...and lo it came to pass. Shaun Bailey's campaign to become the next Conservative MP for Hammersmith took another almighty blow last night courtesy of H&F Council's infamous Planning CommitteeDespite a petition of 300, and local residents opposed to the development attending the planning meeting in force (no mean feat on the first day of snow) the Committee acted true to form and approved the developer's plans.
Bulldozers will be in action soon, learning from this experience of having the decision called in by central government, the Council will want to make sure they get their rewards this time. That, presumably, was the lesson Stephen Greenhlagh was talking about at this Borough Summit when he said he regretted how the Goldhawk Block decision had been handled.
The relevance of this to the whole of Shepherd's Bush is that many of us live in conservation areas, yet our Council is illustrating what it thinks when presented with a choice between maintaining a conservation area, which is the reason why many people moved here, and the profits offered by developers. Even when it is manifestly opposed by the vast majority of existing residents. And that is a concern to us all.
Will Shaun Bailey be attacking this decision by the Council as he did here? We shall see. Andy Slaughter MP has yet to comment.
[...] December 16, 2009 by chrisunderwood ** for the decision of the planning committee click here** [...]
ReplyDeleteChris, i would normally join in with any attack on the Hammersmith Tories but regret that you have it (almost) wrong on this occasion....First Places for People are a Housing Association, not a profit led developer. Second it is good that council owned land is being sold to an HA with some (albeit a small number) of affordable rented housing, rather than a private developer. The design and architecture of the proposal looks OK. Neighbours will object to any change on principle (I too have been a nimby in the past!)
ReplyDeleteIf Labour were still in power exactly the same proposal would have got planning, but with a much higher % of social rented housing. Locals would still have objected, supported by the Tory opposition......Under the present shower it could have been a lot worse.......
I have been following this personally as i live in the area. The planning department is in bed with the developers. The planning committee on wednesday showed that!They manipulated planning law to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe planning department has shown contempt to the conservation area . Its a complete Farce . Mature trees on the edge of the site will be cut down out of sheer greed for maximum density.
So much for putting residents first!More like Putting developers first
Thanks both - my analysis is more in line with Andrew than Iain, but this is all based on second hand information and I'm more than capable of making mistakes.
ReplyDeleteBut what Andrew says and he way he says it is in line with what most local readers who are affected by this decision have told me.
May I please refer your readers to the following two planning applications:-
ReplyDeleteRavenscourt Park 282 - 288 Goldhawk Road London W12 9PF
2009/02757/FUL
Ravenscourt Park 282 - 288 Goldhawk Road London W12 9PF
2009/02758/CAC
Going to
http://www.apps.lbhf.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx
and typing the app' numbers will enable you to look at the planning application in detail.
The above was just an introduction to what I want to say. If you view the "Associated Documents" for 2009/02757/FUL and select PROPOSED GA 1ST FLOOR PLAN you will see that the layout is that of "back to back" houses last built in Leeds in 1937 [citation Alison Ravetz Model Estate]. The flats are four stories high in some cases and have three party walls, and are single aspect. The defence has been made by Iain Muir above that "Places for People are a Housing Association, not a profit led developer". However, it is my firm belief that regardless of restricted income HA's should be leading by example and not building modern slums for their tenants in the design currently put forward.
Disclaimer:- I am not a housing professional and I live in Cambridge not in the borough, however, owing to a keen interest in public housing and the apparent "spearhead" approach being taken by SG to housing in your borough I feel this is worth keeping an eye on since it bodes ill for the rest of us in years to come should the Tories get in in 2010 in the GE.
I sincerely hope, that Andy Slaughter is able to get this called in as with the other one and that it is never built. These ghastly proposed flats are an insult to human dignity in the C21st (IMHO) let alone the overlooking aspect to the adjacent properties.
Well, this has taken an interesting direction! I have no wish to defend LBHF or the scheme architect but the proposed ‘single aspect town houses’ bear little comparison to the ‘back to back’s once popular in Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham. I know a bit about BtB’s having lived in two whilst at university studying in detail slum clearance in Leeds under the ‘Housing of the Working Classes Acts 1885 and 1890’. Co-incidently I visited the BtB House Museum in Birmingham 3 months ago.
ReplyDeleteThe architect calls some of them ‘Mews Houses’ which are not uncommon in London and often of high value. This scheme will be built to Sustainable Homes Code 3 and current building standards. The design may not be to everyone’s tastes but I think it will work well and not become ‘Modern Slums’ . As stated earlier I believe this site would have evolved in a similar way under Labour but cannot blame Andy for capitalising on it. As an aside I reviewed Alison Ravetz’s book for Leeds Student in 1974/5 and still have my copy!
[...] as applicable depending on whether you’re a resident or a Council official) to intervene over this super-contentious planning decision which would transform Goldhawk Road and turn a [...]
ReplyDeleteQuote
ReplyDeleteI have no wish to defend LBHF or the scheme architect but the proposed ‘single aspect town houses’ bear little comparison to the ‘back to back’s once popular in Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham. I know a bit about BtB’s having lived in two whilst at university studying in detail slum clearance in Leeds under the ‘Housing of the Working Classes Acts 1885 and 1890’. Co-incidently I visited the BtB House Museum in Birmingham 3 months ago.
Unquote
What's the difference? They all look like caves to me, i.e. accessible only from one side and having no through ventilation.
Quote
The architect calls some of them ‘Mews Houses’ which are not uncommon in London and often of high value.
Unquote
The fact that somebody will pay a high price for something does not make it intrinsically valuable. They are paying for easy access to Central London not the poor quality box they end up living in.
Quote
This scheme will be built to Sustainable Homes Code 3 and current building standards. The design may not be to everyone’s tastes but I think it will work well and not become ‘Modern Slums’ .
Unquote
It's not a question of taste, it's a question of quality of design. They are caves, they are three sided boxes wtih no through ventilation and a single aspect.
You sound like somebody with a vested interest in the project, would you please declare your interest here?
Quote
As stated earlier I believe this site would have evolved in a similar way under Labour but cannot blame Andy for capitalising on it.
Unquote
I'm sure AS wil be delighted to be patronised by you, he is not capitalising on it, he is attempting to the the planning decision called in so the thing can be redesigned by somebody with a clue.
Thank you Paul for your response, I am a bit troubled by your tone and suggestion of a vested interest which seems a bit over the top but perhaps this is your style on the internet? Never mind. My only interest is my 30 year plus experience in working for Housing Associations and LA’s in Housing, and that I live within half a mile of the site and know it well. My view of the scheme is as stated, you are welcome to your own view. I have no connection with Places for People, the Architect or LBHF (apart from a small pension from my late wife)
ReplyDeleteI am not a specific fan of single aspect houses (or ‘caves’ as you term them) but can see that they will work well in certain locations. FYI modern Code 3 houses are so well insulated that ventilation is not about open windows (front to back) but active or passive venting through to the roof, possibly with heat recovery. All the homes planned are larger than the recommended minimums and I think the mews type layout works. There is a shortfall on amenity space which I suspect would be the main design criticsm but there is Ravenscourt Park opposite.
If the scheme had been developed under the previous Labour administration it would have had at least 60% affordable with 30% plus rented. We have a supported housing scheme but only a few shared ownership and no rented. Yes the market has changed the numbers but the Tories have actively worked to reduce or remove affordable rented from schemes within the borough. Starting with Larden Road (Genesis HA) and more recently with the White City ‘Lift’ scheme. Touch of Shirley Porter?
As you live in Cambridge you may not be aware of the local political scene. Boundary changes keep remapping constituencies. Andy is currently my MP in Acton, As at the next election he will shift to the right and south in terms of boundaries and the seat will be more marginal. All candidates for the new seat will play electoral games to maximise their advantage. I do not think I patronised Andy for doing what politicians do. He would agree that local MP’s do not, and should not influence Planning Inspectors. Chris has made plain his views that unpopular LA Planning decisions can lose the Local ruling party votes and affect their general election candidates!
Have a good Christmas and perhaps be a shad more considered when contributing to local blogs outside of Cambridge.................
Iain
Clearly a subject that raises passions, especially if it's your street that's being changed, but let's be nice to each other!
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas to all my reader. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI think it is possible to take an interest in a planning app regardless of my own location because the Internet makes geography irrelevant.
Since this thread has to some extent turned into what's popularly known as a "pissing contest" I'd like to add that my late Father was an architect for 30 years and then moved to H&S when his local authoritiy closed their architect's department. Therefore I have a long background association with architects and their business whilst not, as I have already stated, being a housing professional myself.
It remains my personal opinion, having looked at the plans for the proposed flats at 282-288 Goldhawk Road that they could be considerably improved from the present design, which is poor, and I sincerely hope that they are never built in their present form.
I have no knowledge of and am not particularly interested in, the boundary changes, those are particular to your borough, in which I do not live, as I have said.
However, owing to the the flagship nature of H&F as a spearhead for the likely Tory government, I firmly believe that events in H&F regarding housing are of interest to us all. Even in Cambridge ;-)
[...] May. Cameron will be hoping to repair some of the damage our own Conservative council have done to Shaun Bailey’s campaign in recent months. I’m not sure whether having Gordon Brown here would really count as being a [...]
ReplyDeleteThis is what needs to be done with the block facing Goldhawk Road in order to avoid them being single aspect.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.corringham.eu/layout.html
Add a central corridor on every second level and allow the flats to be dual aspect. This would entail a different site layout and increase the footprint of the block but vastly improve the quality of the flats and the quality of life in them.
I've lived in a scissor maisonette (not these) and they work very well.
[...] a wafer thin majority. In the end I think his local popularity, plus the damage the Council has inflicted on Shaun Bailey’s chances, will narrowly – very narrowly – count for just a bit [...]
ReplyDeleteAttention Iain Muir
ReplyDeletePlease read the following document section Superdensity 5:
5: Organising and Accessing Flats
http://www.designforhomes.org/pdfs/Superdensity.pdf
Please note that there are much better ways of designing flats than the present arrangment at GH Road.
...and that's where you are wrong Iain - the neighbours, of which I am one, are not objecting to the development in principle, just the poor design elements of this one.
ReplyDelete[...] housing association residents that had turned up to challenge the leader over decisions like this. Faced with persistent questioning from the likes of Maxine Bayliss from the ‘Hands Off Our [...]
ReplyDelete[...] The fact that there is doubt however is a mark of the level of distrust that the Council has created with recent planning decisions that have been directly against residents express wishes, most notably the Goldhawk Block and 282 Goldhawk Road. [...]
ReplyDelete[...] alone! After recent planning decisions, which united residents in opposition only for them to be overuled in favour of developers, the Council now wants to radically improve both walking and cycling down [...]
ReplyDelete[...] a Green MP will.” He has not one thing to say about the major local issues of housing, the economy, transport or even the big local environmental issue of the Thames Tideway Tunnel [...]
ReplyDelete[...] who were overruled by H&F’s infamous planning committee, who voted in favour of a ‘meditterenean village’ (or high density housing block in plain English) that would make both the Council and the [...]
ReplyDelete[...] and redevelopment of our estates. We have two very good local examples of what happens, the Goldhawk Block and 282 Goldhawk Road, of what happens when these people are in charge and residents views seem to [...]
ReplyDelete[...] indicate three and four storey mews housess and you can see the original article and comments here:-http://shepherdsbush.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/planning-bush-282-goldhawk-road-developers-move-in/ Posted by Single Aspect Filed in Housing design Leave a Comment [...]
ReplyDelete[...] of both existing and new flats, and have been dismayed at the quality of both recently built and proposed developments. The Boris Johnson initiated publication Housing Space Standards 2006 included a [...]
ReplyDelete[...] of both existing and new flats, and have been dismayed at the quality of both recently built and proposed developments. The Boris Johnson initiated publication Housing Space Standards 2006 included a [...]
ReplyDelete"But Cabe’s chairman Paul Finch revealed the design watchdog’s misgivings in an article published in the Architects’ Journal last week.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote: “I was truly shocked to see designs for back-to-back housing (two storeys, three party walls, single aspect) being given permission and Kickstart funding.
“The Planning Act of 1909 was introduced to make this sort of thing illegal.”"
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3159609&origin=BDdaily
Does this need further comment? The proposed plans for 282 are just as described above.