Fulham Conservation Area. The Rule 6(6) party has cast the net further.
12.29 Dealing first of all with the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, it is the chief
element in a complex of listed buildings that includes the Presbytery (listed
Grade II), the Harwarth Mausoleum (Grade II), a War Memorial (Grade II),
and a Tombstone to Warrington Taylor397 by Philip Webb (Grade II).
12.30 These monuments, and the Presbytery, do derive some of their significance as
designated heritage assets from their setting, but this is bound up in the
strong relationship they have with the church. That relationship would be
unaffected by the proposal and on that basis, I find that it would have no
harmful impact on their setting, or their significance.
12.31 The church, however, is a different matter. It predated the area’s housing but
over time, it has become enclosed. That is especially evident in the churchyard
or cemetery (where the monuments are located) which is hemmed in by the
backs of houses.
12.32 Nevertheless, the spire of the church is tall and slender and being visible from
adjoining streets, notably Estcourt Road and Sherbrook Road, it marks the
position of the church. These views of the spire contribute to the setting and
the significance of the church.
12.33 Like Herbert Morrison House already does, and Edith Summerskill House did
previously, the proposal would appear in many of these views398. However, in
these and other similar views that are available I do not consider that the
proposal would lead to visual tension with the spire, and it would not detract
396 See CD4.12b and CD4.12c – AVR12, AVR13, AVR16, AVR17, AVR18, AVR26, AVR10 (as
corrected in ID5), AVR21 and so forth
397 William Morris’ Business Manager
398 CD4.12c - AVR06, AVR07, AVR08, and AVR09 and CD4.12a View F give a flavour
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 75
from the way in which it serves to locate the church amidst the housing that
surrounds it. While strong, the presence of the proposal in these views would
not have a harmful impact on the setting or the significance of the church.
12.34 There are, however, important views of the west front of the church, and the
tower and the spire that springs from it, from the churchyard. The proposal
would be a very strong presence in these views399. Notwithstanding the
attractive design of the proposal, and the visibility of other tall buildings from
the churchyard, there would be visual tension, particularly where the proposal
would sit directly behind the spire. That would detract from, and have a
harmful impact on, the setting, and thereby the significance of the church.
12.35 The church, and the churchyard, are located in the northernmost part of the
Central Fulham Conservation Area and are an important part of its overall
significance. The harmful impact on the setting and thereby the significance of
the church would, therefore, also result in a harmful impact on the setting and
thereby the significance of the conservation area.
12.36 In other views from within the conservation area, where the spire of the
church and the proposal would be seen in the same view, for the reasons set
out above, there would be nothing jarring about the relationship. As such,
there would no harmful impact on the setting or the significance of the
conservation area, as a result400.
12.37 The Central Fulham Conservation Area is relatively large and there would be
views of the proposal from many other parts of it too. However, in these
views, the proposal would appear as a well-designed building, some distance
away. There would be nothing harmful about that presence.
12.38 As set out above, the Rule 6(6) party raised issues around the impact of the
proposal on a number of other designated heritage assets too.
12.39 The Church of St John, a Grade II listed building, is the focus of the Walham
Green Conservation Area. The proposal would be prominent in views out of the
conservation area, that also take in the church and in particular, its tower401.
The Rule 6(6) party has suggested that the intrusion of the proposal into these
views would be harmful to the setting and thereby the significance of both.
12.40 I do not share that view. The church derives an element of its significance as
the centrepiece, on an island site, of what was once the separate rural
settlement of Walham Green. That is the extent to which setting contributes to
its significance. The visual presence of the proposal, strong as it would
undoubtedly be, would not undermine, or confuse that relationship. In that
way, the proposal would change the setting of the church, but it would not
harm it, or the contribution it makes to the significance of the church.
12.41 In the same way, the significance of the conservation area is made up of the
core of the (former) settlement it covers, and the buildings, particularly the
historic ones, therein. The presence of a well-designed tall building, some
distance away, well separated from it, would have an impact on the setting of
399 CD4.12c - AVR9A, AVR9B, AVR 9C and also CD4.12a View 9C, View 9A, and View 9B
400 CD4.12c - AVR06 AVR07 AVR08 and AVR09
401 CD4.12c – AVR23, AVR24, AVRD and AVR25
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 76
the conservation area, and those buildings, but it would not be a harmful one.
In my view, the significance of the Walham Green Conservation Area would
not be dimmed buy the ability to see the proposal from it.
12.42 There is a pleasing group of historic buildings on Haldane Road which while
outside the conservation area, are visible from within it along Haldane Road402.
The proposal would be seen rising above the group, but I do not consider that
in an urban setting, the relationship would be so extreme that harm would be
caused to the setting or the significance of the conservation area as a result.
12.43 No.282 North End Road is a Grade II listed building, and its gate piers are also
listed at Grade II. Both derive some significance from their setting as historic
elements in a street-scene much changed since they were built. There would
be a view towards the frontage of the building, from North End Road, along
Coomer Place403 that would take in the proposal at relatively close quarters.
However, the juxtaposition would not be an awkward one, and the significance
the listed buildings draw from their setting would not be undermined by the
visual presence of the proposal.
12.44 The Sedlescombe Road Conservation Area lies to the north-east of the appeal
site. There would be views of the proposal from it, and in particular something
of an axial one along Anselm Road404. This conservation area derives most of
its significance from the distinctive Arts and Crafts housing within it, and very
little from its setting in a wider urban area. In that context, I do not see how,
the visual presence of the proposal, despite being strong, would change that
urban setting to the extent that the significance of the conservation area would
be harmed.
12.45 Beyond the harm that would be caused to the setting and thereby the
significance of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, and the Central Fulham
Conservation Area, I agree that the analysis put forward on behalf of the Rule
6(6) party has tended towards equating visibility of the proposal with harm.
12.46 In terms of the two designated heritage assets where I have identified harm to
significance through an impact on their settings, there is a need to calibrate
that harm. Again, there is a difference between the parties.
12.47 The applicant and the Council agree that this harm would be at the lower end
of the scale of less than substantial harm, while the analysis carried out on
behalf of the Rule 6(6) party, in relation to these two designated heritage
assets, puts it near the middle of that scale.
12.48 I accept that the threshold between less than substantial and substantial harm
as referred to in the Framework has recently been considered by the High
Court in relation to the decision of the Minister of State for Housing to grant
permission for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower
Gardens, Millbank, and that the result of that is awaited. My analysis is
therefore based on the position at the time of writing.
402 CD4.12c – AVRC and AVR21
403 There is a photograph at Page 10 of the original Heritage Statement (CD1.17)
404 CD4.12c – AVR20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 77
12.49 The point was not made in these terms at the Inquiry but for my part I see
little between the decision of the High Court in Bedford405, the Court of Appeal
in Bramshill406, and the PPG. Essentially, substantial harm is set at a high bar,
such that a good deal (or all) of the significance of a designated heritage asset
would have to be removed for it to be reached. That means that the range for
a finding of less than substantial harm is very wide indeed, from a harmful
impact that is hardly material, to something just below that high bar.
12.50 In cases where the impact is on the setting of a designated heritage asset, it is
only the significance that asset derives from its setting that is affected. All the
significance embodied in the asset itself would remain intact. In such a case,
unless the asset concerned derives a major proportion of its significance from
its setting, then it is very difficult to see how an impact on its setting can
advance a long way along the scale towards substantial harm to significance.
12.51 In this particular case, the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury does derive
something of its significance from its setting, but the overwhelming proportion
is locked into its form and fabric. Moreover, harmful impacts as a result of the
proposal on its setting, and thereby its significance, would only occur from a
few places in the churchyard or cemetery. In views from the streets around
the church, the proposal would have no harmful impact on its setting.
12.52 On that basis, the harm that would be caused to the setting and thereby the
significance of the church would be less than substantial, and very much at the
lower end of the scale.
12.53 In terms of the Central Fulham Conservation Area, its character and
appearance, and all the significance locked into the buildings and spaces within
it, would remain intact. The harmful impact to its significance would be limited
to those views of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, set out above, that
are within the conservation area. These views contribute something to the
significance of the conservation area but bearing in mind its scale, and
everything it contains, the harm that would be caused to the setting and
thereby the significance of the conservation area as a result of the proposal
would be very minor indeed and even further toward the bottom of the scale of
less than substantial harm than what would be caused to the significance of
the church.
12.54 It is often argued that such an approach leads to harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset being underestimated. However, what is under
consideration is the impact of change on the significance of a designated
heritage asset. If that change would come about as a result of development in
the setting of that asset, then it is only the component of significance that the
asset derives from its setting that would be affected. That is the outcome of
the approach the Framework takes.
12.55 Returning to my findings above, these take me to paragraph 202 of the
Framework. This sets out that where a development proposal will lead to less
than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this
harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. That
405 CD9.2
406 CD9.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 78
balancing exercise needs to take place in the context of what it says in
paragraph 199 of the Framework: When considering the impact of a proposed
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight
should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset,
the greater the weight should be).
12.56 In terms of the harmful impact of the proposal on the setting of the Church of
St Thomas of Canterbury, a Grade II* listed building, there is a statutory as
well as a policy, requirement to attach considerable importance and weight to
it in the planning balance as a result of the workings of s.66(1) of the Act.
12.57 Nevertheless, even though the harm caused to the setting and thereby the
significance of the church, and the setting and thereby the significance of the
conservation area are weighty matters, they are, in my view, very clearly
outweighed by the public benefits that would flow from the provision of 133
units of affordable housing in such a well-designed building, given the parlous
situation the Council, and London generally, finds itself in, in relation to the
supply of affordable housing. [6.89-6.106, 7.50-7.65, 8.20-8.24]
12.58 I take this conclusion into my consideration of the proposal against the
development plan and other material considerations below but there is one
further matter that needs to be dealt with here. That is the position of Historic
England, who objected to the proposal407.
12.59 As the Government’s advisor on the historic environment, the views of Historic
England should not be lightly set aside. However, in this instance, I have
issues with their analysis. Historic England identify much the same impacts on
the setting of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury as I have above and say
that these: would cause serious harm to the setting of the Church of St
Thomas of Canterbury, which we do not consider has clear and convincing
justification as required by paragraph 194 of the Framework408.
12.60 Paragraph 200 of the (current version of the) Framework says that any harm
or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or
destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and
convincing justification.
12.61 Two points flow from that. First of all, serious is not a classification of harm
that sits well with the Framework. Paragraph 200 makes clear that any harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset is to be considered serious.
Indeed, s.66(1) and s.72(1) of the Act work in the same way. It is difficult
therefore, to understand where along the scale of harm through less than
substantial to substantial, the Historic England conclusion sits.
12.62 Second, the Courts have held409 that if the decision-maker works through the
sequence for dealing with proposals affecting heritage assets in the Framework
and finds that any harm to significance is outweighed by public benefits, then
the clear and convincing justification referred to in the Framework is in place.
407 CD2.19
408 CD2.19 Page 6 under the heading Recommendation (this letter dated August 2020 refers to
a previous iteration of the Framework)
409 Pugh v SoS for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3 (Admin)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 79
To work through that sequence, the decision-maker needs to take public
benefits into account. It is not clear from their submission that Historic
England have done so, and in any case, carrying out a balancing exercise of
that sort would be well beyond their remit.
12.63 On that overall basis, very little weight can be attached to the views of Historic
England, in this particular case.
Living Conditions
12.64 The starting point for an analysis of the impacts of the proposal on existing
residents in the area, whether they live in the Clem Attlee Estate or in the
terraced housing to the south of the site, is the baseline. It is correct to say
that any redevelopment of the site, that makes best use of it as policy
requires, is going to have something of an impact on the living conditions of
existing residents of the area.
12.65 In terms of their outlook, the building proposed is going to be prominent and a
strong visible presence for existing residents. However, in an urban setting, it
would not be sited so close to existing dwellings that it would appear
overbearing or oppressive. Windows in the proposal will overlook adjoining
houses and gardens but the degree of separation would be such that there
would be no significant reduction in the levels of privacy enjoyed by existing
residents as a result.
12.66 The proposal would lead to some reduction in levels of daylight and sunlight
reaching nearby dwellings and their gardens, and open spaces. However, the
technical analyses carried out on behalf of the applicant, show that these
reductions would be well within reasonable bounds.
12.67 Points were raised too about traffic generation and parking. The proposal is
designed to be ‘car-free’. People living within the development would not be
able to apply for residents’ parking permits. That it seems to me would act as
a significant disincentive to car ownership, as would the ready access to public
transport from the site. I appreciate that the development would lead to an
increase in foot traffic in the streets around the site, but the street pattern is
such that this would be easily dissipated. I do not believe there would be any
difficulties in this regard as a result of the proposal.
12.68 In that overall context, I am content that the proposal would have no
unacceptable impact on the living conditions of existing residents of the area.
12.69 As far as the living conditions of prospective residents of the proposal are
concerned, I have covered above the quality of the internal accommodation
that it offers. The lack of balconies and/or winter gardens would be more than
compensated by the generosity of the internal space on offer. On top of that,
there is open space available within the estate itself (I deal with play-space
specifically below) and there is a good deal of open space a short distance
away, in Normand Park.
12.70 Points have been raised about the availability of play-space. The proposal does
not provide the amount of on-site play-space that would be required by
London Plan Policy S4. However, it is difficult to see how it could while making
best use of the site as required by other London Plan Policies, and the
Framework. The applicant has dealt with this through a financial contribution
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 80
in the Agreement under s.106, an approach the supporting text to London Plan
Policy S4 allows for.
12.71 This obligation will allow for a qualitative improvement in the facilities for play
that sit to the immediate north of the site. That seems to me an appropriate
response to the balance required between the provision of play-space and the
need to make best use of the application site for housing. While it does not
bear heavily on that conclusion, I draw comfort too from the quality and
quantity of facilities for play in the nearby Normand Park.
12.72 The impact of the proposal on the microclimate around the building in terms of
wind has been raised. There would be some impact, as might be expected
from any tall building, in the windy seasons in particular, but in my view the
scheme addresses those impacts in a well-balanced way. Those using the
spaces around the base of the building would not be affected to an
unacceptable extent.
12.73 One other matter that appears best dealt with under the ambit of the living
conditions of prospective residents is fire safety. I can appreciate, in the
context of the awful events at Grenfell, why the provision of a single staircase
in a tall building like that at issue is questioned. However, a call in under s.77
is not the place to be reviewing the approach to fire safety in, and means of
escape from, tall buildings. That would be a matter for any review of the
Building Regulations that may flow from conclusions reached by the Grenfell
Inquiry. In the light of requirements as they stand, there is no good reason to
question the approach taken to fire safety by the applicants.
12.74 Taking these points together, I am content that the proposal would provide
generally excellent living conditions for prospective residents and would have
no undue impact on existing residents of the area. [6.125-6.135, 7.92-7.117,
8.25-8.30, 9.3-9.5]
Local Services/Infrastructure
12.75 I have dealt with these matters, in the main, in my analysis of the various
obligations in the Agreement under s106 set out above. The only matter not
dealt with in that analysis is drainage. The applicant’s technical material
addresses this matter, in terms of capacity, and general approach, and a
condition is to be attached to deal with the precise details of surface and foul
water drainage. There are no issues in terms of drainage that weigh against
the proposal. [6.128, 7.118-7.126]
Final Conclusions
12.76 As I have set out above, the harm caused to the setting and thereby the
significance of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury, and the setting and
thereby the significance of the Central Fulham Conservation Area attract
considerable importance and weight but they are, nevertheless, very clearly
outweighed by the public benefits that would flow from the provision of 133
units of affordable housing in such a well-designed building, in the light of the
prevailing situation in relation to the supply of affordable housing. On that
basis, given that it includes the balancing exercise in the Framework, the
proposal is in clear accord with Local Plan Policy DC8.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 81
12.77 However, London Plan Policy HC1 does not reflect the approach of the
Framework to designated heritage assets in that it seeks to conserve the
significance of heritage assets, without making provision for any harm to
significance to be outweighed by public benefits. Given that the proposal would
harm the significance of designated heritage assets, as set out above, it does
not comply with London Plan Policy HC1.
12.78 That leads me on to considerations of design, and associated matters. The site
is not in one of the areas deemed suitable for tall buildings in the Local Plan.
As a result, the proposal is not in accordance with the locational requirements
of Local Plan Policy DC3, or Part B of London Plan Policy D9.
12.79 However, as I have set out above, the design of the proposal is exemplary and
it would be an addition to the skyline of outstanding quality that would raise
the bar for development in the area, and London generally. In so doing, it
would meet all the criteria set out in Local Plan Policy DC3, and most of those
in Part C of London Plan Policy D9.
12.80 The complication, in terms of London Plan Policy D9 is the stipulation therein
that proposals should take account of, and avoid harm, to the significance of
London’s heritage assets and their settings. Further, proposals resulting in
harm will require clear and convincing justification, demonstrating that
alternatives have been explored and that there are clear public benefits that
outweigh that harm. In carrying out the heritage balancing exercise above, I
have concluded that there are clear public benefits that very easily outweigh
the harm to the significance of designated heritage assets the proposal would
cause so on that basis, this part of the policy is satisfied.
12.81 However, the policy does suggest that the ‘clear and convincing justification’
required should include the exploration of alternatives, on the basis that harm
should, if possible be avoided. The approach to alternatives was explored at
the Inquiry.
12.82 For my part, I am not sure it takes matters very far in the context of an
application for housing, and in particular affordable housing. It can be argued
that the 133 units of affordable housing could be provided elsewhere in the
Borough, or indeed London. However, the way in which the London Plan
approaches housing, and making the best use of land, would suggest that any
alternative site to that at issue should be accommodating the absolute
maximum amount of housing, in any event. In the case of housing, unlike for
example, a road scheme410, there are no ‘alternatives’ in that sense. If a
scheme has impacts that are found acceptable in the light of public benefits,
then that should be the end of the matter. On that basis, and in the context of
the housing this particular scheme would bring forward, I am content that the
criteria in Part C of London Plan Policy D9 are met.
12.83 I would also observe, in relation to alternatives, that any alternative scheme
for the site would have to make best use of it in order to accord with the
approach of the London Plan. In that light, I do not believe that the
suggestions made by the Rule 6(6) party that a scheme of 7 storeys or lower
might be pursued are tenable. Of course, something higher than that, but
410 As in the Save Stonehenge case – CD9.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 82
lower than the proposal, could be arrived at. However, any such scheme (and
there are none before the Inquiry) would be very likely to have much the same
impacts on the setting and thereby the significance of the church, and the
conservation area, while delivering a reduced number of housing units, and
correspondingly less public benefit as a result.
12.84 It follows from my conclusions above that in terms of its design, the proposal
attains the high bar required by Local Plan Policy DC2. Moreover, in setting
those high standards while simultaneously delivering 133 units of high-quality
units of affordable housing, it complies with London Plan Policies D2 and D3,
and London Plan Policy GG2.
12.85 In more general terms, the delivery of 133 affordable homes would contribute
to meeting London and the Borough’s housing, and affordable housing, targets
as set out in London Plan Policies GG4, H1 and H4, and Local Plan Policies
HO1, HO3 and HO5.
12.86 Some dispute has been raised about the applicability of London Plan Policy H8
which deals with the loss of existing housing and estate redevelopment. Edith
Summerskill House was demolished through a separate process, and before,
the scheme at issue was (first) considered by the Council. It is right then that
the baseline for the consideration of impacts is a cleared site.
12.87 However, the suggestion that this also means that London Plan Policy H8 does
not apply stretches that too far, in my view. When the Council took the
decision to demolish Edith Summerskill House it was not a decision taken in
isolation. There was always the intention that it would be replaced. In that
light, London Plan Policy H8 must have a bearing on the proposal and in
increasing the number of units on site from 68 to 133, the proposal clearly
accords with its requirement to ensure any existing housing lost, is replaced by
new housing at existing or higher densities.
12.88 The housing that would be brought forward by the scheme would provide living
conditions for prospective residents that would be excellent in the main, and
the impact on the living conditions of existing residents of the area would be
well within reasonable bounds. On that basis, the proposal accords with
London Plan Policy D6 and Local Plan Policy DC2, in this regard, and the
Council’s Planning Guidance SPD.
12.89 There is nothing to suggest that the scheme would raise any issues in terms of
fire safety so there is accordance with London Plan Policy D12
12.90 In terms of the provision of play-space, the scheme does not accord with the
requirements of London Plan Policy S4. However, as set out above, the
approach taken in the Agreement under s106, and the financial contribution
therein, satisfies paragraph 5.4.6 of the accompanying text.
12.91 Bringing all those points together, the scheme does not comply with London
Plan Policy HC1 in terms of its harmful impact on the significance of designated
heritage assets, Local Plan Policy DC3, the locational requirements for tall
buildings in London Plan Policy D9, or London Plan Policy S4 in relation to play-
space.
12.92 Nevertheless, in delivering 133 affordable housing units in a building of
exemplary design that makes efficient use of a well-located, small, previously-
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 83
developed site, while providing safe and mostly excellent living conditions for
its residents, without any undue impact on the living conditions of existing
residents, the proposal accords with London Plan Policies GG2, GG4, H1, H4,
H8, D2, D3, D6 and D12, and the criteria for tall buildings in D9, and Local
Plan Policies HO1, HO3, HO5, DC8, and DC2.
12.93 On that basis, it is my strong conclusion that there is accord with the
development plan, read as a whole.
12.94 There are points I would underline in reaching that conclusion. First, the
Hillingdon judgment makes plain that a failure to accord with the locational
requirements in Part B of London Plan Policy D9 does not stand in the way of a
finding that a scheme for a tall building can accord with the development plan
read as a whole.
12.95 I accept that the approach of Local Plan Policy DC3 is different because the
criteria therein are specifically directed at the locations identified in the policy.
However, it is fair to observe that this policy was framed in the context of the
housing targets in the Local Plan which were based on the previous iteration of
the London Plan. Those targets have increased significantly in the current
London Plan. The locational approach of Local Plan DC3 must be, at the very
least, open to question, therefore.
12.96 I might also add that London Plan Policy D9 and Local Plan Policy DC3 appear
to make no provision for the approach to be taken to a replacement tall
building. Given that it was always the intention of the Council to replace Edith
Summerskill House, that must have some bearing on the application of these
policies.
12.97 London Plan Policy HC1 that deals with heritage assets is of course very
recently adopted. However, in failing to include a balancing exercise allowing
any adverse impacts of a development proposal on the significance of heritage
assets to be weighed against public benefits, it is, in my view, somewhat out
of step with the Framework. It can reasonably be surmised that this omission
was made in the knowledge that any failure against this policy would not
prevent a finding of accordance with the development plan read as a whole.
Otherwise, it seems to me, the ambitious targets for development in the
London Plan would be very likely to be frustrated by the high number of
heritage assets across the capital. It might also explain why, despite its
absence from London Plan Policy HC1, it is included in London Plan Policy D9.
12.98 Finally, while London Plan Policy S4 sets out requirements for the provision of
play-space, the accompanying text makes allowance for the payment of an
appropriate financial contributions in lieu. That is what is in place here and the
failure of the proposal to accord with the terms of the policy itself must be
seen in this light.
12.99 For all those reasons it is my conclusion that the proposal is in accordance not
only with the development plan, read as a whole, but also the Framework.
There are no other material considerations that would justify a conclusion
contrary to the development plan. [6.136-6.151, 7.127-7.149, 8.31-8.42]
13 Recommendations
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 84
13.1 I recommend that planning permission should be granted for the proposal,
subject to the conditions set out in Annex D, and the Agreement under s.106.
Paul Griffiths
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 85
Annex A: APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Zack Simons of Counsel Instructed by Matthew White of Herbert Smith
Freehills LLP
He called Simon Henley RIBA
Director Henley Halebrown
Professor Robert Tavernor BA DipArch PhD RIBA
Director, Tavernor Consultancy
Ignus Froneman BArch.Stud ACIfA IHBC
Director, Cogent Heritage
Neil Henderson MTP MRTPI
Partner, Gerald Eve LLP
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Hereward Phillpot QC Instructed by Poonam Rajput on behalf of the
Chief Solicitor LBHF
He called Allan Jones BA(Hons) MRTPI Dip.Town Planning
and Urban Design
Urban Design and Heritage Team Leader, LBHF
Peter Wilson MA MRTPI
Deputy Team Leader Strategic Applications, LBHF
FOR THE R6(6) PARTY:
Richard Turney
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Irene Chia Local Resident
Paul Nichols Local Resident
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 86
Annex B: CORE DOCUMENTS
Section 1 Application Documents Submitted
CD1.1 Application Forms and Certificate
CD1.2 CIL Form
CD1.3 Covering Letter (Gerald Eve LLP)
CD1.4 Design and Access Statement (HHbR)
CD1.5 Acoustic Report (Arup)
CD1.6 Air Quality Assessment (AECOM)
CD1.7 Amenity, Education and Primary Health Note (AECOM)
CD1.8a Tree Constraints Plan Revision A
CD1.8b Tree Constraints Plan Revision B
CD1.9 Basement Construction Method Statement (Arup)
CD1.10 Construction Management Plan (Arup)
CD1.11 Daylight and Sunlight Statement (GIA)
CD1.11a Daylight and Sunlight Appendices
CD1.12 Desk Based Contamination Report (Arup)
CD1.12a Appendix P1 to Desk Based Contamination Report
CD1.12b Appendix P2
CD1.12c Appendix P3
CD1.12d Appendix P4
CD1.12e Appendix P5
CD1.12f Appendix P6
CD1.12g Appendix P7
CD1.12h Appendix P8
CD1.12i Appendix P9
CD1.13 Ecology Statement (AECOM)
CD1.13a Phase Habitat Survey
CD1.14 Energy Strategy (Arup)
CD1.15 Flood Risk Assessment (Arup)
CD1.16 Fire Strategy (Arup)
CD1.16a Fire Statement (Addendum Issue)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 87
CD1.17 Heritage Statement (Cogent Heritage)
CD1.18 Planning Statement (Gerald Eve LLP)
CD1.19 Pedestrian Level Wind Assessment (RWDI)
CD1.20 Statement of Community Involvement (George Cochrane)
CD1.21 Sustainability and BREEAM (including SuDS) (Arup)
CD1.22 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment (Tavernor
Consultancy) (2019)
CD1.23 Transport Assessment (including Waste) (Vectos)
CD1.24 Daylight and Sunlight Report (24 February 2020) (Internal Daylight,
Sunlight and Overshadowing Report)
CD1.25 Life-Cycle Carbon Emission Assessment
Section 1A - Drawings
CD1A_1 Site Location Plan
CD1A_2 Existing Site Layout Plan
CD1A_3 Existing Site South-East Elevation
CD1A_4 Existing Site South-West Elevation
CD1A_5 Existing Site North-West Elevation
CD1A_6 Existing Site North-East Elevation
CD1A_7 Proposed Site Location Plan
CD1A_8 Proposed Site Layout Plan
CD1A_9 Proposed Site South-East Elevation
CD1A_10 Proposed Site South-West Elevation
CD1A_11 Proposed Site North-West Elevation
CD1A_12 Proposed Site North-East Elevation
CD1A_13 Proposed Basement Plan
CD1A_14 Proposed Ground Floor Plan
CD1A_15 Proposed Mezzanine Plan
CD1A_16 Proposed First to Third Floor Plans
CD1A_17 Proposed Fourth Floor Plan
CD1A_18 Proposed Fifth to Nineteenth Floor Plans
CD1A_19 Proposed Roof Top Floor Plan
CD1A_20 Proposed Roof Plan
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 88
CD1A_21 Proposed Building South-East Elevation
CD1A_22 Proposed Building South-West Elevation
CD1A_23 Proposed Building North-West Elevation
CD1A_24 Proposed Building North-East Elevation
CD1A_25 Proposed Building Section A-A
CD1A_26 Proposed Building Section B-B
CD1A_27 Proposed Building Section C-C
CD1A_28 Proposed Building Section D-D
CD1A_29 Proposed Building Section E-E
CD1A_30 Proposed Building Section F-F
CD1A_31 Façade Details Typical Upper Floor Type A
CD1A_32 Façade Details Typical Upper Floor Type B
CD1A_33 Façade Details Typical Roof Level Type A
CD1A_34 Façade Details Ground Floor South-East Façade
CD1A_35 Façade Details Ground Floor South-West Façade
CD1A_36 Façade Details Ground Floor South-West Façade
CD1A_37 Façade Details Ground Floor North-West Façade
CD1A_38 Façade Details Ground Floor North-West Façade
CD1A_39 Façade Details Ground Floor North-East Façade
CD1A_40 Façade Details Ground Floor North-East Façade
CD1A_41 Façade Details Ground Floor North-East Façade
CD1A_42 Façade Details Ground Floor North-East Façade
CD1A_43 Façade Details Ground Floor Arcade Section
Section 2
CD2.1 Validation Notice
CD2.2 Site Notice
CD2.3 GLA Stage 1 Report
CD2.4 GLA Stage 2 Report
CD2.5 HSF Letter to MHCLG dated 17 November 2020
CD2.6 MHCLG Call-In Letter dated 10 June 2021
CD2.7 MHCLG Rule 6(6) Request Ruling dated 2 July 2021
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 89
CD2.8 ESH Energy Strategy – Arup Response to GLA Comments
CD2.9 2020 GLA Reporting Sheet ESH (sent with Arup note to LBHF)
CD2.10 Edith Summerskill House Energy Comments – Arup Response
CD2.11 Edith Summerskill House Energy Comments – Arup Response V2
CD2.12 Updated 2020 GLA Emissions Reporting Spread Sheet ESH V2
CD2.13 Correspondence from Paul Baker (LBHF) confirming the position
regarding future heat networks in the area
CD2.14 Updated Energy Assessment and Sustainability Report
CD2.15 Fire Statement Addendum (17 September 2020)
CD2.16 Drainage and SuDS Addendum Technical Note
CD2.17 Written Response by the Applicant’s Townscape Consultant Robert
Tavernor (27 September 2020) to Comments from Claire Browne
CD2.18 Heritage Note by Cogent Heritage (24 September 2020) in response to
comments made by Lorenzo Pandolfi of HCUK Group
CD2.19 Letter (10 August 2020) to Case Officer Peter Wilson on behalf of
Historic England
CD2.20 Letter for Gerald Eve LLP to Peter Wilson (23 September 2020)
enclosing draft conditions with text changes)
Section 3 – Committee Documents
CD3.1 LBHF Committee Agenda
CD3.2 LBHF Committee Report
CD3.3 LBHF Committee Report Addendum – Pages 1-5
CD3.4 LBHF Committee Minutes – Extract of ESH Minutes
Section 4 – Inquiry Documents
CD4.1 Applicant’s Statement of Case
CD4.2 LBHF Statement of Case
CD4.3 Rule 6(6) Party Statement of Case
CD4.4 Statement of Common Ground (Applicant and Council) (August 2021)
CD4.5 Claimant’s Grounds of Challenge
CD4.6 SoS Summary Grounds
CD4.7 Statement of Common Ground (Applicant, Council and Rule 6 Party)
CD4.8 Proof of Evidence of Allan Jones (LBHF)
CD4.9 Proof of Evidence of Peter Wilson (LBHF)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 90
CD4.10 Proof of Evidence of Simon Henley (Applicant)
CD4.10a Simon Henley’s Slideshow
CD4.10b Simon Henley’s Video Animation
CD4.11 Proof of Evidence of Ignus Froneman (Applicant)
CD4.11a Appendices to Ignus Fronemann’s PoE
CD4.12 Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor (Applicant)
CD4.12a Professor Tavernor’s Appendix RT2 (Additional Views since TVIA)
CD4.12b Professor Tavernor’s Appendix RT3 (Views for On-Site Assessment)
CD4.12c Professor Tavernor’s Appendix RT3 (Views for On-Site Assessment)
CD4.13 Proof of Evidence of Neil Henderson (Applicant)
CD4.14 Proof of Evidence of Richard Turney (R6)
CD4.15 Summary Proof of Evidence of Allan Jones
CD4.16 Summary Proof of Evidence of Peter Wilson
CD4.17 Summary Proof of Evidence of Simon Henley
CD4.18 Summary Proof of Evidence of Ignus Froneman
CD4.19 Summary Proof of Evidence of Robert Tavernor
CD4.20 Summary Proof of Evidence of Neil Henderson
CD4.21 Supplementary Proof of Evidence of Neil Henderson
CD4.22 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence of Ignus Froneman
CD4.23 Note by GIA addressing Overshadowing (24 November 2021)
CD4.24 GIA Overshadowing Note (Corrected) (30 November 2021)
CD4.25 GIA Sun Exposure on Ground Assessment (30 November 2021)
CD4.26 LBHF 5 Year Housing Land Supply and Explanatory Note
CD4.27 Agreement under s.106 and Regulation 122 Compliance Schedule
Section 5 – LBHF Policy Documents
CD5.1 LBHF Local Plan
CD5.2 LBHF Local Register of Buildings of Merit (August 2015)
CD5.3 LBHF Housing Register (Excerpt)
Section 6 – Mayor of London Policy Documents
CD6.1 London Plan
Section 7 – National Policy Documents
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 91
CD7.1 National Planning Policy Framework
CD7.2 Planning Practice Guidance – Design: Process and Tools
CD7.3 National Design Guide – Planning Practice Guidance for Beautiful,
Enduring and Successful Places (2021)
CD7.4 Advice Note 2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic
Environment (Historic England – March 2015)
CD7.5 Advice Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets: Good Practice Advice in
Planning (Historic England – December 2017)
CD7.6 Advice Note 4 – Tall Buildings (Historic England – 2015)
CD7.7 Advice Note 4 – Tall Buildings (2nd Edition Consultation Draft) (Historic
England – March 2020)
CD7.8 Conservation Principles (Historic England – 2008)
CD7.9 Advice Note 12 – Statements of Heritage Significance (Historic England)
Section 8 – Other Relevant Policy and Guidance
CD8.1 LBHF – Planning Guidance SPD (February 2018)
CD8.2 Mayor’s Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration
Section 9 – Relevant Case Law
CD9.1 City and Country Bramshill v SoS
CD9.2 Bedford BC v SoS
CD9.3 R v Rochdale MBC
CD9.4 R (on the application of Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v
Secretary of State for Transport
CD9.5 Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State
CD9.6 Secretary of State Decision on Citroen Site (APP/G1600/V/19/3226914)
Section 12 – Townscape Assessment Methodology
CD12.1 GLA London View Management Framework SPG (2012)
Section 13 – Townscape Character Areas
CD13.1 LBHF – Walham Grove Conservation Area Character Profile (2000)
CD13.2 LBHF – Barclay Road Conservation Area Character Profile (2017)
CD13.3 LBHF – Parsons Green Conservation Area Character Profile (1999)
CD13.4 LBHF – Queen’s Club Gardens Conservation Area Character Profile
(2005)
CD13.5 LBHF – Barons Court Conservation Area Character Profile (2005)
CD13.6 LBHF – Crabtree Conservation Area Character Profile (2001)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 92
CD13.7 LBHF – Moore Park Conservation Area Character Profile (2008)
CD13.8 RBKC – The Billings Conservation Area Character Profile (2016)
CD13.9 RBKC – Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area Proposals Statement
(Draft 2017)
CD13.10 RBKC – Nevern Square Conservation Area Proposals Statement (2018)
CD13.11 Pevsner & Cherry: The Buildings of England: London 3: North-West
(1990) (Extract)
Section 14 – Miscellaneous
CD14.1 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment by Tavernor
Consultancy (2017) – pages 33-79
CD14.2 LBHF Committee Report (2017)
CD14.3 High Court Consent Order – 9 December 2019 – CO/4423/2019
CD14.4 R (on the application of the London Borough of Hillingdon) v Mayor of
London (Summary Grounds of Resistance on behalf of the Mayor of
London) (Redacted)
CD14.5 London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing
(Summary Grounds of Defence on behalf of the Minister)
CD14.6 London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing
(Summary Grounds of Defence on behalf of the Secretary of State)
CD14.7 London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing
(Claimant’s Reply to Summary Grounds of Defence)
CD14.8 R (on the application of the London Borough of Hillingdon) v Mayor of
London (Statement of Facts and Grounds on behalf of the London
Borough of Hillingdon) (Redacted)
CD14.9 R (on the application of the London Borough of Hillingdon) v Mayor of
London (Skeleton Argument on behalf of the London Borough of
Hillingdon) (Redacted)
CD14.10 R (on the application of the London Borough of Hillingdon) v Mayor of
London (Skeleton Argument on behalf of the Mayor of London)
(redacted)
CD14.11 Tall Buildings Background Paper from the Local Plan Examination
CD14.12 Email Correspondence (10 September 2021 to 29 November 2021)
between Applicant, Council and Rule 6 Party with 2 Play Space Plans
CD14.13 Weblink – Clem Attlee Board
CD14.14 Weblink – Fulham Estate Goes Green
CD14.15 London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing
(Detailed Grounds of Resistance on behalf of the Minister)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 93
Annex C: INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
ID1 Appellant’s Opening and Appearances
ID2 Council’s Opening Statement
ID3 Council’s Appearances
ID4 Table of Corrections to Applicant’s Evidence
ID5 Replacement Image AVR10
ID6 Draft Conditions
ID7 Submission of Mr Nichols
ID8 Draft Agreement under s.106 and Reg 122 Schedule
ID9 Submissions of Tony Bird FICH (03/12/21) enclosing a letter dated
07/08/21 from Ronnie King OBE OStJ QFSM FIFireE, Adviser and Hon.
Admin. Secretary to the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue
Group
ID10 Closing Statement by Mr Turney
ID11 Closing Statement on behalf of the Council
ID12 Closing Statement on behalf of the Applicant
ID13 Approved Judgment in Hillingdon
ID14 Submissions by the Parties on Hillingdon
ID15 Agreed Itinerary for Accompanied Site Visit
ID16 Completed Agreement under s.106
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 94
Annex D: SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
9_1307_P_001_B: Site Location Plan;
9_1307_P_100_B: Proposed Site Location Plan;
9_1307_P_110_B: Proposed Site Layout Plan;
9_1307_P_120_A: Proposed Site South-East Elevation;
9_1307_P_121_A: Proposed Site South-West Elevation;
9_1307_P_122_A: Proposed Site North West Elevation;
9_1307_P_123_A: Proposed Site North East Elevation;
9_1307_P_200_B: Proposed Basement Plan;
9_1307_P_201_C: Proposed Ground Floor Plan;
9_1307_P_202_A: Proposed Mezzanine Plan;
9_1307_P_203_A: Proposed First to Third Floor Plans;
9_1307_P_204_A: Proposed Fourth Floor Plan;
9_1307_P_205_A: Proposed Fifth to Nineteenth Floor Plans;
9_1307_P_206_A: Proposed Roof Top Floor Plan;
9_1307_P_207_A: Proposed Roof Plan;
9_1307_P_300_A: Proposed Building South East Elevation;
9_1307_P_301_A: Proposed Building South West Elevation;
9_1307_P_302_A: Proposed Building North West Elevation;
9_1307_P_303_A: Proposed Building North East Elevation;
9_1307_P_400_A: Proposed Building Section AA;
9_1307_P_401_A: Proposed Building Section BB;
9_1307_P_402_A: Proposed Building Section CC;
9_1307_P_403_A: Proposed Building Section DD;
9_1307_P_404_A: Proposed Building Section EE;
9_1307_P_405_A: Proposed Building Section FF;
9_1307_P_500_A: Façade Details Typical Upper Floor Type A;
9_1307_P_501_A: Façade Details Typical Upper Floor Type B;
9_1307_P_502_A; Façade Details Typical Roof Level Type A
9_1307_P_510_A: Façade Details Ground Floor South East Facade;
9_1307_P_511_A: Façade Details Ground Floor South West Facade;
9_1307_P_512_A: Facade Details Ground Floor South West Facade;
9_1307_P_513_A: Façade Details Ground Floor North West Facade;
9_1307_P_514_A: Façade Details Ground Floor North West Facade;
9_1307_P_515_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_516_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_517_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_518_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor North East Facade;
9_1307_P_519_A: Façade Detail Ground Floor Arcade Section
3) No development shall commence until the establishment of a Community
Liaison Group, to be maintained for the duration of the construction works
hereby approved, having the purpose of (i) informing nearby residents and
businesses of the building programme and progress of demolition and
construction works for the development; (ii) informing nearby residents and
businesses of appropriate mitigation measures being undertaken as part of each
phase of the development; (iii) informing nearby residents and businesses of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 95
considerate methods of working such as working hours and site traffic; (iv)
providing advanced notice of exceptional hours of work, if and when
appropriate; (v) providing nearby residents and businesses with an initial
contact for information relating to the works and procedures for
receiving/responding to comments or complaints regarding the development
with the view of resolving any concerns that might arise; (vi) providing
telephone contacts for nearby residents and businesses 24 hours daily
throughout the works for the development; and (vii) producing a leaflet prior to
the commencement of the development for distribution to nearby residents and
businesses, identifying progress of the development and which shall include an
invitation to register an interest in the Liaison Group. The terms of reference for
the Community Liaison Group shall be submitted to the Council for approval
prior to commencement of any works on site and it shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved terms of reference. The Community Liaison Group
shall meet at least once every quarter until completion of the development.
4) The development shall not commence (save for below ground works) until
particulars and samples (where appropriate) of all the materials to be used in all
external faces of the building including details were relevant of the colour,
composition and texture of the concrete, metal and stone work; details of all
surface windows including window opening and glazing styles; roof top plant
and general plant screening; and all external hard surfaces including paving
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
These details will have reference to and include the mitigation measures
identified within the submitted Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate Assessment
RWDI #2002211 REV B 24 February 2020. The development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
5) The development shall not commence (save for below ground works) until
detailed drawings at a scale not less than 1:20 (in plan, section and elevation)
of typical sections/bays of the approved building have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. These shall include details of
the proposed cladding, fenestration (including framing and glazing details),
balustrades, shop-front and entrances and roof top plant and plant screening.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and retained as such thereafter.
6) Any changes proposed to the approved roof plant layout shall be prepared on
detailed plans, sections and elevations at a scale of 1:20 and submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such
thereafter.
7) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Construction
Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The CMP shall include a detailed plan showing phasing;
relevant foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other
structures below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent);
contractors' method statements; waste classification and disposal procedures
and locations; location of site offices, ancillary buildings, plant, wheel-washing
facilities, stacking bays and car parking; details of storage and any skips, oil and
chemical storage; membership of the Considerate Contractors Scheme; delivery
locations; the proposed control measures and monitoring for noise and
vibration; lighting; restriction of hours of work and all associated activities
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 96
audible beyond the site boundary to 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and
0800-1300 hours on Saturdays; and advance notification to neighbours and
other interested parties of proposed works and public display of contact details
including accessible phone contact to persons responsible for the site works for
the duration of the works. The details shall include for each phase of works the
use of on-road Ultra Low Emission Zone compliant vehicles for example Euro 6
and Euro VI; and provisions within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated
with the construction works are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the
passage of mud and dirt onto the highway. The works shall be carried out in
accordance with the relevant approved CMP.
8) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a Construction
Logistics Plan (CLP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The CLP shall include the details for all the relevant
foundations, basement and ground floor structures, or for any other structures
below ground level, including piling (temporary and permanent). The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant approved
Construction Logistics Plan. Each CLP shall cover the following minimum
requirements: site logistics and operations; construction vehicle routing; contact
details for site managers and details of management lines of reporting; a
detailed plan showing phasing; location of site offices, ancillary buildings, plant,
wheel-washing facilities, stacking bays and car parking; storage of skips, oil and
chemical storage; access and egress points; and details of membership of the
Considerate Contractors Scheme.
9) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used prior to
the provision of the cycle storage arrangements for not less than 244 long-stay
spaces (including 8 for larger cycles) inside the building and 4 short-stay, visitor
spaces externally, as indicated on the approved drawings, and set out within the
submitted Transport Assessment, have been fully provided and made available.
Such facilities shall be retained for their intended purpose thereafter.
10) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used until a
Cycle Parking Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The development shall not be operated other
than in accordance with the approved Cycle Parking Management Plan.
11) No part of the development shall be occupied prior to the provision of the refuse
storage enclosures, including provision for the storage of recyclable materials,
have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. All the
refuse/recycling generated by the development hereby approved shall
thereafter be stored within the approved areas and these facilities shall be
retained for their intended purpose thereafter.
12) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied until a
Waste Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. Details shall include how recycling will be
maximised and be incorporated into the facilities of the development. All
approved storage arrangements shall be provided in accordance with the
approved details and be retained as such thereafter.
13) Prior to first occupation of the development, a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP)
including vehicle tracking where required, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The DSP shall set out the management
of deliveries, emergency access, collection of waste and recyclables, times and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 97
frequencies of deliveries and collections, silent reversing methods, location of
loading bays, and vehicle movement in respect of the community floorspace.
The approved measures shall be implemented for the lifetime of the
development.
14) No development shall commence until a scheme for temporary fencing and/or
enclosure of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority, and the temporary fencing and/or enclosure has been
erected in accordance with the approved details. The temporary fencing and/or
enclosure shall thereafter be retained for the duration of the building works in
accordance with the approved details. No part of the temporary fencing and/or
enclosure of the site shall be used for the display of advertisements.
15) No development shall commence until a preliminary risk assessment report is
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This report
shall comprise: a desktop study which identifies all current and previous uses at
the site and surrounding area as well as the potential contaminants associated
with those uses; a site reconnaissance; and a conceptual model indicating
potential pollutant linkages between sources, pathways and receptors, including
those in the surrounding area and those planned at the site; and a qualitative
risk assessment of any potentially unacceptable risks arising from the identified
pollutant linkages to human health, controlled waters and the wider
environment including ecological receptors and building materials. All works
shall be carried out in compliance with the approved details and by a competent
person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land
Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and
testing.
16) No development shall commence until a site investigation scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This
scheme shall be based upon and target the risks identified in the approved
preliminary risk assessment and shall provide provisions for, where relevant,
the sampling of soil, soil vapour, ground gas, surface and groundwater. All
works shall be carried out in compliance with the approved details and by a
competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK
requirements for sampling and testing.
17) Unless the local planning authority agrees in writing that a set extent of
development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no
development shall commence until (following a site investigation undertaken in
compliance with the approved site investigation scheme) a quantitative risk
assessment report is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. This report shall: assess the degree and nature of any contamination
identified on the site through the site investigation; include a revised conceptual
site model from the preliminary risk assessment based on the information
gathered through the site investigation to confirm the existence of any
remaining pollutant linkages; and determine the risks posed by any
contamination to human health, controlled waters and the wider environment.
All works shall be carried out in compliance with the approved details and by a
competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK
requirements for sampling and testing.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 98
18) Unless the local planning authority agree in writing that a set extent of
development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no
development shall commence until a remediation method statement, if required,
is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This
statement shall detail any required remediation works and shall be designed to
mitigate any remaining risks identified in the approved quantitative risk
assessment. All works shall be carried out in compliance with the approved
details and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures
for the Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK
requirements for sampling and testing.
19) Unless the local planning authority agree in writing that a set extent of
development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no
development shall commence until the approved remediation method statement
has been carried out in full if required, and a verification report confirming these
works has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning
authority. This report shall include: details of the remediation works carried out;
results of any verification sampling, testing or monitoring including the analysis
of any imported soil; all appropriate waste Duty of Care documentation; and the
validation of gas membrane placement. If, during development, contamination
not previously identified is found to be present at the site, the local planning
authority is to be informed immediately and no further development (unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority) shall be carried out
until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be dealt
with is submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Any
required remediation shall be detailed in an amendment to the remediation
method statement and verification of these works included in the verification
report. All works shall be carried out in compliance with the approved details
and by a competent person who conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK
requirements for sampling and testing.
20) Unless the local planning authority agree in writing that a set extent of
development must commence to enable compliance with this condition, no
development shall commence until an onward long-term monitoring
methodology report, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority where further monitoring is required past the completion of
development works to verify the success of the remediation undertaken. If
required, a verification report of these monitoring works shall then be submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority when it may be
demonstrated that no residual adverse risks exist. All works shall be carried out
in compliance with the approved details and by a competent person who
conforms to CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land
Contamination (Defra 2004) or the current UK requirements for sampling and
testing.
21) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground
works) until a statement of how 'Secured by Design' requirements are to be
adequately achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Such details shall include, but not be limited to: site wide
public realm CCTV and a feasibility study relating to linking CCTV with the
Council's borough wide CCTV system; access controls; basement security
measures; and means to secure the site throughout construction in accordance
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 99
with BS8300:2009. No part of the development shall be used or occupied until
these measures have been implemented in accordance with the approved
details, and the measures shall be retained thereafter.
22) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground
works) until details of the proposed soft and hard landscaping of all areas
external to the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The details shall include: planting schedules and details
of the species, height and maturity of any trees and shrubs, including sections
through the planting areas; depth of tree pits, containers and shrub beds; and
details relating to the access of each building, including pedestrian surfaces,
materials, kerb details, external steps and seating that ensure a safe and
convenient environment for blind and partially sighted people. The details shall
reference and include the mitigation measures as set out in the submitted
Pedestrian Level Wind Microclimate Assessment RWDI #2002211 REV B 24
February 2020. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
23) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground
works) until a Landscape Management Plan for all of the landscaped areas has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This
shall include details of management responsibilities and maintenance schedules
for all landscape areas. The landscape management plan shall be implemented
in accordance with the approved details.
24) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until all the trees in the
proximity of the development that are to be retained, have been protected from
damage in accordance with BS5837:2012. This protection shall endure
throughout the construction process.
25) The development shall not commence (save for below ground works) until
details of any proposed external artificial lighting, including security lights have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and
no occupation shall take place until the lighting has been installed in full
accordance with the approved details. Such details shall include the number,
exact location, height, design and appearance of the lights, together with data
concerning the levels of illumination and light spillage and the specific
measures, having regard to the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting
Engineers in the Guidance Notes for The Reduction of Light Pollution 2011 (or
other relevant guidance) to ensure that any lighting proposed does not harm
the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. No part of
the development shall be used or occupied until any external lighting provided
has been installed in accordance with the approved details and it shall be
retained as such thereafter.
26) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground
works) until details of the external noise level emitted from
plant/machinery/equipment and mitigation measures as appropriate have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
measures shall ensure that the external sound level emitted from plant/
machinery/equipment will be lower than the lowest existing background sound
level by at least 10dBA in order to prevent any adverse impact. The assessment
shall be made in accordance with BS4142:2014 at the nearest and/or most
affected noise sensitive premises, with all machinery operating together at
maximum capacity. A post-installation noise assessment shall be carried out
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 100
where required to confirm compliance with the sound criteria and additional
steps to mitigate noise shall be taken, as necessary. Approved details shall be
implemented prior to occupation of the development and retained as such
thereafter.
27) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied until
details of anti-vibration measures have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The measures shall ensure that
machinery, plant/equipment, extract/ventilation system, and ducting are
mounted with proprietary anti-vibration isolators and fan motors are vibration
isolated from the casing and adequately silenced. Implementation shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such
thereafter.
28) The noise level in rooms at the development hereby approved shall meet the
noise standard specified in BS8233:2014 for internal rooms and external
amenity areas.
29) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground
works) until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority of an enhanced sound insulation value DnT,w and L’nT,w of
at least 5dB above the Building Regulations value, for the floor/ceiling/wall
structures separating different types of rooms/uses in adjoining dwellings, for all
the residential floors. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation
of the development and retained as such thereafter.
30) Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority of the sound insulation of the
floor/ceiling/walls separating the community floorspace from the dwellings.
Details shall demonstrate that the sound insulation value DnT,w is enhanced by
at least 10dB above the Building Regulations value and, where necessary,
additional mitigation measures implemented to contain noise within the
community premises and to achieve the criteria LAmax,F of BS8233:2014 within
the dwellings/ noise sensitive premises. Approved details shall be implemented
prior to occupation of the development and retained as such thereafter.
31) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an Air
Quality Dust Management Plan (AQDMP) in order to mitigate air pollution shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
AQDMP must include an Air Quality Dust Risk Assessment (AQDRA) that
considers sensitive receptors off-site of the development and is undertaken in
compliance with the methodology contained within Chapter 4 of the Mayor of
London ‘The Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition’,
SPG, July 2014 and the identified measures recommended for inclusion into the
AQDMP. The AQDMP submitted must comply with the Mayor’s SPG and should
include: Inventory and Timetable of dust generating activities during
construction; Site Specific Dust mitigation and Emission control measures in the
table format as contained within Appendix 7 of Mayor’s SPG including for on-
road and off-road construction traffic; Detailed list of Non-Road Mobile
Machinery (NRMM) used on the site. The NRMM should meet as minimum the
Stage IV emission criteria of Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent
amendments. This will apply to both variable and constant speed engines for
both NOx and PM. An inventory of all NRMM for the first phase of construction
shall be registered on the NRMM register https://nrmm.london/user-
nrmm/register prior to commencement of construction works and thereafter
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 101
retained and maintained until occupation of the development; use of on-road
Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant vehicles in accordance with the
emission hierarchy (1) Electric (2) Hybrid (Electric-Petrol) (3) Petrol, (4) Hybrid
(Electric-Diesel) (5) Diesel (Euro 6 and Euro VI); Details of MCERTS compliant
monitoring of Particulates (PM10) used to prevent levels exceeding
predetermined PM10 threshold trigger levels. Developers must ensure that on-
site contractors follow best practicable means to minimise dust, particulates
(PM10, PM2.5) and NOx emissions at all times. Approved details shall be fully
implemented and permanently retained and maintained during the construction
phases of the development.
32) Prior to occupation of the development, details of the installation of the Zero
Emission Air/Water Source Heat Pumps and Zero Emission Emergency
generators to be provided for space heating and hot water shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Approved details shall
be fully implemented prior to the occupation/use of the development and
retained as such thereafter.
33) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (save for below ground
works) until detailed drawings at a scale not less than 1:20 (in plan, section and
elevation) of the rooftop plant enclosures have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. No part of the development shall be
used or occupied until the enclosures have been constructed in accordance with
the approved details, and the enclosures shall be retained in their approved
form thereafter.
34) No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied or used until an
Inclusive Access Management Plan (IAMP) has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The IAMP shall set out a strategy for
ongoing consultation with specific interest groups with regard to accessibility of
the relevant part of the site. On-going consultation shall then be carried out in
accordance with the approved IAMP. The development shall not be operated
other than in accordance with the approved IAMP.
35) No part of the development hereby approved shall be used or occupied until
details of fire rated lifts in the building, including details of the loading lifts to
the basement levels, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. All the lifts shall have enhanced lift repair services,
running 365 days/24-hour cover, to ensure no wheelchair occupiers are trapped
if a lift breaks down. The fire rated lifts shall be installed as approved and
maintained in full working order for the lifetime of the development.
36) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the
proposed basement waterproofing and flood proofing measures have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
basement waterproofing and flood proofing measures shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
37) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted details of the foul
and surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall
be accepted into the public system until the drainage works have been
completed in accordance with the approved details. They shall be retained in
their approved form thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 102
38) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used until details of
the proposed window cleaning equipment have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the
appearance, means of operation and storage of the cleaning equipment. No part
of the development shall be used or occupied until the equipment has been
installed in accordance with the approved details. The equipment shall be
retained in its approved form thereafter.
39) The development hereby permitted shall not commence (excluding below
ground works) until details of the methods proposed to identify any television
interference caused by the proposed works have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the
measures proposed to ensure that television interference which might be
identified, is remediated in a satisfactory manner. Development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details.
40) The development shall not commence (excluding below ground works) until the
following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority: (i) the completion of a Base-Line Airwaves Interference
Study (the Base-Line Study) to assess airwave reception within/adjacent to the
site; and (ii) the implementation of a Scheme of Mitigation Works for the
purpose of ensuring nil detriment during the construction works identified by the
Base-Line Study. Such a scheme of mitigation works shall be first submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall
be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
41) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Council has
been notified in writing (and has acknowledged such notification) of the full
postal addresses of the residential units hereby approved. Such notification shall
be to the Council's Head of Development Management and shall quote the
planning application number specified in this decision letter.
42) The window glass at ground level in the development shall not be mirrored,
painted or otherwise obscured.
43) No roller shutters shall be installed on any entrance or display facade hereby
approved.
44) No advertisements shall be displayed on or within any elevation of the
building(s), forecourt or public spaces of the development hereby approved.
45) All planting, seeding and turfing approved as part of the agreed soft landscaping
scheme shall be carried out in the first planting or seeding seasons following the
occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is
the sooner; and any trees or shrubs which die, are removed or become
seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of the date of the initial planting
shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species.
46) No alterations shall be carried out to the external appearance of the buildings,
including the installation of air-conditioning units, ventilation fans or extraction
equipment not shown on the approved drawings.
47) No external entrance doors in the building hereby approved shall open over the
public highway.
48) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 103
enacting that principal Order with or without modification), no aerials, antennae,
satellite dishes or related telecommunications equipment shall be erected on
any part of the development hereby permitted.
49) No music nor amplified sound (including voices) emitted from the development
hereby permitted shall be audible at any residential/noise sensitive premises.
50) The ground floor entrance doors to the buildings and integral lift/stair cores
shall not be less than 1 metre wide and the threshold shall be at the same level
as the adjoining ground level fronting the entrances to ensure level access.
51) No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the
type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be
carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for
damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for
the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Any piling shall be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the
approved piling method statement.
52) The development shall be completed in accordance with the Fire Statement
Addendum of 17 September 2020 prior to occupation and retained as such
thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 104
www.gov.uk/dluhc
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act
Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.