12 residential flats at 424 Clifford House, London SW14

What was proposed

The application proposed a part four-storey building containing 12 flats, cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping, access changes and associated works.

“Application Number PA25/1503 Address Clifford House 424 Upper Richmond Road West East Sheen London SW14 7JX Proposal Erection of a part two, part three and part four storey building comprising of 12 (twelve) residential units 9 (nine) x 1-bedroom units and 3 (three) x 2-bedroom units (Class C3) including cycle parking, refuse storage, hard and soft landscaping, amendments to site access and other associated works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The cleared site is at a prominent junction beside residential properties, with construction underway under the existing permission.

“Prior to the current works the site had comprised of a number of ad-hoc buildings at a prominent junction on the east side of Clifford Avenue (A205 South circular) and the junction with A130 Upper Richmond Road West (URRW), which is part of the Transport for London (TfL) Road Network. The site was previously owned and disposed of by TfL (Transport for London).”

“The immediate neighbour at 422 URRW originally comprised of a two-storey mid-terrace building with a high-pitched tiled roof, with two commercial units at ground floor and a single 3- bed residential unit at first floor.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and changes

An earlier permission allowed eight flats and a Class E commercial unit; this proposal added four flats, enlarged the rear wing and removed the commercial unit.

“As noted, this application follows the grant of planning permission under ref: 22/3165/FUL for the redevelopment of the site for 8 residential units (C3) and a ground-floor commercial unit (Class E). This permission is in the process of being implemented and so may now be considered as the ‘baseline’ for the site, representing a fallback position of substantial weight.”

“Removal of the Class E commercial unit, repurposing this floorspace for two flats • Enlargement of the footprint of the rear wing and removal of the internal cycle parking to facilitate the provision of another additional flat. This is provided to M4(3) standard.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the additional harm was modest, the fallback permission carried substantial weight, and the benefits outweighed the harms.

“Overall, harm exists under the fallback position and is made worse under this proposal. The degree of ‘additional harm’ is modest although the totality of harm is significant and bordering on substantial.”

“It is a matter of judgement as to whether these amount to “substantial harm” in the context of NPPF para 125(c) which requires that decisions give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes unless “substantial harm” would be caused. Similarly, in the context of NPPF para 11, it is a matter of judgement as to whether the adverse impacts of the scheme would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The main harm concerned daylight, outlook, enclosure and visual intrusion affecting neighbouring properties, especially 61 Clifford Avenue and 422 Upper Richmond Road West.

“Design: The overall height, scale and mass, is larger than the immediate neighbouring properties. Massing on the Upper Richmond Road West (URRW) frontage is little changed from the approved scheme. On Clifford Avenue, increased bulk at upper levels is offset by improved materiality, removal of roof plant, and stronger overall composition.”

“Residential Amenity: This is the key area of harm. The extant permission 22/3165/FUL causes harm to the residential amenity of occupants at ground and first floor at 61 Clifford Avenue from loss of light and visual intrusion, and at lower ground and ground floor of 422 URRW from visual intrusion, contrary to policy 46 of the Local Plan. The extant consent was granted ‘on balance’, having regard to the degree of harm vs. benefits.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Four addresses objected to bulk, daylight loss, privacy, noise and parking, while 29 letters supported the housing, design and environmental improvements.

“Overdevelopment with visually intrusive, bulky full third floor • Erosion of design quality from the extant scheme • Moving cycle/bin stores externally compromises Clifford Avenue elevation • Loss of daylight to neighbouring properties including in 61 Clifford Avenue – original report inaccurate and underestimated the number of habitable roms affected and new scheme causes more loss • Loss of privacy from windows/balconies with overlooking of private gardens and homes…”

“Official • Harm to amenity from noise from additional terrace • Noise, smell, dust, fumes and traffic • Inadequate parking…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and two consultants spoke in support, while an adjoining neighbour withdrew both the request to speak against and the objections.

What members discussed

Members considered the loss of commercial space, ground-floor unit quality, bin storage, neighbouring impacts, resident engagement, housing need and Community Infrastructure Levy.

“Some Members expressed concern about the quality of the ground floor units and about the relative location of bin storage in relation to the windows and outdoor amenity space of unit 1.”

“Members were mindful of the need for housing in the Borough and considered that the 4 additional units would represent a gain in this respect and would bring a corresponding increase to Community Infrastructure Levy which was welcome.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee delegated authority to approve the application subject to a legal agreement, conditions, informatives and non-significant amendments.

“RESOLVED that the Planning Committee DELEGATED authority to the Head of Development Management to APPROVE the application subject to:”

Minutes