Reasons the proposed Morrisons development fails planning requirements
Can I suggest we all email planningcomments@hounslow.gov.uk, as requested in the article about this development, with a list of reasons why the Essential Living proposal fails the planning requirements and should be rejected. I’ve noticed the tendency for a numbers game to be employed by LBH when pushing through inappropriate developments, so a large number of objections that cite valid reasons for rejection will be very helpful. It doesn’t matter if your reasons are repeats of someone else’s and in fact is probably useful in reinforcing the point.The list I have so far, and have sent to planningcomments@hounslow.gov.uk is:Subject: Essential Living Morrisons developmentThis proposal should be rejected on the following grounds:The Local Plan requires proposals to respect and enhance the established character, be of an appropriate scale and type, work with and respect the wishes of local residents, contribute to the townscape character, have high quality design and appearance and contain 40% affordable housing. This proposal fails on all these counts.The height, bulk and design of the proposal does not fit the established and historic character of the area. The height in particular fails to meet the requirement of the Local Plan, which states, 'there is some limited scope for 4 to 6 storey (up to 20m) buildings along main streets'. This proposal is 42.27m high, more than double the maximum. For an urban setting with a PTAL of 4 (as applicable here), the London Plan density matrix notes a residential density of 70-260 units per hectare. This proposal has 225 flats and 2 floors of retail and parking on a 0.6 hectare site, giving a density four times the mean appropriate level and double the absolute maximum.No sunlight and shadowing assessment is included in the planning application documents (http://notices.allofhounslow.co.uk/#notice/P/2016/5573). Given the considerable concern voiced by local residents about shadowing of an adjacent school, this is an unacceptable omission.The standard of design proposed is not outstanding or of the highest quality, appearing instead to maximize bulk and use of space to the detriment of its surroundings. The site is directly faced on 3 sides by a conservation area, and proposes to build onto the conservation area on one side. The Local Plan requires that, ‘Any development within or affecting a Conservation Area must conserve and take opportunities to enhance the character of the area, and respect the grain, scale, form, proportions and materials of the surrounding area and existing architecture’. The proposed development fails to do this.Well over 50% of the proposed flats are studio and 1 bed, which is more than double the Local Plan’s stated proportion of single or couple occupancy dwellings necessary to ensure balanced new housing. This fails to meet the requirement for balanced new housing and equally fails to promote a mixed and balanced community.All flats are to be rented on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy basis, which will ensure transient occupation and fails to meet the Local Plan requirement to promote a mixed and balanced community where people will settle and stay.The Local Plan is available at http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Appendix-1-Hounslow-Local-Plan-Version-for-Adoption-September-2015.pdf andhttps://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20062/local_plan/1108/local_plan I’m sure I’ve missed a dozen other valid reasons for objection so it would be good for people to read it and add any things in response to this post. This way we’ll end up with a cast iron set of rejection reasons that cannot be disputed.
Lorne Gifford ● 3547d5 Comments ● 3545d