The Draft version of the St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Plan has been reviewed by Chistopher Lockhart-Mummery QC.  Such ‘healthchecks’ are recommended for draft plans, to ensure that the various requirements and conditions set out in legislation are met.

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors now organises a pool of experts, who undertake these reviews at £375 a day.  We feel fortunate to have had input from such a well-respected planning QC, and this is helping us in our current discussions with RBKC planning officers on the various policy proposals in the StQW Plan.

The report from Christopher Lockhart-Mummery can be seen here.  It supports our view that the proposals in the StQW Plan, while proposing some variations to RBKC policies on conservation and on Latimer Road, have a good prospect of being accepted at the independent Examination stage as being in ‘general conformity’ with the ‘strategic’ policies of the Local Plan and London Plan.

Please note that the version of the StQW Plan reviewed is a slightly later one than that currently published on this website.  We will now be making further edits, to reflect comments from the ‘healthcheck’ and our latest discussions with RBKC planning officers.  The next version published here will be a formal ‘consultation draft’ on which responses will be invited during a minimum 6 week statutory period of public consultation.

Proposals for a pedestrian/cycle underpass beneath the railway line, from the southern end of Latimer Road through to Wood Lane, have been around for several years.  Funding for this project is one of the ‘community benefits’ from the Imperial West scheme.  Both RB Kensington & Chelsea and LB Hammersmith & Fulham support the proposal, as an improvement in connectivity between local neighbourhoods.   Walking and cycling times between many destinations will be reduced.

After a very long wait for anything to happen, a planning application has been submitted to both local councils.  The applicant is Imperial College, who are meeting the £4m costs of the project.

We are not happy at the lack of informal consultation on the detailed plans for the underpass (which we were promised back in April).   But now the proposals are here and any interested residents will need to send comments to the Council by November 4th.  These can be sent online via the RBKC planning application page at this link or by email to planning@rbkc.gov.uk or direct to the Case Officer (barry.valentine@rbkc.gov.uk),

The St Helens Residents Association consulted its membership on the principle of an underpass back in 2011.   At that time, the email responses which the Association received were 20 in favour and 10 against.   Similar results have been found when we have asked for a hand vote at more recent meetings of SHRA/StQW Forum.

On this basis, the StQW Draft Plan supports the proposal for the underpass.  We have sent in a set of comments on the planning application, which can be seen at this link StQW to RBKC re underpass. Oct 2014.V2

Every resident and business in the area is entitled to their own opinion on the subway.  The pros and cons have been identified as follows:

• will bring footfall, vitality and better security to Latimer Road, helping to revive the currently deserted southern end of the street and to re-fill vacant commercial floorspace
• for much of the StQW neighbourhood, will significantly cut down walking times to and from White City Underground station (Central Line), Hammersmith Hospital, and Westfield.

The concerns that have been raised locally are:

• more cycle and pedestrian traffic along Oxford Gardens (if people don’t use the cycle route alongside the Westway Sports Centre)
• greater accessibility to the neighbourhood could bring an increase in street crime and burglary
• pressure on residents parking could increase, from drivers parking on the RBKC side of the underpass when visiting Imperial West, QPR football ground, or other destinations in LBHF.

Plan of underpass

The subway will be 6m wide and 2.85m high.  It will be straight, and we estimate the length as 30m.  It will be well lit, and covered by five CCTV cameras along it length (we have asked who will be monitoring these).  The entrances will be landscaped.

Cycle and pedestrian routes through the subway will not be segregated, other than by different surface treatments.   We have asked why this is so, given the potential for pedestrian/cycle conflict and resultant accidents.

The underpass will have a significant impact on this neighbourhood, over time.  This part of the Oxford Gardens Conservation Area has been cut off from Hammersmith, by the railway line, since the 1890s.  The initial impact may be modest, but will increase as the new development sites in White City are built out.

We have not yet been given a timetable for construction of the underpass, if planning permission is granted next month.  Both RBKC and LBHF Ciuncils will be deciding separately on the planning application.

A whole series of public consultations is taking place on the Old Oak area (north of Wormwood Scrubs).  These flow from plans to locate the HS2 and Crossrail transport hub at this location, subject to the approval of the HS2 Bill currently in Parliament.

Mayoral Development Corporation

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has been consulting on proposals to establish a Mayoral Development Corporation for the Old Oak Opportunity Area.  This body would steer plans for development across the area, from Park Royal in the west to Wood Lane in the East.

The StQW Forum has submitted comments opposing the Mayor’s proposals, as a MDC would take away planning powers from the three London Borough Councils involved.  We share the view of Hammersmith & Fulham Council that a MDC would prove more remote from the views of local people, and less democratically accountable.  We do not share the current Mayor of London’s vision for a ‘mini-Manhattan’ at Old Oak, involving building heights of 50 storeys.  Nor do we believe that high density development at Old Oak should be allowed to damage or encroach on Wormwood Scrubs, as a Metropolitan Open Space.

QPR plans for New Queens Park

Queens Park Football Club (back in the Premier League this season) are consulting on ambitious plans for a new 40,000 stadium and associated housing and commercial development on land to the north of Wormwood Scrubs, between Old Oak Lane and Scrubs Lane.  The Club do not own a significant slice of this land, which is held by Car Giant, who have their own ideas on development.

Nevertheless, QPR has assembled a team of planners and consultants to draw up a masterplan for the site.  Details remain sketchy at this stage, but events are moving fast and masterplanners Farrells intend to submit a planning application shortly after the proposed Old Oak MDC goes live in April 2015 (if this happens – given opposition from the Borough Councils).

The StQW Forum is flagging up with Farrells the major problems of traffic congestion on the existing road network around Old Oak, and in particular Wood Lane/Scrubs Lane and the junction at North Pole Road.   We are also resisting the idea (being built into revisions to the London Plan) that Old Oak is a suitable location for a new cluster of very tall buildings and ultra high density of residential and commercial floorspace.

Overground connections at Old Oak

Meanwhile, Transport for London is also consulting on options for an interchange at Old Oak, between the Overground (West London Line and North London Line) and the HS2 and Crossrail platforms.   This is an important consultation for the StQW area.   Access to public transport in the StQW Neighbourhood is compararatively low for Inner London, as our nearest Undergrounds are at Latimer Road and White City and we have no Overground station nearer than Shepherds Bush.  Our neighbourhood was better served in the late 19th century, with a St Quintin and Wormwood Scrubs rail station (closed after bomb damage in the 1940s).

Of the 3 options set out in the TfL consultation material, we think that Option C is by far the best option.  This includes a WLL station at Hythe Road, and drops earlier ideas of a very expensive ‘Boris viaduct’ running across the northern boundary of the Scrubs.

Option C is also supported by Hammersmith & Fulham Council and by the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs.  It is important that as many people as possible respond to the consultation, which runs until 24th November.  The material is well set out, including the arguments for and against each of the 3 options.  There will also be an exhibition of the proposals at The Atrium, Burlington Danes Academy, Wood Lane, W12 0HR on Wednesday 8 October 1600-2000 and Saturday 11 October 1000-1400.  

We will also be continuing to lobby, via the StQW Neighbourhood Plan and other routes, for an additional WLL station at ‘Westway Circus’ (i.e. beneath the Westway roundabout and next to the planned underpass between Latimer Road and Imperial West.  We strongly believe that Scrubs Lane/Wood Lane. already congested before a series of major developments are constructed, will not be able to take anything like the additional traffic generated by Westfield 2, the St James development, the Stanhope scheme at the BBC, and the remaining phases of Imperial West.

The idea of a station at Western Circus is being promoted by the West London Line Group, as part of the current Parliamentary debate on the HS2 Bill.  This group has a track record of high quality technical research end evidence gathering, which has led in the past to stations being added to the West London Line.  We hope that their efforts, and those of our ward councillors, and StQW Forum members, will succeed again.

The closing date for bids from interested parties was 16th June.  Residents living directly round the site, in Brewster Gardens, Dalgarno Gardens and Highlever Road have formed themselves into the Nursery Lane Action Group.  The group submitted an offer to Knight Frank, before the deadline, to acquire the site as a shared garden.  They have been assured that this bid will be passed on to the Legard family, owners of the land.

Meanwhile the StQW Forum has advised Knight Frank, and the planning consultant acting for the Legard family, of the planning obstacles that we see to proposals for residential development on the site.  In summary these are:

• there have been two previous proposals for housing development on the site, both of which were rejected by Planning Inspectors at appeal, in 1972 and 1982.  The grounds for the Inspector’s decision in 1982 remains (in our view) as valid today, in the context of the current RBKC Local Development Framework, as they were then.
• On subsequent occasions when the owners of the site have approached the council for a view on housing development, they have been told that this would be refused.
• There is a very clear statement in the Oxford Gardens Conservation Area Proposals Statement that this and other original ‘backland’ sites in this part of the St Quintin estate should not be developed as housing.
• RBKC Core Strategy Policy CR5(iii) states that the council will resist loss of private open space where this space gives visual amenity to the public
• The RBKC Core Strategy document shows this land (in the map on page 441) as a ‘Garden Square and other Green Space’.
• RBKC has designated this site as an Ecologically Sensitive Area, reflecting the wildlife on a site which has always remained as open space, with fine mature trees (to which a TPO applies)
• the site lies directly a tributary of Counters Creek, one of the main ‘underground rivers’ of London, and hence has a very high water table.
• the Draft StQW Neighbourhood Plan proposes designation of the site as Local Green Space (a new designation which has to met criteria set out in paragraph 77 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

We have kept the Council’s planning officers informed of all the above.  The council has confirmed that no one (neither Knight Frank, their planning consultant, nor any of the bidders) has yet asked the council for planning advice on the site.

Any developer putting in an offer for the land will therefore be making their own assumptions on the likelihood of planning permission for residential development being granted.  Unconditional offers will carry a high level of risk.  Will residential developers have made themselves aware of the extent of the problems they face?   We will now have to wait and see.

The StQW Forum will be meeting again on Thursday May 29th, at 8pm at St Helens Church hall.  We will be discussing the latest position on the site at Nursery Lane (occupied by Clifton Nurseries).  This is one of the original backland open spaces on the St Quintin Estate, now put up for sale by the descendants of the St Quintin family as a potential housing development.

Please join us to discuss future plans for this site.  We have the scope, with a neighbourhood plan, to influence the final outcome.  And the meeting will also be a chance to hear more about other parts of the Plan, of which a first draft is nearing completion.

This piece of land is the latest planning challenge to be faced by the Neighbourhood Forum. The site (behind the houses on Brewster Gardens, the northern part of Highlever Road, and Dalgarno Gardens) has been the W10 base for Clifton Nurseries since 1964.  This company (who are the tenants and not the owners) use it as a plant nursery and storage area for their main outlet in Maida Vale, which is one of very few garden centres in Central London.

The site is one of a number of ‘backland’ sites created as part of the original design of the St Quintin Estate, as an integral part of the original design of this neighbourhood.  Use by Clifton Nurseries has meant that the site, with its many large and mature trees, has been left largely undisturbed since the 1970s when RBKC built sheltered housing on the southern part of the original 2 acres of land.

Now the site has been put up for sale by the owners of the freehold (the Legard family, descendants of the St Quintins).  It is being marketed by estate agents Knight Frank, with a brochure saying ‘we feel that the site may be suitable for private housing’.

This Clifton Nurseries flyer brochure describes the site as ‘an exceptional residential development opportunity comprising just over an acre of land in North Kensington’. The freehold is being offered through an informal tender process, and the sellers will consider either unconditional or ‘subject to planning’ offers.

We have been trying to contact the Legard family for some months, to ask about their long term plans for this piece of land.  Now we have the answer.

Potential bidders are being told that they must make their own enquiries of the council, as to the planning position on the site.  This is a piece of private open land, and the council has a Core Strategy policy (C5) to protect open space, either private or public.  The Oxford Gardens Conservation Ares Statement has a specific policy that these backland sites, created for the local community as part of the St Quintin Estate, should not be used for Housing.

Before the war, most of these sites were used as sports or recreation areas, run by local clubs and societies.  This site was the home of the Ashfield Tennis Club, until a bomb destroyed the tennis courts during the 2nd World War.  It was then used for allotments and for playing fields for Latymer School.

The St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Plan is likely to designate this and other remaining undeveloped backland areas as Local Green Space, i.e. very largely open space areas with scope for recreational and leisure activities, as well as providing visual amenity to the neighbourhood.  This would allow for e.g. a tennis or sports club, allotments, and for the re-location of the RBKC community kitchen garden currently in St Quintin Avenue.

The StQW Forum is now consulting with local residents in the streets around the site and in the wider area, on what we as a community would like to see happen on the site.  The StQW Neighbourhood Plan gives us scope to define the planning context for the site, provided that this is in ‘general conformity’ with the council’s Core Strategy.  ‘Local Green Space’ is a new designation, introduced as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, to protect areas such as this.

There is also the option for the Forum applying to add this site to the RBKC Register.of Community Assets (as has already been done with the West London Bowling Club). If such an application were approved, this would trigger a six month moratorium on a sale, while other options were explored.

The next open meeting of the Forum will be on Thursday May 29th 2014 at 8pm at St Helens Church Hall.  Please join us to discuss this site and other parts of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

The StQW Neighbourhood Plan will contain a set of policies on conservation and design. These are being drawn up through consultation and discussion amongst local residents.  An initial set of proposals was discussed and voted on at the public meeting held on April 24th.

The proposals in the Plan will be based on the Core Strategy policies which RB Kensington & Chelsea operate across the borough, but with certain modifications and variations that reflect the particular character  of this part of the St Quintin/Oxford Gardens Conservation Area.

Boundary of conservation area in green

The Conservation Area was first designated in 1979, and much of the Conservation Area Proposals Statement (CAPS) on the RBKC website dates from that time.  Some revisions were made in 1990, but parts of the document are now very out of date.

The boundaries of the conservation area were extended in 2002, to include Bracewell Road, Brewster Gardens, Dalgarno Gardens, Barlby Road, and Oakworth, Hill Farm and Methwold Roads.   Hence almost all the RBKC streets in the StQW neighbourhood fall within the conservation area (Latimer Road and the streets off it being the exception). This map shows the western boundary of the Oxford Gardens CA superimposed on the boundary of the neighbourhood area.

Conservation area status involves some restrictions on what alterations and changes owners can make to their property.   There is strong evidence that the resultant protection of architectural and heritage features adds value to homes.   A 2012 study by English Heritage and the London School of Economics showed that houses in conservation areas have a 9% premium in value as compared with similar properties outside the area.   This premium shrinks if conservation policies are ignored or not enforced.

It is therefore in the collective interests of residents to ensure that conservation policies are observed.  Such policies also need to be workable, applied fairly and consistently by the council when making planning decisions, and not unduly restrictive in preventing owners from adapting older houses to meet contemporary lifestyles.  This balance is not always easy to strike.

In proposing a set of variations to existing RBKC policies, to apply within the StQW neighbourhood, the Forum is seeking to get this balance right.   As a general theme, the proposals involve continued protection of the front part of houses, while allowing some more freedom at the back.   The outward appearance of the Edwardian and Victorian houses in the area, as seen from the street, is the key aspect of the conservation area.

This neighbourhood acquired conservation status because it is a good example of homogeneous domestic architecture of its time, and not because it includes many Listed Buildings or those of special interest.   We need to ensure that these characteristics remain.

The public meeting of the StQW Forum on April 24th 2014 discussed 8 aspects of existing conservation policies.   We looked at slides of examples, as below, and took a hand vote on whether policies should be strengthened, relaxed, or stay the same.   The results of the vote are shown below, under each each topic.  The suggestions made to the meeting also reflected the views provided by the 104 respondents to the StQW survey.

1. Rear dormers have long been an issue of some contention in the area.  Under current RBKC policies, planning permission for loft conversions with rear dormers has been granted for houses in some streets, but refused in others.  This has led to perceptions of inconsistency and unfair treatment.  The current principle that dormers should not be allowed in ‘unbroken’ rooflines can deny a house-owner the opportunity to extend a home at relatively little cost (as compared with e.g. basements) while allowing this for near neighbours.

Rear dormers as part of loftrooms

The initial view of the Forum is that rear dormers should be allowed in all the streets in that part of the conservation area within the StQW neighbourhood, provided they conform to RBKC design guidelines in terms width and height.  The vote at the meeting was For 18 and Against 2.   (The image below shows 3 rear dormers, of which the one on the left looks as if it pre-dates and exceeds these guidelines).

2.  Rooflights  

Rooflights on front roofs

Current RBKC conservation policies do not permit rooflights on front roofs, while allowing ‘conservation’ rooflights at the rear and (usually) on the side roofs of end-of-terrace houses. The initial view of the Forum is that this policy should be continued. Allowing rooflights on front roofs would severely damage the appearance of roofscapes from the street.  Cross- ventilation to loft rooms can be achieved by other means.  The vote at the meeting on this approach was For 22 and Against 2.   The image below shows the impact of front rooflights, and is of a nearby street outside the conservation area.

3. Painting of brickwork on front facades 

Painting of front facades in the ‘red brick’ streets

This is discouraged in the 1975/1990 Oxford Gardens CAPS.  There is also an RBKC Article 4 Direction in place, applying to the ‘red brick’ streets in the area, which removes permitted development rights to make ‘alterations and extensions to any part of those elevations of the dwelling house which front onto a highway’.   Advice from the council is that painting of brickwork (surprisingly) does not constitute an ‘alteration’ and can therefore be carried out as permitted development.

The initial view of the Forum is that the painting of brickwork on front facades should not be allowed. as its cumulative effect would destroy the present pleasing and consistent appearance of our streets.  This view is felt more strongly in relation to the ‘red brick’ streets as compared with e.g. Bracewell Road and Brewster Gardens, where house types are more varied and where a significant number of facades are already painted.   As part of the Neighbourhood Plan, the council could be asked to apply to specified streets an Article 4 Direction stating that front facades should not be painted.  The vote at the meeting on this approach was For 22 Against 0.

4. Front boundary walls and fences

Front boundary wall. How high should they go?

These are an aspect of the conservation area where fashions have been changing.  The original design of the streets on the St Quintin Estate involved low brick walls and with hedges.  Recent years have seen the introduction of significantly higher walls and railings  There is now a wide variety of boundary treatments, including wooden fences and metal or ironwork railings as well as hedges.

The desire of house owners to increase levels of security for the area in front of their houses is understandable.  This has been coupled with the introduction of more hard surfacing and outdoor storage for bins and bikes.   But the cumulative effect is beginning to change the feel of the streets.  It is also not clear that all these alterations have been the subject of planning applications, where needed.   The initial view of the Forum is that front boundary walls/railings should not exceed 1m in height,  this being the maximum allowed under permitted development rights.   The vote at the meeting for this proposal was For 17  Against 0.

5. Permeable surfaces in front garden areas 

These are disappearing across the neighbourhood, with a growing number of former garden areas being covered with impermeable paving or slate.  This creates problems of surface water run-off and resultant risk of flash flooding. Although this neighbourhood has no history of flooding it is a very real issue in other parts of the Borough.  Demands on the Counters Creek main sewerage/drainage system grow by the year, with the new developments in White City adding to these.   Hence the initial view of the Forum is that front garden areas (other than the main front path) should consist of permeable surfaces (this can include e.g. cobbles, stones, brick and other hard surfaces laid on a bed of sand). The vote at the meeting was unanimously in favour of this approach.

6. Insulated render on back walls

Insulated render on rear walls, to reduce fuel costs

This is currently resisted by RBKC as being a replacement of original brickwork.  The arguments in favour are based on the resultant increased insulation levels at a time of rising fuel costs.  The case against is the change of appearance and the potential issues when a ‘thicker’ wall meets an existing one in a terrace or a pair of houses (the thickness of such render being a minimum of 2-3 inches).   The Forum was marginally opposed to allowing insulated render on back walls, the vote being For 11 and Against 13.

7. Side extensions or infill extensions

These are extensions, where the original rear side passage is incorporated into the body of a terraced house with a glazed roof to the party wall, are a popular form of alteration to houses in our neighbourhood.  These are normally granted planning permission by RBKC unless particular factors apply.  They may also be a source of contention between immediate neighbours, as they have an impact on daylight/sunlight and aspect where one house owner wishes to build such an extension whereas their immediate neighbour does not.

Full width extension

The initial view of the Forum is that side extensions should continue to be permitted, subject to a maximum height of 3m at the Party Wall and a maximum slope of 45 degrees on the additional roof.   A 3m height is that which is allowed in such contexts under permitted development.   In some streets RBKC requires the rear facade of a back extension to include a small setback to demonstrate that the side part is ‘subordinate’ to the original rear of the building.  This is incompatible with full width sliding doors or glazing.   The view of the Forum is that this is an unnecessary requirement, which should be dropped to allow full width extensions.   The vote at the meeting was unanimously in favour of both the above approaches to back and side extensions.

8. ‘Garden studios/workrooms’

Buildings of a significant size, in rear gardens, have become another feature of houses in the neighbourhood.  In many cases these may be built under permitted development rights with no requirement for planning permission, provided they are less than 3m high at the maximum roof height. In other case planning permission has been granted (and sometimes refused) for more substantial outbuildings with their own showers and WCs.  In all cases such outbuildings are supposed to be ‘ancillary’ to the main house rather than a separate dwelling.  But the distinction between a ‘guestroom’ and a sublet mini-residence may become blurred in practice.   Council policies on such outbuildings are not well defined and were drafted to apply to more conventional ‘conservatories’.

The initial view of the Forum is that more control is needed over such outbuildings, given that gardens in the area are generally small and that use of such rooms can reduce privacy and enjoyment of gardens.   Controls could take the form of percentage limits on the area of garden to be used, or requiring that such structures should not occupy the full width of gardens.  More research is needed before an effective neighbourhood policy could be drafted.   The vote at the meeting on this approach was For 17  Against 0.

Basements have become one of the most visible features of the refurbishment of houses in this neighbourhood.  The increase in numbers in recent years drew many responses in the StQW survey, some supportive and some very opposed.   There are now 50 examples in the ‘red brick’ streets of the St Quintin Estate where basements have been built or granted planning approval.

RBKC has been revising and strengthening its policy towards basements, and is at an advanced stage in adopting a new set of detailed criteria requirements for basement applications.  Subject to forthcoming an Planning Inspector’s Inquiry the RBKC policy in future will be that basements should

• not exceed more than one storey
• not exceed a maximum of 50% of each garden or open part of the site (85% currently)
• have a good construction management plan and traffic management plan
• ensure structural stability for neighbours
• plus some other conditions

The Forum is not currently intending to propose any new policies on basements specific to this neighbourhood, on the basis that the council’s policy is being sufficiently strengthened.

 What happens next?

All the ideas and proposals set out above will be consulted on further, as the Neighbourhood Plan is finalised.  We hope to publish a first draft version of the full plan by the end of May, for discussion at further local public meetings.  There will subsequently be a 6 week Pre-submission consultation, before the Plan goes to the council.  RBKC will then organise an independent inspection of the Plan, and the final version will be put to a local referendum open to all who live or work in the neighbourhood area.

In the meantime we welcome views and comments on this part of the Neighbourhood Plan. You can use the comment box on this website or email info@stqw.org

A further public meeting of the Forum, open to all who live or work in the area, will be held on 24th April at 8pm at St Helens Church Hall, London W10.  We will be discussing what the Neighbourhood Plan should include on conservation policies, and how RBKC borough-wide policies might be varied to reflect the specific character and context of this neighbourhood.

Responses to the StQW survey have now been published on this website.  You can find these under ‘Consultation’, grouped under each of the questions included in the survey questionnaire.  They give a good insight into how local people feel about the area, and what they would like to see in the StQW Neighbourhood Plan.

Around 60 local residents attended the meeting at St Helens Church hall on March 27th.

The meeting discussed several aspects of the neighbourhood plan, providing input to agreeing on what the final version should include.

• public transport in the area, including bus routes and the campaign for an extra station on the London Overground (West London Line) at the Westway roundabout/Imperial West
• latest news on the proposed underpass between Latimer Road and Imperial West
• the potential for additional housing in Latimer Road, as part of incremental redevelopment of the light industrial units
• continuing traffic congestion at the North Pole Road/Wood Lane junction

Full minutes of the meeting are available on the Minutes section of this website. Please use the comments section of the site to add any further views.