Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Ref : 201695FUL

Address: Gurnell Leisure Centre, Ruislip Road East, West Ealing, W13 0AL

Ward: Cleveland

Proposal: Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of replacement leisure centre (Use Class D2), facilitating affordable and market housing residential development (Use Class C3) in 6 blocks, flexible retail floorspace (Use Classes A1 - A3), plant room and energy centre, leisure centre coach parking, basement residential and leisure centre cycle and car parking, refuse/recycling storage, new servicing, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and associated highway works, new and replacement play space, public realm and public open space, landscaping and associated ground works to existing public open space.

Drawing Numbers/ Plans/Reports: See Appendix 1, Condition 54.

Type of Application: Full Application

Application Received: 24/04/2020

Report by: Gregory Gray

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the prior completion of a s106 agreement following: a. referral to the Secretary of State for consideration whether to call-in the application for his decision, b. if declined then Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London.

Executive Summary: LBE resolved in 2015 and 2016 to secure the long-term replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre (GLC) funded by an enabling residential development with the aim of the scheme being cost neutral to the Council, whilst adding to the housing provision in the Borough. The applicant was selected by the Council to provide this development. Pre-application consultation with Council Officers and the GLA, supports the overall approach of new housing to enable the re-provision of the leisure centre and the incorporation of significant affordable housing.

In September 2019 LBE further resolved to incorporate affordable housing (with the market housing) to deliver the new leisure centre as a facilitating-, rather than enabling- development. This is included in the planning application. The applicant is Be:Here Ealing Ltd., a joint venture between the Ealing Council, the Council’s wholly owned subsidiary housing company Broadway Living, and developer Eco World.

The application site is 13.2ha, of which about 4ha is proposed to accommodate built development with 1.42ha of that actually accommodating new buildings. The proposals are for demolition of all existing buildings and erection of replacement leisure centre (Use Class D2), facilitating affordable and market housing residential development (Use Class C3) (Use Class E in the Order 2020) in 6 blocks ranging from 6 to 17 storeys, flexible retail floorspace (Use Classes A1 - A3), Page 1 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 plant room and energy centre, leisure centre coach parking, basement residential and leisure centre cycle and car parking, refuse/recycling storage, new servicing, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and associated highway works, new and replacement play space, public realm and public open space, landscaping and associated ground works to existing public open space.

196 affordable flats, equating to 34% of the total by habitable room is proposed. Whilst this is less than the 50% normally expected on public land it is considered to be a reasonable provision in this case in consideration of the Council’s objectives to increase affordable housing in the Borough and the facilitating development character of the scheme and is supported by the Housing Supply Team.

To accommodate the development the BMX track is to be relocated elsewhere on the application site, which is the subject of a separate application. Sport England supports the imposition of a condition to secure a satisfactory relocation which is included in the recommendation.

The application was advertised on submission as a Departure from the Development Plan that is not in accordance with the development plan in force in the area, being a Major Development on land designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and comprising public open space. The assessment of this application has involved a balancing exercise to establish whether very special circumstances (VSC) exist in this case.

The proposal presents substantial planning policy considerations, reconciling compliance with national, regional and local policy in respect of development on MOL, which seek to maintain the openness of such sites and their open functions, through avoiding the introduction of inappropriate development (which is, by definition harmful to the MOL) and where necessary through mitigating any such harms to its open space objectives.

Where harm cannot be avoided or mitigated further, the ‘by definition’ harm, the residual harm to the MOL and its openness/purposes and any other harm should be weighed in the balance with the benefits to be secured, The benefits in this case comprise delivery of the satisfactory redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre and public park open space enhancements and the associated new housing to support its delivery. The weighing exercise is done, in order to establish whether such considerations in favour clearly outweigh all the harms (which attract substantial weight). Only where this can be demonstrated, will it be possible to conclude that very special circumstances (VSC) exist.

In undertaking this assessment, a number of steps have been taken to establish:

1. which elements of the scheme are inappropriate, and which are appropriate, 2a). whether the need for a new leisure centre is justified, including examining the necessity of the proposed leisure offer, 2b). whether all alternative funding sources to pay for a new leisure centre have been exhausted and maximised, 3. whether the replacement leisure centre and residential development could be achieved in an alternative location, or locations, that would have a lesser, the same or no more, harmful impact on MOL openness and its purposes than the proposals (via the Alternative Sites Assessment – ASA), 4a). whether the quantum of residential development is no more than is necessary to secure the delivery of the replacement leisure centre and to optimise the quantum of genuinely affordable housing secured through the development (via the Viability Assessment - VA), 4 b) whether the type (housing type/tenure mix) of facilitating development represents the optimum one from the perspective of limiting the quantum of inappropriate development on MOL, whilst maximising the genuinely affordable offer, 5. whether the impact on MOL openness and purposes has been minimised as far as possible through a well-considered design approach,

Page 2 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

6. whether the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the ‘by definition’ harm, the residual harm (after avoidance/mitigation) to the MOL, and any other harms, amounting to very special circumstances.

The above tests have been applied sequentially.

As part of this assessment significant weight and regard has been given and had to the wider open space enhancements to Gurnell Park/Playing Fields contained in the proposals promoted and supported by the Council Leisure Services. These enhancements generally comprise appropriate development in the MOL and significantly assist in enhancing the site’s contribution to MOL purposes. Compared to the existing leisure centre and cark (defined as previously developed land) the encroachment of built development onto undeveloped MOL land has been minimised, amounting to less than 1%.

Account has been taken of the impacts of development in terms of bulk, mass, scale, the design quality and external appearance of the new buildings, in particular the incorporation of tall buildings of up to 17 storeys, landscaping, traffic and transport, flood risk, ecology and other environmental effects including noise and air quality, sunlight, daylight, shadowing, wind and microclimate, residential amenity, safety and privacy, wider visual impacts and heritage assets. Regard has also been had to the energy strategy for the development.

The design ethos and scale of development overall, including its’ height, has sought to minimise the harm to the MOL, so far as is possible in consideration of MOL policy. It is considered to be generally sympathetic and appropriate to the location and will not give rise to significant overriding adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring residents or the area generally. The harm to heritage assets is deemed to be less than substantial and outweighed by the public benefits even allowing for greater weight to be given to the asset’s conservation This conclusion as to harm is shared by the GLA through the Stage 1 Mayoral referral and pursuant to extensive pre-application with GLA Officers on the location and layout of the replacement leisure centre and the residential development to be located on the leisure centre surface car park.

Transport, heritage, environment, energy, Mayoral CIL and s106 matters and requirements are assessed. The GLA strongly supports this mixed redevelopment. Representations from and on behalf of local residents have been carefully and comprehensively reviewed and addressed. The objections however are not sufficient to outweigh the recommendation for approval.

Having given careful consideration to all the documentation submitted with the application, material planning considerations, including that contained in the development plan, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 2019, it is concluded that:

- this site represents the appropriate ‘site of last resort’ to accommodate the replacement leisure centre and new housing, - based on the Council’s independent analysis of the VA that the quantum of residential development does not exceed that which is necessary to financially facilitate the delivery of the replacement leisure centre and to secure an acceptable level of genuinely affordable housing, - assessment of the range of alternative scenarios presented in the VA, enables Officers to conclude that the facilitating development (in respect of residential type (affordable vs private sale) and tenure mix) represents the optimum one, - following a careful analysis, including in consultation with the GLA, the location and design of the scheme has sought to minimise its impact on the openness of the MOL, and strikes a satisfactory balance between minimising the encroachment into the MOL open space, whilst also integrating with the open space, - VSC can be demonstrated.

Page 3 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

It has been satisfactorily demonstrated that, taking the development plan as a whole, the NPPF and in applying the Planning Balance in consideration of the planning benefits versus the harms, it is concluded this would be a sustainable development. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be Granted with conditions, subject to completion of a s106 agreement, following prior referral to the Secretary of State, and Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London.

A. Non-Financial obligations:

1. At least 196 affordable flats equating to 32.7% by units or 34.5% by habitable rooms in the form of 98 LAR and 98 shared ownership intermediate units, with capped rent costs and held in perpetuity as set out in Mayor of London guidance, 2. Affordable dwellings will be prioritised by LBE for people living and/or working in the Borough, 3. Affordable housing review mechanism on 75% occupancy of market units up to a maximum of 50% affordable dwellings at LLR or DMR rent levels, 4. No work to commence on the private residential component of the development (save for the construction of the shared substructure) until construction works have commenced on the new Leisure Centre. 5. Participation in an Apprentice and Placement Scheme and apprenticeships, 6. Restriction of Parking Permits - precluded from obtaining a parking permit and visitor parking vouchers to park within existing or future CPZs in the area 7. Agreement under ss38 and 278 of the Highways Act in accordance with a specification to be agreed with the council, 8. Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal and other professional costs incurred preparing the s106 agreement, 9. Financial contributions to be index-linked, with staged payments at first residential occupation and 50% occupancy, 10. Administrative costs for monitoring the legal agreement.

B. Financial Obligations:

a. Cost of the construction and maintenance of the Park Landscaping Plan, including flood management and other works: £1,829,403, b. Contribution to replacement of BMX track: £80,000 c. Contribution to footbridge over River Brent: £100,000, d. Economic Development: £88,000 e. Carbon off-set: £693,576, f. Post construction Energy Monitoring and Equipment cost: £19,012 g. NHS Property Services: £200,000 h. Air Quality monitoring: £136,006 i. CPZ Review and Parking Stress Measures: £50,000 j. Cycle/pedestrian crossing improvements on Ruislip Road East: £50,000 k. Ruislip Road East resurfacing: £90,000 l. Argyle Road accident remediation: £50,000 m. Junction improvements: £150,000 n. Traffic calming on residential streets: £50,000 o. Cycle Infrastructure: £90,000 p. Travel Plan Monitoring: £5,000 q. Allotments Space: £70,241 r. Street lighting and Ruislip Road East/Argyle Road roundabout improvements: £200,000 Page 4 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

s. Education, £800,304.92

AND the conditions and informatives set out in the Appendix to this Report.

Site and Surrounding Area Description The location of the site and development policy designations are below:

The site location is shown outlined in red below:

Page 5 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The site covers an area of approximately 13.2ha, and comprises Gurnell Leisure Centre, associated parking and a range of outdoor recreation facilities including a skatepark, BMX track, children's play area and sports fields. The site is positioned approximately 1.3km east of Greenford Town Centre, and is situated within a predominately residential area. It is bounded to the north by Stockdove Way, west by the mainline railway, straddling the River Brent, to the east by Argyle Road (B456) and to the south by Ruislip Road East (B455).

Immediately to the south east corner of the site are a small group of residential properties (flats and houses) at Peal Gardens, which pre-date the leisure centre in part (circa 1950s, with later additions in 1980s).

The area to the south and beyond Ruislip Road East comprises the Gurnell Grove Estate and other residential properties. West of the site is a pair of semi-detached properties and beyond the river are further areas of open space.

North of the river are allotments and a small day centre. Beyond Argyle Road to the east are further areas of open space some of which is publicly owned and accessible and other sections are private (St Benedict's Playing Fields).

Whilst the site itself is predominately open it comprises a large leisure centre positioned to the south west corner fronting Ruislip Road East. The leisure centre has an approximate built area of 3970sqm and is about 8m high. The building accommodates a main swimming pool, recreation pool, exercise studios, gym, changing rooms and staff facilities. East of the leisure centre is a play area, the BMX track and a concrete skatepark.

Further east, towards the southern end of the site, is a surface level car park (approximately 6,500sqm).

As well as its MOL designation, which covers the whole site, the open recreation area north of the leisure centre building and car park is designated as Public Open Space. The river forms part of the Blue Ribbon Network and a wider corridor following the river is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation – the Brent River Park North: Hanger Lane to the Great Western Railway SINC (EaBI14A).

The primary points of access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is from Ruislip Road East, although as the surrounding area is largely managed as public open space informal points of access for pedestrians exist from various sides.

Bus services (E2, E5, E7, E9 & E10) run along Ruislip Road East. The nearest railway station is South Greenford mainline station. located approximately 400m north west of the site. Castlebar Park station on the same line is also located a short distance to the south. The site has a PTAL of 2-3.

The majority of the developed area of the site south of the River Brent is situated within Flood Zone 3a Fluvial and Tidal. The north west corner and a corridor running along the edge of the River Brent lies with Flood Zone 3b Fluvial and Tidal. Pockets of the site, including part of the existing car park area are situated within Flood Zone 3a Surface Water as shown below:

Page 6 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The site does not contain any Listed Buildings or other buildings of architectural merit and is not within a Conservation Area. However, there are heritage assets nearby, which are assessed later for impacts. Background to the Application Cabinet in March 2015 received a Report which set out:

Purpose of Report: ‘Following discussions over the past year, the Council have an opportunity, via the SCAPE Framework, to engage with Willmott Dixon, to consider the feasibility of the long-term replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre. The replacement would be funded via enabling residential development on the site to fund part of the construction costs of the facility, whilst adding to the housing provision in the borough.’

‘1. Recommendations ‘It is recommended that Cabinet ‘1.1. Note and agree that the council wish to provide a flagship water-based leisure facility, which includes a 50m pool.

‘1.2.Agree that the Executive Director of Environment and Customer Services, using the SCAPE framework, appoint Willmott Dixon to work with the Council on a feasibility study for the redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre.

‘1.3.Note that a further report will be presented to Cabinet in Autumn 2015 on the outcome of the feasibility stage of the project development under the SCAPE Framework, which will seek authority to proceed with a preferred option

Page 7 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

‘1.4.Note the financial modelling,…, in relation to the estimated cost and potential enabling development options for the redevelopment of the leisure centre.

‘1.5.Note that the council will be exploring a range of options for the provision of enabling development, including options for Broadway living involvement in the scheme

‘2. Reason for Decision and Options Considered 2.1.Gurnell Leisure Centre, which is built upon a former landfill site, forms a core part of the Council’s leisure provision. The site would be a major contributor towards achieving a surplus generating leisure provision, largely based upon the largest ‘learn to swim’ programme in London. The facility includes the borough’s only 50m pool, and is one of only a small number in London, which has been the home of Ealing Swimming Club, the largest swimming club in the country with over 1,650 members.

2.2.The proposed refurbishment of the Gurnell Leisure Centre, features in both the Corporate Plan and also is integral to the Council’s adopted Sports Facility Strategy 2012-2021, with regards to a 50m and learner pool provision, to meet current demand and future population growth.

2.3.The Leisure Contract provides the Council with an option to include Gurnell Leisure Centre in the Contract for the final 5 years of its operation subject to a competitive market exercise relating to the management and operation of Gurnell Leisure Centre. The Council has the right to include the Gurnell Leisure Centre in the Leisure Contract (whether or not a market testing exercise is carried out under clause) if it is satisfied with SLM’s provision of the services under the Leisure Contract and SLM’s proposals in connection with Gurnell Leisure Centre represent value for money and otherwise meet Ealing’s specified requirements for the management and operation of Gurnell Leisure Centre…

….

‘Housing 2.10. The financial summary in confidential Appendix 1, shows a range of enabling development to meet the full cost of the leisure centre, however this has to be considered against deliverability of the enabling development, within the parameters of utilising existing developed footprint and being of the minimum scale required, to meet the replacement cost of Gurnell Leisure Centre. Therefore the mix and tenure of any enabling development, will also need to be carefully considered, to ensure that maximum receipt can be generated for minimal enabling development provision.

…

‘2.19. The Council will also explore a range of enabling development opportunities so that an informed decision can be made on the most applicable route to meet both the Council’s objective of providing a high-quality leisure facility and ensuring best consideration is achieved.

‘2.20. Consideration will also be given within the development of the feasibility study, to the need and merits of replacing Gurnell Leisure Centre or not as part of this assessment. It is prudent for this option to be considered and this option would be standard in any early project feasibility.’

Key implications of the Report relevant to this application were:

‘3.1.The financial modelling shows that the proposed enabling development may not meet the full costs of replacing the leisure facilities, however, based upon the mid-range scenario in table 1.2, it could contribute 61% towards the total cost of replacing Gurnell Leisure Centre.

Page 8 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

‘3.2.The replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre would contribute significantly to the ability for the Leisure Contract to contribute to the Council’s Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as well as the removal of subsidy for leisure provision in the borough. ‘3.3.The replacement of Gurnell Leisure centre, with a 50m pool and learner pool, would contribute significantly to the current demand and future provision for water space based upon future population projections. ‘3.4.The proposed enabling development, required to fund at least part of the new leisure centre facilities, will provide additional housing provision, in accordance with the Council’s Housing Policy objectives and presents an opportunity for ‘new’ innovative modes of delivery, which could potentially include Broadway Living. ‘3.5.A core part of the initial Feasibility will be planning considerations, as the site is designated as Metropolitan Open Space and is also included within a Flood Plain. However, there is a significant built footprint on the site and, through innovative design, officers are confident that the site can be enhanced to provide a much higher quality open space provision. This will however be subject to securing planning consent.’

Cabinet took the decision in March 2015 to work with Willmott Dixon, via the SCAPE framework, to consider the feasibility of the long-term replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre. The replacement of Gurnell Leisure Centre would be funded via enabling residential development on the site, with the aim of the scheme being cost neutral to the council, whilst adding to the housing provision in the borough. Subsequent reports were taken through Cabinet in July and November 2015, updating on the design and legal aspects of the scheme respectively.

In September 2019, Cabinet received a further Report, the purpose of which was:

‘To update Cabinet on the current development proposals for Gurnell Leisure Centre, including the status of the project and potential inclusion of affordable housing into the scheme. To seek Cabinet authority to amend the terms of the deal structure with Be:Here Limited (the Developer).’

Relevant to this application, Cabinet noted and resolved accordingly in relation to the incorporation of affordable housing (aka Blocks A and B) in the scheme within the new Leisure Centre building. In doing so, it also noted that the original intention to seek an ‘enabling’ residential development would be more appropriately be defined as a ‘facilitating’ residential development as the affordable housing component was not essential to delivery of the leisure centre but enabled the proposals to help meet wider Council affordable housing objectives:

3.1. The primary objective of the Gurnell project has been to provide a new leisure centre to be funded through enabling residential development. It should be noted that the planning case for development on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) requires that ‘inappropriate development’ is only permitted where it can be demonstrated that ‘very special circumstances’ exist. Where ‘inappropriate development’ is considered critical, as it in this instance in the form of residential development to fund the replacement of the leisure centre, the residential component should be the absolute minimum necessary to financially enable delivery of the new leisure centre.

3.2. In line with the principle of ‘enabling development’ as outlined above, the financial design of the project was initially intended to generate a sufficient surplus to assist with bridging the leisure centre funding gap, but with no additional cross subsidy remaining to deliver affordable housing. Whilst this approach was helpful in minimising the quantum of development on MOL, and essential in qualifying as ‘enabling development’, it meant that any affordable housing provision would have to be funded from external funding sources. In practice this may have involved using grant funding to convert a proportion of the market units into affordable units, although the quantum and type of affordable units secured through this approach would be constrained relative to the standard model where the scheme itself cross-subsidises the affordable housing element.

Page 9 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

3.3. Since agreeing the original model of enabling development, the Council has strengthened its commitment to increase the number of affordable homes in the borough. In light of this and following further engagement with the GLA and the planning authority, it is now proposed that an additional objective of the project should be to optimise the number of genuinely affordable homes secured through the scheme.

3.4. With this in mind and taking into account the progression of the scheme since the Cabinet decision in 2015, it is more appropriate to treat the incorporation of affordable housing as a desirable objective in accordance with the Council’s commitment to deliver more affordable housing particularly on Council-owned land, and market housing to deliver the new leisure centre. In this context it is seen as a facilitating-, rather than enabling-, development, in the terms it is understood in national guidance, case law and planning practice, i.e. that the new leisure centre would be facilitated by the cross finance made available by the residential development.

3.5. Since the last Gurnell update report to Cabinet in March 2016, the scheme has continued to present viability challenges and The Council and the Developer have been in discussion for some time in order to identify the means by which the viability of the scheme could be improved…., the GLA have approved the funding for the scheme as part of the ‘Building Council Homes for Londoners’ funding programme. The proposed incorporation of affordable housing into the Gurnell scheme provides an opportunity to improve the viability of the scheme through utilisation of this grant funding and additionally supports the Council in meeting its affordable housing delivery target.

3.6. However, there has remained a viability challenge to deliver the scheme. As a result, an alternative delivery approach has been developed whereby the Council would directly deliver part of the scheme… This would be a change from the baseline approach which had previously been developed where the Developer would build out the full scheme.’

Design Development The scheme formulation has been developed during the pre-application stage and tested in presentations to the GLA and consultation with LBE Officers and Council appointed independent consultants: • Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) – Financial Viability Assessment • Energence – Energy and monitoring

Details of the pre-submission consultation and engagement undertaken are set out below. The applicant has prepared a Design and Access Statement to provide a discrete rationale for the development, which accompanies the application, beginning with evaluation of site and other constraints and opportunities as set out in the extract below.

GLA consultation was carried out from 2017 to 2019. Although no formal DRP was convened, nevertheless, the GLA Officer input in the areas of Urban Design, Policy, Energy and from TfL provided the necessary level of expertise to comment and advise on the same matters. GLA Officers themselves concluded as such in there pre application consultation letter:

‘An independent design review has not been undertaken. Instead, you have undertaken an iterative process of design review with the GLA and Ealing Council officers that has resulted in substantial revisions to the scheme over a two-year period. Subject to addressing concerns set out above in respect of residential quality, GLA officers are supportive of the proposed design and layout of the scheme and consider this to have been sufficiently scrutinised at pre-application stage.’

In detail there was an initial pre-application meeting on the proposals on 20th October 2017, for which a pre-application response was issued by the GLA in March 2018. Subsequent informal follow up meetings and design workshops took place with GLA officers on 27th March, 24th August and 9th October 2018, which have informed the current proposals. Page 10 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Design development iterations of the scheme from 2016 to 2018 produced in consultation with the GLA are set out below. The design changes related to addressing GLA concerns with regard to encroachment into the undeveloped area of the MOL parkland and in relation to minimising adverse impacts on residential amenity whilst achieving high design quality:

Page 11 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

A second follow-up pre-application meeting with the GLA was held on the 11th January 2019, and the GLA issued the follow-up pre application response on the15th February 2019 which re- confirmed the strategic planning position towards to development as outlined in their initial response:

‘9. The GLA’s pre-application advice issued on 23rd March 2018 set out support for the principle of an enhanced indoor and outdoor sporting facilities on the site and accepted the need for a new leisure centre; however, in view of the site’s MOL designation, GLA officers confirmed that the applicant must demonstrate that very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm caused to the openness of the MOL and any other harm. The applicant was required to redesign the layout of the scheme to minimise the amount of inappropriate development and harm to openness as far as possible through good design and by avoiding encroachment into ‘greenfield’ MOL and focusing additional enabling development on previously developed parts of the site adjacent to Ruislip Road East. In addition, the applicant was advised that the scheme should provide: • significant enhancements to the quality, use and enjoyment of the park in terms of accessibility, outdoor sporting facilities, landscaping and biodiversity improvements, whilst also avoiding any unacceptable deficiency in local open space provision; and • a significant affordable housing offer would positively contribute as part of a wider package of public benefits to support the applicant’s case for very special circumstances and suggested that the applicant pursue all available funding sources, given the costs associated with the scheme and the site constraints highlighted above.’

This follow up pre-application response advised:

‘The principle of redeveloping the existing facility is strongly supported given its current condition and the significant costs associated with its repair and refurbishment.’ ‘The requirement for the replacement leisure centre to be cross-subsidised by a significant quantum of enabling residential development is also accepted given the costs of providing the new facility and lack of available public funding.’ 'The applicant has responded positively to the GLA’s initial pre-application advice set out above by substantially amending the original masterplan proposals to reduce the net loss of ‘greenfield’ MOL and a comprehensive scheme for the enhancement of the MOL parkland is proposed, which is welcomed.’ ‘The scale of the development would evidently constitute a step-change in terms of the prevailing building heights in the area and would clearly impact the sense of openness within the MOL; however, GLA officers consider that the current proposal strikes an appropriate balance Page 12 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 between providing sufficient enabling residential development, ensuring good design and restricting the extent of development to the previously developed parts of the site in order to minimise harm to the MOL.’

Following the issue of the GLA pre-app letter on 15th February 2019, a follow up meeting took place with GLA officers on 19th May 2019 to discuss and review the principle of development, housing and affordable housing, urban design, climate change and transport. An amended proposal was presented incorporating the GLA pre-app comments received where possible. GLA Officers were satisfied with the amended proposal and raised no further issues.

Formal pre-application consultation on the same scheme was carried out with LBE Officers in October 2019 and the advice letter was issued in April 2020. The consultation was carried out in respect of the proposals now contained in the application and set out in more detail below in this Report, in particular, in relation to the location and layout of the proposed buildings.

Community Engagement The Council has carried out a number of public consultation meetings between May 2016 and September 2019 to inform local residents about the proposals.

There has been carried out a total of 10 separate consultation events between these dates in the Leisure Centre, Hathaway Primary School and Gurnell Grove Community Centre. The dates and locations of each event were: • 19th May 2016, Hathaway Primary School, 6.30pm - 8.30pm • 9th June 2016, Hathaway Primary School, 6.30pm - 8.30pm • 14th July 2016, Hathaway Primary School, 6.30pm - 8.30pm • 20th October 2016, Gurnell Grove Community Centre, 6.30pm - 8.30pm • 26th January 2017, Gurnell Grove Community Centre, 6.30pm - 8.30pm • 30th October 2017, Gurnell Leisure Centre, 4.00pm - 9.00pm • 31st October 2017, Gurnell Leisure Centre, 6.30am - 2.00pm • 21st March 2018, Gurnell Grove Community Centre, 7.00pm - 8.30pm • 25th September 2019, Gurnell Grove Community Centre, 7.00pm - 8.30pm • 28th September 2019, Gurnell Grove Community Centre, 10.00am - 2.00pm

The format of the events ranged from displaying information banners, a PowerPoint presentation and a Q&A. Members of the Ecoworld project team were present to answer specific questions from members of the public. Feedback cards were also made available for written comments. Details are summarised in the Statement of Community Involvement.

Post Submission Community Engagement The applicant has undertaken ongoing community engagement post-submission and during the determination of the application. The following Statement of actions undertaken has been prepared by the applicant’s communications consultant, taking account of national constraints on public and face to face engagement precluded by the Pandemic:

‘Post submission engagement Following the submission of the planning application, the applicant continued to engage with the local community and relevant stakeholders, as had been done during the pre-application phase in accordance with the NPPF and LB Ealing’s Statement of Community Involvement. The applicant had planned to hold a face-to-face information event following the submission of the planning application which would outline the final proposals and allow attendees to speak with the project team directly. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent government restrictions on public gatherings a new engagement strategy, using online tools has been devised in order for meaningful engagement to still take place. These took the form of community newsletters, a new website and a live PowerPoint presentation online, followed by a Q&A session.

Page 13 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

‘Community newsletters On 4 June 2020 community newsletters were sent to 6,517 local addresses to advertise the launch of the new, bespoke website. The newsletter featured an overview of the proposals, the website address, contact details for the project team, allowing those who are not computer savvy or do not have access to the internet, the opportunity to get in touch via Freephone or Freepost. Also provided on the newsletter was the URL address for the Council’s Planning Services website and application reference number which allowed members of the public to view the planning file and leave their comments.

‘On 14 July another newsletter was sent to the same scope of addresses to advertise the PowerPoint presentation and Q&A session. The applicant held two of these, the first one on Wednesday 22 July from 6.30pm – 8.00om and the second on Saturday 25 July from 10.30am – 12.00om. The times and days were specifically chosen to ensure at least one of the sessions would suit local residents.

‘A third newsletter was sent to the same scope of addresses on 9 December 2020 which again outlined the reasons why the development was required. This newsletter also sought to respond to the key issues which had come up during the post-submission engagement.

Figure 1: Geographical scope of the newsletters

Page 14 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

‘Post submission website There is an existing website for the proposals, which has been live since 2017 and has been updated throughout the pre-application phase, however, it was felt that a brand-new website would be more appropriate to host the post-submission consultation website. As such, the applicant designed a bespoke new website, which will give details of the proposals in an easily navigated format.

‘The website outlined the vision for the development, some of the design changes to the masterplan based on the pre-application consultation responses and the final details of the proposals as submitted to the Council. The site contained contact details for the project team and a place for visitors to leave feedback. The website went live on 14 July, the same day a community newsletter was sent to the addresses outlined above.

‘PowerPoint presentation Two PowerPoint presentations hosted on Wednesday 22 July and Saturday 25 July, respectively. These were also advertised by community newsletters and additional emails were sent to a stakeholder database compiled by the applicant throughout the pre-application and post-application engagement to date. The live presentation was given by the applicant with additional input from Cllr Bassam Mahfouz and a representative from Ealing Council. Each presentation was followed by a 45-minute Q&A session where attendees could question the members of the project team.

‘Engagement for those without internet access Whilst the main post-submission engagement took place online, the applicant ensured all materials included a dedicated Freephone telephone number and Freepost address for those without access online. Anyone who wished to provide feedback was able to request further information via these methods and would have been able to discuss the proposals with a member of the team by phone.

‘Timeline • Submission of application – April 2020 • Community newsletter to advertise website launch – 4 June 2020 • Post-submission website launch – 4 June 2020 • Community newsletter to advertise the live presentations and Q&A session – 14 July 2020 • PowerPoint presentation and Q&A sessions – 22 July 2020 & 25 July 2020 • Community newsletter in response to feedback received – 9 December 2020’

It is considered that the nature and extent of the consultation has been as inclusive as reasonably possible within the Pandemic constraints on public gatherings. Accordingly, it is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Council’s amended SCI consultation protocol.

The Proposals Although the site extends to 13.2ha only about 4ha is proposed to accommodate built development with 1.42ha of that actually accommodating new buildings.

The following comments prepared by Leisure Services explains the purpose and objectives of this sport and leisure-driven application:

‘Overview The Leisure department supports this planning application to re provide an enhanced state of the art sport and leisure facility at the existing Gurnell Leisure Centre location, for reasons detailed below.

The new facility will provide a range of facilities including a 10 lane 50 metre swimming pool with two submersible booms and two moveable floors, a recreational fun swimming pool aimed at Page 15 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 under 8’s, a soft play area, café, studio spaces, a gym and fitness suite, main pool spectator area and all the necessary ancillary facilities.

As well as the new leisure building, the project will also include the construction of a new floodlit skate facility, which will be designed in partnership with the Skate Association and will include all the latest features. The new regional standard BMX track to be built close by to replace the existing pump track is part of a separate planning application which is currently pending decision.

These new sport and leisure facilities will provide residents of all ages and abilities with the opportunity to try a range of new activities and to maintain and increase their own levels of physical activity, thus promoting both physical and mental health and wellbeing across Ealing, resulting in a healthier borough.

‘Demand for water space There is an identified need for the proposed swimming pool space in the borough, the current Ealing Sports Facility Strategy 2012-21 indicates that the proposed water space of approximately 1,334 square metres, not including the recreational pool space aimed at under 8’s activity, is needed to meet the predicted levels of demand established in 2012, for 2021.

In the period since the strategy was written, the supply of water space in Ealing as measured by Sport England’s Facility Planning Model (FPM) has decreased, however the demand for pool space in Ealing has risen due to the population growing to a level over and above that predicted back in 2012 and the increasing levels of demand for pool space all the borough’s wetside facilities are currently experiencing, especially at peak times for activities such as learn to swim, club swimming sessions and public lane swimming.

Pool space in all of the public facilities is at a premium during peak hours, with very little if any spare capacity. The demand for learn to swim places has meant that both Ealing’s leisure operators run 7 day a week year-round programmes to try and meet demand.

Another important user group at the new facility and across all of Ealing’s pools is Ealing Swimming Club and all its sub sections. Due to the Club’s continued success and popularity over recent years, as well as the breadth of water-based opportunities offered, the Club membership has risen to approximately 1,800 members of all ages and abilities. The new facilities will help meet the future needs of the Club as it will provide an excellent range of water-based facilities.

In summary, the supply side of the analysis has shown a reduction since that predicted in 2012 and the demand side has grown at a much faster rate than that predicted in 2012 due to both the rapid increase in population and the demand for pool space in Ealing due to many factors including the desire to be active.

‘The new water-based facilities The main 10 lane 50 metre pool with its two moveable floors and 2 submerging booms will have the functionality to be split into pools of various sizes and of different depths, which will allow an extensive programme of activities for people of all ages and abilities to be delivered at any one time.

The recreational swimming pool space will be designed to attract young families particularly parents and toddlers and under 12’s, with specific attractions and features for under 5’s and 6 – 12 year olds such as a flume, wave machine, lazy river and splash pad area for small children and their parents. Ealing hasn’t to date had a purpose-built wet side facility catering for this young target group, the proposed design will complement the soft play area which is also aimed at young families and children. These facilities are aimed at engaging young families, encouraging them to be active together, setting healthy activity habits for life. There are few facilities within a 20-mile radius of the centre offering leisure water and this, combined with the soft play offer will enable Gurnell to become a destination venue for families. Page 16 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

‘The new Health and fitness facilities The studio spaces will provide facilities for a wide range of activities including group exercise, martial arts, low impact exercise classes, etc. and a separate bike/spin studio. Group exercise classes are in high demand at present as the current market trend is for group led activity, which is also a popular form of exercise for women who are generally recognised as being less active than men.

The gym facility will provide space for the operator to provide a wide range of the latest workout equipment and concepts including zoning of areas for stretching, cardio, heavy weights, etc. The health and fitness offer usually drives the gym membership sales which make sports and leisure facilities viable in the long term.

‘The new replacement regional BMX facility The council is working with Access Sport and the very successful Ealing BMX Club to design, fund and build a new regional standard BMX facility to be located close to the existing pump track and near to other outdoor sports facilities in Perivale. There is currently a planning application for this new facility pending decision with Ealing under the reference 201541FUL.

Pre Covid – 19 lock down, the aim was to have the new facility up and running by the end of this summer, to ensure that there would be a seamless transition from the existing pump track at Gurnell to the new much improved regional facility. It is still hoped that planning permission will be granted, and the current funding applications lodged prior to lockdown will be successful resulting in construction starting later this summer. The impact of lockdown has meant that funding decisions have been delayed but it is hoped that grants will be confirmed soon.

The location of the new regional standard facility designed for competitive racing as well as beginners, is within 100 metres of Perivale Park Athletics Track, Perivale Park Golf Course which has a cafe and Perivale Park itself which has grass football and cricket pitches, tennis courts and a distance marker route. This much improved, dedicated new venue will be close to other year- round outdoor sports venues currently operated by the council’s leisure partner Everyone Active.

‘Replacement skate facilities To mitigate the impact of the Gurnell skate park closure, the council worked in partnership with the existing Skate Association based at Gurnell, early in the process to identify an alternate site in the borough for a new replacement skate facility with all the latest designs and features. The preferred venue was Acton Park, which has excellent public transport links as well as other activities available in the park such as Putt in the Park which has a café, a distance marker route and outdoor gym equipment. By planning ahead and funding the design and construction of the new Acton Park facility the council has ensured that there will be a continuation of skate facility provision during the construction period.

The new floodlit skate facility in Acton Park opened last year and is already popular with users from across the borough. The council has also purchased a free standing/mobile wooden half pipe ramp that can be relocated to the Acton Park skate facility or placed adjacent to the new BMX regional facility when the Gurnell skate facility closes. This will mean that once the skate facilities are reopened at Gurnell, Ealing will have 2 high quality skate facilities available to residents.

‘Grass football pitches The latest Playing Pitch Strategy and the current Ealing Sports Facility Strategy Action Plan 2020 - 21 confirm that the grass football pitches adjacent to Gurnell Leisure Centre are not needed and teams who are using the pitches can be accommodated nearby due to spare capacity during the winter season at other sports grounds.

In the short term the alternative pitch sites would be Perivale Park and/or Rectory Park; in the long-term Ealing Central Sports Ground, will also be an option, once the drainage works have Page 17 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 been completed. All three sites are multi pitch sites with changing rooms, with spare capacity to accommodate existing users of the Gurnell pitches.

According to booking records, the only user of the Gurnell football pitch during the 2019/20 season was a local private school, on a Wednesday afternoon. The private school has its own extensive sports ground nearby, including multiple rugby pitches and an artificial grass pitch. This Wednesday afternoon usage could easily be switched to either the school’s own sports ground or Perivale Park which is easily within walking distance of the grass pitches at Gurnell.

In the 2018/19 season, a club based in Wembley and registered under Brent, used the grass pitch for 2 hours on a Sunday morning, should this club wish to hire pitches in the Perivale area of Ealing in coming season’s there is availability on a Sunday morning at the same grounds mentioned above, note Rectory Park also has the option of booking 3G pitches. This availability is based on pitch booking information from the 2019/20 season.’

The application is described below in terms of its 3 principle-built components, referring to the proposed site layout plan below:

Leisure Centre and Affordable Housing Blocks A & B. Market Residential Blocks C-D & E-F.

Below is a CGI image of the scheme viewed from the south, with housing on Gurnell Grove in the foreground:

Page 18 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The ground floor layout is as follows:

Construction is phased as set out below:

The development will comprise of 4 principal phases: 1. Formation of construction site access onto Argyle Road (No.8 on the plan), demolition of the Leisure Centre, cark park, play area, skate park and BMX track, 2. Construction of shared basement, new Leisure Centre, affordable housing Blocks A and B and foundations to market residential Blocks C and D, 3. Construction of Blocks C and D, 4. Construction of Blocks E and F.

Within the shared basement and surface parking: • 168 resident car parking spaces, which includes19 Blue Badge parking spaces; • 175 Leisure Centre customer parking spaces with15 parking spaces for the disabled; • 1,030 secure residential cycle spaces and 17 residential visitor spaces; • 114 Leisure Centre customer cycle spaces and 6 staff cycle spaces and • 4 Leisure Centre coach parking spaces.

Page 19 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

a. Replacement Leisure Centre The existing provision compared to the proposed comprises:

Existing Leisure Centre Proposed Leisure Centre Main pool Total length: 50m Total length: 50m Total width: 13-15m Total width: 25m

Total area: approx. 760sqm. Total area: 1,250sqm

Divided in 2 sections (one Incorporates moveable floors to create up approx. 24m x 13m – the to 3 separate smaller pools 25x 25, 25x other 26m x 15m). 12.5 and 25x8.5. Leisure / fun pool Total area: 488sqm Total area: 330sqm To include flume, wave pool, lazy river and rock pool and beach Spectator area 127sqm 167sqm Changing facilities 1092 sqm 1128 sq. m (937sqm wet and 155 sqm (775 wet change and 353 sqm dry change dry) plus toilets) Gym facilities 303sqm 881 sqm Activity studios 1 x 156sqm Studio and 1 x 3 x studios 492sqm plus breakout area 122sqm Spinning studio (68sqm) Total area: 278sqm Total area: 560 sqm Soft Play Not provided 250 sqm double height soft play area plus 126 sqm party room Cafe Not provided 139 sqm (exc toilet and corridor) Meeting Rooms Not provided 60 sqm Club and Meeting rooms Parking 175 spaces surface level 175 spaces underground Total useable floor 5460 sqm 7914 sqm area of Leisure Centre Page 20 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 b. Parkland Landscaping In accordance with the Leisure Services objectives for the park enhancements as outlined earlier in this Section, the proposal will provide improved and enhanced outdoor landscaped facilities in the park area, including a playground, skate park, BMX track, trim trail and distance marker routes and a new pedestrian footbridge over the River Brent.

Other than relocation of the BMW track, no direct works are proposed for the NW part of the application site.

The proposals are also designed to improve the biodiversity of the site and the adjacent SINC. The applicant’s Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment notes:

The landscaping condition will ensure compliance. Nevertheless, the park enhancement will be undertaken under the auspices of the Council’s Leisure Department.

The landscaping scheme is shown below:

Page 21 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The comparison plan below explains the proposed changes to the park. The layout of the BMX track is illustrative only and does not form part of this application:

Enhancements to the wider parkland comprise:

- New pedestrian and cycle accessible bridge and footpaths to provide more direct routes from Perivale and to South Greenford Station. - New fitness circuits and trails, with distance markers and exercise stations. - Biodiversity enhancements –improvements to species diversity, differential mowing of grassland, and habitat improvements to the Brent corridor. - The new paths and bridge will open up more direct access to underused fields to the north-west of the Leisure Centre site, promoting the linkages with the Perivale Park athletics ground, golf course and sports pitches - Flood water management scheme.

The works will be carried out by LBE Leisure Department with financial contributions from the developer as set out below and in the recommendation:

1. £80,000 towards relocation of the BMX track, 2. £100,000 towards a pedestrian bridge crossing of the River Brent, 3. £1,679,403 plus £150,000, being the cost of construction and maintenance of the new park works, including flood mitigation measures, landscaping, green infrastructure, play equipment.

The scheme would involve the construction of a total of 14,292sqm footprint of new buildings, hard-standings, car park and access roads, amounting to an increase of 77sqm (or 0.54%) over the existing 14,215sqm of ‘previously developed land’, as indicated on the plan below:

Page 22 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Proposed s106 agreement clauses will secure that no work will commence on the private residential component of the development (save for the construction of the shared basement substructure) until construction works have commenced on the new Leisure Centre.

Flood mitigation A key component of the delivery of the parkland improvements will be direct measures to manage, control and direct the west-east over land flow of flood waters across Argyle Road from the River Brent during extreme rainfall events, away from sensitive receptors such as the housing in Peal Gardens and which currently sterilise areas of the park, such as the football pitches, after heavy rainfall.

The applicant’s Design and Access Statement sets out the main components of the mitigation scheme as:

‘The designs accommodate an overland flow path which channels surface water from off-site areas to the east into the River Brent. A meandering channel crosses the site from south-east to north-west to aid overland flow in extreme rainfall events. This minimises flood risk to neighbouring areas in accordance with Environment Agency requirements for the area. Localised mounding, associated with the skate-park, frontage to Ruislip Road and Play Area and does not impact on the overland flow. this mounding helps screen traffic and embeds the skatepark within the wider landscape. An area within the parkland north of the Leisure Centre has been identified where the landscape offers scope to attenuate the flow of surface water from the roof of the Leisure Centre in heavy rainfall. This is achieved by locally reducing levels to create a basin. In storm events this partially fills with water, and then gradually empties to maintain a steady discharge rate into the Brent. This offers a further opportunity to create seasonally wet or damp habitats and will be designed to complement the differential mowing regime and the footpath network as part of the mosaic of habitats and intimate scaled parkland.’

The applicant has undertaken consultation directly with the Environment Agency (EA). Following initial objection the EA has been provided by the applicant with additional data and information that enabled the EA to withdraw the objection, subject to the imposition of a condition concerning the provision and management of a buffer zone to the River Brent, which is included in the Page 23 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 recommendation. The main components of the proposed flood strategy and management scheme is below and has been incorporated into the landscaping plan for the park:

Relocation of the BMX Track Implementation of the development would commence with the construction of the shared basement and the current BMX track (as well as the ply ground, and skateboard park) will need to be relocated to facilitate this. Application 201541FUL has been made for relocation of the BMX track to the current site of an overflow car park in the north west corner of the park and which is presently under consideration.

To ensure a timely re-provision and in response to comments from Sport England, a condition is proposed to secure its replacement in conjunction with commencement of the new leisure centre building works. Sport England has advised that it supports this condition and raises no objections to the application.

Amenity/Play Space The application proposes the following: 1. the full re-provision of the existing 1190sqm playground – with an additional 2564sqm required to support the quantum of new development, making a total play provision across the site of 3752sqm, 2. private amenity space for the flats in the form of balconies sized in accordance with the relevant policy standards to ensure a suitable provision of private amenity

Page 24 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

3. communal amenity space for exclusive use by future occupants is provided in the form of a podium garden on the roof of the 6-storey link building between Blocks C and D, 4. New public realm/open space in the area currently comprising the surface car park. c. Facilitating Residential Development Six Residential Blocks totalling 599 residential apartments: comprising 33 x studio, 263x 1 bed, 266x 2 bed and 37x 3 bed units.

Blocks A and B will flank the new Leisure Centre building on its west and east sides. They will contain the affordable housing.

Blocks C, D, E and F lie on the east side of a central plaza space to the Leisure Centre. Blocks C and D are partly supported on a podium slab above a basement car park. Blocks D (remainder), E and F are to be located on the site of the existing surface public car park. The basement car park also extends below part of the leisure centre to provide shared parking and to accommodate plant and equipment.

In addition, the scheme proposes 480sqm of retail space in two units on the ground floor of residential Blocks C and E to assist in Place Making.

The developer will also be responsible for the provision of open amenity space for the residential part of the development and at the plaza ‘interface’ with the leisure centre.

Affordable and Market Housing Provision Consistent with the Council’s commitment to secure the delivery of 2500 genuinely affordable new homes, following consultation with the GLA and the decision by the Council in September 2019 to optimise the affordable housing provision secured through the application scheme, the proposal evolved during the course of pre application consultation to include affordable, as well as market, housing.

The financial design of the project was initially intended in 2015 to generate a sufficient surplus to assist with bridging the leisure centre funding gap and contained no additional cross subsidy remaining to deliver affordable housing. Whilst this approach was helpful in minimising the quantum of development on MOL and essential in qualifying as ‘enabling development’, it meant that any affordable housing provision would have to be funded from external funding sources.

In practice this may have involved using grant funding to convert a proportion of the market units into affordable units, although the quantum and type of affordable units secured through this approach would be constrained relative to the standard model where the scheme itself cross- subsidises the affordable housing element. Additional funding is also available from the GLA to help fund and optimise the affordable provision.

Given the inclusion of affordable housing is a desirable aim to help the Council meet its commitments, the development has changed from an ‘enabling development’ (i.e. supported only by market housing) to a ‘facilitating development’, supported by market and affordable housing. The application is therefore assessed on this basis, although the principles of analysing a ‘facilitating development’ set out below remain broadly the same.

The residential distribution is set out in the Tables below.

Page 25 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The affordable mix is:

London Affordable Rent Buildings A Unit type Quantum Percentage Studio 0 0.0% 1B2P 34 34.7% 2B3P 0 0.0% 2B4P 52 53.1% 3B4P 0 0.0% 3B5P 12 12.2% Sub-Total 98 100.0%

Shared Ownership Building B Unit type Quantum Percentage Studio 17 17.3% 1B2P 33 33,7% 2B3P 14 14.3% 2B4P 34 34.7% 3B4P 0 0.0% 3B5P 0 0.0% Sub-Total 98 100.0%

The private dwellings mix is:

Private tenure Buildings C-F Unit type Quantum Percentage Studio 16 4.0% 1B2P 196 48.6% 2B3P 7 1.7% 2B4P 159 39.5% 3B4P 1 0.2% 3B5P 24 6.0% Sub-Total 403 100.0%

The combined mix is:

Private tenure Buildings A-F Unit type Quantum Percentage Studio 33 5.5% 1B2P 263 43.9% 2B3P 21 3.5% 2B4P 245 40.9% 3B4P 1 0.2% 3B5P 36 6.0% Sub-Total 599 100.0%

Page 26 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Of the 599 new flats therefore, 196 are affordable (98 London Affordable Rent and 98 shared ownership (and the remaining 403 private Build to Rent). The affordable housing equates to 32.7% by units or 34.5% by habitable room. LBE Housing Supply Team advises: ‘With respect to the number of affordable homes provided, under the UDP Policy 5.2, 50% of housing provision should be affordable. This is however an enabling development which will provide new leisure facilities for the borough. This application will also provide 35% affordable housing on a habitable room basis.’ For the avoidance of doubt UDP Policy 5.2 is no longer applicable, however the Mayor’s SPG retains a requirement for 50% affordable housing on public land. (Officer Note: This is a ‘facilitating’ rather than ‘enabling’ development however it does not diminish the Housing Supply Team point in any way. THE UDP is no longer part of the development plan but objective of securing 50% affordable remains up to date policy.).

The comments continue: ‘We have considered both tenure mix and bed size in the proposed scheme, we would agree to a number of studios flats in the shared ownership flats tenure where there is some demand for smaller homes. We support the affordable rented bed sizes mix with the inclusion of larger 2 and 3 bed homes which will provide homes for those in need of larger family sized accommodation.’

In terms of accessibility, 90% of the residential units will be built to Part M4(2) (Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings) Building Regulations 2015 with 10% being constructed to M4(3)(2)(a) (Wheelchair User Adaptable) standard which are adjustable for occupation by a wheelchair user.

The number of storeys varies between 6 (Block F) and 17 (Block D). All structures are to be constructed principally on the Previous Developed Land (PDL) of the existing Gurnell Leisure Centre and its adjacent carpark. The Planning Statement advises that the existing PDL provision across the site amounts to 14,215sqm and comprises the existing leisure centre, car park and ancillary hard standing and access.

Facilitating Development Principles Although the concept of enabling development has its pedigree in heritage matters (and is addressed in the same terms in the NPPF paras.79 and 202) it is not confined to that type of alone. The best working definition is found in the Historic England Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places REVISION NOTE June 2012 as: 1.1.1‘Enabling development’ is development that would be unacceptable in planning terms but for the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not otherwise be achieved. While normally a last resort, it is an established and useful planning tool by which a community may be able to secure the long-term future of … other public benefits, provided it is satisfied that the balance of public advantage lies in doing so. The public benefits are paid for by the value added to land as a result of the granting of planning permission for its development’ (my emphasis).

As affordable housing is not necessary to secure the delivery of the replacement leisure centre, the scheme is now better described as a ‘facilitating development’, which is a term of art. There is no universally agreed definition but as the name implies, it is directed to a development that facilitates, rather than enables, the delivery of a public benefit. The provision of affordable housing within the scheme will be a material planning consideration, to be weighed alongside the other benefits or dis-benefits of the scheme.

Whatever approach is taken it is still necessary to ensure that the scale of residential development is no more than necessary i.e. the optimum, to secure delivery of the leisure centre whilst minimising impacts on MOL openness and other material planning considerations.

Page 27 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Financial Viability Assessment (VA) The applicant has prepared a Viability Assessment (James R. Brown &Co.), which is necessary to confirm if the scheme qualifies as facilitating/enabling development. This assessment has allowed us to verify whether the level of housing development is no more than is needed to generate the (the fixed) receipt needed to fund (albeit in part) the leisure centre and other obligations (outdoor recreation package in particular in this case). The VA considers the application scheme (the ‘Base Scenario’), alongside 5 other Sensitivity Scenarios. The purpose of examining these scenarios is to understand the degree to which adjusting certain parameters (namely the affordable percentage) influences the volume of development needed to secure the delivery of the replacement leisure centre. Through this sensitivity analysis it is then possible to confirm whether the scheme (with affordable provision at 34%) represents the optimum one from the perspective of limiting the quantum of inappropriate development on MOL, whilst maximising the genuinely affordable offer.

An analysis of the James R. Brown &Co Report is covered later in this Report: ‘Sensitivity Scenario 1 – as per the Base Scenario but accounting for a £12.5m grant from LBE plus GLA grant funding of £100,000 per London Affordable Rent unit. Sensitivity Scenario 2 – an identification of what quantum of development would be required to drive a reasonable commercial profit percentage based upon a 50% affordable housing provision (at 50:50 rent to intermediate and accounting for the £12.5m LBE grant plus GLA grant funding of £100,000 per London Affordable Rent unit. Sensitivity Scenario 3 – an identification of what quantum of development would be required to drive a reasonable commercial profit percentage based upon a 0% affordable housing provision (but still accounting for the £12.5m LBE grant). Sensitivity Scenario 4 – an identification of what quantum of development would be required to drive the same profit sum (approx.) as per Sensitivity Scenario 1 based upon a 50% affordable housing provision (at 50:50 rent to intermediate and accounting for the £12.5m LBE grant plus GLA grant funding of £100,000 per London Affordable Rent unit. Sensitivity Scenario 5 – an identification of what quantum of development would be required to drive the same profit sum (approx.) as per Sensitivity Scenario 1 based upon a 0% affordable housing provision (but still accounting for the £12.5m LBE grant).’

The VA concludes:

‘24.0 CONCLUSION 24.1 Our appraisal of the Base Scenario drives a negative residual profit. 24.2 As this is below 17% on total cost, this confirms that the proposed scheme falls short of being viable. 24.3 The two key elements of the scheme that are causing it to fall short of being viable are the leisure centre and the affordable housing. The rest of the scheme is struggling to cross subsidise delivery thereof.’

The conclusions have been independently assessed for the Council by Lambert Smith (LSH). The full text of their Report and Supplemental are attached in Appendix 2.

They conclude as follows, firstly in relation to the Base Scenario:

‘5.66 The applicant’s Financial Viability Analysis, calculated on the assumptions set out above show this proposal making a net loss of £7.213 million, a loss of -3.04% on costs or -3.14% on GDV. Clearly, on this analysis it is not feasible to undertake the development without external grant funding, or alterations to the type and quantity of accommodation provided. With the scheme making a loss, it would not take place and hence the LBE would not obtain a replacement for the existing leisure centre.

‘5.67 In our analysis, despite slightly different inputs, we reach a broadly similar conclusion for the base case, although the envisaged loss is higher at £27.91 million or -11.10% on costs. Page 28 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Although our Gross Development Value is very similar to the Applicant’s FVA, this is offset by the higher envisaged build cost overall leading to a higher loss.

‘5.68 Concluding from the above, the Base Scenario is not a financially viable option.’

With regard to the 5 alternative or Sensitivity Scenarios, LSH conclude: ‘7.4 Given LSH’s analysis of the Base Scenario and Scenario 1 results in a lower profit outcome than that calculated in the applicant’s FVA, in the latter Scenarios 4 and 5 a lower profit is targeted, hence Scenario 5 (i.e. the quantum of development that would be required based on the same profit sum (approx.) as per Sensitivity Scenario 1 but with no affordable housing) appearing more favourable, with a lower quantum of development required to meet the lower profit level targeted.

‘7.5 In conclusion, none of the options appraised appears to generate a normal commercial profit and therefore: • The proposed scheme appears to optimise the development of the site.

• LBE will not be likely to be able to negotiate higher levels of financial terms for S106 Settlement without negatively impacting upon scheme viability.

• It will not be feasible to obtain more social housing (and deliver the leisure centre) without further capital or grant funding.

• The development is reliant on grant funding.

• The development is likely to seek further value engineering on build costs.

• The developers appear to be able source more favourable financing costs than others in the market, assisting in the delivery of the scheme.’

In September 2020, LSH prepared a Supplemental Note (also contained in Appendix 2) to explain differences in figures quoted by the LSH report and JRB report. The disparities arose from the applicant’s valuation depending on a cost estimate, produced by their own cost consultants. LSH depend instead on a cost estimate, produced by LBE cost consultants (Core 5).

Having assessed the relevance of the differences to the Scenarios, LSH was still able to conclude:

‘With LBE having commissioned separate cost assessment from Core 5 – who concluded a higher build cost – our scenario 1 analysis showed a much smaller profit (2.11%). When a similar approach to the elements is adopted of the scenario 4 and 5 appraisals, the differences vary (as the profit comes from the variable private housing, but much of the scheme is the hard fixed costs of the platform and leisure box).

‘Despite these variances and nuances in adopted figures/ assumptions, the overall conclusions remain the same that none of the options appraised appears to generate a normal commercial profit.’

To inform the Mayor’s assessment, the GLA Viability Team assessed the applicant’s VA and the LSH Review as part of the Stage 1 referral. They conclude: ‘8.1 The testing shows that the proposed scheme includes the maximum reasonable quantum of affordable housing and requires grant to support delivery.

Page 29 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

8.2 It also shows that assuming the proposed tenure mix, 599 residential units are required for the scheme to provide a reasonable profit on the residential element of the scheme and so enable delivery.

8.3 The only realistic option tested for reducing the quantum of residential on this site would seem to be a market only scheme of c500 units. Assuming the applicant’s inputs on costs and values, even this produces a profit below standard market assumptions.

8.4 Overall the testing demonstrates that residential development and public subsidy at the levels assumed are required to enable the delivery of the new leisure centre on this site.

8.5 Increasing the percentage of affordable housing within the scheme would mean that a larger quantum of residential accommodation would be required to maintain the same viability position. 50% affordable housing requires an additional 9% residential development assuming the same profit sum.

8.6 The scheme includes a large basement car park that contributes significantly to the costs. If this was reduced in size it may be possible to reduce the quantum of residential development and achieve the same profit out-turns. However, it is understood that it may difficult to reduce the basement significantly as it contains part of the swimming pool/leisure centre uses and the parking would need to be provided elsewhere if not removed entirely.

8.7 The Leisure Centre should be secured in perpetuity as a not for profit community facility with appropriate clawback provisions should that change.

8.8 The s106 agreement should include provision for both early and late stage reviews.’

Even with the differences between the LSH and James R. Brown having been acknowledged, the overall conclusion is that none of the Scenarios generate a return to normal commercial profit.

Accordingly the analyses carried out establish that the application scheme is not more than necessary to secure delivery of the leisure centre, and the application (base scenario) scheme represents the optimum one from the perspective of limiting the quantum of inappropriate development on MOL, whilst maximising the genuinely affordable offer secured. The recommendation includes clauses relating to early and late stage review. As the Leisure Centre will continue to be situated on Council owned land it is not necessary to include as a clause in the s106 agreement, it as a not for profit community facility.

Alternative Sites Assessment It has been established that there is a need for a replacement leisure centre (which would involve the associated demolition of the current facility), parkland improvements, alongside facilitating residential units to cross-fund its construction. However, given the MOL status of the site, it was necessary to first carry an objective assessment of the availability of alternative sites in order to ascertain if the application site represents the genuine “site of last resort” in terms of its capability to accommodate individually or together: a. Replacement leisure centre (GLC), b. Facilitating the number of residential units, c. Both uses.

Accordingly, an Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) has been carried out by the applicant and assessed by Officers, with the objective, as summarised in the applicant’s Planning Statement: ‘Such an assessment would go towards establishing if the proposal could be delivered on an alternative site with either (i) a greater degree of benefits, or (ii) a lesser degree of harm, than that of the existing GLC site.’

Page 30 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The methodology for the ASA was agreed with Officers. It was divided into 4 stages, representing logical steps in the process towards identifying whether there are available genuine alternatives. To help ensure availability and timely delivery, it was not considered feasible to select sites in private ownership. The area of search for sites would necessarily also have to be within the Administrative boundary of Ealing. For the avoidance of doubt the developer Ecoworld owns no sites in the Borough. Consequently, only land in the Council’s ownership that was not earmarked for other development was assessed.

Where alternative sites lay outside of non-designated or protected (e.g. Conservation Area, listed building, Ancient Monument) urban/settlement areas, a cascade approach was adopted depending upon the land use designation: Public Open Space, Community Open Space, MOL and Green Belt (GB), noting that some may have multiple designations. Where sites were located in the MOL/GB they were assessed objectively as to whether, compared to the application site, they may be suitable in all or part where they contained previously developed land or buildings, limited infilling, not cause substantial harm to openness, for example.

The following Minimum Development Parameters for identifying and appraising sites were:

Leisure Centre: • all essential leisure functions must be accommodated as part of a single complete facility, • capable of accommodating a minimum footprint of about 0.55ha, excluding car parking and access roads, in an uninterrupted 0.25ha rectangular footprint, • a single rectangular expanse of space suitable for the swimming pool, associated plant and changing facilities, • pool required to be 10 lanes and 50m long, occupying an area of 0.125ha with the ancillary accommodation of 0.125ha.

Residential: • not necessary for all enabling 599 residential units to be provided on the same site as the leisure centre, • not necessary all 599 units must be delivered on a single site, • scope for the residential units to be apportioned across different suitable sites, • for a site to be considered suitable it must be able to deliver a minimum of 50 dwellings to secure a “meaningful contribution” i.e. of sufficient size and capacity to produce a visible material reduction, or complete removal of any, of residential development on the application site that will positively contribute towards minimising impacts on MOL openness.

The sieving process would follow a ‘cascade methodology’ so that if the first criterion is not met, the site is not considered further, resulting in a progressively decreasing list of sites each of which becomes increasingly more suitable for development.

Three criteria were agreed to enable potential sites to realistic respond to the requisite Development Parameters listed above. These were, for residential: • Size: The site measures at least 0.25ha, • Financial Strategy: The site should not have already been allocated for disposal as part of the Council’s Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), • Availability: The site must be generally available so as to ensure a prompt construction.

Non-availability would be determined by the following: • Not under a lease of more than 30 years, • Not land with shared freehold ownership, • Consecrated cemetery or other burial ground, • Statutory allotments, • Part of a wider area for redevelopment. Page 31 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Sites not so affected would move to the next Sieving Phase and a Mini Assessment.

As noted above, sites assessed for the leisure centre would need to have a minimum available site area of 0.55ha. In addition, to be able to provide a generally preferable location they would have to satisfy the following criteria: • Site shape configuration to accommodate a 50, pool, • Catchment and proximity to serve existing Gurnell LC (GLC) user groups, • Better PTAL than Gurnell LC, • Co-location with complementary leisure, sporting facilities in the near vicinity.

Stage 2 Mini Assessments were carried out according to the following criteria/scoring system: • Worse than GLC awarded -1 • The same as GLC awarded 0 • Better than GLC awarded +1

Mini Assessment criteria comprised: flood risk, nature conservation, TPO, Heritage Assets, public access, PTAL, setting, previously developed land and additional leisure centre criteria noted above. Assessment was carried out on an objective basis to ascertain whether candidate sites have any greater harms or benefits than the existing location.

Accordingly, the 4 steps that were formulated, with the results of sites identified at each stage.

Stage 1 – Long List: 542 LBE-owned sites were identified. The following Development Parameters were applied to each:

• a minimum of 0.55ha in size, with a shape that allows for an uninterrupted 0.25ha rectangular footprint for the pool. • -50 units required 0.25ha - the minimum size. • Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS): The site should not have already been allocated for disposal as part of the Council’s MTFS programme. • Availability: The site must be generally available so as to ensure a prompt commencement.

254 of the sites were excluded on the basis that their area was less than the 0.25ha threshold. 288 sites therefore progressed onto the next criteria assessment. 27 of the sites were excluded on the basis that they have already be allocated for disposal as part of the Council’s Medium- Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). 261 sites progressed onto the next criteria assessment.

A high level “Cascade Sieve” method was then applied, using a ‘traffic light’ identification, which excluded those sites that, fundamentally, were inappropriate, unsuitable or unavailable e.g. no reasonable access, mixed occupation/ownership, land use constraints. If the first criterion was not met, the site was rejected and not considered further.

As a result, 183 sites passed through to Stage 2.

Stage 2 – Mini Assessments: A Mini Assessment of each of the 183 sites was undertaken to explore each site in more detail – analysing them against a range of criteria and scoring their performance against the Gurnell LC site as the benchmark in terms of their ability to accommodate a replacement leisure centre, all 599, or at least, 50 dwellings.

Based on the current constraints and opportunities presented by the existing Gurnell LC (for example location in relation to users and groups, accessibility, available previously developed

Page 32 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 land), a set of defined criteria were created, covering ‘sensitivity to change’ e.g. flood risk, environmental constraints and ‘capacity to meet need and generate a receipt’ e.g. accessibility by PTAL, location in relation to settlement areas, previously developed land available.

Sites of each type (Urban, Public and Community Open Spaces, MOL and Green Belt) qualified for assessment to ensure a robust cascading analysis of if the proposal could be delivered on: - an alternative site outside of the Green Belt/MOL/open space designations, and if not, then - a Green Belt/MOL/open space site with either (i) a greater degree of benefits, or (ii) a lesser degree of harm, than that of the existing GLC site.

Following this Assessment, 13 sites were identified as eligible to move to Stage 3.

Stage 3- Capacity Study: To analyse the 13 sites, it was accepted that the replacement Leisure Centre must be delivered in its entirety on a single site in order to be of suitable equivalence to the application scheme and the Council’s objectives for a new facility capable of meeting future need i.e. a fixed footprint of 0.55ha of which 0.25ha would accommodate the pool.

The residential element however, comprising a minimum of 50 units was more flexible. It could, in theory, be delivered across any number of the shortlisted sites.

The Capacity Study examined a site’s minimum and maximum capacity using: • Context and setting (surrounding heights and development quantum), • PTAL, • Size; and • Recommended densities set out in the (former) London Plan Density Matrix. 5.8. (N.B. Although the matrix is no longer applied in the new London Plan it remained an appropriate benchmark to ensure consistency of analysis). This was separate to the 0.55ha required for a Leisure Centre.

Alongside those sites shortlisted, the data obtained was utilised as part of the individual Detailed Assessments in Stage 4 below, to which 13 remaining sites were moved.

Stage 4 – Detailed Sites Assessment: The 13 sites shortlisted for the final analysis were:

Page 33 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

All 13 sites were assessed, when compared against the existing Gurnell LC site, through the same set of criteria whether Urban, Community and/or Public Open Space, Green Belt or MOL.

Referring to the Table above, three: Site 337 Ravenor Park, 485 Brentside School and 486 Ealing Golf Course were the only ones found to have capacity to accommodate the Leisure Centre and residential as well. The other 10, had capacity only to accommodate residential development.

The detailed Site Assessment appraised each site to establish: - Site quality in terms of layout, uses and existing facilities, - Optimum location for at least the minimum level of residential (and leisure centre where relevant) to be located, - Proposed impacts the minimum level of residential (and leisure centre where relevant) would have on site quality and suitability. In addition, the scope for the level of residential development to be increased above the minimum 50 units was considered to ensure that it was being optimised.

Results: The 13 sites were assessed by the applicant for their potential and it was concluded by the applicant, in summary, for each: Site 56: Chestnut Lodge, Woodfield Road, Ealing, W5 1SL – rejected as would require loss of part of the care home building and car park would require substantial reconfiguration of the site that would only deliver up to 50 units at most. Site 61: Elm Lodge, Marley Close Cayton Green Park, UB6 8BQ – rejected as would require loss of part of the care home amenity space and car park would require substantial reconfiguration of the site built development may be likely to harmfully impact the remainder, that would only deliver up to 50 units at most. Site 63: Martin House, Swift Road - rejected as would require loss of part of the care home amenity space and car park would require substantial reconfiguration of the site built development may be likely to harmfully impact the remainder, that would only deliver up to 50 units at most. Site 273: Windmill Lane Recreation Ground, UB6 9DR – rejected as any benefits would not outweigh the harm caused by loss of accessible and equipped designated public open space that is rated significantly higher than the existing Gurnell LC site in terms of quality. Site 279: Maytrees Rest Garden, W5 4QT - rejected as loss of high quality and designated public open space (at the time of survey, rated 35th best out of 134 in Ealing). Site 306: Dean Gardens, W13 9BG - rejected as would result in the loss of designated greenfield public open space identified as one of the highest locally rated in Ealing. Site 330: Islip Manor Park, Northolt, UB5 5BT – rejected as would involve the loss of open greenfield land which is fully publicly accessible, designated open space and nationally recognised as a park of quality and unlikely to provide an opportunity for park improvements that would override the harm. Site 332: Blondin Park, Northfields, W5 4UL - rejected as would still involve the loss of open greenfield land which is fully publicly accessible and unlikely to provide an opportunity for park improvements that would override the harm. Site 337: Ravenor Park, Greenford, UB6 9LG - rejected for residential as would be constructed entirely on greenfield land, designated as Public Open Space that is fully publicly accessible. result in the loss of school facilities – either external or internal – alongside harm to the existing SINC. The optimum area for the residential uses is that which, whilst designated SINC, is earmarked for landscaping and informal open amenity space for pupils obscures a key sight line and access point into the park, would increase the amount of traffic and would prejudice a SINC and require the reprovision of the MUGA. Site 425: St Columbas Tennis Courts, Carbury Avenue, W3 9AL - rejected as would require the complete loss of the existing tennis courts (contrary to the Leisure Strategy which identifies the need for more courts) and tennis building, with the additional potential for harm to the SINC allotments.

Page 34 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Site 485: Ruislip Road East, Brentside School - rejected for residential as would result in the loss of school facilities earmarked for landscaping and informal open amenity space for pupils alongside harm to the SINC. Rejected for a Leisure Centre, notwithstanding locational advantage of proximity to the school (although the Gurnell LC is nearby) due to the loss of existing open space. Site 486: Ealing Golf Course North of River Brent (Hanwell Town Football Club) - rejected as would result in the loss of space for a football club, car parking, flood lit playing facilities, training facilities to members of the public, and child day care. Site 506: Acton Park – Bromyard Avenue (Land South of Bromyard Open Space and Land) – would involve previously developed land in the MOL and not affect adjacent land uses and would be a reasonable alternative to Gurnell LC car park for the residential development. However, rejected as would result in the loss of parking for sporting and leisure uses without evident alternative space to replace it and would not be likely to generate capacity for more than 50 dwellings.

Conclusion on the ASA: The assessment and conclusions have been carefully appraised by Officers using the methodology and criteria agreed between the applicant and Officers at the scoping stage of the ASA. The following conclusions are reached:

1. With regard to a genuinely available alternative location for the replacement of the Gurnell Leisure Centre, it is concluded from the Assessment process that there is none.

2. With regard to relocation of some (i.e. 50 or more units) or all of the residential development proposed, whilst some displayed fewer constraints than others with a greater capacity to accommodate development, on balance it is concluded that none are able to support a ‘meaningful re-provision’ of residential development sufficient to reduce the amount of development on the application site sufficient to reduce the ‘harm’ to MOL openness.

3. No suitable alternative location was identified as capable of accommodating both the leisure centre and residential together.

Accordingly, it is considered that the existing Gurnell LC site represents a “site of last resort” – on which this proposal can be accommodated in its entirety compared to any other LBE-owned sites in the Borough.

Application Consultation

Neighbour Notification: The selected area for the application notification coverage coincides with the area agreed with the applicant for the pre application and post submission community consultation, which has included the same community groups, representatives, Councillors and MP. The applicant has sent out leaflets to residents and businesses in the area below to notify them of submission of the application.

Re-consultation and notifications of revisions or amendments has been carried out. It is considered the applicant’s community engagement satisfies the Council’s SCI requirements, both pre- and post- application submission including measures necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

EIA Scoping An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Request was submitted in November 2018 for: ‘the provision of up to 620 residential dwellings and up to 16,300sqm of non-residential uses (comprising leisure and retail uses) on the area of the existing ground level car park and leisure centre in order to facilitate the redevelopment of a new Gurnell Leisure Centre, along with Page 35 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 improvements to the existing open space within the northern and western parts of the site in terms of sports, leisure and recreation opportunities.’

In accordance with the Regulations it included an in-combination assessment with other permitted local urban development projects in the area.

It was concluded: The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 category 10 (b) of the EIA regulations covering 'Urban Development Projects'. Whilst the site is not located within a 'Sensitive Area' as defined in the regulations it does still exceed the 'exclusion criteria' comprising more than 150 units and with a site area in excess of 5ha.

Having established that the proposal triggers the regulations, the proposal has been assessed to determine whether the development would result in significant effects on the environment, having regard to the criteria in schedule 3 of the regulations and the NPPG.

When reviewing the proposal against this criteria it is not considered to result in significant environmental effects. Given that part of the developable area falls within flood zone 3b (the functional floodplain) concern was initially raised over the potential impact of the development on the sites function as a floodplain, although there remained uncertainty over the potential impact because of the age of the data and given certain irregularities over the defined extents. In response the applicant has submitted further evidence in the form of a draft Flood Risk Assessment. Utilising more recent modelling data, this assessment shows that the 1 in 20 flood extent, which is typically used as a basis for defining the functional floodplain now covers a much smaller part of the site and now no longer covers any parts of the site which are to accommodate built development. In light of this new evidence it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to significant effects on the functioning of the river or the wider environment.

It is therefore recommended that a screening opinion is adopted stating that an Environmental Statement is not required for this proposal.

It was accordingly determined: The proposed development is considered to fall within Schedule 2 10(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, being an urban development project. The proposed development has been Screened having regard to the following selection criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the Regulations: (i) the characteristics of development; (ii) the location of development, (iii) the characteristics of the potential impact.

On this basis the Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed development will not be likely to have significant effects on the environment as interpreted by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2017 and thereby does not constitute EIA development requiring an Environmental Statement. This is not to say that the proposed development will not have environmental effects of a localised nature which will need to be considered in determining any planning application(s).’

Following on from the Screening report and the Council’s decision on that, consideration of the application has informed, topic by topic the matters that are addressed in this Report. Environmental effects of a localised nature are assessed below. Each particular matter has been addressed and fully considered by Officers, professional consultees, including external consultees, with regard to any necessary mitigation, which is comprised in the recommendation and any planning conditions or planning obligations where appropriate.

Page 36 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Relevant Planning History:

App Proposal Status Decision Date Number

201541F Relocation of BMX cycle track with Current UL associated buildings and lighting

161987S Request for a Screening Opinion under ESNQ 28.07.2016 CE regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) for the provision of 556 residential dwellings on an existing ground level car park in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the Gurnell Leisure Centre. P/2012/1 Provision of a BMX track facility and RSS 14.06.2012 740 extension of beginners skating area to the existing skate park; with associated access paths (Deemed Consent) P/2006/4 Display of advert on bus shelter APPCON 20.03.2007 501

P/2012/0 Use of part of car park as a hand car wash APPCON 23.04.2012 540 and valeting service incorporating a temporary removal canopy structure at Gurnell Leisure Centre P/2011/1 Application for a non-material amendment APP 06.04.2011 112 to planning permission ref: P/2010/4245 dated 16/12/2010 for installation of children’s play area including play equipment, hard and soft landscaping and general landscape improvements to the front of the leisure centre, including resurfacing, planting and new street furniture. P/2011/3 Use of part of car park for hand car wash REF 18.10.2011 565 incorporating installation of a portacabin structure at Gurnell Leisure Centre

P/2010/4 Installation of children's play area DEEMC 16.12.2010 245 including play equipment, hard and soft landscaping and general landscape improvements to front of leisure centre, including resurfacing, planting and new street furniture (Deemed Consent application by the London Borough of Ealing) P/2011/1 Construction of a reinforced skate park DEEMC 20.05.2011 266 with associated landscaping and access footpaths; installation of two outdoor gym equipment pieces

Page 37 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

38423 Display of two illuminated advertisement REF 30.01.2001 hoardings.

34014/1 Erection of first floor extension over DEEMC 02.03.2000 existing balcony area, to the north east side of the building, to provide creche, swimming development studio and office facilities. 02266/1 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY APP 01.07.1965 BUILDING AND USE OF LAND FOR STORE OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND PLANT. 34014 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY APPCON 16.12.1994 REPLACEMENT DRAUGHT LOBBY ON EXISTING PATIO AREA TO ENTRANCE OF GURNELL POOL. 02266/D ERECTION OF CIVIL DEFENCE APPCON 26.10.1953 TRAINING HUT.

02266/5 REMOVAL OF EXISTING SPOIL HEAPS NFA 16.09.1982 AND PROVISION OF THREE PLAYING FIELDS.

02266/3/ DETAILS OF LANDSCAPING. APP 31.01.1983 DL

02266/4 ERECTION AND DISPLAY OF APPCON 14.03.1979 ILLUMINATED FLAT SIGN.

02266/3/ DETAILS OF MATERIALS. APP 15.12.1978 DM

02266/3 ERECTION OF BUILDING TO PROVIDE APPCON 18.11.1977 REPLACEMENT SWIMMING BATHS.

02266/2 USE OF FORMER CIVIL DEFENCE APPCON 26.12.1969 TRAINING CENTRE AS ADULT TRAINING CENTRE AND STORE.

02266/A USE OF LAND FOR TREE FELLERS APPCON 06.03.1964 YARD AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY STORE BUILDING.

02266 ERECTION OF CIVIL DEFENCE APPCON 11.05.1955 TRAINING HUT.

Page 38 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Representations Received on the Planning Application

Councillor Gregory Stafford (Conservative – Leader of the Opposition): “I write as Leader of the Ealing Conservative group to object to these proposals.

The Site is Metropolitan Open Land and as such planning policy states that MOL should be protected from inappropriate development. The development also goes against the Council's own development and strategy documents with regards to protecting and enhancing MOL and green corridors. As such the development will generate more noise and air pollution and will result in a significant loss of 158 mature trees.

Even if the was a good reason to build on MOL - which there isn't - the massing and height of the buildings is totally inappropriate. It will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing to neighbouring properties. The proposed development is overbearing, out of scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the local areas. The 17-storey tower stands over 50m tall and will overshadow the park.

Finally, even if all the above is ignored due to a desire to build new homes, the amount of Affordable Housing falls well below the strategic targets of 50%.

In summary, this is over development, on land that should not be built on and which fails to provide the genuinely affordable homes that the Borough needs.

It should be rejected.”

(Officer Note: The points raised are considered within this report)

‘Save Gurnell’ Amenity group: Summary of the ‘Planning Application Objections’ document (Version 2.0, dated 29/07/2020):

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This document sets out the arguments and evidence for: - The refusal of the planning application for Gurnell Leisure Centre, which is a Major Departure application and on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). The application seeks to demolish the existing leisure centre, rebuild a new one and an extremely dense, tall, and bulky residential development on the footprint of the current car park. - The refusal of the planning application for the BMX cycle track, ancillary buildings, and lighting. This site lies within the application boundary of the Gurnell proposals, and strategically is part of the leisure centre redevelopment but has been submitted under its own planning application. It will destroy a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) Grade 1 and several assessments do not take this into consideration.

Both applications are to be determined by the London Borough of Ealing.

These are as follows:

The Screening Decision for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out in December 2018 and concluded that an Environmental Statement was not required. Flaws in the screening process and recent developments mean that EIA is now required, and an Environmental Statement should be produced.

The council’s justifications for the project are flawed as a result of not producing a Business Case. The options were not properly examined, the project has been misguided and the true needs of the community have not been considered. The council have also taken on significant risk during the course of the project, which has gone from being cost neutral and with the developer carrying all the risk to the council being Page 39 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 responsible for the leisure centre and affordable housing build. Additionally, the private residential development is now a facilitating development rather than an “enabling development” as it will only partially fund the leisure centre build. The affordable housing is funded separately by GLA grant.

The cost for the proposed leisure centre is significantly higher than similar projects and there are only marginal improvements in facility mix over the current leisure centre. This represents extremely poor value for money for a major community asset.

The Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) concluded that the scheme is not viable. This further demonstrates that this proposal should not be pursued.

The council claim that the leisure centre will be shut down if this project does not go ahead, however, evidence suggests that this behaviour is more likely associated with the sunk cost fallacy.

The Planning Statement for Gurnell sets out the reasons for allowing this inappropriate development to be built on MOL and has concluded that “very special circumstances” apply and that the harms to MOL and other potential harms are outweighed by the benefits. Their reasons and justifications are examined in this document.

For the benefits, the applicant has provided opinions and conclusions based on the assessments that have been carried out. Inaccurate assessments have generated unsound conclusions. and opinions. Also, certain opinions made by the applicant such as “substantial design benefits” are unfounded due to hundreds of public objections highlighting the poor design and architecture.

This development will result in substantial harm to and erosion of the MOL. Significant other harm will also be caused, and the benefits of this development do not clearly outweigh the harm caused.

Taking into consideration all the shortcomings highlighted in this document, aside from the unviability and poor value for money arguments, there is a very strong case that these applications should not be granted, and the project should not continue in its current form. The recommendations have been summarised in the final section of this document and should be considered immediately by Ealing Council.

London Borough of Ealing is the landowner, Local Planning Authority, and also the applicant in the case of the leisure centre. They are not acting in the best interests of the borough’s residents and is about to make a very costly mistake which will impact them for decades to come. The opportunity to provide a future-proofed facility which meets the needs of the community and offers better value for money will be lost.

If planning consent is granted, there is no turning back from this mistake. It will be too late to stop and reevaluate the options.

Several mistakes have been made in the past however, now is the time for Ealing Council to recognise that a better option can be found which will deliver a high-value leisure centre, maintain it’s very precious MOL and provide a great and healthy place for its residents to live for generations to come.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) – ANALYSIS OF THE SCREENING OPINION DECISION: The Gurnell and BMX proposals should be treated as one proposal with respect to EIA and therefore the impact of the combined development assessed. The proposed development will have a significant urbanising effect due to its size and scale and in combination effects with nearby developments surpassing the 1,000-unit threshold. Based on reasoning used when the Page 40 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 screening decision was made, if the screening opinion were carried out again the EIA process would be triggered. Therefore, our conclusion is that these proposals require the production of an Environmental Statement.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT: Ealing Council failed to effectively manage this project. With the current facility mix and size, the new leisure centre will not be future proofed and will fail to meet strategic objectives. The estimated cost is excessive for the proposals and this ironically being driven by the facilitating residential development. The council now had direct delivery responsibility for the leisure centre, and they have already managed the project poorly to date, with no control of scope, risk, budget, and time. Now is the time to take a step back and reassess options before selling off public land and making a decision which they will not be able to turn back from.

USE OF “ENABLING DEVELOPMENT” PRINCIPLES Despite using the principles of “enabling development” as a reason to depart from planning policies, the proposal is facilitating rather than enabling. There is no guarantee that the funding coming from the residential development will secure the new leisure centre and therefore a departure from planning policy on this basis should be denied.

FINANCIAL VIABILITY As the FVA already states, this scheme is not viable to the applicant. There are significant site- specific costs which are reducing developer profit and significant areas of risk that may further erode this. Should these risks materialize the applicant may look to change the scheme via an “amendment” which could further increase the size the of market sale build. Equally the costs of the leisure centre and affordable housing elements are uncertain. Given the Council has now taken on deliver and the associated risk, this is very concerning.

THE CASE AGAINST DEVELOPMENT ON MOL This development will cause substantial harm to openness, both visually, spatially and through the erosion of MOL. The VIA even states that “the increased building massing would realise a locally significant adverse effect on the purposes and function of the MOL designation” and the Planning Statement concurs “there would be a loss of open green views”. Any compensatory measures by means of ecological improvements or landscaping will not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to openness and other harm caused by these proposals.

Impact to MOL usability These proposals would result in the loss of MOL usability in terms of its open and unstructured nature and significant adverse impact to openness and overshadowing. The loss of the surface level car park will create additional strain on parking in local streets (see Parking Displacements section for further details). The park will also become less usable due to the sheer number of additional users, the new development will bring around 1,800 new residents into this site and essentially what is being built here is an amenity space for those residents to the detriment of the existing community.

Harm to non-MOL The Transport Assessment has fundamental flaws – it is outdated and based on incorrect assumptions. There will be traffic impacts as a direct result of this development, not only from the introduction of residential but also from the increased visitor number to the new leisure centre. Therefore, harm will be caused because of this development.

Potential other harms – Parking Displacement The Planning Statement states that, post mitigation, residual harm considered to be negligible. However, the Parking Survey has fundamental flaws – it is outdated and based on incorrect assumptions. There is no local capacity for additional cars, therefore harm will be caused from parking displacement.

Page 41 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Potential other harms – Noise The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no anticipated impact from noise. Given the size and scale of the leisure centre and residential components of the scheme this is unlikely to be the case. Additionally, this assertion is made based on the assumption that there is no increase in traffic which is flawed based on the critique of the Traffic Assessment.

Potential other harms – Air Quality The Planning Statement asserts that there is negligible impact to air quality. However, The Air Quality Assessment contains significant mistakes and gaps and the harm to people and surrounding environment has been understated and there will be significant harm caused.

Potential other harms – Sunlight and Daylight The Planning Statement asserts that there are minor to negligible impacts to sunlight and daylight, however this assessment has been made using an altered baseline position. Even with this baseline, a significant number of existing properties are non-compliant with the guidelines. The assessment also takes no account of the impact of overshadowing on the MOL parkland itself. Therefore, there will be substantial harm to both MOL and non-MOL as a direct result of this development.

Potential other harms – Ecological impacts The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no residual harm, however there are several flaws with the Ecological Appraisal, Bat Roost Assessment, and the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation. Most notable the destruction of a significant area of SINC has not been considered. Therefore, this development will result in substantial harm from an ecological perspective.

Potential other harms – Trees The Planning Statement asserts that there will be only minor residual harm in the short term and a “benefit to the Site’s increased visual amenity and ecological value” in the long term. The assessments fail to take into account the removal of trees for the BMX track which has only been subject to an “informative” survey. Any increase to visual amenity through replanting will be far outweighed by the developments towering over them and casting huge shadows across the park. Any increase in ecological value in the long term is debatable and will take decades to be achieved, especially considering the construction period will span 5 years. Therefore, this development will result in substantial harm from an Arboricultural perspective.

Potential other harms – Light Pollution The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no residual harm, however the assessment has a flawed baseline position, identifying the are as “urban”. The scope of the assessment is limited to external lighting only and does not consider the impacted to protected species such as bats. Therefore, this development may result in substantial harm from a light pollution perspective.

Potential other harms – Wind and Microclimate The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no residual harm, however the assessment fails to consider the potential impact to the park and its wildlife. Therefore, this development may result in substantial harm from a wind and microclimate perspective.

Potential other harms - Heritage The built heritage statement asserts that that there is no harm to these assets, however they have not been included within the VIA and therefore this should be revisited to assess the true level on impact.

Conclusion The table below outlines the levels of residual harm outlined in the Planning Statement and considers the actual residual levels based on our review of the assessments. The levels of

Page 42 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 residual harm have been significantly understated and therefore overall, this development will result in substantial harm to both MOL and other harm.

AREA RESIDUAL HARM LEVEL ACTUAL LIKELY (PLANNING STATEMENT) RESIDUAL HARM LEVEL MOL Openness Significant adverse impacts at the Very substantial harm Site’s southern end – decreasing in harm towards the north MOL usability No harm Moderate harm Transport Impacts No harm Substantial harm Parking Displacement Negligible residual harm Substantial harm Noise No harm Moderate harm Air Quality Negligible residual harm Substantial harm Daylight and Sunlight Minor to negligible harm Substantial harm Ecological impacts No harm Substantial harm Trees Minor short-term harm, Substantial harm though becoming a benefit in the long term Light Pollution No harm Moderate harm likely – needs further assessment Wind and No harm Moderate harm likely – Microclimate needs further assessment Heritage No harm Minor harm

Nature of potential benefit to MOL There is no benefit coming from the “design quality of the leisure centre”. The proposals are not sympathetic to the natural context and are imposing as the new centre would be materially larger than the existing one and with two 15 storey tower blocks attached. The internal design is also flawed, providing parkland vistas to the swimmers but views of Ruislip Road East to the gym and exercise studio users.

There are no significant enhancements to the outdoor offer. Substantial harm will be caused as a direct result of this development, including loss of sunlight and daylight, ecological and arboricultural especially considering the loss of a significant area of SINC. The “park enhancements” outlined simply do not outweigh the harm caused.

The new leisure centre will have little in the way of additional sporting capacity. The pool will have four additional lanes and there will one more extra studio. The benefits are being massively overstated and substantial harm will be caused as direct result of the development.

Ealing’s housing development pipeline is significant, and the council should not be resorting to building on MOL to solve housing needs – this is a leisure centre project, not a housing one. The affordable housing is not even being cross funded by the private development and therefore there is no dependency between the two. There is no social housing and at 35% the level of affordable housing falls far short of the 50% target for public sector land.

To conclude, the benefits have been overstated and there are significant consequences of each of these that has simply not been addressed.

SUMMARY OF STATED HARMS AND BENEFITS In accordance with paragraph 143 of the NPPF “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason Page 43 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”

The levels of residual harm have been significantly understated and overall, this development will result in substantial harm to both MOL and non-MOL. They include, but are not limited to:

Impact to openness - This development will cause substantial harm to openness, both visually, spatially and through the erosion of MOL. The VIA even states that “the increased building massing would realise a locally significant adverse effect on the purposes and function of the MOL designation” and the Planning Statement concurs “there would be a loss of open green views”. There will be significant urbanising effect of the proposed tall buildings. The site is not designated for tall buildings. Any compensatory measures by means of ecological improvements or landscaping will not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to openness and other harm caused by these proposals.

Impact to MOL usability - These proposals would result in the loss of MOL usability in terms of its open and unstructured nature and significant adverse impact to openness and overshadowing. The loss of the surface level car park will create additional strain on parking in local streets (see Parking Displacements section for further details). The park will also become less usable due to the sheer number of additional users, the new development will bring around 1,800 new residents into this site and essentially what is being built here is an amenity space for those residents to the detriment of the existing community.

Transport impacts - The Transport Assessment has fundamental flaws – it is outdated and based on incorrect assumptions. There will be traffic impacts as a direct result of this development, not only from the introduction of residential but also from the increased visitor number to the new leisure centre. Therefore, harm will be caused because of this development.

Parking Displacement - The Planning Statement states that, post mitigation, residual harm considered to be negligible. However, the Parking Survey has fundamental flaws – it is outdated and based on incorrect assumptions. There is no local capacity for additional cars. Therefore, harm will be caused from parking displacement.

Noise - The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no anticipated harm from noise. Given the size and scale of the leisure centre and residential components of the scheme, this is unlikely to be the case. Additionally, this assertion is made based on the assumption that there is no increase in traffic which is flawed based on the critique of the Traffic Assessment.

Air Quality - The Planning Statement asserts that there is negligible impact to air quality. However, the Air Quality Assessment contains significant mistakes and gaps and the harm to people and surrounding environment has been understated and there will be significant harm caused.

Sunlight and Daylight - The Planning Statement asserts that there are minor to negligible impacts to sunlight and daylight, however this assessment has been made using an altered baseline position. Even with this baseline, a significant number of existing properties are non- compliant with the guidelines. The assessment also takes no account of the impact of overshadowing on the MOL parkland itself. Therefore, there will be substantial harm to both MOL and non-MOL as a direct result of this development.

Ecological impacts - The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no residual harm, however there are several flaws with the Ecological Appraisal, Bat Roost Assessment, and the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation. Most notably the destruction of a significant area of SINC has not been considered (due to the proposed BMX track not being factored into the net biodiversity calculation.) Also, harm to wildlife due to the destruction or impact to habitats has not been

Page 44 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 considered. Therefore, this development will result in substantial harm from an ecological perspective.

Trees - The Planning Statement asserts that there will be only minor residual harm in the short term and a “benefit to the Site’s increased visual amenity and ecological value” in the long term. The assessments fail to take into account the removal of trees for the BMX track which has only been subject to an “informative” survey. Any increase to visual amenity through replanting will be far outweighed by the developments towering over them and casting huge shadows across the park. Any increase in ecological value in the long term is debatable and will take decades to be achieved, especially considering the construction period will span 5 years. Therefore, this development will result in substantial harm from an arboricultural perspective.

Light Pollution - The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no residual harm, however the assessment has a flawed baseline position, identifying the area as “urban”. The scope of the assessment is limited to external lighting only and does not consider the impact to protected species such as bats. Therefore, this development may result in substantial harm from a light pollution perspective.

Wind and Microclimate - The Planning Statement asserts that there will be no residual harm, however the assessment fails to consider the potential impact to the park and its wildlife. Therefore, this development may result in substantial harm from a wind and microclimate perspective.

Heritage - The built heritage statement asserts that that there is no harm to these assets, however they have not been included within the VIA and therefore this should be revisited to assess the true level of impact.

Social impacts – Societal and community harm caused by the lack of inclusion from housing and amenity space segregation.

Housing impacts - The proposed housing is not aligned with what Ealing’s needs. There is no social housing, affordable housing should be 50% on public land and there is a lack of family sized units.

Strategic impacts - Lost opportunity to provide a much better facility mix and future proofed leisure centre for future generations of Ealing residents. The proposed leisure centre offers very few improvements and given the extremely high cost, its deemed low value-for-money when compared to other similar costed leisure centres that other boroughs have delivered.

Deliverability - Lack of financial viability and extremely high delivery risk to Ealing which could delay the new leisure centre beyond 3 years.

Summary and assessment of Benefits:

Enhancements to outdoor offer - There are no significant enhancements to the outdoor offer. Substantial harm will be caused as a direct result of this development, including loss of sunlight and daylight, ecological and arboricultural especially considering the loss of a significant area of SINC. The “park enhancements” outlined simply do not outweigh the harm caused.

Design quality of the Leisure Centre - There is no benefit coming from the “design quality of the leisure centre”. The proposals are not sympathetic to the natural context and are imposing as the new centre would be materially larger than the existing one and with two 15 storey tower blocks attached. The internal design is also flawed, providing parkland vistas to the swimmers but views of Ruislip Road East to the gym and exercise studio users.

Page 45 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Additional sporting capacity - The new leisure centre will have little in the way of additional sporting capacity. The pool will have four additional lanes and there will one more extra studio. The benefits are being massively overstated and substantial harm will be caused as direct result of the development.

Park enhancements – The park enhancements are completely overstated, and the harm caused by destruction of natural habitat will outweigh any stated benefits. The proposed landscaping is not safeguarded and therefore could be removed if the developer’s build costs overrun.

Housing - Ealing’s housing development pipeline is significant, and the council should not be resorting to building on MOL to solve housing needs – this is a leisure centre project, not a housing one. The affordable housing is not even being cross funded by the private development and therefore there is no dependency between the two. There is no social housing and at 35% the level of affordable housing falls far short of the 50% target for public sector land.

To conclude, the benefits have been overstated and there are significant consequences of each of these that has simply not been addressed.

Conclusion There is strong evidence in this document to prove that the harms have been overlooked, understated and have not been given substantial weight. The potential harm to the MOL and other harm is substantial and is not clearly outweighed by the stated benefits. Therefore “very special circumstances” do not exist and planning permission for either scheme should not be granted.

BUILDING ON MOL LAND - DO VERY SPECIAL CIRUCUMSTANCES’ EXIST? It is not tenable to argue that special circumstances exist to justify residential development on this protected MOL land. Ealing already has more than an adequate number of sites and developments in the pipeline for it not to have to build on MOL land. There are 40,000 housing units recently built, approved, submitted for approval, or proposed on major sites. These numbers do not include developments on minor sites or B1 changes of use of which there are plenty. This is more than enough to deliver Ealing’s increased housing targets under the New London Plan.

There is no argument either that development on MOL is required to secure extra affordable homes. In this case, and unlike many developments elsewhere in Ealing, the affordable housing element would not be cross funded by enabling development in the form of market housing. Instead it would be paid for using £10 million of GLA grant funding - money that could be allocated to council owned sites elsewhere in the borough.

RECOMMENDATIONS Our recommendations are set out as follows:

Immediate Decision Do not grant planning approval for the current Gurnell or BMX applications.

Review and re-plan The applicant must revisit and review the options again and prepare a business case. This should be for the leisure centre with the existing surface level car park and without the “enabling development”. The applicant must obtain a new survey of Gurnell leisure centre (the last one was carried out in 2012) along with quotes for remedial works and refurbishment options. This should include: - Remedial works should be done to extend the current leisure centre for another 12-24 months to allow enough time for a new proposal to be submitted. - Cost of refurbishment as-is (replace roof, replace plant room, and cosmetic changes.) - Cost of a more complex refurbishment that could look at utilising certain shell elements but making significant design changes such as a new type of roof, increase pool to 8 or Page 46 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

10 lanes (with a new moveable floor,) redesign children’s play pool, redesign the gym/studios and potentially find space to offer additional facilities such as a climbing wall, café, etc. - New leisure centre options (from Wilmott Dixon via Scape framework) with various facility mixes - Review possibility of increasing size of current BMX track on existing site (allowing it to remain open during the refurb or build).

Better community engagement and consultation A transparent and much improved consultation process which would conduct survey’s to Gurnell users and the wider Ealing community on what facilities are important to their health and wellbeing. This should be considered as a strategic initiative for public health and how we can save costs to the NHS. The results should be made public.

Reassess funding options - The council already have £12.5M committed. - Since the new proposal will not include housing or major changes to the current MOL, many of the pre-app assessments can probably be updated without significant additional cost. - The review of further funding options should include: o Council reserves o S106 funds from the significant development pipeline in Ealing o Grants from Sport England and other sports bodies. o Borrowing - The council has access to a range of borrowing at very competitive rates through the Public Works Loan Board. o Create a sinking fund for the leisure centre. o Improved Internal rate of return (IRR.) Typically, a new leisure centre on its own will take 15-24 months to build. This would be better than the current proposal which would take at least 3 years and therefore generate a better IRR for the applicant. o There could be cost savings achieved by using resources within the local community instead of hiring companies which are expensive and do not have any sense of ownership in the area. For example, surveys, the coordination of consultations, the management of a project website and social media campaigns could all be run by a local community group of volunteers. The applicant should consider leveraging this opportunity as it will achieve cost savings and give the community a sense of ownership with the project. The community group Save Gurnell would be happy to have those discussions with the applicant and find cost- saving solutions to assist with the new application.

New Decision The business case should generate a recommendation based on best value to the community. Revised proposals must take into consideration the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA process) and a new Screening Decision would be required.”

(Officer Note: The full objection document submitted is attached as Appendix 3 to this report. This objection raises issues and concerns to the BMX track planning application - upon which no comments on its merits are made as that does not form part of this application. Nevertheless, the comments of Sport England in relation to the displacement of the BMX track and an appropriate condition form part of the recommendation. The current application is capable of determination on its individual merits and there is no necessity to re-open the business case. Neither therefore is there a necessity to reassess the need for an EIA or Screening decision. Other points raised on the merits of the application are considered as part of the assessment within the relevant sections of this Report).

Page 47 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Petition ‘Save Gurnell – Stop The Gurnell Overdevelopment’ on website ‘Change.org’. (Officer Note: The petition was started on the 3rd October 2019 and at the time of writing this report, has 4316 signatures in support of the following statement):

“London Borough of Ealing plan to redevelop the current Gurnell Leisure Centre and build a large residential development on the current site, which is within the Brent River Park and is owned by the borough. It's on the flood plain and is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which is afforded the same degree of protection as Green Belt.

The leisure centre will be closed for at least three years while the development takes place. The residential construction phase will take five years.

The council claim that they do not have sufficient funds to pay for the new centre and will be allowing a private developer to build on the site in return for a yet undisclosed fee. The total cost of the leisure centre is still not clear however it is estimated to be around £40-45M. This is an extortionate amount for the proposed facility mix and other Councils have delivered far more at a much more reasonable price.

The entire residential part of the development will consist of 599 flats across 6 tower blocks ranging between 6, 10, 13, 15 and 17 storeys - this could equate to around 1,800 people living in the development.

The local residents support the need for the leisure centre to be either refurbished or redeveloped and recognise that there is a cost associated with this. They are also supportive of the provision of Affordable Housing, and sustainable progressive developments. However, a number of concerns have been raised about this development, including but not limited to: Inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which is afforded the same protection as Green Belt - this development does not comply with planning policy and would cause substantial harm to openness (visual, spatial and through erosion of MOL)

Environmental Impact Assessment has not been carried out and an Environmental Statement has not been produced despite the significant urbanising effect of the development - this must be produced

Destruction of a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and loss of at least 158 trees. The Bat Assessment has identified bats in the area and requires the applicant to protect the SINC however the applicant has proposed a BMX track in the very meadow they are meant to protect. This could breach several national and international laws that protect bats and their habitats

The lack of consideration by the Local Planning Authority regarding the impact as a whole of this and other developments across the borough

This development is not required to meet our housing needs. The housing pipeline in Ealing is significant and will generate an excess against the London Plan targets. There is no need to build on MOL.

The amount of affordable housing is below strategic targets – it should be 50% on public sector land. There are only 12 family sized affordable units. The proposed proportion of approximately 50% 1-bed and studio flats is considered an over-provision and the proportion of 3-bed family sized units at just 6% is well below the expected 15%.

The impact to local infrastructure from the increased population (NHS, schools, public transport, parking and sufficient cycle spaces in local transport hubs)

The lack of meaningful consultation with the local community with regards to both the specification of the leisure centre and the residential aspects of the development Page 48 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The adverse effect on the residential amenity of the neighbours and community due to overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. There are over 50 homes with breaches to sunlight and daylight guidelines.

The site has not been identified for development, let alone for the development of tall buildings. Tall buildings should have a positive relationship on the surrounding area – this development will be overbearing, out of context and not in keeping with the character of the neighbouring area.

The density of this proposal is 4 times the guidelines in the current London Plan. The aggressive size and layout of the buildings coupled with unattractive design creates a feeling that a monster brick wall has closed off access and visual amenity into the park.

ACTION REQUIRED: - We request that the Local Planning Authority (Ealing Council) do not grant planning permission for this application - We request that the Greater London Authority (GLA) refuse this application as it constitutes an inappropriate development on MOL. No “very special circumstances” exist that outweigh the harm caused to the openness of the MOL or any other harm. - This application has been referred to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan as a development of Potential Strategic Importance (PSI). We request that the Mayor uses the powers granted to him under article 6 of the Mayor of London Order (2008), to direct refusal of this application. - We request that London Borough of Ealing review its plans for the leisure centre redevelopment and seek alternative options that do not require an inappropriate development to be built on this site - We request that London Borough of Ealing and any associated Developer(s) conduct a proper consultation with both the local and wider community of Ealing in the same manner as the following councils: Wokingham, South Gloucestershire and Brent. - We also request that the London Borough of Ealing properly consult with the community to draft a Neighbourhood Plan. This will enable the local community to develop a shared vision for our neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of our local area. “ (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Open Spaces Society (Kate Ashbrook): “I write on behalf the Open Spaces Society, Britain's oldest national conservation body, strongly to object to this proposed development. We are particularly concerned at the adverse effect this will have on the Brent River Park which adjoins the site. This park is a vital haven for local people, where they can enjoy safe, tranquil air and exercise. The proposed buildings would tower over the park and blight it, ruining people's enjoyment of this beautiful open space. It would also lead to increased traffic and pollution in the area and put walkers and cyclists at risk. This is the wrong place for a development of such massive proportions. We urge the council to reject the application.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Birkdale Area Residents Association: “The site is situated in north Ealing near the River Brent, not far from the A40, is bounded by Ruislip Road East to the south and near Argyle Road to the west. Application requests: Demolition of all existing leisure centre and re-purposing the existing carpark. Re-build a new leisure centre with associated amenities, build 6 blocks of flats - comprising of 599 flats and associated amenities,( Blocks A & B 15 storeys, Block C - 13 storeys, Block D - 17 storey, E - 10 storeys, Block F - 6 storeys), 343 parking spaces and 2 retail units.

Page 49 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Comments from the Birkdale Area Residents Association (BARA). Residents within the Greystoke Estate, including members of this association use and enjoy Gurnell Swimming Pool, and walking in the area as part of extended walks.

Presented with the application is a Viability Report. This report brings certain concerns to the fore namely, as written, "the schemes falls short of being viable as it does not produce a sufficient profit percentage. It drives a profit of 11.69% on cost whereas a reasonable return is 17% on cost in this instance". The report go on to say that the "scheme includes a costly new leisure centre but which does not drive any commercial value, and bearing in mind the proposed affordable housing will also cost more to build than can be recouped in selling it (albeit this is not uncommon itself), our viability conclusion is not surprising". Another disturbing statement in the report is "This report does not account for the potential and likely economic impact of Coronavirus".

- The economic viability of this proposal is questionable on several fronts. The Employment situation is volatile due to Coronavirus. Once built, are they saleable, or would these flats become a 'white elephant', or ghettos that would require further resources to set right.

The area at large is generally lower level mixed housing stock. Adjacent to the Ruislip Road to the south of this Site are a group of flats at 4 storeys high, however, set behind these a smaller complex that rise to 11 storeys. The area to the north of the site is a green open area which has vistas towards Perivale, Horsenden Hill and Harrow.

- The proposal does not complement the present housing stock in the area. There will be 6 blocks of high-rise flats in close proximity to each other, and of no architectural merit. The lowest starting at the level of the highest of the present housing stock and then rising to a block at 17 storeys. Ealing's Management Plan, 7.4 states that "Development in Ealing's existing built areas should complement their building pattern, scale, materials and detailing". This proposal fails in all accounts to meet this.

Recent planning consent has been given to rear of the Hover Building, (north and slightly west of the Site), for 278 flats, comprising of part 16-storey, part 15-storey and part 10-storey. These flats are to be one- & two-bedroom flats with only 14 three-bedroom flats.

- This Application is for 296 one-bedroom flats, 226 two-bedroom flats and only 37 three-bedroom flats. The National Plan and the London Plan provides for 'mixed housing stock' the lack of three- bedroom flats in this proposal, together with the granted new complex at the Hoover Building, limits the availability for new 'family homes', and particularly “affordable family homes”. A family home requires a minimum of three bedrooms to be viable.

Some general points have not been fully addressed. These include further pressure on schools, doctors’ surgeries, traffic concerns, and park deficiencies in ratio to the number of residents.

- The Traffic Assessment is flawed as it is based on outdated information, with the car ownership analysis is based on 2011 census and parking survey was undertaken in Feb 2016. - Planners build homes for the future generations. The present pandemic has drawn attention to assessable viable open spaces being a key factor to the health and welfare of those without private gardens. This proposal at the Gurnell Site, with the granted application for the new build at the Hover Building Site, would put enormous pressure on the green spaces available in the north Ealing area, at the MINIMUM of 575 NEW residents. - A number of parks were closed for several days in other areas of London due to the fact they could not be managed safely.

Further to this Ealing Council appears to be removing the protection that Metropolitan Open Land has against development pressures. This land has been safeguarded for generations to be enjoyed by the public and should continue to be preserved for future generations.

Page 50 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

- Policy 2.18 of Ealing's Management Plan, which relates to Green Infrastructure states, "Development should not compromise the visual openness or heritage value of open green spaces particularly with regard to views within and across these areas. The impact of development upon views to and from open and green spaces is also a material consideration".

The Flood Risk Assessments suggests that this area floods regularly, (fact). The area around the Brent River is a flood plain. Part of the proposed new complex of flats are to be built on an area which, from the evidence presented, can flood up to 1.2M. Added to this the proposal includes building an underground car park.

- Flood plains are designated for a reason and should be protected in order to keep the delicate ecological balance of the greater area. The building below ground will further expatiate the ability for water to seep away. There is the potential for areas that have not previously flooded to flood.

The Ecology Report. This mentions the removal of 158 trees, going on to state "The Brent River Park North: Hanger Lane to the Great Western Railway SINC, .... will be affected by the current proposals through loss of habitat within the boundary of the SINC, and potentially through lighting impacts". And continues to say "Up to 700m2 of the woodland within the SINC, constituting 0.1% of the total area of the SINC ...... Without compensation, the removal of the woodland within the SINC boundary would constitute an adverse effect on the SINC, considered to be significant at the Borough level".

- Within the proposal there is a plan to replace a number these trees with a mixed stock of mature and younger trees. However, BARA would like to bring the Officers attention back to the Viability Report. If a Build costs overruns, one of the first costs to be 'saved' are those of the landscaping. There are no safeguards within this proposal to guarantee that the recommendations of the Ecology Report will be carried out.

Plan 180237-3DR-MP-00-DR-00103 P08, existing and proposed site (together with the Landscaping Das Document). Comparing these there is no apparent reason to remove the smaller sports ground, nearest the Brent River, and repurposed for it just for foot paths. With a small modification it could be both an area to 'pass through' and house an outdoor sports area.

- Outdoor sports areas are vital to health and wellbeing.

It is for the above reasons that BARA recommend rejection of this proposal.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Ealing Civic Society: “Ealing Civic Society objects to this application which represents unacceptable overdevelopment, encroachment on Metropolitan Open Land and an approach entirely unsympathetic to the surrounding neighbourhood. Our detailed comments follow.

Height, Scale and Massing The buildings, in particular Blocks A - D, are excessively tall and overbearing in both the context of the surrounding development and the surrounding Metropolitan Open Land. The design and finishes of all blocks are uninspired and in particular blocks A and B, which will provide the affordable housing units, have all the appearance of just the sort of Local Authority high-rise blocks that are now recognised as a failure of the 60s/70s and are being torn down. We would refer to the redevelopment of the South Acton Estate which embraces lower-rise and more attractive architecture.

Density Taken from the Planning Statement, the proposed densities are 1,081 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) and 422 units per hectare (u/ha). These are over double the maximum figures quoted in the current London Plan density matrix, which for an urban setting (as assessed by the Page 51 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 developer) with a PTAL rating of 2-3 are 200-450 hr/ha and 45-170 u/ha. We consider that the local area is essentially suburban in nature rather than urban, where lower densities of 150-250 hr/ha and 35-95 u/ha apply, making the proposals over 4 times the maxima. These proposals are significant overdevelopment by either measure.

Unit mix The development proposes 599 residential apartments (comprising 33 x studio, 263 x 1 bed; 266 x 2 bed; and 37 x 3 bed units). We consider the proposed proportion of approximately 50% one- bed and studio flats to be over-provision and the proportion of 3-bed family sized units at just 6% to be below the expected 15%.

Amenity space Proposed private amenity space is insufficient. For example, the balconies for the 1b2p flats are just 3m2 which is below the London Plan Housing SPG standard of 5m2 and we do not consider that this is compensated for by some semi-private or shared amenity space.

Car parking The proposed development includes increased car parking (194 spaces to 343, an increase of 149). These provide provision for residential parking at approximately one space per four units, to which we have in principle no objection other than the impact on the area of this large increase in population and associated car movements. It appears that there is a proposed reduction in parking available for the expanded leisure centre. Given that the catchment area for this facility will be wide, and the potential usage increased from the present, we would argue for further leisure centre user parking to avoid parking problems on neighbouring residential streets.

Metropolitan Open Land This is a major departure application in terms of Metropolitan Open Land. The arguments in the planning statement obfuscate the loss of 13.2 ha of MOL. The developers claim a loss of less than 80m2 due to the majority of the site being previously developed land but also fail entirely to cross-reference the parallel application for development of a new BMX track on nearby currently undeveloped MOL which of course adds to the loss. Notwithstanding the previous use of MOL for the existing leisure centre and its unobtrusive surface car park, these new proposals are for an entirely different and more intensive and intrusive development. The London Plan (7.17) states that "Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL." The developers recognise that the leisure centre, residential component and retail component represent inappropriate development but argue that Very Special Circumstances (VSC) exist. The Planning Statement makes three arguments: that they are improving green links, re- providing and improving the leisure centre and providing housing. We argue strongly that the VSC are not made out. The arguments put forward are not VSC in the context of MOL in that they do not, in and of themselves, necessitate the development going ahead and the loss of MOL land. If this land does need to be redeveloped, the MOL de- designation should be considered though the plan making process and not through a planning application that does not reach the high bar set by the need for VSC. This correct process was noted and applied in the case of de-designation of the southern portion of the former Barclays Bank sports ground off Hanger Lane in order to accommodate the new Ada Lovelace school.

EIA Finally, the Council's conclusion in the Screening Opinion that this development does not require an EIA is surprising. Not only is the development of a size that will have a significant impact on both infrastructure and traffic in the area, it encroaches on MOL and also has an adverse effect on the designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation which also covers the site.

Page 52 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Conclusion Overall it is Ealing Civic Society's contention that the policy departures that would be required by this application are so significant as to necessitate a refusal.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

West Ealing Neighbours (David Highton – Chair): “West Ealing Neighbours objects to the plans on the following grounds:

1 Loss of Metropolitan Open land and green space This site is designated Metropolitan Open Land and the planned development on this land wholly contradicts Ealing Council's own policies on the value and protection of both Metropolitan Open land and green space. The importance of green space has been put in to very sharp focus by the current Coronavirus pandemic. The Council should be doing all it can to protect and enhance such space and not build on it. Once green space is built upon it is lost to the public for generations if not for all time.

2 Out of keeping with the surrounding residential area The planned development with its six tower blocks going up to 17-storeys high and 599 units is totally out of keeping with the low-rise character and style of architecture of the nearby residential housing. It is a gross overdevelopment of this site and will provide and overbearing and domineering series of towers scarring the landscape causing loss of daylight and sunlight to nearby homes in the vicinity.

3 Too few affordable homes Ealing Council Housing Strategy recognises that the population of the borough is growing. It has the third largest population of the 32 London boroughs and is expected to increase by some 10% from the 2011 census by 2031. This increase carries with it a need for suitable housing of all types. This development includes only a small amount of Affordable Housing which falls well short of the target of 50% for public sector land. It has only 12 family sized affordable units in the planned housing mix.

4 Wrong balance of types of housing Ealing Council's own Private Sector Housing Strategy document states 'Household composition helps determine the type of housing needed. Ealing has a lower proportion of one person households and couples to the rest of London, but a larger proportion of families (around 25.6%) than the average for London (18.2%). Across Ealing, 49.8% of households have dependent children. Ealing has the third highest (13.5%) proportion of larger (5 person plus) sized households in London, above the London average of 9.7%.'

This development has a significant number of Studio and one- and two-bedroom flats. This is not just the case with this development but many others being built or in the pipeline. There are far too few family sized units and so the balance of types of housing in this development is a complete mismatch with the likely demand for types of housing. The housing mix needs to be totally rethought to better match needs.

5 Detrimental impact on the local environment This development will see the loss of some 158 trees and a loss of habitat for wildlife. This loss, at a time when we have all come to realise the importance of green space and wildlife to our physical and mental health, is an unacceptable price to pay for a development which clearly fails to meet local housing needs.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Hanwell Village Green Conservation Area (Janet Sacks – Deputy Co-Ordinator) “These are the objections: 1. The land is MOL and therefore should be protected from inappropriate development. It also is a space that should be protected by LBE having signed up to Climate Change Page 53 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

policy: 153 trees will be cut down and we lose a nature conservation area. And it is a flood plain and should not be built upon. 2. It is much too tall and bulky and therefore out of character with the area. The towers go up to 17 storeys. 3. The development is far too dense: 599 flats packed into 1.4 hectares. 4. We should be concentrating on appropriate housing for Ealing. We have many people to rehouse and this development does not solve the problem. The majority of flats are studios, 1 and 2 bed flats because this is what makes a profit for the developers. There is plenty of this type of housing in Ealing. There are only 12 family units despite the fact that we need much more for Ealing's residents. And there is no social housing. This is a development for profit and not for the people of Ealing and should be rejected. 5. LBE is now having to pay £12 million towards a new leisure centre. They could fund this themselves without the residential units and towers. So why don't they? They don't need the towers.

Each of these reasons alone is enough to reject the application. So please go ahead and reject it - it does nothing for Ealing.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Pitshanger Community Association (Deborah Edwards): “The PCA objects to the plans for the Gurnell site.

While we are not opposed to new housing in the area, we think that if implemented, the proposals would lead to a vast overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a significant long-term detrimental impact on the character of the area and the amenities available both to the proposed site and neighbouring properties. Moreover, the proposed development has a significant proportion of one/two-bedroom apartments and a small proportion of family homes. Conversely, Ealing has a higher proportion of families and a lower proportion of one person households than the London average. In addition, the density levels proposed are way below the limits set for suburban areas, such as this, in the London Plan.

The proposals for social or affordable rented accommodation (98 for London affordable rent and 98 shared ownership (Intermediate) are 32% of the total. However, the Viability Report submitted as part of the planning application advises that the scheme falls short of being viable as it does not produce a sufficient profit percentage (assumed a 11.69% on cost whereas a reasonable return is 17%). The two key elements of the scheme that are causing it to fall short of being viable are the leisure centre and the affordable housing.

The proposal entails using Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which once used in this way can never be recovered. Such use is also out of line with the London Plan and Ealing's Development Plan. For example, the London Plan says that: MOL is afforded the same status and level of protection as Green Belt; development proposals which would harm MOL should be refused; and MOL should be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt.

The planned development with its six tower blocks going up to 17-storeys high is out of keeping with the low-rise character and style of architecture of the nearby residential housing. Such heights are out of line with Ealing's Development Plan which sets out the aim that development in existing areas should suit the local area. This proposal fails that. The loss of some 158 trees and a loss of habitat for wildlife is also unacceptable.

We would also reinforce the points made so pertinently by the Ealing Civic Society and trust that the Council will take due account of these. We consider that the Council's objective to replace the leisure centre to a gold-plated standard at whatever cost has made it overlook the detrimental impact of this scheme on the local area and MOL. We are also concerned about the Council's ability to look at the plans robustly and objectively given its involvement in the earlier stages of Page 54 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01 development and most recently in a webinar presentation by the developer and Ealing Council today.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Ealing Swimming Club (ESC) post on Facebook.com: “End of an era but some great memories- Ealing SC’s 50m pool has now closed, earlier than planned due to the current situation. Gurnell pool has been ESC’s main home for the past 39 years and has seen 1000’s of members learn to swim, improve, enjoy and compete at every level, up to and including the Worlds & Olympics. It was also the training base for ESC water polo & triathlon. A sad day for Dave Heathcock- head coach since 1994 - but with a new state of the art 10 lane 50m pool planned as it’s replacement, the future is assured for high performance swimming from ESC @bettergurnell @ealingcouncil @arenawaterinstinctuk @solosportbrands @swimenglandlondon #rollonthenewgurnell” (Officer Note: Support for the application noted)

Sian Berry AP (Green Party Member of the London Assembly): “A very concerned constituent has contacted me regarding the proposed redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre and flats development, plus replacement BMX bike track, on Metropolitan Open Land and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

As your Public Notice inviting comments itself says: “The proposals represent a Departure from the Development Plan that is not in accordance with the development plan in force in the area, being a Major Development on land designated as Metropolitan Open Land and comprising public open space.”

This application is also contrary to the protections for MOL and SINC as set out in both the current and Intend-to-Publish London Plans. As a Green London Assembly Member representing all Londoners, I am committed to protecting development on London’s Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Therefore, I urge you not to recommend either of these applications for approval.

Furthermore, as Ealing Council have declared a Climate Emergency, any development that has a negative impact on London’s biodiversity, as this application certainly would, should be rejected.” (Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

James Murray MP (Member of Parliament for Ealing North): “I am writing to object to the above application on behalf of a very large number of my constituents who have contacted me to raise their concerns. I would urge you to consider the number and depth of people’s objections, and I set out below the key reasons behind the strong feeling that these plans should be rejected.

First, there is deep and widely held concern that this development will create substantial extra pressure on local services like schools and healthcare. People are concerned about the impact on a range of services, including the pressure this development will put on the local transport network. The development will increase both the use of private vehicles in the local area and the burden on public transport serving the site, despite its limited capacity.

I have looked at the public transport access level (PTAL) rating for this site. The PTAL rating for this site ranges from 2 to 3, and therefore is within the lower half of the total PTAL range of 0 to 6. The draft new London Plan (Intend to Publish version) encourages new housing development to focus on sites with existing or planned PTAL ratings of 3 to 6, which implies the current provision of public transport for this site is below what would be expected to accommodate this development. Furthermore, the nearest stations, South Greenford and Castle Bar Park stations, are served only by an infrequent service of two trains per hour.

Page 55 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Second, there is a very strong feeling that this scheme will represent over-development of protected Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), harming the MOL and its openness. I would draw your attention to the fact that the Mayor of London’s draft new London Plan (Intend to Publish version) makes clear that MOL should be afforded the same status and level of protection as Green Belt.

And third, many of my constituents and I are concerned that the social or affordable rented housing includes only 12 three-bed homes out of 98 units in total, with the rest being one or two- beds. It is the role of the planning system to ensure the size mix of homes in new developments meets local needs for social housing, and so the low level of units with three bedrooms needs to be challenged, and the scheme’s financial viability assessment should be robustly interrogated.

In conclusion, I object to this application on behalf of a very large number of my constituents who firmly believe these plans should be rejected. I would urge you to listen to, and act upon, these views which are held strongly and widely across the community.”

(Officer Note: Issues raised are addressed within this report).

Neighbour Representations At the time of preparing this report 1702 comments have been received. 1681 were objections, 6 were neutral and 12 were supporting, summarised as follows: • Inconsiderate proposal: negative effect on prettiest London borough • Breaches National, London and local policies • No consideration of use of site for leisure. Dull high-density housing which will block sunlight • Design is ugly and unimaginative. Out of keeping • Pressure on local area's flood risk • Inadequate social infrastructure - schools and medical facilities • Unaffordable and too high density • Loss of trees and open space - disastrous to local wildlife • Overstretched local services such as schools, GP surgeries, hospitals, police and council services • Traffic congestion added: Junction with Ruislip Road and Argyle Road is already frequently blocked • Under provision of car parking spaces • Closing the leisure centre for more than three years would have a serious impact on young families in the area • Overshadowing existing homes • Destruction of trees will lead to pollution • Leisure centre is vital for mental health of the locals • Loss of playground and open space to new building • RC framed structure in flood plain - highly polluting • Only natural part of Ealing would become 'concrete jungle' • Negatively affect the quality of life, ecology, increase noise, pollution, traffic and cause overdevelopment • Not in keeping with local character • Unacceptable height • Ealing parks already over-congested • Unattractive blocks • Housing estates opposite this land are severely short of space and rely on the green areas provided to exercise and maintain their mental health • Project will take too long to complete • Having so many tall building in close proximity it would be devastating to local area as well as the residents • Fire safety concerns due to tall buildings • Development on policy protected MOL land • Impact on local traffic, green space, facilities Page 56 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Leisure Centre removed • Improved facilities will be 'mothballed' and not delivered • Flats will be 'unaffordable' • Should not encroach on existing green spaces • Cannot be consonant with LBE's Climate and Environmental Emergency Plan. • Ruislip road already heavily blocked with traffic • Out of keeping • Too tall - will obstruct light • Overdevelopment - strain on parking, schools, transport and open space • More people means more traffic therefore more pollution • Will change the character of the area substantially • Timing is too long for the area to be without a leisure centre • Developers just 'pocketing profit' • Overcrowding, pollution and traffic • Gentrification • Blight on the area and a massive additional strain on community facilities • Affordable/Social housing will not be delivered • Too high, too dense and unattractive • Traffic and parking provision inadequate • Leaves Ealing without a valuable facility • Development is too high and will spoil the whole look of that side of the road and green fields behind it • New Build high-rise blocks are uncompromising and within a short time period will be unloved • West London suburbia changing into a City Landscape • Lack of public consultation on this fundamental change of policy • Cross Rail, the Central Line, and other rail networks could overload with the number of additional passengers • The density, scale, height, and massing is totally at odds with that of the existing housing stock • Reduces green space, increases stress on local amenities, traffic • Tall, overbearing, out of keeping • Ealing is a leafy suburb and should remain that way! • adverse impact from the increased population on the local NHS, schools, police, and public transport • It will regenerate more traffic, decrease road safety and create significant local parking problems for residents due to the inadequacy of parking • Neighbouring properties loss of light and privacy, particularly Peal Gardens • Too high and too close to other properties • Scale of development out of place • Building on protected land not welcomed • Loss of trees and the communal green space • Kids need space to go out and play • Contrary to a number of key planning policies in the Ealing Development strategy and DM document: particularly Policies 1.1(i), 5.2, 2.18(H), 2.18(I), 3.4, 7D(B) • The Gurnell site is considered to be at a "very high risk" of fluvial flooding • There is no acknowledgement of the impact on surface water that will lead to flooding anything below existing ground level • The development is oversized for the area: casting shadows and dominating the skyline and not fitting in with existing buildings. • The site has not been identified for development, let alone for the development of tall buildings. • Building flats on MOL is not welcomed • The site is liable to flooding • We won't get the opportunity to use leisure centre as often as we usually do due to congestion Page 57 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Pollution and Crime rates will increase • Perivale Central Line station is already very congested in rush hours • No consideration as to the impact on the lives of existing residents and local infrastructure • Green spaces in Greenford and Perivale are already scarce • Leisure centre is an important facility for the local community • Far too dense and overshadowing • Save the small amount of Green Space available • The high rise is ugly and adds terrible pressure to local facilities • Traffic and pollution. Teenagers will suffer due to lack of facilities • Tall buildings should have a positive relationship on the surrounding area - this development will be overbearing, out of context and not in keeping with the character of the neighbouring area • Leisure centre is good as it is • Affordable housing will be a minimum • Disregards London, Local and Climate change emergency plans • Over development and insufficient time to study the planning details • Over-strain on local services, overlooking • Underground car parking in a flood plain. Completely out of character in suburbia • The leisure amenities will be lost which are most important for the local community • The proposed development is not in line with the Climate Emergency plan. More has to be done for the environment • Proposal is excessive for the needs of the area • The Local Planning Authority have failed to consider the cumulative impact of this and other developments across the borough • The amount of Affordable Housing being well below strategic targets • The affordable housing is completely segregated from the rest of the development - overdevelopment • Lack of parking at new development will put pressure on parking provision on Gurnell Grove estate • The proposal is too high and dense and will put too much pressure on the local infrastructure, existing resources are already poor for the area • Inappropriate development on MOL, out of keeping, overlooking and privacy • The footprint will round local ecology • The development will not benefit existing residents of the borough who are desperate for affordable family housing • This development should be restricted to the building of blocks A&B and the leisure centre • Increased traffic and loss of green space not welcome • Proposal not in keeping with Perivale homes • Stop building on areas with high population already: overcrowded GPs and schools • Lack of affordable housing, loss of mature trees, disastrous impact on local community and services • School places, Medical provision, Traffic therefore pollution • The loss of two football pitches in this proposal seems very inappropriate. Height is excessive • This green space in Perivale is sacred to many - could break up the community • The development is too high and too vast - this is not New York • There will be a considerable increase in the population and the local area is not able to support this (e.g. schools, NHS, GP etc etc) • The natural habitats will be destroyed to bring 1000s of people to an already over populated area • It is also a strain on services such as doctors surgeries and schools • This land is part of the Brent River Park. Proposal would be an irretrievable diminution of the character and quality of this regionally important linear open space.

Page 58 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• The proposal fails Ealing's own policy on tall buildings. This height is excessive and out of place • The cycle parking provision is inadequate for this low PTAL site in its layout, position and configuration • Overdevelopment: Residents will no longer have views of the park, tall buildings and not enough AH • Affordable homes allocation will be segregated from those properties sold commercially, effectively creating a divided development • We may lose our recreation centre for many years as the council will not have the money to rebuild • Out of keeping with local area • Far too large for this site. Losing public amenity space. • Traffic and parking will make area even more congested and polluted • This proposal represents a huge shortage of genuinely affordable flats and is a missed opportunity for the area • Generate noise, air and light pollution. Leisure centre will not benefit community • No EIA conducted, Affordable percentage disappointingly low • Families require more houses with gardens and parking not more tower blocks! • The open, green areas and sport facilities will be irreversibly lost • The proposal will put too much pressure on the local infrastructure • Project will have an adverse effect on the local community, reduce open space, increase traffic and pollution and close the swimming pool • Too high and overbearing • The loss of access to the pool for such an extended time will negatively impact my family. It will increase traffic, pollution and density in the area and is out of kilter with the local area. • Not enough social housing provision. Overpopulating the area. Far too high and oppressive • Negative impacts on local community and environment, poor affordable housing provision, design and scale out of keeping, conflict with local, regional and national planning policies • Long-term negative impacts of this development will spoil the current and future experience of Ealing for residents and businesses • Too tall, dense and bulky, traffic and parking issues, housing proposed will not meet the actual needs • The size and nature of the development as it's currently proposed is wholly unsuitable • Gross over development of Metropolitan Open Land • The loss of the leisure centre for many years will also reduce the health and wellbeing of the locals • Will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing to neighbouring properties • Too large for the area • Not enough public transport provision in the area - would become too densely populated • Ealing council are always so dismissive of the community concerns • Community facility loss - Gurnell pool must be preserved • Building big new buildings in concrete releases huge amounts of CO2 • Risk of losing only Olympic pool in West London • In this current time of obesity in the UK, Ealing Council decide to pull down an extremely busy sports centre • Insufficient parking, too many new flats will mean centre is overcrowded • The loss of amenity for so many years is unacceptable as a generation of children would be lost • Does not provide affordable or attractive solutions for young people or those moving to the area

Page 59 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Proposal paves the way for further destruction of our green spaces and MOL which must be protected • Towers are too tall for an MOL site • This is over development of the area and no thought for transport, doctors or schools • The tall towers will create a massive wall and block visual amenity into the park • Local streets will suffer significantly due to traffic and congestion, negative impact on wildlife • No provisions made to help the local healthcare cope with such a large increase in population • Blatant profiteering by developers and will blight the quality of life for the entire community • Out of scale and character in terms of its appearance compared with existing fabric • Detrimental to everyone's health especially the old people and further increased traffic • Impact on transport, commuting unescorted, traffic congestion, pollution, fumes and noise • Green spaces gone and the trees cutdown and the terrible effect on the wildlife • Air pollution will be injurious to older people living in the area • Will require CPZ's on streets where there are currently none, resulting in local residents paying for parking • Land should be protected not developed. • Traffic, parking, privacy, overshadowing and unsightly building • Whilst the density is excessive,the affordable housing target is not met • Too tall and not in keeping. Too many years for gym to be re-built • This proposal will not meet Ealing's social housing needs, but just overburden the already over-stretched local services and available parking • Proposal would create a very undesirable impact to all living close by • The existing building is functional, stylish and much loved. Destroying it would be anti- environmental • Unsympathetically designed development will have a huge negative impact on the existing local community: cramped housing and facilities will diminish quality of life • Less space for children and groups to exercise - contributing to obesity • Loss of trees and sunlight • More traffic, pollution and other problems • The aggressive size and layout of the buildings coupled with unattractive design creates a feeling that a monster brick wall • Loss of Green Belt, Environmental Impacts, Loss of Privacy • Development could be responsible for several giga-tonnes of CO2 emissions • Development will be detrimental to an area in which wildlife is currently starting to thrive upon • Flats do not provide enough key worker and affordable housing • Proposal will dominate the skyline in these areas, often shadowing adjacent housing • Avoid 'Croydonisation' of the Queen of the Suburbs • Overdevelopment on green spaces not welcomed • Plans are misleading • Unnecessary: demolition of a functioning and popular local amenity for no reason • Enough towers. Too high and out of character • Proposed cycle parking in this development doesn't meet the planning standards as laid out in the LCDS 2016 and the London Plan • Council money wasted as may cause ghettoisation that high rise buildings have proven to cause • Housing is far too dense, four times the current guidelines • No comparable costs have been provided on what restorative work is needed for the current facilities at Gurnell Leisure Centre • There is a serious lack of affordable housing and housing for families • The high rises will completely damage the borough and turn it into Croydon! • These buildings are completely out of sympathy with the entire neighbourhood Page 60 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Considerable disadvantages will occur to the environment should this development proceed • Project is not in keeping with the area, will increase traffic and place a strain on local amenities and schools • Inappropriate building on Metropolitan Open Land • This is discriminatory and blatant profiteering • The area around this is one of the few natural environments for wildlife in the Borough • Lack of transparency of intent, of financing and of bidding, as contaminates this planning application, undermines political trust of the electorate • 5 years of construction/traffic chaos and pollution - totally unacceptable • Ealing doesn't need more high-rise luxury flats • Environmental impact, loss of nature conservation area, destruction of bat habitats and cutting down 158 trees. Light, noise, and air pollution • The leisure centre and fields are vital for those living in the area to get out and enjoy some fresh air • Parking displacement and traffic/ transport impacts • Existing skateboard park will disappear under the new blocks of flats - and reappear as a Skateboard/BMX park on another area of MOL not far from the main site, thereby causing further harm to the local area • In the wake of the Covid pandemic, this development does not meet the revised guidance that Government has given in relation to housing density • The percentage of genuinely affordable housing should be at least 50% on public land • The existing sports facility is important to the local community and it appears that there is no guarantee as to when any new facility will be open • All of the proposed buildings are tall and bulky, oppressive and completely out of character with the local area • Substantial harm to openness, visual and spatial impact, and erosion of MOL • This development will have a huge impact on the available green spaces in the local area • The loss of daylight and sunlight not only breaches the guidelines, but has a direct impact on our wellbeing • Adverse impact from the increased population this development will bring, including impact on the local NHS, schools, police, and public transport • Insufficient parking and overcrowding • Detract from Ealing's heritage • Not in line with guidelines, strain on local services and facilities not addressed • Loss of daylight and privacy • Size and scale of proposed development are out of character • Building too high, not enough parking, loss of light, increase in traffic • Inadequate parking provision will saturate other local roads • Selling of publicly owned land without a guarantee of measurable benefits to the residents • Extra pressure on existing public transport, including on down-graded branch line to West Ealing • Negative impact on the elderly that jog around the greenery, kids playing football, picnics, skateboarders, scooters, bikers, children using the park, it's too much to be taken away at once • Residents within Peal Gardens will be living with the noise and pollution for up to five years • Tall building will be a monstrous blight to the area • The towers will overlook our homes, deprive us of our privacy and form a barrier to the Metropolitan Open Land and loss of afternoon sun • Health facilities, schools, traffic density and general quality of life will be badly affected • We need better provisions and infrastructure from public transport • If there are increase in jobs for the next few years for builders at Gurnell tower blocks, there will also be loss of jobs at Gurnell Leisure centre in the interim Page 61 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Loss of car parking spaces / increased pollution / increased noise in the area • Local services are already overstretched without the imposition of this development • This re-designation opens the way to further encroachment on open land in the borough, essential for health and wellbeing • This scheme goes to the extreme, converting suburban open land into the type of environment that should be restricted to city centres • EIA has not been undertaken to evaluate the inevitable ecological loss • Proposed development would be too dense, depressing to live in, not suitable for family housing, probably unaffordable • Public good (affordable housing) grossly outweighed by harm: insufficient numbers of units and their size • Another example of Ealing Council not caring about the health and wellbeing of its residents • I have been living in Peal Gardens for many years and this development would completely ruin my life • A large number of mature trees will need to be cut down and the whole good atmosphere of the area will be irrevocably change and be more stressful • This development is totally out of character for the area and far too tall and imposing • Hugely concerned about climate change - would only support such a development if it was carbon neutral • The area will not be able to cope with the proposed amount of residents • Strongly object to the height of the proposed building • The risk to all residents of the area and, most significantly, to local children is unacceptable • The pool is a great local resource used by family members • Reconsider the closure of the Gurnell for the sake of many, many Ealing residents’ young and old • The affordable housing blocks are segregated, thus creating a sense of exclusion • In view of Covid and other UK health disasters, it is unfair to be limiting access to gardens and open space • There are dozens of empty properties in our neighbourhood and they've been there for years • Spend some time and effort into developing /retro fitting all the empty properties in the area • The loss of a vital local amenity - the swimming pool - at a time when COVID-19 is making healthy exercise of prime importance • The nature and location of the development. It encroaches on an important greenspace and dominates it with excessive height • From Alton Court, this will create more traffic / pollution / less car parking spaces • It is overbearing and, on a scale, completely inappropriate for the surrounding area. • It will result in loss of visual amenity (but not loss of private view) • Open land currently used as a skate park football pitch and general leisure for the local community • How has this got this far when it goes against the Local Plan & the London Plan? • This development has to be seen in the context of the other blocks being given approval by the Council • The 6 tower blocks will create a huge block on the landscape and openness into the park • The stress/noise/chaos will certainly impact on physical and mental health of Peal Gardens residents • Local community and future generations that will have to suffer these abominations and the resulting environmental catastrophe • Development will change the character of the neighbourhood, in all respects and will be an eyesore compared to its environment • Council owned land should deliver 50% AH and the amount in this development falls significantly short Page 62 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• MOL should be protected and the local infrastructure cannot cope with something on this scale • The development affects the safety of people living in the area, as well as being out of character • This proposal would be a gross over development of a quiet, semi-rural part of Ealing • Destroying area of leisure which serves community for more housing totally out of keeping with area • Too high, on a flood plain, MOL, benefits developers not community • The new leisure centre offers little improvement to the existing one in terms of the size and facilities • Demolishing and rebuilding is not a sustainable way to maintain assets • This and other projects are going to put too much of a strain on our oversubscribed GPs and small roads • Ealing needs a more green spaces not more and more high rising towers • Overdevelopment out of character with surroundings • I live facing this development: privacy and quality of life will be destroyed looking at a tower block • Would negatively impact the residents living in what was a relatively green area of Ealing • Keep the local spaces clean and green and don't create another blot on the landscape • Access from Ruislip road junction to the A40 will be permanently blocked, it is already severely congested • LBE and any associated Developer(s) should conduct a proper consultation with both the local and wider community of Ealing • Taking away an amenity which is still being used instead of updating and allowing people to have this very useful amenity to use • It is important that children, and adults of course, have the opportunity to learn to swim • Being able to swim could be the difference between drowning and surviving • A monstrosity and an eyesore for Ealing. It must be stopped, and the popular present pool maintained • No one should be developing anything on this site which is Metropolitan Open Land which is also supposedly of concern to Ealing Council • Better quality, better size family homes that help build communities are appropriate. This is not • This proposal is for extremely dense housing with no regard for quality of life of the residents • Final nail in the coffin for 'The Queen of the Suburbs, it will be likened to entering a Inner City Sprawl • Loss of trees in our current climate crisis is unacceptable • The pool is a well-used residential amenity which is fit for purpose. There is no need to replace it • Rob so many kids and schools of the chance to learn how to swim • The development will literally overshadow the area and stand as a symbol of how Ealing Council favours and allows developer over-exploitation • The need for a balance of good social housing and open space is so important in the light of Covid etc. • The use of Metropolitan open land is also a huge issue as this should be preserved, this development is not an exceptional circumstance • Inappropriate provision of social infrastructure and facilities • Will impact local neighbourhood in adverse manner • Not enough family sized affordable homes, which is what the local community needs • Out of keeping with the area: putting high-rise urban architecture in suburban, green environment • Area is already overdeveloped and overpopulated • The infrastructure Is not in place for schools, Drs, Dentist, transport are severely lacking already Page 63 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Out of keeping, too high, MOL should be protected • Negative effect on existing facilities and services in local area • Blocks of flats will take up too much green space away • Children of the future need exercise and they need places to do it. But keep the uniqueness of the land surrounding the leisure centre as it is • Ruining these areas for future generations who will never know what it's like to grow up around open spaces • Taking away a vital recreation facility for the community • Increase in traffic. Buildings will be overbearing and unattractive • Inappropriate development on open land. Traffic will increase in the area along with pollution • Stop putting profits of developers above the needs of the local community and future generations • We are losing far too many green sites in the Ealing area and are at risk of overdevelopment • There is no alternative for residents of Central and west Ealing as other facilities are difficult to access • The plans are unfitting for the area around them; the tower blocks would be an eyesore; interrupt the low-rise skyline in the neighbourhood • Offers inappropriate solutions to housing and community needs • Architecture is simplistic and not sympathetic • Local schools and greenery will be all overcrowded for residents • Affordable housing is completely segregated from private housing which is unacceptable and divisive • The additional c1,800 additional residents will create a significant strain on the local bus routes which are already at full capacity • Parking spaces of 168 for 599 units is questionable and will exacerbate parking on surrounding streets • Buildings would tower over the park and blight it, ruining people's enjoyment of this beautiful open space • The funding arrangements are unclear • Gross and wholly inappropriate development on protected Metropolitan Open Land • Likely to lead to increased congestion, not in keeping with the local character • The development would contravene the Council's own climate change policy • The design is very basic, the high-rise structures look like blocks of concrete boxes you can see on the outskirts of Moscow • Tower blocks will harm Ealing residents for generations and the open land will never be gained back • Will lead to issues with traffic congestion and create a great strain on local facilities • The proposal contravenes the Draft London Plan • The development offers less than 30% affordable housing, should be 50% • If constructed, these towers will attract crime and destroy community cohesion • Resources - from the increased pressure on our already underfunded and stretched schools, NHS services, transport and local services • Loss of community skate park loved by local youngsters, which keeps them busy, fit and social. • As a community we need more open spaces, not less • Wholly out of character with the surrounding area and will not address the housing problems • Surely a borough with the heritage of Ealing can do better than this uncoordinated jumble of buildings • Inappropriate development for Metropolitan Open Land • Out of keeping with the green corridor of sorts from Hanger Lane to Greenford • Excessive density - too many homes on this small area of land • Departure from the Development Plan that is not in accordance with the development plan in force Page 64 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Gurnell is an extremely well-used facility by schools, clubs, families, the elderly and for general swimming and other fitness activities • Parking inadequate for the development creating extra pressure on the streets near by • proposed tall, overbearing buildings will down right ruin the spot • The height and mass of the development is oppressive, overbearing, out of scale and out of character • Overdevelopment. Closure of pool. Large traffic increase • Traffic and pollution increased, loss of greenery and wildlife • Adverse effect on the transport infrastructure and essential community facilities • Losing our local pool and facilities • Everything that is currently there needs to be replaced with something of a new version • Only 12 family sized affordable units and there seems to be no provision for social housing • The buildings are out of context and character with the local area • Local infrastructure is already under strain - schools, traffic, GP surgeries, dentists • Unacceptable pressures on local health, education and social amenities due to increased density • The proposal is inappropriate and absurd - overbearing, out of scale and out of character • Ultimately the increase in density of population and its overall effect on the Borough will make it a less attractive place to liv • The build will add additional pressure to all Ealing infrastructure and amenities as well as add to pollution level • The proposed demolition deprived the local area and schools of a much-needed exercised swimming facility • Reopen Gurnell as soon as possible, it is an accessible leisure centre for the masses, we need this now more than ever before • Ealing is an historically green borough and this development will concrete over much needed green space • Increases flood risk to residents of Peal Gardens (encloses photograph of recent flooding) • The developer has not considered the impact on the local community • Far too many new flats being built in the area and not enough car spaces • The current proposal is totally out of character with the area lacks any architectural merit • The design is ugly, it's too high and not in keeping with the local area • Too low a proportion of these units are either affordable or suitably sized for regular families • Strain on public services including schools, hospitals and transportation • This development is too high for the area and will overshadow current properties • Local services are already under strain. This will exacerbate as the concentration of people is too high • Traffic in Ealing is already a problem and even local buses cannot cope with demand during rush hour • Development should not be high-rise • Overdevelopment. Increased traffic will lead to even greater problems for commuters accessing A40 • Not sufficient justification to build multiple tower blocks that are inappropriate for the surrounding area, adversely affect the local environment and encroach on MOL • Far too many flats and not enough parking • Increased pressure on traffic and parking, it is likely that I and other users of the centre will not be able to visit as frequently • Green space is much more important to the area than more houses • Over development of an already congested area without consideration of the surrounding area and local requirements Page 65 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• If Gurnell Leisure Centre and other buildings in the borough had been maintained properly in the first place there would not have been the need to have ecological and financial crippling expensive schemes labelled as a service to the residents of Ealing • Far too high and condensed and completely out of keeping with the area and nearby green space • Such a tall building it will ruin the view for people in Pitshanger park, Copley Close etc. • No mention of how the additional population will be supported by additional health, school, community services • Nothing intrinsically wrong with the leisure centre, it would be much better to simply update it • This swimming pool, gym and local grounds provide a huge service to the community. Without this facility I believe our community would be at a great loss • This site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land which is protected • Flats are much too high and are not in keeping with the local area • More infrastructure will be desperately needed if such a large development is to appear • Gurnell leisure centre is a vital resource for people’s wellbeing. It must re-open asap • Significantly affect quality of our lives and public transport and traffic would be unbearable • Totally out of context with location both from an environmental point of view and from a strain on overburdened local services • Ealing is already over developed. Housing proposed is far too high and dense • Having a cluster of high rises is overbearing and not keeping with the existing residential properties/areas • Huge amounts of extra traffic in an area already under gross strain due to the addition of largely unused cycle lanes • It will completely ruin the area. Inadequate infrastructure • Ealing's housing unit target is achievable without needing to build on MOL at Gurnell • This is an area of family houses; we do not need an influx of studio and one-bedroom flats • Overdevelopment and goes against the Council's own Green development strategy • Destroying the green space and too many high rises going up • Removing 158 trees will also have an adverse impact on wildlife, disturbing and removing habitats • As the Gurnell site has no identified development plans, there is no justification for the development tall buildings on this site • There should be one car parking space per flat. It would make the flats much more attractive • The junction between Argyle Road and Ruislip Road is already extremely congested. Residential streets off this area is already used as rat runs during this time • There is nowhere near enough parking for that many people, and there aren't any tube stations within walking distance • Lack of clarity surrounding the arrangement between LBE and Ecoworld regarding financing of the new leisure centre and affordable housing • No regard for not having facilities like hospitals, police stations or libraries • This development will have impact greatly on the local environment, residents, resources and facilities • This development is not meeting the needs of BAME residents satisfactorily • It will ruin local wildlife habitat and destroy at least 158 trees • Will generate more traffic, decrease road safety and create significant local parking problems • Lack of information for enhancing the MOL land and improving the flora, fauna • Development should be aiming to implement Net Zero Carbons Buildings Framework to such a large scale • Too high eyesore, lose the green space, will create more traffic and more pollution

Page 66 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• The separation of social housing risks a "them and us" approach to neighbourliness, as opposed to the creation of a new integrated community • Loss of trees is simply too much for Ealing - an area renowned for its trees and open spaces • The council have decided not to conduct an Environmental Impact assessment despite the size and likely impact of the development • Stalinist-style development harking back to 1950s or 1960s Moscow • The original application indicated there was no residential aspect to this application, there is now. • Ealing is losing more and more of its distinctive character and green spaces • Detrimentally changing the character and landscape of Ealing garden suburb • Once built there's no knowing how far the development will spread • There will be an increase in traffic in an already busy area, hence an increase in pollution • We need the leisure centre with the green space left as it is • The proposed development is completely inconsiderate of the local community • The impact on traffic, parking and pollution in the area which directly affects my quality of life as a resident on Argyle Road • Reducing green belt and damaging environment, additional traffic, more pollution • There was not enough information on this development available/consulted on • Does not meet our housing needs. The amount of Affordable Housing being well below strategic target • Inadequate low-cost social housing. Loss of amenity not properly compensated for • Similarity with the bad deal that the council is hoping to sign with QPR regarding Warren Farm • Too many blocks built causing huge increase in local residents and the infrastructure is not able to cope • There is no social housing in this development and only 12 family sized accommodations • We see every winter the damage caused by building on a flood plain- will be a problem • Enormous project is over-development that is out of keeping with the local area & harmful • Far too dense and tall causing lack of privacy, overlooking private gardens and blocking out natural light • Taking away open areas that are used for exercise and as areas of recreation by the youth is terrible • The development will have a major adverse impact on traffic, local amenities, and wildlife • The sheer size of the proposed development would cause countless issues locally • We are already overpopulated; our services will suffer and they are not reasonably priced • Too high, too crowded, impact on the local environment and infrastructure • Destroying the community life that is present with monstrous tall buildings out of keeping • This development appears to be too intensive for the location • Not enough mixed housing both social housing and family housing 2-3 bedrooms • Far too big a development, will affect an already busy area • Development will put too much strain on local resources & create additional congestion & pollution • The plans are tall, bulky, oppressive and completely out of character with the local area • Massive increase in traffic around argyle road from scotch common to A40 will make travel impossible • Traffic is already bad will only get worse. It will destroy the wildlife

Page 67 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• Too high, inadequate parking provision, increased danger of flooding, increased traffic, affect ecology • Proposal contravenes numerous sections of the London Plan e.g. Chapter 7. Para 7.4 incl. • This development will create an increase in traffic and pollution as well as cause a loss of green space. • Not enough local facilities schools and hospitals and jobs. Young people need green space • These buildings too tall and taking vital green space away from the community • This is too high too many flats for the local area and taking valuable green space away from area • Removing mature trees as proposed will increase the carbon footprint and pollution • The leisure facilities are inadequate to serve the borough and more investment needed in green space • The proposed leisure centre will no doubt be prohibitively expensive • We want to improve Greenford, making it cleaner with better shops on our main street and not adding tall buildings and reducing green areas • This will mean overcrowding of the local area with already limited resources • The land next to the river Brent is an historic flood plain • This development appears to be too intensive for the location • Not enough mixed housing both social housing and family housing 2-3 bedrooms • massive environmental impact on a valuable nature conservation area with the destruction of bat habitats and cutting down 158 trees • The towers look recycled, ghastly building, what happened to the streamlined design? • The new swimming pools in the leisure centre will not be an improvement on the current provision. The main pool may be too wide for swimming instructors to teach in it effectively • The Council is selling and the contractors buying a planning permission • Not enough local facilities schools and hospitals and jobs. Young people need green space • It is against Ealing's sustainability program as the amount of concrete to build is carbon intensive and to cool and heat such a building is very wasteful • The roads around this area have already been very busy as one of the roads leads to M40 • As it is the council services are stretched e.g. the pavements are not swept regularly in Ealing especially after autumn • This proposal is in total disregard of the townscape prevalent in the locality and its MOL designation • Car parking has not been increased and some people do need to use their car in order to use the Leisure Centre • This kind of proposal perpetuates class divides and denounces the idea of community and inclusivity • This borough is special to all its residents, this is Ealing - the Queen of Suburbs - not Manhattan • 160 spaces for 600 flats is way too little. Every family has a car, many more than one, even if they're cycling. • Such major development should only be allowed in close proximity to major public transport hubs • It has also been shown that estates of tower blocks are nests for crime, depression etc. • here is no information about how the social infrastructure will cope (local schools, GPs, NHS, Police) by this increase in population • The proposed development will have impact to the environment such as the SINC meadows and bats • Non-compliance with local, regional, and national planning policy

Page 68 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• The view across from the top of Cleveland Park will be blighted by this high-rise urban development • There are worries that the borough is prioritising money over the needs of its existing tax paying residents • Resulting in increased traffic/pollution as well as demands on infrastructure • The people of Ealing fought many battles in the 1960s and 70s to prevent this kind of "concrete jungle" • The design is very unattractive, potentially overbearing and will impact neighbouring properties, which will suffer from loss of daylight and sunlight • This is over development not needed in the area • The height of the proposal is completely out of keeping with anything, and in an area, which is devoid of most infrastructure • A planning application to force through redevelopment is inappropriate in the circumstances • Ealing is 'Full': Ealing has a massive population density of 6,157 per square km • Conserving nature is not just a matter of aesthetics - it is essential for life on planet earth • It would be criminal to go ahead with this development, and I appeal to you to value lives and the environment over financial gain • Planning applications for simple extensions are often refused on grounds of lack of keeping with the surrounding properties, or intrusion on neighbours' privacy. These towers would dominate over all surrounding houses, would not integrate with the existing properties • On council owned land this should be 50% and the amount in this development falls significantly short • The development would spoil the peaceful area • This is monstrous building that has so many local and ecological issues • The noise and pollution due to the building will be suffered for years • In 20 years’, time we will be pulling these awful sites down • Less parking. Pitshanger Park becoming overcrowded • Planning Committee who make the decisions rarely if ever bother to read the actual objections • Crude overdevelopment and brutalist architecture • Local young people will not be able to afford them are they yet again being built for rich foreign investors • Gurnell Grove is social housing with some of the poorest living here, we can’t afford for paid parking as its been suggested • Unneeded and environmentally harmful multimillion-pound development on metropolitan open land home to protected species • Segregated housing which is completely unacceptable as this will create a non- inclusive environment • The swimming pool is key for the area and it's quite clear that this is the lowest part on the priority line for this development • The "consultations" were very disappointing and not meaningful, tick box exercise • Housing is needed but tower blocks just cause human pollution and the infrastructure in the area can't handle it • Redevelop the leisure centre and bring back more jobs rather than cutting them • 100% in favour for the redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre, I am totally opposed with the inclusion of so many flats • Outraged that the swimming pool will be closed while this building work is completed with no alternative given to residents • There is a risk that the council run out of money and reduce the facility mix or specification of the leisure centre • There should be a community centre in the area for the local community and surrounding communities to use

Page 69 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

• The new developments are going to result in poorer air quality as trees are cut down and more cars drive down this area • The number and height of the proposed blocks are both excessive • Need for open green space has never been more apparent than in these current times • Even though the council has declared a Climate Emergency, this plan includes the cutting down of mature trees • Tall blocks of flats are quite simply not desirable accommodation • This development will ultimately be destructive for the Gurnell Grove community • Proposed development is unquestionably excessive for this area • Tall buildings may be a cause for increased Fire Risks • Extra 1800 residents will overwhelm community facilities such as public transport, schools, and local health service • The present buildings have only been there for 40 years, how can they be obsolete already? • Unbelievably high density, poor access to shops, overstretched infrastructure, not answering need etc • Misleading documents and visualisations of the proposed towers • Completely lacking any aesthetic value and will be totally out of place given the setting • Every building that goes up should have a change in infrastructure that can service it • The development will become a ghetto and attract violence, antisocial behaviour • Residential family area will be completely ruined • FRA is technically defective, missing or lacks information and modelling, no information on sewage flooding, basement flood risks, including costs, and will not provide adequate mitigation to prevent flooding or protect public safety, flood flow routing seems to be reason to move the BMX track • Ealing council is not listening to the thoughts of many locals and they just want money • Development will have a massive impact on our life and well being • Hundreds of cars polluting the area and causing traffic on our roads • Enormous strain on already massively oversubscribed schools, GP surgeries, local infrastructure and localised air quality • Absence of car parking on site will lead to surrounding roads being clogged up.

(Officer Note: Matters relevant to the application of planning policy, CPZ and design are addressed in the Sections below. Where the adjacent social infrastructure of the area is insufficient a financial contribution is negotiated to meet the need in accordance with national policy guidance. The scheme promotes lower emissions and pollution objectives in line with the Mayor’s Vision Zero and TfL Healthy Streets including measures to preclude obtaining permits for parking in CPZs. The FRA has been independently assessed by the EA and no objections are raised. Thames Water raises no objections and requests a condition re waste-water infrastructure. The scheme also incorporates measures for security and will achieve Secure by Design standards. The Council has already made a policy decision to replace the current Leisure Centre with a new one that will enhance sports facilities in the area in the long term).

External Consultees:

Metropolitan Police and No objections subject to Secure by Design condition. Secured by (Officer Note: Condition included in the recommendation). Design Officer

Crossrail No comments.

Ministry of Defence No comments received.

Page 70 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

NHS Property Services Request a financial contribution towards maintenance and improvement to health care facilities in the area. (Officer Note: Financial contribution included in the recommendation).

Environment Agency Following submission of an updated model and flood risk assessment satisfied concerns have been addressed and the model is suitable for its intended use. Recommended that the developer seek to improve the morphology and ecology of River Brent through the site either by direct improvements or contributions to protect a 10-metre-wide buffer zone around the River Brent. (Officer Note: Condition included in the recommendation).

GLAAS Updated Desk Based Assessment (DBA) updated and a Geotechnical Monitoring report are submitted. Once further analysis has been completed the need for trial trenching to establish the nature and extent of buried remains would need be considered. As such, no objection was raised subject to a planning condition and informative. (Officer Note: Condition and Informative included in the recommendation).

London Fire Brigade Commissioner advises plans should conform to Building Regulations and strongly recommend that sprinklers are considered in the proposal. Also advise that the applicant should explore the Water Mains and Hydrants section of Guidance Note 29 on Fire Brigade access. (Officer Note: Applicant submitted Fire Statements. Condition included in the recommendation to secure compliance). Planning Casework Secretary of State is in receipt of third-party requests to consider call-in Unit (PCU) (SoS) application and will be considering the case if Committee minded to approve this planning application. (Officer Note: Referral included in the recommendation.)

Transport for London Requested updated bus impact assessment reflecting trips to nearby stations (TfL) to determine the level of bus mitigation required. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit of the proposed vehicle access points requested. The submitted Travel Plan welcomed and generally acceptable. Expect issues identified by the audit of the key pedestrian and cycle routes, such as poor lighting and traffic capacity issues on Ruislip Road East, Argyle Road Southbound arm. to be addressed through a financial contribution. Improvement highway works proposed along Ruislip Road East would also need to be secured by legal agreement. Car Parking Management Plan, EVCPs, Travel Plan, DSP and CLP to be secured by planning condition and legal agreement. (Officer Note: The applicant submitted a TA addendum to TfL. Contributions and conditions included in the recommendation).

Natural England Do not wish to provide comments. Assessment for impacts on protected species is the responsibility of the LPA. Emphasised the importance of a suitable assessment as to whether further surveying work of protected species on site should be carried out and offered advice on the biodiversity metric model. (Officer Note: Protected species assessment and updated bat survey submitted. Conditions to secure protection in the recommendation. Applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Net Gain report).

Page 71 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Network Rail Requested clarification regarding drainage, noise, cranes and scaffolding., which were provided by the applicant’s agent. No objections subject to conditions. (Officer Note: Suggested conditions not enforceable by the LPA on NR land. Included instead as Informatives to the applicant in the recommendation. No new buildings are proposed within 5m of the operational railway).

Heathrow Safeguarding No safeguarding objections to the proposed development.

NATS No safeguarding objections to the proposed development.

Thames Water Identified inability of existing water network to accommodate the needs of this development proposal. Condition requested. No objection as Surface Water not discharged to the public network. Approval should be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority. No objection to Foul Water sewerage network infrastructure capacity, based on information provided. Requests the Applicant should incorporate protection to prevent sewage flooding, by installing a positive pumped device (or equivalent reflecting technological advances), on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions. Expect the developer to demonstrate what measures will be undertaken to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. An informative to advise of the Groundwater Risk Management Permit is recommended. (Officer Note: Conditions and Informative included in the recommendation).

London Wildlife Trust No comments received.

Canals and River Trust No comments received.

Highways England No objections.

Historic England Did not wish to offer any comments.

Sport England (SE) Initial holding objection in relation to playing fields replacement and relocation, timescales, BMX facility replacement and relocation, skate park replacement and relocation withdrawn and condition requested. (Officer Note. Clarification provided to SE on all points raised. SE considers that elements of the proposal broadly align with either Exceptions 4 or 5 of its Playing Field Policy in relation to the playing field and objectives Enhance and Provide of its wider Planning Policy. Condition and Informatives included in the recommendation).

Ealing Cycling Objection on grounds of inappropriate provision. Concerns in relation to Campaign location on basement floors and security associated with cycle stores size exceeding the recommended capacity. Provided more detailed comments included concerns of cycle stands being too far from the blocks, distance between cycle racks, width of doors, aisle widths between double rowed racks. Require some major improvements and possible changes to the layout. (Officer Note: No objection raised by TfL or LBE Transport. However, condition included in recommendation).

Page 72 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Internal Consultees:

Housing & Acceptable that the 50% target is not met, given providing 35% on habitable Regeneration room basis. Application is offering a 50/50% split of LAR and shared ownership. Housing Supply satisfied that given the constraints of this development, this is a reasonable mix of affordable tenures. Support the affordable mix. Inclusion of 2 and 3 bed homes will provide homes for those in need of larger family sized accommodation. (Officer Note. Support noted).

Transport Services No objections subject to conditions and financial contributions (Officer; Included in the recommendation). Environmental Services No comments received. (Refuse Team)

Energy & Sustainability No objections, subject to conditions and s106 obligations. (Officer Note: Conditions and s106 contributions included in the recommendation).

(Pollution Technical – No objections subject to s106 contributions and conditions. Air Quality) (Officer Note: Contributions and conditions included in the recommendation).

(Pollution Technical – No objections subject to conditions and informatives. Noise) (Officer Note: Conditions and Informatives included in the recommendation).

(Pollution Technical – No objections, subject to conditions. Light) (Officer Note: Conditions included in the recommendation).

Contaminated Land No objections subject to conditions. Officer (Officer Note: Conditions included in the recommendation).

Education Financial contribution requested. (Officer Note: Included in the recommendation).

Leisure & Sport Leisure Services supports the application to re provide an enhanced state of the art sport and leisure facility at Gurnell Leisure Centre. Identified need for the proposed swimming pool space in the borough is currently approximately 1,334 square metres (as per Ealing Sports Facility Strategy 2012-21). The demand for pool space in Ealing has risen due to the population growing to a level over and above that predicted back in 2012. Pool space in all of the public facilities is at a premium during peak hours, with very little if any spare capacity. In summary, the supply side of the analysis has shown a reduction since that predicted in 2012 and the demand side has grown at a much faster rate than that predicted in 2012 due to both the rapid increase in population and the demand for pool space in Ealing due to many factors including the desire to be active.

Page 73 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The main 10 lane 50 metre pool with its two moveable floors and 2 submerging booms will have the functionality to be split into pools of various sizes and of different depths, which will allow an extensive programme of activities for people of all ages and abilities to be delivered at any one time. The centre will also offer Ealing’s first purpose-built wet side facility catering for younger groups, combined with the soft play offer will enable Gurnell to become a destination venue for families. The council is working with Access Sport and the very successful Ealing BMX Club to design, fund and build a new regional standard BMX facility to be located close to the existing pump track and near to other outdoor sports facilities in Perivale. There is currently a planning application for this new facility pending decision with Ealing under the reference 201541FUL. This much improved, dedicated new venue will be close to other year-round outdoor sports venues currently operated by the council’s leisure partner Everyone Active. To mitigate the impact of the Gurnell skate park closure, the council worked in partnership with the existing Skate Association based at Gurnell, early in the process to identify an alternate site in the borough for a new replacement skate facility with all the latest designs and features. The new floodlit skate facility in Acton Park opened last year and is already popular with users from across the borough. Once the skate facilities are reopened at Gurnell, Ealing will have 2 high quality skate facilities available to residents. (Officer Note. Support noted).

Parks & Countryside More than meets the play space target. Not within an area of park deficiency. Enhancements will be a bigger and better play area, landscape, bridge, new paths, new seats, other improvements and the opening up of the river. Lack of allotments needs financial contribution. Increase in maintenance/management costs to the council with the added facilities, future replacement costs and increase in use will be significant so this should be mitigated. Should be proving a skate park, BMX track and play area. (Officer Note: The s106 contributions for maintenance/management costs, BMX track replacement costs and mitigation for the lack of allotment provision have been secured as part of the recommendation. GLA commented that the level of Urban Greening proposed exceeds the target and its policy objective).

Regeneration Requested the developer to produce a Local Employment & Training plan, to secure apprenticeships and also requested a financial contribution in a legal agreement (Officer Note: Contribution included in the recommendation).

LLFA No comments received at time of preparing Report. (Officer Note. Flood risk and associated drainage matters assessed by the EA in representations above. The scheme incorporates comprehensive flood management measures. Condition included in the recommendation).

Page 74 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Reasoned Justification:

Principle of Development The principle of development must be examined in the context of the application of national, strategic and local policies in relation to: - protection of the MOL from inappropriate development, - need and demand for the leisure centre facilities, - enabling or facilitating residential and associated development.

National, Regional and Local Planning Policies The assessment of the proposal has had regard to the following planning policy documents and guidance: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), NPPG and National Design Guide (NDG) London Plan 2021 Ealing Development (Core) Strategy Development Management DPD Ealing adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Mayoral Policy guidance

Further details of the relevant documents and guidance to the pre-application submission are set out in Appendix 1 to this Report.

Planning Policy Those policies of particular relevance are summarised for consideration as:

NPPF At the heart of the NPPF lies the principle of sustainable development. Para.8 states: ‘8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives): a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.’

The policy relationship between development plans applicable to this application is discussed later. The Framework sets out the following considerations:

‘12. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making….

‘13. …Neighbourhood plans should support the delivery of strategic policies contained in local plans or spatial development strategies; and should shape and direct development that is outside of these strategic policies.’

The application is supported by a Viability Assessment (VA) to demonstrate that the quantum of residential development is the minimum necessary to financially enable the new leisure Page 75 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

centre, whilst optimising the quantum of affordable housing that can be secured through the development. There is no directly applicable NPPF policy to this situation, however the advice makes clear on the approach to VA generally:

’57. …The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.’

Applying the NPPF approach, NPPG Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 10-011-20180724 says:

‘Viability assessment is a process of assessing whether a site is financially viable, by looking at whether the value generated by a development is more than the cost of developing it. This includes looking at the key elements of gross development value, costs, land value, landowner premium, and developer return.’ The applicant’s VA has been assessed by LSH and their Report and Supplemental, is contained in Appendix 2. It follows the recommended NPPG approach and is in the public domain.

To promote healthy and safe communities the Framework states:

‘91. Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which: … ‘c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs – for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, local shops, access to healthier food, allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling.

‘92. To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community; c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.’

London Plan Policy G3 affords MOL the same protection as Green Belt, and for the purpose of determining applications directs applicants/decision makers to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Page 76 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Where harm by definition of inappropriateness is unavoidable, every effort should be made to mitigate the harm to the MOL objectives/functions.

Where harm cannot be avoided or mitigated further, the harm to the MOL objectives, and any other harm, should be weighed in the balance with the benefits to be secured including in this instance the satisfactory redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre (including its wider open recreation functions) and associated new housing, in order to establish whether such benefits clearly outweigh the harms. Only where this can be demonstrated, will it be possible to conclude that very special circumstances exist to satisfy the policy.

NPPF Green Belt policy states:

‘133. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

134. Green Belt serves five purposes: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

141. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.

143. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

144. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

145. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: … b) the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; …’

As with national policy (at para.141), London Plan policy G3 positively supports proposals which support and enhance the status and function of MOL.

‘8.3.4 Proposals to enhance access to MOL and to improve poorer quality areas such that they provide a wider range of benefits for Londoners that are appropriate within MOL will be encouraged. Examples include improved public access for all, inclusive design, recreation facilities, habitat creation, landscaping improvement and flood storage.’

NPPG advice on ‘openness’ ID 64-001-20190722 Page 77 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

the courts have identified a number of matters which may need to be taken into account in making this assessment. These include, but are not limited to: openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume; the duration of the development, and its remediability – taking into account any provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved) state of openness; and the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic generation.

In relation to making effective use of land, the NPPF states:

‘117. Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land….

118. …c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs… d) promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively…

119. Local planning authorities,… should take a proactive role in identifying and helping to bring forward land that may be suitable for meeting development needs, including suitable sites on brownfield registers or held in public ownership, using the full range of powers available to them. This should include identifying opportunities to facilitate land assembly,…, where this can help to bring more land forward for meeting development needs and/or secure better development outcomes.’

In seeking to optimise the potential contribution of sites the Framework sets out criteria that are applicable to this application:

‘122. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:

the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it; local market conditions and viability; the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.

‘123. Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances:

a) plans should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area and meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible. This will be tested robustly at examination, and should include the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport. These standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential Page 78 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate;… …; and c) local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).’

Finally, in achieving well designed places, the NPPF states:

‘Local planning authorities should ensure that they have access to, and make appropriate use of, tools and processes for assessing and improving the design of development. These include workshops to engage the local community, design advice and review arrangements, and assessment frameworks such as Building for Life. These are of most benefit if used as early as possible in the evolution of schemes, and are particularly important for significant projects such as large-scale housing and mixed-use developments. In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the outcome from these processes, including any recommendations made by design review panels.’

In the same context, the Government’s advice on design has also been significantly expanded in the National Design Guide 2019 (NDG) and NPPG 2019. However, the fundamental principle at para.127(c) of requiring new development to be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities) has remained consistent.

In addition, the strategy of the new London Plan identifies a sufficient increase in development needs to necessitate progressive densification across Boroughs even outside of the main centres for growth and this is set out principally in Policy H2.

The new London Plan was published on 2nd March 2021, Policy D3 requires: ‘A The design of the development must optimise site capacity. Optimising site capacity means ensuring that development takes the most appropriate form for the site. Higher density developments should be promoted in areas that are well connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling. B Where there are existing clusters of high-density buildings, expansion of the clusters should be positively considered by Boroughs. This could also include expanding Opportunity Area boundaries where appropriate.’

While Ealing’s Local Plan predates these documents, it follows a similar spatial strategy with a strong town centres and opportunity areas first approach that has now been expanded both by the increase and extension of opportunity areas and by the provisions of London Plan Policy H2.

Historic England’s Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Revision 2 (2012) and Note 4 – Enabling Development and Heritage Assets (Public Consultation Draft, 2017) Whilst the guidance is directed to heritage matters, the following is reproduced as it provides a useful basis to understand how the concept is applied in the case of this application.

‘Enabling development’ is development that would be unacceptable in planning terms but for the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not otherwise be achieved. While normally a last resort, it is an established and useful

Page 79 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

planning tool by which a community may be able to secure the long-term future of … other public benefits, provided it is satisfied that the balance of public advantage lies in doing so.

The public benefits are paid for by the value added to land as a result of the granting of planning permission for its development. A Viability Assessment therefore normally forms part of the process and is comprised and independently tested in this application by LSH (and was reviewed also by the GLA Viability Team).

London Plan (2021) Policy G3 Metropolitan Open Land A Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is afforded the same status and level of protection as Green Belt: 1) Development proposals that would harm MOL should be refused. MOL should be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. 2) boroughs should work with partners to enhance the quality and range of uses of MOL. B The extension of MOL designations should be supported where appropriate. Boroughs should designate MOL by establishing that the land meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) it contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built-up area 2) it includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport, the arts and cultural activities, which serve either the whole or significant parts of London 3) it contains features or landscapes (historic, recreational, biodiverse) of either national or metropolitan value 4) it forms part of a strategic corridor, node or a link in the network of green infrastructure and meets one of the above criteria. C Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken through the Local Plan process, in consultation with the Mayor and adjoining boroughs. MOL boundaries should only be changed in exceptional circumstances when this is fully evidenced and justified, ensuring that the quantum of MOL is not reduced, and that the overall value of the land designated as MOL is improved by reference to each of the criteria in Part B.

Policy S4 Play and informal recreation A Boroughs should: 1) prepare Development Plans that are informed by a needs assessment of children and young person’s play and informal recreation facilities. Assessments should include an audit of existing play and informal recreation opportunities and the quantity, quality and accessibility of provision. Boroughs should consider the need for cross-borough collaboration where appropriate 2) produce strategies on play and informal recreation facilities and opportunities, supported by Development Plan policies, to address identified needs. B Development proposals for schemes that are likely to be used by children and young people should: 1) increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile 2) for residential developments, incorporate good-quality, accessible play provision for all ages. At least 10 square metres of play space should be provided per child that: a) provides a stimulating environment b) can be accessed safely from the street by children and young people independently c) forms an integral part of the surrounding neighbourhood d) incorporates trees and/or other forms of greenery e) is overlooked to enable passive surveillance f) is not segregated by tenure 3) incorporate accessible routes for children and young people to existing play provision, schools and youth centres, within the local area, that enable them to play and move around their local neighbourhood safely and independently

Page 80 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

4) for large-scale public realm developments, incorporate incidental play space to make the space more playable 5) not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand. Where published, a borough’s play and informal recreation strategy should be used to identify ongoing or future demand for play provision.

Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities A To ensure there is sufficient supply of good quality sports and recreation facilities, boroughs should: 1) prepare Development Plans informed by a needs assessment for sports and recreation facilities. Needs should be assessed at the local and sub-regional level. Needs assessments should include an audit of existing facilities 2) secure sites for a range of sports and recreation facilities in Development Plans, as justified by the needs assessment 3) maintain, promote and enhance networks for walking, cycling and other activities including the Walk London Network shown on Figure 5.1 B Development proposals for sports and recreation facilities should: 1) increase or enhance the provision of facilities in accessible locations, well-connected to public transport and link to networks for walking and cycling 2) maximise the multiple use of facilities, and encourage the colocation of services between sports providers, schools, colleges, universities and other community facilities 3) support the provision of sports lighting within reasonable hours, where there is an identified need for sports facilities, and lighting is required to increase their potential usage, unless the lighting gives rise to demonstrable harm to the local community or biodiversity. C Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless: 1) an assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements (for the existing or alternative sports and recreational provision) at the local and sub-regional level. Where published, a borough’s assessment of need for sports and recreation facilities should inform this assessment; or 2) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or 3) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. D Where facilities are proposed on existing open space, boroughs should consider these in light of policies on protecting open space (Policy G2 London’s Green Belt, Policy G3 Metropolitan Open Land and Policy G4 Open Space) and the borough’s own assessment of needs and opportunities for sports facilities, and the potential impact that the development will have.

Policy G6 Biodiversity and access to nature A Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) should be protected. B Boroughs, in developing Development Plans, should: 1) use up-to-date information about the natural environment and the relevant procedures to identify SINCs and ecological corridors to identify coherent ecological networks 2) identify areas of deficiency in access to nature (i.e. areas that are more than 1km walking distance from an accessible Metropolitan or Borough SINC) and seek opportunities to address them 3) support the protection and conservation of priority species and habitats that sit outside the SINC network, and promote opportunities for enhancing them using Biodiversity Action Plans 4) seek opportunities to create other habitats, or features such as artificial nest sites, that are of particular relevance and benefit in an urban context 5) ensure designated sites of European or national nature conservation importance are clearly identified and impacts assessed in accordance with legislative requirements. C Where harm to a SINC is unavoidable, and where the benefits of the development proposal clearly outweigh the impacts on biodiversity, the following mitigation hierarchy should be applied to minimise development impacts: Page 81 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

1) avoid damaging the significant ecological features of the site 2) minimise the overall spatial impact and mitigate it by improving the quality or management of the rest of the site 3) deliver off-site compensation of better biodiversity value. D Development proposals should manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure net biodiversity gain. This should be informed by the best available ecological information and addressed from the start of the development process. E Proposals which reduce deficiencies in access to nature should be considered positively.

LBE Leisure Policy • LBE Sports Facility Strategy 2012-2012 • Health and Well Being Strategy 2016 – 21 • Playing Pitch Strategy 2017-2031

Ealing Development (Core) Strategy ‘Policy 5.2: Protect and Enhance Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) The council in realising the potential of the network of Metropolitan Open Land in the borough will promote the following proposals: …f) Brent River Park and adjacent MOL (see also Policy 2.9 above):…’

‘Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is a London wide concept and is recognised as land which contributes to the physical structure of London, provides opportunities for open-air recreation, or contains features or landscape of metropolitan or national significance. Whilst the criteria for identifying Green Belt and MOL are distinct, the London Plan confirms that the principles of control over development in the Green Belt set out in NPPF applies equally to MOL.’

‘Policy 5.4: Protect the Natural Environment – Biodiversity and Geodiversity (a) To protect and promote the network of Nature Conservation sites in the borough, through enhancing the natural value of existing sites, and improving access particularly in areas of deficiency. Biodiversity will be considered in the management of all green spaces and the network of waterways, including parks, gardens, private amenity space, cemeteries, green corridors and other incidental areas, and where development is proposed in or adjacent to such spaces. (b)... (c) To identify open spaces such as parkland, playing fields, canal and river corridors that are valued for their tranquillity, and designate them as quiet areas in recognition of their intrinsic value and to protect them for future generations.

Policy 5.5: Promoting Parks, Local Green Space and Addressing Deficiency The council will seek: (a) To protect open space of local value required for informal recreation, including for walking, jogging, gardening and food growing. (b) To address deficiency in access to open space in the borough, and to meet the open space needs arising from new development, including in particular at Southall Gas Works and the Southern Gateway (Park Royal). Key priorities in terms of proposals for addressing deficiency are identified through the Green Space Strategy. (c) To secure developer contributions to provide a key funding source for the delivery of the above proposals. (d) To make provision for a network of green ways through parks and open spaces as a means of encouraging walking, cycling and running for recreation and to get to and from local destinations. (e) To promote the use of parks for events and other activities, providing this is managed in a sensitive and compatible manner.

Policy 5.6: Outdoor Sports and Active Recreation The council will: Page 82 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

(a) Protect and promote a network of sports grounds and other active recreation areas in the borough. Sites identified as being of strategic and local importance for outdoor sports will be protected and promoted primarily for this function. (b) Seek to develop a sports hub as part of this network, with a range of sports provision in the Gurnell area, and the development of several strategic ‘satellite sites’ located strategically to serve communities across the borough. (c) Seek to secure developer contributions to provide a key funding source for the delivery of various priority projects.

Policy 6.2: Social Infrastructure Social infrastructure includes affordable housing, education, children’s services, provision for older people and independent living, health care, employment, community safety, culture, leisure and community services (including libraries, community centres, places of worship, police, fire, ambulance facilities, and cemeteries) The following requirements have been identified to date:… • Culture, Sports and Leisure - Enhance buildings and spaces through developments that enable cultural activity to take place for the benefit of its community. Retain Ealing as the green heart of West London and improve access to open and built leisure uses e.g. through co-location with other services. The targets for housing and employment development provide an opportunity to modernise and improve facilities, but they also place pressure on the environment. Links between future leisure provision and the health/PCT agenda are vital in improving the health and well-being of the existing and new population. The council’s own assets and land can be used to stimulate development and provide much of the land for local infrastructure. These assets can have added value if they also provide accommodation for other local service providers, e.g. health, sports and leisure facilities etc.

Development Management DPD POLICY 2.18 EALING LOCAL VARIATION – GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: THE NETWORK OF OPEN AND GREEN SPACES H The coherence of green and open spaces and their integrity in fulfilling the complementary functions of nature conservation, heritage conservation and recreation remain the overriding principles governing their development, extension and use. Only development ancillary to the open space will be permitted. The size of development within green and open spaces and its impact upon visual openness must be kept at a minimum. I Development should not compromise the visual openness or heritage value of open and green spaces particularly with regard to views within and across these areas. The impact of development upon views to and from open and green spaces is also a material consideration.

POLICY 7.7 EALING LOCAL VARIATION - LOCATION AND DESIGN OF TALL AND LARGE BUILDINGS Planning Decisions G In addition to the above principles, tall buildings should; a) accord with the spatial objectives of the Development Strategy in being located on specified sites within Acton, Ealing and Southall town centres, gateways to Park Royal and identified development sites b) offer an outstanding quality of design c) make a positive and appropriate contribution to the local context and the broader area on which they impact H Tall buildings are defined as those that are substantially taller than their neighbours and/or which significantly change the skyline

POLICY 7D Page 83 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

EALING LOCAL POLICY - OPEN SPACE Planning Decisions A All developments that increase demand for open space will be expected to make an appropriate contribution towards meeting this additional demand, having regard to the standards detailed in table 7D.2. B Any development adjacent to or neighbouring existing open space should seek to enhance and not compromise the character of that open space or its function

Assessment and Application of Development Plan MOL Policy in Relation to the Application As noted above, London Plan Policy G3 affords MOL the same protection as Green Belt, and for the purpose of determining applications directs applicants/decision makers to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Local Policy 2.18 of the Development Management DPD affirms this position.

The overriding goal of these policies is to maintain the openness of such sites and their open functions. These policies essentially establish a presumption of refusal against proposals which compromise these objectives, and in this regard the NPPF seeks to avoid the introduction of inappropriate development on such sites, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. London Plan Policy G3 and relevant supporting paragraphs state: ‘Policy G3 Metropolitan Open Land A Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is afforded the same status and level of protection as Green Belt: 1) Development proposals that would harm MOL should be refused. MOL should be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. 2) boroughs should work with partners to enhance the quality and range of uses of MOL. B The extension of MOL designations should be supported where appropriate. Boroughs should designate MOL by establishing that the land meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) it contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built-up area 2) it includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport, the arts and cultural activities, which serve either the whole or significant parts of London 3) it contains features or landscapes (historic, recreational, biodiverse) of either national or metropolitan value 4) it forms part of a strategic corridor, node or a link in the network of green infrastructure and meets one of the above criteria. C. N/A..’

‘8.3.1 Metropolitan Open Land is strategic open land within the urban area. It plays an important role in London’s green infrastructure – the network of green spaces, features and places around and within urban areas. MOL protects and enhances the open environment and improves Londoners’ quality of life by providing localities which offer sporting and leisure use, heritage value, biodiversity, food growing, and health benefits through encouraging walking, running and other physical activity. ‘8.3.2 Metropolitan Open Land is afforded the same status and protection as Green Belt land. Any proposed changes to existing MOL boundaries must be accompanied by thorough evidence which demonstrates that there are exceptional circumstances consistent with the requirements of national policy. 8.3.3. N/A’

Para. 8.3.4 is particularly relevant to the application in light of the park and flood mitigation enhancements proposed in the application: ‘8.3.4 Proposals to enhance access to MOL and to improve poorer quality areas such that they provide a wider range of benefits for Londoners that are appropriate within MOL will be encouraged. Examples include improved public access for all, inclusive design, recreation facilities, habitat creation, landscaping improvement and flood storage.’ Page 84 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the MOL. As set out below, aspects of the proposal are inappropriate development.

Where harm cannot be avoided or mitigated further, the further harm to the MOL objectives (I.e. that which is added to the ‘by definition’ harm), and any other harm, should be weighed in the balance against the benefits to be secured in this instance, namely the satisfactory redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre, including the wider open recreation enhancements and associated new affordable and market housing, in order to establish whether such benefits clearly outweigh the harms. Only where this can be demonstrated, will it be possible to conclude that very special circumstances exist to satisfy the policy.

In undertaking this assessment, a number of steps have been taken to establish:

1. Which elements of the proposed scheme are inappropriate and which are appropriate. 2a). Whether the need for a new leisure centre (‘inappropriate development’) is justified, including examining the necessity of the proposed leisure offer. This step is seeking to establish whether the harm could have been avoided altogether through not replacing the leisure centre (re-introducing inappropriate development), or minimised through reducing the scale of the leisure facility. 2b). Whether all alternative funding sources to pay for a new leisure centre have been exhausted and maximised. This step is seeking to establish whether the harm can be minimised through reducing the need for additional ‘inappropriate’ facilitating development. 3. Whether the replacement leisure centre and residential development could be achieved in an alternative location, or locations, that would have a lesser, the same or no more, harmful impact on MOL openness and its purposes than the proposals (via the Alternative Sites Assessment – ASA). Again, this step is seeking to establish whether the harm can be avoided altogether at this site, or reduced. 4a). Whether the quantum of residential development is no more than is necessary to secure the delivery of the replacement leisure centre and to optimise the quantum of genuinely affordable housing secured through the development (via the Viability Assessment - VA). 4 b) Whether the type (housing type/tenure mix) of facilitating development represents the optimum one from the perspective of limiting the quantum of inappropriate development on MOL, whilst maximising the genuinely affordable offer. 5. Whether the impact on MOL openness and purposes has been minimised as far as possible through a well-considered design approach, 6. whether the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the ‘by definition’ harm (having established that this can’t be avoided), the residual harm (after avoidance/mitigation) to the MOL, and any other harms (after mitigation), amounting to very special circumstances. The above tests have been assessed sequentially and only after the scheme has satisfied earlier stage(s) does it proceed to the next step.

Step 1 As set out above the starting point is to identify which components of the scheme are/are not inappropriate development having regard to the qualifying criteria in national and development plan policy.

These are: A. Leisure Centre building – inappropriate development but in part complementary to outdoor use, B. Park improvements i.e. play equipment, paths and landscaping, flood risk management works, River Brent footbridge, skatepark replacement, and BMX relocation within the park,– appropriate development. The type and nature of the works proposed are deemed to be compatible with and enhance the functional status of the MOL, preserving its openness. C. Housing – inappropriate development, D. Retail – inappropriate development. Page 85 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Step 2 As established at Step 1 the new Leisure Centre itself represents inappropriate development as it is principally an indoor facility. However, it does replace an existing Leisure Centre and in part complements the outdoor functions of the wider site. The case for replacing the Leisure Centre has already been established through earlier Cabinet decisions outside of the planning process as set out earlier in the Report, which also supported the concept of providing residential development on the site to help facilitate its delivery, although this is also relevant to the assessment of the application.

In particular, it is noted that the leisure centre has fallen into a state of disrepair and would require extensive and expensive modernisation to bring it up to modern standards. Renovation options have been examined; it has been concluded that these would be cost prohibitive.

In addition replacing the leisure centre with a new facility also brings with it opportunities, in respect of achieving a state of art facility, whilst securing a design solution which has the potential to be more sympathetic to the open space context relative to the existing building. The decision was made by the Council to seek an associated residential development to help secure the available funding to pay for this.

With regard to the proposed Leisure Centre offer itself (which is larger than the existing facility) and given the policy imperative to minimise the scale of built development on MOL, the size and mix of facilities is considered to represent the optimum approach satisfying need and delivering against the Council’s sporting objectives to secure a regional facility / hub, whilst avoiding incorporating any non-essential, but complementary, elements. The design of the leisure centre has sought to maximise cost efficiencies to reduce the overall replacement costs.

The proposed leisure centre has been costed at £28.89 million, with the associated basement costing a further £26 million. As such the total cost of the leisure centre related elements in the application exceed £50 million. The Council has agreed to contribute £12.5 million in grant funding towards the capital costs, which leaves a substantial funding shortfall. It has been established that further funding through borrowing is not possible in the context of ongoing savings which the Council needs to find in the current period and its statutory obligation to ensure a balanced budget across all services. The Council has also exhausted other funding streams including exploring the potential for Sport England grant funding; however, Sport England has confirmed that no funding is available.

There remains therefore a considerable funding gap, which is to be addressed through enabling/facilitating residential development. Having decided therefore to work with a private developer to provide a residential development to deliver a ‘facilitating’ housing development of sufficient quantum to help meet the funding gap, it has still been necessary to ensure that development is no more than necessary to help bridge the gap whilst minimising its impact on the MOL. The applicant has therefore prepared a Financial Viability Assessment. This has been independently assessed for the Council by LSH and the findings have been analysed and accepted as reasonable. Therefore, it is accepted as the basis upon which to test the residential scheme’s ‘facilitating’ status.

Step 3 Before verifying the scheme’s ‘facilitating’ status and given the policy imperative to avoid introducing ‘inappropriate development’ on MOL sites, it is necessary to conclude that there are not any suitable alternative sites that would be preferable in planning policy terms.

To this end the applicant has submitted an Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA). The full analysis of the ASA is set out earlier in this Report. In summary, a long-list of 543 Council- Page 86 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

owned sites was compiled and assessed according to agreed criteria. Only Council-owned sites were assessed as these were more likely to be reasonably capable of being available and deliverable, rather that privately-owned sites, to which there would not be the same degree of certainty and availability would be subject to market conditions, planning status and potential site constraints.

The ASA looked at sites capable of accommodating three scenarios: 1. the leisure centre and residential development as a whole, 2. the leisure centre alone, 3. The residential component alone or a site (or sites) capable of accommodating at least 50 dwellings each, in order to reduce or mitigate, if possible, the total amount of (residential) development on this site and its consequent impact on the MOL.

The findings have been assessed earlier in this Report. It is concluded that the ASA is sufficiently robust to agree with the conclusion that there are no superior or less harmful locations. In summary, following a three-stage ‘cascade sieve’ process, it is concluded that of all the sites assessed, none were more suitable for any of the 3 options above than the proposed location at Gurnell Leisure Centre.

Accordingly, the Leisure Centre site represents ‘the site of last resort’ to accommodate the proposed development. In this context, due regard must also be had to the locational advantages of the current Leisure Centre and the Council’s aspirations to develop it as a sports hub with links into Perivale Athletics track as noted in Core Strategy Policy 5.6 and page 66.

Step 4 Having established that the existing Gurnell Site represents the ‘best’ site, it is necessary to a) verify that any associated inappropriate development on MOL is the absolute minimum necessary, and b) to confirm whether the type of facilitating development represents the optimum one from an MOL and affordable housing perspective.

In this regard the applicant submitted a Viability Assessment (VA) to demonstrate that the scale of facilitating affordable and market housing is no more than necessary to deliver the leisure centre development, and to understand whether the appropriate balance has been struck between maximising the affordable offer and minimising the MOL impact.

The consultant’s report and conclusions have been independently assessed and updated by LSH (in Appendix 2). In addition to ensure a rigorous process and to confirm that the proposed scheme represents the optimum one from an MOL and affordable housing perspective, a number of alternative scenarios around the type and tenure mix of the housing have been assessed through the VA. In this context an ‘optimum’ development is one which strikes the requisite balance between minimising the volume of inappropriate development on MOL whilst maximising the affordable component.

The scenarios assist in understanding the degree to which such parameters (namely tenure/typology) influence the volume of development needed. The VA tests the following scenarios: a. 34% affordable housing offer (the proposed scheme), b. 50% affordable housing offer (as per strategic policy requirement), c. 100% open market sale.

The VA has undergone a detailed analysis, with independent assessment by LSH an appropriate expert in commercial valuation. Their conclusion on the applicant’s ‘base case’ i.e. the application, and the alternative scenarios put forward are:

Page 87 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

‘7.5 In conclusion, none of the options appraised appears to generate a normal commercial profit and therefore: The proposed scheme appears to optimise the development of the site. LBE will not be likely to be able to negotiate higher levels of financial terms for S106 Settlement without negatively impacting upon scheme viability. It will not be feasible to obtain more social housing (and deliver the leisure centre) without further capital or grant funding. The development is reliant on grant funding.

The development is likely to seek further value engineering on build costs. The developers appear to be able source more favourable financing costs than others in the market, assisting in the delivery of the scheme.’

The overall conclusion of this assessment is that the ratio of the quantum of development, with the level of affordable housing offered by this application and the grant funding available, is not viable (i.e. achieves a negative value) on any of the available scenarios. Based on the principle that the development should not exceed parameters of viability, then this negative scenario is considered to be compliant.

Accordingly it can be concluded that the type and quantum of facilitating development proposed is not generating excessive profits (and in fact yields a negative value), and therefore it clearly doesn’t breach the minimum threshold of development deemed to be acceptable on an MOL site. The scenario testing has also allowed us to examine the effect of affordable provision on the total volume of facilitating development, and therefore the potential impact that may have on openness. Three affordable levels were tested as part of the scenario testing – 0%, 34% and 50%. This exercise is somewhat hypothetical and simplified, and to allow for comparisons to be made between these scenarios, certain outputs have been fixed. The receipt and profit level has been fixed and remains constant between each of the scenarios.

Therefore, all scenarios are assumed to generate the same level of receipt to close the funding shortfall to pay for the new leisure centre. These outputs therefore dictate the quantum of residential development required. The proportion of affordable provision secured is a significant variable. In simple terms the affordable units will generate a smaller receipt, relative to a for sale market unit. As it is essential that the scheme generates a fixed receipt to bridge the funding gap, increasing the affordable percentage would mean that it is necessary to increase the overall number of units proposed on the site. The assessment of the scenarios by LSH highlighted the following findings:

Removing the affordable component in its entirety (a 100% open market scheme), would potentially reduce the residential floor area by 20%, which is not insignificant, but wouldn’t reduce the volume of the built development on the site enough to meaningfully change the impact on the MOL. As a percentage of the entire scheme, it represents a reduction of around 13%.

Therefore, a broadly similar scale of facilitating residential development would still be needed to ensure the delivery of the replacement leisure centre if all units were open market. Looking at things from the other end of the spectrum, and increasing the affordable offer to 50% (policy compliant), which would require the provision of additional units and floor area overall, it is felt would tip the balance too far as in MOL terms the site couldn’t reasonably absorb much more development.

As it stands the proposed scheme incorporating affordable provision at a level of 34% is considered to represents the optimum one from the perspective of limiting the quantum of inappropriate development on MOL, whilst maximising the genuinely affordable offer,

Page 88 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Accordingly, the scheme can be regarded as the maximum solution and can accordingly be assessed on its individual merits having regard to development management policies and normal planning considerations.

Step 5 The next step involves examining the design approach, to consider whether this has satisfactorily minimised the impact on MOL openness and function.

The proposed design approach has evolved over some time. GLA and LBE officers have had extensive input into this process, with the GLA leading on the reconciliation of MOL impacts as the strategic planning authority in this case.

The following conclusions are made. The quantum of proposed built development is significant (albeit the quantum has been validated as no more than necessary by the VA assessment), and it will alter the sense of openness and the (open) landscape.

The configuration and distribution of built development across the site has however sought to minimise the impact on the MOL openness and function (usability). Following extensive pre application consultation with the GLA and further appraisal by the GLA at Stage 1, the proposed design represents an acceptable approach when measured against the policy test.

The GLA’s Stage 1 conclusion endorses the scheme in this regard:

70 ‘GLA officers consider the site is suitable for a higher density residential-led mixed use scheme in view of the overall site size, location, PTAL and surrounding context, and noting the requirement for substantial facilitating residential development in this particular instance. The requirement for additional design scrutiny is triggered as the scheme would have a density of 422 dwellings per hectare based on the net developable area and includes a number of tall buildings. Whilst an independent design review has not been undertaken, the applicant has undertaken an extensive and iterative process of design review and options appraisal with GLA and Ealing Council planning and design officers, which has resulted in substantial revisions to the layout, massing and design of the scheme over a two year period, taking into account the planning policy requirement to minimise harm to the MOL as set out above, but also noting the overarching requirements set out above in relation to residential quality and urban design. As such, GLA officers consider that the scheme has been subject to a rigorous process of design scrutiny and a further formal design review is not required in this particular instance. Overall, GLA officers consider that the housing capacity has been appropriately optimised in this instance through a design-led approach and consider the residential density to be acceptable in this particular instance.’

In accordance with the GLA requirement, the blocks have been focused on the existing PDL area minimising the extent to which the built footprint encroaches onto undeveloped parkland into the site. This has assisted in maintaining the essential open east / west connection which runs through the River Brent Corridor. The arrangement of blocks has also sought to maximise the visual and physical permeability through the site. Rather than defining a new edge to the MOL which is set behind the development, the design has with a reasonable success integrated the built form with the MOL.

Step 6 Once the earlier steps are satisfied, the final step involves establishing whether very special circumstances (VSC) exists. This can only be said to exist if it can be demonstrated that the benefits clearly outweigh all the harms. The applicant has employed the approach taken by

Page 89 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

the Court in Brown v London Borough of Ealing (CofA, 23 March 2018) (aka Warren Farm) to the variety of circumstances brought together to cumulatively ascertain that VSC exist.

This is considered to be a reasonable approach to balance the (by definition MOL and other) harms against the benefits, using the following means of assessment. It is important to note that residual harms are only established after mitigation is taken into account. Furthermore, impacts occur at different scales, not all are equal or are capable of being weighed equally. In this regard it should be noted that the MOL harms and benefits (notably the enhancements to the outdoor recreation public park land ) will be afforded more weight, although both MOL and non-MOL effects may differ in magnitude. The key harms and benefits (established or potential) are summarised as:

1. MOL harms By definition harm: - Loss of openness, actual and perceived, by reference to objective assessment including from relevant publicly accessible viewpoints having regard to the heights of new residential blocks. - Impact on MOL functions/purposes as defined in the London Plan.

2. Non-MOL harms - Potential impacts from tall buildings - Potential loss of privacy/outlook and visual amenity from neighbouring dwellings - Potential sunlight/daylight impacts on neighbouring dwellings - Potential visual amenity from public places - Potential increased traffic movement /flows and parking displacement - Potential noise impacts - Potential air quality, contamination and drainage impacts - Potential light pollution impacts - Potential ecological impacts - Potential heritage impacts - Potential micro-climate/wind impacts - Potential Energy and Sustainability Impacts These are addressed below and a conclusion is reached as to whether or not there is harm.

3. MOL benefits - Enhanced Park improvements i.e. play equipment, paths and landscaping - Improved public access especially to the north across the proposed footbridge over the River Brent (linking up with the proposed relocated BMX track) - Delivering on sports hub objectives for this MOL - Ecological enhancements - Resolving existing flooding with suitable mitigation, improving usability and functional value of open space supporting MOL objectives

4. Non-MOL benefits - New pool/Leisure Centre, supporting need and the public health benefits - Although representing harmful inappropriate development and a significant contributor of the harm, the scheme will deliver much-needed homes and significant additional affordable homes - Potential sustainability benefits, i.e. the provision of more modern, energy efficient and accessible building

Having identified the potential harms and benefits the next section of the report assesses the scheme in respect of these individual considerations. It should be noted that this assessment seeks to address both the VSC question as well as considering these aspects of the scheme in terms of the overall planning balance. The conclusions at the end of the Report will

Page 90 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

determine whether VSC is considered to exist and whether the scheme is acceptable in terms of the overall planning balance.

Retention of the Existing Leisure Centre As has been requested in submitted representations, it is not necessary to examine the practicality or viability of retaining or re-purposing the current deteriorating fabric of the Leisure Centre building. To do so would be contrary to the consistent decisions of the Council since 2015, the development plan (Core Strategy Policy 5.6) and the Council’s Published Leisure Strategy that the only reasonable and practical way forward to retaining this important sports leisure hub in the long-term is to secure its redevelopment.

No policy change has come forward since the London Plan came into effect, nor have any on-site changes or designations come into effect that override policy and require its retention. There is therefore an imperative to bring the Gurnell Leisure Centre forward for replacement to meet the Council’s long-term strategy.

Residential use 599 flats represent the minimum number of units to ‘bridge the funding gap’ as the applicant characterises it, to facilitate construction of the leisure centre. London Plan Policies D1A and D1B support the concept of site optimisation, although plainly this must be capable of being reasonably reconciled with MOL and other relevant impacts.

There is no upper limit on the provision of new homes in the Borough, nor in the area of the site. It is accepted that in this case new residential development represents an appropriate and complementary land use to place on the site in terms of its relationship with the leisure centre use, impacts on the MOL and minimising impacts on neighbouring dwellings. In addition, the GLA supports a residential development to assist in the delivery of a replacement leisure centre. Overall therefore, the objective of DPD Policy1.2(h) is satisfied.

Affordable Housing Core Strategy Policy 1.2(a) and DMD Policy 3A seek affordable housing at a level equivalent to 50% of new residential development on public land. The GLA’s strategic target is also 50%. The GLA also operates a fast track route whereby applications are not required to be accompanied by a Viability Assessment (VA) where a scheme exceeds certain threshold levels for affordable provision. Whilst the standard threshold is 35%, for public sector land it is 50% As proposed the scheme proposes 32.7% by number or 34.5% by habitable room, amounting to 196 dwellings (98 LAR and 98 shared ownership).

This level of provision falls short of the both the strategic target and threshold level for public land, and is also dependent on public subsidy, and accordingly is not eligible for the fast track route. In any event, given the need to demonstrate that the quantum of residential development is the minimum necessary to financially enable the new leisure, this enabling/facilitating status has been verified by a Viability Assessment to assess the impact that inclusion of the affordable housing will have upon the size, scale and volume of development overall, compared to market housing-only as a comparator.

The Council’s Housing Supply Team has commented on the proposals that the LBE housing statement asks for an affordable tenure mix of a minimum of 30% LAR, and the remaining 70% to be split as advised by the Borough, with a recommendation that the intermediate is split between shared ownership/ London Living Rent and Discount Market Rent. The applicant is offering a 50/50% split of London Affordable rent and shared ownership. The Team support this application which offers 35% affordable with a tenure mix which will provide a high percentage of genuinely affordable accommodation.

Page 91 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Accordingly there is significant policy support for the incorporation of affordable housing. The planning benefits of its incorporation in the scheme can be weighed in the balance in favour of the development against the MOL harms.

Housing Supply Team has also provided comments in relation to the representations made by ‘Save Gurnell’ (the paragraph numbers relate to the Save Gurnell representations, the full text of which is attached in Appendix 3 to this Report):

Response to Planning on issues raised in the document sent by the Save Gurnell Community group.

Affordable housing. 7.140 there appears to be some confusion about the affordable rented housing which is being provided. The document references `affordable rent’ as being unaffordable. The affordable rented product in this scheme is that in accordance with the GLA’s `affordable housing programme’ at levels set by the GLA which for 2020/21 are set out below.

Bedroom size Weekly rent ex of service charge Bedsit and 1 bed £159.32 2 bed £168.67 3 bed £178.05 4 bed £187.42 5 bed £196.78 6 or more £206.15 bedrooms

‘These benchmark rents will be updated each April by the increase in CPI (for the previous September) plus one per cent and updated benchmarks are published by the GLA on an annual basis.

'The objector may be referring back to Affordable rent which was set nationally by the government and required that affordable Rent homes cannot be let at more than 80% of market rents, inclusive of service charges. The Mayor does not consider 80% of market rents to be genuinely affordable in most parts of London and he therefore expects most homes let for London Affordable Rent (LAR) to be substantially below this level. It is to this that the SHMA refers, not LAR, which is a genuinely affordable product as advised by the GLA and agreed by LBE.

‘7.141. There is £12,544,000 grant applied to the scheme. £9,800,000 for London Affordable rent and £2,744,000 for shared ownership.

‘7.158 - says that there is no social housing. There are 98 LAR housing which is social housing. There are also 98 shared ownership homes, which contributes positively to meeting affordable need. Housing Supply therefore strongly supports the 196 affordable units in the scheme.

‘Tenure mix by block. The aim of the housing tenure in discrete blocks is to ensure that service charges fairly reflect services to be provided in each block. If leaseholders request an additional service this can be accommodated in their service charge, but may create additional financial pressure for those on limited budgets. The aim is to keep the affordable as such without extra service charges which may not be eligible for housing benefit.

‘In this case, the inclusion of the affordable housing into Blocks A and B only reflects the Council’s intention to incorporate ownership and control with the new leisure centre. This

Page 92 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

brings with it economies of management costs, which is clearly desirable in the interests of delivering genuinely affordable housing. Housing Supply therefore strongly supports this arrangement in this case as the optimum way to achieve pepper-potting.

‘Bedsize offer. There is a borough-wide need for all sizes of London affordable homes.

The affordable offer in this application is for a mix of 1,2 and 3 bed homes, of which 65% of the 196 units are family-sized properties comprising 2b4p and 3b5p homes. Housing Supply therefore strongly supports this substantial offer as part of the affordable units in the scheme as it will go a long way to help address need for family-sized units in this area of the borough.

'Housing supply comment on the affordable offer. The affordable offer is considered the optimal amount of affordable housing to strike the right balance in terms of housing need and the best use of GLA grant.

‘Although there is social housing in the area with Gurnell Grove estate on the opposite side of the Ruislip Road, Copley Close going northward, and the Cuckoo Estate, it is our experience that residents are keen to see a mix of private amongst the social tenures, to make a truly mixed estate. This proposed development also offers a mix of tenures to support the social and economic sustainability if the area. For this reason as well, Housing Supply therefore strongly supports the mix of including 403 market as well as the 196 affordable units in the scheme.’

Density and Scale The site has a PTAL of 2-3 (low/moderate), which is not the highest level of accessibility, however it is acknowledged in the Development Strategy DPD that a density matrix should not be applied mechanistically and London Plan Policy D3 no longer employs the matrix.

For information therefore, taking the actual built area of the site (1.42ha), gives the following density: 422units per ha 1081 habitable rooms per ha 661 bedrooms per ha 1258 bedspaces per ha Floor Area Ratio 4.8 Site Coverage Ratio 0.7 London Plan Policy D1B and D3 acknowledges that in order to make best use of land there will be a need for higher densities above those of surrounding areas on most sites consistent with an area’s capacity for growth. Policy objectives which seek to achieve optimum development potential must however be balanced in this case with its impact on the MOL. As noted previously, that has been examined following detailed consultation with GLA Officers and the application has confined new housing development to the existing previously developed land comprising the leisure centre car park.

Design and Fire Safety The proposed development should be designed in accordance with policy to help ensure that a place is created that responds positively to the character of the surrounding area.

The design of the leisure centre and residential blocks provide a high-quality that would respond successfully to the present varied, but generally, lower scale and character of the surrounding suburban residential context to the south and east, without causing significant

Page 93 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

adverse impacts. This will enable the development to be more readily assimilated into the local area.

Contrasting external treatments and detailing to the blocks with ‘active’ ground floor elevations in a landscaped setting will juxtapose well with the new leisure centre facing to the north (access to the park) and south (to Ruislip Road East). The overall design would therefore be policy-compliant in terms of urban design (sense of place, density so far as relevant or applicable, new public realm, landscaped areas and active frontages) residential amenity external and internal amenity space standards; not have an adverse impact on existing and future residential neighbouring properties and offer acceptable residential amenity for future occupiers (daylight and sunlighting); respect the setting of heritage assets; optimise development potential. The new leisure centre building is a qualitative visual and design quality improvement compared to the existing building, with a high quality, contemporary design and appearance. The new residential blocks exemplify the qualities of the London Vernacular of architecture, using varied but lightly-coloured range of facing bricks to the Ruislip Road and park elevations.

Collectively the building forms and typology overall secure an exemplary design that respond well to their location and will positively contribute to the character of the area, enabling the scheme to achieve the high-quality level of quality and meet sustainable development criteria required by the NPPF and Development Plan.

With regard to the fire safety of the development, the applicant has submitted two Reports- Non-Residential and Residential – for the whole scheme. The London Fire Commissioner has been consulted and advises the plans should conform to the Building Regulations and that an application should be submitted to Building Control/Approved Inspector who may be obliged to consult the Fire Authority.

Retail/Commercial Floorspace The application provides two commercial units (Classes A1 – A3, new UCO Class E) totalling 480sqm on the ground floors of Blocks C and E. The applicant acknowledges they are not necessary to facilitate provision of the leisure centre, nor is the site in a town centre.

London Plan Policy E9BA and DM DPD Policy 4B support the provision of new small shops. As the units are physically split into Blocks C and E, they cannot be amalgamated into a larger one that may be more likely to have a significant retail impact.

In terms of layout and design, it is considered that the location of the unit in Block C could help to anchor the attractiveness of the public space/realm around the entrance to the leisure centre and the park beyond and assist in Place-Making. Insisting on their removal or re- purposing for residential- or ancillary residential-floorspace, would reduce the amount of new built development by only 0.36%, which is considered to be negligible in terms of reducing impacts on MOL openness in this case.

The closest Primary Retail Frontage is at Osprey Court, a convenience store on the opposite side of Ruislip Road East to the site. The introduction of 599 new households as proposed, suggests that it could benefit from the additional local spend from the new development, particularly if it is able to offer additional choice to shoppers. Further the units may be used for other retail purposes in Class A it is possible they may offer no significant harmful competition to Osprey Court.

It is not considered therefore they are likely to have a significant potential adverse trade draw from this store or lead to a deficiency in current local provision, nor any potential significant adverse impact on the Primary/Secondary Shopping Frontage on Greenford Avenue or Page 94 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Greenford Town Centre, which are situated about 1km from the site and are reasonably vibrant, with an established range of retail uses.

Taken in the round therefore it is considered the benefits of including these two units outweighs the marginal harm by loss of this amount of MOL openness.

Impacts from Tall Buildings Turning to the individual and cumulative impacts of the development having particular regard to London Plan Policy D9, the following are identified in the applicant’s submission documents and Reports:

Development Strategy DPD Policy 1.2(h) and DMD Policy 7.7 and London Plan 2021 Policy D9 (excluding in this section those functional or operational aspects of the development which are assessed under appropriate headings below), state that tall buildings are acceptable where they contribute positively to the local context and do not cause harm to heritage assets.

The NPPF, in conjunction with policy guidance on design quality and related criteria, supports site optimisation and the efficient use of land. The quality of the design, especially in relation to context and accessibility are the overriding considerations.

Supporting text to Policy 1.2(h) notes that higher density housing does not automatically equate to high rise development. Tall buildings can be appropriate and enhance townscape provided they are exemplars of high-quality design and in suitable locations. Sites suitable for tall buildings help delivery of housing targets away from less appropriate and more sensitive locations. Each scheme must be assessed on its merits having regard to locational constraints, such as neighbouring development. Representations against the development do not support taller buildings here.

Advice on tall buildings in the National Design Guide (NDG), para. 69 states that ‘well- designed tall buildings play a positive urban design role in the built form. They act as landmarks, emphasising important places and making a positive contribution to views and the skyline’. Para.70 adds that ‘proposals for tall buildings (and other buildings with a significantly larger scale or bulk than their surroundings) require special consideration. This includes their location and siting; relationship to context; impact on local character, views and sight lines; composition - how they meet the ground and the sky; and environmental impacts, such as sunlight, daylight, overshadowing and wind. These need to be resolved satisfactorily in relation to the context and local character’.

Other relevant paragraphs include:

63 ‘Compact forms of development bring people together to support local public transport, facilities and local services. They make destinations easily accessible by walking or cycling wherever this is practical. This helps to reduce dependency upon the private car’. 64 ‘Well- designed new development makes efficient use of land with an amount and mix of development and open space that optimises density. It also relates well to and enhances the existing character and context’ and 65 ‘Built form is determined by good urban design principles that combine layout, form and scale in a way that responds positively to the context. The appropriate density will result from the context, accessibility, the proposed building types, form and character of the development’.

The site is not in a location allocated in the development plan for tall buildings. However the process of assessing the layout and arrangement of built development, in consultation with GLA, has resulted in the necessity to contemplate accommodating taller buildings on site than occur locally in order to minimse the ‘footprint’ of development on MOL openness by restricting it to the area currently occupied by the Leisure Centre car park.

Page 95 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

A ‘tall building’ is not precisely defined but London Plan para.7.25 refers to a development that introduces a ‘substantially taller’ building or buildings than their neighbours and/or which significantly changes the skyline. Locally, development ranges between 2 and 11-storeys. The proposal comprises: Height Height in Residential Block Housing tenure (storeys) metres units

Block A 15 47 metres 98 London Affordable Rent

Block B 15 47 metres 98 Shared ownership

Block C 13 41 metres 104 Private sale

Block D 17 53 metres 158 Private sale

Block E 10 31 metres 87 Private sale

Block F 6 19 metres 54 Private sale

For the purposes of the application that means tall buildings would constitute the majority of the built development. It is acknowledged that in addressing the extent of tall buildings proposed in the scheme, employing the above definition of what is regarded as ‘tall’, (and noting GLA policy D9 that up to 6 storeys does not fall into this definition in storey terms but exceeds the 18m by 1m) this will apply to locations beyond the site that currently do not compare in storey or height terms. Block F, adjoining Peal Gardens would not be classified as ‘tall’.

Para.3.9.2 of the London Plan 2021 makes clear that the identification of suitable ‘locations’ for tall buildings is a task for evidence base such as a Borough character study. An Ealing Character Study is in preparation but is not yet complete.

Policy D9 does not go to the principle of a tall building on the application site. The purpose of the policy overall is to avoid isolated tall buildings in locations considered unsuitable by the LPA and to prevent Boroughs from adopting a definition of tall buildings that is less than 6 storeys (or 18m) thus frustrating medium-rise buildings. It is not the Plan’s intention that any and all proposals for tall buildings should be refused pending the updating of Local Plan evidence bases - still less that LPAs should now be unable to promote tall buildings in locations that they consider suitable.

The suitability of the site to accommodate taller buildings than currently occur locally was assessed in the pre application consultation with GLA and in the Stage 1 Report, which states:

80 Whilst the sensitive MOL status and open landscape context of the site means that the height and scale of the proposals would clearly constitute a step-change compared to the existing baseline situation, the surrounding urban context to the south is more varied and contains a mix of two, three, four, five storey buildings and 11-storey towers. Furthermore, it is also acknowledged that the MOL status of the site and the requirement to restrict the development footprint to the previously developed parts of the site, as well as the scheme’s overall viability shortfall, means that, in this particular instance, there is a trade-off between the requirement to deliver a new leisure centre, the need to avoid buildings extending beyond the previously developed parts of the site and the consequential height and massing of the scheme. Overall, taking into account the cumulative visual, environmental and functional impacts set out above, and the need to minimise Page 96 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

harm to MOL openness, GLA officers consider that the height of the development is acceptable and does not raise any strategic planning concerns.’

Officers accept this analysis and conclusion by GLA Officers, which reflects the pre- application consultation as noted earlier.

The development of tall buildings is to be ‘plan-led’ and ‘design-led’ as the intention is that impacts would be addressed at plan-making stage. It is the Council’s stated development plan policy intention to increase its housing supply; this accords with national and GLA policy. Policy D9 includes a comprehensive list of criteria. The proposed range of blocks of between 6 and 17 -storeys would plainly change present open areas and lower scale buildings interspersed with contemporary development Peal Gardens, for example.

However, the proposal will respond positively to these changing typologies and while doing so will increase the sense of openness, particularly through the significant new public realm and plaza in front of the Leisure Centre entrance.

In the context of this emerging scene, the associated blocks will relate well to their surroundings in contrast it is acknowledged to the traditional suburban scale and design of housing to the north and north west, addressed in that context below.

By separating the taller blocks then a strong sense of open space between them will be maintained. Open sky views between the blocks are emphasised by stepping back in the taller blocks.

In conclusion, in development plan policy terms, the application site is regarded as an appropriate for tall buildings. The heritage and development management impacts are assessed later in the Report.

Further, the new development is considered to be of a high-quality design that can positively contribute to the amenities of the locality. Overall, it is considered the location, scale and massing of the proposed tall buildings is successfully incorporated into the locality.

The effect of the inclusion of taller buildings within the site has been tested as part of the applicant’s Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and assessed by Officers. The baseline study concentrated on the site and the wider area within the surrounding townscape within which to consider the wider townscape setting.

The variety of massing and heights have been developed in pre-application engagement and design advice from the GLA, in response to particular townscape considerations and to give good levels of amenity into the residential accommodation and for neighbours. The 17-storey tower (Block D) is the tallest component in the scheme and is positioned towards the eastern side of the site. The VIA has been reviewed and is considered to provide a rational and supportable analysis for its location as it places the tall buildings the furthest distance from key heritage assets in the surrounding area without unduly harming visual or residential amenity.

It is acknowledged that a substantial number of respondents to the public consultation have raised objections to the introduction of taller buildings and consider that the development would adversely affect views and negatively detract from the character of the surrounding area and their residential amenities. Additionally, a number of objectors consider that within the application is contrary to the Local Plan policies as none specifically identify it for tall buildings. A response to this has already been given above and the site is considered appropriate on its merits to accommodate this, subject to normal development management criteria being satisfied.

Page 97 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

This assessment is further supported by the GLA’s Stage 1 response to the application, as noted above. Taken together, the development proposal is considered to be suitable for tall buildings subject to heritage impacts and satisfying design policies in the development plan and national policy guidance.

The VIA has assessed the impacts of the scheme from surrounding roads. This assessment has considered the impact of the development on a number of views from important and sensitive heritage locations surrounding the site. Where visible, the tall blocks would generally appear in the background, in the distance or middle distance and often in conjunction with the existing tall and large-scale buildings. They clearly be visible as new building forms in this locality but are considered to be an appropriate addition nevertheless.

There are no significant negative townscape impacts on views from publicly accessible places. The VIA shows that viewed from Verified Views Locations (which, when compared on site, appear to be accurate representations), individually and cumulatively, the development will not have an overriding significant harmful impact in terms of its design, height and massing is accepted, having regard to Policies 7.4, 7B and 7.7, which refer to local character, design and amenity and that tall buildings should not affect their surroundings adversely in terms of, inter alia, microclimate, wind turbulence, noise or overshadowing.

Overall, it is concluded therefore the scale and massing is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application for this reason. Lastly, it is not feasible to incorporate public access to the roof of the tall buildings (per London Plan Policy D9D) to allow wider views of London and in any event would require significant design changes, including the possibility of enlarging one or more block or reducing the number of flats, in order to construct a public lift access or changes to scale and massing to accommodate them, as well as conflicting with access to ground floor uses.

Impacts on Privacy, Outlook and Visual Amenity Development plan policies and guidelines relating to minimising loss of privacy seek minimum distances of between 18 and 21m. The closest dwellings to the closest proposed Block F, are Nos1-4 Peal Gardens (a two storey block of 4 flats) and lie to the east a minimum of 18m away. They have no flank facing window to the application site but block F would face towards their rear gardens including those of Nos 25-27 (a terrace of houses), albeit in the case of the latter these are a minimum of 20m away from their rear boundaries, which also currently face the car park but screened by a boundary hedge.

Block F is 6 storeys on this east facing flank and has east facing balconies above first floor level. The applicant proposes boundary planting to this flank, including new trees. On balance, it is considered these separation distances, with the screening tree canopies will provide, would be sufficient to retain a reasonable degree of privacy from overlooking for neighbouring flats or houses in Peal Gardens and it is not considered this will give rise to an unacceptable loss, or the perception of a loss of amenity between existing and proposed residential accommodation.

Turning to loss of outlook, the same properties at Peal Gardens listed above are those likely to be materially affected. There is no right to a view as such, however the orientation of the rear windows of the flats at No.1-4 to the north, coupled with ground floor boundary screening, meaning Block F is only an oblique view, will not signficantly harm the outlook from these properties.

Those with rear gardens facing west at Nos.25-27 will lose oblique views, at first floor flat level only, over the car park towards the park, to the north west, albeit these views are already filtered and partly obscured by trees in the park and on the boundary. Whilst it is not normal to expect the same quality of outlook from upper floor (mainly bedroom) windows as would be from the ground floor (already screened at ground floor) it is considered nevertheless the Page 98 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

occupiers of the above properties will not suffer a materially harmful loss of outlook or amenities.

The detached (formerly a pair) dwelling on the south west side of the site (No.80 Ruislip Road East) is about 40m from the proposed replacement leisure centre building and Block A. The existing access road is maintained, as is the access to this property. The new Block A is positioned at an oblique angle to the north east so there is no direct overlooking between the two. Consequently it is unlikely to be materially harmfully affected by views or overlooking from flats in Block A and the new leisure centre building. Conditions are proposed to control the design of balcony side screens to further reduce any potential harmful views.

Turning to dwellings on the south side of Ruislip Road East facing the new leisure centre and residential Blocks A, C, D and E, separation distances range from: - 25m (Block E to Nos.15-31 Ruislip Road East to 80m to Block D), - 40m to 70m to Block C and the new Leisure Centre to Pelham Place and Osprey Court.

These front to front distances more than adequately exceed normal minimum standards and in conjunction with new tree planting to the frontages, filtered views between properties are unlikely to give rise to unacceptable harms. Overall, it is concluded therefore the scheme is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application for this reason.

Daylight, overshadowing and sunlight impacts The submitted Daylight and Sunlight Assessment concludes that while there are alterations in daylight to some of the properties that breach this guidance, the majority of those assessed currently enjoy significant levels of daylight due to the fact that they currently face onto an undeveloped car park site, with parkland beyond.

It is important to bear in mind that BRE Guidelines are not to be employed rigidly. They are not mandatory and as the Guidance states: ‘…should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy; its aim is to help rather than constrain the designer’. Furthermore, NPPF and Mayoral SPG states that standards should be applied objectively and flexibly. The Report assesses impacts external to the site and internally within the scheme, which are considered to be acceptable for this form of development.

The Report has been reviewed with particular regard to the application of standard guidelines given the site is generally flat and does not present any unusual topographical conditions. The dwellings most likely to be affected, located in Peal Gardens and Wentway Court/Pelham Place /No.80, Ruislip Road East have been assessed.

It shows that 57% of the windows assessed for Vertical Sky Component (defined in the BRE Guidelines as the : “Ratio of that part of illuminance, at a point on a given vertical plane, that is received directly from a CIE standard overcast sky, to illuminance on a horizontal plane due to an unobstructed hemisphere of this sky. Usually the ‘given vertical plane’ is the outside of a window wall. The VSC does not include reflected light, either from the ground or from other buildings”) will meet the BRE VSC criteria. 43% will not meet the BRE VSC criteria.

In respect of No Sky Line 83% of the rooms in the properties assessed relevant to a BRE assessment will adhere to the BRE criteria and only 17% will not do so. 94% of rooms in the affected properties will meet the BRE sunlight criteria with only 6% failing to do so. The Report notes and it is accepted from the data, there will be a diminution in light to the most affected windows although it concludes the retained levels of VSC are above 20%, which is not unusual for development sites in London, although below national BRE Guidelines, which are not rigid, as already noted.

Page 99 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Those properties most materially affected currently have unobstructed views. The main question is whether the level of harm caused by a diminution as set out in the analysis above, would be sufficient to justify withholding permission compared to what might otherwise be considered in a London development context where separation distances, aspect and orientation are similar or less to the relationship proposed in the present scheme and consequent daylight and sunlight standards are likewise similar but nevertheless considered acceptable. Bearing all of this in mind, the retained sense of space or openness of the site perimeter to to the park, coupled with retained views from Ruislip Road East and permeability between the blocks for example is considered to be appropriate and reasonable.

Regard must also be had to the planning benefits that should be weighed in the balance. Balancing these amenity harms with the benefits brought by the replacement of the leisure centre and park improvements, along with the provision of much-needed affordable and market housing, it is considered there is no overriding justification to withhold permission for this reason.

Visual Amenity Impacts from Public Places On this site it is necessary to assess the impact on MOL openness and the extent to which permitting a range of buildings that are taller than occur locally contributes, by reason of their lesser footprints, to minimising MOL harm especially as they are confined on the east side to the already developed car park hard standing area. In this case this requires careful spacing and separation between blocks and existing development to ensure open views are adequately maintained.

As noted earlier, GLA Officers acknowledge the step-change these new tall buildings will introduce however they are considered to strike an appropriate balance between providing the requisite enabling development whilst minimising MOL harm. No reason is seen to disagree with this conclusion.

The submitted drawings indicate the new leisure centre building will sit at a level more closely equivalent to the adjacent level of Ruislip Road East. The new building will be the equivalent of a 5 storey block, meaning that upper floor views from the taller blocks on Gurnell Grove will be maintained. In the event permission is granted conditions are proposed to ensure ground and slab levels controlled.

Locating the lowest 6 storey, element (Block F) to the east side separates it from the closest lower dwelling forms at Peal Gardens. Stepping or setting the taller Blocks back, like B and D, helps to reduce their scale. Gaps between Blocks B and C, D and E (obliquely) and to a lesser extent F and Peal Gardens continue give some uninterrupted views, or glimpsed views, from the south on Ruislip Road East and to a degree from dwellings opposite to the park land open space behind at ground level so that a sense of space and separation is generally maintained. The new public spaces/realm either side of Block C will help to enhance this.

The view from the north, across the park, from Stockdale Way and adjacent side roads towards the south is more enclosed and the tall blocks appear more substantial. However, because the open foreground is maintained and dwellings in Ruislip Road East and behind in Gurnell Grove already mark the built edge of the MOL in this area and appear on the skyline then the loss of views of existing housing is less significant. The same applies in views from Argyle Road at the current entry point to the park.

In Planning practice there is no ‘right to a view’. Views of the park, leisure centre or open land beyond are not ‘key or protected views’ in any published Council documents. Further, the new development is considered to be of an attractive design that can positively contribute to the visual character of the area. It should be noted also that the application proposes increased public accessibility across the park, from the north, in conjunction with the new footbridge crossing of the River Brent. Whilst this will improve on the current informal routes, Page 100 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

it will make available a substantial area to the north east that will provide for greater accessibility and usage north-south through the park.

The applicant has produced provided a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) up to 5km around the site. From analysis, it is self-evident that present views from Ruislip Road East and adjoining Peal Gardens and across the park will change most significantly, as a result of the introduction of the new blocks (acknowledged by the VIA,and agreed, to be ‘Major Adverse’) and across the MOL, where the blocks will appear as new features in the skyline, albeit in conjunction with the existing Gurnell Grove flat blocks which already provide a backdrop of built development over the tree line, as shown in the example VIA verified wire line views below, from Stockdove Way on the northern boundary of the park:

The second, a long-range view below is from Horsenden Hill, 2km to the north:

Page 101 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Thirdly a view of the rear from the park looking towards the new leisure centre building, blocks A and B to the west (right) and C and D to the east (left):

View from Ruislip Road East looking east, the new leisure centre building and blocks A and B to the left and C and E to the right:

Page 102 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

Lastly view north from the park adjacent to Peal Gardens, towards blocks C, D and F:

The views are generally considered by the VIA to be ‘Ordinary’ in quality, as many already contain built development (the leisure centre) and would be replaced in the opinion of HED the author, by a new planned development that in combination with the new landscape scheme will in time change to ‘Moderate’ to ‘Minor’ impacts. This conclusion over time is agreed given the screening to be provided by new planting, however it is clear that built development on the perceived northern edge of the park (viewed from the south), will bring about a change to the current undeveloped area of the public car park, in contrast to the developed area of the leisure centre.

The scheme will respond successfully to the generally lower scale and character of the existing surrounding context, particularly scaling down to Peal Gardens, without causing significant adverse impacts. The impact of the development and in particularly the tall buildings have been assessed in the applicant’s submission documents.

The assessment has been reviewed on site and no reason is seen to disagree with their conclusions or the locations most likely to be affected primarily from the closing of currently open views. However, this will not be the case across the whole of the developed part of the site, as illustrated in the verified views above and to long range views, where there is no tree screening. Significant gaps between blocks will retain open views beyond the site.

In conclusion, it is considered that the development will not have an overriding significantly harmful impact in terms of its design, height and massing. No local or strategic open views are designated or have been identified as being affected by the development. Overall, in terms of the development plan and on its merits therefore, the scheme would not have a significant harmful effect in townscape and visual terms.

Overall it is considered the location, scale and massing of the buildings in views from publicly accessible places in the park and locally will be successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application for this reason.

Highways/Transport Impacts The site currently has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 2/3. The impact of the proposal on bus and rail services has been modelled by Officers and TfL and appropriate mitigation provided, for example by financial contributions and Mayoral CIL, to support and enhance public transport.

Page 103 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The London Plan requires that new development ensures highway safety and is designed to maximise the use of public transport and other non-car methods of travel and also requires that development provides adequate servicing capability and does not subject surrounding streets to parking stress or compromise traffic safety. Car parking is not provided in excess of the maximum standards set out in the London Plan.

Argyle Road is located immediately east of the site. Its junction with the A40 is particularly congested and it would be sensitive to any increase in movements, Transport is satisfied this can be addressed through implementation of the Transport Assessment and Travel Plans where a range of mitigation measures can be employed. The provision of shared car club vehicles and parking bays is encouraged as a means to reduce levels of private car use/ownership.

Parking The leisure centre will be provided with 175 spaces in the basement, of which 15 will be for Blue Badge users, representing a re-provision of the existing car parking spaces. However, as it anticipated that the new leisure centre is intended to have a higher capacity and increased usage in order to optimise the community benefits compared to the existing facility, this equates to a reduced car parking/user ratio.

For the residential units, a total of 168 spaces will be provided. 160 of these will be in the basement at a ratio of 0.26 spaces per unit. A further 8 spaces will be provided on-street. 19 will be Blue Badge from the outset, which equates to 3% of units being provided with a space. There is the provision for a further 43 spaces to be converted for wheelchair use in the future, with the management strategy for these spaces regulated by a planning condition. Accordingly, the car parking provision is policy compliant. Transport also seeks a s106 agreement clause to preclude the purchase of parking permits in local CPZs.

Cycling Cycle parking needs to be at least to London plan minimum requirements. Consideration is given to location of parking within the site to ensure secure storage and easy accessibility for residents/staff/visitors. Bike storage areas are integrated into the design of the building and located close to the building entrance. For further information refer to the London Cycling Design Standards by Transport for London.

Servicing A delivery and servicing plan which sets out the strategy for managing and consolidating deliveries to the site is proposed. It is envisaged that articulated lorries (16.5 metres) may not be able to serve the development. If so, this should be clearly indicated, otherwise the relevant swept path drawings should be submitted.

Transport seeks contributions towards improved cycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the area and Tfl towards bus travel improvements. Overall, it is considered there are no adverse impacts on the highway network or parking from the development and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application for this reason.

Noise Impacts The applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment. The assessment indicates that it is possible to provide a suitable internal noise environment to protect the amenity of future residents and to protect the amenity of existing residences in line with the requirements of the NPPF, NPPG, NPSE and local planning policy. As noted in the Consultations Section, EHO/Pollution Technical raise no objections and request conditions.

There will clearly be a noise reduction to residents living in Peal Gardens from vehicles (car and coaches) using the removal of the Leisure Centre and park car park and perimeter circulation road. Page 104 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

The applicant has submitted a Construction Management Plan (CMP). It provides a strategy for the management of site-based works and proposals for the mitigation of wider reaching impacts of the implementation of the development. The CMP describes the strategy, including the scope and programme of works, site security, health and safety measures, noise and dust disruption, emergency routes and hours of work on site. The CMP describes the strategy, including the scope and programme of works, site security, health and safety measures, noise and dust disruption, emergency routes and hours of work on site. Importantly it emphasises a principal objective of precluding traffic movements in Ruislip Road East but creating a temporary vehicular access onto Argyle Road during the construction period. The implementation of its measures is included in a recommended condition of permission.

Taking all the above into account, including London Plan Policy D12, it is concluded that cumulatively or individually, these effects can be regulated by planning conditions and environmental controls and are not likely to be so harmful as to amount to sound and clear- cut reasons for refusal.

Air Quality, Contaminated Land and Drainage Impacts The application is supported by a noise and vibration impact assessment, an air quality assessment and a desk top study for contaminated land. It has been assessed by Officers and it is concluded therefore the scheme is satisfactorily incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would give rise to a reason for refusal of the application. Conditions and Informatives are proposed for Air Quality management. A financial contribution is requested towards air quality monitoring.

Flood Risk Impacts The majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 3, with a small section in the south west corner, occupied by the leisure centre falling within Flood Zone 2. In respect of the core application area around the area of the new and replacement buildings, the majority of the developed area of the site is situated within ‘Flood Zone 3a Fluvial and Tidal. The north west corner and a corridor running along the edge of the River Brent lies with ‘Flood Zone 3b Fluvial and Tidal’.

Pockets of the site, including part of the existing car park area are situated within ‘Flood Zone 3a Surface Water’. A small section in the south west corner of the site, which is currently occupied by the existing leisure centre building falls within Flood Zone 2.

A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared, independently examined and agreed with the Environment Agency (EA). The FRA concludes that the site is considered to be at a very high risk of fluvial flooding from the River Brent. The main flood mechanism on the site are flows from the Argyle Road to the east, crossing the area of the existing surface level car park. The surface water flood routes follow the same path as the fluvial flows. The sites susceptibility to groundwater flooding is also high.

As well as the potential risk posed to future occupants, careful consideration is given to the potential impact of the developments siting on the functioning of the river. This is potentially significant as the functional floodplain is intended to act as a store during times of flooding. Its ability to do this is often significant to the functioning of the river further downstream. Because surface water flows are primarily from the east – Argyle Road – rather than the north, regard must also be had to other occupants immediately adjoining the site affected by flooding at Peal Gardens. It should be noted that the published surface water flood map also shows properties on the south side of Ruislip Road East are also at a high risk of flooding.

Based on the plans and the West London SFRA, most of the new built development will take place outside of the highest-risk area (Flood Zone 3b). The one exception to this is the proposed footbridge which is located within Flood Zone 3b. The FRA acknowledges that the abutments have the potential to displace water and impede flow, however it does not raise Page 105 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

significant concerns and the precise location will be agreed with the EA. To overcome this, it is proposed that the soffit level of the footbridge be raised by 0.6m above the 1.0% flood level, which is supported. Built development is however proposed in Flood Zone 3a.

Proposed mitigation measures including raised floor levels (300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood event), flood resilience construction (the basement has been designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure of the water table) and flood path routes are proposed to manage flood risk on site and to ensure no increase in flood risk to properties lying off-site.

In respect of ground water flooding it is noted that the construction of the basement is not considered to increase the risk of groundwater flooding. The Hydraulic Modelling Study confirms that the proposed development has a negligible impact on off-site flood risk, a conclusion shared by the EA.

All of the above factors have been taken into account in the final design. Previous objections raised by the EA were addressed with detailed modelling and appropriate amendments and clarifications of data. Accordingly, the EA stated: ‘We are therefore able to remove our previous objection on flood risk grounds.’ The EA requests consideration be given to shadowing of the river by new buildings and external lighting and buffer treatment to the river edge, which can be controlled by conditions. It is not considered that given the extent of tree cover, the relocation and orientation of the leisure centre is likely to have significant harmful impacts to natural lighting on the river.

Overall, it is concluded therefore this component of the scheme is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application.

Lighting Impacts The leisure centre and car park have existing internal and external lighting as does Ruislip Road East and a condition is proposed to agree a scheme to minimise impacts on the area including neighbouring residents in Peal Gardens. Conditions can also be imposed to control security and park lighting in the interests of safety and security whilst protecting wildlife or habitats from undue harm. Overall, it is concluded therefore the scheme is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application.

Biodiversity and Tree Survey Impacts The applicant has submitted a bat survey. Natural England has no comments to make on the application. The inspections identified building features with moderate potential to support roosting bats. As a precaution it was therefore assessed as being of low potential to support roosting bats.

Subsequent dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys of both buildings recorded no evidence of roosting bats and it is concluded that there is a likely absence of roosting bats. The site is used by commuting and foraging bats. Mitigation is outlined below to ensure that the development proposals do not impact the favourable conservation status of bat populations in the vicinity of the site.

It also states the Brent River Park North: Hanger Lane to the Great Western Railway SINC, which falls within the site boundary, must not be affected by the development. This includes ensuring the construction area does not encroach into this site, which should be managed by the erection of protective fencing through the duration of construction, and ensuring a lighting strategy in line with the Bat Conservation Trust’s (2011) Lighting and Mitigation for Bats and Emma Stone’s Bats and Lighting (2013) is produced and implemented. Conditions can regulate this as well as the Report recommendations for external lighting.

Page 106 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

A total of 158 individual trees and two groups are proposed to be removed to facilitate access for construction and a further group to facilitate development. All tree works should give due consideration to the potential presence of protected species, including breeding birds and roosting bats. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and any subsequent ecological reports should be consulted prior to the commencement of works.

A comprehensive scheme of landscaping has been prepared, including tree planting details which address the potential loss of visual public amenity where tree removal has been unavoidable. Tree planting proposals include the replacement of trees along the southern boundary of the site with Ruislip Road East to bolster existing tree stock in the central areas of the site and increasing overall canopy cover.

The proposals are also designed to improve the biodiversity of the site and the adjacent SINC. The applicant’s Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment notes:

• The biodiversity value of the site currently was calculated as 73.34 Biodiversity Units. • The biodiversity value of the current landscaping proposals is 85.25 Biodiversity Units. • As such the proposed development could result in a potential biodiversity net gain of 11.91 Biodiversity Units and a net percentage change/increase of 16.23%. • The proposals also include the retention and enhancement of several hedgerows on site. Approximately 30m of new of native hedgerows will be created on site providing a net percentage change/increase in hedgerow units of 0.32%. • The landscaping condition will ensure compliance. Nevertheless, the park enhancement will be undertaken under the auspices of the Council’s Leisure Department. This is a positive benefit of the scheme in terms of VSC. • The applicant has undertaken an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) assessment of the currently proposed scheme, which shows that the scheme would achieve a score of 0.67. This exceeds the 0.4 target set out in Policy G5 of the London Plan and is a positive benefit of the scheme in terms of VSC.

Overall, it is concluded therefore the scheme is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application.

Heritage Assets Impacts Policy states that development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail. Para 7.31A reflects guidance in the NPPF that substantial harm to a heritage asset should be exceptional. Substantial harm is a high test that is rarely encountered and in general would necessitate or involve some demolition of the asset itself. Where a development would lead to less than substantial harm this should be weighed against any public benefit.

The applicant has submitted a Heritage and Archaeology Statement. The site is located within the Brent River Valley and Perivale Village Archaeological Priority Area and considered to have a low archaeological potential for all past periods of human activity. The Statement concludes the development of the site is unlikely to have a significant or widespread negative archaeological impact.

No World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields or Historic Wreck sites are recorded within the site. The closest listed buildings are: - Grade I Church of St Mary the Virgin - Grade II Colleton Tomb, St Mary the Virgin Churchyard - Grade II Lych Gate to North West of Church of St Mary the Virgin - Grade II Hanwell Community Centre.

Other Heritage Assets: Page 107 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

-Cuckoo Estate Conservation Area.

The conclusions in respect of these assets is that the development will have no impact on their significance. Historic England has no comments to make on the application. Having reviewed the submission documents and from site assessment, it is considered there will be no impacts from the development that requires further assessment of any harms as set down by statute. Overall, it is concluded therefore the scheme is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application.

Microclimate and Wind Impacts The applicant has submitted a Report, the overall conclusion of which is that at the pedestrian level ground, balcony and terrace level wind environment, within and around the development, wind speeds will increase due to the larger building mass. It states there are pedestrian and traffic, entrances, amenity spaces at both ground and elevated areas that would have conditions that are too windy for their intended use. Furthermore, there would be several areas (at ground and balcony levels) where strong winds would exceed the safety thresholds of 15m/s and/or 20m/s annually.

The proposed landscaping scheme in combination with existing landscaping to the east of the site and the following mitigation measures were incorporated into the modelling. With these measures in place (which have now been incorporated into the design), all locations at ground and elevated areas were suitable for the intended use with no safety exceedances.

Subject to conditions the landscaping scheme will deliver this mitigation and a staged process of delivery, ensure acknowledged potential adverse impacts are satisfactorily regulated, including in relation to existing surrounding development and dwellings. Overall, it is concluded therefore the scheme is successfully incorporated into the locality and will not give rise to harm that would justify refusal of the application.

Energy and Sustainability Impacts Reports concerning sustainable energy usage, sustainability of the scheme generally, alternative technologies, management of CO2 emissions, PV provision and other relevant matters are included in the application. The Strategy states that the development will be built to at least BREEAM “Very Good” standard with a “score” of 61.4%. As part of the energy assessment, dynamic thermal modelling of the overheating risk associated with the leisure centre has been undertaken in accordance with CIBSE TM52 guidance utilising CIBSE TM49 data sets. Peak-loop cooling and full comfort cooling via heat pump systems will be provided to those specific areas of the leisure centre to combat the overheating risk. The dwellings will be ventilated via a ‘mixed-mode’ approach. Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) will be used during winter months to minimise heat losses and ensure good indoor air quality. Natural ventilation, via means of openable windows, will also be possible where conditions allow for use outside of the heating season and for enhanced summer ventilation to prevent the risk of overheating. The corridors and communal spaces in the residential blocks will be electrically heated where necessary. The application proposes a site-wide low temperature District Heating system that will deliver heat to the entire site, including the Leisure centre and 6 residential blocks. The District Heating system energy centre will be served by 4 large (air-to-water) ASHP units located on the roof deck of Block A with back-up Low Nox Gas fired boilers. Also proposed are approximately 425 PV panels equating to approximately 119 kWp of power generating 112,850 kW hours of electricity per year and cutting 26.34 tonnes of CO2. The PV comprises 235 panels (approx. 65.5 kWp) in two arrays for the leisure centre roof which expect to produce an annual yield of 62,115.2 kWh, and approximately 190 panels (approx. Page 108 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

53.5 kWp) in 3 arrays for the residential roof areas (2 on block C and 1 on block D) which are expected to produce an annual yield of 50,734.69 kWh. There is no available “Clean” district heat network, and the size and type of development is not suitable for CHP.

The overall site-wide CO2 emissions will be cut by at least 48.39%. 11.94% carbon reduction through “Lean” efficiency measures, 33.03% “Clean” reduction through the sitewide ASHP distribution system, and 3.43% through “Green” renewable energy PV panels.

There is a shortfall of 8,377 tonnes CO2 (over 30 years) in the zero-carbon requirement for the residential element. The remainder to achieve the required 100% reduction would be achieved through a carbon offset payment in accordance with normal practice, set at the LBE level of £95/tonne contained in a s106 agreement.

s106 Contributions The scheme would be mitigated by relevant financial and non-financial clauses within a s106 agreement to secure affordable housing; park landscaping scheme and management, BMX relocation, River Brent footbridge; transport; health; education; amenity/open space; construction, employment and training contributions; apprentice and placement scheme; energy monitoring; and payment of the Council’s legal and professional costs incurred in preparing the agreement as well as any s278 highway works agreement to implement off site highway works (site access, etc.).

Accordingly, development plan policies as a whole are satisfied.

General Considerations relating to Fire Safety Large schemes may require a number of different consents before they can be built. Building Control approval needs to be obtained so that certified developments and alterations meet building regulations. Highways consent will be required for alterations to roads and footpaths. Various licenses may be required for public houses, restaurants and elements of the scheme that constitute ‘house in multi-occupation’. The planning system allows assessment of a number of interrelated aspects of development when planning applications are submitted to the Council.

The proposed materials to be used may be approved under a planning permission based on the details submitted as part of the planning application or may be subject to a condition that requires such details to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. Whichever the case, planning officers’ appraisal of materials is focused on the visual impact of such materials in relation to the design of the overall scheme itself, the character of the local area or indeed on the amenities of local residents.

The technical aspects of the materials to be used in any development, in relation to fire safety, are considered under the Building Act (1984) and specifically the Building Regulations (2010). These require minimum standards for any development, although the standards will vary between residential and commercial uses and in relation to new build and change of use/conversions. The regulations cover a range of areas including structure and fire safety.

Any person or organisation carrying out development can appoint either the Council’s Building Control Service or a Private Approved Inspector to act as the Building Control Body (BCB), to ensure the requirements of the Building Regulations are met. The BCB would carry an examination of drawings for the proposed works and carry out site inspection during the course of the work to ensure the works are carried out correctly. On completion of work the BCB will issue a Completion Certificate to confirm that the works comply with the requirement of the Building Regulations.

In relation to fire safety in high rise residential developments some of the key measures include protected escape stairways, smoke detection within flats, emergency lighting to Page 109 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

commons areas, cavity barriers/fire stopping and the use of sprinklers and wet/dry risers where appropriate.

Community Infrastructure Levy Of the total chargeable development and MCIL relief applied to affordable housing floorspace, an estimated calculation gives £2.73m for the balance of 45,510sqm.

Conclusion

The introduction of this development on MOL has required a careful and thorough assessment of the considerations. Having completed this assessment it is possible to conclude that: - There is a clear and overwhelming need to replace the leisure centre and enhance the wider open space, - Enabling/facilitating development is necessary to fund this replacement - The site represents the appropriate site of last resort to accommodate the replacement leisure centre and new housing. - The quantum of residential development does not exceed that which is necessary to financially facilitate the delivery of the replacement leisure centre and to secure an acceptable level of genuinely affordable housing. - Officers are satisfied that the design of the scheme has sought to minimise its impact on the openness of the MOL, through a number of means and strikes a good balance between minimising the encroachment into the open space, whilst also integrating with the open space. - The ‘inappropriate development’ aspects of the proposal are, by definition, harmful to the MOL. Although some other harm (both to the MOL openness/objectives and other harms) cannot be avoided or mitigated further, these harms and the ‘by definition’ harm have been weighed in the balance against the benefits to be secured, including in this instance the satisfactory redevelopment of Gurnell Leisure Centre (including its wider open recreation functions) and associated new housing. Even giving substantial weight to the harms, it has been concluded that these benefits clearly outweigh the harms. The conclusion of this balancing exercise then is that very special circumstances (VSC) do exist to justify this development.

Overall, the development represents a high quality, mixed use regeneration of this site achieving a number of strategic regeneration and spatial objectives.

The development is an example of a scheme where, as stated in NDG para.16: ‘Well- designed places and buildings come about when there is a clearly expressed ‘story’ for the design concept and how it has evolved into a design proposal. This explains how the concept influences the layout, form, appearance and details of the proposed development. It may draw its inspiration from the site, its surroundings or a wider context. It may also introduce new approaches to contrast with, or complement, its context’.

The proposed scheme will positively transform the area with a new, state of the art leisure centre and residential buildings in a new typology of high architectural and material quality.

The recommendation has been informed, topic by topic by the matters that are addressed in this Report. Each particular matter has been addressed and fully considered by Officers, professional consultees, including external consultees, with regard to any necessary mitigation, which is comprised in the recommendation and any planning conditions or planning obligations where appropriate.

A range of factors, including flood risk, amenity and heritage impacts, affordable and market housing, transport and resident parking concerns, environmental health, energy, Mayoral CIL and s106 matters have been assessed and found to be acceptable. Objections have been Page 110 of 111

Planning Committee 17.03.2021 Schedule Item No. 01

reviewed and addressed; however, these are considered insufficient to outweigh the recommendation for approval. Application of the Planning Balance and NPPF sustainability criteria support this development.

It is therefore recommended that Grant planning permission with conditions and completion of a s106 agreement following: a. referral to the Secretary of State for consideration whether to call-in the application for his decision, b. if declined then Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London.

Human Rights Act In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.

Public Sector Equality Duty i) In making your decision you must have regard to the public sector equality duty (PSED) under s.149 of the Equalities Act. This means that the Council must have due regard to the need (in discharging its functions) to: A. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act B. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. This may include removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; taking steps to meet the special needs of those with a protected characteristic; encouraging participation in public life (or other areas where they are underrepresented) of people with a protected characteristic(s). C. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not including tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. ii) The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. iii) The PSED must be considered as a relevant factor in making this decision but does not impose a duty to achieve the outcomes in s.149 which is only one factor that needs to be considered and may be balanced against other relevant factors. iv) It is considered that the recommendation to grant planning permission in this case would not have a disproportionately adverse impact on a protected characteristic.

Page 111 of 111