Approval for W12 flats

Tuesday January 12, 2010

Plans to build 66 flats in Shepherds Bush have been approved at a planning meeting after a four-and-a-half- hour debate.

A group of protesters gathered outside Hammersmith Town Hall to voice their opposition to the scheme at 282 Goldhawk Road as the council's planning applications committee met on December 16.

Councillors debated the application before deciding to grant permission to developer Places for People to build 66 new homes.

The former care home and a block of a dozen bed-sits (which are currently empty) will be demolished before the development, which has been named Ashchurch Place, is built.

The homes include a mix of one, two and three-bedroom houses and flats, made up of 17 supported housing units, four social rented homes and 22 intermediate homes.

Pre-application discussions started more than two years ago and residents were consulted on the scheme at the beginning of the planning process, when models of the houses and detailed proposals went on display at several public exhibitions earlier this year.

They included one at Hammersmith Town Hall, in May, where 59 per cent of residents found the proposals either 'very favourable' or 'favourable' when compared to four other developers' proposals.

Another exhibition was staged at Greenside Primary School in June.

However, after listening to residents' feedback, Places for People made changes to the original scheme before putting in their application.

There was a reduction in the number of flats, changes to the landscaping and the design of the homes, while the original shop and workshop were removed to make the site purely residential.

Commenting on the planning committee's decision to approve the development, chairman Alex Chalk said: "This was a difficult decision which required the most careful consideration.

"The committee only approved this scheme after detailed scrutiny of the proposals, taking into account all comments and representations from residents.

"Ultimately, the development fitted all necessary planning requirements and there were insufficient grounds properly to justify refusal."