Planning Committee Meeting — 18Th September 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, 18th September 2019, 7:00 pm, Council Chamber – Town Hall MINUTES PRESENT: Councillors Manro (Chair), Ball, Cox, Joanna Dabrowska, Mahmood, Raza, Rice, Alexander Stafford, Summers, Lauren Wall, Ray Wall and Woodroofe. LBE OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE: Jackie Adams Head of Legal (Commercial) Steve Barton Strategic Planning Manager Mwim Chellah Democratic Services Officer Katie Crosbie Principal Planning Officer Alex Jackson Development Planning Manager Tiago Jorge Principal Planning Officer David Scourfield Chief Planning Officer Joel Holland Turner Planning Officer James Young Planning Officer 1. Apologies for Absence There were none 2. Urgent Matters There were none. 3. Matters to be Considered in Private There were none. 4. Declarations of Interest There were none. 5. Minutes — 19th June 2019 The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 19th June 2019. Councillor Joanna Dabrowska stated that the second paragraph on Item 5 should be changed to: “… the Ward Councillor and objector withdrew from speaking at the Committee instead of objections … had been withdrawn.” The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 1 Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 RESOLVED: that, subject to the amendment above, the minutes of the meeting held on 19th June 2019 be agreed, and signed by the Chair, as a correct record of the meeting. 6. Site Visit Attendance The Chair, together with Councillors Joanna Dabrowska, Mahmood, Rice and Summers, attended the site visit on Saturday, 14th September 2019. Apologies were received ahead of the site visit from Councillors Ball, Blacker, Cox, Raza, Alexander Stafford, Lauren Wall, Ray Wall and Woodroofe. 7. Committee Schedule — Planning Applications The Chair informed the meeting that he would pilot a new procedure for Planning Committee deliberations. That would involve allowing Members to ask questions and seek points of clarification from objectors and applicants. Planning applications were considered in sequential order. Planning Services had submitted reports in relation to the following planning applications for determination by the Committee: Application 01 in respect of Quayside Quarter (former Honey Monster Foods) Bridge Road Southall Middlesex UB2 4AB (Norwood Green Ward). Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and phased redevelopment of the site to provide 1,997 residential units (Use Class C3), 22,311sqm of creative industrial hub (Use Classes B1c and sui-generis), 5,562sqm of light-industrial space (Use Classes B1(a-c) and B2), 2,275sqm of flexible commercial units (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1a and D1) and 964sqm of community uses (Use Class D1), comprising the construction of 9 blocks with proposed varying heights up to 29 storeys; an energy centre; basements; car and cycle parking; highways and access improvements, including a new access bridge; public amenity space; a canal side linear green space; community courtyard podium gardens, roof terraces and balconies. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The proposal represents a Departure from the Development Plan owing to the proposal to redevelop a Locally Strategic Industrial Site. Tiago Jorge, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and referred Members to additional information provided in the Briefing Note. The Committee was recommended to grant planning permission. The Chair invited the objector and applicant to speak on the application. The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 2 Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 Emily Bates spoke on behalf of the Maypole Docks Resident Association, for which she was Chair. There was enough provision for residential housing currently provided for within Southall. Ealing’s Development Strategy had set out a target of 4,000 new homes in Southall by 2026. However, large developments in the surrounding area, including Havelock and the Middlesex Business Centre, were already providing 5,943 new residential properties. That already exceeded the goals of the Development Strategy. Any more development would put a strain on local infrastructure. Furthermore, the proposed development’s financial viability assessment noted that existing developments were already suffering from low sales. The development was a departure from Ealing’s Local Plan, in that it offered the development of a Locally Significant Industrial Site, which contravened Policy 1.2 of Ealing’s Development Strategy. Moreover, the proposed development was too tall for the area. Policy 7.7 of the Development Strategy stated that: “specific locations identified as suitable for tall buildings would be designated through the Development Sites and also through Supplementary Planning Documents,” both of which the proposed development fell outside of. The Policy also stated that tall buildings must be “held to higher standards than other developments which will be less visually prominent.” Little account had been taken for the respect of Maypole Dock residents. Policy 7B of the Development Management stated that: “residential accommodation should normally be expected not to suffer direct overlooking of internal spaces.” However, proposed developments would have balconies, rooftop gardens, communal and community spaces in Block D which would overlook internal spaces of Maypole Dock residents. There was also mention of the canal spur being used for water sports, clearly showing a lack of knowledge that Maypole Dock was a private body of water. Two of the residents would be located less than 20 metres from the proposed development, and no mention is made for fencing or barriers between the development and Maypole Dock residents. Maypole Dock residents were also concerned with dust, noise and safety during the demolition phase of the Honey Monster Factory. Residents were excluded from the initial consultation, which led to the development being mooted before their concerns were considered. That resulted in several reports being generated, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), without taking residents’ existence into account. Stuart Bailey, spoke on behalf of the applicant, recognising the concerns of the Maypole Dock Association. There had been an error in the consultation process, and had offered to engage with residents in order to minimise the impact of concerns raised. The proposed development envisaged to offer employment to about 3,000 people and would provide 1,700 new homes, 35% of which would be affordable. The Chair then invited the Committee’s questions and comments on the application. Councillor Dabrowska was concerned that parking space numbers “did not add up”. The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee. Page 3 Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 Councillor Ray Wall sought clarification on boundary provisions. Councillor Ball was conscience of neighbour’s issues on overlooking. With Block D being 30 metres away from residents’ properties, and some as close as 18 metres, that would make overlooking easier. Councillor Blacker queried if only one unit would be north facing. Furthermore, parking spaces seemed “excessive” with 190 spaces planned for. It was advised that parking spaces fell within the range that was deemed acceptable. However, that could be reviewed and adjusted if found to be excessive. Furthermore, there was one north facing single unit. However, there would be other smaller units, which would be north facing too. Boundary provisions would be reviewed through Conditions, if the situation warranted. Councillor Summers stated that the site was derelict and needed regeneration. It was a major development that would bring new jobs, houses and parks to an area that needed them. However, the cyclist routes were not “imaginative”. There was need to keep cyclists safe by creating segregated cycle ways. It was advised that there was scope for improvements to cycle paths because section 106 Conditions had not yet been finalised. The southern area of the proposed development along the canal had segregated cycle ways already provided for. Councillor Ray Wall acknowledged that the “pepper-potting” and employment creation aspects of the development were positive. However, there were concerns around rain harvesting, gas work mediation, health care facilities and no provision for elevators. There seemed to be a conflict between bus routes being created when section 106 monies became available or when residents moved in. It was advised that rain harvesting would be a feature of the development and the report would be amended appropriately to reflect that. There was no provision to compel Transport for London (TfL) to deliver the bus routes before residents moved in. However, it was envisaged that that would happen before occupancy of the development. As the proposed development was primarily non-residential, it was not expected to impact on current health facilities in the area. Furthermore, there would be an amendment to the report to include elevators and electric charging points for cars. Councillor Ray Wall