56 social rented flats at Ham Wharf, The Ham, Brentford

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing buildings and erecting one six-storey building containing 56 social rented flats, with landscaping, play space and cycle parking.

“P/2023/3014 Address: Ham Wharf (Fraser’s Timber Merchants), The Ham, Brentford, TW8 8EX Proposal: Erection of a six storey building for residential use to create 56 flats with associated works including the provision of landscaping, cycle parking, amenity space and other works following the demolition of the existing buildings.”

“SUMMARY 1.1 This application is being referred back to planning committee after a previous iteration of the scheme (which received a resolution to grant in July 2024) proved financially undeliverable. The latest version of the proposal reduces the height of the development to below the HRB and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Gateway 2 threshold, with resultant changes to the design and other characteristics of the scheme.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site contained attached warehouse buildings and a rear yard beside the Grand Union Canal, within a conservation area and Flood Zone 3a.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The subject site consists of a pair of two/three-storey warehouse buildings located on the southern side of The Ham, close to where it passes under the road bridge on Augustus Close. The buildings are perpendicular to one another but attached and there is a yard to the rear facing onto the canal. The site is bounded by The Ham to the north, the Grand Union Canal to the south and east (with Syon Park beyond) and nos.1-16 Shire Place to the west.”

“A different character is found within Brentford Town Centre, located directly to the north, which is more residential and commercial, being a Key Office Location and containing a Primary Shopping Area.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme would regenerate previously developed land, provide much-needed social housing and make acceptable use of the site subject to safeguards.

“The proposal (as amended) would comprehensively redevelop the site, making best use of the land. It would be consistent with the objectives of the Development Plan, bringing a more appropriate use to the site, delivering regeneration and housing, especially affordable housing, and optimising use of such sites with a focus on growth at sustainable locations.”

“The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and to a referral to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Environment Agency maintained objections about flood-risk evidence and the limited setback, while Historic England withdrew its heritage objection and several bodies raised no objection.

“If this cannot be achieved, a reduced setback may be considered provided the applicant justifies this robustly in the context of site specific requirements and: o Replaces the flood defence completely and does not rely on any elements of the existing flood defence; and o Satisfactorily demonstrates that sufficient space is provided to safely undertake works to the flood defence.”

“The EA’s two revised objections are therefore as follows: • Objection 1: In the absence of an acceptable flood risk assessment (FRA) the EA object to this application and recommend that planning permission is refused. This is because the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) does not comply with the requirements for site- specific flood risk assessments, as set out in paragraphs 20 to 21 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change section of the Planning Practice Guidance.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Environment Agency explained its objections, a local resident raised height, parking and construction concerns, and the applicant’s representatives supported the revised scheme.

Members’ debate

Members weighed the social housing and riverside benefits against flood-defence, environmental, boat-dweller and daylight concerns, and considered that conditions could address them.

“During the debate Cllr John Stroud-Turp expressed appreciation that the Planning Team had not recommended a proposed scheme without taking investigation of the flood defences into account and he acknowledged that no developer would risk the costs involved in all the necessary work without assurance that the scheme could go ahead.”

“Cllr Max Mosley described the proposal as having a lot of pros and cons. The social housing provision was very good but the Environment Agency’s concerns had to be taken into account, both regarding the set back and also the question on the suitability of the existing wall to be raised. One of the Planning Committee’s responsibilities was to ensure that unsustainable costs and environmental issues weren’t passed to future generations.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted by a majority to approve the officer recommendation, with eight votes for, one against and no abstentions.

“Cllr Mosley moved approval of the officer’s recommendations including the above added condition, seconded by Cllr Stroud-Turp. Members voted by a majority to approve the recommendations.”

“For – 8 votes. Against –one vote Abstentions – None.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was approved subject to conditions, a Section 106 agreement and referral to the Secretary of State.

“Resolved – that planning application P/2023/3014, erection of a six storey building for residential use to create 56 flats with associated works including the provision of landscaping, cycle parking, amenity space and other works following the demolition of the existing buildings was approved subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and to a referral to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.”

Minutes