Eight affordable homes at 218 Goldhawk Road, London W12

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing garages and building a four-storey block with eight affordable homes, solar panels, landscaping, cycle parking and access works.

“The current planning application seeks planning consent for the redevelopment of the site, comprising the erection of a 4-storey building comprising of 8 self-contained residential units (Use Class C3), including associated rooftop solar PV panels, plant and enclosures, with asso- ciated amenity spaces, public realm and landscaping, cycle parking and replacement pram stores and access and servicing, following the demolition of the existing garages.”

“The proposed residential units would consist of two 4-bed, 7-person units and six 3-bed, 6- person units. These units would be 100% affordable with 75% in shared ownership and 25% in social rented tenure.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains garages, amenity space and informal parking behind an eight-storey block, with residential buildings, student accommodation and a nursery nearby.

“The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature, with dwellings located to the north along Elgin Avenue, east along Parnell Close and south along Goldhawk Road. Student accommodation ('Prince Consort Village') is located to the immediate west of the site. To the south-east of the site, a Bright Horizons Nursery (Class E) is operational from 214 – 216 Gold- hawk Road and a residential dwelling is contained within 212 Goldhawk Road.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the application site.

“A review of the application site's planning history indicates that there is no planning history which is relevant to the current planning application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, subject to conditions and a legal document, because the proposal would provide affordable housing and acceptable design, amenity, highways and environmental outcomes.

“In summary, the principle of development is acceptable. The proposed development would contribute towards the quantity of the borough's affordable housing stock. It is acceptable in vis- ual terms and is considered to be of a high-quality of design which would not adversely impact upon heritage assets. Subject to conditions, the proposal would not result in unacceptable im- pacts upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.”

“The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the com- pletion of a legal document.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Technical consultees raised no objections, while Thames Water sought a piling condition and pre-application feedback included concerns about scale, green space, parking and antisocial behaviour.

“Overall, the feedback received in phases 1 and 2 was mixed, with the top points raised by respondent's being scale, massing and design of the development, the provision and potential loss of green space, anti-social behaviour, retention of existing pram sheds and parking pres- sure concerns. The feedback in phase 3 predominantly indicated support or a neutral stance on the proposal, with value placed on the level of sustainability of the proposed homes.”

“- Thames Water – No objection, subject to a condition for a piling method statement.”

Officer report

Objections received

Six objections concerned neighbour amenity, trees, parking, access, nursery safety and privacy, bin arrangements, and the value of nearby properties.

“- The scale and siting of the proposed scheme would create a conflict with the boundary and long-standing service arrangements which serve Nos. 212 – 216 Goldhawk Road. Notably, the scheme would block the existing access to the rear entry to Nos. 212 – 216 Goldhawk Road via the access road. This is required for access to the staff car and bicycle parking of the Bright Ho- rizons Nursery and for the nursery's commercial refuse/recycling storage.”

“- The proposal would result in detrimental harm to the amenity of Bright Horizons nursery, in- cluding overlooking into the existing nursery rooms (and a resultant loss of privacy for these rooms) and the external amenity space of the nursery.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Neil Egerton gave a presentation, and there were no registered speakers.

The committee vote

The committee voted unanimously for both officer recommendations, with no votes against and no members not voting.

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

Minutes

The decision

Permission was authorised subject to a satisfactory legal document, the report’s conditions and changes in the Addendum.

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

“That the Executive Director of Place, after consultation with the Assistant Director, 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 document or proposed conditions, which may include the variation, addition, or deletion of conditions, any such changes shall be within their discretion.”

Minutes