Railway arch commercial units at 72 - 76 Railway Arches, Fulham, London SW6

“Description: Installation of new commercial frontages and rear facades to railway arches 72-76 Ranelagh Gardens; demolition of rear extensions at arches 75/76; installation of new fencing to yard space fronting Thames path; installation of new lighting and wayfinding; change of use of existing yard space from car rental use (Class Sui Generis) into flexible use within Class E; use of arches 72/73 within Class E (commercial, business and service).”

“SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 1.1 The application site comprises five railway arches previously used as commercial units, located beneath the railway viaduct linking the London Underground's District Line from Fulham to Putney, a short distance south of Putney Bridge station. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of transport infrastructure, riverside uses, and residential flats in multi-storey blocks and commercial development.”

“Arches 75/76 - 1.3 In 2011, planning permission (ref 2011/00949/FUL was granted for the installation of timber and brickwork facade, aluminium windows and doors to the front and rear elevations; erection of internal mezzanine level to part of the premises; in respect to the continued use as a light industrial unit (B1). This permission was implemented.”

“In 2023, the applicant undertook sought pre-application advice for the use of Arches 72-76 for flexible Class E uses with new facades. Officers provided a positive in principle response as the proposals would regenerate the disused railway arches subject to clarification of the impact on the Thames Path by pedestrians/ cyclist and servicing arrangements.”

“Transport for London: No objection subject to conditions…”

“Objections – • Inappropriate design and layout; • Impact on the conservation areas and other heritage assets; • Insufficient architectural drawings; • Proposal lacks ambition to create something the community wants; • Noise and disturbance; Excessive opening hours / lack of restrictions; • Conditions or assurances are insufficiently robust or enforceable; • Wide scope of Class E could allow inappropriate uses; • Traffic, servicing, congestion and parking impacts;”

“Potential road damage, blocked access gates, and illegal parking; • Highway safety concerns; • Blockage of cycle and pedestrian routes (including Thames Path); • Security concerns; • Insufficient detail and reliance on future management; • Easement, right of way and controlled access issues; • Increase in anti-social behaviour and existing problems in the area; • Application lacks clarity on specific and enforceable mitigation; • Missed opportunity to better redesign both…”

“The Committee voted on the officer recommendations for approval, as amended by the Addendum as follows:”

“Minutes are subject to confirmation at the next meeting as a correct record of the proceedings and any amendments arising will be recorded in the minutes of that subsequent meeting.”

“That the Executive Director for Place be authorised to grant planning permission upon the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed in the report and changes in the Addendum.”

“That the That the Executive Director for Place, after consultation with the Assistant Director of Legal Services and the Chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee be authorised to make any minor changes to the proposed Heads of Terms of the legal agreement or proposed conditions, which may include the variation, addition or deletion of conditions, any such changes shall be within their discretion.”