 |
News | Login |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
News detail
In any event, item 'a' should hopefully prove a considerable stumbling block to any appeal or subsequent application along similar lines. Minutes With the permission of the Chair, Richard Jones, a Planning Consultant from Planning Perspectives spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the principle of residential development of the site was in keeping with the Council's Unitary Development Plan and the local planning brief. He stated that the current proposal was also consistent with the housing policies in the Unitary Development Plan. A detailed survey on the condition of St George's Church had been undertaken by the applicants. The fabric of the church had been found to be in a very poor condition. Significant investment was needed to improve the quality of the structure of the building and there would also be ongoing high maintenance costs for any organisation using the building. The developers were proposing a compromise which was to demolish the church but keep the tower. They felt able to afford this proposal by cross funding from the residential development. It was also their intention that the Trimmer Hall would be improved and converted to make it suitable for local community use. He stated that it was the applicant's view that the proposed development would improve the setting for the buildings which were to be preserved. He felt that the proposed design of the development and the amenity space that would be created would respect the character of the tower which was to be retained and the Sarah Trimmer building. He stated that parking provision in the scheme met the Council's standards. He confirmed that the developers were willing to make a Section 106 contribution to play provision which would be off-site at a location of the Council's choosing. He stated that because of the small size of the development it was not viable to provide affordable housing. Overall he stated that the applicant felt that their scheme was entirely appropriate for the given location. With the permission of the Chair, Stephen Browne spoke on behalf of the Holland Gardens Residents' Committee as an objector to the application. He stated that the Council's policies promoted the protection and sustainable reuse of historic landmark buildings such as St George's Church. The site of the church had not been included in the original proposals for development of the area. He was concerned that the tower itself might be unstable if the church were demolished. The tower had been built 26 years after the church. His investigation of archives suggested that there were up to 2,300 burials remaining on the site. The church was close to a Grade II Listed Building and provided an appropriate setting for that listed building. The area had already been subject to extensive residential development and demolition of the church would remove one of the last remaining landmarks in the area. The proposed development was very unremarkable in its design and did nothing to add to the character or design quality of the local area. The church was not actually in the ownership of the Council and costs associated with its retention or upkeep would not necessarily fall to the Council. He felt that it did have greater potential than the Sarah Trimmer Hall to be converted for community use. He stated that the Council's own Conservation Officer had expressed her personal view that she would recommend the church not be demolished. Mike Jordan, Borough Planning Officer, described the site to Members and set out the key planning issues which they might wish to consider. He referred to the consultation results which were set out in the report and also stated that since publication of the report further correspondence and e-mails had been received by the office and Members of the Committee which set out similar concerns to those summarised in the report itself. He stated that the church itself was in a poor structural condition and that any tenants who might take it over for community use were unlikely to be able to afford the high refurbishment/maintenance costs involved in its upkeep. The development of Capital West surrounding the site had changed the character of the area and the church was not compatible with that modern development. The proposed development of the site conformed to UDP standards. He stated that it was the Council's belief that bodies buried on the site had already been exhumed but this matter could be dealt with through normal Home Office procedures. He referred Members to additional conditions which were set out in the addendum. In response to a question from Councillor Bath he stated that the department did meet the Best Value Performance Indicators referred to by the objector. In response to a question from Councillor Reid, Mike Jordan stated that the Council had not been involved in investigation of alternative uses for the church. It was the Council's view that very high maintenance costs would put off potential users. He confirmed that the church tower was visible from the Kew towpath. He confirmed that car parking access was at basement level through the adjoining site. He stated that there had been no discussion yet of where a play area might be located but ideally this should be as near the site as possible. He accepted that the Council's Conservation Officer might recommend retention of the church, however, this was one view which must be considered along with the other issues relating to consideration of this application. He stated in response to a question that the Council had not undertaken an independent survey of the site. There was no imminent danger of collapse of the church but that there were likely to be very high maintenance costs. Unfortunately, with the surrounding development the church was now in a very poor setting. He did not feel that the proposed new development would increase the detriment to any great extent. He confirmed that the demolition and renovation of the tower was likely to happen before the residential development was undertaken because of the physical layout of the site. The Musical Museum had now acquired new premises. The church tower would be taller than the proposed residential development. It was recognised that the tower had a landmark value. Councillor Reid and Councillor Smart were concerned that the development would mean the loss of a building of townscape character and that this was a loss which residents felt quite strongly about. Councillor Smart also was concerned at the design quality of the residential element proposed particularly in light of the existing Travel Lodge building. Councillor Reid proposed refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the objections raised by the Holland Gardens Residents' Association at paragraph 6.3 of the report. Resolved - That Planning Application No.00607/367-368/P10 be refused for the following reasons:
(a) The proposal would lead to the loss of a building of townscape character. Source (Minutes): Hounslow Council web site
Tell us what you think.
If you have a view about something we have said here, tell us what you think.
|
||
|
The reasons for refusal of the planning application to demolish (items a-f at the end) are quite interesting, taking not only the historical content but also our proximity to the church into consideration.