BRA letter re Kings mall

7/29/2019 BRA letter re Kings mall

1/3

Ms Ballantyne-Way

LBHF Development Management Services

Town Hall Extension

King Street

London W6 9JU

16 January 2013

Dear Ms Ballantyne-Way

Planning application ref 2012/03456/FULRedevelopment of Kings Mall car park and associated areas

I write on behalf of Brackenbury Residents Association regarding the application forplanning permission for the development of the Kings Mall car park site andassociated areas, ref 2012/03456/FUL

The BRA has carefully reviewed the application design, visited the site, and attendedthe planning forum. The site is well known to the Brackenbury Residents Associationand forms a significant element of the urban fabric where the Associationmembership resides.

We now record our considered objection to the application, and request that planningconsent is withheld. The design requires amendment to a revised development brief,

reducing the overall bulk of the built form, introducing greater punctuation to theGlenthorne Road elevation, reducing the height of the Lyric Square elevations, andresponding better to the immediate proximity of the Brackenbury residential area.

We welcome both the removal of the car-park building and storage yard alongside,and the intention to provide new residential accommodation. However we areconcerned that the overall development is too large, the buildings are too dominant,the reduction in open width of Glenthorne Road inappropriate, and the developmentof this critical site fails to take the opportunity to enhance the urban context outsidethe site boundaries.

1 Oversized development

The site lies on the periphery of the town centre zone, and the applicationacknowledges that the design should respond to the smaller scale of its residentialsurroundings (EA Vol 2 5.3 et seq). Whilst the design successfully responds to thecontext of Leamore Street on the west elevation, the scale of the development on thenorth and east elevations is incompatible with the surroundings:

1.1 Glenthorne Road aspect:the development is oversized, and would be a rudeneighbour to the existing Victorian villas on the opposite side of Glenthorne Road.Whilst we endorse the intent to reflect the rhythm, proportions and articulation ofthese building(ES Vol 2 5.3), the application design fails to meet this importantobjective. The Victorian villas are visually differentiated architectural elements with a10 metre eaves level, separated from one another by a side recess over 7 metres

wide. This is to be compared to the new neighbour, the application scheme, which isover 100 metres long and 17 metres high to the front parapet, 20 metres high to the


2/3

set-back parapet. This long elevation appears as a singular block, of such a scale towholly overshadow the attempt to punctuate the block into bays defined by recesseswhich are too shallow (1.5 metres) and too narrow (2.5 metres) to win visualrelevance. With the repetition of window patterns and balconies, with only minorvariations, and the continuity of materials and roof profile, the development willappear not as five mansion villa blocksas suggested in the application (ES Vol 1 4.20et seq), but as a single huge building a very large mansion block. Big or small,mansion blocks are not characteristic of the area, introducing an alien element to theexisting street landscape of terraces and semi-detached houses. The effect of thislong high block would be reminiscent of a Roman city wall, defending the town frominvasion by the residents of Brackenbury.

1.2 Lyric Square aspect:half the frontage to Lyric Square rises to 35 metres, theother half rises to over 54 metres. This is excessive. The existing adjacent block at 1Lyric Square (49 metres high) and the emerging blocks at 1 Hammersmith Grove(the NCP car park building) demonstrate the tragic consequences of randomoverdevelopment around an important urban open space. The application suggests

that this height introduces a local urban marker drawing pedestrians towards thenorth of Lyric Square and the Hammersmith Grove amenities (EA Vol 2 5.7). Othersuccessful open spaces and squares throughout London have no need of suchmarkers, and there is no need for one here. Irrespective of the redundancy of thisobjective, whilst a tall building might create a landmark visible in distant views, inimmediate views from the adjacent open space it is now evident from a stroll acrossLyric Square that a tall building creates only wind, shadow and an overbearingcontainment. The new building emerging at 1 Hammersmith Groves demonstratesthe devastating effect of excessive building mass sited alongside an open space:Lyric Square has become subservient to its built surroundings, no more than aforecourt to 1 Hammersmith Grove, cowering under the architectural shadow of itssurroundings.

It is wholly inappropriate for this misplaced development at 1 Hammersmith Grove tobe a datum for acceptable building height in the area.

2 Selfish development2.1 Glenthorne Road planning:this is a critical site in the heart of the borough,and the redevelopment should improve not only the site but also the sitesurroundings; how else can cities improve? It is unfortunate that the developmentmoves the Glenthorne Road building line five metres closer to the highway, reducingthe visual width of the road, and bringing the new residential accommodation closerto the traffic and, together with the increased height, bringing greater containment tothe noise and pollution of the traffic. There is an opportunity to transform theperception of Glenthorne Road from a traffic artery to something closer to the original

stately road and promenade still evident from the streetscape of the Victorian villasand St Johns Church. Perhaps the road could curve gently around a widenedpavement on the north side, or planted indents be included on the south side.

2.2 Open space:the open space within the development is hidden away, denyingmutual benefit to the community as well as the householders, losing the opportunityto create surprise views from the street into green spaces.The application lists this inner open space as the play space required for under-5s;however the space is surrounded by buildings rising up to 30 metres above the playspace level. The application records that less than 50% of amenity space in thedevelopment will receive more than 2 hours direct sun per day (Vol 1 13.111). This is apoor provision for new housing in 2013.


3/3

There is no space proposed in the development for 5-11 year olds, who are requiredto travel to Brooke Green and Ravenscourt Park play areas. Both journeys includecrossing major traffic roads (Vol 1 7.141 et seq).Ravenscourt Park and Brook Green are greatly valued recreation spaces, alreadysuffering over-use and now sinking under the burden of schools, academy and, soon,recent major residential planning consents all dependent on the parks for theirrecreation facilities. Further community parkland needs to be made available forthese demands, or open space benefitting both householders and the communityshould be included on these larger development sites. This is good infrastructureplanning: supply of electricity, water and drainage is not allowed to be compromisedby demand, and the provision of recreation space is just as important.

3 ConclusionThe issues raised here are not of architectural quality, but of planning control.Planning control should balance and harness the energy and resource of thedeveloper, to ensure development brings benefit beyond the boundaries of the site.Planning identifies the city-wide opportunities, and sets down detail criteria both to

steer development energy towards the best urban environment, and to defend thecity from over-development.This is how good cities are created and nurtured. Town planning has to seize theurban initiative from the developers, or our borough will become impoverished andjoyless.

This application proposes too much built form on this important site. Theapplication needs to be significantly revised and should not be allowedplanning consent.

Yours sincerely

Brackenbury Residents AssociationccMembers of LBHF Planning CommitteeWard councillors for development area

Documents

BRA letter re Kings mall