London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Statement of Consultation – Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning
Document
Consultation statement prepared in accordance with Regulation 12 of the Town and
Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012.
1. Name of Supplementary Planning Document
Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document
2. Purpose of SPD
The purpose of the SPD is to provide further, more detailed advice on the application
of policies within the Core Strategy and Development Management DPD (DM DPD)
that are concerned with managing development proposals within the borough and to
help applicants make successful applications and to aid infrastructure delivery.
3. Persons/groups/bodies consulted in connection with preparation of SPD
The SPD relates closely to existing Core Strategy and DM DPD policies, and
comments received on the preparation of these documents have fed into the
development of the SPD.
In addition, external consultation was undertaken in early 2012 during the drafting of
the SPD, including forwarding relevant sections of the SPD to specific consultation
bodies, including:
Environment Agency
English Heritage
Natural England
DEFRA
Greater London Authority
Neighbouring and other London boroughs
Britsh Waterways Board
Port of London Authority
Primary Care Trust
Internal consultation was undertaken during the drafting of the SPD, so that a variety
of council service areas were involved.
4. How were people consulted?
An internal steering group of relevant officers was formed to draft the SPD. Once
sections were completed, these were e-mailed to relevant bodies, including those
bodies listed in Regulation 4 of the Regulations 2012 that had a particular interest in
a section of the SPD or the SPD as a whole. More informally, some issues were
discussed over the phone and through emails with specific bodies.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
5. Summary of the main issues raised in those consultations
In house consultation with various service departments led to revisions to the SPD
before it was made available informally to external bodies.
Many comments made by external bodies were supportive, whilst others were
generally of a minor or technical nature. The main issues raised by external bodies
were as follows:
English Heritage (EH) commented on those sections of the SPD concerned with
design and heritage. EH sought increased reference to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) as well as the identification of additional and updated sources of
advice on heritage matters. There were also requests for further detail in some
policies.
The Environment Agency (EA) commented on a number of topics, especially Flood
Risk Mitigation and Susatinable Drainage, reflecting their broad base of
responsibilities. Comments were generally supportive, although the EA considered
that the residential moorings section required changes to policies regarding
hydrological and ecological considerations.
British Waterways Board and the Port of London Authority commented on the
residential moorings section, seeking wording changes, updating and clarification on
a number of policies.
Hillingdon Council and the Royal Borough of Kensignton and Chelsea (RBKC) both
commented on the contaminated land section, but these were generally supportive
comments that raised points of clarification. RBKC also sought minor changes to
the Sustainable Construction and Sustainable Energy sections.
Natural England suggested some minor changes to the Biodiversity section.
6. How have those issues been addressed in the SPD?
A number of the comments received during informal consultation have led to
changes being made to the SPD. A schedule (see Appendix 1) is attached to this
statement that identifies the representations and includes the council’s response to
the matters raised in the representations, including any associated changes.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Appendix 1 LBHF Planning Guidance SPD - Schedule of responses received during the informal consultation stage
Explanatory note
This schedule includes comments made by consultation bodies on the draft Planning Guidance SPD. The council’s response, including any
changes made as a result of the comments, is also provided. The schedule is laid out by SPD section. Not all sections received comments.
SPD Section 3
Guidelines for lightwells
Respond
ent
Name
English
Heritage
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
General
comment
It might be useful to frame this document in terms of impacts on
historic significance (NPPF Section 12), as well as an issue of
good design.
The Policy Context section is intended to give a flavour of
relevant policy documents – as such it is considered
unnecessary to provide further detail on the NPPF.
The chapter clearly sets out the significance of front garden
spaces to the street scene in conservation areas. The
implication is that only where the impact of a proposed
lightwell is likely to be acceptable, should reference be made
to the guidelines on good design.
SPD Section 4
Buildings of Merit
Respond
ent
Name
English
Heritage
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
General
comment
The Council may wish to set out the list of buildings of merit
outside of the SPD to allow for regular revisions to the list (along
with due public consultation), without needing to re-consult on the
SPD itself. This approach has been taken, for example, at within
the LB Havering Heritage SPD.
It is agreed that this would be in line with current guidance
whereby local authorities are expected to carry out regular
review to ensure the list is up-to-date. Therefore the list will
be published separately and will be removed from the SPD.
Remove Buildings of Merit list.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
SPD Section 5
Shopfront Design
Respond
ent
Name
English
Heritage
Respond
ent
Name
English
Heritage
Section
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
No comments
Noted
SPD Section 6
Conservation Area Guidelines
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
Policy
Context
Policy context – it might be worth making the point, in the first
paragraph (third sentence?), that the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) considers conservation of heritage assets as a
key part of the definition of Sustainable Development. In addition,
we suggest that further consideration could be given to new
development in Conservation Areas. For example, there is an
opportunity to reflect paragraph 137 of the NPPF which states that
“Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites
and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better
reveal their significance”. This approach is supported by the
design policies set out in
section 7.
The Policy Context section is intended to give a flavour of
relevant policy documents – as such it is considered
unnecessary to provide further detail on the NPPF.
Regarding the issue of “opportunities for new development”,
the council considers that the policy on Opportunity Sites
and others in this section of the SPD reflect satisfactorily
NPPF para 137.
Opportunity
Sites
Opportunity sites: we welcome policies which encourage new
designs that respond and are sensitive to the character and
appearance of the conservation area. At this point it might be
worth signposting any publicly available conservation area
appraisals as the source for the conservation area characteristics
which should inform such designs.
English Heritage has published The Setting of Heritage
Assets (2011) to assist with judging the extent of settings and
impacts on setting. This could usefully be signposted here.
It is agreed that a change could be made to the second
paragraph of the supporting text of policy 14 (see SPD para
5.240) to read:
Setting of the
conservation
area
“Where these sites are identified, for example in
conservation area character profiles, the potential ….”
It is agreed to refer to this document in the supporting text of
policy18 (see SPD para 5.253).
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
“Applicants should describe the impact of their proposals on
the setting of a conservation area in accordance with the
method outlined in The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011),
English Heritage”
SPD Section 7
Archaeology
Respond
ent
Name
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
Local context
The Local context 3.1 the archaeological remains identified should
include prehistoric and post-medieval deposits too.
It is agreed that reference could be made to these deposits
in the second sentence of Local Context.
Amend sentence in SPD para 5.301 to read;
“Archaeological remains from including prehistoric, Roman,
Saxon, and, Medieval and post-Medieval periods ….”
Paragraph
4.2
General: it might be worth mentioning the Greater London
Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS) Charter as a source of
advice and best practice principles. This would be useful, for
example, in paragraph 4.2.
It is agreed to add reference to this document in this para
(see SPD para 5.334), namely:
“See also Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service
(GLAAS) Charter as a source of advice and best practice
principles”..
SPD Section 9
Contaminated Land
Respond
ent
Name
London
Borough
of
Hillingdo
n
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
General
The SPD looks very comprehensive. One small comment, Do you
think it would help from the developer's point of view if the
sections with the principles were headed by a bullet pointed
section to direct developers. Perhaps nice map nearer front of
text. I am thinking more of the smaller developers. Just to direct
them. ie;
Noted, however this would have to be agreed as a format
change across all chapters which will need further
overarching consideration when finalising the document..
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Assessing site history and end use sensitivity to contamination.
Section X. Principle X, Y...
Actions needed by the developer to satisfy the CLO (or LPA) for
planning application submissions. Section...
Likely requirements of the CLO after permission. Section...
Requirements after a permission is granted including meeting
planning conditions by submitting information later in compliance
to discharge conditions. Section...
You refer to land affected by contamination in the document and I
think it is worth making a clear distinction between this and
contaminated land, and including a definition of both in the
glossary. The definition of contaminated land needs updating.
I liked the list of principles and this may be worth summarising at
the beginning of the document or for something aimed directly at
developers (like a leaflet), who may not be interested in the details
(obviously you don't want to discourage anyone from reading the
document properly).
Terms have been disambiguated and Glossary definitions
have been updated.
Noted, however this would have to be agreed as a format
change across all chapters which will need further
overarching consideration when finalising the document..
Also make a distinction between validation and verification. I think
the latter is what we are asking for at the end of the process where
they go and carry out the checks they said they will do and confirm
that remediation has been successfully carried out. This would
include any imported soil contamination test data as well.
Agreed. Distinction has been made to text and Glossary.
I guess this means it should clearly state some where in the main
document that the remediation strategy or statement should
clearly indicate how the remedial works will be verified (this is
stated in the detailed list at the back, but may be worth referring to
at a pertinent point in the main document).
Now stated in main text (see SPD Policy 16 and supporting
text) that verification plan is a necessary part of remediation
strategy.
May want to bring climate change into it. Certainly relevant for
some types of remediation.
Not referenced, but covered as part of the Sustainable
Remediation and Integrated Environmental Considerations
sections.
1 app Q15 is sometimes Q14 etc. depending on the form. The last
bullet point under the figure, it is worth emphasising that phase 1
The 1-App section has been updated to no longer refer to a
particular section number. The potential need for further
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Royal
Borough
of
Kensingt
on and
Chelsea
preliminary risk assessment is a 'minimum' requirement. There is
a good chance if the answer is yes to the first two questions and it
is quite a serious contamination issue it is possible a thorough
investigation with remediation proposals will be required at the
application stage. If they can't clearly demonstrate the remediation
is possible and feasible then it may not be advisable to register the
application or give planning approval with conditions.
assessment at application stage has also been referenced.
Any references to s106 or is this covered in a separate document?
S106 matters will be covered in a separate document and
will include provisions for contaminated land assessments.
General
A number of minor changes are proposed to the document to aid
clarity and presentation.
A number of minor editing changes have been made to this
section.
Principle 2
Add word in bold below:
Where unacceptable risks are present, it must be demonstrated
that these risks are abated through remedial action without undue
impact during and maintained? following the development.
Change considered uneccessary.
Principle 5
Delete ‘consider’ and replace with ‘carry out’ as shown below:
Principle 5. Developers, applicants or their agents should carry
out the following key actions to ensure that delays and further
expense are avoided:
It is agreed that the word “consider” should be replaced by
“carry out” in the opening setence of SPD Policy 5.
Principle 8
Add words in bold as shown below:
or, where investigation is not yet possible or is not deemed
necessary by the council in deciding the application, a site
investigation scheme setting out how it will be undertaken.
It is agreed to amend second bullet point of SPD Policy 8 as
suggested, namely:
• A report on a site investigation targeting
unacceptable risks identified in the preliminary risk
assessment including a risk assessment of the
investigation’s findings and a revised conceptual site
model; or, where investigation is not yet possible or
is not deemed necessary by the council in deciding
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
the application, a site investigation scheme setting
out how it will be undertaken.
Principle 9,
Justification
paragraph 3
Where a site investigation is required, but will take place
consequent to the granting of planning permission…( Not sure
what is meant by this – is it take place after planning permission
has been granted?)
Phase 2: Site Investigation and Quantitative Risk Assessment
2-D contour maps or 3-D models/cross sections showing
distribution of contaminants of concern in the unsaturated and
saturated zones (Not sure we’ve ever requested this, but that
might say more about us than you!)
Environ
ment
Agency
The draft Contaminated Land chapter of the SPD is very good,
giving a detailed breakdown of what we (our Groundwater and
Contaminated Land team and your own
Environmental Health Department) would expect to see as part of
a planning application submission where contaminated land is
known or suspected.
The description of geology and groundwater in the Local Context
section of the chapter gives a good overview of local geology and
historical impacts from excavating sands and gravels. The
reference to the Model Procedures for the Management of Land
Contamination - Contaminated Land Report 11 guidance
document and the CL:AIRE
The council can confirm that the investigation is
‘consequent’ as it is taking place as a result of permission
being granted.
This is considered an essential part of a Conceptual Site
Model
Comments welcome.
Code of Practice is also positive, promoting the principles of
sustainable remediation.
Respond
ent
Name
Section
SPD Section 12
Flood Risk Mitigation and Sustainable Drainage
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Environ
ment
Agency
However, a number of the links (particularly to our website) are out
of date. In order to address this, instead of linking directly to our
FRA Guidance Notes and Advisory Comments we recommend
linking to our website. This will ensure any future updates to these
guidance notes are captured in the SPD. The relevant page on our
website to link to may is:
http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/planning/93498.aspx
Accept change.
The policy guidance relating to the Core Strategy states that “the
council will strive to reduce the risk of flooding from surface water
and foul water and its contribution to fluvial flooding…”. While
flooding from surface water and foul water does contribute to
fluvial flooding, there are no fluvial watercourses in Hammersmith
and Fulham so this statement is not relevant. We therefore
recommend that the words “and its contribution to fluvial flooding”
are deleted, as the sentence still makes sense without them.
Accept change.
Web links in the document to be amended as
recommended.
Second paragraph of Local Plan section (see SPD para 7.9)
to be amended by deleting words “and its contribution to
fluvial flooding”.
Section 3 outlines the Local Context, and states that the whole
borough is regarded as a Critical Drainage Area. However, it is not
clear on what evidence this has been based - perhaps the work
through the Drain London forum or the emerging Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP)? We advise caution in the use of the
term “critical drainage area”, as “critical drainage problems” is
used in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and
technical guidance to define areas at risk of flooding. Unless its
use in the SPD is clear and justified, it may lead to confusion.
Apart from this issue, Section 3 of the chapter describes the
relevant sources of flooding well.
The borough has been identified as a CDA in the council’s
Surface Water Management Plan.
The explanation of flood risk vulnerability and the application of
the exception test are comprehensive. We should note that we
would not object to a planning application for a highly vulnerable
use (such as a self-contained basement) which was located
outside the areas of medium or high residual risk shown on Map 8
of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Although this
type of development in Flood Zone 3a would be contrary to the
Comment noted. Text to remain unchanged as suggested.
No change
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
NPPF, our position reflects local circumstances and the current
standard of flood defences in the Borough. However, there may be
other sources of flooding (e.g. surface water, sewer, groundwater
flooding) that are important considerations for managing flood risk
for highly vulnerable development. You may therefore consider
that the text of the draft chapter on this issue should remain as
proposed.
The link provided to the joint EA / Defra report titled “FRA
Guidance for New Development” is invalid. The document is
available on the Defra website here:
http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=FD
2320_3364_TRP.pdf
Accept change.
We support the inclusion of a bullet point relating to developments
adjacent to the River Thames in the list of FRA Requirements for
Flood Zones 2 and 3. However, we recommend addition additional
detail to state that any development adjacent to the River will need
to consider whether the life of the flood defences is commensurate
with the life of the development, and whether any remedial works
are required. In addition, we are pleased to see a comprehensive
description of flood resilient and resistant
design measures in this section.
Accept change.
The section outlining the Local Requirement for Sustainable
Drainage Systems (SuDS) describes the key objectives that
planning policies require in terms of surface water drainage. We
support the inclusion of “aim for Greenfield run off rates” as this is
supported by Policy 5.13 - Sustainable drainage (page 155) of the
London Plan.
However, we recommend removal of the reference to “50-100%
attenuation of the undeveloped site’s surface water run-off (at
peak times)” which is presumably derived
from Section 2.4.4 - Water Pollution and Flooding (page 47) of the
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Sustainable Design
and Construction. Firstly, this is
Web link to be updated as recommended
Additional text to be included in this FRA Requirements for
Flood Zones 2 and 3 (see bullet point in para 7.26 of SPD)
to read:
“For developments adjacent to the River consideration will
need to be given to whether the life of the flood defences is
commensurate with the life of the development and whether
any remedial works are required”.
Comment noted. The reference to 50%-100% attenuation is
also referred to in the council’s Core Strategy. The council
consider it is appropriate to leave this text as it is in the draft
SPD and see what comments the GLA make, as this issue
is tied into the GLA’s guidance on the London Plan policy.
No change.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
because we consider achieving Greenfield runoff rates to be
equivalent to achieving 100% attenuation of the undeveloped
site’s surface water run off at peak times.
Secondly, the SPG on Sustainable Design and Construction is
currently under review and the essential and preferred standards
are likely to change
In the context of SuDS, we also consider that it is important to
clarify that for brownfield sites, the term “undeveloped site” refers
to the state of the existing site prior to the proposed development
(ie. pre-development). It does not refer to a greenfield site which
existed prior to any form of built development.
Accept change.
Add clarifying text to supporting paras of Policy 2 (see para
7.44 of SPD) to read:
“It is important to note, that for brownfield sites, the term
“undeveloped site” refers to the state of the existing site prior
to the proposed development (i.e. pre-development). It does
not refer to a greenfield site which existed prior to any form
of built development”.
In the list of information to be provided for SuDS schemes, we
recommend adding and “outline drainage plan” to the bulleted list.
This is consistent with text later in the section
in relation to Underground Attenuation, which states that “where
such measures are proposed, these should be shown in detailed
drawings…”.
Accept change.
For development adjacent to the tidal River Thames, we support
the discharge of 100% of the surface water runoff to the River.
Drainage systems should be designed to take
account of the effects of tide-locking and ensure that runoff is
uncontaminated and does not erode the bed of the River.
Drainage outfalls built into the flood defences will need to ensure
the integrity of the defences is maintained. Any parts of the site
discharging to the combined sewer network would be expected to
aim for greenfield rates.
Accept change.
The section describing discharge to sewer states that “as a
Add ‘outline drainage plan’ to the bullet points in supporting
paragraphs to Policy 2 (see para 7.44 of SPD).
Additional text to be added to the Watercourse Discharge
section (see SPD para 7.65) to read:
“Drainage systems should be designed to take account of
the effects of tide-locking and should ensure that runoff does
not erode the bed of the River. Drainage outfalls built into
the flood defences will need to ensure the integrity of the
defences is maintained”.
As noted above, the reference to 50% attenuation is
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Respond
ent
Name
WRWA
minimum, a development site should reduce surface water flows
going into the sewer by 50%” as per Section 2.4.4 of the SPG on
Sustainable Design and Construction. For the same reasons as
outlined earlier, we recommend removing this reference and
replacing it with “a development site aim to reduce surface water
flows going into the sewer to greenfield runoff rates” in accordance
with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan.
currently part of the GLA’s guidance in their SPD and is
referred to in the council’s Core Strategy. Consider it is
appropriate to leave this text as it is in the draft SPD and see
what comments the GLA make, as this issue is tied into the
GLA’s guidance on the London Plan policy.
Although the definition of Greenfield runoff included in the glossary
is a common one, used by CIRIA amongst others, we are
concerned that it does not recognise the strong policy guidance
provided in Policy 5.13 of the London Plan which has been
adopted to address a significant source of flood risk in London. If
this definition were applied, aiming for greenfield runoff rates on
brownfield sites would simply maintain existing
runoff rates and would provide no reduction in discharge to the
sewer network. We therefore recommend that the definition is
revised, as this clearly goes against existing
policy in the London Plan, Core Strategy, and Development
Management DPD.
Comment noted.
The definition of ‘greenfield’ is a standard definition that is in
use, which the council has reproduced in the SPD Glossary.
Section
SPD Section 13
Storage of Refuse and Recyclables
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
NA
Minor comments made on the draft
Accept minor changes. Incorporate these into the draft
section
SPD Section 14
Biodiversity
Respond
ent
Name
Environ
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
While the chapter offers a comprehensive set of policies
Accept change.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
ment
Agency
addressing biodiversity generally, it does not offer the same level
of detail in terms of development adjacent to the Grand Union
Canal or the River Thames. With regard to the River Thames, we
recommend a new policy is added which specifically addresses
biodiversity issues associated with development adjacent to the
River.
In this regard, we strongly supported the content of Section 13.8 Riverside Enhancement and Biodiversity in the South Fulham
Riverside SPD (second draft) during a recent consultation. We
therefore recommend that the ecological principles outlined at the
end of Section 13.8 of the South Fulham Riverside SPD should be
adopted in the draft SPD.
In the reasoned justification of SPD Policy 16 (see para
7.213 of SPD) add:
‘Development adjacent to the River Thames or the Grand
Union Canal
The River Thames and the Grand Union Canal together
constuitute the borough’s ‘blue’ corridors. Both these
waterways, but especially the River Thames provide habitat
for a wide range of species and act as important wildlife
corridors, allowing a large number of species to travel
through the borough. In some instances, the river and the
canal provide the means for species to enter and establish
themselves within the borough and other parts of London. In
order for the River Thames and the Grand Union Canal to
continue functioning as habitat and corridors for wildlife, new
development along and on the River Thames and the Grand
Union Canal should be carried out taking into account the
following ecological principles:
•
Enhance the function of the River Thames and the
Grand Union Canal as wildlife corridors and
introduce measures to encourage riparian
biodiversity;
•
Investigate the managed retreat of the riverbank
and establish areas of biodiversity friendly
landscaping where practicable;
•
No loss of Local Sites of Nature Conservation
Importance;
•
No negative ecological or environmental impact on
Local Sites of Nature Conservation Importance in
proximity to the river and the canal;
•
Retention, protection and enhancement of all
1
existing priority habitats and species;
•
A net increase in open space including natural and
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
semi-natural green space;
Natural
England
Policy 7
•
The incorporation of green Infrastructure and
SUDs in developments;
•
Green roofs and other green design features are
required on all buildings, where practicable.
Building design should also incorporate nesting
features (e.g. bird boxes) into the structure of
buildings where practicable;
•
Light spillage should be reduced within and
adjacent to areas of ecological value, including
green / blue ribbons (corridor linkages); and
•
An ecological and environment impact
assessment must be submitted with any major
planning application
Noted. No change
One item of which we particularly approve is Policy 7 and the
commitment to creating new Green Infrastructure and habitats.
The White City Opportunity Area and other major developments
that are currently being planned within the borough provides a
chance to make biodiversity and improve upon the ecosystem
complexes you identify in appendix 2.
Details of
Assessment
requirements
for
Designated
Sites and
Priority
Habitats’
One minor alteration that we would recommend falls on pages 12
and 13 under the heading ‘Details of Assessment requirements for
Designated Sites and Priority Habitats’ and concerns the
paragraph and bullet points that read as follows:
‘Where harm is likely, evidence must be submitted to show:
How alternative designs or locations have been considered; or
How adverse effects will be avoided wherever possible; or
How unavoidable impacts will be mitigated or reduced; or
Accept change.
In the section ‘Details of Assessment requirements for
Designated Sites and Priority Habitats’ (see para 7.216 of
SPD) delete ‘or’ and replace with ‘and’ in the penultimate
bullet point
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
How impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated will be
compensated’
It would appear to me that the word ‘or’ that trails the first three
bullets would perhaps be better replaced with the word ‘and’ to
ensure that all alternatives to harmful construction have been
considered.
‘Requirement
s for
assessments
of species
surveys.’
Respond
ent
Name
Royal
borough
of
Kensingt
on and
Chelsea
There is a similar paragraph on pages 10 and 11 under the
heading ‘Requirements for assessments of species surveys.’ The
word ‘or’ that trails the bullet points would be better replaced with
the word ‘and’
Section
Noise Pollution
While some level of
disturbance may be
unavoidable, developers
and their contractors are
expected to minimise
noise nuisance and
disturbance to neighbours
during any construction
and demolition works…
If impacts are
inadequately controlled
and are affecting
neighbouring properties,
the council can serve an
abatement notice and
impose requirements on
SPD Section 15
Sustainable Construction
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Does this mean s80 of EPA? Would it be better to
serve a s60 under COPA? I also think this section
should refer to the s61 prior consent process too.
Accept change.
In the section ‘Requirements for assessments of species
surveys’ (see para 7.207), delete ‘or’ and replace with ‘and’
in the penultimate bullet point
Council response
Accept change.
Replace reference to ‘abatement notice’ to serving a notice
under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in SPD para 7.299.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
contractors…
Waste
If a site is on potentially
contaminated land or a
particularly sensitive enduse then the guidance in
the Contaminated Land
SPD should be followed
to ensure appropriate
investigation and
remediation work is
carried out.
Add the following section:
If during the course of excavation works, you suspect
any contamination that has not previously been
identified, works should be suspended and the
Council’s Contaminated Land Officer should be
notified immediately. An environmental consultant
should then be engaged to investigate further.
Comment noted. Additional text included at the end of the
‘waste’ section in SPD Policy 27 (see para 7.306), namely:
“For detailed guidance on contaminated land issues, refer
to the relevant section of this SPD”.
SPD Section 16
Sustainable Energy
Respond
ent
Name
Royal
Borough
of
Kensingt
on and
Chelsea
Section
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Council response
I consider the policies and principles of the SPD to promote
sustainable development in line with the London Plan Policies and
to encourage Climate Change mitigation and adaption, as
supported by the National Planning Policy Framework.
Comment noted. Support welcomed.
The requirement for developments to submit detailed energy
assessments and to follow the London Plan Hierarchy of ‘Being
Lean, Being Clean, and Being Green’ would drive development in
the area towards reducing CO2 emissions. However, there does
not seem to be any specific targets for Code for Sustainable
Homes/BREEAM/Ecohomes or for the installation of Decentralised
Energy Networks or Renewable Technologies. The policies and
principles do not seem robust enough to ensure the reduction of
emissions, which is the aim of this document.
Comment noted. Reference is made in SPD para 7.321 to
“the need to ensure that developments keep improving their
performance in terms of energy use and emissions so that
they comply with the requirement to achieve zero carbon
emissions by the target dates of 2016 (residential
developments) and 2019 (all other developments)”.
The SPD supports the policies in the Core Strategy and DM
DPD documents which refer to the London Plan targets for
CO2 reduction and the role of CSH/BREEAM and
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
renewables and decentralised energy in helping achieving
these targets.
Regarding development that can affect RBKC, two areas have
been identified in the Heat Map Study as to be feasible for
decentralised energy. These two areas are adjacent to RBKC,
White City Opportunity Area and Earl’s Court and West
Kensington Opportunity Area. Any policies or principles specified
in this SPD should take consideration of the policies and principles
of RBKC’s Core Strategy and relevant SPDs, as well as of the
planned development of the adjacent areas, in particular the
Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre.
Responde
nt
Port of
London
Authority
Section
SPD Section 17
Residential Moorings
Comment/ Proposed amendment
Comment noted. It is agreed to include following additional
text in SPD para 7.333 on utilising heat networks:
“Where opportunities arise to develop networks that link
sites in neighbouring boroughs, these should be explored for
their feasibility and detailed in Energy Assessments.
Council response
Local context
‘Today, this stretch of the river
is one of the busiest on the
River Thames…’
I’m not sure on what statistical basis this
statement came from, but I’m not sure it’s
correct. I would suggest that it’s busy, but
whether it’s one of the busiest is more open to
debate.
Accept change. Amend Local Context wording (SPD para
8.9) as follows:
Local context
‘…being used for a wide range
of activities including
commercial and leisure
navigation, public transport and
rowing and canoeing…’
Local context
A short term mooring
development has recently been
completed at Imperial Wharf
Local context
extremely heavy use the river is
currently subject to along this
Appreciate what’s being said, but public
transport, rowing and canoeing are all within
the wider definition of commercial and leisure
navigation
Comments noted. No change considered necessary.
Although this isn’t a residential mooring.
Noted. No change necessary.
As above
Delete ‘extremely’ from bullet point in SPD para 8.10 of
Local Context.
”…this stretch of the river is one of the busiest on the River
Thames relatively busy…“
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
stretch of the river that may be
adversely affected by additional
residential moorings;
Local Context.
Notwithstanding the above,
there may be some potential to
develop additional residential
moorings in the South Fulham
area which extends from the
Hurlingham Club downstream
to the Cremorne railway bridge.
London Plan
Other policies
The Port of London Authority
(PLA) is the owner of the
riverbed
Other policies
The Port of London Authority
policy on residential moorings
on the tidal river Thames is
available at:
Other policies
The Environment Agency does
not regulate the licensing of
residential moorings on the tidal
River Thames
Where is the evidence to substantiate the
basis on which this area in particular been
selected? The principal enclaves of
residential moorings within the Borough are
located in the area of highest density (in terms
of traffic).
The statement is based on the fact that this area has most
potential for significant riparian development in the borough.
The council’s draft South Fulham Riverside Regeneration
SPD also states that there is potential to develop additional
residential moorings as part of proposed major development
in the area.
I’m surprised that Policy 7.26 was not
included, particularly in view of the Council’s
preferred area for these moorings. Clearly, it
is as important as the other policies that have
been included. Also suggest that justifying
paragraphs should also be included. Also, if
the Council believe that residential moorings
can contribute to the Borough’s Housing
Stock, shouldn’t regional and local policies on
housing be included?
The PLA is the principal owner of the riverbed
and foreshore to the Mean High Water mark.
No change. Only policies that are directly related to
residential moorings have been mentioned in the SPD.
I appreciate that this is on the website,
although has been superseded by the PLA’s
‘Advice on River Works on the Tidal River
Thames’ which can be seen at
http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/
2568/site/pla
And neither do they on the canals.
Residential moorings will make a relatively minor
contribution to the borough’s housing stock. The type of
housing offered by residential moorings is also very different
to that addressed in regional and local housing policies. As
such, the council does not think it necessary to mention
these policies in the residential moorings SPD.
Noted. Add ‘…and foreshore to the Mean High Water
mark…’ in SPD para 8.14 of “Other policies on residential
moorings”.
Accept change. Amend details of the PLA policy on mooring
as follows:
‘Advice on River Works on the Tidal River Thames’ which
can be seen at
http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/2568/site/pla
Noted. Add ‘…or the Grand Union Canal’ in SPD para 8.20
of “Other policies on residential moorings”..
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Principle 1 –…as part of
obtaining approval for new
residential moorings.
Whilst I understand the point, this compliance
would not obviate the need to obtain planning
permission – where are these criteria/policies
Noted. No change. The criteria relating to obtaining council
planning permission are listed in subsequent policies in the
SPD.
have been granted a licence by
relevant statutory bodies (the
Port of London Authority and
British Waterways)
The granting of licences for new
residential moorings on the tidal
River Thames is controlled by
the Port of London Authority
(PLA).
Policy 2 –
Suggest that ‘or’ is missing here.
Accept amendment. Replace ‘and’ with ‘or’ in the second
bullet of supporting text for Policy 1 (see SPD para 8.21).
This is not strictly correct – usually, the PLA
grants licences under s66 of the 1968 Act for
the works that constitute the mooring, rather
than the vessels at the moorings (which are
classed as vessels not works).
I would suggest this needs to expanded – our
approach is that both black and grey water
need to be discharge ashore, although this
can be to mains or by pump-out.
Accept amendment. Amend supporting sentence in SPD
para 8.24 to Policy 1 as follows:
The council will generally
expect proposed moorings sites
to be provided with adequate
land-based utility infrastructure
and support facilities, including:
sewage disposal;
As vessels moored on
residential moorings are taken
to constitute the primary
residence for occupants,
I appreciate the approach, but suspect that
there may be questions as to whether the
approach includes pied-a-terre moorings or
not…
The council recognises that the
provision of some, or any of the
utility services and facilities
listed above may not be
possible due to site constraints
and the potential adverse
amenity impacts associated
I’m not sure this is the correct approach.
Surely, if the Council believe that these
moorings can assist in the provision of
housing within the Borough, it would be utterly
inappropriate to have any housing stock
without mains water or sewage disposal?
Surely if it can’t be provided it’s not an
‘The granting of licences for works that constitute residential
moorings is controlled by the Port of London Authority.’
No change. The PLA and British Waterways have different
approaches to sewage disposal. The broad wording of the
SPD accommodates these differences.
Accept change. Amend first sentence of SPD para 8.26 for
Policy 2 as follows:
‘As vessels moored on residential moorings are taken to
constitute have the potential to be the primary residence for
occupants, the council will normally expect new moorings
developments to be provided with basic infrastructure and
facilities such as ….”
No change. Building Regulations housing standards do not
apply to houseboats. While the council will prefer utilities
and other infrastructure services to be provided wherever
possible, some moorings sites may not be able to
accommodate these. Additionally, in some instances some
residents on houseboats may be content to remain self
sufficient. The council does not consider it appropriate to
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
with installing this infrastructure
near the moorings site. Where
this is the case, developers of
proposed residential moorings
sites will need to provide
satisfactory justification with
their planning applications for
not providing the above
facilities. This could include:
appropriate location?
reject potential moorings sites that are satisfactory in all
other aspects except for being able to accommodate utilties
and other infrastructure if suitable justification can be
provided.
Policy 3 –
I would suggest that, bearing in mind where
the Council wishes to direct these moorings,
something needs to be included about the
Borough’s safeguarded wharves.
No change. Policies in the Core Strategy and DM DPD
satisfactorily cover the issue of safeguarded wharves.
How would this be enforced?
The council consider that this would be managed by
conditions granted as part of a planning approval for a new
moorings development.
The impact of wash also needs to be
considered
Accept in part. Delete reference to “established” in the
second bullet point of supporting text for Policy 5 (see SPD
para 8.38) as follows:
New moorings should be
designed to complement and
respect the character and
amenity of their setting and that
of the waterway on which they
are to be located.
Policy 4 –
Vessels moored on a
permanent basis at approved
residential moorings should:
be capable of navigation,
moving under their own power.
Policy 5 –
…including existing navigation
speeds and the normal
operation of commercial, public
transport and recreational craft;
and
the range and operation of
established water-based uses
Why only established?
•
“that does not affect the range and operation of
established water-based uses including rowing and
recreational cruising in both the River Thames and
the Grand Union canal”
The council is not certain that this policy is the appropriate
place for consideration of the “impact of wash” and would
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
welcome further clarification on the issue from the PLA..
Policy 6 – Access for …should
have road access to at least
part of the site to facilitate
access by emergency services.
Where direct road access to the
site is not possible, developers
should identify the closest
access point and assess its
overall suitability for use by
occupiers and emergency
vehicles.
Policy 9 – Access for all
I think this (including the storage of gas
bottles and other flammable substances), and
means of access more generally need to be
considered. It should be noted that Building
Regs don’t apply on the river.
If not acceptable, then permission should not
be granted. I would have thought that access
by LFB fire vessels cannot be guaranteed at
all times this far upstream
No change. Safety issues concerning access to moorings
sites by emergency vehicles will be considered when
assessing planning applications for new residential
moorings developments.’
Does the DDA apply?
No change. Issues concerned with the DDA will be
considered as appropriate.
Principle 1 – Proposals for residential
moorings
“Developers seeking to develop new
residential moorings through new
development or a change of use of existing
infrastructure should comply with the policy
guidelines of statutory licensing authorities as
part of obtaining approval for new residential
moorings.” Whilst good practice, we query
whether it is appropriate for a LPA to require
compliance with other Authorities’ policy
guidelines?
Under this Principle the Council advise that
they will treat proposals for residential
moorings as residential development and will
Amend SPD Policy 1 as follows: ‘Policy 1. Developers
seeking to develop new residential moorings through new
development or a change of use of existing infrastructure
will also need to consider and apply should comply with the
policy guidelines of statutory licensing authorities as part of
obtaining approval for new residential moorings.’
No change. The council does not consider it appropriate to
reject potential moorings sites that are satisfactory in all
other aspects except for being able to provide direct road
access to the site if satisfactory justification can be provided.
…these developments to be
built in accordance with the
principles of accessible and
inclusive design.
British
Waterways
Policy 1
Delete supporting paragraph in draft SPD that stated ‘The
council will treat proposals for residential moorings as
residential development and will assess such proposals
using national, regional and local planning policies.’
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
assess such proposals using national,
regional and local planning policies. Given
this statement it is suggested that the Council
may wish to set out its stance on the
application of Core Strategy policy H2 –
affordability in respect of residential
moorings. We would be happy to discuss this
further with you.
Environme
nt Agency
Policy 3
Principle 3 – Preserving the existing character
and amenity of the borough’s waterways and
waterside locations
In relation to the resisting of long lines of
moorings, we would request the removal of
this. The definition of a ‘long line’ would likely
be too subjective, and we feel that each case
should be treated on its merits.
No change. While each case will be treated on its own
merits, it is important that the SPD provides guidance on
what types of moorings developments will be appropriate on
the borough’s waterways.
Policy 4
Principle 4 – Characteristics of Moored
Vessels
We are pleased that this has been picked up
within the document – however, we still face
difficulties in setting criteria to make it
operational.
We suggest that the application of Principle 4
is tested in relation to compliance with circular
11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning
Permission prior to inclusion within the SPD.
We would be happy to discuss this further
with you.
Given the conservation area status of the river and canal the
council will wish to ensure good design through the planning
process. It may be possible to secure other attributes
through management plans and the like. The council is
willing to discuss the matter with BWB.
Local Context ‘…there may be
some potential to develop
additional residential moorings
in the South Fulham area which
extends from the Hurlingham
We are concerned that allocating a specific
reach of the River Thames between
Hurlingham Wharf and the Cremorne railway
bridge will create a presumption that
residential moorings are acceptable in
The council has not allocated a specific reach of the river,
rather it has identified potential in South Fulhaml. However,
the last sentence in SPD para 8.11 of the Local Context
should be amended as follows:
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
Club downstream to the
Cremorne railway bridge. The
council will support new
residential moorings
development along this stretch
of the river subject to any
proposal satisfying
environmental and other
conditions as required by
relevant licensing authorities
As above
principle in this location, which may not be the
case.
‘The council will support proposals for new residential
moorings development along this stretch of the river subject
to any proposal satisfying policies within this SPD, the Core
Strategy and the Development Management DPD as well as
environmental and other conditions as required by relevant
licensing authorities.’
Given the potential significance of the
impacts, it is therefore essential that any
allocation of river space for residential
moorings is supported by a detailed
Ecological Survey and Assessment. Without
such an assessment, there is no evidence to
suggest that this reach of the River Thames is
an appropriate location for new residential
moorings, or even if any appropriate locations
exist within the Borough.
No change. The council has not formally designated any
stretch of the River Thames as being suitable for new
residential moorings development. The council will expect
developers to prepare ecological surveys and assessments
for any potential sites for moorings development.
The Environment Agency does
not regulate the licensing of
residential moorings on the tidal
River Thames or the Grand
Union Canal. However, the
Agency is a statutory consultee
in the planning process and will
provide formal advice on any
environmental and flood related
implications associated with
planning applications relating to
proposed residential moorings.
The Environment Agency is
also responsible for the
provision of flood defences
along the river and ensuring
The section discussing statutory agencies
policies on residential moorings is incorrect.
Although we do not specifically license
residential moorings, we do regulate
development within the River Thames and
any proposed residential moorings would
require our consent in addition to a River
Works License from the Port of London
Authority (PLA) and a Marine License from
the Marine Management Organisation
(MMO). As noted in our previous response,
the requirement to obtain a Flood Defence
Consent for any proposed works or structures
in, under, over or within 16 metres of the brink
of the tidal flood defences of the River
Thames is outlined under the Water
Accept in part. Amend the SPD para 8.13 of section on
Other policies on residential moorings to read:
‘The Port of London Authority and the Marine Management
Organisation (MMO) are the licensing authorities for
applications concerning the development of new residential
moorings in the tidal River Thames. British Waterways is the
licensing authority for similar development on the Grand
Union canal…’ and reword SPD para 8.20 to read:
‘ …However, the Agency does regulate development within
the River Thames. Any proposed residential mooring
development on the River Thames will therefore require the
consent of the Environment Agency in order to ensure
compliance with environmental objectives. The Environment
Agency is also the statutory body responsible for the
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
that these defences are
maintained by riparian owners.
As such, the agency will also
comment on any potential
impacts that proposed
residential moorings may have
on existing flood defences.
Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage
Byelaws 1981. In determining applications for
Flood Defence Consent, we will also consider
the ecological impacts of works.
provision of flood defences along the river and ensuring that
these defences are maintained by riparian owners.
Developers of new residential moorings on the River
Thames will be required to obtain a Flood Defence consent
from the Environment Agency for any proposed works or
structures, in, under, over or within 16 metres of the tidal
flood defences of the River Thames.’
Policy 2
We are concerned that Principle 2 would
appear to allow development which does not
provide for land-based sewage disposal,
waste collection, and recycling where site
constraints are adequately justified. We would
suggest that where such constraints exist,
development of residential moorings would
not be appropriate in these locations due to
the risk of pollution to the water environment.
Accept change
In the justification to Policy 2 insert the following text in SPD
para 8.28:
Policy Guidance
The draft text of the chapter fails to address
relevant National, Regional, and Local Policy
in relation to protection of the water
environment. In particular, the chapter fails to
address Policy 7.28 of the London Plan
alongside the requirements of the Water
Framework Directive and the Thames River
Basin Management Plan.
“If developers of proposed moorings sites cannot provide
adequate land-based utility and waste disposal
infrastructure, they will also need to provide a management
plan that details:
• the proposed waste disposal measures that will be
adopted;
• how water and electricity will be provided;
• relevant health and safety matters that must be
considered; and
• how pollution risks to the waterway are minimised”.
Accept change.
Add the following to the Policy Guidance section
‘London Plan Policy 7.28
Legislation
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England
and Wales) Regulations 2003
National Policy
- Water for Life and Livelihoods – River Basin Management Plan
Thames River Basin DistrictThe Water Framework Directive
Thames River Basin Management Plan
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.
The chapter fails to address ecological issues
in general, despite these being discussed at
length in our previous response. With regard
to flood risk, the chapter fails to address the
impact of new moorings on the integrity of the
flood defences. Impacts could be caused by
additional loadings of new structures on or
adjacent to the defences, or by
hydromorphological changes to the
foreshore as a result of new structures within
the River. These impacts would need to be
assessed as part of any proposal. It also fails
to consider whether new moorings would
allow for the raising of flood defences to deal
with climate change.
Accept in part. Amend supporting para to Policy 3 by adding
new sentence as follows (see SPD para 8.30):
“Because of the important ecology of the river it will also be
necessary for any application for moorings to be supported
by a detailed Ecological Survey and an Assessment of the
impact of the proposed development”.
Add the following text to the justification of Policy 7 (see
SPD paras 8.41 and 8.42):
“It will necessary to retain the integrity and effectiveness of
the flood defences and assessment should consider impacts
that could be caused by additional loadings of new
structures on or adjacent to the defences, or by
hydromorphological changes to the foreshore as a result of
new structures within the River.
Pursuant to the provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991
and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, developers of new
residential moorings on the River Thames will be required
to obtain a Flood Defence consent from the Environment
Agency for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over
or within 16 metres of the tidal flood defences of the River
Thames. In determining applications for Flood Defence
Consent the Environment Agency will also consider the
ecological impact of proposed works”.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Statement of Consultation.