| Topic: | What price planning permission? | |
| Posted by: | John Todd | |
| Date/Time: | 03/07/12 08:05:00 |
| Labour Councillors continue to remain silent on this significant matter. Jim mentions possible local developers views. Please see the Late Report submitted at the Boulton House planning hearing set out below. Good old Cllr. Mel Collins, whilst absent from the hearing (and a Director of Hounslow Homes which is not mentioned or apparently declared in his submission) argues financial income for LBH as a planning criteria. A remarkable precedent? Keep going Jim and Co. Planning Committee Report 14 June 2012 ADDENDUM REPORT AGENDA ITEM 6 Boulton House, Green Dragon Lane, TW8 0DA Pages 39 – 50 Paragraph 5.2 - Following the publication of the agenda, an objection was received from St James Group Ltd. The objection states that the St James Group Ltd are a key local stakeholder, who are about to commence construction on a residential led mixed-use development. St James considers that: - the principle of the proposal is incongruous and incompatible with the surrounding residential area; - the location, scale and illumination are visually intrusive on the skyline; - the proposal will have a negative impact on the built and natural environment; - the proposal would set an inappropriate precedent for all towers on the Estate; - the proposal would prove detrimental to forthcoming residential development and the sympathetic regeneration of Brentford. Officer response: Accordingly, the St James Group Ltd supports the officer’s recommendation for refusal. The issues raised within the objection are assessed within the officer’s report. Paragraph 5.2 – A letter has been received from the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society strongly endorsing the officer’s recommendation for refusal. Paragraph 5.8 – Following the publication of the agenda, comments were received from Councillor Collins. He is fully supportive of the project with at least 55% of the revenue remaining with the Brentford Towers and the other 45% for environmental improvements within the Isleworth and Brentford Area. Officer response: No details of the cost, profit or funding received from the advertisement have been provided with the application. Financial benefits cannot be considered when assessing the proposal. The proposal must be considered in regards to its impacts on amenity and public safety. As detailed within the committee report it is considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the immediate environment and surrounding areas. Refusal has therefore been recommended. Paragraph 6.1 – Following the publication of the agenda, the applicant has questioned why the assessment has been made against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), rather than the previous guidance which was Planning Policy Guidance 19 (Advertisements). The NPPF replaced PPG19. Planning applications are determined on the basis of policies in force at the point of a decision being made, and not on the policies in force at the time the application is made. This is accepted practice that has been established through case law. Circular 03/2007 (Advertisements) still requires consideration and provides guidance on the assessment of amenity and public safety. This has been referenced throughout the officer’s report on the application where relevant. Paragraph 7.6 – The applicant has argued that commercial advertising is located on buildings in Europe and over the world and it is therefore appropriate in this location. For example, there are a number of residential buildings surrounding the ring road in Paris which have commercial advertising on the roof. Whilst this is noted, it is not considered that this sets an example that should be followed in Brentford. As detailed within the report, the building is located where it is highly visible from of a number of sensitive viewpoints, including a World Heritage listed area, and the locality is currently undergoing significant regeneration. The adverse impact to the amenity of the environment is addressed in detail in the committee report. Paragraph 7.8 – The applicant has stated that there is a benefit to residents and the Council in approving this application against tightening public service budgets. Whilst this is noted, this is not something that can be considered when assessing advertisement applications. Consideration needs to be given to amenity and public safety only. It is not considered a financial benefit can outweigh the significant adverse impacts on amenity. |