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to: “… the Ward Councillor and objector withdrew from speaking at the Committee instead of objections … had been withdrawn.”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 was cautious about land contamination. Had the Council learned from issues surrounding the Southall Gas Works site?
It was advised that the proposed development was less contaminated than the Southall Gas Works site and would not have a significant impact on residents.
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 4
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
Councillor Rice was concerned about noise disturbance to neighbours arising from the hours of operation of the pub.
It was advised that noise disturbance would be kept to the minimum, and would be constantly monitored and reviewed to avoid that having an adverse impact on neighbouring residents.
Councillor Alexander Stafford echoed Councillor Ray Wall’s sentiments on elevators. Two elevators seemed inadequate for the taller 29 storey building. Furthermore, what was the model of the creative hub employing over 800 jobs on high salaries averaging £42,000 per annum. That implied highly skilled individuals, who would most likely come from outside the area, and not benefit local residents.
It was advised that the developer had based their assumptions on the maximum employment provision of the industry and had discussed plans with the Council. With adequate training and apprenticeship schemes, it was expected that even local residents would be employed by the creative industry at the development.
Councillor Joanna Dabrowska echoed Councillor Ray Wall on pepper-potting. However, was there an east/west divide, with affordable units not mixing with the private ones? Furthermore, what would happen if the creative hub did not work? Would the development be reconfigured to residential housing? Would there be an even distribution of the 10% inclusive access units?
It was advised that the eastern side was more family oriented and some social housing tenants would prefer that side. Moreover, the developer was committed to seeing that the creative hub was successful. It would not be possible to merely change the development to residential housing without Planning permission. Furthermore, there would be an even distribution of disabled access for the 10% units designated for inclusive housing.
Councillor Mahmood commented on the rationale of having a major project application spanning 10 years instead of having a phased development. Furthermore, why was there a low PTAL rating for the development?
It was advised that submitting a major development plan was the prerogative of the developer, who, in this instance, was optimistic of delivering the scheme. Resources had been committed for that. The low PTAL rating had been secured due to travel plans at the site, which was done by TfL.
Councillor Woodroofe welcomed the development. It was encouraging to see more creative hubs in the borough to complement Ealing Studios.
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 5
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
Councillor Cox stated that Southall was seeing several large developments. It was important to address residents’ concerns when approving developments in the area, considering lessons from the Southall Gas Works site.
Councillor Lauren Wall commented on projects. Citing page 106 of the Agenda Report, it was concerning that a quarter of the money (£250 000) would be spent on one club — Southall Football Club — a private entity. How would the money be monitored and what was the justification of public money benefiting a private club?
It was advised that the application proposed to contribute a total of £1,000,000 towards sport and wider facilities over a period of ten years. The intention in allocation would be flexible and the recommendation was for wider sports facilities.
The Legal Officer further advised that the distribution of money would be made under a separate decision and would be consistent with section 106 requirements. At the time of disbursement, if it was decided that funds should not be allocated to a private entity, then the funds would be allocated as recommended by the appropriate committee of Ealing Councillors.
The Chair then asked that the Committee proceed to vote on the Application.
RESOLVED: to GRANT Planning permission, having taken into account all environmental information received by the Council in accordance with Regulation 26 of the EIA Regs 2017 (as amended) and giving full consideration to the environmental impacts of the proposed development, it is concluded that, although the proposed development is a departure from the development plan, it is consistent with many of its aims and objective and, further, other material considerations militate towards the grant of permission. As such, on balance it is recommended that the Committee resolve to approve the proposed development subject to: 1. that the applicants and the other relevant persons having a requisite interest, be invited to complete the Section 106 Agreement in accordance with the detailed summary of the proposed terms of the planning obligations for this application in the ‘Legal Agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy’ section of this report, subject to: a. such reasonable amendments as may be approved by the Chief Planning Officer having due regard to any comments of the (Stage II referral to) Mayor of London and/or TfL and/or any other relevant comments on the Revised Section 106 Agreement; and b. the application being referred to the National Planning Casework Unit under paragraph 22 of the National Planning Guidance and paragraph 5 (1), (b), (c)
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 6
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
(i) and (ii) of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 and no notice of call-in being received from the Secretary of State (SoS); 2. that upon completion of the Section 106 agreement the Chief Planning Officer be instructed to APPROVE the application Ref: 191022FUL under delegated powers and grant planning permission subject to conditions substantially in the form contained in the subsequent recommendation (with such detailed amendments as the Borough Planner may consider to be reasonable and necessary in the course of negotiating the final Section 106 Agreement and having due regard to any comments of the Mayor and/or TfL and/or the Secretary of State and/or any other relevant comments on the Conditions). Application 02 in respect of Land to the rear of Tesco Superstore, the Old Hoover Building, Western Avenue, UB6 8DW (Perivale Ward).
Proposal: Construction of a part 22-storey and part 10-storey residential building to accommodate 305 residential units (95x studio, 99x 1-bed, 94x 2-bed, 17x 3-bed) with ancillary communal multi-use space (residential work spaces, reception areas, resident gym, resident lounges and guest bedroom to rent), basement vehicle parking, refuse and cycle stores, landscaping and associated works including alterations to existing car park and access (following demolition of petrol filling station) and installation of sub-station.
Katie Crosbie, 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, applicant, and Ward Councillor, respectively, to speak on the application.
Ed Moris spoke in objection to the application on behalf of other objectors. There were nine reasons why the proposed development should be deferred or refused:
1) the tower was too high — it would dominate a landscape of low-rise family homes with an incongruous 22 storey building; 2) the density of the building was unsustainable — already Perivale’s resources were straining under the weight of existing developments. The development would bring an additional 1 000 residents to the area; 3) Historic England considered that building on the proposed location would undermine the landmark status of the Hoover Building, thus causing harm to its Grade II listing. There was no evidence that Ealing Council had justified the harm in accordance with paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework; 4) the Townscape Heritage and Visual Impact document was misleading. As stated on the Council’s website, and corroborated by the architect’s journal and Historic
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 7
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
England, the Hoover Building was designed to be viewed from the Western Avenue. That was how the vast majority of people saw it. No images had been published to demonstrate the context of The Wiltern Tower from that view, despite repeated requests; 5) the application was out of line with the Council’s own Tall Buildings Policy, in particular to points 4.11 and 4.12, which addressed the historical context; 6) the project fell short of Ealing’s initial claim of 35% affordable housing. In the case Officer’s Report, Affordable Housing, page 48 (table 3) stated that only 16 one- bedroom flats, that is, 5% of the 305 units, would be on affordable rent; 7) despite having received correspondence in relation to them, all the constraints on the Planning portal were listed as “Not Available”. There were letters of objection from Ealing Civic Society, the Twentieth Century Society, Historic England, and an online petition signed by over 2,500 people. The public had not had enough access to those documents; 8) lack of community engagement — Ealing Council had chosen not to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment, a failure that could be challenged through judicial review for not paying due regard to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; and 9) the Planning Committee was now responsible for the legacy of the Hoover Building, a responsibility amplified by the lack of an assigned Heritage Officer.
Raj Kotecha spoke on behalf of the applicant. There was a housing shortage in London, particularly professionally managed rental housing. The Wiltern would be managed by the rent division — AmroLiving. The development would provide an opportunity for working professionals, including key workers, such as teachers and nurses, to live in well maintained, safe and comfortable accommodation. Seventy-four of the apartments, comprising 35% of the property by habitable rooms, would be affordable units.
Three concerns raised by local residents during the site visit on Saturday, 14th September 2019, were addressed:
1) traffic — residents felt that the area around Bideford Avenue was already congested and that The Wiltern would make that worse. The existing property was a busy petrol station and was a significant contributor to congestion in the area. Analysis demonstrated that, even under the worst case assumptions, redevelopment of the site would not result in increased traffic during peak hours and a considerable reduction in traffic during off-peak hours; 2) parking — people were concerned that The Wiltern’s residents would park their cars on local streets, compounding the current problems. The following steps had been taken with regard to parking: stipulation that residents would not be eligible to apply for a residents’ parking permit in Ealing and that they would only bring a car to the property if they rented one of the parking spaces at The Wiltern; 45 parking spaces would be provided, including 15 accessible spaces and 9 for electric vehicles; two Car Club spaces for operating a Zip-Car or equivalent system at the property; and Tesco’s Planning Application for the re-arrangement of their
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 8
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
carpark would increase the level of parking for the Nawaab Resturant from the 100 spaces currently available to 150 spaces; and 3) schools and healthcare facilities within Perivale — Ealing Council had proposed a financial contribution of £1.6million for projects, including £955,000 for education and healthcare. AmroLiving was in agreements to the proposed amounts.
The Wiltern would result in a fantastic piece of architecture that both complemented and celebrated the Hoover Building and its setting.
Councillor Munir Ahmed, Ward Councillor for Perivale, spoke in objection to the application. The developers had neither lived nor had any intention of living in the area but “just wanted to make money and go and live in their luxury homes somewhere in peace and quiet”. He was one of the thousands of resident who had chosen to make Perivale as their home and enjoy the special characteristics of its beautiful suburban locality. Ordinary residents were not planning experts and may not be able to make their point in planning terms. However, one thing was clear: residents knew that something wrong was happening in their neighbourhood.
Therefore, the Committee was urged to scrutinise Officers’ recommendations and reject the application.
Having lived in Perivale for almost three decades and having been councillor for about six years, the development would be disastrous for the area and would have a negative impact on the lives of all residents living in every part of Perivale. The following issues were highlighted:
1) the proposed building was completely out of character — there was no precedent of high rise buildings in the area and that would set a dangerous trend. Perivale residents were proud to have the beautiful iconic art deco Hoover Building and the proposed development would make residents loose that privilege. The Wiltern would be an eyesore and people would forget that there was once a Hoover Building. The development would seriously compromise the view and character of the Hoover Building. Historic England had also expressed huge reservations on the application, as did the GLA, particularly on the height; 2) schools in Perivale had no children places and currently parents were suffering the consequences of overcrowding. Instead of building a new school, the proposed development would bring another 305 new homes. That many new homes needed one brand new primary school. The offer of section 106 money was inadequate to build a new school in Perivale. His main reason of moving to Perivale was to have a school, which was a road away from his home. He would like the same for other residents. But currently parents dropped one child in one school and others in different schools outside Perivale; 3) transport — Perivale had very limited access due to public transport links due to its geographical layout next to the A40. Perivale should not be compared with
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 9
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
Acton. The area had a very different design and could not cope with extra traffic. Recently, water works which started on Teignmouth Gardens caused the whole of Perivale to become gridlocked during rush hour. Highways had been contacted to make some temporary measures to ease traffic flow but, even with those new arrangements, coming to Ealing Town Hall, meant going to Brent, and then back to Perivale, through the Hanger Lane roundabout. If just one small roadwork could cause road closures and traffic jams, what would happen when there was traffic from an extra 305 homes? Even if there was a car free proposal on the development, that would not stop taxis or visitors to use vehicles or the occupiers to own cars; and 4) even though Officers’ recommendation was for the approval of the application, it seemed that it was a “mere tick-box” exercise. However, the democratic process required taking into consideration the feelings of residents who would be affected by the development. Over 450 people had objected online and hundreds had came to show their anger and frustration during the site visit on Saturday, 14th September 2019.
Members were requested to consider the overall picture and not let the developers ruin the place many called “home”. The application must be refused. That would give residents the confidence that the Committee would protect their interests and not those of the “greedy money-motivated developers”.
The Chair then invited the Committee’s questions and comments on the application.
Councillor Joanna Dabrowska was concerned about the height of the proposed development. Twenty-two storeys was too high. The developer should come back with a lower design, as well as more three-bedroom units. She was minded to refuse the application.
Councillor Summers echoed Councillor Joanna Dabrowska’s sentiments on height. It was concerning that out of 305 units only 32 would be affordable. He, too, was minded to refuse the application.
Councillor Ball suggested that the development should be seven storeys lower so as to make the Hoover Building visible from the A40. There were not enough affordable units and it would be advisable to seek clarification from the developer before approving the development. He would be voting against the application.
Councillor Alexander Stafford stated that the proposed development would destroy the heritage of the Hoover Building. He, too, would be voting to refuse the application.
Councillor Ray Wall sought clarity on whether the proposed development would be 18 metres from neighbouring properties. Where protected groups affected under the
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 10
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 proposed development, such as the nursery, considered? Not all facts were available on which a decision could be made. It would be preferable to defer the application.
It was advised that there would be an 18 metres distance from the outer building, which was 40 metres to the first wall of the closet neighbouring property.
The Legal Officer further advised that although an EAA was not an absolute legal requirement, it should be made as part of the Council’s equality duty whenever a decision is made. Members should consider the impact on those with referred to as “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010, such as the disabled or those in sheltered accommodation.
Councillor Mahmood was minded to refuse the application, instead of deferring it.
RESOLVED: to REFUSE the Planning application. (The Committee delegated authority to the Chief Planning Officer, following consultation with the Chair, to draft reasons for refusing the application based on the reasons provided by Members.) Application 03 in respect of Tesco Stores Limited / Hoover Building / Royal Nawaab Restaurant, the Old Hoover Building, Western Avenue, UB6 8DW (Perivale Ward).
Proposal: Reconfiguration of existing car parking at ground and basement levels.
RESOLVED: to DEFER the Planning Application.
Application 04 and 05 in respect of Remaining area of Acton Gardens Master Plan (South Acton Estate) Acton, W3 8TQ (South Acton Ward).
Proposal: Application (1) Application for a Non-Material Amendment (S96a) to planning permission Ref: 182579OUT dated 24/12/2018 for: Hybrid planning application for the continued regeneration of the South Acton Estate encompassing an outline mixed use development comprising; up to 195,396sqm residential floorspace (Class C3) with any associated temporary show homes; up to 2,200sqm non-residential floorspace including 1,200sqm of community space (Class D1) and up to 1,000sqm of flexible commercial space (Class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1, D2); an energy centre up to 750sqm, access, open space and public realm. Detailed permission is sought for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of Phase 9.2 comprising 20,612sqm (of the total 195,396sqm) of residential floorspace (Class C3) [203 dwellings] and 123sqm (of the total 1,000sqm) flexible commercial floorspace (Class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1, D2) with associated refuse/recycling and bicycle storage; plant rooms; car parking; works to the public
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 11
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 highway, public realm improvements, following the demolition of Buchan House, Anstey Court, properties on Osborne Road and tree removal. Amendment proposes changes to the Minimum and Maximum Heights Parameter Plan (Drawing Ref: 162500007006 P1) approved under the Hybrid Outline Consent. Application (2) Reserved matters application in respect of Phase 9.4 of the Remaining Acton Gardens Masterplan pursuant to conditions 7 (Reserved Matters) and 8 (Reserved Matters Details) of the Hybrid Outline Planning Permission Ref: 182579OUT (dated 24/12/2018) for the continued regeneration of the South Acton Estate. Application seeks approval for Means of Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale — in relation to the construction of one apartment building varying in height from 2-12 storeys, comprising 209 new residential units; with associated private and semi-private amenity space and public realm improvements; bicycle storage; car parking; refuse/recycling and plant rooms; following the demolition of the Osborne Hotel, maisonettes along Bollo Lane and Osborne Road, and the temporary Acton Gardens Marketing Suite and site offices, and tree removal. Application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement of Compliance. Tiago Jorge, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the reports and referred Members to additional information provided in the Briefing Note. The Committee was recommended to grant planning permission. Both items were interrelated. The Chair invited the objector and applicant to speak on the applications. W Mier spoke in objection to the application, representing neighbours of the Acton Gardens Redevelopment Area. There was recognition for the development. However, there were concerns around additional details in respect of Phase 9.4. The latest application sought to add too many additional dwellings, thus, it would be an overdevelopment. The London Plan Density Matrix set out criteria for density of populations within London. For that particular area, it recommended a guide density of 55-260 units per hectare or 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare. The proposed application requested 299 units per hectare or 891 habitable rooms per hectare. In paragraph 6.41 of the Planning Statement, it was acknowledged that the proposed development already exceeded the limits set out in the matrix. The height and density had increased over earlier plans. The building works would be more disruptive than already anticipated. Neighbours would see even less of the sky but more of tall buildings. Furthermore, the transport assessment suggested that the impact on transport would be “small”. However, that was incorrect. In particular Acton Town Tube Station was already severely overcrowded in the mornings. It was suggested that the Elizabeth Line would provide an alternative, but it would be a
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 12
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 long walk for most people. Would a direct bus link from Acton Town Tube Station to Acton Main Line be considered to alleviate that? The application should be reconsidered so that the height and number of dwellings could be limited to what was acceptable. Dan King spoke on behalf of the applicant. The latest phase in the redevelopment of Acton Gardens now deliver over 1,000 homes when completed and occupied. There would also be significant investment into the local community, such as the opening of a brand-new purpose-built community centre and dentist. Further community uses, including a new health centre, were currently under construction and would follow shortly. Phase 9.4 proposed to deliver 209 homes in accordance with the principles of the Masterplan that was approved in 2018. Fifty per cent (50%) of these homes would be affordable homes on a habitable room basis, very much in line with the commitment to deliver genuinely affordable homes across Acton Gardens. Through the design process there had been a minor re-distribution of height, with a small element of Block C becoming taller and an adjacent element lowering in height. Whilst that had resulted in no overall increase in height or density, it had led the developer to design a more efficient affordable rent core. As a result, that would deliver over 50% of the rented homes as 3- and 4-bedroom properties. That would support families across the South Acton estate by improving the conditions of those who were currently over- occupying their homes. Furthermore, over 90% of existing residents choose to stay at Acton Gardens. This was in comparison to only 20% that wanted to remain within the estate when surveys were undertaken as works first began in 2012. There were no questions from Members on both applications. The Chair then asked that the Committee proceed to vote on the Application. RESOLVED: to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions in the Agenda Report. Application 06 in respect of 29-39 Stirling Road and 2-10 Roslin Road, Acton, (South Acton Ward).
Joel Holland Turner, 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 objectors and applicants to speak on the applications.
Weronika Holt presented a video recording as her objection to 29-39 Stirling Road on behalf of other residents. Their concerns were that the proposed development was badly
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 13
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019 designed and would be a strain on the local area. They had not been consulted. The height and scale of the proposed development would be out of character within the residential area of the development.
Harry de Lotbiniere spoke on behalf of the applicant. South Acton was an “excellent example” of a place that was adapting to meet the demand for high-quality new homes whilst retaining and enhancing employment opportunities. The site along Bollo Lane included a series of industrial units that were old and no longer fit-for-purpose. They would soon be vacated by their current business occupiers. Thus, the site was ideal for the proposed development. The key initial objectives to deliver from the site were to:
1) provide a significantly enhanced commercial offering, generating new jobs in fit- for-purpose, flexible and sustainable new floorspace of no less quantum than the existing buildings; 2) offer a significant level of affordable housing with a focus on maximising the London Affordable Rent element; and 3) produce high quality well-designed buildings that considered both the existing business function of the area and the potential future development of adjoining sites, whilst offering an enhanced street scene and increased security through passive surveillance to Bollo Lane and Stirling Road.
These would be achieved this within the proposed scheme. The new workspaces would attract a range of new creative start-ups and SMEs, reflecting Ealing’s long and proud history at the centre of west London’s film and digital industry. The workspace designs had been informed by a detailed market assessment to ensure they met the demands of current and future occupiers to ensure full occupancy.
The workspaces would accommodate 120 full-time jobs, 75 more than were currently employed on the site. The scheme would provide 101 new homes through the application, 35% of which would be affordable homes. These would include a mix of London Affordable Rent and shared ownership homes, which complied with Ealing’s affordable housing policy. That would give residents currently on the Council’s waiting list, low-cost and good quality homes. The scheme would also give local young people and first-time buyers, who are currently priced out of the property market, an opportunity to get on the housing ladder.
Chris Gutteridge spoke in objection to 2-10 Roslin Road on behalf of Myriad Audiovisual Limited, the owner of Innovation House at 17-27 Stirling Road W3 8DJ, which was immediately to the south east of 29-39 Stirling Road. Four issues were raised:
1) design drawings — the application included the construction of 9 storey blocks fronting both Stirling Road and Bollo Lane. Each of the blocks was sited some 2.5metres in front of the established building line on both streets rising directly from the back of pavement. To fully assess the impact of this proposal, the applicant should provide
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 14
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
fully rendered contextual elevations, sections through adjoining properties and long views down both Stirling Road and Bollo Lane. In addition, the submitted drawing 0205 was labelled "West Elevation" when it should have been the "South East Elevation" and drawing 0204 labelled "East Elevation" which should have been the "North West Elevation";
2) daylighting — in 2018 the first floor of the rear warehouse section of Innovation House was converted to 11 studio apartments under permitted development, lawful development and planning approvals. Three of these studios — R9, R10 and R11 — faced directly onto the proposed development. The impact of placing a nine-storey building at a distance of “only” 12.0m from windows W9, W10, and W11 (all notations were from the Daylighting Report) was presented to the Committee;
The Officer's Report stated in respect of amenity of adjoining residents that following construction of the proposed building, the windows would be 80% of their current value. The Daylighting Report stated that the reduction in the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) to these windows to be 40%, 47.5% and 47% respectively. Those were considerably greater than the BRE Guidelines (max 20% reduction) and not as the Officer had stated in the Report. Moreover, the Daylight Report set out the importance of consideration of the No-Sky Contour (NSC). It also provided a table, which included NSC values for all windows, except the worst affected — W11. The cross section and plan showed the layout of these new dwellings. The figures should be reviewed in the light of this information and the omitted levels for W11 included.
The Officer's Report also stated that the reduction in the Vertical Sky Component, due to the proposed development, was within acceptable limits. A high degree of outlook and light to the existing flats would be retained post-development. The quoted VSC reductions were outside the BRE Guidelines. Proper NSC figures should be included and the reduction in outlook and enclosure acknowledged in the Daylighting and Officer's Report;
3) air quality — the IDOM Air Quality Assessment supporting this application referred to only one current monitoring station, referred to as HS8 and HS71 on Gunnersbury Avenue showing Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions exceeding permitted levels. In the circumstances the data from the monitoring station should be modelled using a dispersal modelling system, such as ADMS-Roads. It should include adjustments to account for likely pollution from the adjacent elevated railway. These include: the impact of servicing arrangements to be introduced on Bollo Lane, including queuing traffic; the potential for creating a canyon effect by introducing a nine-storey building at the back of pavements; and the ability to provide mitigation measures on site to improve air quality; and
4) highway safety — the siting of the proposed building rising to nine stories at the back of the pavement on Stirling Road would remove the existing vision splays from
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 15
Planning Committee Meeting — 18th September 2019
commercial vehicles exiting the service yard of Innovation House. At present, the boundary wall to the service yard was set back some 2.5 metres from the footpath allowing exiting vehicles good visibility of pedestrians. The introduction of servicing of the employment space across the pavement on Bollo Lane would lead to “conflict” between pedestrians, traffic flows on Bollo Lane and bus services.
The application should be deferred to allow the applicant to address the issues of the design drawings, daylighting, air quality and highway safety and interested parties re- consulted on any revisions to the design and supporting material.
Sam Hine spoke on behalf of the applicant and responded to both objector’s concerns.
Engagement with the local community had been through the following ways:
1) the proposals had been subject to extensive consultation, including hosting a two- day public exhibition in March 2019, which was advertised with a leaflet drop to over 1,600 local addresses, including residents at Acton Gardens; 2) the developer had met with neighbours numerous times and the scheme had evolved to respond to the nearby businesses and residents. An ‘Agent of Change’ report had been submitted that analysed that in detail and ensured that the new buildings fitted into local context; and 3) local infrastructure had been considered carefully. The area was served by several local train and bus services. There was need to mitigate any concerns around transport and parking by proposing a car-free scheme, with over 174 cycle spaces. Furthermore, future residents would be restricted from applying for parking permits. A financial contribution towards a future controlled parking zone as part of our section 106 agreement and £30,000 towards public realm improvements would be made.
There were no questions or comments from Members.
The Chair then asked that the Committee proceed to vote on the Application.
RESOLVED: to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions in the Agenda Report.
8. Date of the Next Meeting It was noted that the next meeting would take place on Wednesday, 16th October 2019, at 7:00 pm.
The meeting ended at 10:20pm.
COUNCILLOR SHITAL MANRO (CHAIR)
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 16