REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CAVAYE HOUSE, 158-168 Fulham Road SW10
Planning Application PP/17/00077
I think it is fair to say that Cavaye House, erected sometime around 1973, would never be
allowed to be built today. It occupies a probable bombsite, but it seems that its
construction also involved the destruction or non-reinstatement of several houses in the
mews that is Cavaye Place. It is also a carbuncle, even compared to some of the other
unfortunate buildings in the Fulham Road, but it is not improved by the proposals currently
before you. In an ideal world, it would be demolished entirely, the run of mews houses that
form the eastern end of Cavaye Place would be continued / reinstated right up to the
Budokwai building at the western end, and a new building, more in keeping with the
materials and size of the surrounding area would be designed which would occupy a space
no deeper than from the existing roadside at the rear (Cavaye Place) to the front of the
furthest forward projection of the current building on the Fulham Road. This would be a
great opportunity to right a wrong made by the planners and builders of the 1970s.
In the seventies, the council had a planning policy which involved the possible future
widening of the Fulham Road, and so the building was set back from the road. It is perfectly
clear to me, but slightly less so in any published documents that I can find, that the 1970s
planners allowed the building to extend hugely to the rear, over Cavaye Place, as a
‘planning gain’ to offset their requirement that the building be set back from the existing
pavement line at the front. The plans the new owners are working on do not reduce (in fact
slightly increase) the building’s footprint at the back, but also fill in the space at the front
that the original constructors gave up in return. This seems to me a case of having your
cake and eating it.
While no-one would claim any positive visual impression of the building at the front, it is in
fact unobtrusive. It is the human-scale shop fronts that one notices, not the brown glass
lowering above. What is much more important, and what has made this part of the Fulham
Road an attractive centre of local commerce, is the amenity benefit of the extra pavement
space in front of this building which gives the whole strip known as ‘the Beach’, a sense of
light and space, of ‘elbow room’.
My view – and I know it is shared by many of my neighbours, is that if this were removed,
no ‘improvement’ of the front of Cavaye House in architectural terms would replace the loss
of this extra space, and the narrow pavements, particularly on the north side of the road,
would feel unfriendly – one already feels virtually brushed by buses if passing two
pedestrians abreast on the narrower parts. I also think that the air pollution in the road
would increase if tall buildings front it tightly on both sides.
It should be said that my shop has since 1999 benefited from a licence granted by the
previous owners of Cavaye House to have a window in the side return overlooking the wide
pavement area in front of Cavaye House from the west, and that I have received notice
terminating this licence from the current owners, so I can hardly be expected to be a
vociferous supporter of their plans. But even without the window, it is more the loss of the
space and the general amenity for the area that this space has become since 1973 that is
important for the future of ‘the Beach’.
Breaking this down further, I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1) Amenity. The current proposals will remove the amenity benefit of the extra feeling
of light and space created by the wider pavement in front of Cavaye House which
gives a centre to this stretch of the road which rightly has its own identity as ‘the
Beach’. Building up to the original building line would destroy much of this feeling
and the area would lose it’s ‘centre’. The importance of this space to this part of the
Fulham Road cannot be over-emphasised, and its loss would be compounding the
error of the 1970s planners.
2) Safety. The pavement outside 170 and 172 Fulham Road is particularly narrow, but
it is a very short stretch and mostly people can see each other coming and pass
each other by the junction of Gilston Road, the entrance to Cavaye Place, or where
the pavement widens in front of Cavaye House. Nevertheless, the road is not
particularly wide here, and only last week a bus mounted the pavement and struck
our awning (which is set back a good 2 feet from the pavement edge, so this makes
a nonsense of the proposed shop front detail in Drawing-1809874.pdf which shows
an awning protruding to almost level with the edge of the pavement). If Cavaye
House is allowed to be built right up to the original building line, this will create a
much longer stretch of narrow pavement which poses a threat to pedestrians,
especially if they incautiously step into the road to avoid a pushchair coming the
other way.
3) Pollution. This stretch of the Fulham Road is already extremely busy with traffic, very
often backed-up queueing for the lights at the junction of Drayton Gardens /
Beaufort Street, and the air quality is poor. The effect of building a tall façade as
currently proposed right up to the edge of the road would increase the ‘canyoning’
effect, holding the polluted air between the buildings and impacting air quality the
many pedestrians who use this part of the road as well as those who work close to
it.
4) Change of use. The reason the ‘Beach’ works is its mix of different commerces
which act as a general draw to the area. It has only quite recently been extended
further eastward by the arrival of Sainsburys local, M&S Simply Food and yet
another coffee bar – of which there are too many already. There are also too many
restaurants for the area to sustain (witness the recent closure of the Henry Root in
Park Walk), and adding another huge one of ‘bog standard’ quality is not going to
help draw in the cutomers for the other remaining retail businesses. None of the
restaurants is busy at lunchtime, so having more merely reinforces the impression
that this area is geared up for night-time-only trade, with restauarnts feeding in to
bars and nightclubs. The reason that there are retail voids, when there are, is very
often the result of predatory rental pricing and the refusal of landlords to accept
lower rents since these might count as evidence for lower rents from other tenants
of the same landlord. This articficial rent-fixing is not good evidence that there are
no willing tenants. In short the last thing the area needs is a colossal restaurant, and
the residents of Cavaye Place and the other surrounding buildings, including my
tenants in the upper parts of the next door building, do not want the concomitant
noise and smells that such a large restaurant would inevitably bring.
5) Design. I do not agree that “A significant overhaul to the buildings appearance is
only viable through the addition of floorspace” as stated by the Barr Gazetas
report. The fact that the owners have had difficulty in attracting tenants for the
offices must at least in part be down to an unwillingness to invest in the upgrading
of the existing structure. The general shabbiness of the façade and rear areas of the
building may be intended to make us all think that any change might be an
improvement. This shabbiness has been aided by the owners’ agents making it
clear to us (Lea & Sandeman) that it would be a waste of money redecorating the
exterior of our building pending their redevelopment when we asked for permission
to erect scaffolding on their forecourt to access our side return in July 2015. This is
compounded by their saying (presumably) much the same to Daunt books about
their fascia, and the serial letting of two of the shops to short-term pop-ups. The
lack of caretaker in the office building has led to the car park area in Cavaye Place
as well as the pavement and office steps being used by an encampment of
Deliveroo drivers, although the recent erection of some ugly fencing around the car
park has to some extent eased this.
Some points made by Barr Gazetas are below. I list a different way of looking at
each of these:
1. The building is set back from existing street by approximately 5m creating an
inconsistency in the street scape.
Such inconsistencies abound in this stretch of road known as ‘The Beach’, right
from the Chelsea and Westminster forecourt, to the set pack cinema on the
junction of Drayton Gardens, and taking in the courtyard in front of the councilowned site at the top of Limerston Street, and they are what make it an
attractive shopping destination by giving a sense of space.
2. The upper floors overhang, shadowing the lower floor windows, shop fronts and
forecourt.
Since the building faces south, there is no noticeable effect of shadowing
outside, and I have not been aware of it at all when I have been inside the
offices of the building.
3. Repetitive curtain walling with mirrored glazing and brown framework does not
positively contribute to the character of the
local area. Agreed, but it is significantly less obtrusive than the high shop fronts
with grandiose windows above proposed in these plans.
4. The forecourt is under-utilised and could encourage anti-social behaviour and
dark spots at night.
The forecourt is far from under-utilised However, its run-down appearance has
made it less-used than in the past, because of underinvestment and lack of
proper tenants in the shops. This is turn is thanks to the policy of only granting
short leases with no security of tenure while the building was sold and then while
this planning application has been in gestation – see my comments above about
the owners encouraging a shabby appearance by forestalling investment, to
make any change seem welcome). The only ‘antisocial behaviour’ we have been
aware of is someone sleeping rough in the doorway of one of the (then
unoccupied) shops, so again can be put down to lack of commitment to let the
shops properly while this redevelopment was planned.
5. Bollards and planters discourage informal use of the forecourt as an extension of
the footway.
The ugly bollards and planters would be so easily removed and it is presumably
in the owner’s gift to remove them, as it would be to maintain the paving
properly. Is this a good reason to completely remove the possibility of using this
area as an extension of the footway by building right up to the narrow
pavement?
6. Hard landscaping is in need of renewal.
See comments above abut under investment and short term tenancies.
7. Shop fronts are dated and of lower quality than surrounding buildings.
See comments above abut under investment and short term tenancies.
I do wonder, given that this was in pre-planning and therefore before any formal
objections could be raised by local residents, how it can be true that, as stated in
the planning document “RBKC officers supported the principle of the extension at
pre-application stage, with the written feedback stating: “The principle of a forward
extension at ground, first and second floor is acceptable.”” As far as we are
concerned the proposals for the front of the building are unacceptable, both for the
loss of the open space and for the current façade design. The developers keep
harping on about the ‘missing tooth’, but the buildings around the area are
completely heterogenous and there is no sense that the road needs or wants a
uniform façade, even if that was what this proposal would give.
To the rear, the treatment does look to be an improvement on the existing (indeed
how could it not be), but at the same time there are two or three worrying aspects.
a) This CGI ‘view’ (below) of the back is at odds with the design plan, which shows
that the developers plan to block in the space between the pillars to the right,
giving a distinctly less airy view from here (see red-ringed walls below). The same
is planned at the western end, which will make No. 17 Cavaye Place feel
significantly more hemmed-in by the building on the ground floor. I cannot see
why this is necessary or desirable. Is it so that the next step will be to ask for
permission to fill in between these walls and create more ground floor space? Or
perhaps this is where they intend to put the rubbish bins for the proposed
restaurant? I see that this is not shown in the elevations, do these plans show an
earlier version? What is the intention?
b) The rubbish collection proposals make no mention of the proposed restaurant,
stating that in pre-planning the council’s officers said that the current
arrangements would be fine for the planned extra space if the use remained the
same, but makes no mention of the extra smell from the rubbish produced by a
colossal (4000sq ft) restaurant. The current rubbish collections and provisions
would be competely inadequate for A3 use. The narrowing of the access road
will make extra deliveries and rubbish collections signifcantly more challenging.
c) The plans make much of the ‘improved’ pedestrian access to the offices, but
then show pedestrians accessing the building from the eastern side, crossing the
front of the proposed folding door entrance to the bin store, the underground
car park entrance, turning lorries and the services entrance as they go, where
there is no pavement. If these doors open outward, as seems to be proposed,
pedestrians will be walking in the proposed narrowed roadway to get around
them. In practice few people normally access the building from this side as the
western entrance of Cavaye Place is closer to the front door. Currently
pedestrians enter the mews from the western end, cross behind the backs of 172
and 170 Fulham Road, and then behind the car parking space onto the
pavement that leads to the front door. The current proposals are that the
resident’s bin cupboard is to be extended northward, doubling its size and
completely covering what is now this pavement, (despite the planning saying
that there was no need to make this bin store larger, as it is to serve only the
existing residential flats and is adequate as it is). The new walkway, ‘protected’
by metal stanchions, will be in what is currently the roadway (and at the same
level), narrowing the effective roadway substantially – and it is not very wide
now. Has anyone checked that the refuse lorries and delivery vehicles which use
this road will even be able to pass? The Lea & Sandeman Paladin recycling bin is
already emptied by a special, smaller vehicle as Cavaye Place is inaccessible to
the standard council refuse lorry. Is it the object of these plans that no vehicles
will pass under the undercroft after this development? This is not made at all
clear, but we would fight this strongly as the road is used by residents, deliveries
and cutomers collecting, and it is much easier to enter at one end and exit from
the other. In the part of the plan below, the marked red part shows what is
currently the pavement to the current entrance. The drawings are also slightly
disingenuous. If the cars are to scale, the ‘lorry’ and the ‘people’ most certainly
are not. If the restaurant is permitted, the normal grease and grime associated
with restaurant rubbish will spread over the planned smooth-paved area outside
the office doors and in probably turn it into a skating rink.
And the existing layout:-
I would suggest that it would be much better to retain the existing road width with
the main pedestrian access being from the west. There is no need (since the
residential bin store is fit for its purpose as it is) to extend this and remove the
pavement/narrow the road in the process. Part of the problem about access to the
building, which as Barr Gazetas noted is difficult, is the lack of signage, which is why
we had people knocking on our door and asking where it was two or three times a
day when the NHS were running courses there), but another reason is that the end
of the pavement is hidden by the car parked on the residents bay. This should really
be removed, having been installed originally as a disabled bay for a tenant of one of
the flats some ten years ago, and then converted into a normal residents bay when
they moved. It makes access to the rear of 170 and the flat above (15 Cavaye Place)
difficult, and we have had to install planters to stop cars parking so close to the door
that it is impossible to get out with a push-chair.
Parking Bay hides end of pavement that gives access to the office door.