Hammersmith and Fulham Liberal Democrats

Hon Secretary

Ashchurch Residents' Association

Planning Division

Environment Services Department

Town Hall

King Street W6 9JU

10 December 2009

For the attention of Mr Denuka Gunaratne, Senior Planning Officer

PLANNING APPLICATIONS NOS 2009/02758/CAC & 2009/02757/FUL:

282-288 GOLDHAWK ROAD

1 I am writing on behalf of the Ashchurch Residents' Association (ARA) with regard to the above planning applications. Our members are very unhappy indeed about the applicant's proposals. Following a series of well-attended meetings over the last 12 months where residents have had the opportunity of scrutinising and discussing these plans in some detail, we strongly object to this proposed development.

2 Firstly, we are extremely concerned about the timing of the determination of the application. The report to committee has been drafted prior to the expiry of the consultation period. Your planning notice dated 17 November, addressed to myself, was received on 20 November. It gives a closing date of 10 December for comments. You confirmed this date to me in an email dated 3 December.

3 The officer report does not therefore contain all relevant facts for the committee to determine the application. Even if this objection is reported to the committee by way of a supplementary report, due to its complexity the committee will not have time to consider the objections raised.

4 We also draw the Council's attention to the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Due to the public interest generated by the application, we consider that this application is a 'Tier 2' application. Page 39 of the SCI states that the statutory consultation period for Tier 2 applications will sometimes be extended. We consider it contrary to the SCI to have drafted the report to committee prior to the expiry of the consultation period, which we suggest should have been extended due to the issues raised.

5 Also the SCI states that the officer report will summarise all relevant comments received (p39). Clearly this is not possible if the report is drafted prior to the expiry of the consultation period. As it is, the current - premature - report contains numerous errors of fact.

6 We also note that no mention is made of any consultation with English Heritage in the officer report. Circular 01/01 requires that the application be referred to English Heritage as an application that affects the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and over 1,000 sq m GEA land area. In response to a telephone call from the ARA on the afternoon of Friday 4 December, English Heritage said that they had not received any notification of these applications. If this consultation has not been undertaken then the committee cannot make the decision based on all the relevant information, and the decision would be flawed and vulnerable to judicial review.

7 These are serious procedural shortcomings in the determination of the application which would at the least merit action by the Local Government Ombudsman, and could also render the decision vulnerable to legal challenge. We therefore request that the determination of the application is deferred. A deferral is possible while still meeting the statutory target for determination.

8 Evidence in support of the ARA's objections on planning grounds is set out below. Each point raised needs to be reported to the committee.

9 THE RAVENSCOURT AND STARCH GREEN CONSERVATION AREA

9.1 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, places a general duty on the Council to exercise its functions in the context of the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of any Conservation Area.

9.2 The statutory test is that proposals must preserve and/or enhance the character and/or appearance of the Conservation Area. The application proposals do neither.

9.3 This prominent one-acre (0.41 hectare) site is in the heart of the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area, and marks the change in local streetscape from very urban Shepherd's Bush to Starch Green, Ravenscourt Park and the greener section of Goldhawk Road opposite Ravenscourt Park. It is distinguished by a number of healthy mature trees, and by a substantial beech hedge that lines the road. Owned by the Council, until recently it contained a residential care home plus a block of 12 bedsit flats. The existing buildings are one and two storeys high, and respect the building line all along this stretch of Goldhawk Road as they are set back five metres or more from the pavement.

9.4 This application does not include a PPG15 statement. Officers informed the ARA that this was to be found in the partially quoted paragraph in 2009/12758/CAC: the application to demolish buildings currently on the site. The application quotes this paragraph again in Section 3.2 of the Planning Brochure (2009/02757/FUL), this time in full, with the final sentence: " …What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should be designed with respect for their context." [Italics added]. A Heritage Statement should be prepared and submitted by the applicant, to demonstrate how the scheme conforms with the guidance set out in PPG15.

9.5 The law also imposes on Councils a duty to prepare Conservation Area Statements that describe the Conservation Area's character and appearance. This is a very important material consideration under Section 38 (6) of the 2004 Planning Act and should carry considerable weight in the determination of the planning application, particularly in the absence of a PPG15 statement prepared by the applicant.

9.6 The Council's statement sets out the character and appearance of the Conservation Area which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Of particular importance are:

9.7 Paragraph 5.1 which states that landscaping and trees are part of the important character of the conservation area (the loss of several trees cannot therefore meet the 'preserve or enhance test').

9.8 Paragraph 5.56 - the main character of Goldhawk Road is that of paired villas with views between - this pattern of development is entirely ignored in the application.

9.9 Paragraph 5.57 - The surrounding area also contains some terraces, stucco work and iron work which is an important part of the character of the area - the application design ignores these design cues entirely.

9.10 Paragraph 5 .67 states: "Its character [the area north of Goldhawk Road] is derived from the uniform appearance and particular detailing and features of each terrace. Some post war development has taken place within the terraced fabric though this is limited and respects the scale and height of the surrounding development" [italics added].

9.11 Therefore for a development that preserves or enhances the Conservation area, this layout (i.e. predominantly terraces and some villas) should be maintained within the development site, and the features and detailing on the new buildings should take their cues from that development in the grid of terraces to the north of Goldhawk Road. The proposals achieve neither of these.

9.12 Paragraph 5.68 states: "Modern developments, concentrated within this area on the north side of Goldhawk Road east of Stamford Brook Road are of a functional design and whilst unobjectionable in their own right do not present a consistent townscape in such a prominent and well trafficked location." The Council has already established the principle in the Conservation Area Statement that 'modern' developments are not consistent with the townscape in this location. This judgment is a material consideration of some considerable weight, given its status as an adopted Conservation Area Statement which forms Supplementary Planning Guidance for the area.

9.13 Also, critically Paragraph, 5.71 states: "Boundary treatments are important throughout the whole sub-area in defining the street space and the setting of the properties. These are generally low brick walls with railings above, many properties also having hedges. Also of importance are the street trees which soften the streetscape and help define the more suburban character of the area." [italics added] Trees are therefore identified as making a special contribution to the character of the Conservation Area and it must follow that their removal will be detrimental to its character and appearance.

9.14 The proposed roofscapes and building heights are inconsistent with area character, where the surrounding houses (in spite of the odd exceptions diligently sought out and photographed by the applicants) are two- and three-storey. The predominant height of the proposed development is 4½ storeys: 14.2m including the parapets of the roof terraces - when currently the highest building on the site is 5.7m. (Daylight Design Statement, p5). This represents an increase of nearly two thirds.

9.15 The design footprint is crude and overbearing, and does not respect the existing street building line, prevailing building grain and boundary treatments.

9.16 Paragraph 6.55 of the Conservation Area Statement states new buildings should contribute positively to the visual quality of the area, respecting the dominant pattern of development in terms of plan form and height of the townscape. Clearly the development is contrary to this guidance as it is neither respectful of the dominant pattern of development or of prevailing heights.

9.17 The building line is clearly shown in the Ordnance Survey maps of the location. The applicant seeks to replace the existing green landscaping with a strip of tiny individual front gardens, all of which will be prominently occupied by rubbish bins (Planning Brochure 6.22). On Goldhawk Road, these garden gates will open directly onto the very busy stretch of pavement adjacent to the heavily-used and hazardous zebra crossing leading to Ravenscourt Park. This crossing forms part of a major pedestrian route to schools, workplaces, shopping areas and westbound transport.

9.18 The application sets up three false choices as alternatives for maximising use of the site, and the applicant claims that their off-the-shelf solution is the optimum design layout (5.3). We note that some of the other shortlisted developers, however, found no difficulty in envisaging alternative and more appropriate land use without loss of housing units. They were also able to incorporate the hedge and major trees into their schemes, together with green landscaping and amenity space.

9.19 In summary, the application does not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, and it does not respect the historic context, heritage and character. The surrounding buildings consist of Victorian villas and terraces, most dating from the 1860s to the 1880s, with the addition of some post-war infill blocks of flats. The immediate locality includes both listed buildings and Buildings of Merit.

10 DESTRUCTION OF MATURE TREES AND HEDGE

10.1 The trademark design features and intrusive footprint of the applicant's scheme demand the removal of 16 trees and a mature hedge as a direct consequence of the proposed high density on the site. We find this unacceptable, as the landscaping and mature trees form an important feature of the landscape and appearance of this particular conservation area, as highlighted in the Council's Conservation Area Character Profile.

10.2 The officers' report to the 16 December PAC claims that there are no TPOs on any trees on the site (p22,1.2). But this statement is incorrect. The 'Supplement Design Guidance Brief' prepared as part of the tendering process in early 2008, obtained by the ARA under FOI, refers to seven mature trees identified for TPOs by the Council's UD&C Team. These trees are also shown, and numbered, in the site map prepared at the same time.

10.3 The existence of these TPOs is confirmed in the two reports prepared on behalf of the applicant by the consultancy Bosky Trees. The first, Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan states : "Seven of the trees on the site are protected by a TPO, these have been numbered 1-7 on the TPO plan that has been provided." (13 March 2009, 1.3, p 3.)

10.4 A follow-up report by Bosky Trees dated 5 August 2009 says: " I am informed that there is a tree preservation order (TPO) that applies to trees on the site (TPO T358/02/08) Elizabeth Finn House , 1 Ashchurch Grove and 282-292 Goldhawk Road."(1.1, p 2.; also1.3,p3)

10.5 UDP Policy EN25 states a presumption that trees should be retained. The Council has in the past considered that a number of trees on the site were of such amenity value that they were worthy of protection by TPO. The ARA has sought background information through FOI on how these assessments were conducted during the pre-application process, but the request was refused citing Section 41 (information supplied in confidence) and Section 43 (information that might prejudice commercial interests).

10.6 We find this decision puzzling and have appealed against it, but will not receive a response until 17 December, after the planned date for the PAC. There are no material changes in circumstances that mean that the Council's original judgment would change - it is the ARA's view that the trees earmarked for removal do add immeasurably to the amenity of the area (and who better to make this judgment than residents themselves?).

10.7 The ARA does not consider that the planning benefits that would arise from the site are significant enough to outweigh the provision of UDP policy EN25. The proposed development will deliver a modest amount of housing over what could be delivered on the site in the existing footprints. This modest uplift is not anywhere significant enough to justify the loss of trees.

10.8 Removal of the mature hedge is justified on the spurious grounds that "it would create hidden zones for anti-social behaviour" (Consultation Statement 14): a claim that notably failed to surface when the site was home to a number of frail and vulnerable older people.

10.9 The applicants say they would plant strips of pre-grown hedging along Goldhawk Road and Ashchurch Grove. Such strips would require intensive irrigation over a period of years in order to survive, and are not an adequate replacement for the already established beech hedge.

10.10 A report commissioned by the ARA from an independent tree expert (presented to the ARA AGM on 7 September) challenges the conclusions of the developers' tree report and says the excavations required for the very large underground car park (38 cars) would put even the trees earmarked for preservation at risk, including the landmark copper beech. Following a site visit, the expert also states that it would take 40 years or more to grow replanted trees to match the scale of the proposed buildings. The tree report is attached to this objection, as Appendix A.

10.11 The report Ashchurch Place: Trees and Landscape is a material consideration in the determination of the application and the contents of the report should be reported to the Planning Committee.

10.12 We urge the LBHF Planning Department to return to the assessment of the character of the Conservation Area set out in the Council's own Conservation Area Profile (details set out above), as this is a material consideration in the determination of the application.

10.13 A further material consideration is the Planning Inspector's report following the June/July 2006 Public Inquiry on the nearby Allied Carpets site (APP/H5390/A/05/1179367 & APP/H5390/E/05/1179455; 24 October 2006) which dismissed an appeal by developers against LBHF's refusal of planning permission.

10.14 This report describes the particular form and character of the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area in paragraphs 16-19, referring to the "generally suburban setting", and describing Starch Green as " an attractive area of open space bounded by mature deciduous trees which contribute positively to the noticeable sense of place at this busy road junction." Starch Green adjoins the 282-288 Goldhawk Road site.

10.15 This decision is a significant material consideration and highlights the importance of the trees to the character of the area.

11 THE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

11.1 The Development Brief was not prepared in accordance with the guidance set out in PPS12. As this document was not subject to public consultation, it is not possible for the Council to adopt this document as a Supplementary Planning Document and no weight can be given to it as a material consideration in town planning terms. Development Briefs seen as a result of FOI requests by the ARA did not mention that the site was in a Conservation Area.

11.2 We note further that English Heritage guidance to local authorities states that they should "involve the local community fully in the appraisal and designation process and in decisions about the future of an area"(Guidance on Managing Conservation Areas,2006). This did not take place. We return to this below.

12 UDP AND LONDON PLAN COMPLIANCE

12.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications must be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council's Constitution also makes clear that pre-application advice should be given to applicants in accordance with the development plan. The Council has not presented any evidence that pre-application advice has been given in this manner - for example, there is a conflict between the proposed housing mix on the site and the provisions of the London Plan.

12.2 The London Plan (Policy 3.13) states that Councils should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on any given development site, with a general target of 50 per cent affordable housing, and the majority of that to be social rented housing. It is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate by way of financial appraisal why the 50 per cent target cannot be met. No such appraisal has been submitted with the application.

12.3 The officers' report considers that the supported housing mix (17 units) can be counted towards the provision of affordable housing. This is not correct. They are a 'Residential Institution', falling within Class C2 of the Use Classes Order. These cannot be counted towards the affordable housing provision. This shortfall must be reported to the planning committee.

12.4 The description of the development refers to 66 dwellings. The description of development is contrary to the actual character of what will be built on the site. Therefore the C2 element of the application would be unlawful as permission would be granted for 66 C3 dwellings only.

12.5 This is a fundamental misapplication of policy that does not enable the committee to determine the application on the basis of all material and relevant facts. This serious misapplication of policy would render the application vulnerable to legal challenge.

12.6 The Places for People scheme fails to comply with the UDP in virtually every respect, and would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the locality and on the surrounding area, in that the planning benefits that accrue to the site and area are diluted and compromised by non-conformity with the London Plan with respect to housing mix.

13 DENSITY AND AMENITY

13.1 Officers have calculated PTAL density towards the high end of the range for an 'urban' setting. However, the 2006 Planning Inspector's report refers to the Allied Carpets site as "on the borderline between an urban and a suburban location"(paragraph 22; italics added). The 282-288 Goldhawk Road site is further away from the town centres of Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush and therefore logic dictates that the site falls within the 'suburban' designation rather than the urban. There has been no material change in the Development Plan since the Inspector's decision was published. The Inspector notes: "the predominant character of the area nearest to the appeal site is of 2½ and 3 storey terraces and semi-detached buildings in a generally suburban setting." The Conservation Area Character Profile makes the same point in paragraph 5.71.

13.2 A note to prospective bidders from the Bidders Mid-Point review meetings (6 February 2008) states: "Please note that the maximum density on this site will be 450 habitable rooms per hectare & this should be treated with some caution as for planning permission to be granted for a site of this density in this location all other aspects of the development would have to be UDP compliant."

13.3 The supported housing is C2 (Residential Institutions) and not C3 (dwellings), leaving only four units of social housing in place of 12 that have been lost. Furthermore the supported housing will be a direct transfer of the Fulham-based Tamworth Centre, and the accommodation offered will be time-limited: in effect, it will be a 'halfway house'. (We note that Fulham service users have expressed "strong disagreement" regarding the proposed relocation of these facilities to the north of the Borough: LBHF PEIA, 5.4.07). We therefore contend that an argument of 'housing gain' cannot be used to justify the proposed high density and the destruction of such valuable mature trees and the hedge.

13.4 The small size of units in the proposed development will not meet the minimum space standards prescribed by the LDA, due to come into force in early 2010. We are further advised that the scale drawings showing GIA (gross internal area) do not appear to add up as claimed, making it more likely that the rooms in these 'vertical flats' will be even smaller than as shown.

13.5 LP policy 3C.1 and UDP policy G4 encourage forms of development that discourage the need to travel by car - but the large size of the underground parking area seems to undermine the rationale behind the high PTAL rating.

13.6 Due to the single aspect of the majority of proposed dwellings in this application, the Daylight Report largely concentrates on them at the expense of the surrounding buildings. We further note that this report is based only on architect's drawings: no survey appears to have been conducted on site. Claims that only one house in Goldhawk Road and one house in Ashchurch Grove will be affected are clearly flawed. Many of the surrounding houses and flats will suffer loss of light and overlooking from the height and proximity of this proposed development. Ashchurch Court, in particular, will have back windows, balconies and gardens directly overlooked. We have not seen the applicants' promised noise assessment relating to the intrusive roof terraces.

13.7 This development suffers from a severe lack of amenity space. Starch Green is situated at a busy north/south and east/west road junction. Surrounded by heavy traffic on two sides, it is an unwelcoming and polluted space, unsuitable as an area for leisure and/or children's play. Mention has been made of a very small Section 106 contribution, but residents have not been involved in consultation on this. The "delightful squares" described for 282-288 will be narrow through routes, attractive to speeding cyclists involved in petty crime. They will not constitute an amenity desired by the local community. Ravenscourt Park may be "a minute away", but it is across a busy main road and its facilities are already very heavily used.

13.7 It is claimed that these plans technically meet the requirements of Lifetime Homes, but it is difficult to envisage that people with disabilities, older people or those with young families would wish to live in these inconvenient 'vertical flats' if offered the choice.

13.8 While we appreciate that the Council has to extract the maximum financial benefits from selling off their land, in our view the future cost of this application to the community in terms of lost amenity value is far too high.

14 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

14.1 The applicants' Consultation Statement contains little of substance. As processes, we have found the choice of scheme and so-called consultation flawed from the outset. For clarity, the sequence of events is outlined below.

14.2 On 19 July 2007 there was a meeting on the 282-288 site to tell local residents that it was to be sold for development. The records show that only an apparently random selection of Ravenscourt Park Ward residents were invited; residents in Askew Ward, on the north side of Ashchurch Grove and directly adjacent to the site, were not notified at all, and only heard about it by chance. As it was a holiday period, a number of residents were away.

14.3 Notes of the meeting were circulated on 31 July. The selected residents were told in a covering letter that this would be the first of a series of events planned to keep them informed, offering "an opportunity to comment on the scheme as development proposals start to be formulated."

14.4 Six months later, a letter dated 18 January 2008 informed residents that five bidders had been shortlisted and stated that these five would be asked to come to a "residents' consultative meeting this Spring" to go through their proposals in detail, showing plans of their proposed developments and the impact on the surrounding area.

14.5 A letter dated 2 May invited residents to a public exhibition at the Town Hall, to be held on the 9 and 10 May: a Friday afternoon and evening, and a Saturday afternoon. As we heard at the Town Hall meeting on 21 October, while 'about 80' people attended this event, only 'about 20-30' completed forms were submitted to the Council. Of the latter , we heard that 'about 60 per cent' expressed a preference for the PfP scheme.

14.6 In effect, this could mean that only 12 people expressed a preference of some kind for this applicant's scheme while, 85 per cent did not. At that stage, the presentation consisted of a series of loosely-drawn concept sketches (as in section 5 of the Planning Brochure) whose artistic licence gave no indication of the intrusive footprint, the overbearing building line and consequent loss of the valued trees and hedge - let alone the ugly and intimidating facades. All these elements only emerged in piecemeal fashion much later.

14.7 The Council Cabinet selected their preferred bidder at a meeting on 6 October 2008. The legal, financial and corporate valuation comments were "exempt", and therefore not in the public domain. No declarations of interest were recorded. The Executive Summary in the minutes contains the inaccurate statement: "The exercise has involved local residents at key stages of the selection process."

14.8 On 16 October 2008, a further letter to residents announced that the Council had chosen Places for People with Peter Barber Architects as the proposed developer.

14.9 At the first 'steering group' meeting, on 23 February 2009, residents were told by the applicant at the outset that it was not possible to change the scheme, as it was 'what the Council had chosen'. This is recorded in Places for People's minutes as follows: "Purpose of the group: It was asked whether this was the correct meeting at which to discuss density and amenities levels provided by the scheme. The scheme design was assessed by the LA and was chosen on the basis that it fitted the brief and complied with the density standards. Therefore, fundamentally the scheme cannot be changed as it would be changing what the borough selected on. However, if residents wanted to comment on these they could do so in the formal consultation once the planning application had been submitted". Residents were regularly reminded of these imposed constraints at subsequent meetings.

14.10 In June 2009, the ARA requested a Planning Forum. The Council's reply refusing this (26 June) claimed: "this proposal has already been the subject of considerable scrutiny and opportunity for public involvement, from the preparation of a planning brief and choice of preferred tender… to the various exhibitions…it is difficult to see the additional benefit that the Forum process could bring." The letter further stated that Forums were "not intended to be applied to medium sized applications such as this". This statement failed to acknowledge that other, smaller applications have already been the subject of Forums. The Planning Letters sent out to residents at the end of November correctly identify the 282-288 Goldhawk Road scheme as a major development.

14.11 On 7 September 2009, the applicants gave the ARA a Consultation Statement containing the following paragraph: "The extensive consultation process has gathered great support for the proposed scheme from various local resident groups, local action groups, ward councillors, cabinet members, neighbours and interested parties." This statement appeared to pre-empt due process, and the ARA sought assurances from ward councillors (one of whom is Cabinet Member for Housing and a member of the PAC) that this was not the case. While these assurances were forthcoming, these assumptions by the applicant did not give the community confidence.

14.12 Some plans and elevations finally emerged in October. But the first time residents saw plans and elevations for the supported housing block was in the week of 26 October 2009, following a FOI request. This was in spite of repeated requests at meetings earlier in the year. If built, this four-storey block, with its intrusive footprint, would have significant effects on its near neighbours in Ashchurch Court, Ashchurch Park Villas and Ashchurch Grove.

14.13 It is a further example of the inadequacy of local consultation and involvement, that we only now learn from the 'small print' of the application - paragraph 2 of the Daylight Design Statement - that the applicant is currently in discussions with Metropolitan Housing Trust with regard to buying the remaining corner of the site (number 292, currently occupied by a hostel for asylum seekers) for still more housing development.

14.14 The officers' report to the 16 December PAC was posted on the LBHF website on Monday 7 December, four days before the closing date of the consultation period. It refers to '21 responses' in the text although 40 are listed. We are aware that a great many more have been sent. Also, a petition with 381 signatures has been delivered to the Council.

15 IN CONCLUSION

15.1 Local residents are unanimous in their opposition to these applications for a development that does nothing to preserve or enhance the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area, fails to conform to policies in the LBHF UDP and the London Plan, and demands the gratuitous destruction of several mature trees and a mature beech hedge, all of which add considerable amenity to the area and are highly valued by those living in the neighbourhood.

15.2 We wish to make clear that residents do not oppose any development of this Council-owned site, and have never argued that the current buildings should be retained. The Council buildings replacing large Victorian houses demolished at the end of the 1960s are undistinguished. But their mediocrity is at least inoffensive, and their impact on the historic neighbourhood is lessened by the fact that they are low-rise, set well back from the Goldhawk Road and Ashchurch Grove, and screened by landscaping and mature trees. (At the time of demolition, local residents saved many trees from the former gardens by requesting TPOs.)

15.3 Left empty for three years, these buildings have been allowed to deteriorate into a state of neglect and disrepair. As the Council left the site open and unsecured, it became a magnet for squatters, petty criminals, drug dealers and fly tippers. Hence the ARA urged the Council to secure the site, and that is why it is currently gated at the Ashchurch Park Villas entrance with pedestrian access blocked from Ashchurch Grove. But we are not seeking a gated community here any more than we would wish to see the introduction of pastiche architecture.

15.4 In 2007, when selected local residents were first informed that this prominent Conservation Area site was to be sold, there was a reasonable expectation that the Council - with its slogan "Putting Residents First" - would seize the opportunity to commission an exemplar of high quality modern design that would enhance the neighbourhood.

15.5 However, the design of the development in this application, while characteristic of the style of the high-density 'brand' developed by the architect (amply demonstrated in the examples shown in appendix A.2 of the Planning Brochure) is entirely alien to the local context and fails to take the character and appearance of the area into account.

15.6 Many descriptions in the current application read more like a marketing brochure than a planning application. Repeated references to "delightful city squares" and "playful" or "vibrant" architectural details are accompanied by unsubstantiated assertions, patronising references to creating a 'truly mixed' community, and by concept sketches so fluid that they give little indication of actual heights, spaces and mass. The latter are therefore seriously misleading with regard to the impact that this overbearing hard-landscaped development would have on its surroundings (see for example, the Perspective View of Proposals from Ashchurch Grove in Section 5.)

15.7 The applicant's claims that "extensive community consultation has been undertaken" distort the facts, as changes made - apart from conditions imposed by the Council itself - are minimal. The Town Hall exhibition cannot be cited as an example of credible community involvement, while the process conducted subsequently by the applicants failed to meet the first good practice criterion of the seven consultation criteria issued by the Government: i.e. "Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome." (BERR 2008) We regret to report that we have found the applicants' attitude towards the local community has ranged from the grudging to the arrogant.

15.8 In spite of several local development projects both planned and in progress nearby along the Goldhawk Road - building is starting on the new Hammersmith Academy in Cathnor Road, for example, which will have around 800 pupils - the application does not include any assessment by LBHF Highways of traffic management, transport use or parking. We view this as a serious omission.

15.9 We note that the applicant has chosen to claim support by cherry-picking responses to the plans, quoting two unrepresentative individuals (one even resident outside LBHF) and leaving out the many critical comments submitted by the local community as well as by respected amenity groups. Although LBHF owns this site and is commissioning this development, these material facts should not affect the Planning Department's freedom to act or constrain its ability to provide objective analysis within the legal framework.

15.10 This application should not be granted consent. In a recent national report, English Heritage raised concerns about the failure to safeguard the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and their settings, singling out two elsewhere in LBHF. But if these proposals were to be given planning permission, they would not only fatally undermine the status of the Ravenscourt and Starch Green Conservation Area, but could put other Borough Conservation Areas at risk.

Appendix A follows:

Ashchurch Place: Trees and Landscape

Report commissioned by the ARA

Ashchurch Place: Trees and Landscape

Report by Josephine Morrison, landscape architect,

To the Ashchurch Residents Association on Monday, 7th September 2009

I am a landscape architect and a member of the Landscape Institute. I have worked for over 20 years for local authorities and environmental consultancies. I sit on a design panel advising Cambridge City Council on design matters to do with planning applications.

Fiona Anderson, chairman of the Ashchurch Residents Association, asked me for an opinion of the Ashchurch Place development at 282 Goldhawk Road and how it impacts on the existing trees and townscape character of the area.

I have had a look at the site and the existing trees and I have read many of the documents provided as part of the pre planning application consultation.

I think that there are many aspects of the design that are troubling. I'll start with the existing trees but will also talk about the landscape design, the impact on townscape character, and the public realm design.

1 Important Trees

Trees: T1 (maple), T2 (maple), T3 (maple), T4 (sycamore), T5 (copper beech), T7 (cedar), T13 (hornbeam), T16 (purple plum) and perhaps T19 (Robinia) are significant trees currently on the site which all contribute to the townscape character and visual amenity of the area. They are all visible from surrounding streets or nearby homes and could provide a good buffer between the new development and the surrounding housing. All except the hornbeam are growing on or near the site boundaries which should make saving them easier.

2 Trees Proposed for Removal

However because the current design pushes the development right to the boundaries, the following trees will be removed: T1, T2, T3, T6, T8 - T20 inclusive. I believe the scheme could also endanger T4, T5 and T7. Therefore every tree on the site is potentially at risk.

3 Bosky Trees: 'Arboricultural Implications Assessment'

The Bosky Trees report states that it has been carried out in accordance with the guidelines in the British Standard 'Trees in Relation to Construction'. The survey element of the assessment (in Appendix 1) is accurate in its measurement of tree sizes, age, health and structure.

However, it seems to depart from the guidelines where it assesses landscape value. The assessment states that all the trees listed above for removal are category C1 trees - of low quality and value - including T13, the hornbeam, T16 (purple plum) and T1, T2 and T3 (the maples). Yet the assessment also describes these trees as being in good health and having no apparent structural defects. The report therefore needs careful reading and the developers' statement that 'C1 grade trees and lower only' are to be removed can be challenged. The hornbeam is assessed as a having a useful life expectancy of 10 - 20 years - odd since hornbeam is a long lived tree and this specimen is in good condition.

Therefore, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T7, T13, T16 and possibly T19, with pruning and dead-wooding should be retained. Established trees add instant character to any development. They support far more wildlife than a new young tree. They will effectively screen or break up the line of the new development, fitting it better into the existing area. It takes 40 years or more to grow trees that will match the scale of the proposed buildings.

4 The Treatment of T4, T5, and T7

T4, T5 & T7 would be paved over in porous block paving. The laying detail is unclear - possibly concrete blocks on a plastic grid. This cannot benefit the trees, especially the shallow rooted beech and the cedar. Beech is very intolerant of having material placed over its roots.

5 Root Protection Zones

The development encroaches on the root protection zones of T4 and T5 and to a greater extent than Figure 3 in the Arboricultural Assessment. It is not possible to guarantee that mature trees (especially beech and cedar - both sensitive to root disturbance) will tolerate any percentage root loss and it is very unlikely that the extent of root damage would end precisely along the line of the garden walls of the houses on the Ashchurch Grove boundary. This is just not practical!

5 The Scheme Design and Townscape Character

The density of development feels very high. The scheme design pushes the development to the boundaries of the site and there is no attempt to mitigate the impact of the scheme on the local townscape character area. There are several high value trees on site that could be used with a more imaginative site layout to integrate the development into its surroundings and give it a sense of scale and place. The hornbeam (T13) for example could be the centre piece of a small area of open space. It takes many decades to grow a tree of such stature and presence.

There are very small planting areas shown over the car park deck - these would effectively be in planters sunk in the ground. The planting would be very vulnerable to neglect through poor or irregular maintenance. There's relevant photo in the developer's 'Landscaping and Public Realm' presentation of a dilapidated raised bed in Starch Green.

It seems a very inhospitable place for children - no grass to play on, everywhere hard paved. How would cars be excluded from the paved areas? Would there be lines of bollards? Where is rubbish stored? Where would the bike racks go? Would there be any community facilities? The public spaces around the buildings are through routes - there is no sense of enclosure or space anywhere.

5 The Underground Car Park

The large underground car park would have a damaging impact on the appearance of the scheme. It ends at the root protection zones of T4 and T5 which will potentially affect the hydrology of the zones and consequently the trees.

According to the Arboricultural Assessment, the majority of trees (Prunus 'Rancho') in the development would be growing in 9 cubic metres of soil planters sunk in the deck of the car park roof. The soil alone will weigh around 9 tonnes. These will require drainage and irrigation and realistically will be costly to build. (Will they really be built to this specification?) Tree heights of 8m, as stated, are optimistic in these conditions. Maintenance of these trees would have to be permanent and regular.

6 Urban Context

The public realm of the development itself lacks green space - nothing for small children to play on or places for parents and toddlers to sit out and older children to kick a ball about.

The development could be better integrated with Starch Green. The current design simply creates a very large paved space at the end of Ashchurch Grove. This works against the natural line of the road which curves to the north east. The south east side of the space is bound by Goldhawk Road - it's not a hospitable space in its current form.

7 The Beech Hedge

The hedge should be reprieved until a better site layout is designed. If security is a worry it could be cut down to 1.2 m high - the hedge would recover after a year or so. The garden paths to the houses on Goldhawk Road could be accessed from a path running behind the hedge. It takes a long time to grow a mature hedge and planting 'Instant Hedge' is only an option if the developer can water for at least two years after planting.

8 Recommendations

The layout should be reconsidered - starting with the eight trees worthy of retention. They should be used to integrate the development into the local townscape and create an instant sense of place in the new development.

No more paving should be laid below the canopies of the beech and cedar.

The density of the development could be reduced and the underground car park made smaller.

Orderly arrangements for rubbish disposal must be designed in at master plan stage.

The open spaces should be designed to increase the amenity of the scheme for new and existing local residents. Children need places for informal play near their homes but away from traffic so that they can play safely.

Trees and shrubs should be in the ground - not in planters.

The beech hedge should be reprieved until a better layout is developed.

[ends]